Jan
03

It’s not over until Hank says it’s over and even then, it’s not over

By

The Yankees are still not out of the Johan Santana sweepstakes, they say, and today, Hank Steinbrenner gets back to work as he attempts to figure out the team’s final decision on Santana. Or at least, final until Hank changes his mind again.

Anthony McCarron of The Daily News has more from Hank:

“I think the Twins realize our offer is the best one,” Steinbrenner said Wednesday in a telephone interview. “I feel confident they’re not going to trade him before checking with us one last time and I think they think we’ve already made the best offer.”

Steinbrenner said the offer “does not include two of the three young pitchers” – Phil Hughes and Ian Kennedy, from a group that also includes untouchable Joba Chamberlain – “but it’s still the best one. And let’s face it, we’re the best able to handle the kind of contract (extension) Santana will be after.”

Steinbrenner would not divulge the Yanks’ offer, but multiple reports have pegged it as Hughes, outfielder Melky Cabrera, pitching prospect Jeff Marquez and another prospect.

So Hank, who once said that the Yanks were completely out of the Santana sweepstakes, has once again changed his mind. In fact, he seems to feel that the offer the Yanks reportedly didn’t have on the table anymore is the best one out there. Don’t worry; I’m as confused as you are.

Meanwhile, Steinbrenner spouted off a few other contradictions. First, he noted that “a majority of fans don’t want to lose Hughes,” and then he said that the Yanks are content to “stay the way we are. We’re going to have the best pitching by far in baseball in two or three years and we’ll be tough this year.”

So what’s it going to be, Hank? Do you keep the guy projected to front what you just called the best pitching in baseball? Or do you trade him along with a few other players for one year of Johan Santana and a window to negotiate a contract extension? You all know where we stand. Hopefully, the Yanks’ brass realize what’s best for the team.

Categories : Hot Stove League

78 Comments»

  1. Jen Hughes says:

    Let’s just keep Hughes. Even if Hughes tops out as a #3 starter – 5 years of him as a #3 (which he may very well be better than that) at his current salary is much better value than the cost of players to obtain Santana, the cost of Santana’s extension, and the risk the Yankees take on with Santana’s extension. The latter 2 reasons can be dealt with by a team like the Yankees, especially given the contracts coming up at the end of this upcoming season, but when you combine that with the loss of talent to trade for Santana I think the trade becomes a lot shakier. Add the risk onto the shakey trade and it’s a recipe for disaster. Don’t do the trade!!!

    • zack says:

      In no way is 5 years of a #3 starter more or equal to the value of 5 years of #1 starter.Even with the rest of the package. Strictly monetarily speaking, its a different issue, but since when have baseball contracts actually been representative of actual value?

      • Moose says:

        Thank you Zach – finally someone speaks some sense.

        I refuse to believe that trading Hughes along with a bunch of “prospects” for Santana is NOT a great deal, and no one will be able to convince me otherwise. Anyway who says “its a great investment and will save the team some money” doesnt know what their talking about. This is a team that is worth 4 billion and is moving into a new stadium (with new ticket/parking prices) and will soon be worth 8 billion…DOES ANYONE HONESTLY THINK THAT MONEY IS A PROBLEM WITH THIS TEAM!!??.

        I mean, come on people, ENOUGH with the “luxury tax, salary cap, long term investment” arguments – their all rediculous. This team prints money in the basement of the Stadium. If you want to say that the Yankees shouldnt make a trade due to lopsided talent, thats one thing (note – that argument does NOT apply in the Santana proposals since we’re offering a shitty centerfielder, 2 unknown prospects, and a picther who MAY be very good one day); but please, for the love of all that is Holy, dont say that the Yankees should avoid a deal like this for moneys sake, cause thats just silly.

        • Ben K. says:

          This is a team that is worth 4 billion…

          Did that come from the department of made-up numbers? Most estimates put the Yanks’ value somewhere around the $1 billion, a far cry from the $4-$8 billion you claim here.

          • TurnTwo says:

            i think there was a bit of sarcasm in the 4 billion statement, but you get the point… money really shouldnt be a factor in making this deal or not.

        • Jen Hughes says:

          Don’t forget opportunity cost… you sign Santana for 7 years at 25 million per year, that would preclude them from signing other free agents. We have an aging outfield that will need an overhaul in 1-2 years. We have a non-productive first base, and we may need to find a catcher in 1-2 years. Jeter is getting any younger nor better at SS. With all of these needs coming up, and the price to obtain and retain Johan, the trade doesn’t make sense past 2008. Hughes as a #3 making no money frees up the rest of the payroll for other players to sign. If you people think the Yankees will print money with no concern for the budget, you are wrong. That’s why we lost out on Carlos Beltran in what would have been a sweetheart deal. Flexibility is the key to maintaining a winning team of the course of a few years. With Santana, you lose flexibility.

          • TurnTwo says:

            Dont forget that you’ve got prospects you are looking to develop in the next 1/2/3/4 years that should help alleviate the need to use the FA market to fill in OF/1B positions in the near future, or SS down the road when necessary.

            • Jen Hughes says:

              I haven’t… but I’d rather not rely on eric duncan and bret gardner. I’d rather remain flexible and if those guys pan out then they are extra players, and not have to place my hopes and dreams on these guys.

              • TurnTwo says:

                you’re not talking Brett Gardner or Eric Duncan… you have Alberto Gonzalez, who is a GG caliber defensive SS right now, and Carmen Angelini ultimately/hopefully down the road… you’ve got Jose Tabata and AJax, who could be the CF/RF tandom for the next decade in the new stadium should they develop as people in baseball think they could.

                and then you’ve got the next crop of youngsters at the lower levels, which this site has done a nice job of profiling…

                these guys could turn out to be nothing, but they could also turn out to be great… the potential is there.

                • Jen Hughes says:

                  Potential is crap with players like that. I’d rather maintain the ability to sign free agents and use those guys to fill in gaps (either by trade or them panning out). There are very few sure things to be a MLB talent… hughes is that already, those other guys are not. Hughes has succeeded at the ML level. Hughes is cheap – and the free agent crop after the 2008 season is plentiful. Time to think big picture.

                  • TurnTwo says:

                    Hughes isnt proven at the MLB level. He’s pitched less than 100 innings, which werent all solid. did he have glimpses of being a potentially very good pitcher? yes. but he’s also looked like he had a flat fastball, and couldnt command his secondary pitches that effectively at times, too.

                    until he pitches an entire season in the major leagues, he hasnt proven anything.

                    • Jen Hughes says:

                      Hughes is more proven than any of the young guys are you banking on to replace all stars Johnny Damon, Hideki Matsui, Bobby Abreau and man first base and short stop for the immortal Derek Jeter.

                      Hughes has been much better at all minor league levels than any of the prospects you’ve mentioned. He was a consensus top minor league prospect and has pitched very out in the majors, outside of when you came back off an injury lay-off. There are some guys I’d give up for Santana, but Hughes isn’t one of them. I’d consider a 1 for 1 deal, but even then I’m much rather risk it with Hughes and his tiny salary and keep the ability to sign someone if need be.

                    • TurnTwo says:

                      more proven prospect? yes. but he’s still an unproven mlb player.

  2. Royhan85 says:

    OMG, Hank truly never shuts up.
    ..I wish Hank would just shut the hell up and let Cashman run this team…
    Does he have to answer every phone call ?

  3. Jeff says:

    I’ve been saying it all along… I like Hughes but not at the cost of missing out on the best pitcher in Baseball. Someone is going to get Santana. I’d much prefer it is us. If some of you guys on this site got your wish and we kept Hughes while Santana goes to the Sox – would that really sit well? I just don’t get your logic.

    • Ben K. says:

      Santana’s not going to the Sox until they significantly improve their offer. And that point, then the Yankees will reevaluate their position.

    • kanst says:

      You know what that wouldnt bother me at all. When was the last time a big contract to a pitcher worked out well for the team. Santana is going to get 6-7 years at 20 million per. For the Yanks that is even more expensive as they will probably always be over cap and thus that 20 million is really 28 million. So over the next 5 years do you think that Santana is going to be 130 or so more valuable then Hughes is going to be over that period.

      If the Sox want to go out and spend that money on Santana that is their right and they can go ahead. The Yankees should NEVER make decisions based off what the Sox are doing, thats just bad managing

  4. TurnTwo says:

    i dont think its as simple as just asking “whats best for the team”… best for the team for the immediate future, or long term future?

    personally, i think its in the best interest of the team, considering the depth we have in the system, to move Hughes or IPK for Johan.

    • steve (different one) says:

      i’m not sure anyone would argue against moving IPK.

      • TurnTwo says:

        agreed, and if you have to include Horne along with IPK to make the deal and keep Hughes out, I’d expand it another player. i find it hard to believe that the Twins would turn down 2 top 5 pitching prospects to hold out for one player if it came down to it… it would seem like they were holding out for the recognizeable name in the deal over true value, and that doesnt seem like something the Twins would do.

        but I’m also not going to let Hughes be a deal-breaker.

  5. nick blasioli says:

    we need to make the santana deal…you dont commit to 400 mill. in payroll and not have the best pitcher in baseball to pitch for you as well…never mind two or three years we will have the best…now is the time that we need santana…..

  6. JT from NYC says:

    “Do you trade the guy projected to front what you just called the best pitching in baseball? Or do you trade him along with a few other players for one year of Johan Santana and a window to negotiate a contract extension?”

    Aren’t those the same arguments? Both of those statements are Hank backing a decision to keep Hughes.

  7. Rob_in_CT says:

    I really wish Hank would STFU.

    As for the trade… I’d like to keep Hughes, but at the same time I see the logic in doing a Hughes+Melky+Marquez+ (somebody not very important) deal for Johan. If it happened, I’d be a little sad, but it’s a defensible move (unlike Hughes+Kennedy+more).

    I’m really just tired of it.

  8. RollingWave says:

    look at it this way, without Hank this would be a truely booooooring winter with no news for 2 month

    I’m pretty convinced that at this point the Yanks are pretty much just content in a game of chicken where they throw out a offer intriguing enough for the Twins to not laugh their way out of the door but clearly not good enough for them to pull the trigger. they just want to keep them at the table until the whole thing just screw up so they could just go after Johan in the FA.

  9. Moose says:

    Ben,

    How would you compare the Sox’s offer for Santana to that of the Yanks?

  10. Moose says:

    Ben,

    How would you compare the Sox’s offer for Santana to that of the Yanks?

    • Ben K. says:

      Not even close. The Yanks’ offers have been much better than the Sox’s offers so far. Hughes is a much better prospect than Lester and considering that the Twins are looking for cost-controlled young players, Melky gets a slight edge over Coco Crisp. If the discussion changes to include Buchholz and Ellsbury, I’d revise my opinion, but the Sox don’t seem to want to give up either of those two.

      • RollingWave says:

        Wait, what’s the comp again?

        Hughes / Melky / Marquez vs Lester / Crisp / Lowrie /Masterson ?

        in this case it’s fairly close that i would give a up for the Red Sox. mostly because Hughes is better than Lester and Melky in terms of trade value is better than Crisp, but Marquez isn’t really better than Masterson and Lowrie is a pretty good prospect that’s underrated by many Yankee fans (but also overrated by some other ppl)

  11. Moose says:

    Agreed,

    However, Horne is certainly not a top 5 pitching prospect. It would be nearly impossible to switch IPK for Hughes in the Santana – even assuming the Yanks expand their offer to include more platyers. The Twins want ML ready talent, their not going to trade Santana in the hopes that the players they got for him develop nicely in 3-4 yrs.

    • TurnTwo says:

      top 5 in the league? of course not. but top 5 in the Yankees system? yes.

      Lester and Masterson or IPK, Horne, and Marquez… what holds more value?

      • Mike P says:

        Hum, clearly IPK/Marquez/Horne. Not even close. Out of all the pitchers discussed coming from both teams, IPK projects to pitch the most innings in 2008 (except maybe Lester, maybe). And his major league debut was outstanding.

        • TurnTwo says:

          this is my point… if its that obvious to us, why dont the GMs invovled just see the compromise here, and run with it?

  12. Moose says:

    Ben,

    Sorry, I meant Steinbrenner(s) is worth 4 billion. Therefore, they have the money to make this deal.

    • Ben K. says:

      George Steinbrenner’s net worth is pegged at $1.3 billion (and, yes, that entry includes erroneous information about the new stadium costs). An IPO of the YES Network could fetch up to $3 billion, but the Yankees wouldn’t get all of that money.

      • Moose says:

        Dude,

        Where do you come up with this stuff. While very impressive, I get the feeling that you sit in front of your comp all day and analyze every giggabite on Yankee lore. You would certainly give ‘The Swami’ a run for his money.

        • Jen Hughes says:

          Why don’t you just make factual posts? Everything you say not can be interpretted as bull sh*t.

        • Ben K. says:

          Nah. It’s all about knowing the resources. Forbes keeps lists of the richest Americans, and using Google to find the information isn’t that hard.

          My question about your argument over the money is this: The Twins owner is richer than the Yankees owner. So shouldn’t the Twins just pony up for Santana? There are more considerations at stake than the personal net worth of a team’s owner.

          • TurnTwo says:

            YES! that is the point i think Twins fans would like to make, and why Yankees fans, like myself, cant stand it when the Twins cry poverty.

            they have one of the wealthiest owners in the game, just like the Yankees. the only difference is that the Yankees owner doesnt hesitate to put his own money into the team, while the Twins owner sits on his hands.

            but we all know that isnt going to happen, which is why its not resigning Johan isnt really taken seriously, despite Polhad’s wealth.

    • Count Zero says:

      Steinbrenner’s personal net worth is irrelevant. That’s like saying a small company with $20MM in revenues can afford to spend like GE because it’s a wholly owned-subsidiary of the latter.

      Business decisions are made on the relevant entity’s P&L — not on the P&L of the parent entity. You don’t drive the parent into bad fiscal decisions because you want to make moves at a subsidiary.

      People use this argument on Pohlad all the time and it’s ridiculous. He didn’t get to be worth all that money by making stupid investments.

      • steve (different one) says:

        no but you can make the argument that Hunter and Santana made $25M last year, so the Twins could theoretically afford to pay Santana $20M/year as long as they can scrape by with a $5M CFer.

      • brxbmrs says:

        Count,

        I really don’t agree – there are plenty of super rich that get involved in things like Horse Racing where they lose huge sums but they do it because of love for the “sport” or continuing the lines or ego or whatever those filthy rich do it for (not to say that they can’t make a ton if they field the right horse).

        Ultimately it comes down to greed – to some people its all about the bottom line – that’s fine, but that doesn’t mean that that is the only way to do things or to define success.

        Remember the line from Citizen Kane where the accountant is telling CF Kane that the newspaper loses a million a year and he has to take drastic steps? Kane asks the accountant how much money he has – the accountant says 30 mil. Kane says, fine, than I can run the paper for another 30 years.

        Point being, Kane used his money to pursue his dream – not for the sake of making more money. It would be nice if there could be a balance in the sport that would find more common ground between mercurial ownership and gonzo spending to win at all costs.

        Most of the owners today care mostly about making profits year in and year out – there are plenty of other businesses that they should be investing in IMHO to do that -

        • Travis G. says:

          aight! i too was thinking of that line from Citizen Kane when talking about the difference between the Pohlads/Lorias vs. the Steinbrenners/Cubans of the world.

          from imdb:
          “You’re right, I did lose a million dollars last year. I expect to lose a million dollars this year. I expect to lose a million dollars *next* year. You know, Mr. Thatcher, at the rate of a million dollars a year, I’ll have to close this place in… 60 years.”

  13. Jen Hughes says:

    You people who are totally for this deal apparently know nothing about risk. If Santana gets hurt (a likelihood given the number of innings logged on his arm), the Yankees are going to have to tank the season or hope some of their lesser talent comes through. They won’t be able to sign anyone noteworthy given Santana’s contract and the other needs will will arise in the next 2-3 years. If they don’t trade for Santana, you maintain the flexibility to sign an impact free agent, or even further trade Hughes. I want to see what Hughes can give us. I say at worst he’d be a #3, but I think he can easily become a solid #2. Given that, and the cost between him and Santana, and the risk of Santana’s contract, I do not believe the trade makes much sense. This could be one of those things where the best trade you make is the one you don’t. Anyone who is in favor of this trade only sees 2008 and not beyond – this is 1980′s thinking!!

    • TurnTwo says:

      but you realize there might be more risk involved in your total invetment if you risk your $200 million payroll on the development of a pitching prospect who has already been on the DL more than the $100 million pitcher who is as much of a guarantee as you might have in baseball today.

      and you might have financial flexibility if you hold onto Hughes and he gets hurt… but then what does it cost you to get the replacement for him then? and when you get that replacement, what true value are you getting back: is he a number 1, 2 or 3 starter, or back or the rotation guy, because you’re still afraid of pulling the trigger on trading top pitching prospects?

      • Ben K. says:

        The “Phil Hughes has already been on the DL” argument is weak. His stint on the DL had absolutely nothing to do with his arm and everything to do with a freak accident. Santana, meanwhile, has already had arm surgeries.

        • TurnTwo says:

          weak? thats your own opinion to fit it into your argument. but is it not true?

          and Hughes did battle arm trouble in his development early in his minor league career.

          • Ben K. says:

            Hughes had a slight shoulder pain issue in 2005 and the Yanks shut him down for a while. It wasn’t ever anything serious (such as, say, elbow surgery), and he’s fine now.

            • TurnTwo says:

              and he’s still been on the DL at the MLB level more than Johan.

              • Ben K. says:

                But not because of an arm injury. When we talk injury risk about pitchers, it’s arm-related and not hamstring or freak ankle injury. Santana’s had more arm surgeries than Hughes at this point.

                • Travis G. says:

                  this is true to a certain extent. until 2007, Pavano suffered from everything under the sun OUTSIDE of arm problems. some guys are just plain injury prone. (btw, i’m NOT in favor of dealing Hughes.)

      • Jen Hughes says:

        You make a good point, but your point is only valid when looking at the team 1 season at a time – as was done in the 1980′s. If the Yanks decide not to consumate the deal and Hughes is complete garbage, then they go into free agency with all that extra cash and the other prospects (Melky, Marquez, etc) to deal. Yes, the replacement may not be as good as Johan or near the value, but that’s the risk you take. To me, that risk is more acceptable than trading away the stud of the organization AND paying a guy 7 years 25 million per. If anyting goes wrong with Johan (injury, inconsistency, anything), the Yankees are screwed. So scenario 2 they are screwed, in scenario 1 they still have a chance to recoup their losses. I’m all about risk, and to me keeping Hughes and others is the least risky move here.

  14. Moose says:

    Jen,

    While i dont entirely agree with all your points, they remain lucid and persuasive. I’m not gonna lie, your knowledge of the Yankees and baseball is seriously turning me on.

    • Jen Hughes says:

      Thanks guy but before you reach into your pants you should know I’m a dude, and I don’t go that way. The name is in honor of Phil Hughes and my buddie’s ex-gf Jen Hughes, the whore.

      • Moose says:

        hahaha. wow. Talk about the ultimate back slap.

        I knew you were too good to be a chick. Also, I was just making an obvious joke since there are basically no females in this forum and was impressed with your knowledge. For future referece, dont use a female name in a forum like this, it can be very confusing.

        • Jen Hughes says:

          Haha no problem, I knew you were kidding! All that aside I’m glad I’ve found this website, it’s nice to read about chat about the Yankees in the dead of the winter. Whatever happens, let’s just hope it is in fact the right move.

  15. E-ROC says:

    Giving a pitcher a $100 million contract hasn’t ever worked out. Why would it work out now? What happens if Johan gets injured and contract becomes an albatross?

    I’d like to see Hughes stay. He’s the face of this youth movement by CashMoney and Co. Trading that type of person just doesn’t make sense to me.

    • Jen Hughes says:

      If a $100 million were given to anyone, Johan is the man. However, trading the talent to get him and sign him is too much. You are correct about the risk of injury, if he gets hurt the team is buried. If they just sign him and keep Hughes, at least you have kept your studs and can trade in the future if the need arises.

  16. Mike P says:

    Get laid Moose.
    First off, everyone always talks about these things as if it’s an isolated decision. You trade Hughes, it’s not a disaster. After all we are talking about Johan Santana here. However if you think about it longer term and in the context of soon-to-be free agents you cannot argue giving up too much for Santana is a good idea. And giving up Hughes is giving up too much. Hughes is to the Yankees what Buchholtz is to the Sox, a young stud major leaguer with a huge ceiling and high floor. See Boston coughing up Clay? There are 2/3 teams in these negotiations, why bid against yourself? Keeping Hughes allows you to go for Santana next year, or get Sabathia. I mean Sabathia/Hughes for the long term future sounds a lot better than Santana 2008. It’s just a question of good managment.
    Finally, anyone construe Steinbrenner’s comments at meaning IPK is the guy on the table? He’s saying everyone wants to keep Hughes.

    • Jen Hughes says:

      Excellent points – Hughes isn’t just some prospect. Did anyone watch him pitch last year? When he had his arm strength he was very good. Even when he didn’t he still was a serviceable pitcher. Another year older, another year stronger with more experience. I’m not saying Hughes becomes Santana because that’s insane. But if Hughes can pitch to a 3.80 era this year, I think the Yankees will be in good shape for the year and will remain in contention. Then, just in time for the opening of the new stadium they can open up their wallets and get Big Tex and Sabathia or Santana while keeping their existing prospects for future trade or MLB contributions.

    • Moose says:

      Thanks Mike, I appreciate the advice.

      I really needed someone to give me a “go out there and get ‘em” spark. The last thing i wanted to do was become a computer junkie whose consumed more with blog sites than girls….what a minute???…

  17. mustang says:

    I agree with making the Santana deal. First, the money argument it’s just dum. The Yankees are made of money not only are they losing lots of big contracts next year, but some of cost of the new stadium comes off the “luxury tax”. On top of that you will have Yankees fans cross the country coming to say goodbye to the old and hello to the new stadium. It’s a WIN FALL !!!!! The fact is it’s Hughes ( And his future abities) to Santana proven track record. Even if just got 3 years of Ace like Santana and get less the rest it would make this deal worth it. The Yankees have lost the last few years because of one thing PITCHING. If you can the best go get him !!!!!!!

    • Jen Hughes says:

      The money argument is not “dum”. It’s the reason they haven’t won anything the last 7 years. The Yankees are not made of money. If they sign Santana, they won’t be able to replace their aging outfield or 1b, or even SS when the time comes. If you understood the economics of baseball in the 21st century, you’d realize that pitching is the precious metals commodity of the baseball investment industry. Young pitching is cheap, despite unproven, and if the guy has shown you something, which everyone agrees Hughes has, then the risk is worth it because if he pans out you are golden. If he doesn’t pan out, you still have the financial flexiblity to make deals. And yes, the Yankees are fiscally conscious. Don’t forget we lost out on Carlos Beltran at a cheaper rate than the Muts got him because the payroll was too high. Be smart – excess payroll lets us make more moves to shore up any shortcomings. I need a bigger sample size on Hughes before I give up on him. So far I’ve really liked what I’ve seen.

  18. Mike P says:

    Haha, you’re a spokesman for us all! No but seriously, the Yankees are way more important than girls.

  19. Mike P says:

    Haha, you’re a spokesman for us all! No but seriously, the Yankees are way more important than girls.

    • Moose says:

      Mike:

      I couldn’t agree more.

      For example, I have a Yankees engraved “hand moisturizer” bottle sitting peacefully on the nightstand next to my bed….coincidence????….i think NOT!

  20. Mike P says:

    Sorry, double post.

  21. Mike P says:

    Sorry, double post. Meant for Moose.

  22. Bart says:

    What is best for the team is getting Santana. Hughes and IPK and certainly Marquez are so far from sure things, much less sure #1 or 2 pitchers that they should barely merit consideration.

    In 3 years Huges – will not be able to carry thie aging offfense. This next two yeras the offense wil not carry huges and IPK.

    We can worry about 2010 when we get there.

  23. nick blasioli says:

    you just dont know how much i wish hank would get off of his duff and make the deal so we can start salivating the 2008 season…boy do i miss george….

  24. Mike P says:

    Bart, just like we worried about 2005, 2006 and 2007 when we got there?

  25. Moose says:

    Bart and Nick = young Einsteins.

    I wish we could shut this post down on those 2 closing remarks – their the only 2 that made any sense.

    • Travis G. says:

      you’re being sarcastic right?

      the question is this: what’s more valuable, 7-8 years of Johan Santana OR Hughes, Melky, Marquez, Hilligoss for as long as the Yanks want them AND $150 million?

      i’d take the latter, especially considering other factors like who’s going to play CF in 08, the large risk factor with a pitcher getting such a long contract, AND that he could become a FA after this season.

      that said, i’d definitely do a deal of Kennedy, Horne and Melky/Tabata/Ajax for Santana. i just REALLY dont like the idea of trading away Hughes.

  26. Jeff says:

    “I feel confident they’re not going to trade him before checking with us one last time…” – Hank. Yes buddy they may give you one more chance to sweeten the deal. Glad you are such a good spokesman.
    I’ve said this before too… until they get this monkey to shut the fuck up we are at a big disadvantage to Boston who are smart enough to play poker. WHILE SHUTTING UP!
    I could just see Minney comming up with a bogus story out of Boston and wwe throw in Tabata or Ajax when we don’t have to.
    Hope this is not the case – I want Santana but admit the price is very high. Please don’t make it higher Hank.

  27. Barry says:

    Heres a ground breaker, the yanks should just offer Chase Wright and Tyler Clippard then Hank should publicly flip off the Twins and tell them to go fuck themselves. Keep the kids, you are all buying into Johan way too much, Johan isn’t going to win us a World Series.

  28. Giuseppe Franco says:

    I wish Hank would just shut up and let the adults deal with it.

Leave a Reply

You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.

If this is your first time commenting on River Ave. Blues, please review the RAB Commenter Guidelines. Login for commenting features. Register for RAB.