Yanks GM Ringless Streaks
Since 1947, there have only truly been five men to be G.M. of the Yankees for an extended period of time. These five are:
George Weiss – from 1947 through 1961.
Lee MacPhail – from 1967 through 1973.
Gabe Paul – from 1974 through 1977.
Gene Michael – from 1991 through 1995.
Brian Cashman – from 1998 through 2008.
Seeing this, I wondered: “What’s the longest streak that these guys ever went without winning a ring?”
For Weiss, it was just 2 years (twice): 1954-55 and 1959-60.
For MacPhail, it was all 7 years that he was in charge.
For Paul, it was 3 years: 1974-76.
For Michael, it was all 5 years that he was in charge.
For Brian Cashman, coming into this season, it’s been a 7-year run without a ring (2001-07).
So, if the Yankees do not win a ring this season, Brian Cashman will set a New York Yankees record: Most seasons in a row (8) as Yankees G.M. without winning a World Series ring during that streak – since 1947.
Of course, yes, the Yankees won rings in 1998, 1999 and 2000 – when Cashman was the G.M.
However, a case can be made that Gene Michael and Bob Watson built the cadre of that three-peat team and it fell into Cashman’s lap when he took over in 1998. And, that group was pretty much done around 2001 (when Cashman’s ring-less streak began).
In any event, it’s an interesting fact, this ring-dry-spell streak, that Cashman has fashioned. And, in terms of Yankees history, if there’s no ring for Cash this year, it’s about to become an unparalleled feat.
You’ve got issues.
They’ve made the WS twice in that span and were a Mariano Rivera blown save from making it 3 times. Is Cashman merely capable of building a team that can get to the WS but not win it?
Wow, can you really be this dense Steve?
Aside from the point hat asdf made above, Cashman didn’t have full operational control over those years.
I think I’m going to start a blog about Steve soon whose only goal is to criticize the heck out of him, and rip apart every single decision he has ever made, while conveniently ignoring any good he has done.
Hey, if Brian Cashman has a site dedicated to (or against) him, why shouldn’t Steve Lombardi?
Steve, have you considered changing the title of the blog to: “Cashman and Hughes Suck”? I think it would be quite a bit more accurate.
Steve, if you had a gun with one bullet in it and Osama Bin Laden was standing side by side with Brian Cashman, who would you shoot? It’s seriously bordering on obsessive, your hatred for Cashman. Why not change the url for this site to firebriancashman.com, like the joe morgan guys.
All of your readers know that Cashman has made mistakes and I don’t think anyone of us is arguing that he’s the greatest GM ever. But it gets tiresome to read everyday, in one way or another, what an imbecile he is or what terrible moves he’s made or how the Yankees futility can be traced to him. I know you have to update your blog frequently to attract traffic and whatnot, but I’d rather read about a good movie you’ve seen recently or maybe a vacation on the horizon that you and your family are going on that another Cashman Sucks post. Just my 2 cents.
You may want to consider that there is now revenue sharing and a luxury tax that has fostered parity in MLB.
Steve, if you had a gun with one bullet in it and Osama Bin Laden was standing side by side with Brian Cashman, who would you shoot?
—–
Ha, ha, ha, ha. Thanks for the laugh.
Wow – really, Steve? This means absolutely nothing. You’re making it out to mean that Cashman is somehow the least successful GM in Yankee history. I know that YOU think that, but your mind and reality aren’t necessarily in lock-step. What a buffoon.
And have you noticed the price trend of gasoline since Tyler Clippard was traded? Who’s to blame for that? Yep, that’s right.
~~Cashman didn’t have full operational control over those years.~~
So, are you willing to then say that he deserves no credit for the rings in 1998, 1999, and 2000?
Well, if he deserves credit for those, then he deserves blame for 2001-2007.
Hey, Cashman fans, what part of the post here is not true? It’s all facts – not opinion. Sorry if I can’t change the truth to make Cashman look good for you.
drinking40ozs – I’m hoping to see Iron Man soon. So, you have a shot at getting what you want soon.
Steve,
Read this post carefully:
“All of your readers know that Cashman has made mistakes and I don’t think anyone of us is arguing that he’s the greatest GM ever. But it gets tiresome to read everyday, in one way or another, what an imbecile he is or what terrible moves he’s made or how the Yankees futility can be traced to him. I know you have to update your blog frequently to attract traffic and whatnot, but I’d rather read about a good movie you’ve seen recently or maybe a vacation on the horizon that you and your family are going on that another Cashman Sucks post. Just my 2 cents.”
As for your “facts” argument, how’s this? Your increasing tendency to take potshots at Cashman has turned this blog into crap. That’s not an opinion, that’s a fact. I’m starting to wonder if your overlords at SNY.tv are demanding an anti-Cashman post everyday.
Fact:
The Yankees haven’t made it past the ALDS since you’ve started this blog Steve.
Hmmm….
Well, I mean, here are your choices. Either you give Cashman credit for the years he was in office, (so he gets credit for three rings…maybe you should make a post on rings per GM? Nah, those FACTS would make Cashman look goood), or you only count since 2005. Either way, he doesn’t really look too bad, does he?
Also, why not make a post detailing World Series appearances? That would make Cashman look even better, wouldn’t it? Or playoff appearances – what Yankee GM has had their team make the playoffs in 12 straight years?
But nah, let’s go out of our way to make Cashman look bad, by using his tenure in office. Somehow, tenure in office is a bad thing. Wow. You sure are a dummy, Steve.
~~Your increasing tendency to take potshots at Cashman has turned this blog into crap. That’s not an opinion, that’s a fact. ~~
Then, why read it?
Sorry, 10 straight years. Point still stands very well, though.
~~Somehow, tenure in office is a bad thing. Wow. You sure are a dummy, Steve.~~
Sticks and stones. But, coming from you (yes, I’ve seen the the NoMaas boards) that doesn’t shock me.
You mock me more often that I cite Cashman’s record. What does that say about your obsession?
In any event, yes, tenure is not a good thing when you do not meet the goals of your organization for 8 years in a row, no?
~~~The Yankees haven’t made it past the ALDS since you’ve started this blog Steve. ~~~
If the brothers Stein would start reading it, well, maybe that would change in the future.
In any event, yes, tenure is not a good thing when you do not meet the goals of your organization for 8 years in a row, no?
___
Refresh my memory. Were you calling for Joe Torre’s head too?
“In any event, yes, tenure is not a good thing when you do not meet the goals of your organization for 8 years in a row, no?”
Let’s review this record for those 8 years then. In 2001 and 2003, the Yankees got to the World Series. Hell, in 2001, the Yankees were mere outs away from winning, and 2003, the Yankees were clear favorites. Yet, it is Cashman’s fault that the Yankees didn’t win.
The Yankees came within one out of going to the World Series in 2004. But it is Cashman’s fault that Rivera couldn’t nail down Game 4. Okay.
Cashman made all the necessary moves to bring the Yankees to the playoffs and give them a shot to win each and every single year he’s been in office.
Now, I know you want to say it. I know you want to say “Ah ha! But he didn’t PREPARE them for the playoffs!” But this is a fallacy. Do you really think the Yankees were ‘prepared’ for the playoffs in 2000? They were mediocre in 2000, and their only good starter was Clemens. Yet, huh, they pulled it off, while other, better teams didn’t. Now, this is either precisely Cashman’s doing (hint: it’s not), or a product of luck (this is the correct answer). All you can really ask for a general manager to do is put his team in the playoffs. Anyone will tell you that if you focus on building a team for the playoffs (and what does that even MEAN?), chances are you’re not getting there.
I just wish you’d understand this very simple, and very easy concept. Everyone else seems to get it, and we don’t even have to write blogs to be able to understand.
~~~Refresh my memory. Were you calling for Joe Torre’s head too?~~~
Yes, for the same reason – too many years on the job left him too cozy.
~~~All you can really ask for a general manager to do is put his team in the playoffs.~~~
Not really. You can ask, when your payroll is $200 million, for your GM to put his team in the playoffs and have it built in a manner where it can win in the playoffs.
The way Brian Cashman has built his teams is the following: Spend about $200 million on great offensive players and pitchers that are either over-hyped or past their prime. And, during the regular season, when those mega-batters are matched-up against the bad pitching teams in the A.L., it covers for the weak Yankees pitching and then New York starts to pile up win totals. But, come the post-season, when you face teams with good pitching, or you face a team in a format where they can use their best pitchers and hide their duds, your great hitters get shut down and then your weak pitchers get exposed, and you lose the series.
I wish you’d “understand this very simple, and very easy concept.” But, you cannot – because of your desire to worship Cashman.
OK, Steve, for the sake of argument, who’s your realistic successor for Cash and why?
The Ca$hman Kool-Aid drinkers are massing!
Isn’t this the same Ca$hman that allowed A-Freud to talk his way out of being DL’d and play? Even though the quad can be tricky — and Alex was going to miss some games during that span anyway, when the quad first was tweaked, owing to the arrival of a new baby? Yeah, don’t bother answering, same guy.
Drink up boyos! Drink deeply.
Rich – my take on that is the same as it was one year ago:
http://waswatching.com/2007/05/29/the-yankees-bite/
Then, why read it?
=======================
I love reading this board because:
1. If the Yanks lose I look forward to see what you’ll complain about.
2. If the Yanks win I look forward to see what you’ll complain about.
3. When you get on a Captain Ahab jag (Cashman in 2007+, Arod before that), I like to see what ways you’ll try to “back in” to show how responsible they are for every single thing that might not be perfect.
4. Then I look forward to how you sometimes bring out the “Yankees blinder” charge when debate on a topic comes up. I think it’s fascinating because I think your Yankee Blinders are the strongest of anyone’s, but yours only see faults.
Those are some of the reasons this blog is one of the four (after LoHud, Banter, River Ave) I look forward to reading. It’s very entertaining.
If you like my complaining, then you must love to read the comments where people complain about my complaining…but, wait, would that then just be self-love on your part?
You may want to consider that there is now revenue sharing and a luxury tax that has fostered parity in MLB.
————–
Doesn’t mean as much as you think. Clearly it doesn’t have much affect on the Yanks, as they keep making the playoffs.
The way Brian Cashman has built his teams is the following: Spend about $200 million on great offensive players and pitchers that are either over-hyped or past their prime. And, during the regular season, when those mega-batters are matched-up against the bad pitching teams in the A.L., it covers for the weak Yankees pitching and then New York starts to pile up win totals. But, come the post-season, when you face teams with good pitching, or you face a team in a format where they can use their best pitchers and hide their duds, your great hitters get shut down and then your weak pitchers get exposed, and you lose the series.
————-
Prove it.
You think Paul Byrd, Kenny Rogers, etc, etc, etc aren’t or weren’t duds?
Isn’t this the same Ca$hman that allowed A-Freud to talk his way out of being DL’d and play?
———–
You think “A-Freud” is the only player who has played hurt? You think he’s the first player who didn’t think an injury is as bad as he originally thought?
Would you like the players to hit the DL everytime they have an ouchie?
~~~Prove it.~~~
Raf, see:
http://waswatching.com/2007/12/14/stats-results-cashman/
Didn’t prove anything. As posted in that thread;
SL – “But, clearly, Cashman has picked-up more bad big league pitchers, than good, for the Yankees during the last handful of seasons. And, this is why the Yankees, despite being able to win games during the regular season, have failed in October since 2004.
================
R – The pitchers you gave Cashman a “gold star” for acquiring have failed in the playoffs. His bad acquisitions have succeeded in the playoffs.”
-AND-
R – “I think it should also be noted that of the 17 pitchers listed above* only 2 (Farnsworth & Villone) pitched in the 2007 postseason, and it appears they were effective.
2006: 4 (Farnsworth, Lidle, Villone, Wright). Again, Farns & Villone were effective. Wright got the start in game 4 (elimination game), Lidle offered nonrelief the same game.
2005: 3 (Chacon, Small, Sturtze). Only Chacon was effective.
Given that pitchers like RJ, Mussina & Wang, to name but three, have spit the bit, I think the study may be a bit flawed.”
* – The list that I referenced was “Yankees worst pitchers from 2004 to 2007″
then you must love to read the comments where people complain about my complaining…but, wait, would that then just be self-love on your part?
================
The complaining comments are the best thing because they’re not going to get anything changed. I used to complain about the repetitiveness of the themes but I’ve learned to embrace it and enjoy it from my own perspective. I do comment when I don’t agree with your methodology, though.
Raf – do you not agree that the Yankees pitching, as a team, has gone south following 2003 – and, at the same time, their post-season fortunes have been bad? If you don’t, you’re ignoring the stats and facts and I cannot help you. But, if you do, you don’t think there’s a connection there?
Basura – it would be nice if you commented as often when you agree with what’s written too.
That’s my issue with those who like to get on me for being “negative.” They’re just as “negative” because they only comment to bitch and hardly comment when they have nothing to bitch about…hence, they’re doing exactly what they accuse me of doing.
Raf – do you not agree that the Yankees pitching, as a team, has gone south following 2003 – and, at the same time, their post-season fortunes have been bad?
======
I agree.
Where we seem to disagree is on this part; “Cashman has picked-up more bad big league pitchers, than good, for the Yankees during the last handful of seasons. And, this is why the Yankees, despite being able to win games during the regular season, have failed in October since 2004.”
Linking the “bad” pitchers to October failures. I say this because “good” pitchers that Cashman acquired or inherited (Mussina, Pettitte, Rivera, Clemens, Duque, Wang, etc) have failed in the playoffs.
But, maybe, if he picked up more good pitchers – instead of the bad ones – that would have offset the Mussinas, Vazquez’s, Browns, Johnson’s, Wangs, etc., who failed in October, no?
But, maybe, if he picked up more good pitchers – instead of the bad ones – that would have offset the Mussinas, Vazquez’s, Browns, Johnson’s, Wangs, etc., who failed in October, no?
————-
eh?
2004 ALCS, Yanks up 3-0 and have homefield advantage. Lined up, you have Duque, Mussina, Lieber and Brown. I’m pretty confident with the odds of the Yanks taking at least one of those games.
Esteban Loaiza didn’t do squat during the regular season; are you suggesting, that maybe he should’ve gotten a start over the 4 guys previously mentionned?
2007; who do you start instead of Wang (2) and Pettitte. The Yanks lost games started by them.
Basura – it would be nice if you commented as often when you agree with what’s written too.
====================
Steve, I rarely agree with what’s written here or think while it might be “correct” (i.e., the Yanks aren’t as good without Arod) it’s really not worth it to me to write “Amen”. It’s the statements like Cashman’s failure to select Huston Street in a previous draft (2004?) as the cause of a current predicament I find outrageous enough to make me want to comment.
I don’t think you make outrageous (in my opinion, of course) comments to be outrageous – it’s only that they come out that way sometimes.
The RCAA’s and RSAA writings don’t do much for me. I appreciate Lee’s work but I think they’re used out of context many times just as on some websites Pythagorean Theory rules.
They might be accurate measures but until I see them listed in the official standings I’m going to be more interested in how wins and losses are achieved.
Well, enough going on from me. I only wanted to let you know why I (even though the question was directed at someone else) enjoy reading the site although I don’t agree with much.
Doesn’t mean as much as you think. Clearly it doesn’t have much affect on the Yanks, as they keep making the playoffs.
____
Yes it does because it limits the players from other teams that are available in free agency and/or in trades because small revenue teams use the Yankees’ money to sign their own players.
But for the luxury tax and revenue sharing the supply of these young assets would be increased which would lower the price (in terms of assets surrendered in trades).
That increase in available talent may have provided the player(s) that could have pushed the Yankees over the top.
Yes it does because it limits the players from other teams that are available in free agency and/or in trades because small revenue teams use the Yankees’ money to sign their own players.
———
But there are teams that wont retain their own players. Oakland let Giambi walk. The Mets let Mike Hampton walk. The Giants let Barry Bonds walk. The Indians let Manny Ramirez walk.
Johan Santana was traded, Bartolo Colon was traded, Miguel Cabrera & Dontrelle Willis was traded.
Of course there are salary dump trades that the Yanks have made with the Dodgers (Kevin Brown), Blue Jays (Raul Mondesi) & Phillies (Abreu/Lidle).
The Yanks could’ve had many of the players listed, but for whatever reason did not go after them. They could’ve signed Mussina & Ramirez after the 2000 season. They could’ve acquired Beltran & RJ after the 2004 season.
Raf,
That’s my point. Giambi, Hampton, and Ramirez walked under the old CBA. The same holds true of Colon (pre-injury).
Yes, Santana was traded, but that has become the exception (I don’t count Willis because he isn’t a top player anymore).
The point remains. Small market teams are extending their best young players by buying out their arbitration years, and others are purchasing players (through trades or free agency) that in years past they would be unable to compete for.
As examples, Seattle traded for Bedard, Kansas City has been active in free agency, the Marlins just gave Ramirez $70 million, the Astros signed Oswalt to a big contract, the D’backs traded for Haren, the Rays gave Pena a big contract, the BJ’s have acquired players like Burnett and Ryan, and on and on.
That type of small market participation wasn’t happening in the mid-90s through 2000.
Yes, Santana was traded, but that has become the exception (I don’t count Willis because he isn’t a top player anymore).
———
I included Willis because he was a “name” player that commands a decent salary.
The point also remains that small-market teams will move players. The Marlins extended Ramirez, but at the same time, they moved Cabrera.
Not sure where Baltimore & Toronto & Arizona fits, but they were active players in the FA market at one time or another.
Teams mentioned above let players go that they felt they were not able to afford. I find it hard to believe that the O’s, for instance, could not retain Ryan, if they so desired.
If it came down to a bidding war, Yanks, Dodgers, Boston, etc would win hands down.
The point also remains that small-market teams will move players. The Marlins extended Ramirez, but at the same time, they moved Cabrera.
___
Nothing is pure, but the system that came into being as a result of the new CBA is taking more players off the market, particularly young pitchers, and more teams are involved in the bidding for them when they do hit the market.
Will there alway be a few players that only a handful of teams can afford? Maybe, but that doesn’t negate the larger point.
As for Santana, time will tell, but there may be good baseball reasons for not wanting to break the bank for him. While he is still effective, his velocity is down.
Baltimore is sui generis. There is no reason why they couldn’t be big players if they were run right, but instead they are dumping everyone. Maybe that changes if MacPhail builds up a young core and then has to spend to keep them or supplement the core from the outside.
Nothing is pure, but the system that came into being as a result of the new CBA is taking more players off the market, particularly young pitchers, and more teams are involved in the bidding for them when they do hit the market.
———-
That’s something worth researching. IMO, think player retention/movement is about the same.