• Yanks Brass To Usurp G.M. & Make A Hamilton Run?

    Posted by on December 7th, 2012 · Comments (26)

    Maybe?

    Usurper!

    The role of Becky in this episode will be played by Randy Levine and the role of Marge will be played by Brian Cashman.

    Comments on Yanks Brass To Usurp G.M. & Make A Hamilton Run?

    1. MJ Recanati
      December 7th, 2012 | 10:57 am

      So the Steinbrenners won’t approve $3M for Eric Chavez but they’ll consider Josh Hamilton? If so, it’s clear that Randy Levine is running the show and not Brian Cashman. And, if so, all those of you who piss and moan about Brian Cashman may be getting your wish that Cashman be marginalized and/or replaced.

      Be careful what you wish for, as the saying goes.

      *********

      As for Josh Hamilton…yeesh…he has annual off-season relapses. I shudder to think of how ugly his time in New York will be if he falls off the wagon under the vindictive, watchful eye of Mike Lupica and his mouth-breathing cohorts.

    2. December 7th, 2012 | 11:37 am

      Only way, as a Yankees fan, that I take Hamilton is if he wants one of those pillow deals like Adrian Beltre got with the Red Sox.

      One year at $23 million with the right to pad his 2013 numbers playing at Yankee Stadium for 81 games and then be a free agent after the season.

      I could live with that.

    3. MJ Recanati
      December 7th, 2012 | 12:09 pm

      @ Steve L.:
      Never gonna happen. Hamilton has every right to expect a multi-year deal and there is no doubt he’ll get it.

    4. McMillan
      December 7th, 2012 | 12:37 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      So the Steinbrenners won’t approve $3M for Eric Chavez but they’ll consider Josh Hamilton? If so, it’s clear that Randy Levine is running the show and not Brian Cashman. And, if so, all those of you who piss and moan about Brian Cashman may be getting your wish that Cashman be marginalized and/or replaced.

      “Ain’t no sense not replacing Cashman: If he’s not running the show, ain’t no sense not replacing him -he’s not running the show anyway. If he is running the show, why not replace him? So either way, there ain’t no sense not replacing Cashman.”

    5. Garcia
      December 7th, 2012 | 1:48 pm

      Yayo Hamilton, no thanks!!! The guy ODs on everything, from caffeine, to women, to booze, to drugs, to religious fundamentalism. Let the Rockies sign him.

      He’s going to make ARod look like the most balanced human being on the planet. Steve Howe will be laughing his ass off.

    6. Raf
      December 7th, 2012 | 7:03 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      So the Steinbrenners won’t approve $3M for Eric Chavez but they’ll consider Josh Hamilton?

      remember when they chose Kenny Rogers over Chuck Finley over money?

      This isn’t the first time something like this happened. They let Charlie Hayes go in the draft then signed Wade Boggs.

      And the next time people want to talk about the penny pinching Yankees, I present this;
      http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1992-01-07/sports/9201010995_1_yankees-general-manager-yankee-stadium-free-agents

      Same as it ever was.

    7. LMJ229
      December 8th, 2012 | 1:28 am

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      So the Steinbrenners won’t approve $3M for Eric Chavez but they’ll consider Josh Hamilton? If so, it’s clear that Randy Levine is running the show and not Brian Cashman.

      This quote is typical of Cashman disciples. If the Yankees make a move that’s perceived to be positive, Cashman gets all the credit in the world. If they make a move that’s seen as negative, then it must be someone else’s fault. Can’t blame George anymore so it must be Randy Levine’s fault. Give me a break. Cashman is the GM. The buck stops with him. He’s been the GM for 14 years now with full control of the team for at least half of those years. When are you going to stop making excuses for him? You can’t have it both ways.

    8. Raf
      December 8th, 2012 | 3:29 am

      LMJ229 wrote:

      You can’t have it both ways.

      Yet Cashman detractors have it down to a science; we’ve seen it here countless times where if something works out it’s luck, or is otherwise qualified or explained away, but if something doesn’t work, Cashman is a horrible GM that shouldn’t run a rotisserie team, much less the most prestigious franchise in MLB. Their favorite tactic is taking things out of context or otherwise cherry picking selective data to frame their argument :P

    9. December 8th, 2012 | 8:47 am

      LMJ229 wrote:

      This quote is typical of Cashman disciples. If the Yankees make a move that’s perceived to be positive, Cashman gets all the credit in the world. If they make a move that’s seen as negative, then it must be someone else’s fault. Can’t blame George anymore so it must be Randy Levine’s fault. Give me a break. Cashman is the GM. The buck stops with him. He’s been the GM for 14 years now with full control of the team for at least half of those years. When are you going to stop making excuses for him? You can’t have it both ways.

      Yup. And, add the fact that, if Cashman was a great GM and did his job, then there would be no holes on the team for the upper brass to stick their nose in and make moves behind his back. If Levine – or George or Tampa, back in the day – make a move without Cashman, it’s to address a problem that Cashman created and/or cannot fix on his own.

    10. MJ Recanati
      December 8th, 2012 | 10:19 am

      LMJ229 wrote:

      This quote is typical of Cashman disciples. If the Yankees make a move that’s perceived to be positive, Cashman gets all the credit in the world. If they make a move that’s seen as negative, then it must be someone else’s fault. Can’t blame George anymore so it must be Randy Levine’s fault. Give me a break. Cashman is the GM. The buck stops with him. He’s been the GM for 14 years now with full control of the team for at least half of those years. When are you going to stop making excuses for him? You can’t have it both ways.

      Where did I give Cashman credit for anything in the context of this discussion? It has been reported here at WW.com and across the media that Cashman has not had the freedom to offer contracts to free agents this winter and that all expenditures — even minor ones like the Eric Chavez or Nate Schierholtz non-offers — had to be run through his superiors. And while I’m neither judging that to be a positive or negative development, it is nevertheless what is being reported as fact. Thus, if the Yankees are indeed looking at Josh Hamilton we can only infer that Cashman’s superiors are pushing that angle.

      You know what’s typical? Your response. Conspiracy theories and circular arguments that move goalposts and invent fact. Cashman can’t sign Eric Chavez but people are talking about Josh Hamilton. Do the math. You tell me how to interpret those two data sets.

    11. MJ Recanati
      December 8th, 2012 | 10:24 am

      Steve L. wrote:

      If Levine – or George or Tampa, back in the day – make a move without Cashman, it’s to address a problem that Cashman created and/or cannot fix on his own.

      Laughable. Where was the problem in Brian Cashman’s bullpen in 2010 that required a preposterous three-year investment in Rafael Soriano that overpaid a setup man and also cost the team a first round draft pick?

      Where was the problem in Brian Cashman’s lineup in 2003 that required the selection of Gary Sheffield over the more-talented Vladimir Guerrero?

      The list goes on and on. You can keep on telling yourself that interference is justified because it supplements failures on Cashman’s part. Sadly, this interference which you deem justified is also what causes the Yankees to operate so inefficiently (another complaint of yours…how convenient).

    12. Greg H.
      December 8th, 2012 | 10:50 am

      Steve L. wrote:

      if Cashman was a great GM and did his job, then there would be no holes on the team for the upper brass to stick their nose in and make moves behind his back.

      This is the greatest fallacy of all the anti-Cash sentiment. On which team, heading into which season, was there ever a team without holes in the roster? Just because the Yanks have the most money, they should have a flawless system with no holes in the roster? That’s not realistic.

    13. Greg H.
      December 8th, 2012 | 10:56 am

      The Yanks brass sticks their nose in because that’s their management style, and it has been since Stein took over. Being a manager myself, it’s not a style I’m fond of, because it usually causes a lot of drama and stress in the organization. It’s not typically an effective style of management. It’s better for a turnaround than for keeping something going on an even keel. I give Cashman credit for keeping the show going to the playoffs every year. It can’t be easy working with all those smart monkeys in their corner offices.

      On the topic of Hamilton, I agree that the roster could benefit from a shakeup, but I don’t think Josh Hamilton is the answer.

    14. December 8th, 2012 | 1:17 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      Where was the problem in Brian Cashman’s bullpen in 2010 that required a preposterous three-year investment in Rafael Soriano that overpaid a setup man and also cost the team a first round draft pick?

      Levine and his boys thought there was a need. Perception is reality. It’s Cashman’s just to put together a team that doesn’t allow for that perception.

    15. Raf
      December 8th, 2012 | 3:16 pm

      Steve L. wrote:

      Levine and his boys thought there was a need. Perception is reality. It’s Cashman’s just to put together a team that doesn’t allow for that perception.

      No, not really. Levine and his boys, like Steinbrenner before him, need to let their baseball people do their jobs. Especially with something as complex as building and maintaining a roster. Perception being reality leads to the organization doing stupid things.

      Of course, this isn’t just limited to baseball; what people think or perceive usually doesn’t jive with reality.

    16. Ricketson
      December 8th, 2012 | 3:29 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      If so, it’s clear that Randy Levine is running the show and not Brian Cashman.

      LMJ229 wrote:

      This quote is typical of Cashman disciples. If the Yankees make a move that’s perceived to be positive, Cashman gets all the credit in the world. If they make a move that’s seen as negative, then it must be someone else’s fault. Can’t blame George anymore so it must be Randy Levine’s fault. Give me a break. Cashman is the GM. The buck stops with him. He’s been the GM for 14 years now with full control of the team for at least half of those years. When are you going to stop making excuses for him? You can’t have it both ways.

      If Cashman is going to publicly refer to the team’s roster as “his” own, then “his own” supporters should leave the Steinbrenners and Levine out of the discussion.

      The relationship between the Cashman and Steinbrenner families dates back several decades. It’s fairly obvious that Cashman is not a conventional G.M., and that much of the authority and responsibilities of such a G.M. rests with Levine. Levine’s background includes having served as a principal deputy associate attorney general at the U.S. Department of Justice – he’s someone whose judgment George Steinbrenner and Steinbrenner’s sons have trusted. And although Cashman has held this title since 1998, Steinbrenner, Levine, and others apparently had involvement with all personnel decisions and player development until 2010.

      It’s now Steinbrenner’s sons, Levine, and Cashman, and a paradigm that has not been working for some time. Cashman does not have the full confidence of the Steinbrenners and Levine; only the Steinbrenners and Levine have full knowledge of why. Those outside of the organization have knowledge of only: 1. the team’s postseason record and its payroll obligations; and 2. Cashman’s background and own conduct in his professional and personal lives. And it can not be said that Cashman has not been given an opportunity to establish such confidence in 15 years.

      But it is Cashman himself that has referred to the team’s roster as “his” own. When he stops making statements such as “Santa is pushing ME to deliver another quality, championship-caliber run” in place of “Santa is pushing US…,” then his supporters should feel free to introduce the Steinbrenners and Levine into the discussion.

    17. McMillan
      December 8th, 2012 | 4:39 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      But it is Cashman himself that has referred to the team’s roster as “his” own. When he stops making statements such as “Santa is pushing ME to deliver another quality, championship-caliber run” in place of “Santa is pushing US…,” then his supporters should feel free to introduce the Steinbrenners and Levine into the discussion.

      It’s the Steinbrenners that pay Cashman’s salary, and Cashman who’s “cashing” $3 million worth of paychecks each year. So regardless of his word choice or a level of “involvement” by the “Steinbrenners and Levine” that can not be “known,” he’s fair game.
      If the management of a baseball club should be criticized, and such management falls within the “responsibilities” of a “conventional G.M.,” then that criticism should be directed at the G.M.; he is always free to take up his placement in the line of fire with ownership and negotiate a higher salary, take his services to another club, or find another occupation. Ricketson wrote:

      Those outside of the organization have knowledge of only: 1. the team’s postseason record and its payroll obligations; and 2. Cashman’s background and own conduct in his professional and personal lives.

      And what do these facts tell us?

    18. McMillan
      December 8th, 2012 | 4:46 pm

      Raf wrote:

      Cashman is a horrible GM that shouldn’t run a rotisserie team.

      I could not have said it better myself.

    19. Raf
      December 8th, 2012 | 6:19 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      It’s fairly obvious that Cashman is not a conventional G.M.

      I’m pretty sure he’s a “conventional GM.” Drafting, signing & trading players, building the roster. Using stats and analysis to come to conclusions. Holding meetings to determine plans of attack… Isn’t that what conventional GM’s do?

      McMillan wrote:

      And what do these facts tell us?

      That Cashman’s doing a good job; if he weren’t he’d have been fired. :P

    20. December 8th, 2012 | 7:27 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      Laughable. Where was the problem in Brian Cashman’s bullpen in 2010 that required a preposterous three-year investment in Rafael Soriano that overpaid a setup man and also cost the team a first round draft pick?

      The problem with the 2010 bullpen was the fact that the centerpiece of that bullpen was about to turn 41. If something happened like Mo started to go into steep decline or he got injured, there was a back up plan. Sure saved Cashman’s bacon this year.

    21. Ricketson
      December 8th, 2012 | 7:49 pm

      Raf wrote:

      That Cashman’s doing a good job; if he weren’t he’d have been fired.

      Ricketson wrote:

      The relationship between the Cashman and Steinbrenner families dates back several decades.

    22. Ricketson
      December 8th, 2012 | 7:58 pm

      Raf wrote:

      I’m pretty sure he’s a “conventional GM.” Drafting, signing & trading players, building the roster. Using stats and analysis to come to conclusions. Holding meetings to determine plans of attack… Isn’t that what conventional GM’s do?

      How can anyone be “pretty sure” he’s doing any or all of these things? The only thing anyone can apparently be pretty sure about is the fact that no one can be “pretty sure” where the involvement with the Steinbrenners or Levine ends, and Cashman’s begins, other than the Steinbrennsers, Levine, and Cashman. “Using stats and analysis to come to conclusions?” He seems to have enough problems with simple grammar…

    23. Raf
      December 8th, 2012 | 8:46 pm

      Joseph Maloney wrote:

      Sure saved Cashman’s bacon this year.

      I sometimes wonder if Yankees fans are aware of other teams in the league as well as other seasons in baseball history… :P

      http://waswatching.com/2012/05/04/oh-mo-exit-sandman/#comments

      Evan3457 wrote:

      having to replace a closer is not nearly the catastrophic blow some people might think it is, to wit:

      The Nationals are currently on their 3rd closer of the season, having lost both Storen and Lidge to injury. They’re 16-9. note: Tyler Clippard would wind up as the team’s closer. They won the division and made the playoffs.

      The Giants have lost Wilson to a season ending injury. His replacement, Casilla is 4-0 in save situations. note: Sergio Romo would wind up as the team’s closer. They won their division and made the playoffs.

      After a 6-9 start, the Reds are 3-3. Having lost Madson to a season ending injury, his replacement, Sean Marshall is 5 for 6 in closing out games. note: they would move Aroldis Chapman to the closer’s role, then acquire Jonathan Broxton. They won their division and made the playoffs.

      The Jays are doing just fine without Sergio Santos. The Rays are gangbusters without Kyle Farnsworth. OK, the Red Sox probably could’ve used Bailey here and there.

      Here’s the topper: Last season, the season-opening closer for the Cards was Ryan Franklin. He lost the closer’s job in mid-April to Fernando Salas, who amassed 24 saves in holding the job until late September, and then lost the closer’s role to Jason Motte. All Motte did was close out a title.

      Not one of those teams thought it was worth it to drop a $35M 3 year deal on a second closer to stash them in the bullpen, just in case something happens to their primary closer, which as shown above happens more often than teams would like.

      Now, if Soriano was signed to be a setup guy, along the lines of Tom Gordon, Kyle Farnsworth or Steve Karsay, that’s one thing. Teams tend to do that from time to time; a fairly recent example was the Rangers signing Soria to presumably set up for Joe Nathan. Or the Angels signing Fernando Rodney to set up Brian Fuentes. But that it doesn’t happen often tells me that teams prefer to allocate their resources elsewhere and or players prefer to close when/where they can.

    24. McMillan
      December 8th, 2012 | 8:59 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      How can anyone be “pretty sure” he’s doing any or all of these things? The only thing anyone can apparently be pretty sure about is the fact that no one can be “pretty sure” where the involvement with the Steinbrenners or Levine ends, and Cashman’s begins, other than the Steinbrennsers, Levine, and Cashman. “Using stats and analysis to come to conclusions?” He seems to have enough problems with simple grammar…

      “Ain’t no sense worrying about the Steinbrenners or Levine: If they exercise no control over personnel decisions, ain’t no sense worrying about them – they exercise no control over them anyway. If they do exercise control over personnel decisions, why? Cashman is the G.M.? So either way, there ain’t no sense worrying about the Steinbrenners or Levine.”

    25. Ricketson
      December 8th, 2012 | 9:06 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      “Ain’t no sense worrying about the Steinbrenners or Levine: If they exercise no control over personnel decisions, ain’t no sense worrying about them – they exercise no control over them anyway. If they do exercise control over personnel decisions, why? Cashman is the G.M.? So either way, there ain’t no sense worrying about the Steinbrenners or Levine.”

      Thanks, Mickey.

    26. McMillan
      December 8th, 2012 | 9:28 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      Thanks, Mickey.

      “80% of the ‘authority and responsibilities of a conventional G.M.’ rests with Levine; the other half with the Steinbrenners and Cashman.”

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.