• Cashman Appreciation Project – Follow Up Request

    Posted by on December 17th, 2007 · Comments (42)

    Five days ago, I pitched WasWatching.com’s Cashman Appreciation Project – asking readers to submit an essay that details all the positive things that Brian Cashman has brought to the Yankees in his ten years as G.M. – with the following conditions:

    It can’t just be “one” thing – I want to see at least four positive things that Cashman has brought to the picture in the last decade. (Four things over the course of 120 months should not be so tough, right?) And, you can’t make statements/claims without showing the whole picture and providing details and facts. For example:

    I don’t want to see a statement like: “Brian Cashman helped the Yankees organization by staffing the team with great young arms [period]”

    If you’re going to make a claim like that, I want to also see: What brought cause for the need of the arms? Who was responsible for that? Who are the young arms? What have they done to date and at what level? What have they proven in terms of being able to succeed at the major league level? What proof do we have that Cashman, and not Damon Oppenheimer and/or Mark Newman, was the driving force behind their joining the organization?

    To date, only one person has accepted the challenge: Matt Johnson.

    And, with his submission, Johnson decided to focus on Cashman’s actions since 2005, ignoring the seven years before that time, and highlighting Cashman’s recent trend of keeping draft picks, signing international players, and not trading pitching prospects. However, to this, I would counter that very few (if any) of these Post-2005 actions noted by Johnson have brought genuine, substantial and sustained positive impact to the Yankees major league team, to date. They may, indeed, become fruitful in the near or somewhat-near future. But, any claim that they will result in the Yankees favor, soon or fairly soon, for fact, is just soothsayer speculation at this junction.

    Therefore, I’m still at square one in terms of seeing, from others, the detectable and positive things that Brian Cashman has brought to the Yankees in his ten years as G.M. – and, once again, I’m asking for “you” to provide an assist on this one.

    If you’re interested in submitting a “Cashman Appreciation” essay, under the above guidleines, please send it to me via e-mail. While I can’t promise to publish all of them, I will make every attempt to publish the best of the bunch.

    Comments on Cashman Appreciation Project – Follow Up Request

    1. SteveB
      December 17th, 2007 | 3:24 pm

      So this is a sneaky backhanded way for you to point out that Cashman sucks or something?

    2. SteveB
      December 17th, 2007 | 3:26 pm

      Sorry, “sneaky” was the wrong word. I meant, “transparent.”

    3. SteveB
      December 17th, 2007 | 3:32 pm

      I mean really, nobody can write anything that you can’t say “well, that’s luck” or “maybe someone else was responsible for that.” Proving that a GM did stuff that won baseball games beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt seems to me to be a pretty substantial waste of time.

      I know the following. Since Cashman has been on board, the Yankees have gone from a “sign the highest profile free agent no matter the cost, and no matter how well that player fits the teams needs,” mentality, to a “develop our own younger cheaper talent, don’t trade them away just because there is a shiny toy to be had, and build with a long term vision instead of a myopic reactive knee-jerk M.O.”

      Can I de facto attribute all of this to Cash? Nope. Have the Yankees signed some absolute busts during Cashman’s watch? You bet. Is that his “fault?” Who knows? Maybe it’s just bad luck.

    4. jonm
      December 17th, 2007 | 3:36 pm

      That period is hard to cover because it simply is very difficult to know what moves were Cashman’s, which belonged to Tampa, and which belonged to George. Because it is based on speculation, I don’t see this as being a good question.

      Two very bad moves during this period were the Johnson trade and keeping Williams in center. Cashman had nothing to do with the first, apparently. He tried to move Bernie out of center by signing Lofton, but Torre refused to do it apparently.

    5. December 17th, 2007 | 3:42 pm

      ~~~That period is hard to cover because it simply is very difficult to know what moves were Cashman’s, which belonged to Tampa, and which belonged to George. Because it is based on speculation, I don’t see this as being a good question.~~~

      I would disagree. The Tampa moves were all, for the most part, later flushed out. Everyone knows Stein signed Bernie when he was about to go to Boston. Everyone knows that Stein signed Sheffield. Everyone knows that Womack and Wright were Tampa moves. Everyone knows that Cashman whined and dined Pavano. Everyone knows that Cashman started the talks on Justice and A-Rod. This stuff has all been documented, eventually. It’s not so hard to look up who was behind what.

    6. Raf
      December 17th, 2007 | 3:49 pm

      Since Cashman has been on board, the Yankees have gone from a “sign the highest profile free agent no matter the cost, and no matter how well that player fits the teams needs”…
      =========================
      But even before he came on board, the Yanks really weren’t an organization that did that. There was a need for Giambi, who supplanted Martinez @ 1b (Nick Johnson was injury prone), and there was a need for Mussina who replaced Cone/Neagle/Mendoza in the rotation.

      Had they signed Manny while O’Neill was there, I’d see your point.

    7. Raf
      December 17th, 2007 | 4:01 pm

      Two very bad moves during this period were the Johnson trade and keeping Williams in center. Cashman had nothing to do with the first, apparently. He tried to move Bernie out of center by signing Lofton, but Torre refused to do it apparently.
      =====================
      Who knows? Johnson had one good year, one bad year. And even if Lofton didn’t move out of CF, he could’ve been useful in 2005; there wasn’t a pressing need to trade him

    8. Raf
      December 17th, 2007 | 4:03 pm

      Had they signed Manny while O’Neill was there, I’d see your point.
      =========
      I should not have been so definitive; there may be a transaction that I immediately cannot think of.

    9. December 17th, 2007 | 4:18 pm

      ~~~So this is a sneaky backhanded way for you to point out that Cashman sucks or something?~~~

      SteveB – no, it’s the opposite. I’ve gone on record in this blog, many times, with my opinion that I don’t see the value that Cashman is adding to the franchise – and, in my opinion, he’s probably hurt the franchise with the roster moves that he’s made since 2002. And, for that, I’ve been trashed (in comments left). However, to date, no one has even been able to show me where I am wrong – meaning no one has shown me where, in the last ten years, Cashman has done things that have helped the team at the big league level – enough to offset the things, I believe, he’s done to hurt the team.

      Everyone likes to scream “You hate Cashman!” at me. Well, this is my scream back – it’s: “Show me the reasons why I should love Cashman.” And, I don’t want to hear “ Well, since 2005, he’s done…” That’s like saying “Hey, you know that guy who lives next door and who used to throw dung at me everyday for the last six months? Well, for the past week, he’s not doing it so much. I’m glad he’s my neighbor now.”

      I’m not looking for a “backhanded way for you to point out that Cashman sucks” – using your words. I’m looking for someone to show me what I’ve missed since 1998 that says I should be thrilled that Brian Cashman has been and is the G.M. of the Yankees – that’s all.

    10. jonm
      December 17th, 2007 | 4:30 pm

      The Tampa moves were all, for the most part, later flushed out. Everyone knows Stein signed Bernie when he was about to go to Boston.
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Still, not good enough. We would also have to know which of the Steinbrenner/Tampa moves Cashman agreed with and which he disagreed with to make this exercise worthwhile. You keep trying to make this about one man, when really we should be talking about the Yankee organization during this period.

    11. December 17th, 2007 | 4:36 pm

      The Yankees have won more games and more WS titles in the 10 years under Cashman than any other team in baseball. What more do you want?

      Not ever player can be Derek Jeter. Not every pitcher can be David Cone. Some moves work, some don’t. It’s the nature of the best.

    12. Raf
      December 17th, 2007 | 4:37 pm

      However, to date, no one has even been able to show me where I am wrong – meaning no one has shown me where, in the last ten years, Cashman has done things that have helped the team at the big league level – enough to offset the things, I believe, he’s done to hurt the team.
      ================================
      That’s assuming the things he has done has hurt the team.

      I have shown where I think you were wrong in the relevant entries.

      I think the question posed may be a bit vague. For example; the “Francisco Arcia” entry last week. you gave Lin Garrett the credit, but does Cashman get partial credit as well? I ask because the entry links to an entry you previously posted which has a Baseball America article that says (how’s that for a run on sentence?) “general manager Brian Cashman authorized the international scouting department to be aggressive this summer.”

      I think some further guidelines may be in order. Do we run with the assumption that the buck stops with Cashman, and he gets credit for the way the organization has been run (top to bottom) since ’98?

    13. Raf
      December 17th, 2007 | 4:44 pm

      The Yankees have won more games and more WS titles in the 10 years under Cashman than any other team in baseball. What more do you want?
      ==========
      That’s something else; given the randomness of the playoffs, giving him credit for that, is like giving someone credit for winning the lottery.

      Then, do we compare him to his peers? Do we limit comparisions to GM’s whose teams have made the playoffs?

    14. December 17th, 2007 | 4:51 pm

      ~~~The Yankees have won more games and more WS titles in the 10 years under Cashman than any other team in baseball. What more do you want?~~~

      The 4 rings, 96-98-99-00 were won by the players, for the most part, brought in by Stick and Watson…Cashman inherited a great squad in 1998 and rode it out. Since that squad was mostly gone, around 2003, the Yankees have not won any rings.

    15. antone
      December 17th, 2007 | 4:54 pm

      To Steve’s defense, I have a hard time going either way on this. I think it’s still up in the air as to whether or not Cashman is making a difference or if someone else could do a better job. I really don’t think there has been any great talent out there worth acquiring through free agency the last few years without overpaying. I tend to lean on the side of keeping him around since they have been making the playoffs and I do like the young talent. Plus, I think he should get a few years with Girardi as the manager before the Yankees decide his fate.

    16. December 17th, 2007 | 4:55 pm

      ~~~We would also have to know which of the Steinbrenner/Tampa moves Cashman agreed with and which he disagreed with to make this exercise worthwhile. You keep trying to make this about one man, when really we should be talking about the Yankee organization during this period.~~~

      If Cash agreed with the move, even if it started in Tampa, I would be willing to give him credit for the move – therefore, it also makes sense to give him the blame if it did not.

      If Cashman disagreed with the move, the media would have marked it as a Tampa move and we’d know about it – and Cashman should not be blamed for it – nor should he get the credit if it worked out well.

    17. December 17th, 2007 | 5:01 pm

      BTW, Raf, and jonm, you two have come at me somewhat on this lately. So, how about it?

      I’ve thrown down the gauntlet – asking for essays. Why not pick it up and write one and send it to me?

      Or, is it just easier to say “Oh, it’s so hard to prove that he’s done a good job because of X,Y,Z – but, I KNOW that YOU’RE WRONG when you say he’s done a poor job”?

      If I’m wrong, show me why, with an essay – and I’m publish it for you. Please, do it.

    18. Raf
      December 17th, 2007 | 5:06 pm

      Since that squad was mostly gone, around 2003, the Yankees have not won any rings.
      ===========
      But they didn’t win rings when Stick’s/Watson’s guys were there in 01, 02 & 03 either…

    19. December 17th, 2007 | 5:18 pm

      Fine, even if you say that Cash’s Yanks are the post-2003 squads, they’ve still made the playoffs every year and went to a WS. How many other teams have done that in that span? Zero.

    20. Raf
      December 17th, 2007 | 5:20 pm

      Or, is it just easier to say “Oh, it’s so hard to prove that he’s done a good job because of X,Y,Z – but, I KNOW that YOU’RE WRONG when you say he’s done a poor job”?
      =================
      Nice try at trying to bait…

      You can “challenge” me, but my comments are there in your threads. Logic and reasoning and the proof you desire are all there. I’m not the one coming at you with “CA$HMAN R00lZ!!11!” or “j00 R TEH suxx0rs” for not liking Cashman. We’ve gone back and forth in your entries. We’ve agreed on some things, we’ve disagreed on others.

      Everything you’ve asked for is there.

    21. Rich
      December 17th, 2007 | 5:35 pm

      “There was a need for Giambi, who supplanted Martinez @ 1b (Nick Johnson was injury prone)…”
      ___

      The problem with the Giambi signing was the terms of the contract, both in AAV and in length.

      Oakland did not want him back despite their assertions to the contrary, so in effect, George negotiated against himself.

      Cashman was out of the loop.

    22. December 17th, 2007 | 5:41 pm

      Cashman was in the loop on Giambi. EVERYBODY wanted Giambi. Hindsight is 20-20, you forget how in-demand he was back them.

    23. jonm
      December 17th, 2007 | 5:52 pm

      Cashman inherited a great squad in 1998 and rode it out. Since that squad was mostly gone, around 2003, the Yankees have not won any rings.
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      That changes and focuses the question. Now, the question becomes “why have Cashman’s players not done well in the post-season?” But that is a an assumption which leads to a tricky question. You cannot make a blanket statement that it is starting pitching that doomed the Yankees. Starting pitching doomed them in 2002, 2006, and 2007, but not the other years.

      It’s also not clear that the Cashman acquisitions were the ones who failed in the post-season. For example, it’s clear that Mariano Rivera was the goat of the 2004 ALCS. But what can you take from that? Does that mean that the Yankees should have dumped Mariano in favor of another closer before that season? I certainly would not want to argue that.

      I would be willing to write an essay on trying to find the reason why the Yankees have failed in the post-season in recent years. (I’ve compiled some quality start data, but I want to look more closely at WPA stuff.) This essay would take research and would only have an indirect connection to Cashman.

      I’m neutral on Cashman. If they replaced him with Dave Dombrowski, I would be very pleased. If they replaced him with Beane, Shapiro, O’Dowd, or Epstein, I would be slightly pleased. If they replaced him with anyone else, the jury would be out. That person could very well be worse than Cashman.

    24. baileywalk
      December 17th, 2007 | 6:10 pm

      Just out of curiosity, Steve: when would you have fired Cash and who would you have replaced him with? I’m just curious which year you thought deserved a firing and if you had a realistic GM candidate who could have come in at the time and made an improvement (not saying you don’t; just curious if you thought it through to that point).

    25. Zack
      December 17th, 2007 | 7:44 pm

      Yawn. So you don’t like Cashman and nobody really feels like putting in the time to debate you on your terms. Fine. I’m sure you wouldn’t want to put the time in to debate me on mine. We all know you don’t like Cashman, thats fine. On the other hand, I don’t really see how you can say you would prefer Watson or Stick, after all, wasn’t Stick a main advocate for trading for Weaver, and wasn’t Watson’s whole reason for resigning because he felt “powerless’ as GM?

    26. Rich
      December 17th, 2007 | 8:19 pm

      “Cashman was in the loop on Giambi. EVERYBODY wanted Giambi. Hindsight is 20-20, you forget how in-demand he was back them.”
      ___

      Giambi was a George move. Would Cashman have wanted him at a reasonable price? Maybe, but to think that he was in the loop at the contract price is absurd.

      No other team was willing to offer Giambi anywhere near to the contract that George offered him.

      Beane didn’t need 20-20 hindsight to know that he was likely to break down. That’s why he had no interest in giving him a long term contract, despite his public posturing.

      I’m confident that Cashman had just as much foresight, given his cost effective way of doing business.

    27. Raf
      December 17th, 2007 | 9:33 pm

      I would be willing to write an essay on trying to find the reason why the Yankees have failed in the post-season in recent years.
      ==========
      One of the reasons why the Yanks haven’t had a parade since 2000 is because of the failure of these normally reliable players;

      2001: Pettitte, Rivera
      2002: Pettitte, Duque, Stanton, Wells
      2004: Rivera, Brown, Vazquez
      2005: Johnson, Mussina, A.Rodriguez
      2006: Mussina, Johnson
      2007: Wang

      So does Cashman get blame/credit for acquiring these players? Do we want to get rid of these players? In the case of Johnson, in 2005 do we blast him for game 3 even though the Yanks had the lead? Do we give him credit for keeping the Yanks in game 5?

      There are too many variables to list, and to take into consideration. From the looks of it, Stick’s guys have failed, Watson’s guys have failed, Cashman’s guys have failed.

    28. Raf
      December 17th, 2007 | 9:36 pm

      may want to mull over the inclusion of Vazquez on that list…

    29. jonm
      December 17th, 2007 | 10:20 pm

      One of the reasons why the Yanks haven’t had a parade since 2000 is because of the failure of these normally reliable players
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      My point exactly, Raf. A team can’t make personnel decisions on the basis of post-season performance. After all, weren’t Pavano and Johnson great “big game” post-season performers before they came to the Yankees? Didn’t Jaret Wright kill the Yankees in 1997?

    30. Bob R.
      December 17th, 2007 | 10:35 pm

      On the contrary Steve. You have made the claim that Cashman has not added much to the Yankees in the past 10 years, but have been utterly unconvincing. The burden is on you to prove that the GM on a team that has consistently won its division and averaged 98.5 victories a year for 10 years is not doing a good job.

      All the twisting of logic and listing of poor deals cannot provide reasoning or evidence to support your view. Claiming that his obvious advantages undercuts any admiration for the work he has done is no argument at all. His job has been to keep the Yankees on top, and he has done that. And resting your case on recent failures in the post-season is frankly foolish. These were failures of men like Rivera and Pettitte and Jeter and Wang and A-Rod and the like, not the GM who assembled the team.

      Nobody has to defend Cashman or demonstrate he should be appreciated. That is self-evident and requires a bombshell of information and reasoning to think differently, something you have utterly failed to provide.

    31. December 17th, 2007 | 11:17 pm

      ~~~On the contrary Steve. You have made the claim that Cashman has not added much to the Yankees in the past 10 years, but have been utterly unconvincing.~~~

      Yeah, Bob, the Yankees pitching staff and bench of the last 4 years just showed up out of thin air. Cashman had nothing to do with it. Utterly nothing.

    32. December 17th, 2007 | 11:21 pm

      ~~You can “challenge” me, but my comments are there in your threads. Logic and reasoning and the proof you desire are all there. …
      Everything you’ve asked for is there.~~~

      Com’on Raf, if it’s all there, and as perfect and correct as you say, it can’t be that hard to pull it together into an essay that you can send to me for publishing.

      Or, is it just safer to stay in the crowd, taking pot shots at the presentation, than being on stage, as the presenter, where you’re open to inspection?

    33. December 17th, 2007 | 11:23 pm

      ~~~But they didn’t win rings when Stick’s/Watson’s guys were there in 01, 02 & 03 either… ~~~

      They came damn close in 01 and 03 – and Torre’s pitching moves did them in both times.

    34. December 17th, 2007 | 11:25 pm

      ~~~Just out of curiosity, Steve: when would you have fired Cash and who would you have replaced him with? I’m just curious which year you thought deserved a firing and if you had a realistic GM candidate who could have come in at the time and made an improvement (not saying you don’t; just curious if you thought it through to that point).~~~

      See: http://www.waswatching.com/archives/2007/05/the_yankees_bit.html

      At this point, I’d like to give Damon O. a shot.

    35. December 17th, 2007 | 11:27 pm

      ~~~wasn’t Watson’s whole reason for resigning because he felt “powerless’ as GM?~~~

      IIRC, Watson left because he didn’t want to work 18 hour days anymore.

    36. December 17th, 2007 | 11:32 pm

      ~~~Fine, even if you say that Cash’s Yanks are the post-2003 squads, they’ve still made the playoffs every year and went to a WS. How many other teams have done that in that span? Zero.~~~

      Since 2003, it’s been the same story. Use the bats to make up for weak pitching, during the season, and then get spanked in the LDS, or, in the case of 2004, the LCS.

      How many teams have made October every season since 2004 and been dismissed, with ease, in the playoff? Just one. Cashman’s team.

    37. December 17th, 2007 | 11:38 pm

      ~~~That changes and focuses the question. Now, the question becomes “why have Cashman’s players not done well in the post-season?” ~~~

      I don’t believe that it changes the question. Cashman has built regular season teams that are heavy on hitters and weak on pitching – because of his inability to pick pitchers. Those teams manage to win 95 games in the regular season by scoring tons of runs. But, those teams fail in October because the weak pitching stays weak and the hitters melt when facing the good pitchers only on the good teams – which the playoff format allows.

      If Cashman could pick pitchers, and build a regular season team based on strong pitching with hitting, then he would win in the regular season AND win in October.

      The regular season thing and the October thing is the same thing…the thing being how Cashman builds his team.

    38. December 17th, 2007 | 11:41 pm

      OK, this will be my last comment on this entry….

      to all, anyone…

      If I’m wrong on Cashman, show me why, with an essay – and I’m publish it for you. Please, do it.

      That’s all I’m asking for here. Thanks.

    39. Rich
      December 17th, 2007 | 11:54 pm

      “Since 2003, it’s been the same story. Use the bats to make up for weak pitching, during the season, and then get spanked in the LDS, or, in the case of 2004, the LCS.”
      _____

      Cash realized that the pitching was a weakness, but he had no control over the draft, and he was dependent on a farm system that had failed to produce a quality pitching prospect from Pettitte to Wang, so obviously his options were limited.

      So he tried to paste together a starting rotation by acquriing Weaver (who was subsequently turned into Brown), Vazquez, and Pavano, all of whom were highly valued around MLB when he acquired them. He employed a similar process to fill out the pen, succeeding only with Gordon and to a lesser extent Proctor.

      Granted, that route failed. So he lobbied ownership to get control over the draft, finally winning out in 2005.

      Since then, I think it’s inarguable that he has done a tremendous job (with Oppenheimer’s help).

      If Hank doesn’t interfere with the plan going forward, the Yankees are on a glide path to having one of the best pitching staffs in MLB for years.

    40. December 18th, 2007 | 12:04 am

      the jury is still out on two of his bigger moves: the RJ and Sheff trades.

      i dont have the time or energy to write an essay so here’s 4 things:
      1. postseason berths for a decade straight. no other team has ever done that.
      1b. best record in MLB 6 times (in just 10 years!)
      2. the Arod trade.
      2b. Justice trade.
      2c. getting anything for Irabu, Wright and RJ.
      2d. Abreu trade.
      3. Moose deal.
      3b. supposedly wanting Vlad over Sheff.
      3c. Matsui.
      4. revamped the farm system – we’ll be stacked with good, cheap, homegrown guys for years.

    41. Raf
      December 18th, 2007 | 12:43 am

      Or, is it just safer to stay in the crowd, taking pot shots at the presentation, than being on stage, as the presenter, where you’re open to inspection?
      =====
      Yeah, uh, whatever.

      I don’t know what your problem is, I’ve debated your comments with respect. I don’t need to write an essay to tell you why you’ve been wrong on Cashman. If you haven’t read my entries, why should I waste my time and effort doing something I don’t need to do for someone who has no interest in reading it.

      Your main gripe has to do with Yankees postseason performance, but here’s the deal as what I posted earlier;

      One of the reasons why the Yanks haven’t had a parade since 2000 is because of the failure of these normally reliable players;

      2001: Pettitte, Rivera
      2002: Pettitte, Duque, Stanton, Wells
      2004: Rivera, Brown, Vazquez
      2005: Johnson, Mussina, A.Rodriguez
      2006: Mussina, Johnson
      2007: Wang

      There are too many variables to list, and to take into consideration. From the looks of it, Stick’s guys have failed, Watson’s guys have failed, Cashman’s guys have failed.

      You want simple answers to complex questions, black and white answers where they cannot be found, and I’m not going to get sucked into it anymore than I have, especially when you move the goalposts like you do;

      “They came damn close in 01 and 03 – and Torre’s pitching moves did them in both times.” So are we getting on Torre’s managing, or are we getting on Cashman for acquiring the pitchers that failed in the big spots? Pitchers who have succeeded in those big spots? Is it Cashman’s/Torre’s fault that Pettitte was shelled in 01? Is it Cashman’s/Torre’s fault that Rivera couldn’t nail the save in game 7? You complain about Weaver in ’03. You know what, the Marlins winning TIED the series. The Yanks had two other opportunities to advance in the series.

      You said the Yanks haven’t been competitive in the postseason. That’s not true.

      You’ve complained about Marty Miller. I showed quotes where the players said they didn’t listen to the trainer (the exercises were too hard; can you believe it?). Is that Cashman’s, Torre’s or Miller’s fault?

      You complained about the ineffectiveness of the pitching staff. So do we have a problem with the fact that they’ve imploded, or the fact that there was enough breadth and depth in the system that weathered the implosion? And who gets credit for the breadth and depth?

      So on and so forth. Any point you’ve brought up, the reasonable ones, I’ve debated using stats and facts.

      It’s like debating with a wall. You obviously don’t want to listen, because you keep bringing up the same points up over and over again, despite them being disproven over and over again.

      So, yeah, I’m also done with the Cashman topic as well, unless you bring up something off the wall ridiculous.

    42. SteveB
      December 18th, 2007 | 10:22 am

      Nonetheless, this is a silly rhetorical device that you are constructing so that you can say, “I think Cashman sucks, and nooooobody can convince me otherwise, I even gave them the opportunity and they couldn’t do it.”

      When you say things like ‘Championships were won by the players’ you point out the futility of the entire exercise. You could use that line of reasoning to diminish everything a GM ever does. Ultimately it’s the players.

      I think a more honset way to do this, would be to shoot an e-mail over to the dudes at NoMaas, who are on record as loving Cashman. Take them on, see what they have to contribute to this debate.

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.