~~a team that does well in the regular-season but one that also does not do well in the post-season~~

I think that you’re begging the question here. You are assuming that there is a difference between these two types of teams when you have to prove that such a difference exists. What are the inherent differences between these two types of teams? Maybe successful post-season teams have to have a strong bullpen. However, last night’s loss would have happened no matter who was in the bullpen.

Anyway, it seems like some different aspect of the team has hurt the Yankees in all of the last few playoff series. Thus, you can’t pinpoint one.

I go with the “correction” theory:

95-97, Yanks went 15-10 in the PS
98-01, Yanks went 43-15
02-06, Yanks went 19-22

98-01 really spoiled us. Every team that gets into the PS is a good team (well, maybe excepting the ’06 Cardinals) and it is hard to sustain a large winning percentage against those teams.

But, he acquires those that do, no?
===========
Yes, and he has acquired players that have performed well in the postseason. I don’t think anyone could have predicted the Yankees getting their butts kicked last night, just like anyone predicted them blowing a 3-0 lead in 2004, or a 3-2 lead in 2001, or whatever.

Could be we’re looking at the “correction” (for lack of a better word) of the Yankees’ postseason record.

“But, he acquires those that do, no?”

Yes, and they succeed in the regular season, as evidenced by the fact that the Yankees have made the postseason every season. Did those players that fail in the postseason come attached with an expiration date that says “warning, do not use after September 30th”. How can you blame Cashman for players, who succeeded just fine in the regular season, but failed in 11 games in the postseason? Cashman acquired very good players who by all measures should succeed. But they don’t. How does that not become the players’ fault?

I’ll ask you this. In general, if a team makes the postseason by winning their division, do you agree that the GM did a damn good job in getting them there, and that the team that succeeded in the regular season should logically succeed in the postseason? And if the players fail there, is it the GMs fault, even though those exact same players did just fine for the 162 regular season games?

But, if the Yankees lose this ALDS, say, in four games or less, then, you have to wonder some more about how these teams have been built over the last four years and who put them together, no?
===================
No, not really. Other than the pitching, I can’t find much fault with the way the team has been run from 2004 on.

~~~Cashman doesn’t pitch, hit, or field.~~~

But, he acquires those that do, no?

I dunno, Steve, if you apply the exact same logic to Bobby Cox and the Braves, he ‘inherited’ the team from 1991 to 1996, the ones that won 4 pennants, one of which was a World Series victory. From then on, they’ve gone 28 and 35 in the postseason.

Is Bobby Cox a bad GM because he routinely couldn’t get the Braves to the promised land, even though he ‘inherited’ John Smoltz and Tom Glavine, and ‘bought’ Greg Maddux the most dominant pitching trio of the modern era? Would you say those were poorly constructed playoff teams, considering that ‘pitching wins’ in the postseason?

Keep trying to blame Cashman. But he GOT THEM THERE every single year, which, honestly, is all you can ask from your GM. At some point, you’ve got to blame the players for not winning. Cashman doesn’t pitch, hit, or field.