• Why Bringing Cashman Back Was A Mistake

    Posted by on October 1st, 2008 · Comments (86)

    As we learned yesterday, Brian Cashman and the Yankees have agreed on a three-year deal that will keep him with the team through the 2011 season as their General Manager.

    Now, Brian Cashman has some great qualities. As I wrote back on August 29, 2008:

    Brian Cashman has value. He understands New York. He can navigate through the Yankees organization. He’s polished. He can take a punch. There’s nothing wrong with having Brian Cashman as the face of the front office – and being the person on point between the owners, the team, the media and the fans.

    Still, Brian Cashman’s career resume in Yankeeland is also full of bad results as well.

    “What a minute!,” some are probably thinking here…”Cashman has three World Series rings on his report card. How are those results bad?”

    The answer to that is simple.

    Brian Cashman became Yankees G.M. on February 28, 1998. And, yes, the Yankees did win rings in 1998, 1999 and 2000. However, when Cashman took over as the head man in charge, the following players were already on the team: Bernie Williams, Mariano Rivera, Paul O’Neill, Derek Jeter, Tino Martinez, Andy Pettitte, Jorge Posada, Mike Stanton, David Cone, Ramiro Mendoza, David Wells, Joe Girardi, Jeff Nelson, Chad Curtis and Darryl Strawberry.

    This group of Yankees was added to the team by Stick Michael and Bob Watson. It was they, and not Cashman, who built a powerhouse entity (via this cadre of players) who went on to win three rings from 1998 through 2000 – and which benefited Brian Cashman when he took over for Watson in 1998.

    After 2001, when that the force that Michael and Watson created was nearly tapped out, is when the Yankees sincerely became “Brian Cashman’s team.” And, sure, from 2002 through 2008, under Cashman, the Yankees were marvelous in terms of their win totals and revenue. But, if not for Boston collapses in the 2003 ALCS and the regular seasons of 2005 and 2006, this seven-year period would not look as pretty for New York as it does on the average fan’s ledger.

    On the whole, Brian Cashman took a team that was a three-peat World Champion and turned them into a team that would finish first and then lose in the LDS…and then into a team that would no longer finish first but would win a Wildcard (and lose in the LDS)…and then into a team that would not make the post-season at all. Notice the trend here?

    In addition, there’s a long list of moves made by Brian Cashman that suggest he’s clueless when it comes to evaluating talent. For example:

    On February 1, 1999, he traded Mike Lowell to the Florida Marlins for Mark J. Johnson, Ed Yarnall, and Todd Noel.

    At that time, it was claimed that Cashman was stocking the Yankees system with up-and-coming young pitching talent – like Yarnall, Ben Ford, Ryan Bradley, and Craig Dingman – much like his recent “plan” with Phil Hughes, Ian Kennedy and Joba Chamberlain. (The plan didn’t work back then and it sure didn’t work this season.)

    On July 5, 2002, as part of a three-team trade, Cashman traded Ted Lilly, John-Ford Griffin, and Jason Arnold to the Oakland Athletics and received Jeff Weaver from the Detroit Tigers. For the Yankees, Weaver was a complete bust – while Lilly has been a solid major league starter since leaving New York.

    Looking to later dump Jeff Weaver, on December 13, 2003, Cashman traded Jeff Weaver, Yhency Brazoban, Brandon Weeden and cash to the Los Angeles Dodgers for Kevin Brown. Like Weaver, Brown was a bust in New York.

    Three days later, on December 16, 2003, Cashman traded Nick Johnson, Juan Rivera, and Randy Choate to the Montreal Expos for Javier Vazquez – who had as much fun in New York as Kevin Brown.

    The next year, on December 20, 2004, Cashman signed free agent Carl Pavano to a four-year deal worth nearly $40 million. Pavano would go on to become the modern day poster-child for a terrible free agent signing.

    Then, about two years later, in November of 2006, Cashman spent $26 million to earn the right to sign Japanese pitcher Kei Igawa – and then spent another $20 million on a contract for Igawa. When last seen, Igawa was coaching first base for the Yankees Triple-A farm team.

    Granted, it’s not been all bad under Cashman’s watch. As many would be quick to point out, players like Chien-Ming Wang and Robinson Cano have come to the Yankees under his leadership. Yet, Cashman reportedly also offered Wang and Cano to the Arizona Diamondbacks back in January 2005, in an attempt to acquire Randy Johnson, and they only remained with the Yankees because Arizona instead wanted Brad Halsey and Dioner Navarro. So, was Cashman smart with Cano and Wang, or, just lucky?

    Here’s another way to look at the job Brian Cashman has done – in terms of building the Yankees pitching (which is the element of the game that separates the men from the boys). Start with ERA+ (which is the ratio of the league’s ERA, adjusted to the pitcher’s ballpark, to that of the pitcher). An ERA+ greater than 100 is above average and an ERA+ less than 100 is below average.

    From 1998 through 2008, here’s a count of how many pitchers were on each Yankees team where they pitched in at least 10 games and had an ERA+ of 90 or less:

    Year	#
    2005	12
    2008	9
    2006	8
    2004	8
    2007	4
    2003	4
    2000	4
    2002	3
    2001	3
    1998	2
    

    [* Pitchers names appear at the close of this entry.]

    As you can see, from 1998 through 2003, the Yankees only had a few “dud” pitchers on their roster each year. However, in the last five seasons, the Yankees, on average, have had around eight “dud” pitchers on their roster each season. Those Yankees pitching staffs from 1998 through 2003 were manned by the Michael and Watson carry-overs. Since 2004, the Yankees pitching staff has been all-Cashman…and contained many “duds.”

    When you take this all in…the bad moves, especially when it comes to pitching, and bringing the team from the status of World Series contender down to first-round post-season road-kill and then down to non-contender…I just don’t see how you can reward Brian Cashman with another three years of being in charge of the New York Yankees.

    Obviously, the Yankees feel differently. And, if you ask me, that’s a mistake.

    As promised, here are those “dud” pitchers on the Yankees from 1998 through 2008:

    2005: 12 – Tanyon Sturtze / Felix Rodriguez / Scott Proctor / Mike Stanton / Buddy Groom / Alan Embree / Paul Quantrill / Carl Pavano / Al Leiter / Jaret Wright / Wayne Franklin / Kevin Brown

    2008: 9 – LaTroy Hawkins / David Robertson / Damaso Marte / Ross Ohlendorf / Darrell Rasner / Billy Traber / Sidney Ponson / Chris Britton / Ian Kennedy

    2006: 8 – Ron Villone / Randy Johnson / T.J. Beam / Tanyon Sturtze / Shawn Chacon / Octavio Dotel / Aaron Small / Cory Lidle

    2004: 8 – Felix Heredia / Tanyon Sturtze / Scott Proctor / Bret Prinz / Gabe White / C.J. Nitkowski / Jose Contreras / Esteban Loaiza

    2007: 4 – Sean Henn / Mike Mussina / Edwar Ramirez / Kei Igawa

    2003: 4 – Jeff Weaver / Sterling Hitchcock / Juan Acevedo / Jesse Orosco

    2000: 4 – David Cone / Allen Watson / Denny Neagle / Craig Dingman

    2002: 3 – Sterling Hitchcock / Randy Choate / Mike Thurman

    2001: 3 – Ted Lilly / Randy Keisler / Sterling Hitchcock

    1998: 2 – Mike Stanton / Mike Buddie

    1999: 0 – None

    Comments on Why Bringing Cashman Back Was A Mistake

    1. Corey
      October 1st, 2008 | 12:37 am

      im surprised you don’t mention jaret wright more. that was an utter disaster

    2. October 1st, 2008 | 12:41 am

      Jaret Wright was a “Tampa” move – like Tony Womack. To blame Cashman for those would be unfair.

    3. cookidge
      October 1st, 2008 | 12:50 am

      You are so far off base with your constant complaining and criticism of cashman. For a second there, I almost forgot why I stopped visiting your site. Thanks for reminding me!

    4. October 1st, 2008 | 12:55 am

      ~~You are so far off base~~

      Tell me what I wrote here that was not true. It’s all facts and stats. So, how can it be ‘so far off base’?

    5. Pat F
      October 1st, 2008 | 1:29 am

      Steve

      It seems that you, like most yankee fans, are happy with the team and players Stick primarily put together. How could we not. And, like most yankee fans, you are not happy with what the situation is now, or has been for the last few years.

      However, we all know cashman did not have final say over all bsaeball ops until 2005. Since then, it looks like cashman has been operating similarly to the way stick did in the early 90s. The team wasn’t good yet, but the foundation was being built.

      The situation we are in now is the way it is at least in part because of moves that cashman did not want to make. If he did make every move from 98 to 05 he wouldn’t have had it written into his contract that he had full control. And since, we haven’t had any miserable randy johnson deals.

      Of course, it hasn’t all been roses. Igawa and others have been mystifying. But, that is the case with any gm, as nickyf pointed out in a previous post with your boy dombrowski and the trainwreck he put together this year. Doesn’t mean he’s a bad gm, it just means he made some mistakes. Every gm has done it.

      The point is, if you love those late 90s yankee teams, you can thank stick for what he did in the early 90s. The same type of stuff cashman and his team are doing now.

    6. Raf
      October 1st, 2008 | 1:59 am

      Let’s see, from 2004-08, the Yanks have finished first in 3 of those 5 years.

      **For the Yankees, Weaver was a complete bust – while Lilly has been a solid major league starter since leaving New York.**

      Run a search on WW about Ted Lilly,
      “First, forget Ted Lilly. Yes, he’s a great guy. But, he’s somewhat injury-prone and he’s basically had one very good year in his career – in 2004. Plus, his BB/9 IP rate has gone up each of the last 3 years. At 31 in 2007, he’s trending the wrong way.”

      “But, Lilly only helps the Yankees as a back-of-the-rotation guy. He’s not going to fill the need of being a #2 or #3 starter in 2007.”

      Comments in those entries are quite telling as well.

      And Igawa?
      http://tinyurl.com/48fn43
      http://tinyurl.com/4pt4rx
      http://tinyurl.com/526lgn

      There are a couple more entries I don’t feel like linking to…

      You think Wang was a good acquisition? Cause he’s 1-3, 7.58 in the playoffs. You think Mussina was a good acquisition? Cause he spit the bit in 05 & 06.

      You don’t think that based on their work in 07, that Hughes, Kennedy & Chamberlain didn’t deserve to play a bigger role in 08?

      Kevin Brown a bust? 2004 had his ERA+ at 110. Did you or anyone else forsee such a poor performance in 2005?

      After Jeff Weaver came over, he posted an ERA+ of 109. Did you or anyone see him doing as bad as he did in 2003?

      Vazquez ERA+ with the Expos
      03: 139
      02: 108
      01: 130
      00: 119

      Why wouldn’t Cashman and the organization try to acquire a young starter with a proven track record?

    7. Raf
      October 1st, 2008 | 2:04 am

      However, we all know cashman did not have final say over all bsaeball ops until 2005.
      ———-
      Regardless, one would think that if the organization was so dysfunctional, that if Cashman was so clueless @ talent evaluation, that it would’ve taken a lot longer than 2008 for the Yanks to finally miss the playoffs. If it were so easy to build a championship team, then how come the Angels, Tigers, and Indians (who’ve bounced the Yanks in the first round) haven’t done it?

    8. Don
      October 1st, 2008 | 3:32 am

      None of ‘em are spending like the Yankees; that’ll buy you *close*.

      Isn’t this the Ca$hman team that puked-it-up in the 2004 ALCS? And ever since has been utterly lacking?

      Yeah, it is.

    9. October 1st, 2008 | 8:05 am

      ~~However, we all know cashman did not have final say over all bsaeball ops until 2005~~

      Agreed. And, that’s why I do not discredit Cashman for picking up players like Jaret Wright, Tony Womack, Kenny Lofton, and Raul Mondesi…among some others.

      Yet, even with the “Tampa” element in play, it’s clear that it was Cashman behind Pavano, Weaver, Brown, and Igawa…among some others…and that’s enough of a smoking gun to prove that he’s clueless when it comes to spotting talent that will play well in New York…in terms of winning championships.

    10. October 1st, 2008 | 8:09 am

      ~~one would think that if the organization was so dysfunctional, that if Cashman was so clueless @ talent evaluation, that it would’ve taken a lot longer than 2008 for the Yanks to finally miss the playoffs~~

      Prior to this season, there was only one team to beat in the AL East – Boston. And, the Red Sox tanked in 2005 and 2006.

      So, if those gifts from Boston did not occur in ’05 and ’06, the ledger would read as follows:

      Number of Yankee A.L. East 1st place finishes since 2004: One…

      …and then a lot less post-season appearances since 2004.

    11. Pat F
      October 1st, 2008 | 8:38 am

      Fair point in your response to me Steve.

    12. October 1st, 2008 | 8:41 am

      “So, if those gifts from Boston did not occur in ‘05 and ‘06, the ledger would read as follows

      Number of Yankee A.L. East 1st place finishes since 2004: One…

      …and then a lot less post-season appearances since 2004.”
      *****

      so now we’re in the business of re-writing history in order to try and prove a point?

      and wouldnt this actually argue that Theo isnt the GM he’s cracked up to be if his teams did collapse moreso than an indictment of Cashman’s GM years, where the teams he put together may have not won the WS, but fought back late in the season to win the division?

    13. Raf
      October 1st, 2008 | 8:52 am

      None of ‘em are spending like the Yankees;
      ——–
      You’re right. None of them retained their core like the Yankees either. On other teams, Posada, Jeter & Rivera would’ve walked a long time ago.

    14. Raf
      October 1st, 2008 | 8:58 am

      that’s enough of a smoking gun to prove that he’s clueless when it comes to spotting talent that will play well in New York…in terms of winning championships.
      —————–
      Given that both Sox, Cardinals, Diamondbacks and Marlins have recently won the World Series, I’d say there are quite a few GM’s that are clueless in terms of winning championships.

      If building a championship team’s a repeatable skill, why didn’t the Red Sox repeat in 05? Why didn’t the White Sox repeat in 06?

    15. diony
      October 1st, 2008 | 9:16 am

      Most of those moves were Tampa moves.

      Wait why you didn’t mention trading Gary Sheffield for Humberto Sanchez, Anthony Claggett and Kevin Whelan?

      And what about drafting players like Joba Chamberlain as a suplemental pick, even with the RISK.

      What about drafting young talent in later rounds, like Austin Jackson, Dellin Betances, Carmen Angelini, Austin Romine and others.

      Signing international free agents, like Jesus Montero and Francisco Cervelli.

      Building a bullpen, picking up Brian Bruney from Arizona, signing players like Jose Veras and Edwar Ramirez. Drafting Mark Melancon and David Robertson. So you don’t give Cashman credit for that?

      If you’re only going to mention the bad moves then that’s a lame way to prove your point.

      All GMs make mistakes. Even Epstein (an overrated GM) made a lot of mistakes. So bashing Cashman is stupid, there’s not a lot of good GMs that can handle THE PRESSURE OF BEING THE YANKEES GM out there. Is not a easy job. There’s Hank, Hal and George, and millions of fans and the Tampa faction.

      So I’m very happy to see Cashman back, so he can now finish what he started.

      If you don’t like Cashman then suck it up, he’s back.

      What about the Alex Rodriguez trade?!

    16. OnceIWasAYankeeFan
      October 1st, 2008 | 9:18 am

      When you point to the Weaver, Brown and Vasquez trades, the response has to be:

      Did you or anyone immediately say “that guy doesn’t have what it takes to pitch in NY”?

      I’m pretty sure the answer is no. Weaver and Vasquez looked like young aces to build a champion around. Brown was being overpaid for prior performance but was still, iirc, a pretty good pitcher.

      No one could predict what happened with these players. Just as no one could predict that Pavano would get hurt as often as he did. You could guess that Pavano might get hurt, miss most or all of one season. But get hurt so much that he makes 19 starts in 4 years? Yeah he’s the poster child for bad free agent signings, but why didn’t anyone say so at the beginning? Simple. Because no one knows what the future will bring.

      Bottom line, Steve:
      Cashman is simply your cross to bear. And instead of not making it through his three year deal, here’s what will probably happen:

      The Yankees will sport a roster that includes C.C. and at least one more of the best free agent pitchers; Teixeira, and someone else who is new, overpaid, and very, very good. The Yankees will win at least one more championship in the next three years, and Cashman will be your cross to bear for at least another multi-year contract.

      Last thing I have to mention. The Red Sox under Theo have decided that the post-season is a crap-shoot, and that the way to maximize your chance to win a championship is simply to make the tournament. Target 95 wins, make the post-season, hope for the best.

      Instead, in Yankeeland, its “win the whole thing or you’re a contemptible failure”.

      This inevitably leads to massive criticism of the GM for supposed failure to construct the proper “October” roster instead of being happy with having the chance to win most years.

      In short, is it Cashman’s fault that Wang has spit the bit in October? Did Cashman order up the midges that messed up Joba?

      The biggest problem isn’t roster construction and who is in charge of it, its the expectations of the Steinbrenners which filters down to the fans. If you’d set your sights on making the playoffs and accept that its tough to make it all the way through, you might have a little less aggravation in your life.

    17. October 1st, 2008 | 9:20 am

      ~~Given that both Sox, Cardinals, Diamondbacks and Marlins have recently won the World Series, I’d say there are quite a few GM’s that are clueless in terms of winning championships.~~

      How many other GMs in the game have wasted as much money on bad pitching, as Brian Cashman has, in the history of the game? Probably none.

      Again, you have to consider that the Yankees have the resources that only a few other teams in the game have – and are willing to spend. The Twins’ owner has money, but won’t spend it. So, you cannot count them. Maybe the Mets, Dodgers, Angels, Red Sox and Cubs have money *close* to what the Yankees have. So, you cannot compare…say…what some other 24 GMs in the game have done compared to Cashman…since they don’t have the resource$ that he has it his command.

    18. October 1st, 2008 | 9:23 am

      ~~Wait why you didn’t mention trading Gary Sheffield for Humberto Sanchez, Anthony Claggett and Kevin Whelan?

      And what about drafting players like Joba Chamberlain as a suplemental pick, even with the RISK.

      What about drafting young talent in later rounds, like Austin Jackson, Dellin Betances, Carmen Angelini, Austin Romine and others.

      Signing international free agents, like Jesus Montero and Francisco Cervelli.

      Building a bullpen, picking up Brian Bruney from Arizona, signing players like Jose Veras and Edwar Ramirez. Drafting Mark Melancon and David Robertson. So you don’t give Cashman credit for that?~~

      The jury is still out on Veras, Ramirez and Bruney. They’ve all had as many bad times as good.

      Humberto Sanchez, Anthony Claggett, Kevin Whelan, Dellin Betances, and Carmen Angelini, etc.?

      What have they proven to date? Are they major league players? Good ones? Not yet. They’re just prospects – and every team has them.

    19. October 1st, 2008 | 9:24 am

      ~~so now we’re in the business of re-writing history in order to try and prove a point? ~~

      The Red Sox tanked in 2005 and 2006. That’s not a re-write. That’s fact. And, without that fact, the Yankees don’t look as good as it may appear in the final standings those season. How is that a re-write?

    20. October 1st, 2008 | 9:30 am

      ~~When you point to the Weaver, Brown and Vasquez trades, the response has to be: Did you or anyone immediately say “that guy doesn’t have what it takes to pitch in NY”?~~

      Isn’t it that job of the GM to be smart enough to know these answers?

      Yeah, yeah, I know…”it seemed like the right move at the time; and, mistakes happen, every GM makes them, no point in dwelling on it.”

      That’s what the Cashman defenders always say…

      It’s logic like that which allowed Randy Smith to stay G.M. of the Tigers for so long. Should the Yankees make the same mistake?

      IMHO, for too many Yankees fans, when it comes to Cashman it’s “heads he wins and tails, well, everybody makes mistakes.” If you’re going to give him gold stars for the few times he pulls a good card, then it’s not fair to just dismiss the bad stuff as “Eh, everybody makes mistakes.”

    21. October 1st, 2008 | 9:32 am

      ~~Fair point in your response to me Steve.~~

      Thank you.

    22. October 1st, 2008 | 9:35 am

      “How is that a re-write?”

      you’re arguing that if the red sox didnt tank, that the yankees wouldnt have been division winners, and Cashman’s reign wouldnt have looked as successful here.

      yes, they did tank, and Cashman’s Yankees did fight back, and they did win the division.

      you cant just say if they didnt tank. they did.

      and again, doesnt that say more about the way Theo contructed that Red Sox team moreso than how Cashman constructed the Yankees?

      and the Yankees won the division in 2005 and 2006, irregardless of how they pulled it out, however you want to spin it to try and argue against Cashman.

    23. OnceIWasAYankeeFan
      October 1st, 2008 | 9:39 am

      ~~When you point to the Weaver, Brown and Vasquez trades, the response has to be: Did you or anyone immediately say “that guy doesn’t have what it takes to pitch in NY”?~~

      Isn’t it that job of the GM to be smart enough to know these answers?
      _______________________________

      Only if you make “trained and extremely talented psychoanalyst” a qualification for being a GM.

      Or perhaps you should really go for the rare double skill of both being a talented psychologist as well as a talented psychic. That way you can put the prospective player on the couch and quickly determine he doesn’t have the intestinal fortitude for NY, and for those who pass that test, you can read his fortune and realize ahead of time that he’ll suffer a string of debilitating injuries over the next four years, you better withdraw your offer.

    24. October 1st, 2008 | 9:39 am

      now, let me say that i feel that its not Cashman who wins or loses the division. thats on the players.

      but it’s Cashman’s job to put together a team to compete for the division and get into the playoffs. its then on the players to perform up to expectations they set for themselves, when you evaluate their talent and their hitory in the league.

    25. OnceIWasAYankeeFan
      October 1st, 2008 | 9:46 am

      As for the idea of the Sox “tanking” in 2005-6:

      Yes, they had poor seasons, but the Yankees still had to get their (stuff) together to overtake them.

      But I don’t think the discredit goes to Theo. The two most important pitchers on the staff sacrificed 2005 in what they did to win in 2004 (Schilling and Foulke). There might have been a different result if Foulke had his surgery when he needed it, but losing Schilling due to his ankle surgery really crippled the team.

      2006 was prologue to 2007-8. Theo wasn’t ready to give up the youngsters he had on the way but he also knew they weren’t ready yet anyway. In the end it was a blessing as it convinced John Henry to “pull a Steinbrenner” and take an “at all costs” approach to securing Dice-K’s services.

    26. October 1st, 2008 | 9:47 am

      OnceIWasAYankeeFan – did Michael or Watson ever waste $86 million on two pitchers as bad as Pavano and Weaver?

      Were they “talented psychologists/psychics”? No. They just had the ability to evaluate talent. And, that’s all I want from my GM.

    27. October 1st, 2008 | 9:54 am

      Raf – your post on Lilly & Igawa was grabbed by the SPAM filter. I just “freed” it, FYI.

      FWIW, your links to my comments on Igawa just point out that I was repeating what was in the media, etc. Again, I didn’t have a team of scouts giving me data, video, etc. on him – as Cashman did, or should have done…

      So, holding me to the same standard as the guy who gets paid $2 million a year to run a baseball team is a bit crazy, no?

    28. williamnyy
      October 1st, 2008 | 9:59 am

      I realize that you don’t like Cashman and think he has done a poor job, but that doesn’t mean you should make outlandish claims to support your position.

      **Outlandish claim #1: Cashman inherited a good team so he gets no credit for three rings.**

      First off, your position assumes that every good team could be placed on auto pilot and rack up rings. Ask the 1986 Mets if that philosophy works. Of course, the bigger flaw in your argument ignores some obvious key additions that Cashman acquired. In a feature post that you were kind enough to allow me to post here, I provided evidence that if not Cashman, the Yankees would have never signed El Duque. That move alone had enormous post season implication. In addition, Cashman tacked on major contributors like Clemens and Justice with whom the Yankees might not have won a championship in either 1999 and 2000.

      Sure, Cashman inherited a talented roster, but he also augmented it by adding key players who were able to keep the Yankees on top. Also, while the Yankees haven’t won a World Series since 2000, it is no insignificant accomplishment to have made the WS in 2001 and 2003. At some point, you have to give Cashman credit for getting his team into 5 World Series on his watch.

      **Outlandish claim #2: But, if not for Boston collapses in the 2003 ALCS and the regular seasons of 2005 and 2006, this seven-year period would not look as pretty for New York as it does on the average fan’s ledger.**

      With this statement you come close to abandoning all credibility. How exactly can you exclude an AL pennant and two division titles from the equation? Obviously, if you remove three years of success from a 7-year period, it wont look pretty. Also, why are we calling the 2003 ALCS a collapse? Using your logic, couldn’t one argue that if the Yankees didn’t collapse in 2004 (aided in large part by Torre’s managing), the Yankees would have won the pennant and WS, making Cashman’s resume even better? You seem to want it both ways, which exposes the flaws in your argument.

      **Outlandish claim #3: The relevance of having 12 pitchers with an ERA+ under 90.**

      Talk about parsing statistics to support your claim? By using a 10 cut-off, you are including pitchers with innings totals as low as 17. That’s pretty disingenuous. Again, using your logic, one could argue that in 2008, the Yankees had 12 pitchers throw at least 14 innings and have an ERA+ over 100. In 1998, that total was only 10. Misleading? Yes!

      It’s nice that you are persistent in taking a contrarian view, but that doesn’t mean flawed arguments are acceptable. Otherwise, your constant rants become stale and uninteresting.

    29. waveracr
      October 1st, 2008 | 10:07 am

      **The Red Sox tanked in 2005 and 2006. That’s not a re-write. That’s fact. And, without that fact, the Yankees don’t look as good as it may appear in the final standings those season. How is that a re-write?**

      Let’s apply your logic to 2008:

      “The Yankees tanked in 2008. That’s not a re-write. That’s fact. And without that fact, the Red Sox don’t look as good as it may appear in the final standings this season. How is that a re-write?”

      See how easy it is to engage in spurious reasoning to support your “facts”?

    30. OnceIWasAYankeeFan
      October 1st, 2008 | 10:12 am

      OnceIWasAYankeeFan – did Michael or Watson ever waste $86 million on two pitchers as bad as Pavano and Weaver?

      Were they “talented psychologists/psychics”? No. They just had the ability to evaluate talent. And, that’s all I want from my GM.

      _________________________________

      The only way you can defend this claim is if Michael and/or Watson were on record as arguing against these two signings, and since Stick remains on the payroll, I have to believe that he had input.

      Or, I get it: Watson and Michael never made a failed signing or trade. So since they were infallible, they are the gold standard to which Cashman cannot measure up.

      Of course, we don’t know if they would have made the same signing or trades that Cashman has made, so its a great way to make sure that the current GM has the scarlet F on his chest while they remain frozen in time, champions 4 ever.

    31. williamnyy
      October 1st, 2008 | 10:13 am

      Also, it’s completely irrelevant to talk about the money that Cashman wasted without considering the recent inflation in player costs. For example, paying Terry Mulholland $3.3mn in 1994 dollars is probably much worse than paying Carl Pavano $10mn current dollars. Also, that $1.5mn for Xavier Hernandez probably doesn’t stack up well either. You can also add the $5mn per paid to Kenny Rogers to that list as well.

    32. October 1st, 2008 | 10:30 am

      Just a programming note -

      FYI, I just came out of a 1/2 hour meeting and am now heading into another one hour meeting. So, if anyone is waiting to hear back from me on some recent comments, check back around 11:30…

    33. bfriley76
      October 1st, 2008 | 10:32 am

      OnceIWasAYankeeFan – did Michael or Watson ever waste $86 million on two pitchers as bad as Pavano and Weaver?

      ======
      And how about Pasqual Perez? He pitched less than 90 innings in the 2 seasons he played for the Yankees (90-91). He made a total of 3.5 million, which seems like nothing now, but he was the 4th highest paid player on the team in 1990 and 3rd highest in 1991. You can’t compare dollar to dollar. Completely different markets.

    34. Raf
      October 1st, 2008 | 10:41 am

      Raf – your post on Lilly & Igawa was grabbed by the SPAM filter. I just “freed” it, FYI.

      Thanks :)

      —-
      So, holding me to the same standard as the guy who gets paid $2 million a year to run a baseball team is a bit crazy, no?
      ——–
      The point is that a lot of people missed the boat on that one. If it were a case like Pavano, a proven mediocrity I can understand going after Cashman, but everything about Igawa pointed to him being a reasonable signing.

    35. October 1st, 2008 | 11:31 am

      williamnyy – regarding El Duque, Clemens and Justice…three guys that everyone wants to use to credit Cashman…

      Justice. Let’s face it. Cashman got lucky here – like he did with Small and Chacon in 2005.

      Justice was batting .265 for the Indians when the Yankees got him. And, yes, he exploded for the Yankees and carried them to the ring. But, the next year, Justice was garbage – and the 2000 performance was a fluke…a Glenallen Hill type fluke…and perhaps just a PED blip on the radar.

      El Duque. IIRC, Lin Garrett was the one who found him. Do a google search under “lin garrett el duque” and you’ll see. Cashman’s part here was just getting the contract done at the last minute when Garrett ticked off the agent.

      Clemens. He had two great years with the Yankees: 2000 & 2001. And, he had 1999 and 2002. Sorta a wash. Besides, “finding” Roger Clemens and trading David Wells to get him does not require smarts. A 10-year old with a Clemens baseball card could have told you to make that trade.

      Cashman’s work in bringing the Yankees El Duque, Clemens and Justice was good, but not great, and it doesn’t make up for the Pavanos, Weavers, and Igawas…who were absolute busts.

    36. October 1st, 2008 | 11:35 am

      ~~By using a 10 cut-off, you are including pitchers with innings totals as low as 17. That’s pretty disingenuous. ~~

      FWIW, I could have used 50+ IP with an ERA+ <=90 as a cut and it would still show that, for the most part, the Yankees pitching after 2003 was crap. Or, I could use RSAA totals and you still see the same thing.

      Bottom line, no matter what stats you want to use, they prove that the “Cashman” built Yankees pitching staffs from 2003 through 2008 were much, much, worse than the staff that Michael/Watson put together – which Cashman rode from 1998 through 2003.

    37. October 1st, 2008 | 11:37 am

      ~~~Also, it’s completely irrelevant to talk about the money that Cashman wasted without considering the recent inflation in player costs.~~~

      Fine, forget $ totals. Use percentages. And, I would still bet that, in the history of baseball, no GM has wasted a higher percentage of his team’s total payroll, through the years, on bad pitching than Brian Cashman.

    38. October 1st, 2008 | 11:39 am

      ~~Watson and Michael never made a failed signing or trade. So since they were infallible, they are the gold standard to which Cashman cannot measure up.~~

      Of course, Watson and Michael made some mistakes. But, in terms of the bottom line, their good moves offset those bad ones – and then some. Can you say the same for Cashman? I cannot.

    39. October 1st, 2008 | 11:41 am

      ~~Let’s apply your logic to 2008: “The Yankees tanked in 2008. That’s not a re-write. That’s fact. And without that fact, the Red Sox don’t look as good as it may appear in the final standings this season. How is that a re-write?”

      See how easy it is to engage in spurious reasoning to support your “facts”?~~

      Actually, the Red Sox in 2008 are not as good as they appear..in terms of wins and the standings. Boston got fat beating up on teams who were < .500 - and did not play as well against teams who were >=.500

      And, that just might show up in the ALDS.

    40. OnceIWasAYankeeFan
      October 1st, 2008 | 11:53 am

      Uh, the Red Sox have been quite unlucky in close games, the outcome of which is widely viewed as more a matter of random variation or “luck”. Biggest run differential, top five in both offense and team ERA. The fact is that every team stat points to the Red Sox being the class of MLB while the Rays and especially the Angels have outperformed their decidedly pedestrian lineups.

    41. October 1st, 2008 | 12:02 pm

      Sox unlucky? Teams loaded the bases against Dice-K 14 times this year and never scored in any of them…Don’t tell me the Sox are unlucky…

    42. October 1st, 2008 | 12:03 pm

      BTW, I’m off to a lunch break. Play nice here over the next hour or so. See ya in a bit.

    43. bfriley76
      October 1st, 2008 | 12:05 pm

      Justice. Let’s face it. Cashman got lucky here – like he did with Small and Chacon in 2005.

      ====
      Steve, if you’re going to argue that you can’t use the “everyone makes mistakes” case for poor moves by Cashman, than you can’t use the “luck” argument for his good moves.

      If you’re taking points away for moves that many people applauded at the time (the Javier Vazquez trade, for example), because there was a poor result, you have to give the points right back for moves that had a good result, regardless of whether or not you think Cashman was lucky or whether he knew exactly what he was doing.

    44. williamnyy
      October 1st, 2008 | 12:05 pm

      How can you expect to be taken seriously when you attribute every good signing/acquisition to luck? Doesn’t that mean that Pavano and Igawa were just bad luck? Again, by playing both sides of the fence you completely abandon credibility.

      Also, as I posted last January, the Yankees would not have signed El Duque if not for Cashman’s involvement. It doesn’t matter who “discovered” El Duque (which is silly to begin with because everyone knew about him). A GM’s job is not simply player evaluation. Just as important are negotiation and management skills. In this case, Cashman’s strength in those two areas helped the Yankees land a very important piece of 3 championship teams.

      So, I am sorry, but El Duque, Justice, Clemens, Small, Chacon and many other very good acquisitions go down as feathers in Cashman’s cap. If simply want to dismiss them to support your cause, then you can’t expect to be taken seriously.

    45. williamnyy
      October 1st, 2008 | 12:12 pm

      //Bottom line, no matter what stats you want to use, they prove that the “Cashman” built Yankees pitching staffs from 2003 through 2008 were much, much, worse than the staff that Michael/Watson put together – which Cashman rode from 1998 through 2003.//

      After this comment, I really don’t know what to say. Clemens and El Duque were not Watson/Michael guys and we all know those two played a very big role in the 1999 and 2000 championships (and 1998 for El Duque). I am not sure how you can keep ignoring facts?

      Also, 2003 and 2004 were very good staffs (check the ERA+). It was only after 2005 that the pitching staff went down hill, but at least Cashman was able to build an overpowering offense to compensate.

    46. Raf
      October 1st, 2008 | 12:16 pm

      FYI, I just came out of a 1/2 hour meeting and am now heading into another one hour meeting.
      ——
      Got another gig? If so, congratulations!

    47. Raf
      October 1st, 2008 | 12:25 pm

      Justice was batting .265 for the Indians when the Yankees got him. And, yes, he exploded for the Yankees and carried them to the ring.
      ———-
      And Paul O’Neill batted .246 in his last season for the Reds…

      Anyway, flukes (or more accurately “streaks”) happen. Case in point, look at LaTroy Hawkins’ numbers with the Astros.

    48. Justin
      October 1st, 2008 | 12:29 pm

      //Justice was batting .265 for the Indians when the Yankees got him. //

      Yeah, he was batting .265, but with a 133 OPS+. And he was at 139 the year before. I wouldn’t call it luck that he did well for the Yankees that year. He did well because he was a good hitter.

    49. Raf
      October 1st, 2008 | 12:30 pm

      The fact is that every team stat points to the Red Sox being the class of MLB while the Rays and especially the Angels have outperformed their decidedly pedestrian lineups.
      ———
      It will be interesting to see how the Angels fare in the postseason, seeing as they were 12 games over their Pythag record. The 2004 Yanks were 12 games over as well.

      Then again, I believe the Angels have better pitching and defense than those Yanks did.

    50. Raf
      October 1st, 2008 | 12:38 pm

      Also, 2003 and 2004 were very good staffs (check the ERA+). It was only after 2005 that the pitching staff went down hill…
      ———-
      95: 101
      96: 108
      97: 117
      98: 116
      99: 114
      00: 101
      01: 111
      02: 114
      03: 109
      04: 96
      05: 93
      06: 102
      07: 99
      08: 101

    51. Raf
      October 1st, 2008 | 12:41 pm

      He did well because he was a good hitter.
      ——–
      Also, in that off year Steve refers to (2001), he posted a 98 OPS+. In Oakland, he bounced back nicely with a 111 OPS+

    52. OnceIWasAYankeeFan
      October 1st, 2008 | 12:47 pm

      Sox unlucky? Teams loaded the bases against Dice-K 14 times this year and never scored in any of them…Don’t tell me the Sox are unlucky…

      ____________________________

      Far and away the best run differential, third best record.

      Red Sox’ record in games decided by one or two runs this season, 34-33. The Angels were 61-28 in such games.

      As for Dice-K, you might consider his extremely impressive batting average against numbers, which no one with his 160 innings comes close to. That certainly has an impact on how much “luck” is involved in his performance with the bases loaded.

    53. October 1st, 2008 | 12:53 pm

      OK – I’m back for a few minutes now…and will try to address some quick hits…and then get back to the others later, after MF does his opening on WFAN/YES…which I want to catch.

      Raf – BTW, thanks, but no gig news. I just had a call with SNY.tv this AM and then some personal stuff to take care of after that…

    54. October 1st, 2008 | 12:55 pm

      williamnyy –

      where you say Cashman was good, I say he was lucky. Where I say Cashman was bad, you say he was unlucky. Seems like we have to agree to disagree on Cashman…and I’m fine with that. I hope you can be as well…

    55. October 1st, 2008 | 12:56 pm

      ~~Far and away the best run differential, third best record. ~~

      What was the Sox run-diff against teams >=.500?

    56. October 1st, 2008 | 12:57 pm

      ~~I wouldn’t call it luck that he did well for the Yankees that year. He did well because he was a good hitter.~~

      Regarding Justice in 2000, well, George Mitchell might just call it something else…

    57. October 1st, 2008 | 12:59 pm

      bfriley76 – FWIW, I can somewhat understand the Javy Vazquez deal…and maybe, just maybe, give a pass on it…if it stood alone. But, when you add Pavano, Weaver, Igawa, etc., to it…then it’s just another log in the fire.

    58. October 1st, 2008 | 1:01 pm

      ~~Also, 2003 and 2004 were very good staffs (check the ERA+). It was only after 2005 that the pitching staff went down hill…~~

      Did you check their RSAA totals?

    59. Justin
      October 1st, 2008 | 1:04 pm

      //Regarding Justice in 2000, well, George Mitchell might just call it something else…//

      That’s fine, but what’s that have to do with Cashman’s evaluation? Whether Justice was naturally or unnaturally good, he was still good.

      And, as a correction, Justice has a 123 OPS+ in 1999, not a 139. But I stand by my point.

    60. williamnyy
      October 1st, 2008 | 1:15 pm

      No…I am not suggesting Cashman was unlucky for making bad moves. I was using that argument as an example about why it is silly to discount one side of the equation. I can make a case for Cashman by accepting the failures, but highlighting the successes. You, however, seem to only count the misses, prefering to chalk up the hits to luck. That approach is intellectually dishonest and makes your argument less than credible.

    61. williamnyy
      October 1st, 2008 | 1:16 pm

      What on Earth does whether Justice took steroids or not have to do with whether it was a good move to trade from him? That’s might be the silliest argument yet.

    62. williamnyy
      October 1st, 2008 | 1:18 pm

      What’s more about Justice, the Mitchell Report alleges Justice was involved with Radomski AFTER he came to the Yankees.

    63. diony
      October 1st, 2008 | 1:18 pm

      fuck off retard

    64. October 1st, 2008 | 2:05 pm

      OK, I’m back for a bit.
      Good first hour of MF/WFAN…Torre for 20 minutes that then Cashman for 40 minutes.

      One thing of note from that: Cashman said that Girardi needs to do a better job at managing the media. Gee, I bet Joe loved hearing that…

      …Let me get to some of your comments, while I can, before I have to hit the road in about 30 minutes….

      Or, and, BTW, very mature….diony.

    65. October 1st, 2008 | 2:08 pm

      williamnyy – why don’t we take a different spin on this…

      why don’t YOU tell me what you think were the ten best moves that Brian Cashman has made for the Yankees…and what were his ten moves that back-fired?

    66. October 1st, 2008 | 2:19 pm

      ~~That’s fine, but what’s that have to do with Cashman’s evaluation? Whether Justice was naturally or unnaturally good, he was still good.~~

      The part of it being potentially unnatural ties into the fact that he was crap in 2001 – and killed the Yankees in the 2001 WS.

      To me, when a GM acquires a player, and it’s not just a rent-a-player thing for one season, he needs to look at that player and say…is he going to help me now…and will be not hurt me later. And, Cashman didn’t see 2001 coming with Justice, I guess…

      Take the PED question out of it. Sure, Justice was a great pick-up in 2000 – the stats back that up. But, then, he was crap in 2001. So, that somewhat, then, takes away from the good he added in 2000…and cannot, on my scorecard, be credited as a major/great move by the G.M.

      That said, I do give Cashman credit for turning Justice into Ventura…which, IMHO, may have been one of Cashman’s better moves…if that was his move?

      That’s part of it too with Cashman…you don’t know, sometimes, if it’s his move that pays off…or, it’s because some other GM called him up and suggested something…

      Didn’t the Indians suggest the Justice move first, BTW? IIRC, I remember Cashman saying that he was surprised when the Indians GM offered him…because he was not on his radar…

      …and, wasn’t that somewhat the case with Ventura too…that Ventura too…that the Mets were looking to dump his salary…to anybody for anything…and it just so happened that the Yanks were looking to dump Justice too?

    67. williamnyy
      October 1st, 2008 | 2:23 pm

      I think it’s easier to refer you the piece that ran here in December. Below is the conclusion. I think it is a pretty reasonable assessment of Cashman’s performance. Of course, if you are going to consider every good a product of luck and being at the right place at the right time, well, then there really is no reason to even have a discussion.

      “How well the Yankees revitalized farm is at producing players will likely go a long way toward defining Cashman’s future legacy. Up to this point, however, I don’t think you can complain too much. Could he have compiled a stronger bench and bullpen in some years? Yes. Did he whiff on Pavano, Wright and Igawa? Sure. On balance, however, Cashman has seemed to make the right moves. From El Duque to Wang to Cano, he has tapped the international market with much success. With names like Proctor, Leiber, Small and Chacon, he has also had success scouring the scrap heap. By acquiring Arod and Randy Johnson, no one can doubt his ability to pull off a block buster. At midseason, the acquisitions of Justice and Abreu prove his ability to identify a void and fill it with the perfect solution. Finally, with his recent drafts, he has shown that he has been instrumental in changing the Yankees free agent first philosophy. As the Yankee team has changed, so too has Cashman. This flexibility, ultimately, is what makes Cashman the right man to serve as General Manager of the Yankees.”

    68. October 1st, 2008 | 2:25 pm

      ~~~What’s more about Justice, the Mitchell Report alleges Justice was involved with Radomski AFTER he came to the Yankees.~~~

      FWIW, for the record, the report alleges that Justice purchased two or three kits of HGH from Radomski by check after the Yankees’ 2000 World Series victory.

      So, yes, that purchase was after Justice joined the Yankees. But, if you believe the report, do you really think that purchase in the fall of 2000 was the first time ever that Justice purchased/used HGH? Seems like an odd time to start, no? Therefore, more than likely, he was already using…which means he was using prior to joining the Yankees – or just when he joined them…

    69. October 1st, 2008 | 2:29 pm

      williamnyy – that conclusion is a summary of your belief, etc. That’s not what I’m looking for…

      I want ten exact moves that Cashman has made that were good for the team and ten that he made that were bad for the team. Just a simple list on each side of the ledger…and not speculation that recent drafts were good moves…because no one knows that for sure…

    70. bfriley76
      October 1st, 2008 | 2:46 pm

      To me, when a GM acquires a player, and it’s not just a rent-a-player thing for one season, he needs to look at that player and say…is he going to help me now…and will be not hurt me later. And, Cashman didn’t see 2001 coming with Justice, I guess…

      Take the PED question out of it. Sure, Justice was a great pick-up in 2000 – the stats back that up. But, then, he was crap in 2001. So, that somewhat, then, takes away from the good he added in 2000…and cannot, on my scorecard, be credited as a major/great move by the G.M.
      ==========

      So a trading for a guy who basically carries a team to the playoffs and is an integral part of them getting to and winning the World Series isn’t a great move because the following season, he killed his team so much that they came within one out of winning the World Series again?

      Talk about high-standards.

      Steve…what about Justice’s past performance would lead Cashman to believe he would have the type of season he had in 2001. His OPS+ the previous four seasons were, starting with 1997 158, 114, 123, 139. I understand your point about talent evaluation and planning for the future, but could it be possible you’re holding Cashman to an impossible standard because you don’t like the moves he’s made and it makes it easier to make a case against him?

    71. yankee10
      October 1st, 2008 | 3:40 pm

      There is no bigger fucktard than Steve Lombardi. That’s all.

    72. October 1st, 2008 | 4:13 pm

      ~~what about Justice’s past performance would lead Cashman to believe he would have the type of season he had in 2001.~~

      His age and medical reports. IIRC, at the time of the trade, Justice was being held together with string, glue and tape.

    73. bfriley76
      October 1st, 2008 | 4:21 pm

      ~~what about Justice’s past performance would lead Cashman to believe he would have the type of season he had in 2001.~~

      His age and medical reports. IIRC, at the time of the trade, Justice was being held together with string, glue and tape.

      ===
      Wasn’t that his M.O. for a good part of his career though? Yet he was still able to put up the numbers he did. Again…I don’t see how you could predict such a sharp drop-off…nor do I see how his performance in 2001 diminishes what he helped the Yankees accomplish in 2000.

    74. Raf
      October 1st, 2008 | 4:22 pm

      The part of it being potentially unnatural ties into the fact that he was crap in 2001 – and killed the Yankees in the 2001 WS.
      ———
      Justice was far from the only player to kill the Yanks in the 01 WS; Brosuis, Jeter, Bernie, Pettitte among others come to mind.

    75. October 1st, 2008 | 4:28 pm

      yankee10 – Wow. You’re mature.

      ~~Justice was far from the only player to kill the Yanks in the 01 WS; Brosuis, Jeter, Bernie, Pettitte among others come to mind.~~

      Raf – Ummm…Brosius hit a pretty big HR in that Series IIRC. Justice? He came to bat 12 times and struckout 9 times.

    76. October 1st, 2008 | 4:31 pm

      ~~nor do I see how his performance in 2001 diminishes what he helped the Yankees accomplish in 2000.~~

      Justice was the team MVP, IMHO, in 2000.

      In 2001, not so much…

      Does 2001 take away from his 2000? No.

      Does the “total David Justice experience” give the Yankees as much as the “2000 Justice”? No, not even close. And, that’s my point…

      ..if you want to give Cashman credit for getting Justice in 2000, then you have to give Cashman a discredit for letting Justice play 111 games in 2001 and bat .241

    77. October 1st, 2008 | 4:35 pm

      FYI, all, I’ve spent some good chunks of the last 16 hours addressing your comments, questions, etc., on this topic.

      I’m going to stop now…as it makes no sense to keep advancing my points.

      If you agree with me, fine. If not, that’s fine too. I respect your right to have an opinion on this – even if it’s different from mine.

      Please try and respect my right to have my opinions on this matter.

      Feel free to continue posting your comments on this topic. Just don’t expect some debate from me…as I’ve already given this as much time as I can at this moment.

      And, of course, thanks to all for all the great comments so far.

    78. Raf
      October 1st, 2008 | 4:55 pm

      Raf – Ummm…Brosius hit a pretty big HR in that Series IIRC
      ————-
      Doesn’t change the fact that he was horrible in that series. HR or not, a .167-.167-.375 line isn’t going to get it done.

      Heck, given some of the backhanded compliments you’ve written, it could be said that it wasn’t so much Brosius hitting the HR, as Kim being a choker ;)

    79. Raf
      October 1st, 2008 | 4:57 pm

      Please try and respect my right to have my opinions on this matter.
      ——-
      I will, no matter how wrong you are >:(

      seriously, cool discussion (with the exception of a couple of people…), and as always we can agree to disagree.

      I was kinda hoping we’d make 100 comments in this thread :)

    80. alvarof
      October 1st, 2008 | 6:32 pm

      Steve, as always, you just criticize and get rid of this or should’ve done that. What are the alternatives? OK, Pavano was a big mistake … weren’t other teams interested back then? Who should’ve he gotten instead? And how, free agency or trade? Easy being a Monday morning quarterback.

      Take a cue from an excellent blogger, quite the pessimistic but always puts everything in perspective and always points out to an alternative. From Steve Goldman, Pinstripe Bible or Pinstripe Blog (what a blog and Replacement Level too):
      “Cashman has many detractors, most of them focused on his mixed record in trades and the fact that the club has not won a championship since the decline of the 1996-2001 core. This is misguided. First, the club averaged 99 wins from 2002 through 2006 and made the postseason every year. If the team failed to capitalize in those situations, it wasn’t purely due to Cashman’s team design (Joe Torre certainly helped in 2003 and 2007-Jeff Weaver and bugs). He has consistently neglected things like team defense and bench strength, and, most of all, over and over again, the farm. Having said that, I do think the man has evolved over the years. He was literally raised in a Yankees organization that was one of the least progressive in baseball. To his credit, he has seen the old ways fail and learned from watching other organizations. Whether or not he can transcend both his upbringing and the structure of the organization remains to be seen, and he’ll need a lot of luck to boot. Still, it seems like his head is in the right place, on a measured approach rather than the scattershot, every which way but up approach of the Yankees through the 1980s. I don’t think that anyone else would do better, and a good many replacements could be worse.”

    81. Hitman
      October 3rd, 2008 | 8:50 pm

      Steve,

      If you’re going to bash Cashman at least include all the other horrible trades he’s been involved with. What about Damaso Marte for Enrique Wilson or D’Angelo Jimenez for Jay Witasick or Brandon Claussen for Aaron Boone? I don’t remember what we got for Ruben Rivera. I think it was a basket of apples. What about Contreras for Loaiza? It just goes on and on. His trading record is absolutely abysmal. Someone who plays fantasy baseball would have done infinately better.

    82. December 13th, 2008 | 1:35 pm

      [...] The signing of CC Sabathia and A.J. Burnett this off-season are all on Brian Cashman. Just like the trade for Jeff Weaver. Just like the signing of Carl Pavano. Just like the posting for Kei Igawa. And, when this is all said and done, the results of these two moves (albeit good or bad) belong on Cashman’s resume. [...]

    83. January 18th, 2009 | 11:08 am

      [...] the last four years has not been working. It’s time for new blood. The team elected not to make a change at the top this off-season. So, cleaning out the players is the only thing left. Therefore, after [...]

    84. February 7th, 2009 | 12:00 am

      [...] paying attention during that time, you know how long I’ve been a fan of the team and what my thoughts are regarding the last half-decade of Yankees [...]

    85. April 18th, 2009 | 2:12 pm

      [...] most know how I feel about Brian Cashman, I’ll let my past comments on him stand for the record. And, obviously, I think that Tiabbi [...]

    86. June 12th, 2009 | 9:18 am

      [...] it’s either that, or, well, I have to go back to something that I wrote in October of last year: Brian Cashman became Yankees G.M. on February 28, 1998. And, yes, the [...]

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.