• Raissman: Cashman Better Get Used To Being Questioned

    Posted by on December 19th, 2008 · Comments (11)

    Via Bob Raissman:

    The narrative will also hinge on whether Santana can take the Mets to the final stage of October – first. There’s a lot at stake for all involved, including Cashman, who has finally revealed himself to be a very prickly guy when it comes to dealing with those daring to dissent.

    Thursday, as the Yankees introduced $243.5 million worth of ammo – Sabathia and A.J. Burnett – the melodramatic tale of Cashman’s bridge from Santana to CC began to unfold.

    “It took a lot of pain,” Cashman said while being interviewed on the Yankees Entertainment & Sports Network. “And certainly a lot of hits going through the process.”

    After wiping away tears, we figured the “pain” and “hits” Cashman spoke of came from columnists, commentators and other assorted mouths who questioned his decision to invest heavily in Phil Hughes and Ian Kennedy last season. In doing so, Cashman authored the Yankees’ version of the Wall Street collapse. He took a shot and lost. Happens to the best of them.

    Cashman failed miserably and deserved to be pounded.

    Hey, no one is always right. Cashman said Thursday’s coronation was really just the “completion of a concept,” an overall strategy, dating back at least a year, leading to Sabathia putting on the pinstriped jersey. If he didn’t pass on Santana, he doesn’t get CC. That’s what the GM was saying. Cashman was convincing. He spoke with conviction. Still, if this was his plan all along, why all the “pain”? Why even care about the “heat”?

    It was a long time coming, but Cashman’s slip, er, thin skin began showing in early October, when he agreed to stay on as Yankees GM. His rap reminded of us of a line Mike Tyson used after vanquishing another opponent. Tyson would say: “How dare they challenge me with their primitive skills.”

    Cashman was equally condescending to his perceived media adversaries last October during an XM Radio interview with Rob Dibble and Kevin Kennedy. Cashman called writers he disagreed with “lazy” and “idiots.”

    “(I) read some of the stuff that some of these idiots are writing. I started seeing a couple of interesting articles show up from some lazy writers that aren’t good at what they do,” Cashman said on XM.

    “And I was like, you know what, maybe that’s where my motivation (for staying with the Yankees) is going to come from,” Cashman said. “I’m like, guys, if you’re going to do that, then I can either let that happen as I walk out the door…or I can stay and change the story. And I’m going to stay and change the story. At least that’s my intent.”

    Cashman’s “intent” is to change the story. But he can’t write it. Not now. Not ever. No matter how he strikes back, or how much pressure others in the Yankees front office might foolishly attempt to apply, there will always be a place for opinions and reporting that the organization won’t agree with.

    That ain’t ever going to change.

    No matter who is in charge.

    Even after what amounted to a disastrous season for the Yankees, Cashman – new contract and all – has returned with even stronger powers. You don’t hear much from Hankenstein, who was a constant irritant to Cashman, do you? That’s likely not by coincidence.

    Fortunately, Cashman’s power can be used only inside the Yankees organization. To those in the media who chose not to genuflect, those not clamoring for access, Cashman is just another businessman, another self-righteous suit.

    Even the “idiots” can now see that.

    This story was not subject to the approval of WasWatching.com or its authors. But, if anyone had asked, I would have gladly approved it.

    Shining a light on Mr. Cashman is always a good thing, if you ask me.

    Comments on Raissman: Cashman Better Get Used To Being Questioned

    1. FourKings
      December 19th, 2008 | 12:17 pm

      Uh.

      Am I the only one just reading one big Bush allegory?

    2. MJ
      December 19th, 2008 | 12:45 pm

      Hack job.

      The media doesn’t like being called idiots so they use the poison pen. Doesn’t prove anything about Cashman’s acumen (or lack thereof, if you’re not a Cashman fan).

      This piece was unneccesary but, then again, most of NY tabloid journalism is.

    3. Pat F
      December 19th, 2008 | 1:14 pm

      hahahahahaha!!!!! this is hysterical. the good thing about this particular angle is that everyone knows a vast majorit of the media actually are idiots. there is no accountability in the profession. nice job fighting back here by raismann. insult him and he’ll insult you back, because he has the power to do so.

      being that he knows, and everyone knows, that the media are idiots, cashman should not be worrying about them, however. not publicly, and more concerning not, not privately.

    4. MJ
      December 19th, 2008 | 1:19 pm

      his decision to invest heavily in Phil Hughes and Ian Kennedy last season. In doing so, Cashman authored the Yankees’ version of the Wall Street collapse. He took a shot and lost. Happens to the best of them.

      Cashman failed miserably and deserved to be pounded.
      ——————
      This was the part that bothered me the most.

      First, if the larger plan was to keep Hughes/Kennedy and sign Sabathia in lieu of trading them for Santana, then Cashman certainly didn’t “fail miserably” since that’s exactly what happened.

      Second, although 2008 was not a success vis-a-vis the playoffs/championship, it’s too soon to call Hughes/Kennedy failures or to call Cashman a failure by sticking with two young pitchers with only parts of two seasons of MLB service time under their belts.

      Cashman is a good GM for some and, for others, he is a horrible GM. How one judges him is certainly up for debate. But Raissman’s criticism is pretty silly and groundless.

    5. butchie22
      December 19th, 2008 | 1:22 pm

      After Cash Man came back instead of going to Philly, the light will shine even brighter on him now. If there are lazy people in Yankeeland they might be Hankenstein and Halstein, who should have been smart enough to look for a new vision. I’m not the biggest Cash Man fan( that’s an understatement)so this beacon that will be shining on him is quite welcome. Raissman ( I’m not a fan of either) loves to stir up the pot and Brainless should take it like a man. After last year, rabble rousers like Raissman will most certainly have a field day if the Yankees have another lost season.

    6. Pat F
      December 19th, 2008 | 1:36 pm

      mj – exactly. right or wrong, we won’t know anything about the non-trade for santana, or any of this winter’s signings, for at least a few years. it is impossible to judge now. we’ll know what was good and what was bad in 5 years or so.

    7. Raf
      December 19th, 2008 | 1:48 pm

      How one judges him is certainly up for debate. But Raissman’s criticism is pretty silly and groundless.
      ————–
      As is most criticism of Cashman. While I may not be the biggest Cashman fan, I really wish his detractors would bring more to the table. Pieces like the one posted, hardly help their cause.

    8. Justin
      December 19th, 2008 | 2:17 pm

      Worst. Column. Ever. At least until Raissman’s next one.

      In what universe, exactly, does an 89 win season qualify as failing miserably?

      Shining a light on Cashman is one thing; being a doofus is another.

    9. MJ
      December 19th, 2008 | 2:23 pm

      In what universe, exactly, does an 89 win season qualify as failing miserably?
      ————–
      In NY tabloid culture where the so-called Steinbrenner Doctrine was the Boss’s gift to idiot sports editors who can now always go back to the well for one more drink of that nonsense.

      Remember, it’s not just NY fans who believe NY’s the toughest place to play. The media perpetuates that mythology because it gives them an air of importance. If NY is tough, it’s because they’re doing their job as crack writers who ask tough questions. Media loves “failure” because then they can write thousands of articles about it.

    10. butchie22
      December 19th, 2008 | 2:54 pm

      In what universe, exactly, does an 89 win season qualify as failing?

      I agree with the Steinbrenner Doctrine BUT that 89 win resulted in the Yankees not making it to October, pure and simple. Tampa and Boston got to go and the Yanks stayed at home. With the biggest payroll and most resources, a team that has played in the postseason every year since 1995 it is quite frankly a dissapointment.

      NY fans are very passionate about their teams. Go to a St Louis or Cubbie game and it has a different more happy dickish type of feel. Better yet go to LA or Orange County and watch the LA Dodgers or Angles and see some passionless fans comparative to people here in NY. Expectations are certainly high for Yankes fans through the 2000s and the late 1990s, because of what the team has done the last decade plus.

      Four Kings, BTW if this is an allegory to Dubya is Raissman the shoethrower?:)

    11. Justin
      December 19th, 2008 | 3:45 pm

      With the biggest payroll and most resources, a team that has played in the postseason every year since 1995 it is quite frankly a dissapointment.
      =======================================

      Of course it’s a disappointment. What it’s not is a miserable failure tantamount to Wall Street’s collapse. The Yankees are in much better shape than the economy is, as unfortunate as that may be. Except…

      In NY tabloid culture where the so-called Steinbrenner Doctrine was the Boss’s gift to idiot sports editors who can now always go back to the well for one more drink of that nonsense.
      ===============================

      Well, yeah.

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.