Nice article…I agree that Cashman’s most important contribution to the Yankees has been realizing that the Yankees reign of success would come to an end if a new approach (besides using FA patches to supplement a declining core) wasn’t followed.

I think, however, that Cashman’s contribution goes far beyond that. As you touched upon in your post, Cashman has shown an ability to pull a rabbit out of a hat. In addition to the names you mentioned, I am also thinking about the Dave Justice deal (which one a championship) and the acquisitions of guys like Small and Chacon (which won a division). Also, you could even argue that the Proctor deal was a big one because outside of Mo, EDSP was the only realiable reliever we had. Those 100 quality innings not only helped the Yankees have a successful season, but also saved added wear and tear on Mariano. Other key pick-ups off the top of my head include Knoblauch, Brosius and Clemens (the first time).

Finally, Cashman has proven to be relatively flexible. The best example of that was in early 2005 when the Yankees pulled the plug on Womack and dedicated themselves to giving Cano and Wang a chance. We also saw that this year…promoting Hughes, Chamberlain, Edwar and Kennedy showed Cashman’s continued willingness to trust youth in a penant race.

Is Cashman perfect? No. Could he do a better job with the bullpen and bench? Perhaps (although I think every team could say that about its GM). On the whole, I am glad Cashman is the GM and hope the Yankees sign him to an extension before he gets any thoughts about moving elsewhere.

Thanks for the kind words guys!

jonm- I think people who discount the “since 2005″ barometer for Cashman forget that it was impossible to build a farm system with the free-agent signings bleeding draft picks. Simply “building a farm system” required an organization-wide change.

Raf- no, it’s definitely not easy. As you can see from my mostly defunct blog, it’s really hard to come up with interesting things to say every day. While we may not agree with some of what Steve has to say, he’s got a voice and has a place for those opinions to be aired. For that he should be admired.

MJ- I may have not fleshed that idea out too much, but what I was getting was this: what if, like players with RSAA and OPS+, general managers were measured in relation to their peers. In doing so, we would have to look at the actions of other general managers to determine a context for each signing. In the context of Carl Pavano’s signing: how much was the contract the result of fulfilling a need and following a plan? How did the presence of other teams in the bidding affect decision-making? On one level, other teams being interested in Pavano at least absolves Cashman of SOME blame, since relative to league context he wasn’t doing anything out of the ordinary pursuing him.

On the other hand, I think if this kind of analysis were done, it would show that Cashman’s strengths lie in taking risks on players that no other GM has even thought about (see Leiber, Jon). When other teams get involved, the deals tend to be bloated and hurt the Yankees in the long run. Cashman’s reign has been marked by success coming from nowhere that anyone would have predicted (A-Rod trade, Abreu trade, Chein-Ming Wang).

Good stuff Matt.

Just one thing…when you say “What other teams were interested?” in the first paragraph, I have to quarrel with that methodology. As in the case of Carl Pavano, people often say “but Boston and Seattle both wanted him too.” I don’t see how this is relevant. The Yanks should’ve seen him for what he was and the presence of other suitors only means that “the masses are asses” as the saying goes.

Otherwise, I’m on board with your essay and agree with you.

Thanks for taking the time out to write this… It isn’t as easy as Steve makes it look, eh?

Very nice job, Matt. I like the way that you kept the essay focused on the post-2005 Yankees and, within that, their new found focus on the amateur draft.

Why it took the Yankees so long to realize that the June draft was important is a mystery to me. All I can guess it that Steinbrenner’s impatience and free-spending on the major league level led the Yankees to behave in a “penny-wise, pound-foolish” manner.

Arguably, this is the first time since the draft was instituted in 1965 that the Yankees have treated it as important; that is indeed a hopeful sign for the future.