Meanwhile, 2008 was the first time the Yanks missed the playoffs since 1994. How many other teams have accomplished that?

Steve Lombardi wrote:

Hey, if you guys don’t think that having $200 million to blow on a payroll, when many other teams are able to build winners on half that, doesn’t help mask a G.M.’s lack of ability to spot young/good talent and his lack of ability to evaluate talent in general (via being able to buy his way out of mistakes), then I’m not looking to try and change your mind.

Trade Rivera! Trade ARod! Trade Jeter! Trade Posada!

Fact of the matter is, in a case where Rivera, Jeter & Posada are career Yankees, retaining your players costs money. There’s no hometown discount. I suppose they could’ve let these players (and Rodriguez) go when they were FA’s or not extended them, but why?

MJ wrote:

Or, is Larry Beinfest just a better GM than Cashman because he has a better hitting SS at $15 mill less?
———-
Nope. Unless GM’s get rated on how cheap their teams are. In that case, there is no better GM in baseball than the one that works for a cheap-ass owner that likes to pocket profits.
Will Beinfest become stupid overnight when Hanley is making $15M in 2012 or $16M in 2014? I don’t understand why people confuse salary and talent all the time.

C’mon man, Steve was just jivin

A typo in the last post. It’s not $14 million for the last 11 spots, it’s $11 million.

It depends.

It depends on where you are in the developmental cycle, and it depends on the ownership philosophy.

Beinfest is an outstanding GM/President because he builds creditable teams despite being given little payroll to work with. On the other hand, though the Marlins have won it all twice, they havn’t made the postseason since the 2nd title. The organizational philosophy is such that any time they do make it, odds are their key players are all reaching upper abitration right around that time, and so the team must be disassembled just as its getting good.

The Yankees were a team in their prime when Cashman was named GM. That core had its run, started to age and decline, but the price of the ones who stayed among the best at their position had to climb higher. That meant re-signing aging players to long-term deals at big money. The “rational” decision two years ago would’ve been to let Mariano and Posada go, and not to re-sign Matsui four years ago. No “rational” organization would’ve given A-Rod a 9-year extension when he opted out in 2007.

The organization philosophy was to contend/win the the Series every year. That meant filling holes with free agents, whose salaries went up as their performance would decline in the long run. (Can anyone say Jason Giambi) It meant benign neglect of the farm and prospects for a long, long period of time.

So: putting this altogether

1. An ownership that must contend every season
2. An aging team that won everything several years in a row, raising expectations beyond sky-high.
3. A fallow farm system.
4. A luxury tax system in place that allows small market teams a better chance to retain their top young players.
5. Better management people taking over front offices on many other teams.

What else is ANY general manager going to except spend a lot of money for players who, because of market forces, will be overpriced, either via free agency, or the inevitable dump trade.

The Yanks cannot trade Hanley Ramirez for Josh Beckett and Mike Lowell because 1) they have Jeter and A-Rod, and 2) they don’t have a Hanley Ramirez to offer because of the farm.

The Yanks cannot gamble on “buying low” on a guy, because ownership is demanding “certainty”. So, no Matt Joyce for Edwin Jackson trades, either, because Jackson has a proven record of mediocrity. If you want to make a “steal” trade, you have to trade for a guy whose stock is way down at the time you trade for him. Someone like Nick Swisher.

=====================================
And then, there’s the luxury tax, which, when combined with the need for paying through the nose for front-line talent above, means that the Yanks’ self-imposed season-starting payroll cap of roughly $200 million means a very low-priced bench and bullpen, which means no more Strawberry’s, Raines’, Curtis’ on the bench, and no high-priced set up men in the pen. Which has resulted in a weaker pen and bench, an erratic pen as well.

I posted this in another thread earlier in the week:

1998: $63 million
1999: $88 million
2000: $93 million
2001: $112 million
2002: $126 million
2003: $153 million
2004: $184 million
2005: $208 million
2006: $195 million
2007: $190 million
2008: $209 million
2009: $201 million (so far)

The Yankees’ payroll has been essentially stagnant since 2005. In this year’s $201 million, as I’ve pointed out a number of times earlier, the top 14 guys take up about $190 million, depending on the bonuses Andy Pettitte eventually earns. That’s 14 million for the last 11 spots. About $4 million to Marte, $2 million to Molina, $1 million to Bruney, $1.5 million to Melky (arbitration eligible, no choice), and more than a million in bonuses credited to Miranda and Brackman. That means the last 7 spots on the roster can earn no more than $4 million, combined. And that means 7 minimum wage players on the roster that have to come from the farm, or from dumpster-diving the waivers and free agent lists. And that means an erratic pen and a weak bench. Can’t be helped, if you want to hold the line at $200, AND retain the core from the old dynasty, and sign AJ, CC and Tex.

=================================
Which is not to say that Cashman hasn’t made serious mistakes, outright blunders. He has. But that’s for another post. Or maybe another thread.

Hey, if you guys don’t think that having $200 million to blow on a payroll, when many other teams are able to build winners on half that, doesn’t help mask a G.M.’s lack of ability to spot young/good talent and his lack of ability to evaluate talent in general (via being able to buy his way out of mistakes), then I’m not looking to try and change your mind. If you really want to feel that way, hey, wear it proud. Me? I do think that money spent matters – esp. when you seem to need to spend twice as much as other good teams. But, that’s just my opinion.

Steve Lombardi wrote:

Or, is Larry Beinfest just a better GM than Cashman because he has a better hitting SS at $15 mill less?

You mean, like Cashman was a brilliant GM in 1999 because Jeter was in his 4th major league season, and not eligible to be a free agent yet, and made $5 million that year; that sort of brilliant?

@ Pat F:
Thanks Pat

Or, is Larry Beinfest just a better GM than Cashman because he has a better hitting SS at $15 mill less?
———-
Nope. Unless GM’s get rated on how cheap their teams are. In that case, there is no better GM in baseball than the one that works for a cheap-ass owner that likes to pocket profits.

Will Beinfest become stupid overnight when Hanley is making $15M in 2012 or $16M in 2014? I don’t understand why people confuse salary and talent all the time.

I think alot of us can agree that the Yanks need to sure up the back end of the rotation, but I am far from fully convinced they need to do that with Halladay. To destroy the farm system on a hired gun is just the type of knee jerk reaction that has put us into deep holes in the past. Some believe just the mere fact that we need to sure up that back end is Cash’s fault. IMO, it is to a certain extent. Like MJ said, absolutely no one could have predicted Wang’s derailment, but I personally think that Joba and Andy were calculated gambles to some degree. I don’t think Cash was wrong in taking those gambles, but he is ultimately reponsible for their outcome. I’m not going to hang the guy for taking a calculated risk and getting burned, but it’s tough to support someone who does this over and over again with the same negative results. Basically I’m willing to let 2009 play itself out before I get the noose ready.