Hank responds to Boston salary cap jabs

When the Red Sox leadership blamed the Yanks and called for a salary cap yesterday, it was really only a matter of time before Yankee attack dog Hank Steinbrenner got in on the action. While Hank’s comments were not up to their usual biting self and generally pale in comparison to anything George used to unleash, the Steinbrenner son did not disappoint.

In his response, he defended the Yanks’ spending on revenue sharing grounds. “Along with a few other teams, we’re basically baseball’s stimulus package,” he said. “As long as we’re..giving all this money to other teams in revenue sharing, a staggering amount, we should be able to spend on salaries what we want to. Because of revenue sharing and because of the popularity nationwide, the Yankees are critical to baseball.” Amen, Hank. Amen.

email

Some Hank Steinbrenner musings

I know I touched upon Hank Steinbrenner’s recent comments yesterday morning, but there were a few good comments. As I was in the land of our enemies this weekend, I didn’t get a chance to respond to one I found particularly interesting.

Mustang, one of the RAB regulars, had this to say in response to my writing “George Steinbrenner, he is not” about Hank:

Take it from me. Hank is George the sequel. Most of you did not have the “joy” of living with the early years of George Michael Steinbrenner III. George managed the same kind of reaction that Hank does and the media loved to hate him for it. For what it’s worth if Hank can lead the Yankees to 10 pennants and six World Series titles I don’t care what he does.

Mustang brings up two valid points, but I think the analysis is slightly off target. In a way, Hank is very much like his father. He says stupid stuff that the media laps up and regurgitates in a way designed to sell papers. In the parlance of the industry, Hank makes for great copy.

But there is a very substantial difference between Hank Steinbrenner and George Steinbrenner: When George would talk, things happened. George’s words, especially during his 1970s and 1980s heydays, weren’t bluster. When he threatened to fire his manager, he would fire his manager. When he threatened to make the biggest splash possible, he went out and made the biggest splash possible.

Hank, on the other hand, isn’t nearly as imposing as his dad. When Hank rants about Johan Santana or his “piss-ant employees,” absolutely nothing happens. When Hank rails on staying the course one day and trading the farm to do whatever it takes to win the next, nothing in the Yankee front office changes. Hal Steinbrenner comes work; Brian Cashman comes to work; and no one cowers in fear. Whereas George came off an egomaniac bent on doing whatever he thought necessary to run the team, Hank just sounds like a child throwing a tantrum. He can make all the noise he wants, but in the end, as the Rolling Stones once said, he can’t always get what he wants.

I’ll stand by what I said yesterday: Until Hank’s words translate into the same kind of rash, irrational actions that became a hallmark George Steinbrenner, his father Hanks is not.

Now, if as Mustang says, the Yanks win 10 pennants and six World Series while Hank is the team’s co-chairperson in charge of stupid comments, none of us are going to complain. We’ll just keep on ignoring him and enjoy the winning.

Who cares about Hank

Tom Fornelli of AOL’s Fanhouse wrote about the Hank Steinbrenner outburst yesterday. The short of is that Hank, in an interview with The Post, claimed that he was the one in charge of the Yankees and everyone else was just a lowly employee of him. It was clearly Hank’s sad effort at imitation. George Steinbrenner, he is not.

So here’s my question about Hank: Why do so many Yankee writers and bloggers get into a tizzy when he opens his mouth? Sure, there’s an economic argument to it; Hank’s stupid comments sell newspapers and generate site traffic. But does anyone really think this guy is still serious? After all we’ve seen over the last few months, does anyone actually believe he’s in charge of the Yankees? I know I don’t.

Heyman: Hank’s comments ‘clearest example of tampering’

Last week, Hank Steinbrenner raised some eyebrows when he told Newsday that the Yanks were “looking at” CC Sabathia and A.J. Burnett. While these admission is hardly a secret, that Steinbrenner was willing to name-drop Sabathia, a free agent-to-be, and Burnett, a player currently under contract to the Blue Jays for more than the next few months, raised a few concerns.

In particular, Jon Heyman expressed his surprise at the announcement. The Sports Illustrated scribe called the remarks “the clearest example of tampering in recent history.” While Heyman admits that MLB doesn’t really enforce tampering rules, just this statement of fact on Heyman’s part got me thinking about Steinbrenner.

Hank is relatively new to the baseball scene and the New York tabloids. He also has the Steinbrenner tendency to run his mouth off whenever he feels like it regardless of who is around and what he’s saying. Not only is Steinbrenner tampering with Burnett — the Blue Jays’ pitcher is even more likely to exercise his opt-out clause now — but Steinbrenner is weakening the Yankee hand.

Sure, everyone knows that the Yanks want a top-line starter for 2009. Sure, everyone knows that the Yankees will have the money to overwhelm Sabathia. But by dropping the names, Hank gives more power to the pitcher. Reign it in, Hank. It’s bad bargaining business to give the other side so much information well ahead of any potential negotiation.