Hank Steinbrenner is returning to his office Thursday to begin working on “a final decision” regarding a trade for Johan Santana.

It's been a good run, Cash. Really.

Hank also contacted the media to give them a scoop on his plans for lunch, his favorite movies of 2007 and what he thinks of the whole WGA thing.

"How to Posture in a Half-Assed Fasion", by Hanky Steinbrenner - Coming to your local high school in the coming monthes.

I mean really, he needs to STFU

If you weren't sick of the Yankees before...

he's even better than the old one!

“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.”

Doesn't this mean- "I think we've made the best offer, but we're willing to sweeten it if they call us back!"

Great negotiating.

Doesn't this mean- "I think we've made the best offer, but we're willing to sweeten it if they call us back!"

Great negotiating.

No, I think it means - "I love hearing the sound of mine own voice and being in the media limelight, so I don't really care what I say."

"We have a shot at Johan Santana. We'd have to trade Hughes. Which we won't do. But maybe we will. But we won't. Unless we do."

But what about the deadline?

But what about the deadline?

ARod told Hank it was OK to disregard it.

In the Star Wars novels the Emperor had a secret stash of clones so he could rule forever. Who knew that "The Boss" did too?

(apologies to...)

sometimes you can fix a team by just making a trade.
if you don't mind the humiliation...

(woo woo)

don't dilly dally
use your hiney
this is the age of go for broke!

The O-N-L-Y thing that matters here is:

Will they get him, and if they do, what will they have to give up to get him?

Oh, and if they get him, how he performs compared to the players they gave up.

All the rest of it is just squid ink.

Yanks: We have shot at Johan Santana

Obviously the Yanks missed. Maybe they should hire Osama's (or Musharaf's) thugs to finish the job.

It's been a good run, Cash. Really.

Show me a GM that's allowed to make financial decisions w/o getting the approval of the boss. I assume Cashman played a big role in determining the talent that would be involved in the trade. But getting Johan means making a HUGE financial commitment and that's something that only the owner should decide on.

You know, we haven't had a Yankees prospects vs. Red Sox prospects pissing match in a while...

More Hanky-Panky: Roger Clemens won't be Yankee in 2008

"I'm not signing Clemens," [Hank] Steinbrenner, the Yankees' senior vice president, said in a telephone interview yesterday. He said the Yanks are not looking for rotation stopgaps - like they were last season - because they are so enamored of their young starting pitchers. And Steinbrenner feels the Yanks already have a strong mentor to the young arms in Andy Pettitte, whom Steinbrenner praised for his "veteran leadership.

Plus, Pettitte took steroids only once, when he was recovering from an injury.

I really can't wait for an owner to come out and just say "Our young pitchers are crap. They're gonna be the sh!t in a couple of years, and our rotation will have some of the suckiest sucks who ever sucked".

Plus, kevin, you do know that Carl Pavano will finally be healthy in two or three years. That's an anchor to any rotation, especially if you use him as deadweight in the East River.

Plus, is Hughes, Cabrera and minor league pitcher really better than Lester, Lowrie, Crisp and minor league pitcher?

I believe the Twins would definitely prefer Cabrera to Crisp considering he is 5 years younger, much cheaper and under control for 4 times longer. I could see an argument either way but I'd also rather have Hughes than Lester + Lowrie. I'd rather have one great prospect than 2 good ones. Lester is a nice prospect but if you trade the best pitcher in baseball and he is the best player you get back then something went wrong imo.

I believe the Twins would definitely prefer Cabrera to Crisp considering he is younger, cheaper and under control for longer.

That, and Melky, for all the #### he gets (including from yours truly), actually seems to have a clue at the plate. Coco... well, he battles.

Would Hughes be the best prospect traded this off-season?

It's your classic "quality vs. quantity" argument, with the added twist that the Twins need infield help more than they need another pitcher (albeit a very good one).

Plus, is Hughes, Cabrera and minor league pitcher really better than Lester, Lowrie, Crisp and minor league pitcher?

I don't think it is.

Redsox Fans: "Lester, Lowrie, Crisp and minor league pitcher is definitely better than Hughes, Cabrera and minor league pitcher"

Yankee Fans: "Hughes, Cabrera and minor league pitcher is definitely better than Lester, Lowrie, Crisp and minor league pitcher"

None of that matters, what matters is what the Twins think.

Coco... well, he battles.

I don't know where to find pitches per plate appearance numbers, but to my eyes, he doesn't even do that. Other than those couple of months after Magadan fixed his stance, he just looked bad most of the time. Absolutely no power and what looked like bad pitch recognition. Love the defense, though, and I honestly wouldn't hate to have him out there for 1-2 more years, assuming a slight bounceback in Manny's numbers.

That, and Melky, for all the #### he gets (including from yours truly), actually seems to have a clue at the plate. Coco... well, he battles.

The numbers don't so much suggest this, especially when you go back a couple years.

Defensively, this is not even remotely close.

The case for Melky has always been that he's cost-controlled and solid. He's not likely to ever really be a plus guy, though, and Coco already is. Of course, the Twins have to be competing in order to value that, so.....

Pardon my naiveté, but wouldn't publicly commenting on a player under contract to another team be considered tampering?

The case for Melky has always been that he's cost-controlled and solid. He's not likely to ever really be a plus guy, though, and Coco already is

Are you saying Coco is a plus guy? After 77 and 83 OPS+ years?

No.

The numbers don't so much suggest this, especially when you go back a couple years.

Does anyone even think Coco's 2004 and 2005 seasons matter that much? That boat has sailed.

The case for Melky has always been that he's cost-controlled and solid. He's not likely to ever really be a plus guy, though, and Coco already is.

I think you forgot to complete your sentence. Coco already is... ? You sure don't mean that Coco is likely to ever really be a plus guy again, whatever that means.

crisp saw 3.9 p/pa last year and the year before. He was between 3.4 and 3.5 in Cleveland in 05 and 03, but closer to 3.7 in 04.

Redsox Fans: "Lester, Lowrie, Crisp and minor league pitcher is definitely better than Hughes, Cabrera and minor league pitcher"

Yankee Fans: "Hughes, Cabrera and minor league pitcher is definitely better than Lester, Lowrie, Crisp and minor league pitcher"

Twins fan: "Sox, if you think you're pulling this off without including either Ellsbury or Buchholz, you're out of your minds. And Hank, that 3rd guy isn't going to be somebody that neither of us really cares about. I'm just saying..."

Coco's defense is 20 or so runs better than Melky's by a variety of metrics, though. Melky's bat was, in 2007, essentially the same as Coco's (Coco's VORP was 2 runs higher in 20 fewer PAs; HBT's RC has Melky at 71, Coco at 67).

Coco may or may not ever return to 2004-5 form...but Melky hasn't shown statistical evidence he's going to do anything more than he did in 2007, either, other than a hot month in AAA a couple years ago. And defensively, there's a significant gap right now.

There's actually more to this than OPS+. Defense, especially in CF, matters. So, that's why I think the primary value of Melky is that he's cheap at this point. Which has value, of course. But the idea that he's a better player than Crisp is not really an accurate one today, and the 'upside' is not all that well supported by Cabrera's minor league track record, GB rate, and other skills indicators. I think what we see is what we get here and what we see today is a gold-glove CF with a so-so bat vs a solid CF with a so-so bat. That difference is worth 4-5 mil if you are a contender, but not if you are just worrying about your bottom line.

kevin beat me to it, but age has to factor in as well. Melky is very young. But my feeling is---and keep in mind that I'm a Yanks fan--that Cabrera's not going to get much better. It could be purely based on my impression that he looks like Luis Sojo when he bats from the right side. His upside does not excite me.

As noted, you have to explain why Cabrera is going to materially change offensively though. It's certainly possible but it is not the case that all players improve as they age---Cabrera, to me, is a pretty good example of a guy who has shown no indication that will happen and has a skills package (good contact skills, high GB rate, just ok eye and limited power) that may well not improve. Most of his comps suggest that as well, though this is obviously very imprecise and there's some guys there who improved a lot as well.

Obviously, if you have a projection that Cabrera is going to become a plus but that changes things. But I just don't see that when I look closely. Age is not everything and this is a sample of one, not a sample of dozens of guys, e.g. the general rule does not necessarily describe this situation.

Crisp being in the 'southbound' lane is largely a function of expectations. He isn't a great bat, but I'm not sure I see a 'collapse' there either, digging into the numbers. It's perception more than reality.

I think the Yankees and Twins both know this, by the way, which is why Melky is on the block in the first place and also why the deal hasn't gotten done. If the Twins thought Melky was a legit 'plus' CF with upside who was cost-controlled, and had Hughes in the same offer, wouldn't this be done? I think they see Melky as a solid guy who has limited upside. But of course, I could be wrong too.

Does anyone even think Coco's 2004 and 2005 seasons matter that much? That boat has sailed.

The Red Sox definitely aren't going to get anybody to pay for more than his 2006-2007 level of performance at this point. That said, he had two very good seasons at a young age. He's still only 28. There's that finger injury that was bothering him for all of 2006 and (at least) spring training in 2007. I think there should be quite a bit of uncertainty in his 2008 projection.

And is he really a +20 fielder? Because he was only -8 on offense (BRAA) this year.

What I don't get is how, despite fielding stats being at best imprecise, Crisp's great fielding year is taken as a sure sign of repeatable skill while his falling off a cliff offensively is downplayed. I don't remember anyone raving about Coco's fielding in CF prior to Francona going on a PR jihad in '07.
No snark intended but is it that you think there aren't fluke (or career if you prefer) years on defense?

but Melky hasn't shown statistical evidence he's going to do anything more than he did in 2007, either,

1: He was 22 in 2007.
2: Brock2 has Melky at .352/404 next year and .380/.452 in 2012
Brock2 has CoCo at .326/398 next year and .310/.346 in 2012.
3: Melky hit .280/.360/.391 in the majors at age 21. (after hitting .385/.430/.566 in 135 AAA PAs)
4: Melky hit .288/.334/.438 in the FSL at age 19. (league average was around (.255/.326/.375)
5: Melky's career minor league line was .294/.344/.422- which was above the averages for the leagues he played in, and he was young for each league as well.

If Melky was not rushed and played his age 22 season in AA like Crisp did, I have no doubt he beats Crisp's age 22 minor league line: .306/.367/.429. (actually Melky's 2007 MLB line translates into .310/.372/.460 in the EL 2007. His 2006 MLB numbers would translate to about .317/.395/.460 in AA. (at 21 CoCo hit .306/.368/.423 in the Carolina League)

Melky was a much better prospect than he was given credit for and has held his own in the majors at ages 21/22 (he out hit Delmon Young at age 21 for instance) - a lot of this is the Yankees fault, they've repeatedly thrown him into levels he wasn't quite ready for and let him visibly struggle a bit- that did little execept hurt the perception people had of him.

Melky is YOUNGER than Jed Lowrie
Melky is YOUNGER than John Lester

I think it's more likely than not that age 24-28 Melky is significantly better than
A: Melky now; and
B: 2004/05 Coco Crisp

Of course he may not develop either, but he has an upside that CoCo does not

As noted, you have to explain why Cabrera is going to materially change offensively though. I

At his age I think the burden is on those who are saying that he's not going to materially change- at this point gravity is ion his side.

Cabrera, to me, is a pretty good example of a guy who has shown no indication that will happen and has a skills package (good contact skills, high GB rate, just ok eye and limited power) that may well not improve.

do you have anything to show that particular "skills package" ages poorly?

1: K/BB 129/99 in 1155 MLB pAs- that is WELL above average

2: His k/bb has significantly improve from when he was a teenager in the minors

3: High GB rate- that can change

4: Limited power- 117 XBH in 1555 minor league PAs
75 XBH in 1155 major league PAs- yes you want more, but- he's only 22, and it's not like he's Juan Pierre either-

No snark intended but is it that you think there aren't fluke (or career if you prefer) years on defense?

He was also a brilliant LF for a couple years. Sure, it's possible he did it just one year...but I think there's a clear development across years (e.g. brilliant LF defense which projects to plus CF defense, solid CF defense while switching back, then great CF defense) which makes it somewhat unlikely he is a one-year defensive wonder. If Melky had that progression hittingwise, e.g. great hitting in minors for a season or two, then an adjustmnet, then a great offensive season I'd evaluate him completely differently. Of course, he doesn't.

For jpw, all you have done is assume away the very point I made based on age. What in his actual statistical indicators suggests there's upside there? You are saying "he's been non-awful and young so he'll improve" and I'm saying that's a big assumption for this specific player. If you have something beyond that, I'm curious...I've had this discussion with a number of other Yankee fans, though, and none of them has come up with anything more specific than that. Sure it could happen---I'm saying there's no particular reason to think it will in his case and a very flat stat line and set of indicators to suggest it's not all that likely

At his age I think the burden is on those who are saying that he's not going to materially change- at this point gravity is ion his side.

I did this by pointing to the problems in his stat line, actually, and the burden is clearly on you, anyway, to explain why we should expect him to perform at a level he never has at any level (beyond a month in AAA, at least). Or, in other words, have you heard of Andy Marte? Age relative to level is a tool, not a complete solution. And it's all you seem to see here.

Melky is interesting and cost-controlled. But the suggestion that he's likely to have a big leap offensively just doesn't make sense for me. Maybe I'll be proven wrong. I do think you'd have to admit that the way both the Yankees and Twins are valuing him suggests that they agree as well, though, don't you?

As an Orioles fan, I guess I'd prefer the Yankees package to the Red Sox package if they were offered for Bedard.

edit: OTOH, if the Red Sox added Anderson I think that would push them ahead.

I'm saying that's a big assumption for this specific player. If you have something beyond that, I'm curious...I've had this discussion with a number of other Yankee fans, though, and none of them has come up with anything more specific than that. Sure it could happen---I'm saying there's no particular reason to think it will in his case and a very flat stat line and set of indicators to suggest it's not all that likely

You have no evidence that your feeling on this specific player is anything more then a WAG. You have not produced evidence that similiar players to Melky have failed to develop or anything else remotely insightful other then understating his abilities and claiming they don't age well. Good contact rate, high GB, and a good eye (Ok eye is just a bogus claim, 130 Ks to 99 BBs) could be forecast as a guy who's going to start hitting for a pretty good average when he's older than 22. 110 years of baseball history suggests that if you come up and hold your own against Major Leauge pitching at ages 21/22, an age during which most Major League players are still in the minors, then you're probably going to progress and be a decent player. It's really up to you to provide something real (other than "limited power") to suggest Melky has tapped out his ability.

I did this by pointing to the problems in his stat line, actually, and the burden is clearly on you, anyway, to explain why we should expect him to perform at a level he never has at any level (beyond a month in AAA, at least). Or, in other words, have you heard of Andy Marte? Age relative to level is a tool, not a complete solution. And it's all you seem to see here.

You've done nothing of the same

1: I see no such major problems in his stat line, I don't think your "problems" are problems.

2: The only basis for the Marte comparison is you wanted to name a prospect who failed to develop- there is no more reason to compare Marte to Melky than dozens of other players.

3: WRT to Marte, I've noticed that whenever a fan thinks a certain prospect should be traded away they randomly name failed prospects, if they don't want a prospect traded they randomly name guys who burst out in a big way -

4: I heard the same stuff ad nauseum about Wright prior to this year- that he would never ever be better than he was in 2005/06.

5: I heard the same stuff ad nauseum about Reyes prior to 2006, that he would never ever develop enough to be a viable leadoff man

6: I have never seen a workable methodology to statistically separate those who will from those who won't develop (except, guys with NO power, but good contact/onbase skills in the low minors tend to stall)

7: I never bet against a 21/22 year old. Yes I say that his age in and of itself is enough to expect improvement- and he doesn't need a "leap forward" either to surpass whatever CoCo is going to do the next few years.

8: Back to 4 and 5, as a general rule when I hear someone patiently explain why some 22 year old is not and is never going to develop I assume the opposite, I'll be right 65% of the time.

9: He doesn't have a flat stat line, the only year he failed to show improvement was from 2006 to 2007.* He was getting promoted each and every ear (and within years) if his development was flat he would have seen his numbers progressively erode with each level (like MARTE).

* and 2007 was a wildly erratic year- horrific in April and September, better than 2004/05 Crisp in between- his whole career splits suggests he has issues with cold weather- well overtime people habituate to that too.

No snark intended but is it that you think there aren't fluke (or career if you prefer) years on defense?

Optimist: He's demonstrated the ability to hit .300 with decent power and the ability to play great CF defense. He'll put the two together in 2008 and be a top-five CF.

Pessimist: He hasn't hit for two years and it isn't relevant that he was great in 2004-2005. Defensively he wasn't considered anything special before 2007, so it isn't relevant that he played great D last year. In 2008 he'll be a below-average defensive CF with a .700 OPS.

My opinion: I think there should be quite a bit of uncertainty in his 2008 projection.

Clear?

Melky is YOUNGER than Jed Lowrie
Melky is YOUNGER than John Lester

Also younger than Chris Young, Felix Pie. This reminds me of all the discussions about Lastings Milledge.

A couple of things:

First, as a Red Sox fan, I don't want Coco Crisp playing for the Red Sox. This is true of all other Red Sox fans I know - we aren't fans of Coco Crisp, even if he is good defensively. I'd rather have Melky out there. There are lots of guys on our team we like better than other fans, but Coco generally isn't one of them.

Second, I think its reasonable to expect Melky to progress - the question is how much. The central argument seems to be that he has been decent at age 21/22 in the majors, and most players get better as they age - which is true. However, I don't think its true that most players who are decent at age 21/22 turn out to be stars. Melky doesn't have to be a star to be better than Coco Crisp, but I think Brock 2 is being overly optimistic.

Melky doesn't have to be a star to be better than Coco Crisp, but I think Brock 2 is being overly optimistic.

FWIW, Zips has Melky at .286/.352/.419. I think that's on the high side, but the projection systems pretty consistently believe Melky is going to be a better player next year, and see the potential for him to become a good one. I'll be interested to see PECOTA's numbers when they come out.

It's really up to you to provide something real (other than "limited power") to suggest Melky has tapped out his ability.

Sigh. Reread what was posted and recognize that you not agreeing is not the same as not presenting a rationale. I don't think we can know any of these things for sure, I think we talk about our confidence levels in various outcomes. Melky may be a future Hall of Famer, but I think it's far more likely he's basically shown what he is. Both are certainly possible.

2: The only basis for the Marte comparison is you wanted to name a prospect who failed to develop- there is no more reason to compare Marte to Melky than dozens of other players.

There is, and I thought it was obvious----contrary to what you have suggested a young player who performs ok, but not exceptionally, at a level can actually fail to progress and reach a new performance level as they age. Needless to say, there's a ton of guys who fail to progress for various reasons and that's why, to me, we want to look at the underlying skills and talk in probabilities based on them rather than assume that age is the key to understanding every single player's development path. Marte and Melky don't have much in common otherwise, of course, but the basic point still needs to be recognized. I guess they do have more in common than Melky and Lou Brock do I suppose, too. As noted before, I think Melky's comp lists suggest the issue I'm describing and also the fairly-wide range of possible outcomes.

As to scouting, I think there's always a lot of question about what scouts did and didn't get right. The most we can say is that the scouts were never that enamored of his tools, especially power, and so that is (for me) part of the analysis though certainly a quite-imperfect part.

This is how this discussion is usually unfortunately sidetracked...a silly burden of proof game where someone says'he's still young' which is true but which should, I believe, create a much lower confidence level about future performance jumps than many possess. To each their own, I guess.

Re: 52

The problem here is that if we want to criticize Melky and Marte as prospects using numbers then the problem for Marte is not his performance, but the shape of his performance. Conversely, the problem for Melky is not the shape of his performance, but his performance. Thus, it makes no sense whatsoever to compare these two on a statistical level and it makes no sense to make that comparison tools wise either IMO.

That's a different point though, and one I alluded to in the very post you note.

The argument put forward on Melky in the thread has been that he's young for each level he's been at and thus will improve as he ages. Of course, this is not necessarily true for any particular player, though it's generally true across the population of players who perform ok at a level they are young for I guess. Recognizing that there are guys who perform reasonably well while young for their level and don't progress is, of course, the most obvious of many ways to make that same point about a generally true proposition not necessarily applying to a specific player. Thus, Marte. And, of course many other players in each direction who all (imo) suggest that we need to look beyond age relative to level to get a sense of what's likely to happen.

The reason I said Melky and Marte don't have much in common other than that is the reason you noted as well---they simply are very different hitters with different underlying skills issues.

#54

Ignoring underlying skill issues, position, Melky has held his own in the majors. Marte has been significantly worse in the majors.

This is true of all other Red Sox fans I know - we aren't fans of Coco Crisp, even if he is good defensively. I'd rather have Melky out there.

I'm a Red Sox fan, and for the skill set required of a CF on the current Boston team (a team with an above-average offense), I'd take Coco over Melky any day of the week for next season, solely because of his defense. However, I could see a lot of other teams valuing them differently, based on their needs. As far as the Twins go, I can't imagine why they would want a 28 year old back in a trade for Santana, but I hope they do.

Melky may be a future Hall of Famer, but I think it's far more likely he's basically shown what he is. Both are certainly possible.

I think it's far more likely that he'll fall in between those points.

Actually what I think is the most likely outcome is something like Shannon Stewart's career but with less SBs

Actually what I think is the most likely outcome is something like Shannon Stewart's career but with less SBs

That would be awesome.

From Tyler Kepner in today's NYTimes:

Hank’s brother, Hal Steinbrenner, is just as powerful as a successor to their father, the principal owner George Steinbrenner, who is essentially retired. Hal Steinbrenner’s primary responsibility is to oversee the Yankees’ finances, and he is reluctant to add another huge contract.

According to several people who have spoken to the brothers recently, that is the crux of the debate in the organization over whether to trade for Johan Santana of the Minnesota Twins. Both Steinbrenners want the team to keep winning. Hal Steinbrenner would try to do it with the existing payroll of roughly $200 million. Hank is more inclined to add Santana, largely to keep him away from the rival Boston Red Sox.

Teams, even the MFYankees, eventually hurt themselves with signings that on this site sometimes get described with statements like, "it's only money" or, "they're the [big market team], they can absorb the cost."

'Course, by Wednesday the Yankees could have Santana in the fold, but it's nice to see at least some pause brought about by just having to have the shiny toy that was the end of Randy Johnson's career, the thrill that was Clemens's occasional company, keeping Bobby Abreu around for $16m, overpaying grotesquely for the Rod, and so on.

...overpaying grotesquely for the Rod...

I heard that ARod signed with the Yankees at a discount of $30M. How'd they overpay?

correct me if im wrong, but didnt lester have some serious (non baseball related) medical problems this past year or so? and if he did why the #### would the twins want him.

keeping Bobby Abreu around for $16m

Hmm... 16 mill sounds about right to me. What exactly do you think Abreu is worth on a one year deal in this market?
In any case there was a 2 mill buyout on his option so the real number to consider is 14 million.

I think Abreu's decline last year yas real, rather than random, and will continue this year. Last year his OPS+ was 114. This year it should be between 100 and 105, and with his mediocre defense, he's not quite an average RFer.

The Yankees know all this, or should know all this, so even with the contracts handed to OFers in the last couple of years, a slightly below average RFer shouldn't be worth more than $6-7m, imo.