« Moose Has A Better Shot At Being Hank's Latex Salesman | Main | Hank & Henry Should Take Note Of This One »
March 03, 2008
Chass: Regrets? The Yanks May Have One
Murray Chass thinks the Yankees may regret banking on their kids and passing on Johan Santana:
Maybe Phil Hughes, Ian Kennedy and Joba Chamberlain will become the reincarnation of Vic Raschi, Allie Reynolds and Eddie Lopat. But maybe they will be more reminiscent of Andy Hawkins, Dave LaPoint and Tim Leary, vintage 1990.
Of the front-office officials who have responsibility for baseball decisions, Hank Steinbrenner was the lone Santana advocate. Gene Michael, a longtime executive and now adviser, joined him.
Cashman and the rest of the baseball operations people opposed giving Minnesota a hefty package of young players. Hal Steinbrenner opposed giving Santana a ton of money.
Cashman didn’t want to give up any of the Yankees’ good young players. Hal Steinbrenner didn’t want the mammoth payroll to grow even more obese. They eventually wore down Hank Steinbrenner with their arguments, and the Yankees withdrew from the Santana running, letting him go to the Mets.
Well, last season, Cashman & Company were counting on Carl Pavano, Kei Igawa and Kyle Farnsworth to hold down the roles that we expect Hughes, Kennedy and Chamberlain to fill this season. And, as bad as Pavano, Igawa and Farnsworth turned out, the Yankees still won 94 games (in 2007).
It probably won't be the regular season where the Yankees "miss" Santana - if they miss him at all. More likely, it will come during the post-season. Don't worry about missing it, if it happens. Hank will let us know about it when it happens, for sure.
Posted by Steve Lombardi at March 3, 2008 11:13 PM
Comments
Chass says people really wouldn't have bashed the Yankee payroll if they had done this deal(sure). He ends with pretzel logic: because the Yankees are losing a bunch of payroll next year anyway, the belt tightening would've been more impressive. Who can believe this? If you don't overspend they say you should have. If you do overspend they say you're ruining baseball. A portion of each overspent dollar goes into a slush fund for Bud Selig and limo service to transport Loria's art work. Why are they complaining?
Posted by: susanmullen ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.waswatching.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 4, 2008 03:09 AM
For me, this is lazy writing at this point. Really, the Yankees might miss Johan come the playoffs? I hadnt heard/read that take before, very interesting...
It's pretty funny to me- if the Yankees traded for Johan, they would have been lambasted in the media as returning back to the "old Regime" where they sell all of their young talent for the high-priced veterans... and since they didnt make the trade, it could come back to haunt the franchise; almost like they are being faulted for not spending the money this time.
alright, we get it.
Posted by: TurnTwo at March 4, 2008 08:07 AM
Why trade prime players and also have to pay beyond top dollar?
Why not keep the prospects and use that money to get Sabathia and TExeira after this yr?
Isnt Hughes/IPK/Sabathia better than Santana?
Posted by: Josh at March 4, 2008 11:39 AM
It cuts both ways.
If the Yankees had made the trade and Santana did not live up to expectations or gets injured, then they could have regreted making the trade. Or if one of the players they traded became a superstar.
Life is risky and the future is unpredictable.
I think the big payout was as much a factor as giving up the promising youngsters. There are opportunity costs involved in paying Santana's huge asking price. The more the Yankees pay to him, the less available for paying other players.
Posted by: Nettles vs. Lee at March 4, 2008 01:10 PM