[86spike]

Let's discuss this out here instead of in the MFY Forum.

Here is Hank's quote from the NY Daily News today that once again crosses the line into tampering:

Quote

"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."

We know that the Twins were pissed off back at the Winter Meetings when Hank commented on how he 'really wanted,
(and that should be clear to him, that we really want him)' Santana.

This is an even more egregious tamper. Selig needs to step in and slap Hank across the jowls for this behavior. The guy is damaging the Twins ability to trade Johan and hurting the position of other suitors like the Sox and Mets.

[Cumberland Blues]

I don't think stating the obvious (the bolded part of your quote) is tampering - everyone knows the Yankees can handle any large contract easier than anyone else can. I don't think anything in there constitutes tampering. It's just Hank being George. If he said, "they should trade him because they won't be able to match our offer to him next fall" - that would be tampering. Now it's just so much bluster and I wouldn't get too worked up about it.

[86spike]

If You're the Twins - aern't you pissed off that Hank is undercuttign your ability to get the best possible package in return for Johan by trying to scare off other suitors with his not-even-thinly-veiled assertion that the Yanks can give him the most money out of anyone? Johan has a NTC that he will need to waive, so with Hank crowing about the MFYs ability to give him what he wants... that is an incentive for him to deny a trade anywhere else... which is a incentive for teams like the Sox and Mets to not go 'overboard' to acquire him... which means the Yanks' offer need not go higher either.

The loser here is the Twins who are trying to get the best possible return.

I think it's clearly tampering, even if what Hank is saying is obvious. He's not allowed to discuss players under other teams' control... period.

[Bowlerman9]

86spike, on Jan 3 2008, 01:35 PM, said:

If You're the Twins - aern't you pissed off that Hank is undercuttign your ability to get the best possible package in return for Johan by trying to scare off other suitors with his not-even-thinly-veiled assertion that the Yanks can give him the most money out of anyone? Johan has a NTC that he will need to waive, so with Hank crowing about the MFYs ability to give him what he wants... that is an incentive for him to deny a trade anywhere else... which is a incentive for teams like the Sox and Mets to not go 'overboard' to acquire him... which means the Yanks' offer need not go higher either.

The loser here is the Twins who are trying to get the best possible return.

I think it's clearly tampering, even if what Hank is saying is obvious. He's not allowed to discuss players under other teams' control... period.

Havent the last 7-8 years proven that the Yanks can give him the most money out of anyone? Did Santana not know this when he woke up this morning?

[Chemistry Schmemistry]

Tampering would refer to Minnesota's ability to resign the player.

Steinbrenner is openly saying he will give the player more than he thinks Minnesota can afford. He's making it more difficult for the Twins to negotiate a contract on their own.

Is it in baseball's best interest for top players to migrate to the top two or three markets?

The extension of this argument is whether you want any team to be able to exhibit this behavior. Let's say the Twins have scouted a player on the Brewers, and they feel he could be a starter. So they call up his agent and say "I know you're about to sign an extension for $1 million a year, but we'd give you $1.5 million."

We're rapidly developing the English soccer system here, where the Red Sox play Chelsea to the Yankees' Manchester United.

[TheoShmeo]

Hank is just being a buffoon again. He alluded to yet another artificial deadline for the Twins to ignore, and is beating his chest about the Yankees' offer being best (which is really for the Twins to assess) and them being best able to afford Santana (as he is the Master of the Obvious).

Given that the Twins and MLB did nothing the last time Hank opened up his mouth about these topics, I think it's pretty safe to say that this will be left alone, as well.

As an aside, does Hank really think telling the media that the Yankees' offer is best will confer any advantage on the Yankees?

This post has been edited by TheoShmeo: 03 January 2008 - 01:56 PM

[bankshot1]

Bowlerman9, on Jan 3 2008, 01:43 PM, said:

Havent the last 7-8 years proven that the Yanks can give him the most money out of anyone? Did Santana not know this when he woke up this morning?

It still doesn't change the fact that Santana remains under contract to the Twins and they retain the sole right of discussing a contract extension with him. If Hank's public statement that, And let's face it, we're the best able to handle the kind of contract (extension) Santana will be after." diminishes in the least the Twins ability to re-sign the guy, (yes I know its a longshot but stuff changes in this world, for example see ARod's opt-out and Hanks we will never negotiate stance) I would have to conclude Hank has tampered with Santana.

and just for fun, lets say that Beckett did not sign an extension in 2006

And let's face it, we're the best able to handle the kind of contract (extension) Beckett will be after."

How does that sit?

[yecul]

I don't know if I would bother calling it tampering, but he is a blowhard.

Especially since he 1. essentially said they would pull out a while back and 2. is still pursuing this dead end when nothing has changed.

[E5 Yaz]

Well, we know 2 things: a) The Yankees would be able to pay any fine for this "tampering"; and b) the days are long gone when a commissioner would declare that a team could not acquire -- through free agency or trade -- a player about whom they were said to be tampering.

So, there's really nothing to see here. Hankenstein has a big mouth. Different day, same story.

[NomarRS05]

It doesn't sound like blatant tampering and there likely won't be any long-term ramifications resulting from his statements. All Hank is doing is establishing himself as pompous and arrogant. It reflects poorly on the Yankees as an organization and it's bad bad business. If Hank were smart he would keep his mouth shut. He accomplishes nothing by beating his chest other than to potentially put off other organizations and make them less eager to deal with him.

[xjack]

All this reiterates my belief that Hal Steinbrenner -- who has the real power as chairman of the Yankees' parent company -- is eventually going to have to rein big brother in.

Hank is Fredo.

[Carmine Hose]

Quote

We're rapidly developing the English soccer system here, where the Red Sox play Chelsea to the Yankees' Manchester United.

Flip those teams around and you'd be right. I mean, United is the Red Devils ( aka Red Sox) and all and CSKA London are the Blues (Yankees).

Hank Steinbrenner = Roman Abramovich

[pk1627]

Last year there was a lot of talk about the Dodgers filing a tampering charge against the Sox for the Drew case. There was speculation that the Sox somehow indicated to Boras that they needed a rf and were prepared to pay a lot. How is that not as obvious as what Hank said? The only difference that I can see is that there was no proof that the Sox sent such a signal, while Hank's comments are published in the newspaper.

I suspect that MN would prefer to keep Santana. Comments like Hank's (twice now) torpedo this effort. Maybe the Yankees could afford a fine, but maybe MN gets pissed and trades Santana to the Sox or Mets for a bit lesser package.

[yecul]

pk1627, on Jan 3 2008, 03:07 PM, said:

Last year there was a lot of talk about the Dodgers filing a tampering charge against the Sox for the Drew case.

Not really. There was one reporter who wanted to be the initiator of a big story. There was no credence -- or at least no interest -- and it never went anywhere. He tried a couple times to no avail. I believe it was Chass, but maybe I have that wrong. He simply thought there was potential there so he threw some shit at the wall.

ARod just opted out. Was he tampering against his own team? Seems that Boras kinda knows what he's doing.

[gcapalbo]

I'd actually like to see a copy of "The Official Professional Baseball Rules Book" (apparently a "Large loose leaf binder" of approximately 23 pages-- and not available to the public) to see what the precise definition of tampering really is.

Circumstancial evidence gained by searching around the net shows lots of MLB team officials saying things like:

"At this particular time, due to MLB tampering rules, I am unable to talk about free agent players."

So yeah, by the letter of the law, Hank is tampering by talking about a possible transaction. Even if he is stating the obvious.

You can almost visualize Cashman having a Art Carney-like cringing reaction to Hank's Ralph Kramden every time Hank opens his mouth.

Personally I find him pretty entertaining, and a potential treasure trove of locker room door material for 2008 and beyond, and hope he keeps it up.

[Cumberland Blues]

Chemistry Schmemistry, on Jan 3 2008, 01:52 PM, said:

Steinbrenner is openly saying he will give the player more than he thinks Minnesota can afford.

No, he isn't. He's saying the Yankees can more easily absorb whatever contract Santana signs. Everybody who has spent more than a minute thinking about baseball finances knows this. Saying this isn't tampering. And it wouldn't matter if he said it about any player a year from free agency - because it's an obvious point that everybody knows. The Yankees can absorb any contract...this is not a newsflash. And the Yankee boss bragging about this isn't cheating. It's arrogant and in poor taste, but it ain't cheating.

[mabrowndog]

If Hank hadn't used the player's name in making his statement, there'd be no issue whatsoever. But he's quoted as saying "Santana" in a sentence directly related to that player's potential compensation.

If he was quoted accurately, then there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that this is tampering. However, what I think doesn't mean shit beyond my personal chest-thumping.

Whether it is considered tampering under MLB rules, or can be proven as tampering in a court of law, is another story altogether. Cumby makes a valid point that the statement does not directly make an offer of potential compensation to Santana, though it most certainly implies it. Is that considered tampering? I don't think any of us really know that.

gcapalbo, on Jan 3 2008, 04:39 PM, said:

I'd actually like to see a copy of "The Official Professional Baseball Rules Book" (apparently a "Large loose leaf binder" of approximately 23 pages-- and not available to the public) to see what the precise definition of tampering really is.

The only references I can find to this definition come from the labor lawsuits involving Curt Flood and Andy Messersmith more than three decades ago. Language from the rules book is cited in court documents, including the tampering definition. According to filings from the Messersmith and Flood cases, "Rule 3 of the Major League Rules" included the following as recently as 1975:

Quote

(g) TAMPERING. To preserve discipline and competition, and to prevent the enticement of players, coaches, managers and umpires, there shall be no negotiations or dealings respecting employment, either present or prospective, between any player, coach or manager and any club other than the club with which he is under contract or acceptance of terms, or by which he is reserved, or which has the player on its Negotiation List, or between any umpire and any league other than the league with which he is under contract or acceptance of terms, unless the club or league with which he is connected shall have, in writing, expressly authorized such negotiations or dealings prior to their commencement.

This definition made no mention of any statements or comments made through the media. Also, MLB does not disclose publicly any findings it makes in resolving allegations of tampering.

Regardless of the definition and any revisions it's undergone, I'd have to believe Selig will give Hank a smack on this one, if for no other reason than to reinforce to all owners and executives that publicly discussing specific players under contract with other teams is a huge potential legal risk for the league.

This post has been edited by mabrowndog: 03 January 2008 - 06:18 PM

[JohnMal]

Chemistry Schmemistry, on Jan 3 2008, 01:52 PM, said:

Steinbrenner is openly saying he will give the player more than he thinks Minnesota can afford. He's making it more difficult for the Twins to negotiate a contract on their own.

I think this is a valid point. I think the Twins could argue that Hank is negatively effecting their desire to keep Santana.
I am not sure how they define tampering, but this sure seems like it is.

[DJnVa]

Cumberland Blues, on Jan 3 2008, 04:48 PM, said:

No, he isn't. He's saying the Yankees can more easily absorb whatever contract Santana signs. Everybody who has spent more than a minute thinking about baseball finances knows this. Saying this isn't tampering.

Everyone that has spent more than a minute thinking about baseball would understand that Theo saying something like, "Wow, having Player X (impending FA) in our lineup next year would really help our offense and lord knows we can afford him" knows it's true. That still doesn't mean he can say it.

[Lollardfish]

DJnVa, on Jan 4 2008, 08:16 AM, said:

Everyone that has spent more than a minute thinking about baseball would understand that Theo saying something like, "Wow, having Player X (impending FA) in our lineup next year would really help our offense and lord knows we can afford him" knows it's true. That still doesn't mean he can say it.

Exactly. A lot of people seem to be saying that Hank isn't tampering because "everyone knows" the Yanks have the most money and would offer it to Santana. But "everybody knows" is not a valid defense.

When Hank said that he wanted to sign a player currently on another team, that was a clear-cut case of tampering, even though everyone knew Hank wanted to sign him. When Hank publicly touts the amount of money that the Yanks would pay for Santana, that's tampering, again, even though everyone knows that the Yanks would pay him a lot of money.

We don't know the rules.

But what we have seen is that team officials aren't allowed to explicitly comment on players currently under contract to another team as regards future contracts with any other team. Either the same rules don't apply to Hank or this is tampering.

OTOH, the Twins want, at this point, to keep the Yanks involved in negotiation/posturing re: trades, so they may not do anything about it at this time, or ever. As I understand it, though I freely admit I may be wrong, the team has to file a tampering charge for any action to be taken.