• 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. 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.

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

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

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

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

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

    9. 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.

    10. 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 😛 🙂 😉

      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)

    11. 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.

    12. 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.

    13. 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.

    14. 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.

    15. 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.