• The Cashman Question: Is 12 Years & 9 Months Too Long For G.M. Tenure?

    Posted by on October 29th, 2010 · Comments (23)

    Gotta admit, I have a little envy today – seeing the members of Metsville dancing around over the excitement of getting a new G.M. today.

    There’s just something about new blood, I suppose?

    In Yankeeland, we’ve been looking at Brian Cashman as G.M. for the last 12 years and 9 months.

    Yeah, I know, John Schuerholz was the Braves G.M. for 17 years. And, Brian Sabean has been Giants G.M. for the last 14 years. Also, Pat Gillick was the Blue Jays G.M. for close to 17 years. But, it just seems like 13 years, going on 14 now, is just about enough for Cashman. And, maybe it would be exciting to get a new guy in charge for the Yankees?

    Then again, maybe it’s just the envy thing working here…because the Mets fans have something to be excited about today and, in Yankeeland, we don’t really have that buzz right now…

    Comments on The Cashman Question: Is 12 Years & 9 Months Too Long For G.M. Tenure?

    1. October 29th, 2010 | 1:51 pm

      There’s something to be said for stability. The best run organizations (business or baseball) generally are stable at the top.

      Since Cashman as GM in 1998, the Mets have had six (including Alderson and Frank Cashen’s one-week return while Steve Phillips addressed his harassment suit): Phillips, Cashen, Phillips, Jim Duquette, Omar Minaya and now Alderson.

      Would you prefer really prefer the circus in Flushing to the the stability and consistency in the Bronx?

    2. October 29th, 2010 | 2:06 pm

      Stability is great when you’re getting peak performance. But, as Cashman admits, he screwed up last winter. And, we know he screwed up electing to go with the kids in 2008. And, he screwed up on Igawa and Pavano. So, in this case, I would be willing to trade stability for the potential of getting someone new who may have the potential to do a better job.

    3. Virginia Yankee
      October 29th, 2010 | 2:06 pm

      Imagine losing your job because your boss thought your tenure “felt” like it was too long.

    4. October 29th, 2010 | 2:15 pm

      Virginia Yankee wrote:

      Imagine losing your job because your boss thought your tenure “felt” like it was too long.

      Doesn’t that happen in real life? Have you ever seen a news story where a newly elected official says he’s cutting out all the fat cats in a union (or something like it) because they’ve all coasted for years since they had tenure and thought that meant that just showing up was enough and that performance was not all that important any more?

    5. bfriley76
      October 29th, 2010 | 2:24 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      Virginia Yankee wrote:
      Imagine losing your job because your boss thought your tenure “felt” like it was too long.
      Doesn’t that happen in real life? Have you ever seen a news story where a newly elected official says he’s cutting out all the fat cats in a union (or something like it) because they’ve all coasted for years since they had tenure and thought that meant that just showing up was enough and that performance was not all that important any more?

      Except that this “coaster” built the team that won the World Series last year. Say he did it with the Steinbrenner checkbook all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that they won.

    6. October 29th, 2010 | 2:37 pm

      @ bfriley76:

      If a batter comes to the plate 600 times and only manages 50 hits, but all of those hits are for extra bases, do you reward him with a contract for next year based on those hits, or, do you recognize that he made out 550 times out of 600 and let him go?

    7. bfriley76
      October 29th, 2010 | 2:48 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      @ bfriley76:
      If a batter comes to the plate 600 times and only manages 50 hits, but all of those hits are for extra bases, do you reward him with a contract for next year based on those hits, or, do you recognize that he made out 550 times out of 600 and let him go?

      In that case, there’s little room for debate. Not so in Cashman’s case. You continue to bring up his poor signings/trades, but there have been plenty of successful ones, and a bunch that have way exceeded expectations. The ratio is way better than 1:12.

      And again, you can assign responsibility for this success wherever you like, but they’ve won 4 World Series in his 12-plus-year tenure, the most recent of which was last year. It’s hard to make a case for “moving on” for moving on’s sake when you’ve had both recent and long-term success.

    8. October 29th, 2010 | 3:55 pm

      Cashman did not build those teams that won rings in 1998, 1999 and 2000. Those were Michael and Watson’s teams and they fell into Cashman’s lap.

    9. RobertGKramer@AOL.Com
      October 29th, 2010 | 5:12 pm

      To me the best chance for a change will be promoting Cashman to President and Damon Oppenheimer to GM.

    10. redbug
      October 29th, 2010 | 5:48 pm

      I doubt the Mets fans feel they have something to be excited about. That team’s a mess. No GM is going to cure all their ills instantally. It’s going to take years. That’s assuming the new GM hangs around any lenght of time. Working for George must’ve been a nightmare but at least he opened his checkbook. After Madoff, the Mets no longer possess a checkbook.

    11. MJ Recanati
      October 29th, 2010 | 6:15 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      Cashman did not build those teams that won rings in 1998, 1999 and 2000.

      That’s always been your convenient spin, even in spite of facts to the contrary.

      Scott Brosius, Chuck Knoblauch, Roger Clemens, David Justice, Orlando Hernandez, Jason Giambi, Mike Mussina, Alfonso Soriano (and others whose names have faded from my memory) all played significant roles in the 1998-2003 run of five pennants in six seasons.

      The “Core Four” (plus Bernie Williams and Paul O’Neill) is a convenient myth for the media to continue spinning and, in truth, it’s nice to see old timers like those guys still with the team. But to deny that Cashman played a very big part in one of the most successful six-year periods in Yankee history is to be unbelievably intellectually dishonest.

      There are valid reasons to dislike or discredit Cashman but this is not one of them.

    12. bfriley76
      October 29th, 2010 | 6:32 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      Cashman did not build those teams that won rings in 1998, 1999 and 2000. Those were Michael and Watson’s teams and they fell into Cashman’s lap.

      Kind of knew you were going to say that, hence my statement “And again, you can assign responsibility for this success wherever you like” but the fact of the matter is that you’re proposing “moving in” just for the sake of it with a guy who has been the GM of a team that has won the world series, on average, every three years he’s been in control. Doesn’t that seem silly?

    13. bfriley76
      October 29th, 2010 | 6:33 pm

      “moving on” obviously. not “moving in”

    14. October 29th, 2010 | 7:52 pm

      @ MJ Recanati:
      @ bfriley76:

      Do me a favor. Look up the top 5 batters and the top 5 pitchers for each of the 1998, 1999 and 2000 Yankees in terms of WAR. And, then tell me if they joined the team before or after Cashman was the GM.

      If the numbers back up your claims, I’ll gladly admit I was wrong on this. Will you do the same?

    15. Jim TreshFan
      October 29th, 2010 | 11:23 pm

      Funny, I have two brothers who are diehard Mets fans and neither one is much excited over Alderson’s hiring. In fact, they don’t think he’s going to make much of a difference at all. And don’t worry about Cashman. His contract expires at the end of next season.

    16. Raf
      October 29th, 2010 | 11:29 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      Cashman did not build those teams that won rings in 1998, 1999 and 2000. Those were Michael and Watson’s teams and they fell into Cashman’s lap.

      The team that Cashman took over was eliminated in the 1997 ALDS.

      It bears to mention that of the 8 teams that made the playoffs in 2009, only 3 of them (MIN, NYY, PHI) returned in 2010.

    17. Raf
      October 29th, 2010 | 11:30 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      Do me a favor. Look up the top 5 batters and the top 5 pitchers for each of the 1998, 1999 and 2000 Yankees in terms of WAR.

      Does it really matter? Players have off seasons, players are retained, players are traded, players are released. That they come or go during a particular GM’s tenure, doesn’t mean what you want it to mean.

      Does this particular dead horse need to be revived?

    18. Raf
      October 29th, 2010 | 11:33 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      The “Core Four” (plus Bernie Williams and Paul O’Neill) is a convenient myth for the media to continue spinning and, in truth, it’s nice to see old timers like those guys still with the team.

      Especially since the Steinbrenner checkbook bought guys like David Cone, Kenny Rogers, Darryl Strawberry, Wade Boggs, Orlando Hernandez, blah blah blah blah…

      No matter which way one wants to cut it, Nelson, Tino, Wetteland, Cone, Fielder, etc, etc, etc were traded to the Yankees because they were willing to take on their salaries.

    19. Raf
      October 29th, 2010 | 11:35 pm

      As for the Mets and Alderson, well good for them. Hopefully he’ll be able to straighten the organization out.

    20. GDH
      October 30th, 2010 | 10:52 am

      What’s the reasonable benchmark for a GM?
      Winning the World Series? Not Fair.
      Reaching the World Series? Not fair in most cases, but with the Yankees, I could se this.
      Reaching the playoffs? That’s fair. But with the Yanks and their “checkbook” advantage are expected to reach the playoffs. For them the benchmark needs to be higher. Somewhere between reaching the playoffs and reaching the World Series.
      In 13 seasons they made the playoffs 12 times. I’d say that meets expectations.
      In 13 seasons, they reached the world series 6 times – roughly every other year. That exceeds expectations.
      In 13 seasons, they won the world series 4 times. Enough said.
      All of these are best in majors over that period.
      You can argue all you want about this trade and that trade – a GM has the opportunity to improve, worsen or maintain the quality of the roster every day, and they all do. There must be a benchmark, because all the other stuff is relative. Based on the benchmark above, I think I’d want Cashman, and so would a lot of other clubs.

    21. GDH
      October 30th, 2010 | 11:03 am

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      Cashman did not build those teams that won rings in 1998, 1999 and 2000. Those were Michael and Watson’s teams and they fell into Cashman’s lap.

      This is something I cannot agree with. The day a GM starts a job (I’m a GM, although not of a baseball team) that person either makes the team better, worse, or maintains the quality of the roster. As we all have seen, it is quite an accomplishment for a team to reach the World Series three straight years. The Phils couldn’t do it, despite some damn good moves in the last half this year. They have all stars at many positions and are seasoned playoff performers.

      To make it sound like Brian Cashman sat there and smoked doobies for three years while he rode the horse that Michael and Watson built is not at all fair. It is very difficult to maintain a world series team 3-4 years in a row, and in order to do so, you need to be successful more often than not. Inheriting a good roster, a crappy GM is just as likely to ruin it as a good GM would be to maintain or even improve it.

    22. McMillan
      October 25th, 2013 | 8:32 pm

      GDH wrote:

      The day a GM starts a job (I’m a GM, although not of a baseball team) that person either makes the team better, worse, or maintains the quality of the roster. As we all have seen, it is quite an accomplishment for a team to reach the World Series three straight years. The Phils couldn’t do it, despite some damn good moves in the last half this year. They have all stars at many positions and are seasoned playoff performers.

      To make it sound like Brian Cashman sat there and smoked doobies for three years while he rode the horse that Michael and Watson built is not at all fair. It is very difficult to maintain a world series team 3-4 years in a row, and in order to do so, you need to be successful more often than not. Inheriting a good roster, a crappy GM is just as likely to ruin it as a good GM would be to maintain or even improve it.

      Unbelievable…

      Cashman deserves credit for three straight World Series appearances, because Cashman could have “ruined” the team Gene Michael spent years building, but maintained the quality of the roster instead by making one significant trade for one part-time player in three years…

      Unbelievable…

    23. McMillan
      October 25th, 2013 | 8:46 pm

      GDH wrote:

      What’s the reasonable benchmark for a GM?

      … with the Yanks and their “checkbook” advantage are expected to reach the playoffs. For them the benchmark needs to be higher. Somewhere between reaching the playoffs and reaching the World Series.

      … There must be a benchmark, because all the other stuff is relative. Based on the benchmark above, I think I’d want Cashman, and so would a lot of other clubs.

      Agreed; 100% correct.

      Based on the benchmark above, and from 2005-13, the team has won only 1 L.C.S. and only 1 W.S., and has one of the worst farm systems in ML.B. coming off of an 85-win season with the highest payroll in M.L.B.

      Based on the benchmark above, and as of 2013, you can have him; and you won’t see Cashman as a G.M. with another club…

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.