Hank Steinbrenner Won’t Shut Up


If the Yankees do complete a trade for Santana, Steinbrenner said they would not go beyond a five-year contract extension (one that expires after the 2013 season).

"I wouldn’t do it if it were a six- or seven-year contract," Steinbrenner said. "I wouldn’t go past five, on an extension."

There’s a word for publicly discussing potential negotiations with a player still under contract to another club. It’s on the tip of my tongue. I just can’t think of it. Maybe Murray Chass can help me.

19 comments… add one
  • Is the word “stupid”? ;-)
    Do I win a prize?

    rz-yf January 9, 2008, 4:39 pm
  • Ah, Mr. Hanky strikes again. He’s the gift that keeps on giving to the New York sports media, and possibly to Sox management as well.
    I do believe Paul is talking about the T word — tampering — not the S word — stupid… though both might apply here.
    (Murray Chass infamously tried to gin up an accusation that Theo had tampered with Drew to pry him away from the Dodgers.)

    Hudson January 9, 2008, 5:02 pm
  • To have this much access to the inner (now outer) thought process of the Yankees F.O. is … umm … weird … strangely refreshing but growing stale … ultimately meaningless because Yanks will sell out every home game for at least the next three seasons … I don’t know what else it is. I guess it is just weird to read 2013 in reference to a forthcoming season on a current ballplayer. Where’s my flying car?

    attackgerbil January 9, 2008, 5:19 pm
  • I know the nature of this post was tip-of-the-tongue-in-cheek and all, but does this really count as tampering? Does talking about hypotheticals with the press count as “negotiations”?
    Or was the phrase you were looking for “compulsively yapping”? In that case, there you go. I guess Murray might have been able to clue you in there as well.

    FenSheaParkway January 9, 2008, 5:42 pm
  • i haven’t notice anybody reference hanks feelings on clemens. not a real juicy read but, hank wants us to know where he stands.

    sf rod January 9, 2008, 5:44 pm
  • I would think naming a player — any player — under contract to another team (who may incidentally want to sign him to an extension also), and saying, “We’re willing to give him a contract not exceeding X years,” would absolutely be tampering. Never mind the fact that your tem is actually trying to acquire him and is competing with at least two other clubs trying to acquire him, and that player has a NTC he can exercise if he doesn’t like the offers he gets from those competing clubs, if those clubs happen to win the rights to negotiate with him. And now he knows he can get five years from the Yankees (though I’d assume five years would be a minimum offer from the Sox as well).
    To me, it’s the most blatant case of tampering I can remember.

    Paul SF January 9, 2008, 5:59 pm
  • It may seem like tampering but we havent heard any more complaints about Hank from the Twins or MLB since the initial time during the winter meetings. Since he has had many comments concerning Johan since that leads me to believe either:
    1) Your definition of tampering isnt correct. Maybe a more concerted or direct contact with a player or agent would be required. Running one’s mouth in the press doesnt qualify. (this is pure speculation)
    2) The Twins really dont care what Hank says. The only people concerned with the “tampering” are Sox fans.
    Who knows but it doesnt seem like any of this has had an effect on the state of the negotiations at this point.

    sam-YF January 9, 2008, 6:37 pm
  • Not to defend Hank here, but he’s not alone here. I can’t track down the comment, I did a search, but Minaya made a very similar comment. His comment was that he WOULD go seven years. I wish I could find it, because until then it’s just heresay.

    John - YF January 9, 2008, 7:04 pm
  • It’s not “tampering” because, in Hank’s case, he is not stating a firm position. Rather, he’s stating a position he will deviate from for convenience, or when faced with superior negotiating leverage, or when he simply forgets what he has said before.
    MLB and the Player’s Association adopted an addendum to the Collective Bargaining Agreement at the Winter Meetings last month. It wasn’t widely reported, but it essentially gave everyone in Baseball a free pass to ignore (or enojy) anything that comes out of Hank’s mouth. They called it the “Helium Addendum,” or something.

    yankees76 January 9, 2008, 7:42 pm
  • OK, I know it’s rude for Sox fans to trash Hank but can we at least guffaw when Yankees fans do it?

    soxgirl January 9, 2008, 8:04 pm
  • I imagine tampering can affect more than just the team that has a player under contract. It’s possible that the Mets may be affected by Steinbrenner’s comment, so just because the Twins may not give a crap what Hank says doesn’t mean that there isn’t “tampering”. Omar Minaya (or Theo, or any other GM) may care quite a bit, be affected by, what Hank blathers about, so what he says very well might qualify, if not by the rules but in theory, as tampering.

    SF January 9, 2008, 8:31 pm
  • Very funny, Yank76

    Brad January 10, 2008, 8:30 am
  • i’m usually here to defend hank, but this one’s a head-scratcher…how does he accomplish anything with this particular comment?…i don’t know the real definition of “tampering” from the mlb perspective, or whether it requires direct contact of the parties, but i suspect if there is a violation of somekind, the alleged injured party will start squawking before i finish this post…hopefully hank will learn at some point that the best approach is to keep quiet…he must feel like he has to answer every question, and hasn’t learned the duck and dodge non-answer technique of most baseball execs…

    dc January 10, 2008, 9:06 am
  • The system seems to work against any club complaining about tampering. The Twins very much need the Yankees to at least appear to be in on the Santana hunt, otherwise the Sox’ offer dries up to maybe just one or two players, so they aren’t going to raise a stink. The Sox would like to do business with the Twins, so they’re not going to raise a stink that could hurt/anger Minnesota.
    No one seems to know exactly what MLB thinks tampering is (the rules are not public), but I would think MLB could unilaterally investigate if it so chose. Hard to see Bud Selig having that kind of a spine though…

    Paul SF January 10, 2008, 9:53 am
  • If it were tampering, and if anyone REALLY cared, something would have happened by now.
    So, no, I guess it’s not tampering, if no one is bothered enough by it to tell MLB to do something about it. It’s kind of a non-discussion.

    AndrewYF January 10, 2008, 10:42 am
  • Has a mlb team ever been caught or charged with tampering? The only professional sports team I can remember being punished for such an act is the Timberwolves when they signed Joe Smith.

    Nick-YF January 10, 2008, 10:45 am
  • > Has a mlb team ever been caught or charged with tampering
    Yes, the Yankees.

    attackgerbil January 10, 2008, 11:47 am
  • .. among others.

    attackgerbil January 10, 2008, 11:49 am
  • Thanks, AG. I suppose I could have not been so lazy and done the research myself.

    Nick-YF January 10, 2008, 12:20 pm

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.