• Cashman Not Looking To Do Much At GM Meetings

    Posted by on November 7th, 2012 · Comments (65)

    Via the AP -

    After a week without power at his home in Connecticut, the New York Yankees’ Brian Cashman arrived at the general managers’ meetings ready to do business.

    The weather was hot, but the trade market was not.

    “Do I have something I’m looking to execute while I’m out here? No,” he said Tuesday night. “Whatever agents are here, I’ll meet with the agents and then obviously have a chance to engage the 29 clubs. I’ve been with them a few times already. I think there’s certain guys that I’ve been made aware of, but for the most part I think it will be unfolding quietly.”

    This is the first Yankees off-season that I can remember where I have almost zero interest in whatever moves the team makes or doesn’t – and that’s surprising when you consider that New York has something like 13 free agents perhaps not returning and some potentially big needs in the starting rotation, bullpen, outfield and catcher.

    Why don’t I care? It’s simple: I suspect, no matter what the Yankees do this off-season to address their roster needs, that it will not be something that impresses me, or, something that’s going to make any difference in the way this team is constructed in the last 7 years under Cashman’s full autonomy.

    Comments on Cashman Not Looking To Do Much At GM Meetings

    1. hallofamer2000
      November 7th, 2012 | 12:04 pm

      I think you may be misreading this, Steve. I interpreted this that other teams know what the Yankees’ deal is, and vice versa, so there is no reason for GM Meetings to force him into anything. Especially when everyone is just a text away!

    2. November 7th, 2012 | 12:21 pm

      FWIW, I know that the GM meetings are not the same as the Winter Meetings where the real wheeling and dealing happens. And, more often, at best, at the GM meetings, seeds are planted and feelers are sent out.

      I really wasn’t getting on Cashman for not doing anything at the GM meetings. More so, I was just using this to share that I really am not interested in chasing down and following every rumored move that’s connected to the Yankees this off-season. And, for me, that’s rare – especially given all the potential needs on the Yankees this go-round.

      The Yankees will do something, I suspect, to address their starting pitching, bullpen, catching and outfield. It may be bringing some guys back and/or bringing in some new faces. But, for me, right now, it’s just a big yawn. I don’t have any faith in Cashman to make a move that’s going to be exciting and a difference maker for this team.

    3. lordbyron
      November 7th, 2012 | 2:39 pm

      At least Cashman doesn’t have to deal with this pitching staff:

      Old Hoss Radburn pitched to a MLB record 59 or 60 wins, 441 strikeouts in 678 2/3 innings pitched… He died of syphilis and his names is misspelled on his headstone… but he threw a mlb 2nd most innings 678 2/3… 680 is #1
      59-12 Providences went 84-28….FYI Charlie Sweeny was 17-8 on the team LOL He struck out 19 in a game ….. Hurt his arm, so the 2 man rotations became a 1 man rotation… Radburn had a melt down ( a meltdown going 60-12 so he lost what 2 games in a row), Sweeney came back… Sweeney then drank throughout an exhibition game on july 21st (played right field).. refused to leave to go home to providence, missed the early am practice and rushed back to providence on july 22 still drunk, and had to pitch…. Wouldn’t come out of the game …. Was given he a fine, he quite spending the last 2 innings in left field in street clothes and left after the game with 2 “women of the night”…. He was then traded, and Radburn whom was jealous of the young kid, then mad he was getting paid as 1 man doing the job of 2 got paid double the salary…. 2 yrs later sweeneys arm gave out and gave up 7 homeruns in 1 game, then went to prison for killing a man

    4. November 8th, 2012 | 1:25 am

      Steve, you couldn’t be more right. I have zero confidence in Cashman and what’s worse, I don’t think he’s the biggest problem in Yankeeland. This whole thing is starting to feel like the movie “Groundhog Day”, every year the same old plan, same old results. At this point I don’t believe the family is into this at all and that’s the real problem. Wholesale changes have to be made and the team culture needs changing, voguing on every fly to deep right, Cano’s disinterested jog to first on ground balls, it’s time for a wake-up call. The team also has to get younger, I mean Tori Hunter c’mon, how about trying to acquire players coming into the prime of their careers.

      It would be better for the Yankees and their fans if the family sold out, hopefully someone with vision might buy the club and restore it to the glory days of the late 90′s.

    5. MJ Recanati
      November 9th, 2012 | 10:18 am

      Joseph Maloney wrote:

      This whole thing is starting to feel like the movie “Groundhog Day”, every year the same old plan, same old results.

      Woe is us that the same old results include regular 95-win seasons and annual trips to the playoffs.

      Boy, it sure does suck being a Yankees fan. It’s just not fun to have to root for a perennial contender. God, it would be so much better if we could all be Cliff Corcoran, rooting for the Yankees to lose, so we could all learn those valuable lessons learned by losing teams like the Royals. What’s that lesson Royals fans have learned, you ask? I have no idea either.

    6. November 10th, 2012 | 2:11 am

      Well, certainly one way to look at it is by taking the position that the team performance between April and September is a quality product and should be appreciated in and of itself. I don’t agree with taking that approach. I think the team performance needs to be considered in total, season and postseason, and that performance when seen in that light is disappointing to say the least.

    7. MJ Recanati
      November 10th, 2012 | 9:32 am

      Joseph Maloney wrote:

      I think the team performance needs to be considered in total, season and postseason, and that performance when seen in that light is disappointing to say the least.

      So a handful of games at the end of the season color your entire impression of the entire season? Seems odd to me that four bad games outdo 168 mostly good ones but I guess it’s your choice to only see the darker side of life.

    8. Raf
      November 10th, 2012 | 11:22 am

      Joseph Maloney wrote:

      Well, certainly one way to look at it is by taking the position that the team performance between April and September is a quality product and should be appreciated in and of itself. I don’t agree with taking that approach. I think the team performance needs to be considered in total, season and postseason, and that performance when seen in that light is disappointing to say the least.

      http://www.ussmariner.com/2012/10/29/a-championship-offseason/

      The Giants just won the World Series, beating the crap out of the team who spent $214 million to sign Prince Fielder last winter. The Giants finished 30th in the Majors in home runs this year. Their starting left fielder slugged .344. Their starting first baseman hit seven home runs. Their shortstop is essentially the NL’s version of Brendan Ryan. One of their two deadline acquistions was bringing in a 36-year-old slap-hitting contact guy who was posting his worst offensive season in years after getting traded to Colorado.

      Repeat after me: There is no right way to build a baseball team. You don’t need a power hitting first baseman or a true slugger in left field. You don’t have to hit home runs. You don’t have to be the slave to any kind of traditional idea of what a team is supposed to look like.

      The traditional model of ace pitchers and big time sluggers can work too. Detroit got to the World Series, after all. Hitting home runs is good. Having great pitchers is good. The Tigers defense was atrocious, and they still won the American League. You don’t have to play good defense to win either. There is no magic formula.

      The Giants didn’t do anything last winter to prove they wanted to win. They didn’t make any significant free agent signings to improve a dreadful offense. They took a team that couldn’t hit and they improved their defense. A year later, they’re World Champs.

      Runs are runs and wins are wins. And it really doesn’t matter how you get them.

    9. McMillan
      November 21st, 2012 | 1:15 pm

      Impressive: Cashman signed his no. 2 starter from last year to a second-consecutive 1-year contract, paying Kuroda 50% more than he paid Kuroda in 2012; perhaps signing Kuroda to the two-year contract that Kuroda wanted last year might have saved the team a few million dollars – but what’s a few million dollars to this G.M.?

      With the signing, the team gets older by one year, the team’s payroll goes up by $5 million, but the team does not get better; Impressive.

      This will be 2 straight years with a no. 1 starter earning $23 million, and a no. 2 starter signed to a 1-year contract; that has not been done before. Impressive.

      All Cashman has to do now is resign Martin, and his “All-Or-Nothing Big Hairy Monster Team that mashes” will be poised for another run at early elimination in the playoffs ( or “crapshoots”) in 2013. That will be crapshoot appearances in 14 out of the last 15 years? And making it to the crapshoots is more important than winning a crapshoot, because you can not win a crapshoot without making it to the crapshoots. Of course, with an expanded playoff format and 2 wildcard teams, more G.M.s make it to the crapshoots. Impressive.

      And there is no right way to build a baseball team. That is why you don’t see baseball teams winning 3 world championships in a row, for example. Another reason is that the playoffs are just crapshoots.

    10. November 21st, 2012 | 2:02 pm

      @ McMillan:
      FWIW, I would have fired Cashman four years ago:

      http://waswatching.com/2010/12/28/when-would-i-have-fired-brian-cashman/

      But, no one listens to me.

    11. McMillan
      November 21st, 2012 | 3:02 pm

      Its a shame what has happened to this franchise. And I’m not just referring to the fact that one can no longer visit Yankee Stadium and look onto a playing field where Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Mantle, and Jackson once stood. It is not the organization it was once, and will not be again with Brian Cashman occupying the role of General Manager. Its good to hear from people out there that see that.

      @ Steve L.:

    12. MJ Recanati
      November 21st, 2012 | 3:04 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Impressive: Cashman signed his no. 2 starter from last year to a second-consecutive 1-year contract, paying Kuroda 50% more than he paid Kuroda in 2012; perhaps signing Kuroda to the two-year contract that Kuroda wanted last year might have saved the team a few million dollars – but what’s a few million dollars to this G.M.?With the signing, the team gets older by one year, the team’s payroll goes up by $5 million, but the team does not get better; Impressive.

      And if Kuroda had imploded last year? It would be better to pay him a guaranteed second year if he had not transitioned well to the AL?

      You can’t argue both sides here. The benefit the Yankees have is that they’re comfortable paying Kuroda $15M in exchange for the flexibility that a one-year contract affords.

      The Yankees have always been willing to spend a little more in order to get what they want. In this case they want a one year commitment. Why is that a bad thing?

    13. MJ Recanati
      November 21st, 2012 | 3:06 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Its a shame what has happened to this franchise

      Nothing bad has happened to this franchise. The franchise is run in the exact same way as it’s always been run under the Steinbrenners. The Yankees are neither the most efficient nor the most fan-friendly team out there and the explanation for both criticisms is simply because they don’t have to be.

    14. McMillan
      November 21st, 2012 | 3:29 pm

      You are 100% correct. And I do not believe you will see another N.Y. Yankee team capable of competing for world championships for years to come for these reasons. And that statement does not come from a sense of entitlement – fans of this franchise do not have a right to complain about a failure to win world championships. But they do have a right to complain about incompetence in the front office and a failure to field a team capable of competing for world championships in most years.

      And contrary to the beliefs of some people, fielding a team capable of appearing in the postseason, and fielding a team capable of competing for world championships are two different things. For $200 million in payroll each year, and the prices families pay to see N.Y. Yankee baseball games, and yes, given the history, tradition, and resources of the franchise, the organization should be fielding a team capable of competing for world championships in more years than it has under Cashman.
      @ Joseph Maloney:

    15. November 21st, 2012 | 3:49 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Its good to hear from people out there that see that.

      There’s a lot of people out there who look forward to the day that Cashman gets canned. Much more so, now, than it was, say, four years ago. I see it in comments – some here, but, a lot more in comments left at articles in the Daily News.

      But, none of those people who feel that way work for the Yankees. So, Cashman remains at his post.

      It’s at the point now where I just want the Yankees to promote Cashman, like what happened with the GMs of the Indians, Marlins and White Sox – and what happened to Theo when he got the Cubs job – and then hire a GM to work under him, who knows what he is doing.

      I just want a better GM, whatever it takes to get him in there.

    16. McMillan
      November 21st, 2012 | 4:38 pm

      The way that Cashman has staffed and maintained the team’s starting rotation is certainly a model for all M.L.B. franchises to follow. The “benefit” that the organization has is that it is capable of writing $25 million in checks for 2-consecutive 1-year contracts for a no. 2 starter that might get them to a 95th win and an appearance in the postseason as of Nov., 2012; an “advantage” is not, nor should it be, a matter of flexibility in providing for a no. 2 starter in this rotation under the circumstances.

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but for two seasons now, the Yankees have been: 1. paying their no. 1 starter $23 million; 2. signing their no. 2 starter to 1-year contracts; 3. signing their no. 3 starter to 1-year contracts as he mulls retirement each year; and 4. sending millions-of-dollars to Pittsburgh for Burnett to pitch for the Pirates. Is that correct? I believe that it is.

      The first dollars of a $200 million payroll probably should be spent a stable 1-2-3 in the starting rotation if your stated organizational goal is to be capable of competing for a world championship – the next number of which your manager wears on his back, each season. Why were the Baltimore Orioles so competitive each year and for many years decades ago? Palmer, Flanagan, and McGregor. There are many examples; please do not ask me to list them. Is there a stable 1-2-3 in the starting rotation in the foreseeable future or on the horizon for this team? I don’t see one; Sabathia is not getting any younger.

      @ MJ Recanati:

    17. McMillan
      November 21st, 2012 | 4:57 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      McMillan wrote:
      The franchise is run in the exact same way as it’s always been run under the Steinbrenners.

      The franchise is not being run as it was run under Gabe Paul, Cedric Tallis, or Al Rosen. It is not being run as it was under Gene Michael, Bob Watson, and whomever was apparently performing the functions of G.M. while Brian Cashman held that title from 1998 – 2001.

      The franchise is being run as it was in the 1980s as I have pointed out: it had the most wins in the decade of the 1980s, the highest payroll for the decade of the 1980s, and only 2 American League East division titles and only 1 American League pennant for the decade. Does that record sound familiar? Recall, there was no A.L.D.S. in the 1980s. Does it sound like the record of the son of a personal friend of Mr. Steinbrenner, Brian Cashman – the organization’s G.M. from 2002 – 2012? Or is it 2005 – 2012.

      And the foremost reason the team did not win in the 1980s was because it did not have a stable 1-2-3 in the rotation. If you look at the machinations of the G.M.s of the 1980s and Brian Cashman for the period of 2002 -2012, you will find an interesting basis for analysis or comparison.

    18. Raf
      November 21st, 2012 | 5:17 pm

      Steve L. wrote:

      some here, but, a lot more in comments left at articles in the Daily News.

      I’ve read the comments section of the NYDN. I’ve listened to WFAN on occasion. They don’t help your case ;)

    19. Raf
      November 21st, 2012 | 5:21 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      You can’t argue both sides here.

      That’s the only way they can do it. Because to argue one side, their argument falls flat on its face.

    20. Raf
      November 21st, 2012 | 5:24 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      only 2 American League East division titles and only 1 American League pennant for the decade. Does that record sound familiar? Recall, there was no A.L.D.S. in the 1980s

      There was an ALDS in 1981. I don’t think it makes much sense to point out that there hasn’t been an ALDS, because the Yankees have won more division titles than wildcards.

    21. McMillan
      November 21st, 2012 | 8:21 pm

      1981 was a strike-shortened season, and therefore an intermediate playoff round was played in which the team with the best record before the strike played the team in its division with the best record in the second half of the season and after the strike. There was not an A.L.D.S. in 1981.

      There were fewer divisions and teams in M.L.B. in the 1980s, and there was not an A.L.D.S round, nor a second wildcard team. It “makes sense” to “point this out” for several reasons: 1. not all readers in the forum are necessarily aware of these facts, and some have to be reminded of them; and 2. just as the accomplishments of a player in his postseason career (e.g. Jeter, Pettitte, Rivera, etc.) must be compared with the statistics of players in previous years in this context, so must the record of a G.M., apparently.

      The Detroit Tigers opened the 1984 season with a 35-5 record and ran away with the A.L. East, and there was no wildcard position in the playoffs, and N.Y. had a strong team that year. N.Y. was eliminated from the playoffs in 1985 in the second-to-last game of the regular season in Toronto, again there was no wildcard position available.

      In the 1980s, N.Y. had the most wins in M.L.B., and the highest total payroll in M.L.B., and did not have a stable 1-2-3 at the front end of the rotation for the entire decade, and did not win more than 2 A.L. East titles and 1 A.L. pennant. Sounds a lot like 2002 – 2012, with the exception of appearances in more “crapshoots” at the end of 10 of the 11 regular seasons (and counting). And 2013 and 2014 are not looking much better.

      @ Raf:

    22. McMillan
      November 21st, 2012 | 8:23 pm

      Raf wrote:

      MJ Recanati wrote:
      You can’t argue both sides here.
      That’s the only way they can do it. Because to argue one side, their argument falls flat on its face.

      Can someone please explain how more than 1 side has been argued in this?

    23. McMillan
      November 21st, 2012 | 8:47 pm

      How many G.M.s did the N.Y. Yankees have in the 1980s? 7: Gene Michael, Bill Bergesch, Murray Cook, Clyde King, Woody Woodward, Lou Piniella, and Bob Quinn.

      For the decade of the 1980s, N.Y. had the most regular season wins, the highest total payroll, and did not put together a solid 1-2-3 in the rotation. And it had 1 A.L. pennant for the decade which did not have an expanded playoff format.

      How many G.M.s did the N.Y. Yankees have in the period 2002 – 2012? 1: Brian Cashman.

      In the period 2002 – 2012, N.Y. had the most regular season wins, the highest total payroll, and did not put together a solid 1-2-3 in the rotation. And it had 2 A.L. pennants and 1 World Series championship for the 11-year period. The 1 World Series championship won in 2009 with the addition of $423 million in long-term payroll obligations.

      7 G.M.s in the 1980s, but only 1 in the period 2002 – 2012, and the most significant difference between the two periods is just 1 world championship. At least it looks as if a playoff appearance in 2013 might be within reach with the re-signing of the 38-year-old Kuroda to be the team’s no. 2 starter – this way, the team can then proudly boast of a crapshoot appearance in 14 of 15 seasons.

      @ Raf:

    24. Raf
      November 21st, 2012 | 11:21 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      1. not all readers in the forum are necessarily aware of these facts

      Which forum, this one? The regulars here have been watching the Yankees since the 60′s, 70′s & 80′s.

      That the Yankees more often than not missed the playoffs in the 80′s hurts the point you’re trying to make, not help, especially since in the timeframe you’re using to frame your argument (2002-12), the Yankees have only made the wild card twice, in 2007 & 2010.

      In the period 2002 – 2012, N.Y. had the most regular season wins, the highest total payroll, and did not put together a solid 1-2-3 in the rotation.

      You must have a unique definition of “solid 1-2-3″

    25. McMillan
      November 24th, 2012 | 8:22 pm

      “There is no right way to build a baseball team.” This statement false; it is somewhat like saying: “there is no right way to build a house.” There is a right way to build a house: one starts with a strong foundation. There is a right way to build a baseball team: one starts with a strong starting rotation. Teams can be built with more power or speed, but the right way to build a team is on a strong foundation of starting pitching.

      For the 10-yr. period 2003 – 12, the Yankees did not have a strong foundation of starting pitching; the closest the organization came to stability in the nos. 1 – 2 positions in the starting rotation was with Mussina and Pettitte in the same rotation in 2003 – 04 and later in 2007 – 08, and Sabathia and Pettitte in the same rotation in 2009 – 10, and in 2012.

      The team largely staffed the nos. 3 – 5 positions in the rotation with: 1. Brown (Yrs.: 2; W – L: 14 – 13; E.R.A.: 4.95; Cost: $34 million); 2. Contreras (Yrs.: 2; W – L: 15 – 7; E.R.A. 4.64; Cost: $16 million); 3. Wright (Yrs.: 2; W – L: 16 – 12; E.R.A.: 4.99; Cost: $17 million); 4. Johnson (Yrs.: 2; W – L: 34 – 19; E.R.A. 4.37; Cost: $32 million); 5. Vazquez (Yrs. 2; W – L: 24 – 20; E.R.A.: 5.09; Cost: $20.5 million); 6. Igawa (Yrs.: 5; W – L: 2 – 3; E.R.A.: 6.25; Cost: $46 million); 7. Wang (Yrs.: 5; W – L: 55 – 26; E.R.A.: 4.16; Cost: $10 million); 8. Clemens (Yrs. 2; W – L: 23 – 15; E.R.A.: 4.00; Cost: $38.5 million; 9. Pavano (Yrs.: 4; W – L: 9 – 8; E.R.A.: 5.10; Cost: $39.95 million); 10. Burnett (Yrs.: 3; W – L: 34 – 35; E.R.A.: 4.79; Cost: $64.4 million); and Hughes (Yrs.: 5; W – L: 52 – 36; E.R.A.: 4.39; Cost: $7 million).

      Cashman made only 1 trade in the decade to staff the rotation’s nos. 1 – 2 positions; a trade for a 41-yr.-old pitcher with a history of back problems that went 34 – 19 with a 4.37 E.R.A. in 2 years – at a cost of more than $32 million.

      Although the team did not have a strong foundation of starting pitching for 2003 – 12, it appeared in the postseason in 9 of its 10 yrs. by having payrolls exceeding all others in M.L.B. by tens-of-millions of dollars or more each season; payrolls that provided for enough pitching in the rotation’s nos. 3 – 5 positions and for enough offense to appear in the postseason in those 9 yrs.

      The team did not win more than 2 A.L. championships and 1 world championship because it did not have the pitching to do so in an expanded playoff format that is not a “crapshoot.” And it does not have the pitching to compete for an A.L. championship or a world championship in 2013 [or an offense that will hit in Oct. - Nov., 2012]; but it still has the same G.M…

      @ Raf:

    26. McMillan
      November 24th, 2012 | 10:01 pm

      The N.Y. Yankees as an organization was in chaos for much of the 1980s – it had 7 G.M.s (Michael, Bergesch, Cook, King, Woodward, Piniella, and Quinn) and 12 managerial changes (Howser, Michael, Lemon, Michael, King, Martin, Berra, Martin, Piniella, Martin, Green, and Dent) in the decade. In 1982, G. Steinbrenner even decided to rebuild the 1981 A.L. pennant-winning team with a blueprint of the K.C. Royals and the team finished fifth.

      And the franchise STILL managed to win the MOST regular season games of ANY franchise in this period.

      The franchise managed to win the most games in this period because it had the highest total payroll for the period, funding lineups that featured the highest-paid player in the game, Winfield, and the offensive production of players such as Watson, Nettles, Piniella, Jackson, Gamble, Griffey, Smalley, Baylor, Mattingly, Henderson, Clark, etc. (i.e. “Big Hairy Monster Teams That Mashed”).

      The franchise won 1 A.L. pennant for the decade; it failed to compete for a world championship (w.c.) in most years because it did not build a rotation capable of such competition.

      The Yankees as an organization had 1 G.M. and 1 managerial change (Girardi) for the period 2003 – 12, and managed to win the most regular season games of any franchise in this period.

      The franchise managed to win the most games in this period because it has had the highest total payroll for the period, funding lineups that featured the highest-paid player, Rodriguez, and the offensive production of players such as Jeter, Posada, Williams, O’Neill, Martinez, Matsui, Sheffield, Damon, Cano, Swisher, Teixeira, etc. (i.e. “Big Hairy Monster Teams That Mash(ed)”).

      The franchise won 2. A.L. pennants and 1 w.c. from 2003 – 12; it failed to compete for a w.c. in most years because it did not build a rotation capable of such competition under Cashman – Mussina and Pettitte in 2003 – 04, and 2007 – 08, were not enough.

      The team’s record – or Cashman’s record – for the period 2003 – 2012 surpasses that of the 1980s ONLY in that: 1. the team has typically finished higher in the division standings; and 2. won 1 w.c. How does Cashman’s record compare to G.M.s of the period 1973 – 1980? Or the period 1993 – 2000?
      @ Raf:

    27. McMillan
      November 24th, 2012 | 10:05 pm

      “The regulars here have been watching the Yankees since the 60′s, 70′s & 80′s.”

      I was not aware that readers of this forum and regulars were one and the same.
      @ Raf:

    28. Raf
      November 24th, 2012 | 10:16 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Although the team did not have a strong foundation of starting pitching for 2003 – 12

      Actually, it has. Feel free to research baseball reference or your favorite stats site.

      McMillan wrote:

      The franchise won 2. A.L. pennants and 1 w.c. from 2003 – 12; it failed to compete for a w.c. in most years

      The team made the playoffs. That’s competing for a w.c. They were one of the best 8 teams in MLB, or one of the best 4 teams in the AL.

    29. McMillan
      November 24th, 2012 | 10:30 pm

      With an expanded playoff format (best-of-5 A.L.D.S., a best-of-7 A.L.C.S., a best-of-7 W.S., and 2 wild-card teams, the postseason is less of an “anything can happen” proposition than it might have been years ago. And if it is an organization’s mandate to field a team capable of competing for a world championship each season, and the organization commits $200 million to that effort annually, the nos. 1 – 3 positions in the teams rotation should be capable of competing for a w.c. in such a format in most years. Detroit has been, and will be able to, compete for a w.c. for years behind Verlander, Scherzer, and Fister.

      Cashman apparently chose to acquire Pineda from Seattle in 2012 in exchange for Montero, rather than Fister in 2011…

      @ Raf:

    30. McMillan
      November 24th, 2012 | 10:33 pm

      Raf wrote:

      McMillan wrote:
      Although the team did not have a strong foundation of starting pitching for 2003 – 12
      Actually, it has. Feel free to research baseball reference or your favorite stats site.
      McMillan wrote:
      The franchise won 2. A.L. pennants and 1 w.c. from 2003 – 12; it failed to compete for a w.c. in most years
      The team made the playoffs. That’s competing for a w.c. They were one of the best 8 teams in MLB, or one of the best 4 teams in the AL.

      For the 10-yr. period 2003 – 12, the Yankees did not have a strong foundation of starting pitching; the closest the organization came to stability in the nos. 1 – 2 positions in the starting rotation was with Mussina and Pettitte in the same rotation in 2003 – 04 and later in 2007 – 08, and Sabathia and Pettitte in the same rotation in 2009 – 10, and in 2012.

      The team largely staffed the nos. 3 – 5 positions in the rotation with: 1. Brown (Yrs.: 2; W – L: 14 – 13; E.R.A.: 4.95; Cost: $34 million); 2. Contreras (Yrs.: 2; W – L: 15 – 7; E.R.A. 4.64; Cost: $16 million); 3. Wright (Yrs.: 2; W – L: 16 – 12; E.R.A.: 4.99; Cost: $17 million); 4. Johnson (Yrs.: 2; W – L: 34 – 19; E.R.A. 4.37; Cost: $32 million); 5. Vazquez (Yrs. 2; W – L: 24 – 20; E.R.A.: 5.09; Cost: $20.5 million); 6. Igawa (Yrs.: 5; W – L: 2 – 3; E.R.A.: 6.25; Cost: $46 million); 7. Wang (Yrs.: 5; W – L: 55 – 26; E.R.A.: 4.16; Cost: $10 million); 8. Clemens (Yrs. 2; W – L: 23 – 15; E.R.A.: 4.00; Cost: $38.5 million; 9. Pavano (Yrs.: 4; W – L: 9 – 8; E.R.A.: 5.10; Cost: $39.95 million); 10. Burnett (Yrs.: 3; W – L: 34 – 35; E.R.A.: 4.79; Cost: $64.4 million); and Hughes (Yrs.: 5; W – L: 52 – 36; E.R.A.: 4.39; Cost: $7 million).

    31. McMillan
      November 24th, 2012 | 10:39 pm

      “They were one of the best 8 teams in MLB, or one of the best 4 teams in the AL.”

      Really? Winning a division or a wildcard spot makes a team one of the best 8 in M.L.B. or one the best 4 teams in the A.L.? You might want to think that statement through a little more…

      @ Raf:

    32. McMillan
      November 24th, 2012 | 10:42 pm

      “The team made the playoffs. That’s competing for a w.c.”

      No it isn’t. A team can make it to the postseason without a reasonable chance of winning a world championship.
      @ Raf:

    33. Raf
      November 24th, 2012 | 10:51 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      the postseason is less of an “anything can happen” proposition than it might have been years ago.

      Actually, it’s more so. Adding more rounds of playoffs and more series means that there’s more of a chance that anything can happen.

      McMillan wrote:

      For the 10-yr. period 2003 – 12, the Yankees did not have a strong foundation of starting pitching

      The numbers don’t back up your claim. The only thing you’ve done is put together a list of starters, with no context.

    34. Raf
      November 24th, 2012 | 10:56 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Really? Winning a division or a wildcard spot makes a team one of the best 8 in M.L.B. or one the best 4 teams in the A.L.? You might want to think that statement through a little more

      Yeah, you’re right. Almost forgot the Tigers, with 88 wins can represent the AL in the World Series despite having the 7th best record in the AL (behind NY, OAK, BAL, TEX, TB & LAA)… Just goes to show the folly of the playoffs and divisional play, I suppose ;)

    35. Raf
      November 24th, 2012 | 10:58 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      No it isn’t. A team can make it to the postseason without a reasonable chance of winning a world championship.

      Tell that to the 2006 Cardinals, the 1990 Reds, the 1988 Dodgers, the 2012 Giants, etc, etc, etc.

      Given the randomness of a short series, any team that makes the playoffs has a reasonable chance of winning a world championship.

    36. Evan3457
      November 25th, 2012 | 10:15 am

      I was just looking over the arguments back and forth, and would like to ask one question?

      What was the Yankees “stable 1-2-3″ in the rotation when they won it all in 1978?

    37. Raf
      November 25th, 2012 | 7:27 pm

      @ Evan3457:
      I’m still trying to figure out what constitutes a “stable 1-2-3″ and how many teams have them that;
      - Didn’t make the playoffs
      - Made the playoffs and were eliminated
      - Won the world series

      Bonus question, how many stable 1-2-3′s lost to stabler 1-2-3′s?

    38. McMillan
      November 25th, 2012 | 9:34 pm

      Nos. 1 – 3 Positions in a Starting Rotation:

      N.Y. Yankees: 2003 – 12 (2 A.L. Championships; 1 World Championship)*

      2003: Mussina, Pettitte, Clemens
      2004: Mussina, Brown, Hernandez
      2005: Mussina, Brown, Johnson
      2006: Mussina, Wang, Johnson
      2007: Mussina, Pettitte, Clemens
      2008: Mussina, Pettitte, Wang
      2009: Sabathia, Pettitte, Burnett
      2010: Sabathia, Pettitte, Burnettt
      2011: Sabathia, Hughes, Burnett
      2012. Sabathia, Kuroda, Pettitte

      N.Y. Yankees: 1980 – 1989 (1 A.L. Championship; 0 World Championships)**

      1980: Guidry, John, Underwood
      1981: Guidry, John, Righetti
      1982: Guidry, John, Righetti
      1983: Guidry, Righetti, Rawley
      1984: Guidry, P. Niekro, Rasmussen
      1985: Guidry, P. Niekro, Rasmussen
      1986: Guidry, Rasmussen, J. Niekro
      1987: Guidry, Rhoden, John
      1988: Rhoden, John, Candelaria
      1989: Hawkins, LaPoint, Terrell

      *- Most wins in M.L.B., 2003 – 12.
      ** Most wins in M.L.B., 1980 – 89.

      San Francisco Giants: 2008 – 12 (2 N.L. Championships, 2 World Championships)

      2008: Cain, Zito, Lincecum
      2009: Cain, Zito, Lincecum
      2010: Cain, Zito, Lincecum
      2011: Cain, Zito, Lincecum
      2012: Cain, Zito, Lincecum

      St. Louis Cardinals: 2006 – 2012 (2 N.L. Championships; 2 World Championships)

      2006: Carpenter, Marquis, Suppan
      2007: Carpenter, Wainwright, Looper
      2008: Carpenter, Wainwright, Wellemeyer
      2009: Carpenter, Wainwright, Wellemeyer
      2010: Carpenter, Wainwright, Garcia
      2011: Carpenter, Lohse, Westbrook
      2012: Carpenter, Wainwright, Lohse, Lynn

      Boston Red Sox: 2003 – 09 (2 A.L. Championships; 2 World Championships)

      2003: Wakefield, Martinez, Lowe
      2004: Wakefield, Schilling, Martinez
      2005: Wakefield, Schilling
      2005: Wakefield, Schilling, Beckett
      2006: Wakefield, Schilling, Beckett
      2007: Wakefield, Schilling, Beckett

      New York Yankees: 1995 – 2002 (5 A.L. Championships; 4 World Championships).

      1995: Pettitte, Cone, Key
      1996: Pettitte, Cone, Key
      1997: Pettitte, Cone, Wells
      1998: Pettitte, Cone, Wells
      1999: Pettitte, Cone, Clemens
      2000: Pettitte, Cone, Clemens
      2001: Pettitte, Clemens, Mussina
      2002: Pettitte, Clemens, Mussina

      Atlanta Braves: 1990 – 99 (5 N.L. Championships)

      1990: Glavine, Smoltz, Avery
      1991: Glavine, Smoltz, Avery
      1992: Glavine, Smoltz, Avery
      1993: Glavine, Smoltz, Maddux
      1994: Glavine, Smoltz, Maddux
      1995: Glavine, Smoltz, Maddux
      1996: Glavine, Smoltz, Madduz
      1997: Glavine, Smoltz, Maddux
      1998: Glavine, Smoltz, Maddux
      1999: Glavine, Smoltz, Maddux

      Oakland Athletics: 1987 – 92 (3 A.L. Championships; 1 World Championship)

      1987: Stewart, Young, Davis
      1988: Stewart, Welch, Young
      1989: Stewart, Welch, Moore
      1990: Stewart, Welch, Moore
      1991: Stewart, Welch, Moore
      1992: Stewart, Welch, Moore

      Toronto Blue Jays: 1985 – 94 (2 A.L. Championships; 2 World Championships)

      1985: Stieb, Key, Clancy
      1986: Stieb, Key, Clancy
      1987: Stieb, Key, Clancy
      1988: Stieb, Key, Stottlemyre,
      1989: Stieb, Key, Stottlemyre
      1990: Stieb, Key, Stottlemyre
      1991: Stieb, Key, Stottlemyre
      1992: Stieb, Key, Stottlemyre

      Detroit Tigers; 1982 – 89 (1 A.L. Championship; 1 World Championship)

      1982: Morris, Petry, Wilcox
      1983: Morris, Petry, Wilcox
      1984: Morris, Petry, Wilcox
      1985: Morris, Petry, Wilcox
      1986: Morris, Petry, Tanana
      1987: Morris, Petry, Tanana
      1988: Morris, Tanana, Alexander
      1989: Morris, Tanana, Alexander

      St. Louis Cardinals 1981 – 88 (2 N.L. Championships; 1 World Championship)

      1981: Forsch, Andujar
      1982: Forsch, Andujar
      1983: Forsch, Andujar, Cox
      1984: Forsch, Andujar, Cox
      1985: Forsch, Andujar, Cox
      1986: Forsch, Cox, Tudor
      1987: Forsch, Cox, Tudor
      1988: Forsch, Cox, Tudor

      New York Yankees: 1976 – 78 (3 A.L. Championships; 2 World Championships)

      1976: Figueroa, Hunter
      1977: Guidry, Figueroa, Hunter
      1978: Guidry, Figueroa, Hunter

      Los Angeles Dodgers: 1977 – 88 (5 N.L. Championships; 2 World Championships)

      1977: Sutton, Hough, Rhoden, John
      1978: Sutton, Hough, Rhoden, John
      1979: Welch, Reuss, Sutton, Hough
      1980: Welch, Reuss, Sutton, Hough
      1981: Welch, Reuss, Valenzuela
      1982: Welch, Reuss, Valenzuela
      1983: Welch, Reuss, Valenzuela
      1984: Welch, Reuss, Valenzuela
      1985: Welch, Valenzuela, Hershiser
      1986: Welch, Valenzuela, Hershiser
      1987: Welch, Valenzuela, Hershiser
      1988: Hershiser, Leary, Belcher

      Philadelphia Phillies; 1978 – 83 (2 N.L. Championships; 1 World Championship)

      1978: Carlton, Christianson, Reed, Ruthven
      1979: Carlton, Christianson, Reed, Ruthven
      1980: Carlton, Christianson, Reed, Ruthven
      1981: Carlton, Christianson, Reed, Ruthven
      1982: Carlton. Christianson, Reed, Ruthven
      1983: Carlton, Christianson, Reed, Ruthven

      Baltimore Orioles: 1978 – 84 (2 A.L. Championships; 1 World Championship)

      1978: Palmer, Flanagan, McGregor, Martinez
      1979: Palmer, Flanagan, McGregor, Martinez
      1980: Palmer, Flanagan, McGregor, Martinez
      1981: Palmer, Flanagan, McGregor, Martinez
      1982: Palmer. Flanagan, McGregor, Martinez
      1983: Palmer, Flanagan, McGregor, Martinez
      1984: Palmer, Flanagan, McGregor, Martinez

      @ Evan3457:

    39. McMillan
      November 25th, 2012 | 9:48 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      I was just looking over the arguments back and forth, and would like to ask one question?
      What was the Yankees “stable 1-2-3″ in the rotation when they won it all in 1978?

      And after 1978, the Yankees next won a world championship in 1996.

    40. Evan3457
      November 25th, 2012 | 10:16 pm

      @ McMillan:
      OK, then a “stable 1-2-3″ means very little then. (I don’t mean it isn’t very good to have one. I mean that if the Cards threesome of Carpenter-Marquis-Suppan is a “stable 1-2-3″, just about any top 3 on any contender is.)

      For example, the 2006 Cards won a title with one of the worst rotations in the league (Their starters were 12th in the NL in ERA, 10th in quality starts and 9th in innings). So unstable was that stable 1-2-3 that 2 of the 3 didn’t return the next season.

      Citing Guidry/Figueroa/Hunter as the stable 1-2-3 in 1978 is silly. Guidry, yes. Figueroa, yes in the regular season, but he was horrible in the post-season. Hunter made only 22 starts in ’77 due to a shoulder injury that required surgery. He was 3-4 with a 6.51 ERA in only 9 starts through the end of July in ’78. A manipulation of the shoulder broke the adhesions left over from the surgery, and he rolled down the stretch and through the playoffs, but nobody could’ve expected that amazing turnaround, least of all Gabe Paul.

      In fact, the amazing thing about the 1977-78 Yankee back to back champs was the instability of their rotation. They signed Gullett as a free agent, he was injured by year’s end. They signed Hunter as a free agent, he was hurt by the end of the 1976 season. They picked up Torres in a trade in April, 1977, and he saved the Yanks in the post-season of ’77. Then they let him go as a free agent and he saved the Yanks again by serving up the Bucky HR in the playoff game in Fenway. Jim Beattle was put in the rotation late April ’78, taken out in early June, taken out in late June and sent to the minors, and called back up in late July and put in the rotation for pretty much the rest of the year. Tidrow had to make 7 starts in ’77, and was in the rotation at the start of ’78, then moved back and forth between the pen and the rotation in June and July, then made 11 starts in a row through mid-September, before being moved back to the rotation for the post-season. Beattie’s arrival and Hunter’s comeback is what allowed Tidrow to be moved back to the pen in the ’78 post-season.

      The Jays had a stable 1-2-3 for 7 years before they won anything. The 80′s Tigers are cited for having a stable 1-2-3 even though they only won once with it.

      You’ve listed 93 team/seasons here, and have 21 Titles to show for it. Take out the Yankees teams, and it’s 15 titles in 87 team/seasons, about 1 every 6. That’s not really very much worse than the 1 in 9 Cashman’s Yankees won from 2004 to 2012 (and the 2003 team really doesn’t belong; that was the last year Pettitte, Clemens and Wells were there and the 1-2-3 cited is identical to the 1-2-3 from 2001 and 2002 “Good Yankees”).

    41. Evan3457
      November 25th, 2012 | 10:18 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      I was just looking over the arguments back and forth, and would like to ask one question?
      What was the Yankees “stable 1-2-3″ in the rotation when they won it all in 1978?
      And after 1978, the Yankees next won a world championship in 1996.

      Yeah, but they didn’t have a stable 1-2-3 in ’78.

    42. McMillan
      November 25th, 2012 | 10:42 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      I was just looking over the arguments back and forth, and would like to ask one question?
      What was the Yankees “stable 1-2-3″ in the rotation when they won it all in 1978?

      Teams have won championships without a “stable 1-2-3″ (such as Stottlemyre, Key and Guzman/Wells with Tor., for example).

      The period 2003 – 12 is not a model, as far as the starting rotation is concerned, for building teams capable of competing for championships in most years. It is the main reason the team has not won more than 1 world championship for the period, despite having had payrolls approaching $200 million in most years.

    43. McMillan
      November 25th, 2012 | 10:46 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      McMillan wrote:
      Evan3457 wrote:
      I was just looking over the arguments back and forth, and would like to ask one question?
      What was the Yankees “stable 1-2-3″ in the rotation when they won it all in 1978?
      And after 1978, the Yankees next won a world championship in 1996.
      Yeah, but they didn’t have a stable 1-2-3 in ’78.

      That’s not the point. No one is suggesting a team can not win a championship without a “stable 1-2-3;” the term itself implies a timeframe of more than 1 year.

    44. McMillan
      November 25th, 2012 | 10:59 pm

      A “stable 1-2-3″ means everything to competing in the long-term. When I say “stable,” I mean a rotation staffed with the same nos. 1 – 3 pitchers for at least 2 years, preferably 3-or-more. And obviously, not every line in previous post was intended to represent a strong front end of the rotation.

      The bottom line is this: If an organization is going to commit the financial resources this one has to a stated organizational goal of competing for a world championship in most years, then the starting pitching should have been both stronger and more stable over the course of a 10-year period. And the main reason the team did not win more than 1 world championship in these 10 years having spent more on payroll than other franchises by tens-of-millions or hundreds-of-millions of dollars in some cases is because the starting pitching was not stronger and more stable in this time.

      @ Evan3457:

    45. Raf
      November 26th, 2012 | 12:02 am

      McMillan wrote:

      “stable 1-2-3″ means everything to competing in the long-term. When I say “stable,” I mean a rotation staffed with the same nos. 1 – 3 pitchers for at least 2 years, preferably 3-or-more.

      Which as shown, means nothing.

      It doesn’t matter where the team gets the production as long as they get the production. If the Yankees get 20-10, 2.25 out of a pitcher 3 years running, does it matter if it’s the same pitcher, 3 different pitchers, or a pitcher promoted from within, a pitcher traded for or a pitcher signed as a FA?

    46. McMillan
      November 26th, 2012 | 12:59 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      I was just looking over the arguments back and forth, and would like to ask one question?
      What was the Yankees “stable 1-2-3″ in the rotation when they won it all in 1978?

      That the 1976 – 78 N.Y. Yankees or 2006 – 12 St. Louis Cardinal teams did not have stable starting rotations for this period is not a valid counterargument to the assertion that a team must have both strength and stability in its starting rotation to compete for a world championship (w.c.) in most years; there are always exceptions to any rule.

      Pitchers that can occupy the nos. 1 – 3 positions of a starting rotation that is capable of competing in for a world championship are commodities not easy to come by – ask B. Cashman. A team with the resources of the N.Y. Yankees, however, should have been able to staff a strong and stable starting rotation capable of competing for a w.c. in most years in the 1980s, and it did not win a w.c. in that period because it failed to do so – for one reason. Likewise, the team should have been able to staff such a rotation in the period 2003 – 2013, and it will have won only 1 w.c. in that period as of Nov., 2013 of next year because it failed to do so. It will be Cashman’s responsibility, not A. Rodriguez’s.

    47. McMillan
      November 26th, 2012 | 1:09 pm

      “The amazing thing about the 1977-78 Yankee back to back champs was the instability of their rotation.”

      I respectfully disagree: Guidry’s 25 – 3 season, the team’s comeback from a 14-game-deficit in June, 1978 to defeat Boston, and the character of the teams with figures such as Munson, Jackson, and Piniella were more amazing things about these teams. In any event, I never suggested this was an example of a strong and stable starting rotation, included it for the purpose of comparison in the previous post. The franchise did not have a strong and stable starting rotation for years after this period, which is when it next won a world championship.
      @ Evan3457:

    48. McMillan
      November 26th, 2012 | 1:13 pm

      “They signed Hunter as a free agent, he was hurt by the end of the 1976 season.”

      945 innings-pitched from 1974 – 76 ended his career…
      @ Evan3457:

    49. McMillan
      November 26th, 2012 | 1:25 pm

      Raf wrote:

      The team made the playoffs. That’s competing for a w.c. They were one of the best 8 teams in MLB, or one of the best 4 teams in the AL.

      A team’s qualification for a playoff appearance and a team’s competition for a world championship (w.c.) are 2 different things. A team can make it to the playoffs and not have a reasonable chance to compete for a w.c. with other teams in a postseason for a number of reasons; one is having a rotation capable of winning a particular division, perhaps the weakest in M.L.B. – in such a case, a team is not necessarily 1 of the best 8 teams in M.L.B., or even 1 of the best 10 teams in M.L.B. for that matter. A team can also win a particular division that is one of the stronger divisions in M.L.B., but not have a lineup that can reasonably be expected to win or produce in Oct. (e.g., the 2012 Yankees with Granderson, Martin, Rodriguez, Swisher, and Teixeira).

      The fact that a player might have had a better postseason in 2012 than in previous years, does not alter the fact that in forecasting the team’s capability to compete for a w.c. in 2012 prior to the season, it was foreseeable that this lineup would fail against a rotation such as Detroit’s in the future.

    50. Raf
      November 26th, 2012 | 1:49 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      That the 1976 – 78 N.Y. Yankees or 2006 – 12 St. Louis Cardinal teams did not have stable starting rotations for this period is not a valid counterargument to the assertion that a team must have both strength and stability in its starting rotation to compete for a world championship (w.c.) in most years; there are always exceptions to any rule.

      Ah, the good ol “exception proves the rule” fallacy… :)

    51. McMillan
      November 26th, 2012 | 1:55 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      @ McMillan:
      OK, then a “stable 1-2-3″ means very little then. (I don’t mean it isn’t very good to have one. I mean that if the Cards threesome of Carpenter-Marquis-Suppan is a “stable 1-2-3″, just about any top 3 on any contender is.)
      For example, the 2006 Cards won a title with one of the worst rotations in the league (Their starters were 12th in the NL in ERA, 10th in quality starts and 9th in innings). So unstable was that stable 1-2-3 that 2 of the 3 didn’t return the next season…
      The Jays had a stable 1-2-3 for 7 years before they won anything. The 80′s Tigers are cited for having a stable 1-2-3 even though they only won once with it…

      A strong and stable starting rotation does not ensure even an appearance in any postseason; but it certainly does not mean “very little.”

      The Baltimore Orioles were able to make the playoffs in 1983 because the team had the front end of its starting rotation from the ’79 A.L. Championship team intact, for one reason – it is not the only reason, of course. Philadelphia was able to make it to the World Series in 1983 because it had the front end of its rotation from the ’80 World Championship team intact. Detroit was able to make the playoffs in 1987 because the team had the front end oft its rotation from the ’84 world championship (w.c.) team mostly intact. St. Louis was able to make the playoffs in 1987 because the team had the front end of its rotation from the ’82 w.c. team mostly intact. The Los Angeles Dodgers were able to make the playoffs in 1981, 83, 85, and 88 because it had strength and stability in its rotations and for the same reasons.

      Oakland was able to win 3 consecutive A.L. championships and 1 w.c. in the period 1988 – 90 because the team had a strong and stable starting rotation capable of competing for a w.c. in those years.

      Toronto had a strong and stable rotation capable of competing for a w.c. for a period of years, and that rotation was part of a team that eventually won 2 consecutive world championships – not too many teams win 2 consecutive world championships. Atlanta had a strong and stable rotation for the decade of the 1990s and that rotation was part of a team that won 5 N.L. Championships in the decade – not too many teams win 5 league championships in a decade, and the team accomplished this because its starting pitchers as the main reason. San Francisco had a strong and stable starting rotation for the period 2008 – 12 that won two world championships while having payroll budgets approx. half of the N.Y. Yankees’ budget for the two years.

      None of these teams had the financial resources of the N.Y. Yankees for their respective periods, and none of these teams signed a 38-yr. old pitcher to a 1-yr. contract to pitch in the team’s no.2 position in its rotation in these years; none of these teams signed a 41-yr. old pitcher to a 1-yr. contract to pitch in the team’s no. 3 position in its rotation in these years. This is a commentary on B. Cashman as a general manager.

    52. MJ Recanati
      November 26th, 2012 | 2:01 pm

      @ Raf:
      @ Evan3457:
      Fellas, don’t you know better than to feed the troll? :-D

    53. McMillan
      November 26th, 2012 | 2:54 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      You’ve listed 93 team/seasons here, and have 21 Titles to show for it. Take out the Yankees teams, and it’s 15 titles in 87 team/seasons, about 1 every 6. That’s not really very much worse than the 1 in 9 Cashman’s Yankees won from 2004 to 2012 (and the 2003 team really doesn’t belong; that was the last year Pettitte, Clemens and Wells were there and the 1-2-3 cited is identical to the 1-2-3 from 2001 and 2002 “Good Yankees”

      The list was not meant to be exhaustive – I did not have the time to review the statistics of all M.L.B. starting rotations from 1970, and I did not state that the list was meant to be exhaustive. I did not include the 1984 – 1989 New York Mets, for example.

      1984: Gooden, Darling, Fernandez, Terrell
      1985: Gooden, Darling, Fernandez, Lynch
      1986: Gooden, Darling, Fernandez, Ojeda
      1987: Gooden, Darling, Fernandez, Aguilera
      1988: Gooden, Darling, Fernandez, Ojeda

      The Mets won a world championship in 1986, and were in a position to compete for a world championship in 1988 because of the strength and stability of their rotation for the period, losing the N.L. championship to L.A. This was not the only reason, but it was an important reason; the stability of the “1-2-3″ was not simply a “very good to have.”

      I also did not include the 1971 – 1975 Oakland Athletics

      1971: Blue, Hunter, Dobson, Segui
      1972: Blue, Holtzman, Hunter, Odom
      1973: Blue, Holtzman, Hunter, Odom
      1974: Blue, Holtzman, Hunter
      1975: Blue, Holtzman, Bosman

      The Athletics won 3 world championships…

      I’m not certain that I understand the analysis of counting the “team/seasons” of a list that is not exhaustive or of removing the N.Y. Yankees teams of 1995 – 2002 from such a list given its purpose, and arriving at a number of “Titles” to “show for it.”

      I was also interested in making a comparison of the 10-yr. period of the 1980s decade – a period with 7 different G.M.s, to a 10-yr. period under Cashman. I was not interested in arbitrarily selecting the first 9 years of the 1980s, or the last 9 years. So I selected the last 10 years under Cashman – 2003 – 12. According to some, Cashman’s record as G.M. should not be evaluated prior to his receiving “complete autonomy” in 2005.

      For the period 2005 – 2013, the team will have won 1 world championship having had the highest payroll in M.L.B. by hundreds-of-millions of dollars for that period. The team will not have had a strong and stable starting rotation for that period, and that will be an important reason for having won only 1 w.c. – not the only reason.

    54. McMillan
      November 26th, 2012 | 3:20 pm

      Raf wrote:

      It doesn’t matter where the team gets the production as long as they get the production. If the Yankees get 20-10, 2.25 out of a pitcher 3 years running, does it matter if it’s the same pitcher, 3 different pitchers, or a pitcher promoted from within, a pitcher traded for or a pitcher signed as a FA?

      How often does a free agent pitcher come along that can give you 20-10, 2.25 for 3 years, and pitch well in N.Y., and pitch well in the postseason, and how much does such a free agent cost? How often have the N.Y. Yankees acquired such a pitcher in a trade in the last 15 years? Clemens? He was acquired in exchange for Wells. How often has the team promoted such a pitcher in the last 15 years? Wang? And even if you get that kind of production from a starter, it is still far from enough to be able compete for a w.c. in most years as far as the rotation is concerned.

    55. McMillan
      November 26th, 2012 | 3:35 pm

      Raf wrote:

      McMillan wrote:
      That the 1976 – 78 N.Y. Yankees or 2006 – 12 St. Louis Cardinal teams did not have stable starting rotations for this period is not a valid counterargument to the assertion that a team must have both strength and stability in its starting rotation to compete for a world championship (w.c.) in most years; there are always exceptions to any rule.
      Ah, the good ol “exception proves the rule” fallacy…

      In other words, the use of the 1976 – 78 N.Y. Yankees or 2006 – 12 St. Louis Cardinal teams to reach conclusions about all teams that had competed for world championships in most years since 1970 was fallacious.

    56. McMillan
      November 26th, 2012 | 4:44 pm

      Raf wrote:

      McMillan wrote:
      Really? Winning a division or a wildcard spot makes a team one of the best 8 in M.L.B. or one the best 4 teams in the A.L.? You might want to think that statement through a little more
      Yeah, you’re right. Almost forgot the Tigers, with 88 wins can represent the AL in the World Series despite having the 7th best record in the AL (behind NY, OAK, BAL, TEX, TB & LAA)… Just goes to show the folly of the playoffs and divisional play, I suppose

      That’s where we disagree. You can not build a team largely as if its 1968 and having the best record at the end of 162 games is enough; there are division and league championship series, and starting pitching is paramount.

      Since 1968, there have been 43 World Series, and 16 of these series (37%) have been won as part of a 2-or-3 yr. run by a team – as described in the previously-posted list (1972-78, 1989, 1992 – 93, 1996, 1998-2000, and 2010, 2012), which was not exhaustive.

      Baltimore Orioles: 1969 – 71 (3 A.L. Championships; 1 World Championship)

      1969: Palmer, Cuellar, McNally
      1970: Palmer, Cuellar, McNally
      1971: Palmer, Cuellar, McNally, Dobson
      1972: Palmer, Cuellar, McNally, Dobson
      1973: Palmer, Cuellar, McNally

      Cincinnati Reds: 1974 – 1976 (2 N.L. Championships; 2 World Championships)

      1974: Billingham, Norman, Gullet, Kirby
      1975: Billingham, Norman, Gullet, Kirby, Nolan
      1976: Billingham, Norman, Gullet, Nolan, Zachary

      That number, of course, does not include other teams that have won more than 1 World Series with largely the same “1-2-3″ e.g. (St. Louis, Detroit, etc.). Many teams that have also won multiple division titles or league championships with largely the same “1-2-3″ without having won a World Series since 1968.

      Since 1968, there have been 43 National League championship series, and 19 (44%) have been won as part of a 2-or-3 yr. run by a team. There have been 43 American League championship series, and 24 (55%) have been one as part of a 2-or-3 yr. run by a team. Strength and Stability in the nos. 1 – 3 in the starting rotation. Strength and stability in the nos. 1 – 3 in the starting rotation – something N.Y. has not seen under Cashman.

    57. McMillan
      November 26th, 2012 | 5:10 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      @ Raf:
      @ Evan3457:
      Fellas, don’t you know better than to feed the troll?

      The smiley faces are very cute.

    58. November 26th, 2012 | 5:12 pm

      I am going to close the comments section on this one shortly, FYI

    59. MJ Recanati
      November 26th, 2012 | 5:46 pm

      Steve L. wrote:

      I am going to close the comments section on this one shortly, FYI

      LOL, this one is tame compared to the “Hairy Monster” thread from mid-October which rang up something like 500 comments.

    60. Raf
      November 26th, 2012 | 6:32 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      @ Raf:
      @ Evan3457:
      Fellas, don’t you know better than to feed the troll?

      I don’t think he’s trolling, he’s taking this pretty serious; why else would we get long winded posts that aren’t based in reality :P :) ;)

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      LOL, this one is tame compared to the “Hairy Monster” thread from mid-October which rang up something like 500 comments.

      Yeah, and that spilled over to another thread.

      I preferred “McCloud” anyway 8)

    61. Evan3457
      November 27th, 2012 | 2:41 am

      McMillan wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      I was just looking over the arguments back and forth, and would like to ask one question?
      What was the Yankees “stable 1-2-3″ in the rotation when they won it all in 1978?
      Teams have won championships without a “stable 1-2-3″ (such as Stottlemyre, Key and Guzman/Wells with Tor., for example).
      The period 2003 – 12 is not a model, as far as the starting rotation is concerned, for building teams capable of competing for championships in most years. It is the main reason the team has not won more than 1 world championship for the period, despite having had payrolls approaching $200 million in most years.

      But many of the stable 1-2-3′s you cite were no more successful than the Yanks of 2003-2012.

    62. Evan3457
      November 27th, 2012 | 2:42 am

      McMillan wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      McMillan wrote:
      Evan3457 wrote:
      I was just looking over the arguments back and forth, and would like to ask one question?
      What was the Yankees “stable 1-2-3″ in the rotation when they won it all in 1978?
      And after 1978, the Yankees next won a world championship in 1996.
      Yeah, but they didn’t have a stable 1-2-3 in ’78.
      That’s not the point. No one is suggesting a team can not win a championship without a “stable 1-2-3;” the term itself implies a timeframe of more than 1 year.

      My point was that the 1976-1978 Yanks didn’t have a stable 1-2-3 for more than one season at a time. I have no idea what your point is here.

    63. Evan3457
      November 27th, 2012 | 2:44 am

      McMillan wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      I was just looking over the arguments back and forth, and would like to ask one question?
      What was the Yankees “stable 1-2-3″ in the rotation when they won it all in 1978?
      That the 1976 – 78 N.Y. Yankees or 2006 – 12 St. Louis Cardinal teams did not have stable starting rotations for this period is not a valid counterargument to the assertion that a team must have both strength and stability in its starting rotation to compete for a world championship (w.c.) in most years; there are always exceptions to any rule.

      I didn’t cite those teams to support my argument. You did. They don’t support it.

    64. Evan3457
      November 27th, 2012 | 2:50 am

      McMillan wrote:

      “The amazing thing about the 1977-78 Yankee back to back champs was the instability of their rotation.”
      I respectfully disagree: Guidry’s 25 – 3 season, the team’s comeback from a 14-game-deficit in June, 1978 to defeat Boston, and the character of the teams with figures such as Munson, Jackson, and Piniella were more amazing things about these teams. In any event, I never suggested this was an example of a strong and stable starting rotation, included it for the purpose of comparison in the previous post. The franchise did not have a strong and stable starting rotation for years after this period, which is when it next won a world championship.
      @ Evan3457:

      OK, now you’ve completely lost me. Does a team need a stable 1-2-3 to compete for titles or not?

      Is it an advantage to have a stable 1-2-3? Sure it is. It’s an advantage to have an overpowering bullpen. It’s an advantage to have a Murderer’s Row-like lineup, as the 1936-1939 Yankees did. It’s an advantage to have an airtight defense, as the early 60′s Yankees did.

      Lookit:

      1) You hate Cashman, and think he’s a horrible GM.
      2) His #1 shortcoming as GM is the failure to build an overpowering rotation over the last 8-9 years.
      3) So you’re constructing this “stable 1-2-3″ as an archtype to prove 1) above.
      4) And the only problem with your archtype is that many of the teams you’ve posted the stable 1-2-3 for did no better than the 2004-2012 Yanks, and many teams without stable 1-2-3′s won titles/pennants, some of them more than one. (like say, the 1955-1958 Yankees, or the 1960-1964 Yankees).

      So I still don’t get what you’re driving at here, other than to nuke Cashman.

    65. Evan3457
      November 27th, 2012 | 3:05 am

      McMillan wrote:

      The list was not meant to be exhaustive – I did not have the time to review the statistics of all M.L.B. starting rotations from 1970, and I did not state that the list was meant to be exhaustive. I did not include the 1984 – 1989 New York Mets, for example.
      1984: Gooden, Darling, Fernandez, Terrell
      1985: Gooden, Darling, Fernandez, Lynch
      1986: Gooden, Darling, Fernandez, Ojeda
      1987: Gooden, Darling, Fernandez, Aguilera
      1988: Gooden, Darling, Fernandez, Ojeda
      The Mets won a world championship in 1986, and were in a position to compete for a world championship in 1988 because of the strength and stability of their rotation for the period, losing the N.L. championship to L.A. This was not the only reason, but it was an important reason; the stability of the “1-2-3″ was not simply a “very good to have.”

      Another important reason is that they had the best lineup and bench in the NL, and a top 3-man bullpen. They won 108 games in 1986. It wasn’t just the rotation.

      I also did not include the 1971 – 1975 Oakland Athletics
      1971: Blue, Hunter, Dobson, Segui
      1972: Blue, Holtzman, Hunter, Odom
      1973: Blue, Holtzman, Hunter, Odom
      1974: Blue, Holtzman, Hunter
      1975: Blue, Holtzman, Bosman
      The Athletics won 3 world championships…

      Yes, they did. And they also had a great 3-man bullpen, outstanding defenders at most positions, and a lineup that was extremely underrated due to playing in the best pitcher’s park in the league. Measured by OPS+, the A’s were 1st or 2nd in the AL on offense in all 3 of their title years.

      I’m not certain that I understand the analysis of counting the “team/seasons” of a list that is not exhaustive or of removing the N.Y. Yankees teams of 1995 – 2002 from such a list given its purpose, and arriving at a number of “Titles” to “show for it.”

      The purpose was to show that despite not having a stable 1-2-3, the 2004-2012 Yankees were about as successful as most of the teams you cited as having one, except for the the 77-78 Yankees, who also didn’t have one, and the 1996-2003 Yankees, who are a once in a generation exception.