The Debate Over the Santana Trade Should Be About More Than Just Money

Tyler Kepner of the NY Times is reporting tonight that Payroll is at the heart of the Santana debate. He writes:

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.

Hank Steinbrenner did not return a telephone message Thursday, and Hal rarely grants interviews. But the result of the internal debate is that nothing has changed since the Yankees pulled their offer at the winter meetings in Nashville a month ago.

To me there are many other reasons not to make this trade than just monetary ones. My major complaint about the Santana deal is the inclusion of Phil Hughes, trading him will prove to be a big mistake. And with Melky Cabrera expected to be included in any offer the Yankees make for Santana, who is going to replace him? This article suggests the Yankees sign Mike Cameron, ummm... NO THANKS. Not only is he going to miss the first 25 games of the 2008 season due to a suspension for "twice testing positive for a banned stimulant", but he's a lifetime .251 hitter.

Is Santana really worth Hughes, Melky, other prospects, $140 million to sign him, plus an additional $56 million in luxury taxes? I don't think so.