• Cashman On The Draft, 5 Years Ago

    Posted by on June 5th, 2013 · Comments (107)

    This is from Pete Abe back on May 31, 2008

    Since [Brian] Cashman gained control of scouting and player development in 2005, the Yankees have made great strides in repairing what was a largely forgotten aspect of the organization.

    If most factors are equal, Cashman said, he would prefer a college player over a high school player. That was evident last season. Of the 50 players the Yankees selected, 40 were collegians. Only five of the players they signed were high school products – although all five were taken in the early rounds.

    “I’m not risk-averse to take a high-ceiling high school player early,” Cashman said. “I just want the best talent and to be sure that the picks aren’t wasted.

    “The draft is your lifeblood. You need to have talent coming into the organization on the front end, and that’s the amateur draft and the international signings you make.”

    The Yankees have been a wild card in the draft under [Damon] Oppenheimer. Chamberlain fell because of concerns about injuries. The Yankees selected right-hander Andrew Brackman in the first round last season despite evidence that he would need Tommy John surgery (which he had in August) and the presence of Scott Boras as his advisor.

    Since this was written, the Yankees wasted high picks on Gerrit Cole, Jeremy Bleich, Scott Bittle, Cito Culver, Sam Stafford, Dante Bichette and Ty Hensley.

    Comments on Cashman On The Draft, 5 Years Ago

    1. MJ Recanati
      June 5th, 2013 | 1:34 pm

      You can’t call Hensley a waste since he was drafted less than a year ago.

      Gerrit Cole wasn’t a waste at all. They offered the eventual #1 draft pick a huge sum of money and he picked UCLA over the money. There was no indication before the draft that he was going to college; even his agent Scott Boras was surprised by the decision. Nothing you can do about that.

      Without the benefit of pre-draft physicals, it was hard to know that Bittle or Stafford would not be signable due to injury.

      Bleich was a guy that projected as a back end starter, in the same vein as Ian Kennedy and Adam Warren. Didn’t work out. Hardly the first or last time a top-100 guy will flame out.

      Bichette still has a chance to contribute one day. Too soon to write him off.

      Culver was a waste, no argument there.

    2. June 5th, 2013 | 2:14 pm

      Given what they found out about Hensley’s condition after he signed, and his injury now, he’s a waste.

      Cole was a waste of a pick too. The Yankees should have done their homework and seen if he would sign or not.

      You should always make sure that your projected first pick is willing to sign.

      Bichette, well, the clock is ticking, quickly…

    3. Raf
      June 5th, 2013 | 2:49 pm

      @ Steve L.:
      Posturing is part of the draft; Cole isn’t the first to take that stance. For the most part, throwing money at the player usually takes care of that, be it Cole, Brien Taylor, Bobby Seay, Travis Lee, etc

    4. MJ Recanati
      June 5th, 2013 | 2:54 pm

      Steve L. wrote:

      Given what they found out about Hensley’s condition after he signed, and his injury now, he’s a waste.

      Bullshit.

      http://riveraveblues.com/2013/05/newman-ty-hensley-expected-to-miss-all-of-2013-86362/#comment-6208267

      There is nothing that suggests he won’t be able to recover from his surgery and end up an effective player.

      Steve L. wrote:

      Cole was a waste of a pick too. The Yankees should have done their homework and seen if he would sign or not.

      I reiterate that if his own agent didn’t know he was going back to college it’s very tough to imagine that the Yankees could’ve gotten it out of him (short of pulling out his fingernails). The consensus was that Cole’s decision to spurn the Yankees was a surprise to the entire industry.

    5. June 5th, 2013 | 3:26 pm

      @ MJ Recanati:
      @ Raf:
      So, you guys are saying that Cashman and his crew have handled the draft well since 2008?

    6. MJ Recanati
      June 5th, 2013 | 3:39 pm

      Steve L. wrote:

      So, you guys are saying that Cashman and his crew have handled the draft well since 2008?

      It doesn’t have to be as black and white as “he handled it well” or “he didn’t handle it well.” I agreed with the approach in the Cole, Hensley, and Stafford selections and liked all three picks. I vehemently disagreed with the Culver and Bichette picks. Bleich didn’t work out but I don’t think that was an egregious scouting error.

      It would be great if we had more to show for the 2008 draft is what I’ll say. To judge the 2011 and 2012 drafts right now is absurdly premature.

    7. MJ Recanati
      June 5th, 2013 | 3:41 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      I vehemently disagreed with the Culver and Bichette picks.

      And having said that, Bichette still has a chance to develop into something usable. He probably won’t be an everyday guy but he might be able to get MLB AB’s as a corner outfielder or 1B.

    8. Raf
      June 5th, 2013 | 4:07 pm

      Steve L. wrote:

      @ MJ Recanati:
      @ Raf:
      So, you guys are saying that Cashman and his crew have handled the draft well since 2008?

      They got the players they wanted or targeted, so yeah. I’ve said time and again that the draft isn’t that big a deal; the Yankees aren’t in the business of developing players, and as much as is made about the “core four,” the fact remains they were surrounded by All-Stars, superstars, and Hall of Fame talent, much of it acquired courtesy of Yankee Dollars (MSG, Adidas, YES, etc)

    9. June 5th, 2013 | 4:50 pm

      Me: If the Yankees drafted better, and developed better, we wouldn’t be looking at guys like Wells and Ichiro on the roster now. Ditto Stewart.

    10. MJ Recanati
      June 5th, 2013 | 5:03 pm

      Steve L. wrote:

      Me: If the Yankees drafted better, and developed better, we wouldn’t be looking at guys like Wells and Ichiro on the roster now. Ditto Stewart.

      Maybe, maybe not. The Yankees have always been reluctant to let a young player cut his teeth when that role could be filled by a veteran, a free agent, or a player acquired via trade.

    11. Raf
      June 5th, 2013 | 5:11 pm

      Steve L. wrote:

      Me: If the Yankees drafted better, and developed better, we wouldn’t be looking at guys like Wells and Ichiro on the roster now. Ditto Stewart.

      Chances are, you probably would. Even when the system was at its most productive, there were veterans on the roster getting this type of playing time due to injury or ineffectiveness.

    12. Scout
      June 5th, 2013 | 9:01 pm

      A few points to keep in mind:
      1. ALL teams miss on some of their high picks, even more so in baseball than in other sports.
      2. That said, drafts and minor league systems should be evaluated on their contribution to the organization’s talent pipeline. Before this year, the various ratings by the experts placed the Yankees in the middle of the pack. That suggests strongly that Cashman, Oppenheimer, and co. are OK, but they probably have not capitalized on the Yankee’s fiscal resources as much as they should have.
      3. The self-imposed salary cap, about which so much ink has already been spilled, means the organization needs to generate more talent than in the past. This isn’t the 1990s any more. And in this spending context, being merely OK won’t cut it.

    13. LMJ229
      June 5th, 2013 | 10:26 pm

      Raf wrote:

      I’ve said time and again that the draft isn’t that big a deal; the Yankees aren’t in the business of developing players, and as much as is made about the “core four,” the fact remains they were surrounded by All-Stars, superstars, and Hall of Fame talent, much of it acquired courtesy of Yankee Dollars (MSG, Adidas, YES, etc)

      You have said this time and again and you are right, that is the Yankees approach. But just because this is the approach they take does not mean that it is not flawed. The Yankees SHOULD be in the business of developing players. Championships usually take a combination of both veterans and “core” guys. Just look at the rosters of the championship teams. The Yankees themselves are a prime example. In my opinion, the Yankees have become too reliant on free agents and trading away our best young players for proven veterans and do not place enough value on developing players.

    14. LMJ229
      June 5th, 2013 | 10:33 pm

      Raf wrote:

      as much as is made about the “core four,” the fact remains they were surrounded by All-Stars, superstars, and Hall of Fame talent, much of it acquired courtesy of Yankee Dollars (MSG, Adidas, YES, etc)

      Sounds like you are trying to diminish the value of those core players. The “core five” (I’m including Bernie) were arguably the best players on the team.

    15. rankdog
      June 6th, 2013 | 12:05 am

      I think when looking at this its all perspective. Its easy to look at a team like the Tampa Rays and say “why can’t we be more like them”. The Braves are another great team at producing from their farm system.

      From my perspective NYY are average. Partially because of where we draft and partially because our GM doesn’t have a knack for it.

      Seems we are good at producing relief pitchers and 4/5 starters.

    16. June 6th, 2013 | 7:25 am

      rankdog wrote:

      From my perspective NYY are average. Partially because of where we draft and partially because our GM doesn’t have a knack for it.

      Seems we are good at producing relief pitchers and 4/5 starters.

      Totally agree.

    17. MJ Recanati
      June 6th, 2013 | 8:32 am

      LMJ229 wrote:

      The “core five” (I’m including Bernie) were arguably the best players on the team.

      They might’ve been but the fact that they were homegrown is besides the point. The Yankees didn’t win four titles in five years just because of those guys. There was a mix of guys from other teams (Tino/Paul/Clemens/Cone) that were acquired via trade, plus the free agents (Boggs, Knoblauch, Girardi, Key, Wells, El Duque).

    18. MJ Recanati
      June 6th, 2013 | 8:35 am

      rankdog wrote:

      Its easy to look at a team like the Tampa Rays and say “why can’t we be more like them”. The Braves are another great team at producing from their farm system.

      Tampa and the Braves have no other choice but to develop internally because their ownership (in Atlanta’s case) and their market (in Tampa’s case) won’t shell out to build a team in any other way.

      It would be wonderful if the Yankees treated roster construction in the most ruthlessly efficient manner possible but the fact that they don’t doesn’t mean they’re “bad” at it, as Steve’s post would suggest.

    19. Mr. October
      June 6th, 2013 | 12:51 pm

      LMJ229 wrote:

      The “core five” (I’m including Bernie) were arguably the best players on the team.

      With the exception of Key and perhaps one or two others, all of the best players on the team represented talent developed in the farm system, or acquired in exchange for such talent (e.g. Martinez, O’Neill, Cone, Knoblauch, etc.).

    20. LMJ229
      June 6th, 2013 | 1:21 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      The Yankees didn’t win four titles in five years just because of those guys. There was a mix of guys from other teams (Tino/Paul/Clemens/Cone) that were acquired via trade, plus the free agents (Boggs, Knoblauch, Girardi, Key, Wells, El Duque).

      Yes it was a good well developed mix of players. My point is that there were 5 major impact players developed from within which we haven’t seen in the last 10 years.

    21. MJ Recanati
      June 6th, 2013 | 2:06 pm

      LMJ229 wrote:

      My point is that there were 5 major impact players developed from within which we haven’t seen in the last 10 years.

      Do you realize how rare it is for a team to develop five borderline Hall of Fame players? That the Yankees haven’t done so in the last 10 years is hardly a surprise. How many other teams have developed five borderline HOF’ers in such close proximity to one another?

      The Yankees have developed their own players — Cano, Gardner, Hughes, Chamberlain, Wang come to mind — in that 10 year window you’re referring to. The players (outside of Cano) may not be HOF-level guys but they’ve produced value for the team in spite of popular opinion.

    22. Ricketson
      June 6th, 2013 | 3:01 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      Do you realize how rare it is for a team to develop five borderline Hall of Fame players?

      Jeter, Pettitte, Posada, Rivera, and Williams sounds like two Hall of Famers, one borderline Hall of Famer, and Posada and Williams.

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      That the Yankees haven’t [developed H.O.F.-level guys] in the last 10 years is hardly a surprise.

      Not with the G.M. the team has…

    23. Greg H.
      June 6th, 2013 | 3:08 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      Do you realize how rare it is for a team to develop five borderline Hall of Fame players?

      Many Yankee fans do not; nor do they realize how rare, in the wild card era, to win four rings in five years, or if they do understand, they conveniently ignore the magnitude of these two items, and hold the team to that standard of performance on a regular basis, which is completely unrealistic, and simply undercuts all arguments based on the initial premise that winning at that level is something to be expected of any team in any sport.
      MJ Recanati wrote:

      The Yankees didn’t win four titles in five years just because of those guys. There was a mix of guys

      AND those teams all got hot or stayed hot at the right time (October) and managed to come out with the ring. Except for the 1998 Yankees, all those teams had a lot of things go their way in the playoffs. The ’98 team was one of those “teams of destiny” that no one was going to defeat. One of a handful in the history of the game.

    24. McMillan
      June 6th, 2013 | 3:43 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      Jeter, Pettitte, Posada, Rivera, and Williams sounds like two Hall of Famers, one borderline Hall of Famer, and Posada and Williams.

      Posada was a borderline Hall-of-Famer.
      Greg H. wrote:

      Many Yankee fans do not; nor do they realize how rare, in the wild card era, to win four rings in five years… those teams all got hot or stayed hot at the right time (October) and managed to come out with the ring. Except for the 1998 Yankees, all those teams had a lot of things go their way in the playoffs. The ’98 team was one of those “teams of destiny” that no one was going to defeat. One of a handful in the history of the game.

      “Those teams,” and the indivduals responsible for assembling them (i.e. not Cashman) probably deserve a bit more credit than “managing to come out with a ring,” or having “a lot of things go their way in the playoffs,” or “destiny,” in all fairness. They went to five-of-six World Series from 1996-2001, won 114 games in 1998, and took the 2001 World Series to the last inning with the greatest closer of all time on the mound – when things did not “go their way.” Those were great teams.

      It’s true that such teams might be responsible for the unrealistic expectations of some fans to this day, but such fans are not worth listening to and should be distinguished from people that believe the team should have achieved more success from 2005 than it has…

    25. Ricketson
      June 6th, 2013 | 3:52 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Posada was a borderline Hall-of-Famer.

      Agreed.

    26. Greg H.
      June 6th, 2013 | 6:54 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      It’s true that such teams might be responsible for the unrealistic expectations of some fans to this day, but such fans are not worth listening to and should be distinguished from people that believe the team should have achieved more success from 2005 than it has…

      That’s kind of the point. From 2005 till now, they’ve won their division every year but one. Six out of seven years. How many other teams have done that? Okay, so they lost 4 of those division series, lost one ALCS and won it all only once in that timespan. Your point, and “those who believed the team should have achieved more success” is that they did not win the most WS rings since 2005? They didn’t win the most pennants? They didn’t get far enough in the playoffs every year? Which one? What would have constituted the appropriate amount of success?

    27. Greg H.
      June 6th, 2013 | 7:25 pm

      Since (and including) 2005:

      Of the teams that won the world series during this time:

      Giants: WS (2); Playoff Appearances (2/8); 100-win seasons (0)
      Cardinals: WS (2;) DS Losses (1); CS Losses (2) Playoff Appearances (5/8); 100-win seasons (0)
      Red Sox: WS (1); DS Losses (2); CS Losses (1) Playoff Appearances (4/8); 100-win seasons (0)
      White Sox: WS (1); DS Losses (1); Playoff Appearances (2/8); 100-win seasons (0)
      Phillies: WS (1); DS Losses (2); CS Losses (1); WS Losses – (1); Playoff Appearances (5/8); 100-win seasons (1)
      Yanks: WS (1); DS Losses (4); CS Losses (2); Playoff Appearances (7/8); 100-win seasons (1)

      Note: White Sox won 99 games in 2005

      Yes, The Giants and the Cards won the most rings. But among the teams above, it could be argued that even though the Giants won the WS twice, clearly they were not the best team over this span. Ditto the Red Sox, who missed the playoffs half the time. It’s really down to the Phillies and the Yanks. They each had a WS ring, the Phillies made it faurther in the playoffs, but also missed the playoffs more.

      Again, for those of you who think the Yanks should have had more success since 2005, what would that look like? If they win one more ring, they’re clearly the best team in the MLB, and even without it, they’re clearly in the top 3-4 teams over an 8-year span.

    28. McMillan
      June 6th, 2013 | 8:17 pm

      Greg H. wrote:

      From 2005 till now, they’ve won their division every year but one.

      They did not win the division in 2007, 2008, and 2010; they’ve won the division five times in eight years.
      Greg H. wrote:

      How many other teams have done that?

      Philadelphia has won the N.L. Eastern Division five times since 2005, and the Los Angeles Angels have won the A.L. Western Division four times since 2005.
      Greg H. wrote:

      Okay, so they lost 4 of those division series, lost one ALCS and won it all only once in that timespan.

      Lost 2 A.L.C.S.
      Greg H. wrote:

      What would have constituted the appropriate amount of success?

      There are those that believe that better teams could have been fielded with the money spent, and with those teams presumably would have come more success in the postseason. If you think no organization could have done better with $200-30 mil. to spend in each season since 2005 or the resources available to the New York Yankees, then you might think that one pennant and one world championship since then is an appropriate amount of success.

      I wouldn’t put a number on championships, just the amount of money spent in comparison to other organizations, how it was spent, etc. Philadelphia has spent a fraction of what the Yankees have spent and won the same number of division titles, pennants, and world championships, for example.

    29. McMillan
      June 6th, 2013 | 8:32 pm

      Greg H. wrote:

      The Giants and the Cards won the most rings. But among the teams above, it could be argued that even though the Giants won the WS twice, clearly they were not the best team over this span.

      I’m sorry for repeating myself – but how much money did those organizations spend? And of course spending money does not guarantee a championship, but it should result in a more competitive product. And there are those of us that believe that if the organization had a top-tier G.M. it would have fielded a more competitive product from 2005-12 and with that might have come more success in October in the form of more pennants or world championships won. It might not have – we’ll never know, because we have John Cashman’s son masquerading as a G.M.

      You listed the number of 100-win seasons, but not how much money each franchise spent…

    30. Greg H.
      June 6th, 2013 | 9:24 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      And of course spending money does not guarantee a championship

      Correct – and this negates your entire rant. Money spent does not equal pennants and WS rings.
      McMillan wrote:

      And there are those of us that believe that if the organization had a top-tier G.M.

      Definition of “top-tiered GM” notwithstanding, there are not very many (1-2 maybe) more competitive teams during that span anyway. You already have one of the top teams in baseball. You’re just looking for a way to bust on Cashman.

      If he’s that bad, then why is he still the GM?
      If he’s that bad, then why is he continuously ranked in the top third of GMs every year, despite the amount of money he spends?
      Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think he’s the best, but he’s clearly not that bad. I just get weary of the illogical and one-sided rants against this GM on what is otherwise a pretty cool, literate and informed site.

    31. rankdog
      June 7th, 2013 | 3:45 am

      McMillan wrote:

      Greg H. wrote:
      The Giants and the Cards won the most rings. But among the teams above, it could be argued that even though the Giants won the WS twice, clearly they were not the best team over this span.
      I’m sorry for repeating myself – but how much money did those organizations spend? And of course spending money does not guarantee a championship, but it should result in a more competitive product. And there are those of us that believe that if the organization had a top-tier G.M. it would have fielded a more competitive product from 2005-12 and with that might have come more success in October in the form of more pennants or world championships won. It might not have – we’ll never know, because we have John Cashman’s son masquerading as a G.M.
      You listed the number of 100-win seasons, but not how much money each franchise spent…

      The Philly and national league comparison are unfair. The AL East is a hell of a lot more competitive than the NL East or any National league division. For example, if the Yankees played in NL west would the Giants ever even have made the playoffs? Probably not as a division winner. Making the playoffs as a wild card (Hello Cardinals) or division leader from a weak division (Hello Giants) then getting hot at the right time doesn’t constitute dominate success valid for an accurate comparison.

      All the teams you mentioned have had several down years since 94. The Yankees have been chugging along succeeding and winning during the same span. To sustain that success such without the benefit of restocking through high draft picks and overpaying past prime players to stay competitive costs money. None of this is in a vacuum.

      Have the Yankees made mistakes? Sure, we could make a long list. Heck this blog is dedicated to doing just that.

    32. McMillan
      June 7th, 2013 | 4:47 pm

      Greg H. wrote:

      Correct – and this negates your entire rant. Money spent does not equal pennants and WS rings.

      McMillan wrote:

      [B]ut it should result in a more competitive product.

      This team outspent Phila. by approx. $700 mil. 2005-12, and did not win more division titles, pennants, or world championships. You did not provide the payroll amounts for the other franchises listed earlier (e.g. Boston, St. Louis, etc.), perhaps because the numbers are also in the hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars and might have substantiated the “rant.”
      Greg H. wrote:

      You’re just looking for a way to bust on Cashman.

      I don’t have to look far – the numbers are right there.
      Greg H. wrote:

      If he’s that bad, then why is he continuously ranked in the top third of GMs every year, despite the amount of money he spends?

      I don’t know where your coming up with these rankings, but why don’t you explain to us in your own words why he belongs in the top third of G.M.s? Because the team has won five division titles, one A.L. pennant, and one World Championship since 2005? It’s also outspent all other franchises by several hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars or more each in that period. I have to agree with Raf on this one:

      Raf wrote:

      [You evaluate a team's ownership and/or front office by] looking at the roster. There were teams over the years that [will] have spent more [or] less [and] have had varying levels of success.

      Greg H. wrote:

      Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think he’s the best, but he’s clearly not that bad.

      I don’t think he’s in the top third, or the second third.
      Greg H. wrote:

      I just get weary of the illogical and one-sided rants against this GM on what is otherwise a pretty cool, literate and informed site.

      If I ask you for an example of an “illogical rant,” I don’t think I’ll get a reply…
      rankdog wrote:

      The Philly and national league comparison are unfair. The AL East is a hell of a lot more competitive than the NL East or any National league division.

      I don’t see how the comparison is unfair, but the team also outspent Boston by almost as much as it outspent Phila. for the same period: 2005-12.

    33. Greg H.
      June 7th, 2013 | 6:50 pm

      You say that money does not guarantee a championship, then base your entire argument that the GM is in the bottom third because he spends more money than the other teams and doesn’t have more championships. That’s illogical.

      These are just a handful from the past few years that came up in a google search.

      http://bleacherreport.com/articles/891302-theo-epstein-and-the-other-guys-power-ranking-every-mlb-gm/page/22

      http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/tim_marchman/03/03/gm.rankings/index.html

      http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/baseballs-labyrinth/2009/dec/18/complete-mlb-gm-rankings/

      Interestingly, he got killed this offseason for doing nothing but resigning Hiroki Kuroda, Andy Pettite, and a few old leftovers. Wonder how he’ll do this offseason if they make the playoffs again, now that those moves seemed to work out okay.

    34. Greg H.
      June 7th, 2013 | 7:00 pm

      Also illogical how a GM with a team that makes the playoffs every year could possibly be ranked among the worst in baseball. I particularly love how in the 2009 ranking Sabean, now the genius, is ranked almost last, when his team was one year away from 2 WS Rings in 3 years.

      The only measure of note in a GM track record is playoff appearances. Teams that miss all the time suck. Teams that miss the playoffs half the time and are able to rebuild from within have the advantage of being able to spend less and develop more. The Yankees, and teams like them, have a mandate to contend every year without rebuilding, which costs money – which is okay, because the Yankees have money.

      It would be interesting to give Beane or Friedman a media circus and a ton of cash and see if they can field a contender every year. (Key phrase being “every year”). It’s easier said than done. Red Sox, Phillies, and now Angels, Dodgers, Marlins, Jays, all can attest. Texas impresses me, because they have been able to contend consistently the past few years without falling into the long-term contract trap. But hey – they tanked like a sack of bricks last year and lost to the lowly A’s. Go figure.

    35. rankdog
      June 7th, 2013 | 7:33 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Greg H. wrote:
      [B] how the comparison is unfair, but the team also outspent Boston by almost as much as it outspent Phila. for the same period: 2005-12.

      Right and you notice NONE of the other teams play together other than Boston and Yankees. Do you think the Yankees would have HAVE to spend 200mil to stay a top the NL west every year? or the NL central? Do you think the Giants would have had a sniff of the division lead if they played in the same Division as Yankees? Better yet would the Giants finish higher than 4th in the AL East if they were to switch with Toronto? Would Philly have had the success they had competing with the Yankees for the division title during their stretch?

      Like I said previously none of these teams play in a vacuum. There are factors that lead to spending.

    36. Raf
      June 7th, 2013 | 7:43 pm

      rankdog wrote:

      Do you think the Yankees would have HAVE to spend 200mil to stay a top the NL west every year?

      The Dodgers may put that theory to test, though they’ve got 1/2 the equation down, what with them currently being stuck in last place in the NL West.

    37. rankdog
      June 7th, 2013 | 8:55 pm

      Raf wrote:

      rankdog wrote:
      Do you think the Yankees would have HAVE to spend 200mil to stay a top the NL west every year?
      The Dodgers may put that theory to test, though they’ve got 1/2 the equation down, what with them currently being stuck in last place in the NL West.

      Money obviously isn’t the only factor. The Mets, Orioles, Dodgers (past tense) have all thrown money at the roster and failed to field a competitive team. My above comments were in reference to the current Yankees management. Its clear to field a team capable of making the playoffs year after year without a few down seasons you have to start paying the talent on your roster at some point. Eventually you have to keep throwing money at the roster to keep the supply of talent flowing or suffer a “bridge year” as Theo Epstein would call it.

      That being said, I believe strongly if you put the Yankees in the NL central or west they could field a competitive roster for less. In other words, spend less money on talent and still make win the division year after year.

      What the Dodgers did and are doing right now is historically. The took on some hugh salary commitments on players with questionable health or ability on bad contracts. This wasn’t a large market team taking advantage of a small market team. This was large market team getting suckered by another large market team.

    38. LMJ229
      June 7th, 2013 | 10:44 pm

      All this talk about spending and championships! The fact remains that the championship teams of the late 1990s were primarily built THROUGH THE ORGANIZATION either by developing our own talent or trading away our young prospects for veteran players. We all agree that the 1998 team was the best of them. Here was the starting line-up for the 1998 World Series:
      Chuck Knoblauch 2B (trade)
      Derek Jeter SS (home grown)
      Paul O’Neill RF (trade)
      Bernie Williams CF (home grown) *
      Chili Davis DH (free agent)
      Tino Martinez 1B (trade)
      Scott Brosius 3B (trade)
      Jorge Posada C (home grown)
      Ricky Ledee LF (home grown)
      Starting Pitchers:
      David Wells (free agent)
      El Duque (home grown) *
      David Cone (trade)
      Andy Petitte (home grown)
      And the great Mariano closing (home grown) *
      14 impact players: 2 free agents, 7 home grown players, 5 trades.

      By comparison, here was the starting line-up for the 2009 World Series team:
      Derek Jeter SS (home grown)
      Johnny Damon LF (free agent)
      Mark Teixeira 1B (free agent)
      Alex Rodriguez 3B (trade)
      Jorge Posada C (home grown)
      Hideki Matsui DH (international free agent)
      Robinson Cano 2B (home grown) *
      Nick Swisher RF (trade)
      Melky Cabrera CF (home grown) *
      Starting Pitchers:
      CC Sabathia (free agent)
      AJ Burnett (free agent)
      Andy Petitte (home grown)
      And, again, the great Mariano closing (home grown) *
      13 impact players: 5 free agents, 6 home grown players, 2 trades.

      * Amateur free agents were considered to be “home grown” for this analysis.

      Three additional free agents can have a significant impact on the budget, especially when they are the likes of Mark Teixeira and CC Sabathia. It is also interesting to note the tremendous success the Yankees have had with amateur free agents (Bernie Williams, El Duque, Mariano, Cano, and Melky Cabrera). Whoever is scouting there should be promoted!

    39. Evan3457
      June 7th, 2013 | 11:01 pm

      LMJ229 wrote:

      All this talk about spending and championships! The fact remains that the championship teams of the late 1990s were primarily built THROUGH THE ORGANIZATION either by developing our own talent or trading away our young prospects for veteran players. We all agree that the 1998 team was the best of them. Here was the starting line-up for the 1998 World Series:
      Chuck Knoblauch 2B (trade)
      Derek Jeter SS (home grown)
      Paul O’Neill RF (trade)
      Bernie Williams CF (home grown) *
      Chili Davis DH (free agent)
      Tino Martinez 1B (trade)
      Scott Brosius 3B (trade)
      Jorge Posada C (home grown)
      Ricky Ledee LF (home grown)
      Starting Pitchers:
      David Wells (free agent)
      El Duque (home grown) *
      David Cone (trade)
      Andy Petitte (home grown)
      And the great Mariano closing (home grown) *
      14 impact players: 2 free agents, 7 home grown players, 5 trades.
      By comparison, here was the starting line-up for the 2009 World Series team:
      Derek Jeter SS (home grown)
      Johnny Damon LF (free agent)
      Mark Teixeira 1B (free agent)
      Alex Rodriguez 3B (trade)
      Jorge Posada C (home grown)
      Hideki Matsui DH (international free agent)
      Robinson Cano 2B (home grown) *
      Nick Swisher RF (trade)
      Melky Cabrera CF (home grown) *
      Starting Pitchers:
      CC Sabathia (free agent)
      AJ Burnett (free agent)
      Andy Petitte (home grown)
      And, again, the great Mariano closing (home grown) *
      13 impact players: 5 free agents, 6 home grown players, 2 trades.
      * Amateur free agents were considered to be “home grown” for this analysis.
      Three additional free agents can have a significant impact on the budget, especially when they are the likes of Mark Teixeira and CC Sabathia. It is also interesting to note the tremendous success the Yankees have had with amateur free agents (Bernie Williams, El Duque, Mariano, Cano, and Melky Cabrera). Whoever is scouting there should be promoted!

      That’s not bad, but not quite fair.

      Salary dump trades are an alternate means of throwing financial weight around.

      Of the 5 trades listed for the 1998 team, three were salary dump deals, in that the team trading the good player to the Yanks couldn’t afford to keep him: Tino, Knoblauch and Cone.

      If the two trades listed for the 1999 team, one was a salary dump, A-Rod.

      So, combinining free agents with salary dump deals, that’s 5 of 14 for the 1998 team and 6 of 13 for the 2009 team. Still an advantage for the 1998 team, but not as large as originally suggested.

    40. Raf
      June 7th, 2013 | 11:14 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Of the 5 trades listed for the 1998 team, three were salary dump deals, in that the team trading the good player to the Yanks couldn’t afford to keep him: Tino, Knoblauch and Cone.

      Jeff Nelson was due for a raise when he came over with Tino Martinez. Cone was retained as a FA after the 1995 season. It wasn’t so much that the Jays couldn’t afford to pay him (they got him from the Royals), as them getting something for a player that was likely going to leave as a FA..

    41. Evan3457
      June 8th, 2013 | 12:09 am

      Raf wrote:

      It wasn’t so much that the Jays couldn’t afford to pay him (they got him from the Royals), as them getting something for a player that was likely going to leave as a FA..

      Which makes it the same as a salary dump deal, as the Jays couldn’t afford to re-sign Cone for what would’ve been necessary to keep him, because they would’ve had to pay way over market.

    42. LMJ229
      June 8th, 2013 | 4:53 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Salary dump trades are an alternate means of throwing financial weight around.

      True but you still have to have some desirable prospects to pull off the trade. It emphasizes the importance of scouting and player development. The Yankees have been very successful despite their “just average” scouting success because they can supplement their shortcomings by using their vast financial resources.

    43. Evan3457
      June 8th, 2013 | 8:07 pm

      LMJ229 wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Salary dump trades are an alternate means of throwing financial weight around.
      True but you still have to have some desirable prospects to pull off the trade. It emphasizes the importance of scouting and player development. The Yankees have been very successful despite their “just average” scouting success because they can supplement their shortcomings by using their vast financial resources.

      Not always. Depending on how much salary you’re willing to take on, you can deal prospects of minimal value, such as the four players the Yanks dealt for Bobby Abreu and Cory Lidle. None of them amounted to much.

    44. Mr. October
      June 10th, 2013 | 4:57 pm

      Greg H. wrote:

      You say that money does not guarantee a championship, then base your entire argument that the GM is in the bottom third because he spends more money than the other teams and doesn’t have more championships. That’s illogical.

      Money doesn’t guarantee a championship in the short-term, but it should guarantee more success relative to other teams in the long-term.

      No one has suggested Cashman is in the bottom third of GMs because he spends more money than the other teams and doesn’t have more championships than the team has won, but for other reasons as well.

      Money should guarantee more success or championships in the long-term; the highest-spending teams since 2005 have been the Phillies, Red Sox, and Yankees – are these not 3 of the most successful teams?
      Greg H. wrote:

      http://bleacherreport.com/articles/891302-theo-epstein-and-the-other-guys-power-ranking-every-mlb-gm/page/22

      With all due respect to “bleacherreport.com,” putting Cashman ahead of many of these GMs might be somewhat absurd. If there is are specific arguments for putting Cashman ahead of certain of them, then I’d like to hear those arguments – arguments other than the number of division titles won.
      Greg H. wrote:

      Also illogical how a GM with a team that makes the playoffs every year could possibly be ranked among the worst in baseball.

      The Houston Astros’ total payroll is less than Alex Rodriguez’s salary. Is the Astros’ GM one of the worst in baseball because his or her team hasn’t made the playoffs every year, or had a winning record since 2008?Greg H. wrote:

      The only measure of note in a GM track record is playoff appearances. Teams that miss all the time suck.

      So the GMs of Houston, Kansas City, Pittsburgh, and other small market teams that have not been in the playoffs in recent years can’t be in the top third of GMs for this reason? It’s that simple?
      Greg H. wrote:

      The Yankees, and teams like them, have a mandate to contend every year without rebuilding, which costs money – which is okay, because the Yankees have money.

      There are no other teams like the Yankees in terms of financial resources or total gross revenues. Philadelphia has matched the Yankees’ record of contention in recent years most closely while spending less than 60% of what the Yankees have.
      Greg H. wrote:

      It would be interesting to give Beane or Friedman a media circus and a ton of cash and see if they can field a contender every year. (Key phrase being “every year”).

      Cashman certainly has done his share to make the environment surrounding the New York Yankees less of a media circus.

      What is a “contender” in baseball? Is Tampa Bay a “contender?” And if so why, according to whom, and for what? What if they less 8 of their next 9?
      Greg H. wrote:

      It’s easier said than done. Red Sox, Phillies, and now Angels, Dodgers, Marlins, Jays, all can attest.

      The comparisons to these organizations is a little unfair, particularly in the case of the Dodgers. The Steinbrenners have owned the Yankees since 1973, and the team has had the same GM since 1998.
      Greg H. wrote:

      But hey – they tanked like a sack of bricks last year and lost to the lowly A’s.

      The A’s are anything but a lowly organization – their payrolls have been in the $50 million to $70 million range for the past decade.
      rankdog wrote:

      Do you think the Yankees would HAVE to spend 200mil to stay a top the NL west every year? or the NL central?

      Why do the Yankees have to spend $190 million – $230 million to stay atop the AL East every year when Boston has been spending $130 million to $180 million?
      rankdog wrote:

      Do you think the Giants would have had a sniff of the division lead if they played in the same Division as Yankees?

      Baltimore had more than a sniff of the division lead in 2012 with an $84 million payroll to the Yankees’ $228 million. But to answer your question, if the Giants had the total gross revenues of the Yankees and allocated $200 million – $230 million to their payroll under Sabean’s management, then I would say “yes.”
      rankdog wrote:

      Better yet would the Giants finish higher than 4th in the AL East if they were to switch with Toronto?

      Why not? Because they don’t have the talent at the executive management level, or the total gross revenues? Other reasons?
      rankdog wrote:

      Would Philly have had the success they had competing with the Yankees for the division title during their stretch?

      With less than 60% of the Yankees payroll, probably not; no other team has, although some teams have won more league pennants and World Series.
      rankdog wrote:

      There are factors that lead to spending.

      Factors such as Rodriguez’s contract, and rewarding players like Jeter and Posada for their significance to the team past success have been a bit exaggerated or overstated.
      rankdog wrote:

      That being said, I believe strongly if you put the Yankees in the NL central or west they could field a competitive roster for less. In other words, spend less money on talent and still make win the division year after year.

      But that’s not the question. If you put Cashman in the NL Central or NL West, and allocate the financial resources to outspend all other teams in the division by the proportion he has since 2005 in the AL East, that team might very well win the division every year too. The question is why is Cashman in the top third, middle third, or bottom third of GMs in baseball, or better than Pittsburgh’s GM for example?

    45. Greg H.
      June 10th, 2013 | 7:13 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      But that’s not the question.

      The question was: What would have constituted the appropriate amount of success?
      McMillan wrote:

      There are those that believe that better teams could have been fielded with the money spent, and with those teams presumably would have come more success in the postseason.

      So, even though money does not guarantee results, the “argument” is that for the money, they should have had better postseason results than making the playoffs every year and only winning one ring.

      We’ll have to just disagree on this one, because you say that this is not about money, but then you base everything you say on the fact that the Yankees and Cashman outspend everyone, so they should perform better than they have. To me, this doesn’t make sense. Not only that, but based on early elimination in the playoffs, we are talking about a handful of playoff games the team “should have won” in order to justify the spending, which bases the organization’s assessment on the outcome of a handful of playoff games.

      Anyway, the Yanks have been outspending most everyone for thirty years before 2005. Since 1975, they’ve had a hell of a lot of long term success relative to the rest of the league. Their current M.O. pre-dates Cashman and will most likely outlive his tenure as GM, when you’ll see someone else spend a lot of dough and (maybe) be as successful, because buying a title is not as easy as it sounds.

    46. Mr. October
      June 10th, 2013 | 8:51 pm

      .Greg H. wrote:

      The question was: What would have constituted the appropriate amount of success?

      That’s not a fair question…
      Greg H. wrote:

      So, even though money does not guarantee results, the “argument” is that for the money, they should have had better postseason results than making the playoffs every year and only winning one ring.

      I think the arguments are: 1. that money does not guarantee results in the short-term, but should guarantee better results in the long-term – as evidenced by teams that have spent the most money in the past decade (e.g. Boston, New York, Philadelphia); and 2. that making it to the postseason in 7-out-of-8 years does not necessarily translate to a G.M. being one of the top 10 in baseball.
      Greg H. wrote:

      We’ll have to just disagree on this one, because you say that this is not about money, but then you base everything you say on the fact that the Yankees and Cashman outspend everyone, so they should perform better than they have.

      The opposing point of view seems to base everything on the number of postseason appearances or division titles the team has won. If Cashman is in the top third of all G.M.s, then who are 20 that are not and why -without reference to the “belcherreport,” as Evan3457 calls it?
      Greg H. wrote:

      Not only that, but based on early elimination in the playoffs, we are talking about a handful of playoff games the team “should have won” in order to justify the spending, which bases the organization’s assessment on the outcome of a handful of playoff games.

      Thus the distinction between short and long-terms…
      Greg H. wrote:

      Anyway, the Yanks have been outspending most everyone for thirty years before 2005. Since 1975, they’ve had a hell of a lot of long term success relative to the rest of the league.

      A hell of a lot of long-term success that can be attributed in part to spending; but some discrete periods (e.g. 1996-2001) have certainly been much more successful than others (e.g. 1980-89; a period with 7 G.M.s).
      Greg H. wrote:

      Their current M.O. pre-dates Cashman and will most likely outlive his tenure as GM, when you’ll see someone else spend a lot of dough and (maybe) be as successful, because buying a title is not as easy as it sounds.

      No one suggested it’s easy, but it should be easier with hundreds-of-millions of more dollars to spend than any other franchise in the long-term.

    47. rankdog
      June 11th, 2013 | 11:16 am

      @ Mr. October:

      What in past history shows that giving Sabean more money is going to make the Giants a better team?

      The Barry Zito contract? Signing Armando Benitez? Aaron Rowand? Edgardo Alfonzo? Sidney Ponson? Pissing away Bonds prime? Trading away Joe Nathan, Boof Bonser and Francisco Liriano for A.J. Pierzynski?

      As far as the current team Tim Lincecum drafted 10 overall. Buster Posey 5th overall. Madison Bumgarner 10th overall.

      When has Cashman had a pick above 15th?

      Sabean built the core of his team off of high draft picks after having down years. There is no evidence giving Sabean more money is going to make Giants a better team. Throw a more competitive team in the Division like the Red Sox or Yankees and they turn into the Toronto Blue Jays.

      Orioles? Same situation. I can name a bunch of teams that have come and gone in the last 16 years who cycle through a crop of talent brought on by high end draft picks, everyone anoints their GM better than Cashman. Yada Yada. A particular segment of the Yankee fanbase gets GM envy. Then they have to pay their talent, draft at the bottom of the draft, and their window shuts. Then the cycle begins again. Often times replacing their GM in the process.

      Meanwhile the Yankees haven’t drafted higher than 16 since 1993 and only one pick above 20. Yet they missed the playoff just one time.

      While we are dogging on Cashman for his drafting, particularly first round draft picks. Its worth noting since 1965 Yankee first round draft picks have produced 2 players who signed with the Yankees and became above average players for major league club. Munson and Jeter.

    48. Mr. October
      June 11th, 2013 | 4:33 pm

      rankdog wrote:

      What in past history shows that giving Sabean more money is going to make the Giants a better team?

      Providing any G.M. with more money should make a team better over the long-term relative to other teams, especially 100% more money.
      rankdog wrote:

      The Barry Zito contract? Signing Armando Benitez? Aaron Rowand? Edgardo Alfonzo? Sidney Ponson? Pissing away Bonds prime? Trading away Joe Nathan, Boof Bonser and Francisco Liriano for A.J. Pierzynski?

      To make a similar list for Cashman would be too time-consuming.
      rankdog wrote:

      Throw a more competitive team in the Division like the Red Sox or Yankees and they turn into the Toronto Blue Jays.

      I don’t know how that claim can be supported if S.F. can spend at a smilar level.
      rankdog wrote:

      Then they have to pay their talent, draft at the bottom of the draft, and their window shuts.

      A G.M. isn’t necessarily in the top 3rd because his team has made the playoffs in 7-out-of-8 years for that reason.
      rankdog wrote:

      Meanwhile the Yankees haven’t drafted higher than 16 since 1993 and only one pick above 20. Yet they missed the playoff just one time.

      They’ve also had the highest payroll in baseball since 1998 – by a lot.
      rankdog wrote:

      While we are dogging on Cashman for his drafting.

      I’ve never criticized Cashman for his drafting.

      The question was: “What would have constituted the appropriate amount of success for 2005-12?” If, for example, Phi. won the same number of division titles, pennants, and world championships as N.Y., spending $1.0-1.1 bil. to N.Y.’s $1.7-1.8 bil., then the answer would appear to be “somehwere between 1 more division title at one extreme, and 3 more division titles, 7 more pennants, and 7 more world championships a the other extreme.” A $700 mil. advantage isn’t an insignificant amount – it’s more than several teams, including T.B., have spent in total and combined for the entire period.

      If the counterargument is that the comparison doesn’t hold because Phi. is in the N.L. East and N.Y. is in the A.L. East, Philadelphia’s spending has been comparable to Boston’s over the long-term, and Bal., T.B. and Tor. have been far behind Bos. in spending for the same period.

    49. Ricketson
      June 11th, 2013 | 5:26 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      If there are arguments for putting Cashman ahead of [other G.M.s], then I’d like to hear [them] – arguments other than the number of division titles won.

      “Ah, the old ‘a GM with a team that makes the playoffs every year could not possibly be ranked among the worst in baseball’ canard. If only it were that simple an explanation…”

      Mariano Rivera has played for the Yankees for 19 years and has 631 saves; Dennis Eckersley played for the Oakland Athletics for 9 years and had 320 saves.

      The top four all-time wins/saves combinations for starting pitchers and closers in M.L.B. history: 1. Pettitte/Rivera; 2. Welch/Eckersley; 3. Mussina/Rivera; and 4. Stewart/Eckersley.

      What does this statistic say about the Yankees starting rotation since 1998 in that the Yankees have had the most wins in M.L.B. and the top 4 combinations are not all occupied by a Yankee starter and Rivera?

    50. Ricketson
      June 11th, 2013 | 5:50 pm

      rankdog wrote:

      What in past history shows that giving Sabean more money is going to make the Giants a better team?

      I think Sabean Jason Bumps Cashman from the top third of any ranking of M.L.B. G.M.s that incorrectly has Cashman there to begin with…

    51. rankdog
      June 11th, 2013 | 8:39 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      Providing any G.M. with more money should make a team better over the long-term relative to other teams, especially 100% more money.

      No sir, there is A LOT of evidence to say contrary. Omar Minaya being the poster boy of “More money does not make me a better GM” club.

      Mr. October wrote:

      I don’t know how that claim can be supported if S.F. can spend at a smilar level.

      There are few teams that have had success following the Yankees model, Look at the Marlins two years ago for example, look at the Dodgers this year. Money doesn’t = success. Sabean hasn’t had a great track record with high priced signings.

      Mr. October/b> wrote:

      They’ve also had the highest payroll in baseball since 1998 – by a lot.

      That is really your only argument and I have countered that many times. Find me a team that’s pushes through the downward swing of the rebuilding cycle and stays competitive by using cash. You have given the last 10 years when the Yankees, by normal standards, should have been rebuilding/retooling. Every other team on that list went through that downward cycle. The Sox for example hit bottom last year, drafted in the top 10, and sent a huge chunk of their payroll to the Dodgers.

      Mr. October wrote:

      The question was: “What would have constituted the appropriate amount of success for 2005-12?” If, for example, Phi. won the same number of division titles, pennants, and world championships as N.Y., spending $1.0-1.1 bil. to N.Y.’s $1.7-1.8 bil., then the answer would appear to be “somehwere between 1 more division title at one extreme, and 3 more division titles, 7 more pennants, and 7 more world championships a the other extreme.” A $700 mil. advantage isn’t an insignificant amount – it’s more than several teams, including T.B., have spent in total and combined for the entire period.

      1) What did Philly do prior to the 10 year comparison? They built a core from the draft, then spent the 10 year window supplementing and sustaining by paying their developed talent and bringing high priced free agents.

      2) The Yankees were already 10 years removed from the rebuilding stage. They were already paying market value for their developed talent. The cost for staying competitive without the luxury of dipping into the top end of the draft is only going to go up.

      3) In that 10 year swing was there any heavy hitters Philly had to compete with? The Yankees had the Sox. Who was Philly big market equally successful counter part? The Mets hit their downward cycle, the Braves were rebuilding. Miami and the Nationals weren’t a factor.

      Mr. October wrote:

      A G.M. isn’t necessarily in the top 3rd because his team has made the playoffs in 7-out-of-8 years for that reason.

      A GM who doesn’t make the playoffs aren’t employed very long.

      Current GMs in 2012 and their records building winners in roles as AGM and/or GM from 1997 thru 2012
      Regular Season W-L Pct. Playoffs 1st Place Pennants WS Titles
      Brian Cashman 1560-1028 .603 14 12 6 4
      Ned Colletti 1410-1180 .544 7 6 1 0
      Brian Sabean 1392-1198 .537 6 5 3 2
      Frank Wren 1390-1200 .537 9 6 1 1
      Walt Jocketty 1386-1204 .535 8 7 2 1
      Billy Beane 1365-1225 .527 6 5 0 0
      Terry Ryan 1287-1303 .497 6 6 0 0
      Doug Melvin 1204-1225 .496 4 3 0 0
      Kevin Towers 1192-1239 .490 4 4 1 0
      Dan O’Dowd 1261-1331 .486 5 3 1 0
      Dave Dombrowski 1213-1378 .468 4 2 3 2

    52. Mr. October
      June 12th, 2013 | 6:28 pm

      rankdog wrote:

      No sir, there is A LOT of evidence to say contrary. Omar Minaya being the poster boy of “More money does not make me a better GM” club.

      I think there is evidence to suggest that more money has not translated to the level of success that it should have with certain G.M.s in the past or in particular cases, but that isn’t to say that there isn’t evidence that more money, especially 100% more money, should translate into more success in the long-term; there’s a difference.
      rankdog wrote:

      There are few teams that have had success following the Yankees model, Look at the Marlins two years ago for example, look at the Dodgers this year.

      I disagree with the premise that Miami and Los Angeles are fair examples or comparisons.

      How long has the new Dodger ownership and front office been in place? What team would you say has most closely followed the Yankees model for approximately 8-10 years and without significant disruption in the front office?
      rankdog wrote:

      3) In that 10 year swing was there any heavy hitters Philly had to compete with? The Yankees had the Sox.

      A very good point. Nonetheless, the Bos. spent less than 70% of what N.Y. spent.
      rankdog wrote:

      Brian Cashman 1560-1028 .603 14 12 6 4

      There are certain points I’ll concede, but none crediting Cashman with 4 WS Titles.
      rankdog wrote:

      Billy Beane 1365-1225 .527 6 5 0 0

      Where would you put Beane?
      rankdog wrote:

      That is really your only argument and I have countered that many times.

      The argument is that outspending all other franchises by over $500 mil. (Bos.) or more in a division and througout baseball in only an 8-year period (or in the long-term) should translate into substantial success relative to other teams – especially if you think that any measurement of success ends with a playoff spot – which I also don’t agree with.

      The argument is not, nor has it ever been, that spending equals success.

      I think the point you make about equating the number of division titles in a less competitive division since 2005 is the correct one. I think the significance of the draft and not having an opportunity to rebuild is also overemphasized. That a team doesn’t have a rebuilding cycle in its model is an advantage that does correlate with higher spending.

      The only argument I hear that Cashman should be in the top third of G.M.s is that the team is in the playoffs almost every year, and that money doesn’t guarantee success. Saying “money doesn’t guarantee success” misrepresents the opposing point of view.

      That the team has won the division 5 times in 8 years should come with the qualification that it outspent Bos. by $70-90 mil. each year, and the rest of the division by considerably more. It has to: if Cashman won 5 division titles while spending at a level comparable to Boston’s – that’s saying something; outspending Bos. by over $500 mil. in 8 years is saying something less.

      I think you make a lot of very good points, but I don’t see one that puts Cashman in the top third. And I strongly disagree with crediting Cashman with 1998-2000.

      I get it: he has a mandate to field a contending team every year with names that will attract attention and publicity – that he has satisfied that mandate and demonstrated that 2/3 of the G.M.s in baseball could not have done a better job, I’m less inclined to agree with.

    53. Ricketson
      June 12th, 2013 | 8:43 pm

      rankdog wrote:

      Find me a team that’s pushes through the downward swing of the rebuilding cycle and stays competitive by using cash. You have given the last 10 years when the Yankees, by normal standards, should have been rebuilding/retooling. Every other team on that list went through that downward cycle.

      Sounds like a tough job: “[H]ere’s complete autonomy (2005) and a checkbook to cover $200-30 mil. in each season while approx. nine other competitors will have $100-190 mil. (when not rebuilding/retooling), and the other twenty less than $100 mil. Your job is to get the team into the postseason in 7/8 years. Do you think you can handle it?” It beats working at U.P.S…

    54. Evan3457
      June 12th, 2013 | 11:31 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      rankdog wrote:
      Find me a team that’s pushes through the downward swing of the rebuilding cycle and stays competitive by using cash. You have given the last 10 years when the Yankees, by normal standards, should have been rebuilding/retooling. Every other team on that list went through that downward cycle.
      Sounds like a tough job: “[H]ere’s complete autonomy (2005) and a checkbook to cover $200-30 mil. in each season while approx. nine other competitors will have $100-190 mil. (when not rebuilding/retooling), and the other twenty less than $100 mil. Your job is to get the team into the postseason in 7/8 years. Do you think you can handle it?” It beats working at U.P.S…

      You make it sound so easy. All assumption on your part. No way to prove your point. None.

      And, of course, he doesn’t have complete autonomy; hasn’t had it since at least the 2007 off-season.

    55. rankdog
      June 13th, 2013 | 12:31 am

      Mr. October wrote:

      The argument is that outspending all other franchises by over $500 mil. (Bos.) or more in a division and througout baseball in only an 8-year period (or in the long-term) should translate into substantial success relative to other teams – especially if you think that any measurement of success ends with a playoff spot – which I also don’t agree with.
      The argument is not, nor has it ever been, that spending equals success.

      You seem the contradict yourself here. The way I your logic is this: As spending increases there some be an increase measure of success.

      In my last post I laid out several categories. Regular season winning %, playoff appearances, division titles, WS appearances, and WS wins. By all measures Cashman has been a very successful GM.

      Your argument falters because you choose to cherry pick the 10 year stats AFTER their last major rebuilding cycle. Saying stuff like “There are certain points I’ll concede, but none crediting Cashman with 4 WS Titles.” is illogical. But it doesn’t fit your narrative so you have to exclude those stats right.

      Mr. October wrote:

      Where would you put Beane?

      This one is a hard one. On one hand he has taken a small payroll and outdone his larger spending competitors. He can develop talent and he makes a lot of daft trades.

      On the other hand he turned down both the Yankee and Red Sox positions. Oakland is not known for demanding success so there is a lot of room to take risk and blow up the roster. It appears he would have to be in a situation where he would have full autonomy NOT that Yankee version of full autonomy where the owner/team president can jump in and throw around big money. Also a lot of his strength as a GM runs contrary to Yankee model of success. I would rate him in the top 10 not sure where though.

      It would be interesting to see if the Tampa and Oakland situations could bear success leading to a string of WS if given the ability to exceed their payroll ceilings once their core is in place. We know they can work the top of the draft and/or leverage that talent at the MLB level to made daft trades. The question is if the had the money to burn could they keep the right pieces while adding the right FAs to get over the hump.

    56. Mr. October
      June 14th, 2013 | 3:36 pm

      rankdog wrote:

      Your argument falters because you choose to cherry pick the 10 year stats AFTER their last major rebuilding cycle. Saying stuff like “There are certain points I’ll concede, but none crediting Cashman with 4 WS Titles.” is illogical. But it doesn’t fit your narrative so you have to exclude those stats right.

      I wasn’t cherry-picking stats: “I’m the general manager, and everybody within the baseball operations department reports to me,” he said. “That’s not how it has operated recently.” – Brian Cashman, Oct. 28, 2005; N.Y. Times.

      So it’s not selective information that doesn’t fit a narrative. Either a person/commenter isn’t aware of the fact Cashman himself has acknolwedged that he didn’t have full autonomy as G.M. until 2005, or that person/commenter is excluding information for purposes other than fair discussion. I think that 2005-12 is an appropriate window of time for appraising a G.M. and comparing his performance to other G.M.s – especially when that G.M. has publicly-stated the baseball operations department didn’t report to him prior to 2005.

      The 1998-2000 teams were not constructed through any significant acquisitions or transactions that Cashman was responsible for as G.M. (the Knoblauch trade was negotiated with Watson as G.M.).

      rankdog wrote:

      In my last post I laid out several categories. Regular season winning %, playoff appearances, division titles, WS appearances, and WS wins. By all measures Cashman has been a very successful GM.

      You did some cherry-picking of your own in your last post. I’ve been referring to the 2005-12 period throughout because Cashman supposedly did not have the autonomy other G.M.s had in preceding years, and that amount of time seems like a reasonable basis for comparision. Others have “cherry-picked” information by introducing the number of “100-win” seasons, which is of little relevance, or going back to 1998 when Cashman first became G.M. of a team that had been to the postseason in the 3 previous years and won 1 World Series.

      G.M.s such as Sabean have had to build a team through the draft and working within far more constrained financial parameters and have managed to win more world championships since 2005 than Cashman. It’s an advantage to not have to enter rebuilding cycles, and to have payrolls exceeding two-thirds of all teams by over 100% over an 8-year period – it’s not a disadvantage – and a team should have more regular season wins and postseason appearances because of it.

      I don’t listen to major media outlets in N.Y., but there must be print, radio, and television journalists or personalities putting forth the argument that if a G.M. gets a team to the postseason in 7-out-of-8 years, he must be one of the best G.M.s in baseball, and a G.M.’s job stops there because “anything can happen in the playoffs,” because there seem to be a lot of people parroting it. But it’s nonsense.

      The 1996-2001 Yankees didn’t win 15-out-of-17 postseason series by chance, or because “it just happened that way.” And they won those series because of the work of G.M.s preceding Cashman who deserve that credit and recognition, and the work of the players and coaching staffs those G.M.s assembled – they were the better organization or team in most if not all series. The 2005-12 Yankees didn’t win more than 5-out-of-11 series because they weren’t the best organization or team in most series.

      I wrote “most,” because sometimes the better team does lose or the lesser team wins – that’s true in all sports, and particularly in baseball. Anthing can happen in the short-term – N.Y. might have been the better team than Ari. in 2001, for example – but we’re looking at the long-term.

      Greg H. wrote:

      What would have constituted the appropriate amount of success?

      Something closer to winning 15/17 postseason series (1996-2001) than winning 5/11 postseason series (2005-12) – especially if you’ve outspent 2/3 of all all teams by more than 100%, and all teams in your division by a substantial amount each year.

      If there are 4 playoff spots in the A.L., and only 4 teams spending more than $100 mil. and 0 teams spending more than $190 mil., and you’re spending $200-30 mil. – you should probably manage to secure a playoff spot (not even a division title) in 7/8 years even with one of the worst G.M.s in the game.

    57. MJ Recanati
      June 14th, 2013 | 4:02 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      The 1998-2000 teams were not constructed through any significant acquisitions or transactions that Cashman was responsible for as G.M. (the Knoblauch trade was negotiated with Watson as G.M.).

      Roger Clemens and David Justice, at the very least (and maybe Orlando Hernandez), were significant additions made by Cashman during that three year period. Chili Davis too, if I recall correctly.

    58. MJ Recanati
      June 14th, 2013 | 4:06 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      It’s an advantage to not have to enter rebuilding cycles, and to have payrolls exceeding two-thirds of all teams by over 100% over an 8-year period – it’s not a disadvantage – and a team should have more regular season wins and postseason appearances because of it.

      Don’t the Yankees have the most wins in baseball in that 2005-2012 timeframe? The Yankees are the only team in baseball to have made the playoffs seven times in that timeframe.

      In light of that, I don’t really see your point. You’re arguing that the Yankees should’ve done more of what they already did the most of. At that point it’s just whining.

    59. Ricketson
      June 14th, 2013 | 4:24 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      And, of course, he doesn’t have complete autonomy…

      He has more freedom than Louise Meanwell…

    60. Raf
      June 14th, 2013 | 4:27 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      Something closer to winning 15/17 postseason series (1996-2001) than winning 5/11 postseason series (2005-12)

      Are the 1995 & 2002-2004 seasons in some sort of grey area?

    61. Mr. October
      June 14th, 2013 | 4:30 pm

      rankdog wrote:

      I would rate him in the top 10 not sure where though.

      Agreed.
      rankdog wrote:

      The question is if the had the money to burn could they keep the right pieces while adding the right FAs to get over the hump.

      I think the answer is “yes” with both Beane and Friedman. Thanks.

    62. Mr. October
      June 14th, 2013 | 4:47 pm

      Raf wrote:

      Are the 1995 & 2002-2004 seasons in some sort of grey area?

      O.K.: 15/18 postseason series. Winning 15/18 postseason series doesn’t seem to suggest that “anything can happen or that the better team wins only about 50% of the time” in the postseason. The better team wins more often than 50% of the time over the long-term. And the Yankees won only 5 of 11 postseason series from 2005-12.

      I thought I explained the rationale for excluding the years 2002-04: the organization’s G.M.s preceding Cashman from the late 1980s to 1998 deserve credit and recognition for the team’s success in the years 1998-2000, or 1998-2001, given the composition of its roster throughout that period. And Cashman supposedly didn’t have full autonomy and/or control of certain operational departments in the organization prior to 2005, by his own statements.

    63. Mr. October
      June 14th, 2013 | 4:55 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      Don’t the Yankees have the most wins in baseball in that 2005-2012 timeframe?

      They had the most wins in the 1980s as well…

    64. Raf
      June 14th, 2013 | 7:53 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      I thought I explained the rationale for excluding the years 2002-04: the organization’s G.M.s preceding Cashman from the late 1980s to 1998 deserve credit and recognition for the team’s success in the years 1998-2000, or 1998-2001, given the composition of its roster throughout that period.

      I think you may want to take a closer look at the transactions from 1998-2001.

      And Cashman supposedly didn’t have full autonomy and/or control of certain operational departments in the organization prior to 2005, by his own statements.

      So then how do you explain the Rafael Soriano and Alex Rodriguez contracts?

    65. Evan3457
      June 14th, 2013 | 8:46 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      And, of course, he doesn’t have complete autonomy…
      He has more freedom than Louise Meanwell…

      …and maybe he should.

    66. Evan3457
      June 14th, 2013 | 8:50 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      Raf wrote:
      Are the 1995 & 2002-2004 seasons in some sort of grey area?
      O.K.: 15/18 postseason series. Winning 15/18 postseason series doesn’t seem to suggest that “anything can happen or that the better team wins only about 50% of the time” in the postseason. The better team wins more often than 50% of the time over the long-term.

      Depends how you look at it. I’m not sure the Yanks were the best team in baseball in 2000. That would be a tough case to make. They won three post-season series, though.

    67. Greg H.
      June 15th, 2013 | 11:11 am

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      You’re arguing that the Yankees should’ve done more of what they already did the most of. At that point it’s just whining.

      Perfectly stated.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Depends how you look at it. I’m not sure the Yanks were the best team in baseball in 2000.

      As playoff teams go, the 2000 Yanks, the ’06 Cards, the ’10 and ’12 Giants, just for starters, each eliminated 3 teams that were better than they were, but they got hot at the right time. This happens as much as it doesn’t. The fact that better teams often lose playoff series takes nothing away from the winners, but it does handicap the playoffs, which makes playoff success a difficult measure of an organization’s strength. If you’re measuring by playoff series wins, there is such a small sample size – we’re usually only talking one or two games which determine a series victory/loss.

    68. Mr. October
      June 15th, 2013 | 3:20 pm

      Greg H. wrote:

      The “argument” is that for the money, they should have had better postseason results than making the playoffs every year and only winning one ring?

      rankdog wrote:

      Meanwhile the Yankees… missed the playoff just one time.

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      Don’t the Yankees have the most wins in baseball in that 2005-2012 timeframe?

      It’s simply an invalid argument.

      Premise: A team with the best record over 8-10 years had one of the top G.M.s in the game for the period. (True?)
      Premise: The Yankees had the best record from 2005-12. (True)
      Conclusion: The Yankees had one of the top G.M.s in the game for the period 2005-12. (True?)

      Premise: A team with the best record over 8-10 years had one of the top G.M.s in the game for the period. (True?)
      Premise: The Yankees had the best record from 1980-89. (True)Conclusion: The Yankees had one of the top G.M.s in the game for the period 1980-89. (False!)

      The Yankees had 7 different G.M.s from 1980-89, averaging a G.M. change almost every 18 months, and therefore could not have had one of the top G.M.s in the game.

      The argument that because the Yankees had the best record in baseball for the period 2005-12, or reached the postseason in a system which provided for not 2 (1980, 1982-89) but 4 playoff spots (1995-) and with $200-30 mil. payrolls or outspending their closest division rival by more than $500 mil., Cashman is one of the top G.M.s in the game is an invalid one. It’s that simple.

      Maybe someone can call WFAN on Monday, or some other media outlet in the N.Y. area that seems to be propogating the sentiment that Cashman is one of the top G.M.s in the game, and request a “valid argument” and get back to us?
      Greg H. wrote:

      If you’re measuring by playoff series wins, there is such a small sample size – we’re usually only talking one or two games which determine a series victory/loss.

      There is a substantial difference between 15/18 postseason series wins and 5/11 postseason series wins – the sample size is the number of years Cashman’s had full “control” as G.M., or 8 since 2005 – it’s not cherry-picking – how many more years would “constitute an appropriate sample size?”

      The teams that had the highest payrolls in the A.L. from 2005-12 were well-represented in the postseason (Bos. (3x), Chi. (2x), Det. (3x), L.A. (3x), Min. (3x), N.Y. (7x), and Tex (2x)) by coincidence?

      And the team that had far-and-away the highest payroll (N.Y.), had the most postseason appearances (7) – but not the most pennants or world championships won because it wasn’t the better team in most series, as reflected in its 5/11 record.

      One reason it wasn’t the better team is that it didn’t have one of the top G.M.s in the game. What’s the valid argument that it did?
      MJ Recanati wrote:

      Roger Clemens and David Justice, at the very least (and maybe Orlando Hernandez), were significant additions made by Cashman during that three year period. Chili Davis too, if I recall correctly.

      Clemens wasn’t really a significant addition; his record wasn’t much better than Wells’ in the immediate seasons afterwards. Justice and Davis played in just 181 and 189 games for the team respectively – so that fact that Hernandez was the only “significant addition” to the team underscores the following point:
      Mr. October wrote:

      …the organization’s G.M.s preceding Cashman from the late 1980s to 1998 deserve credit and recognition for the team’s success in the years 1998-2000, or 1998-2001, given the composition of its roster throughout that period.

      Giving Cashman credit for 1998-2000 is like giving the keys to Pat Gillick’s office in Toronto to someone in Feb., 1991, having that someone make almost no significant transactions or personnel moves, and crediting that person 100% with 3 pennants and 2 world championships won by the Blue Jays from 1991-93.

    69. Evan3457
      June 15th, 2013 | 6:21 pm

      The two sets of premises above are not comparable and do not refute the notion that he is one of the best GMs in the game. In one set of circumstances, the owner took enough control, and had so little self-control, that he acted out his own immature impulses by firing the GM nearly once a year. Later on, he learned the error of his ways, and allowed his GMs more time to accomplish things, while continuing to put all sorts of pressure on them. Saying “making the playoffs 7 times in 8 years is an invalid argument” three times in three different ways is, itself, not even an argument, but an assertion.
      ============================================
      Aggregate payrolls, AL, 2005-2012

      2. Boston $1.139 billion
      3. Anaheim $930.9 million
      4. Detroit $868.5 million
      5. Chicago $834.8 million
      6. Seattle $753.0 million
      7. Baltimore $627.4 million
      8. Minnesota $617.7 million
      9. Texas $596.3 million
      10. Toronto $578 million
      11. Cleveland $508.4 million
      12. Oakland $480.7 million
      13. Kansas City $448.3 million
      14. Tampa Bay $373.3 million

      So, first of all, Minnesota (3x) and Texas (2x) were not among the highest payrolls in the league from 2005-2012.

      Second of all, Oakland (2x) and Tampa Bay (3x), were, at 12th and 14th, just as well represented as any of the high payroll teams. This can be used as an argument that Beane and Freidman are better GMs than the rest, including Cashman.

      Third of all, a close look at the data shows that though the Red Sox had the highest aggregate payroll of the other teams, they missed the post-season in the three seasons in which they had the highest payroll. A similar trend can be found for most of the other high payroll teams:

      Chicago made the playoffs the season its payroll was the 2nd highest, but missed in the seasons that its payroll was highest, 3rd highest, 4th highest. It won the title with its lowest payroll in the period, a season in which it had the 5th highest payroll in the AL.

      Detroit made the playoffs in the seasons of its 2nd, 5th and 7th highest payrolls, and missed in the rest. It has yet to win it all.

      The Angels won the title in which its payoll was 7th in the AL, have not won it since. made the playoffs in its 3rd, 4th, and 5th, highest seasons, missed in both the highest and 2nd highest, and, unless a major turnaround happens, it’ll be 1-2-3 at the end of this season.

      OK, to be sure, there is a bias here, in that all teams are spending more now, as opposed to 2005, as there are inflationary effects at work and more teams have sufficient revenue to spend.

      =====================================
      But it looks to me as if increasing salary is as much an effect of success as it is a cause. The Red Sox kept jumping their payroll as their two-time title winners declined to prop up contention, with ever-decreasing success (sound familiar?). Then they changes course and blew it up, and their a contender again at a lower payroll.

      The Tigers bumped their payroll substantially after the 2006 pennant winner, and had little to show for it. Then Dombrowski did a mini-blowup after 2009, and has reassembled the pieces into a formidable team. However, his highest payroll in the entire period was in 2008, when the Tigers finished last, 14 games under .500.

      The White Sox have been slowly diminishing while their payroll has bounced up and down. However, their highest payroll in the period was in 2011, when they finished 4 games under and 16 games out in 3rd place.

      The Twins had to radically increase spending to keep their homegrown superstars (Morneau and Mauer) who promptly declined from their peak seasons, leaving the Twins in a dark hole from which they have yet to recover. They tried spending their way out of it (at a lower level than the Yankees, to be sure), but finally, they brought back Terry Ryan, and his last couple of drafts have been superb. They’ll be a power again in a few seasons…after their payroll drops.

      Anaheim made the playoffs 4 years out of 5. Missed it when the core of that team started to age, the payroll dropped, and owner Moreno bumped payroll $35 million, and then another $15 million, trying to regain the post-season. It hasn’t worked so far, and even though they shed @25 million in payroll this year, it looks even more dismal so far.

      The Rangers made the post-season in 2010 with their lowest payrollof the eight-year period, bumped it $40 million and won the pennant again, then bumped it another $28 million…and made it again, barley, losing in the Wild Card game after a late season collapse cost them the divisional title.

      ====================================
      It looks like most GMs, with the exception of, again, Freidman and Beane, have the same view: when you have a good team, that’s the time to spend. And the results have been decidedly negative for the most part. And perhaps Beane and Friedman would have fallen into this pattern themselves if they’d been allowed to spend. But they haven’t been.

      Where do the Yankees fit into all this…a historical review of sorts:

      After the shocking 1960 World Series loss to the Pirates, the Yankees fired Stengel and George Weiss. Weiss was quoted at the time saying, in effect, that he gave them 5 years before they collapsed. He called it to the year. But was it just the loss of Weiss. Maybe, for the most part. But the other teams were tired of the Yankees beating their brains in year after year, and they took faster advantage of the influx of black and latino players than the Yankees did. The Rule 4 draft was also born to enforce competitive balance.

      And it worked, until free agency came along, and again, the Yanks could outspend everyone. Free agency allowed Steinbrenner to finish off a team largely built by Gabe Paul’s excellent trades, and the Yanks won 5 division titles (well, 4.5 divisions, really), 4 pennants and two titles.

      But the team Paul built slowly aged and then crumbled. Steinbrenner’s reaction, under a myriad of GMs, was to make trades willy-nilly, fire managers and batting coaches and hitting coaches willy-nilly, and sign free agents willy-nilly, even if they made no sense.

      And as the foundations of that team rotted, Bill James wrote a comment about the Yankees for his 1988 Abstract that I’ve never forgotten. It starts with this:

      The New York Yankees are trapped on a treadmill…although they have the best winning percentage of any team during the eighties, they have not won anything since 1981. They are acutely aware of this, and so the winter if 1987-1988 was spent in frantic preparations to make the 1988 season the season in which the great nucleus of this team was surrounded by a cast good enough to life the Yankees off of that 85- to 92-win treadmill, and onto the championship rung. There is an irony in this, for it is exactly this philosophy that creates the treadmill from which the Yankees are so anxious to escape.

      It ends with this:

      The problem with the Yankees is they never want to pay the real price of success. The real price of success in baseball is not the dollars that you come up with for a Jack Clark or a Dave Winfield or an Ed Whitson or a Goose Gossage. It is the patience to work with young players and help them develop. So long as the Yankees are unwilling to pay that price, don’t bet on them to win anything

      And so the 1980′s Yankees collapsed, and George himself was exiled due to his misdeeds. And finally, the rebuilding commenced. It was 5 years long and it was painful, but by 1993 the Yankees were good again. Bernie Williams showed up.

      ====================================
      And it took them 3 more years to win anything more than a Wild Card, thanks to the 1994-5 strike, and at that point, the Core Four had shown up.

      Now the odds of coming with two certain lock Hall of Famers and 3 near Hall of Famers within 5 years in any franchises farm system is exceedingly low. But that’s what happened. And so the Dynasty Yankees won 4 titles in 5 years.

      The Yankees were aided by two circumstances that could not be planned for. The first was an relative explosion of revenue for the team and a wide-open system that allowed the Yankees to plunder in their prime talent via both free agency and via salary dump deals.

      The second was the fact that their was little or no competition, strategically speaking, in the division. Gillick left Toronto, so the Jays crumbled. The Rays were born, and run horribly, for the most part, until the mid-2000′s. The Red Sox were not much of a factor until they traded for Pedro. The O’s had Gillick, and a lot of money, but he couldn’t contend with Angelos and son, so he left when his contract expired. And the Orioles fell apart.

      But that team aged and started to decline. So what did George do? The same thing he did in the 80′s. Bought everyone in sight, made a lot of trades. Only Torre’s success as manager in the Dynasty Years kept George from completing the trifecta. And then George himself succumbed to the infirmities of age. Finally, someone else had his hand on the tiller, but the organization philosophy remained unchanged…until, perhaps, 2012, and the latest Basic Agreement.

      ========================================
      In the meantime ominous trends began to emerge:

      1) The Yankees decided to build a palace. This put them in substantial debt, and forced them to continue the “must win every year” and “we need stars everywhere” policies, keeping the new treadmill going.

      2) MLB got Basic Agreement ever more restrictive on the Yankees ability to just keep buying players without increasing penalties. Now the foreign free-agent open market is closed as well. Now the draft is completely slotted, with penalties to ensure that teams pay a price for drafting tough-to-sign high-ceiling prospects in lower rounds and “stealing” them from poorer teams.

      3) The competitive balance in the division, and the league as a whole, is a whole lot tougher than it was in the 90′s. Good GMs abound in the East, the Orioles and Rays have risen, the Red Sox remain tough.

      4) The elimination of PEDs and amphetamines makes signing middle-aged and older free agents a far worse proposition that it did at the start of this eight-year period.

      5) Revenue flooded the smaller market teams from a variety of sources, allowing most of them to keep their best young talent for periods that see them through most of, if not all of, the primes of their careers. Very few salary dump deals left now.

      But the Yankees stayed on the treadmill for the most part, their extreme payroll allowing them to stay competitive where other teams could not, in spite of greatly increased spending. In 2008, they took a fallow season to lose $60 million in payroll, and were rewarded when the three free agents they bought help lead them to one more title. But those three free agents put them back on the treadmill, and at an accelerated speed.

      =====================================
      And so now, where are they?

      Well, this might be the long-awaited year when the wheels come off. They decided two years ago to get off the treadmill, or at least slow it down, when they decided on the self-imposed $189 million payroll cap. This cap closed them off from many possible interim solutions, including the last batch of top-notch foreign free agents: Puig, Cespedes and Chapman. It closed them off from bidding high for Darvish.

      But it also closed them off from possible wasting their money on Hamilton, Grienke, Bourn, BJ Upton, AJ Pierzynski, and the like. So, at this very moment, with the offense in a deep coma, they are hanging in mid-air, poised to go either way, possibly headed for a big fall.

      Is it all Cashman’s fault? Certainly some of it. But just as certainly not all of it. Some of it comes right from ownership, too, and not the part that refused to fire Cashman 5 years ago.

      =================================
      In a way, part of me hopes that Jeter and Andy ride off into the sunset with Mo. Then the organization can get on with the task of starting to rebuild. It will take awhile. They’d still have to eventually clear out Tex and A-Rod, and possibly CC as well (though I think he’ll eventually adapt to his new stuff and pitch pretty well, but not as well as he did before). The next catcher is probably within the organization, the next shortstop probably isn’t. Some of the outfield and pitching prospects will work out, some won’t. They’ve played this particular string out as long as they can, I think. Can Cashman rebuild? I don’t know; nobody knows. Nobody in this organization has done anything like this in over 20 years. But it looks as though the organization is going to try. If they go that route, they’ll have the advantages that being a rebuilding team has: being able to trade veterans for prospects, being able to take time with young players.

      But lower attendence and TV ratings may force them to change course again. And yet, they can still rally, and win the division again. It sure doesn’t look that way at the moment, but things are not set in stone. 60% of the season has yet to be played.

      So we’ll see.

    70. Ricketson
      June 16th, 2013 | 1:10 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      You make it sound so easy. All assumption on your part. No way to prove your point. None.

      I would put the following G.M.s ahead of Cashman:

      Alderson, Amaro, Jr., Anthopoulos, Antonetti, Beane, Byrnes, Cherington, Colletti, Daniels, DiPoto, Dombrowski, Duquette, Friedman, Hahn, Hill, Hoyer, Huntington, Jocketty, Luhnow, Melvin, Moore, Mozeliak, O’Dowd, Rizzo, Ryan, Sabean, Towers, Wren, and probably Zduriencik too…

    71. Ricketson
      June 16th, 2013 | 1:27 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      Maybe someone can request a “valid argument” [as to why Cashman is one of the top G.M.s in the game] and get back to us?

      “[Cashman] is very well-regarded by his peers” is not a valid argument?

      Kevin Towers would not say to an interviewer from the Arizona Daily Star, “Brian Cashman? John Cashman’s son? He not only [sucks] as a husband and a father, but he [sucks] as a G.M. too,” even if that was Tower’s personal opinion?

    72. Ricketson
      June 16th, 2013 | 1:49 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      Giving Cashman credit for 1998-2000 is like giving the keys to Pat Gillick’s office in Toronto to someone in Feb., 1991, having that someone make almost no significant transactions or personnel moves, and crediting that person 100% with 3 pennants and 2 world championships won by the Blue Jays from 1991-93.

      Someone with 0 years of experience as a G.M.
      Evan3457 wrote:

      The two sets of premises above are not comparable and do not refute the notion that he is one of the best GMs in the game.

      What is the valid argument that supports the notion that John Cashman’s son is one of the best G.M.s in the game in a few sentences – not more words than Caroline Meanwell’s complaint.

    73. Mr. October
      June 16th, 2013 | 2:14 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      The two sets of premises above are not comparable and do not refute the notion that he is one of the best GMs in the game.

      A YES broadcaster was interviewing Cashman several weeks ago and asked him if Lyle Overbay will be given an opportunity to play the outfield and remain with the team. Cashman’s response? “No one thought of that.” Two days later, the Yankees made the announcement than they will experiment with Overbay in an outfield role for the team.

      This is one of the best G.M.s in baseball? A G.M. that is making major personnel decisions on the basis of suggestions by journalists in the course of an interview? He doesn’t have the people in place that could have “thought of it,” and he’s a “good administrator?”

      If the Yankees can be considered to have a G.M. in Cashman, then what is the valid argument that he is one of the best?

    74. Greg H.
      June 16th, 2013 | 2:16 pm

      @ Ricketson:
      You just succeeded in following up one of the year’s most thoughtful, thorough and logical posts with such a load of rubbish it nearly does not merit a response.

      Your list of GM’s you would put ahead of Cashman is filled with GMs whose team is competitive some of the time to infrequently, and who have all made trades and moves that you would scalp Cashman for, and a couple of whom either have zero experience (Cherington??) or are flat out dubious (Zduriencik??). Really – you’d rather have those two than Cashman? I’m glad you’re not running the team.

      Cashman is in the top third because his team’s record has been consistently better than the other team in baseball during his tenure. This notwithstanding the fact that he’s spent more and implemented a reasonably flawed team philosophy of “winning every year,” as Evan 3457 outlined above. No one is saying he’s the best. But he’s certainly above average and no way is he in the bottom third. This is supported by the fact that his peers, who know quite a bit more than we do, also respect his abilities, because they know the business, and understand that working in NYC under the Steinbrenners is different than any other team. They also understand that making the playoffs every year but one is a considerable accomplishment in any market, with any budget.

    75. Ricketson
      June 16th, 2013 | 2:23 pm

      Greg H. wrote:

      Cashman is in the top third because his team’s record has been consistently better than the other team in baseball during his tenure.

      Mr. October wrote:

      It’s simply an invalid argument.

      Premise: A team with the best record over 8-10 years had one of the top G.M.s in the game for the period. (True?)
      Premise: The Yankees had the best record from 2005-12. (True)
      Conclusion: The Yankees had one of the top G.M.s in the game for the period 2005-12. (True?)

      Premise: A team with the best record over 8-10 years had one of the top G.M.s in the game for the period. (True?)
      Premise: The Yankees had the best record from 1980-89. (True)
      Conclusion: The Yankees had one of the top G.M.s in the game for the period 1980-89. (False!)

      Greg H. wrote:

      This notwithstanding the fact that he’s spent more and implemented a reasonably flawed team philosophy of “winning every year,” as Evan 3457 outlined above.

      I’ll read Evan’s post when it comes out in paperback.

      What is the valid argument that supports the notion that John Cashman’s son is one of the best G.M.s in the game in a few sentences?

    76. Evan3457
      June 16th, 2013 | 6:53 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      I’ll read Evan’s post when it comes out in paperback.
      What is the valid argument that supports the notion that John Cashman’s son is one of the best G.M.s in the game in a few sentences?

      Actually, my post was not written to support that notion, either.

      I’ll try to write short posts in words of one syl la bull for you.

    77. Ricketson
      June 17th, 2013 | 2:08 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Is it all Cashman’s fault? Certainly some of it.

      He did mean well.
      Mr. October wrote:

      If the Yankees can be considered to have a G.M. in Cashman, then what is the valid argument that he is one of the best?

      Evan3457 wrote:

      I’ll try to write short posts in words of one syl la bull for you.

      “In logic, an argument is valid if and only if its conclusion is logically entailed, or logically-follows from its premises; the conclusion is a logical consequence of its premises…”

      An example of an invalid argument was given in a previous post:
      Mr. October wrote:

      Premise: A team with the best record over 8-10 years had one of the top G.M.s in the game for the period. (True?)
      Premise: The Yankees had the best record from 1980-89. (True)
      Conclusion: The Yankees had one of the top G.M.s in the game for the period 1980-89. (False!)

      For all of us “fourth-rate logicians,” can you explain why the above-referenced argument is not invalid, or “[i]f the Yankees can be considered to have a G.M. in Cashman, then what is the valid argument that he is one of the best?”

    78. Ricketson
      June 17th, 2013 | 5:54 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      The two sets of premises above are not comparable and do not refute the notion that he is one of the best GMs in the game.

      The purpose wasn’t to refute the notion that Cashman is one of the best G.M.s in the game – as ridiculous as that notion might be; the purpose was to demonstrate the invalidity of the argument.
      Evan3457 wrote:

      In one set of circumstances, the owner took enough control, and had so little self-control, that he acted out his own immature impulses by firing the GM nearly once a year…

      Your text serves to explain why the original argument was invalid in terms of its first premise. In “WasWatching.com-speak,” you’re arguing against yourself.
      Evan3457 wrote:

      Saying “making the playoffs 7 times in 8 years is an invalid argument” three times in three different ways is, itself, not even an argument, but an assertion.

      That’s not what was not written. What was written was that even if the first premise was accepted as true, the argument was an invalid one.
      Evan3457 wrote:

      So, first of all, Minnesota (3x) and Texas (2x) were not among the highest payrolls in the league from 2005-2012.

      This is the first point you’ve made that I agree with. However, Minnesota and Texas were not among the lowest payrolls, either.
      Evan3457 wrote:

      This can be used as an argument that Beane and Freidman are better GMs than the rest, including Cashman.

      Good! Now: “If the Yankees can be considered to have a G.M. in Cashman, then what is the valid argument that he is one of the best?”
      Evan3457 wrote:

      Third of all, a close look at the data shows that though the Red Sox had the highest aggregate payroll of the other teams, they missed the post-season in the three seasons in which they had the highest payroll.

      Now you’re cherry-picking data.
      Evan3457 wrote:

      3) The competitive balance in the division, and the league as a whole, is… tougher than it was in the 90′s. Good GMs abound… the Orioles and Rays have risen, the Red Sox remain tough.

      Before you can say that “Good GMs abound,” you must first define what a “Good GM” is, which is the point of this whole discussion, and which you haven’t done.
      Evan3457 wrote:

      After the shocking 1960 World Series loss to the Pirates, the Yankees fired Stengel… [In 2013, they can rally], and win the division…

      All of this was very interesting, but…
      “If the Yankees can be considered to have a G.M. in Cashman, then what is the valid argument that he is one of the best?”

      Mr. October wrote:

      A YES broadcaster was interviewing Cashman several weeks ago and asked him if Lyle Overbay will be given an opportunity to play the outfield and remain with the team. Cashman’s response? “No one thought of that.”

      Unbelievable…

    79. Mr. October
      June 17th, 2013 | 7:26 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Oakland (2x) and Tampa Bay (3x), were, at 12th and 14th, just as well represented as any of the high payroll teams. This can be used as an argument that Beane and Freidman are better GMs than the rest, including Cashman.

      Agreed.

    80. LMJ229
      June 17th, 2013 | 10:43 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      A YES broadcaster was interviewing Cashman several weeks ago and asked him if Lyle Overbay will be given an opportunity to play the outfield and remain with the team. Cashman’s response? “No one thought of that.” Two days later, the Yankees made the announcement than they will experiment with Overbay in an outfield role for the team.

      I heard that too. I believe it was Jack Curry that suggested it. I actually suggested the same thing on this very website when Texiera was coming back. It is just mind boggling that the Yankees didn’t think if that!

    81. Evan3457
      June 18th, 2013 | 12:01 am

      Ricketson wrote:

      He did mean well.

      This, on the other hand, means nothing.

      Mr. October wrote:
      If the Yankees can be considered to have a G.M. in Cashman, then what is the valid argument that he is one of the best?
      Evan3457 wrote:
      I’ll try to write short posts in words of one syl la bull for you.

      This, of course, was not directed at Mr. October, but at you.

      “In logic, an argument is valid if and only if its conclusion is logically entailed, or logically-follows from its premises; the conclusion is a logical consequence of its premises…”

      Don’t presume to teach logic to me. I’ve taught formal logic for a living, at times.

      An example of an invalid argument was given in a previous post:
      Mr. October wrote:
      Premise: A team with the best record over 8-10 years had one of the top G.M.s in the game for the period. (True?)
      Premise: The Yankees had the best record from 1980-89. (True)
      Conclusion: The Yankees had one of the top G.M.s in the game for the period 1980-89. (False!)
      For all of us “fourth-rate logicians,” can you explain why the above-referenced argument is not invalid, or “[i]f the Yankees can be considered to have a G.M. in Cashman, then what is the valid argument that he is one of the best?”

      Yes, and it’s quite easy.
      The claim that quoted argument is invalid is an assertion without proof. No refutation of the argument is offered, nor, can it be. The claim that Cashman is a good GM is empirical, it is based on his results. As there is no other GM with such a record (nor is there any GM with access to Cashman’s resources, for that matter), it can neither be proven nor disproven empirical by statistical inference; there simply isn’t enough data, either way, to make the case.

      And the fact that I cannot prove he is one of the best GMs doesn’t refute it either; that logically fallacy is formally called argumentum ad ignorantiam, defined as “…an inference that a proposition P is false from the fact that P is not proved to be true or known to be true.”

    82. Evan3457
      June 18th, 2013 | 12:30 am

      Ricketson wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      The two sets of premises above are not comparable and do not refute the notion that he is one of the best GMs in the game.
      The purpose wasn’t to refute the notion that Cashman is one of the best G.M.s in the game – as ridiculous as that notion might be; the purpose was to demonstrate the invalidity of the argument.

      But it doesn’t demonstrate anything, as I’ve shown.

      Evan3457 wrote:
      In one set of circumstances, the owner took enough control, and had so little self-control, that he acted out his own immature impulses by firing the GM nearly once a year…
      Your text serves to explain why the original argument was invalid in terms of its first premise. In “WasWatching.com-speak,” you’re arguing against yourself.

      In exactly what way? Be specific.

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Saying “making the playoffs 7 times in 8 years is an invalid argument” three times in three different ways is, itself, not even an argument, but an assertion.
      That’s not what was not written. What was written was that even if the first premise was accepted as true, the argument was an invalid one.

      Again; why? Why is the argument invalid? Because YOU say so?

      Evan3457 wrote:
      So, first of all, Minnesota (3x) and Texas (2x) were not among the highest payrolls in the league from 2005-2012.
      This is the first point you’ve made that I agree with. However, Minnesota and Texas were not among the lowest payrolls, either.

      They were however, below the average, and below the median payroll as well, which refutes the notion that every successful team must spend a lot of money, relatively speaking. Mr. October was not trying to prove that, it would appear, but the statement is incorrect, anyway.

      Evan3457 wrote:
      This can be used as an argument that Beane and Freidman are better GMs than the rest, including Cashman.
      Good! Now: “If the Yankees can be considered to have a G.M. in Cashman, then what is the valid argument that he is one of the best?”

      An argument. Not a conclusion. And I still don’t have to prove a negative to refute an assertion.

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Third of all, a close look at the data shows that though the Red Sox had the highest aggregate payroll of the other teams, they missed the post-season in the three seasons in which they had the highest payroll.
      Now you’re cherry-picking data.

      No, I’m not. They were the 2nd highest spending team, and the interval of least success within the period in question came in the years of greatest spending. It supports to notion that, contrary to one of your criticisms of Cashman, extremely high spending guarantees should not only contention in most cases, but titles (or “pennant rings”, for that matter.) In other words, the more the Red Sox resembled the Yankees in high spending, while staying at or near the cap, the less successful they got.

      Evan3457 wrote:
      3) The competitive balance in the division, and the league as a whole, is… tougher than it was in the 90′s. Good GMs abound… the Orioles and Rays have risen, the Red Sox remain tough.
      Before you can say that “Good GMs abound,” you must first define what a “Good GM” is, which is the point of this whole discussion, and which you haven’t done.

      This is a fair criticism, so I’ll explain further. The Orioles were perennial cellar-dwellers from 1998 through 2010. Their fortunes have changed under Showalter and now, Duquette. I infer from this sudden rise that their personnel acquisition and utilization is now better managed that it was before.

      I infer the same thing from the rise of Friedman and Maddon in Tampa Bay. The Rays started to make better draft choices when Freidman was named Director of Baseball Development for the Rays in 2004. When better talent finally got to the major leagues, Maddon saw that it was deployed to good advantage.

      Theo Epstein took over the Red Sox GM position in 2002, and left behind an intelligent organization when he went to the Cubs in 2011.

      Whereas the Yanks had only competition from the Gillick-led Orioles in 1996-1997, and from 1998-2001, only from the Red Sox, the current Yankee teams have had to fight off two tough competitors from 2008-2011, and three tough competitors in 2012-2013. And don’t look back, because Toronto may be rising from the dead as we speak.

      Evan3457 wrote:
      After the shocking 1960 World Series loss to the Pirates, the Yankees fired Stengel… [In 2013, they can rally], and win the division…
      All of this was very interesting, but…
      “If the Yankees can be considered to have a G.M. in Cashman, then what is the valid argument that he is one of the best?”

      The long section detailing the Yankees history from 1960-1976 is to demonstrate MLB’s effort to end the Yankees’ multi-decade dynasty and restore competitive balance to the American League. That effort was temporarily sidetracked by the advent of free agency. This led to a mini-dyynasty from 1976-1981, followed by the long, slow decline of the team, which was propped up through the 80′s by signing and trading for veterans. But that team rotted and then collapsed in the late 80′s anyway, because under George Steinbrenner, the organizational mandate was to win every year, regardless of the long-term strategic situation of the franchise in any given season.

      This mirrors, almost precisely, what has gone on with the team from 1996 to the present day, and for the same reason, they must win every year.

      Mr. October wrote:
      A YES broadcaster was interviewing Cashman several weeks ago and asked him if Lyle Overbay will be given an opportunity to play the outfield and remain with the team. Cashman’s response? “No one thought of that.”

      So what? It’s a desperation move, and may have helped cost them a game in Oakland. In any case, the move is moot with Teixeira’s renewed wrist problems.

      Unbelievable…

      …that you place any significant emphasis on that? Why yes, yes it is.

    83. rankdog
      June 18th, 2013 | 2:39 am

      Mr. October wrote:

      I think the answer is “yes” with both Beane and Friedman. Thanks.

      Glad you feel that way. Until they do it, I remain skeptical.

    84. rankdog
      June 18th, 2013 | 2:48 am

      Ricketson wrote:

      Alderson, Amaro, Jr., Anthopoulos, Antonetti, Beane, Byrnes, Cherington, Colletti, Daniels, DiPoto, Dombrowski, Duquette, Friedman, Hahn, Hill, Hoyer, Huntington, Jocketty, Luhnow, Melvin, Moore, Mozeliak, O’Dowd, Rizzo, Ryan, Sabean, Towers, Wren, and probably Zduriencik too…

      Did you just seriously google any GM for a winning record and slap their name in there? You actually think Neal Huntington and Dan Duquette would do a better job with the Yankees?

      Apparently you like teams that struggle to have winning records and never make the playoffs.

    85. Mr. October
      June 18th, 2013 | 1:49 pm

      LMJ229 wrote:

      I heard that too. I believe it was Jack Curry that suggested it. I actually suggested the same thing on this very website when Texiera was coming back. It is just mind boggling that the Yankees didn’t think if that!

      You’re correct. I didn’t mention his name because the story was told to me by an acquaintance of his, but since it’s public knowledge – it was Curry, and it is mind-boggling, or should be, that someone with the title of Sr. Vice President and G.M. of the New York Yankees made a roster decision of that kind on the basis of a brief conversation with a news journalist – and that neither he nor his staff “thought of it.”
      rankdog wrote:

      Glad you feel that way. Until they do it, I remain skeptical.

      I think Beane and Freidman have accomplished or demonstrated quite a bit in their careers.

    86. Ricketson
      June 18th, 2013 | 2:19 pm

      LMJ229 wrote:

      I heard that too. I believe it was Jack Curry that suggested it.

      Mr. October wrote:

      You’re correct. I didn’t mention his name because the story was told to me by an acquaintance of his, but since it’s public knowledge – it was Curry, and it is mind-boggling, or should be, that someone with the title of Sr. Vice President and G.M. of the New York Yankees made a roster decision of that kind on the basis of a brief conversation with a news journalist – and that neither he nor his staff “thought of it.”

      “[S]hould be.”
      LMJ229 wrote:

      I actually suggested the same thing on this very website when Teixeira was coming back. It is just mind boggling that the Yankees didn’t think if that!

      rankdog wrote:

      You actually think Neal Huntington and Dan Duquette would do a better job [than Cashman] with the Yankees?

      I think LMJ229 would do a better job with the Yankees…

    87. Ricketson
      June 18th, 2013 | 2:55 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      The claim that quoted argument is invalid is an assertion without proof. No refutation of the argument is offered, nor, can it be.

      One step at a time, Counsellor:
      The first premise of your client’s argument is False.

      It has been demonstrated (within the last 30 years and with the same organization, no less) that a team can have the best record in baseball (1980-89), and not have the same G.M. for any 18 consecutive months of that period.

    88. Ricketson
      June 18th, 2013 | 5:44 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      I’ve taught formal logic for a living, at times.

      No comment…
      Evan3457 wrote:

      [T]here simply isn’t enough data… to make the case [that Cashman is one of the best GMs]… And the fact that I can not prove he is one of the best GMs doesn’t refute it either.
      Evan3457 wrote:

      Oakland… and Tampa Bay… at 12th and 14th [in payroll were just as well- represented] as any of the high payroll teams. This can be used as an argument that Beane and Freidman are better GMs than [Cashman].

      How are the two previous statements consistent?

    89. Evan3457
      June 18th, 2013 | 7:23 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      The claim that quoted argument is invalid is an assertion without proof. No refutation of the argument is offered, nor, can it be.
      One step at a time, Counsellor:
      The first premise of your client’s argument is False.
      It has been demonstrated (within the last 30 years and with the same organization, no less) that a team can have the best record in baseball (1980-89), and not have the same G.M. for any 18 consecutive months of that period.

      Which proves what, exactly?

    90. Evan3457
      June 18th, 2013 | 7:28 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      I’ve taught formal logic for a living, at times.
      No comment…
      Evan3457 wrote:
      [T]here simply isn’t enough data… to make the case [that Cashman is one of the best GMs]… And the fact that I can not prove he is one of the best GMs doesn’t refute it either.
      Evan3457 wrote:
      Oakland… and Tampa Bay… at 12th and 14th [in payroll were just as well- represented] as any of the high payroll teams. This can be used as an argument that Beane and Freidman are better GMs than [Cashman].
      How are the two previous statements consistent?

      There can’t be more than two “best GMs”?
      Cashman can’t be 3rd?
      A single argument in favor of a proposition definitively proves the proposition?
      I have to be able to prove something in order for it to be true, regardless of the ability or inability to prove it?

      I can go on like this for awhile, but my time is too valuable to waste making other points like

      At what ranking out of 30 does “best GMs” come to a end?

      or

      Is team wins vs. payroll the only (or even the best) criterion for ranking GMs?

    91. Ricketson
      June 18th, 2013 | 8:31 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      I can go on like this for awhile, but my time is too valuable to waste making other points like at what ranking out of 30 does “best GMs” come to a end?

      Don’t worty about. All kidding aside, I agree with much of what you wrote. The bottom line is that a G.M. can’t be considered one of the top G.M.s in the game on the basis of total record or postseason ap-pearances only; there are other criteria, some more significant, and you alluded to most of them.

    92. LMJ229
      June 18th, 2013 | 10:45 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      I think LMJ229 would do a better job with the Yankees…

      Well I’m not so sure about that but I do appreciate the vote of confidence! :)

    93. Evan3457
      June 19th, 2013 | 12:45 am

      Ricketson wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      I can go on like this for awhile, but my time is too valuable to waste making other points like at what ranking out of 30 does “best GMs” come to a end?
      Don’t worty about. All kidding aside, I agree with much of what you wrote. The bottom line is that a G.M. can’t be considered one of the top G.M.s in the game on the basis of total record or postseason ap-pearances only; there are other criteria, some more significant, and you alluded to most of them.

      I tend to agree. My own view on Cashman is actually mixed. There is evidence he’s not a good GM. There’s evidence he is. There’s evidence he’s in charge of things. There’s evidence he isn’t. The Yankees management structure is so Byzantine with overlapping authority that it’s almost impossible to figure out who’s responsible for some moves, good and bad. It’s almost like trying to map out power blocs within a Politburo of a socialist state. People who fall out of favor are “disappeared”, only to reappear years later. It’s maddening. I used to think I had a handle on it. Then the A-Rod re-signing, the Soriano signing happened. I used to think I knew what their drafting policy was. Then it changed, and now it’s changed again in the last two years.

      The Cashman bashers might well be right about him. The Cashman supporters might be right. Me, I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt, because I can’t say for sure what he’s actually responsible for, and how much responsibility he has in each different area.

      Sometimes, Cashman sounds like he’s in charge. Sometimes it sound like a lot of wind. Sometimes, as in the last Jeter negotiations, he’s just fronting for Hal. Sometimes, it’s just obfuscation disguised as candor for obfuscation’s sake.

      Hell of a way to run a railroad, and they’d better clean things up. They need to get to a much more structured system given the improved competition, and the successive elimination of various methods of acquiring talent by use of money alone over the last several collective bargaining agreements by MLB to improve competitive balance.

      If that means putting Cashman clearly in charge, I can live with it. If that means firing him and putting a talent evaluation type in charge, I can live with that. But let the team pick a direction and go with it.

      Or they can just ignore me and do whatever the hell they want. And they will.

    94. Ricketson
      June 19th, 2013 | 3:49 pm

      Raf wrote:

      Are the 1995 & 2002-2004 seasons in some sort of grey area?

      In 2001:
      Boehringer,
      Brosius,
      Jeter,
      Knoblauch,
      Martinez,
      Mendoza,
      O’Neill,
      Pettitte,
      Posada,
      Rivera,
      Sojo,
      Spencer,
      Stanton, and
      Williams all played for the team prior to Cashman being given the title of Sr. Vice President and G.M. 4 years earlier in 1998.

      In 2005:
      Jeter,
      Martinez,
      Mendoza,
      Posada,
      Rivera, and
      Williams only remained from the 1998-2001 teams.

      At some subjective point from 2002-04, the team, unfortunately, became a Cashman-Era team. So, yes – that would be called a “grey area.”

    95. Ricketson
      June 19th, 2013 | 3:52 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      I think LMJ229 would do a better job with the Yankees…

      LMJ229 wrote:

      Well I’m not so sure about that but I do appreciate the vote of confidence!

      LMJ229 or Jack Curry.

    96. Raf
      June 19th, 2013 | 9:27 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      Raf wrote:
      Are the 1995 & 2002-2004 seasons in some sort of grey area?
      In 2001:
      Boehringer,
      Brosius,
      Jeter,
      Knoblauch,
      Martinez,
      Mendoza,
      O’Neill,
      Pettitte,
      Posada,
      Rivera,
      Sojo,
      Spencer,
      Stanton, and
      Williams all played for the team prior to Cashman being given the title of Sr. Vice President and G.M. 4 years earlier in 1998.
      In 2005:
      Jeter,
      Martinez,
      Mendoza,
      Posada,
      Rivera, and
      Williams only remained from the 1998-2001 teams.
      At some subjective point from 2002-04, the team, unfortunately, became a Cashman-Era team. So, yes – that would be called a “grey area.”

      You’ll probably want to take a closer look at the transaction list from 1998-2001

    97. Ricketson
      June 20th, 2013 | 11:17 am

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      Roger Clemens and David Justice, at the very least (and maybe Orlando Hernandez), were significant additions made by Cashman during that three year period. Chili Davis too, if I recall correctly.

      Chili Davis was signed as a free agent in Jan., 1998; John Cashman’s son was assigned the title of “Sr. Vice President and General Manager” in Feb., 1998.

      The 1998 New York Yankees won 114 games taking their foot off of the gas pedal in the final weeks of the season before winning a world championship with an overall record, including the postseason, of 125-50.

      Mr. Meanwell’s daughter Louise could have been assigned the title of “Sr. Vice President and General Manager” in Feb., 1998, and the team would have won a world championship with no “significant” transactions.

      So to credit Cashman with a world championship in 1998 is nonsense.

      In 1999, the roster consisted the following players, none of which were “significant additions” after Feb., 1998:

      Brosius,
      Cone,
      Curtis,
      Davis,
      Erdos,
      Girardi,
      Jeter,
      Knoblauch,
      Ledee,
      Leyritz,
      Martinez,
      Mendoza,
      Nelson,
      O’Neill,
      Posada,
      Pettitte,
      Rivera,
      Sojo,
      Spencer,
      Stanton,
      Strwberry, and
      Williams

      So to credit Cashman with a world championship in 1999 is also nonsense.

      At some imprecise point in time, the roster went from one in which its composition was more appropriately described as one that should not be credited to Cashman, to one that was; 2000-03, 04, or 05; 2001-03, 04, or 05; 2002-03, 04, or 05: it’s a “gray area.”

      Raf wrote:

      You’ll probably want to take a closer look at the transaction list from 1998-2001

      Cashman’s “significant addition” to the 1999 roster was Ed Yarnell, acquired in a transaction that sent four-time All-Star, Gold Glove Winner, and World Series M.V.P. Mike Lowell to Florida.

      You’ll probably want to take a closer look at the transaction list from 1998-2001.

    98. Raf
      June 20th, 2013 | 9:44 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      Mr. Meanwell’s daughter Louise could have been assigned the title of “Sr. Vice President and General Manager” in Feb., 1998, and the team would have won a world championship with no “significant” transactions.

      It’s possible, then again, the Yanks were bounced out the first round 2 of the 3 previous years. Good thing Cashman was hired.

      Cashman’s “significant addition” to the 1999 roster was Ed Yarnell

      Ed Yarnall? I think you meant Roger Clemens.

      http://www.waswatching.com/archives/2007/12/brian_cashman_1_1.html

    99. Ricketson
      June 21st, 2013 | 1:02 pm

      Raf wrote:

      Ed Yarnall? I think you meant Roger Clemens.

      Roger Clemens is the “transaction list?”
      Mr. October wrote:

      Clemens wasn’t really a significant addition; his record wasn’t much better than Wells’ in the immediate seasons afterwards.

      Mr. October wrote:

      Justice and Davis played in just 181 and 189 games for the team respectively…

      Justice had only 757 plate appearances from 2000-01, and Davis had only 672 plate appearances from 1998-99.
      The only significant addition to the team under “George Constanza,” was Hernandez.

    100. Ricketson
      June 21st, 2013 | 1:09 pm

      Raf wrote:

      [T]he Yanks were bounced out the first round 2 of the 3 previous years. Good thing Cashman was hired.

      I thought those rounds are/were “crapshoots?” So if it’s a G.M.’s responsibility to get a team to the “crapshoots” only, then why was it a “good thing” that Costanza replaced Watson?

    101. Mr. October
      June 21st, 2013 | 3:12 pm

      Raf wrote:

      http://www.waswatching.com/archives/2007/12/brian_cashman_1_1.html

      There was one move with “Great Impact,” but the players received (Lilly and Westbrook) were eventually traded (“The Irabu trade was a steal – too bad [Cashman] didn’t keep Lilly and Westbrook (as they would helped, for sure, this season)…”

      From 1999-2000, Clemens was 27-18 (4.13 E.R.A.) in the A.L. East for world championship teams.
      From 1999-2000, Wells was 37-18 (4.46 E.R.A.) in the A.L. East for third-place teams.
      Wells was injured in 2001.

      “The Lowell trade… in the end, turned out to be a bust.”

      The rest of the transaction list includes such household names as Holmes, Ford, Molina, Graman, Phillips, Thompson, Knight, Marsonek, Naulty, Leach, Turner, and Pena.

    102. McMillan
      September 20th, 2013 | 4:07 pm

      [Fielding a contender is] easier said than done. Red Sox, Phillies, and now Angels, Dodgers, Marlins, Jays, all can attest.

      Congratulations to Cherington and the Red Sox, and Colletti and the Dodgers: the first two G.M.s in M.L.B. to clinch a playoff spot in 2013. Good luck in 2015 to Cashman and the Yankees.

      “Diamondbacks Take Umbrage at Dodgers’ Pool Party at [Chase] Field…

      … when a contingent of Los Angeles Dodgers… moved the celebration of their N.L. West-clinching 7-6 victory over the Diamondbacks… from the field to the pool, the vanquished home team was not happy.

      ‘I just think they have enough guys on that team that it’s surprising they would allow that to happen…’ infielder Bloomquist said. ‘I’ll give credit where credit’s due. They won the division… [but] I would expect someone to act with a little more class. I highly doubt the New York Yankees would do something like that.’”

      There is one New York Yankee who would act with so little class or do something like that:

      http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/kooky-cashman-claim-yanks-gm-plotted-mistress-suit-claims-article-1.1235442

      The [Dodgers] took on some hugh salary commitments on players with questionable health or ability on bad contracts. This wasn’t a large market team taking advantage of a small market team. This was large market team getting suckered by another large market team.

      Both large market teams, the sucker and the suckee, will be playing in the 2013 postseason while Cashman is updating his profile on AdultFriendFinder.com and trying to figure out what his starting rotation will be in 2014 around a $24 million-per year no. 4 starter signed through 2017.

      There are few teams that have had success following the Yankees model, Look at the Marlins two years ago for example, look at the Dodgers this year. Money doesn’t = success.

      The Dodgers are now favored to win the World Series, and can send Clayton Kershaw out at least twice in a postseason series.

      Greg H. wrote:

      [This] list of GM’s [better than] Cashman is filled with GMs whose team is competitive some of the time to infrequently, and who have all made trades and moves that you would scalp Cashman for, and a couple of whom either have zero experience (Cherington??)

      Cherington:

      “Cherington, the… Red Sox general manager, batted close to 1.000 this past winter with a series of so-called ‘mid-range’ player purchases in what was viewed as one of big-market Boston’s least glamorous buying sprees. It was such a success that rival execs are openly discussing copying the so-called ‘blueprint.’”

      Cashman:

      “Yankees’ woes stem from a wrong winter… In addition to bringing back Kuroda… the Yankees re-signed Pettitte and Rivera… It was after that when things turned south. If you want to break it down further, you could say the Yankees enjoyed a very good 2012-13 offseason from the end of the World Series Nov. 30: Martin signed with Pittsburgh on the night of the 30th.”

      Raf wrote:

      Good thing Cashman was hired.

      Yeah… Good thing. And those 15 years of experience certainly proved invaluable this season. The team was nine innings from an A.L. pennant in 2004 before “everyone in the baseball operations departments” began to report to this idiot in 2005. Nine years, $2 billion, and 1 pennant later, it’s the biggest mess in M.L.B.

    103. Mr. October
      September 24th, 2013 | 9:39 pm

      Also illogical how a GM with a team that makes the playoffs every year could possibly be ranked among the worst in baseball… The only measure of note in a GM track record is playoff appearances.

      Cashman has seven postseason appearances in eight years… in a matter of hours Cashman will have seven postseason appearances in nine years – and he will be no better and no worse than he was hours before; and next year it will be seven postseason in ten years.

      Playoff appearances are irrelevant in the evaluation of a G.M. Enjoy the offseason, Cashman…

    104. Mr. October
      October 24th, 2013 | 2:42 pm

      Greg H. wrote:

      Your list of GM’s you would put ahead of Cashman is filled with GMs whose team is competitive some of the time to infrequently… and a couple of whom either have zero experience (Cherington??)

      [Yankee G.M. of 16 Years] must follow Red Sox GM [of 2 year's] plan

      [Cashman has] just as many holes to fill as the Red Sox did a year ago, and potentially more than $100 million freed up in expired contracts – just as the Red Sox had a $261 million surplus after the salary-dump trade of Gonzalez, Crawford and Beckett to the Dodgers in August of 2012.

      “… Still, when you look at how it all turned out for the Sox — hitting on eight out of eight free agent signings — Brian Cashman can only wish to have the same kind of winter this year that Ben Cherington, the second-year Red Sox general manager, had last offseason…”

      http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/madden-playoff-confidential-yanks-follow-cherington-plan-article-1.1493525

    105. Kamieniecki
      October 27th, 2013 | 11:49 pm

      Greg H. wrote:

      Your list of GM’s you would put ahead of Cashman is filled with GMs whose team is competitive some of the time to infrequently, and who have all made trades and moves that you would scalp Cashman for, and a couple of whom either have zero experience (Cherington??)…

      @ Greg H.:
      Yes. Cherington. How many innings did Cashman come within a World Series title in 2013 with a $235 mil. payroll? Cashman?? When can we expect a Uehara to replace Mariano Rivera? Sooner than the catcher that will replace Posada in the long-term?
      @ Evan3457,
      @ Raf,
      @ rankdog

    106. Mr. October
      October 30th, 2013 | 11:18 pm

      Greg H. wrote:

      Your list of GM’s you would put ahead of Cashman is filled with GMs whose team is competitive some of the time to infrequently, and who have all made trades and moves that you would scalp Cashman for, and a couple of whom either have zero experience (Cherington??)

      “Cashman??” I’ll take Lester, Buchholz, Lackey, and one World Series title in two years, over Sabathia, Nova, TBD, and seven postseason appearances, with one World Series title, in nine years any day…
      @ Kamieniecki

    107. Kamieniecki
      November 22nd, 2013 | 12:17 am

      Greg H. wrote:

      Your list of GM’s you would put ahead of Cashman is filled with GMs whose team is competitive some of the time to infrequently, and who have all made trades and moves that you would scalp Cashman for, and a couple of whom either have zero experience (Cherington??)

      Cherington named Executive of the Year
      Red Sox general manager crafted roster that made Boston go from worst to first

      http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article/mlb/red-sox-general-manager-ben-cherington-named-executive-of-the-year?ymd=20131111&content_id=63858806&vkey=news_mlb

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.