Cashman’s Legacy Rides In Part On Kid Pitchers?
Via Bill Madden –
The great baseball sage Branch Rickey had a theory about developing front-line starting pitchers that Brian Cashman is painfully finding all too true. For every 10 pitchers you sign, Rickey said, you’re fortunate if two of them make it.
That’s how long the odds were for producing a quality pitcher in Rickey’s day with the Dodgers in the ’40s and the Pittsburgh Pirates in the ’50s. They’re even longer today with baseball having expanded to 30 teams and so many young athletes gravitating to football and basketball.
In the spring of 2007, eight months after the first draft Cashman presided over as GM, in which he took 14 pitchers with his first 18 picks, the GM made the declaration that the Yankees were putting the emphasis on arms. “You’ve got to develop your own starting pitching,” he said, “because otherwise there’s nothing more expensive on the free agent market.”
As he spoke, Cashman noted the crop of arms he’d recently added to the organizaton – Joba Chamberlain, Ian Kennedy, Phil Hughes, Ross Ohlendorf, Dellin Betances, Zach McAllister, Mark Melancon, Humberto Sanchez, and Daniel McCutchen – and expressed brave hope that, from that imposing group, he would be able to cull a mostly homegrown rotation within 4-5 years. So here we are, four years later and none of them has established himself as a major league starter – at least with the Yankees – and it is understandable if Cashman is beginning to feel a little antsy when it comes to Chamberlain and Hughes competing for the fifth spot this year. It’s because of the slower-than-hoped for development of the young pitchers that Cashman had to go out and get Javy Vazquez to fortify the rotation as the No. 4 starter for $11.5 million.
This is the year he really needs to see at least one fruit of his labor.
“You try your hardest not to be impatient,” Cashman said Sunday, “but with pitchers it’s not easy. That’s why we’ve continued to stay with Chamberlain as a starter. We’ve invested a lot in that.”
If there is one common denominator in Cashman’s pitching philosophy, it appears to be size. For what it’s worth, there are 10 pitchers in Yankee camp this spring 6-foot-5 or taller, including Hughes (6-5), Brackman (6-10, 240) and McAllister (6-6), while Chamberlain is 6-2, 230.
“I admit it, I love big pitchers,” Cashman said.
Despite the shutout so far by all his pitching prodigies, Cashman remains steadfast in his belief that Hughes, Chamberlain, Brackman, Bettances and McAllister will all reach their potential – how else can he think? – and in his address to the team a few days ago he told them he fully expected that to be sooner rather than later.
As much as I like to point out that Jeff Weaver, Javy Vazquez Part I, Kevin Brown, Carl Pavano, and Kei Igawa are a big part of Brian Cashman’s Yankees legacy, in the end, that group of guys like Joba Chamberlain, Phil Hughes, Dellin Betances, Ryan Pope, J.B. Cox, Andrew Brackman and Jeremy Bleich are going to be part of it too – especially Chamberlain and Hughes.
Well, that’s what I think. How about you?
Absolutely. But the list is longer than the names you’ve presented here — it shoudl include Robertson, McAllister, and international signees such as Banuelos, Nova, and more. The organization needs to keep drafting and signing high-ceiling pitching talent.
To me, the jury is still out on the wisdom of drafting players with serious injury concerns such as Brackman, at least in the first or second round.
That’s like saying that Omar Minaya’s success is based on how productive his latino players are! Cashman should be evaluated on how many World Series wins he generates. Period.
Steve, you haven’t gone soft on me have you?
i think the jeff weavers, javy vasquez’s, kevin brown, carl pavano etc were more the boss saying “hey go get these guys heres a black check.” not so much cashman completely agreeing. i dont think cashman had much say in at those times.
BOHAN wrote:
Nah, they were all Cashman. Weaver & Vazquez were specifically acquired because they were young starters locked into reasonable contracts. Cashman courted Pavano. Weaver was flipped for Brown to get out from under his contract (he would’ve been around for another couple of years, Brown would’ve been gone after the 05 season). Most of the moves that were made were on Cashman, the Johnson trade and the Wright signing are usually credited to the Tampa faction
I love how Cashman gets a pass for the Weavers, Pavanos, Wrights, Johnson etc etc. But hes the only one who gets credit for the CC’s and AJ’s.
Dont blame this tampa faction for Cashman being terrible with pitching.
Jake1 wrote:
Cashman gets a pass for Weaver only insofar as the logic, thought-process and motivation to trade for him was absolutely, 100% solidly correct. The outcome was forgettable but you can’t judge things by outcomes alone. It is equally important — probably more so — to judge on the process that led to the decision in the first place. Good process may not guarantee good outcome but it definitely doesn’t preclude it, as bad process tends to.
Pavano was a total failure on Cashman’s part. He and he alone deserves the blame for that. It was a bad idea and it turned out as badly as one should’ve expected. A career mediocrity with a horrible injury history. Dreadful decision.
FYI, Wright/Johnson weren’t Cashman’s moves.
Jake1 wrote:
Not sure where you’re coming from, as no one said that. And it’s kinda early to give credit for Sabathia and Burnett.
MJ Recanati wrote:
Agreed. I’d make the Weaver, Brown & Johnson trades again, I would’ve still stay away from Pavano (and even so, I didn’t think he would’ve contributed as little as he did), Wright & Burnett, and I would’ve taken a chance on Igawa.
@ Raf:
Agree that there were good reasons for both the Weaver and Brown trades, and the first Vazquez deal. Less sold on the Johnson deal. I understand the logic that Vazquez might have been emotionally fried, just not sure I trade for a 41-year old starter under any circumstances. To me, that’s a 50/50 deal.
Re: Pavano, I must keep pointing out that Dombrowski and Epstein pursued him as well, and rumors persist that Epstein’s offer was slightly higher than the Yanks’ offer, but I have no proof of this. My point being that Dombrowski and Epstein are more highly regarded as talent evaluators as Cashman, and they made the same mistake in regard to Pavano.
Igawa seemed a reasonable option to me for a temp 5th starter while the Yanks waited for Joba, Hughes, and Kennedy to break through. Obviously, they overpaid for his rights, but it’s single-bid, blind-bid.
Burnett seemed to me to be a reasonable gamble on three counts:
1) He was a high-K pitcher for a team with dubious/weak defense.
2) While he had had only two season in his entire career, he hadn’t had a totally blown season in five years, he’d only lost 18-20 starts in the last 4 seasons, and he had reached his early 30′s, and had seemingly escaped the young pitchers’ injury nexus.
3) The next viable alternative was Derek Lowe, whom I deemed not an acceptable alternate.
Obvious blunders (to me): Quantrill, Farnsworth, Wright, Karsay, Hammond. I didn’t see any way these could work out, long-term.
Sorry…
Burnett point 2) above should read “he had only had two seasons of 30 starts or more in his entire career”.
I would’ve made the Vazquez deal again. I don’t think he was emotionally fried, and if it weren’t for the fact that a pitcher of Johnson’s caliber became available, I would’ve had Javy in the 2005 rotation. It’s the Clemens deal all over again. Wells was a good pitcher, Clemens like RJ was a great pitcher.
I understand that there was interest in Pavano. Up until a couple of years ago, there were always other teams interested in FA’s no matter the talent level. My point on Pavano was that there was no reason to go after him; his 2004 season was a fluke, his peripherals weren’t sustainable.
Burnett was a reasonable gamble, but I would rather a pitcher where the Yanks didn’t have to take a gamble. Especially after the Pavano debacle. My logic was high-k’s are nice, but they don’t do much good from the DL.
Quantrill cashed in on a career year, as did Hammond. I don’t think Hammond was as bad as some think. The year he had prior was just that outstanding. I had the same fear with Karsay that I had with Burnett. Great arm, just couldn’t stay healthy. I thought Farnsworth was going to be a good pickup, until I realized he came with all kinds of “rules”. Then I realized the way he was used in NY was the same way he was used everywhere else he was. I do like that the Royals are trying to use him in the rotation.
I was also disappointed that Darren Holmes didn’t pitch as much or as well as I hoped.