• Cashman Has Concerns

    Posted by on February 27th, 2014 · Comments (16)

    Via George King -

    However, Cashman does have concerns.

    “I am more focused on the bullpen, the rotation and how that will shake out and the infield that is not Mark Teixeira or Derek Jeter,’’ Cashman said.

    That’s a strong indication the Yankees will look to upgrade at third and second base, where Kelly Johnson, Brian Roberts and Eduardo Nunez are in the mix.

    “I have said it’s a developing story that the Yankees have to keep focused on,’’ Cashman said of second and third. “Do we have the answer, the exclamation point right here in camp? If the answer is no, we have to look outside.’’

    Cashman said any possible upgrade from the outside won’t cost the Yankees much.

    “If we need to do improvements it has to be cheap,’’ Cashman said. “We spent our money.’’

    It’s really a shame that the Cano free agency snuck up on Cashman the way it did, with no warning, so that he couldn’t have years of forewarning that he was going to need a second baseman in 2014. Ditto on the A-Rod suspension. I mean, it’s not like Cashman knew for over a year that he may need a third baseman in 2014, right?

    Comments on Cashman Has Concerns

    1. jerryran
      February 27th, 2014 | 2:24 pm

      Why don’t you go ahead and rename this blog “Cash Bashing”

      I mean, c’mon – this shtick is getting stale.

    2. Greg H.
      February 27th, 2014 | 4:53 pm

      Or maybe “Was Watching Cashman”

    3. Mr. October
      February 27th, 2014 | 8:22 pm

      Scouting, drafting, and evaluating young players is “mostly luck,” like everything else in baseball – that’s one explanation as to why this idiot was shopping Robinson Cano to every MLB franchise in 2004 for any 40-year old pitcher rumored to have been on the market “at the time,” did not have a long-term replacement for Posada (1995-2011) until 2014, did not have a replacement in the pipeline for Cano or Jeter as of 2013, failed to draft any number of fine third base prospects available to him in recent years with a third baseman in his late 30s and with declining skills, etc.

      What shtick? The shtick coming from people calling into radio talk show programs, and elsewhere, who want to tell you that the Yankees won from 1996-2001 because they lost from 1989-1993 – that it’s necessary to have losing seasons to develop the core talent of teams like the 1996-2001 teams – how many players, with the exception of Jeter, were drafted in the first round of the amateur draft?

      What round did Gene Michael draft Paul O’Neill in? Tino Martinez? David Cone?

      I think that’s called post hoc ergo propter hoc (a concept not well-understood by more than one commenter on this blog) – the Yankees won after an extended period of non-contention, therefore it was because of that period that the Yankees won (not because of the excellent job Peterson, Michael, Sabean, and others did with player acquisition and the development of players drafted after the first round, through free agency, etc.).

      Or the shtick about Brian Cashman winning 4 World Series as a GM?

      How’s this for chutzpah:

      “… But Cashman also yearns to show that the franchise doesn’t succeed simply by grossly outspending most of the 29 other big-league teams. Ask him if he’d ever like to win with a modest budget just to show he can and Cashman snaps, ‘I’ve already been a part of that! My first year, 1998, we were fifth or sixth in payroll.’”

      http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sports/features/9611/

      “I’ve already done that?” In 1998, when he inherited a team in February built to win more than 100 games by Gene Michael and others that would actually win 125 overall nine months later? And the Yankees had the second-highest payroll in MLB in 1998, not the fifth-or-sixth highest payroll; Cashman’s a narcissist and a liar, among other things, but he does suck as a GM.

    4. Mr. October
      February 27th, 2014 | 9:22 pm

      Cashman on WFAN this afternoon: “[Kelly] Johnson is not a good defensive third baseman.”

    5. Ben M.
      February 28th, 2014 | 5:02 pm

      Time for Cashman to ask Chipper Jones to re-consider once again…

    6. Mr. October
      February 28th, 2014 | 5:08 pm

      @ Ben M.:
      What makes you think he hasn’t?

    7. Evan3457
      March 2nd, 2014 | 1:38 am

      Mr. October wrote:

      Scouting, drafting, and evaluating young players is “mostly luck,” like everything else in baseball

      Oh, just change your handle to Straw Man and be done with it.

      – that’s one explanation as to why this idiot was shopping Robinson Cano to every MLB franchise in 2004 for any 40-year old pitcher rumored to have been on the market “at the time,”
      The correct explanation is that nobody in baseball regarded Cano as “A future Hall of Famer” or anything like a “Future Hall of Famer”, and that’s why none of the teams that were offered Cano in trades took him, preferring instead to take world-beating talents such as Joaquin Arias.

      What shtick? The shtick coming from people calling into radio talk show programs, and elsewhere, who want to tell you that the Yankees won from 1996-2001 because they lost from 1989-1993 – that it’s necessary to have losing seasons to develop the core talent of teams like the 1996-2001 teams

      <
      Well, only if you want to get the superstars that are disproportionately selected in the top 10-15 of the 1st round.

      What round did Gene Michael draft Paul O’Neill in? Tino Martinez? David Cone?

      Martinez and Cone were salary dump deals. O’Neill was a true heist; a great trade by Michael.

      I think that’s called post hoc ergo propter hoc (a concept not well-understood by more than one commenter on this blog) – the Yankees won after an extended period of non-contention, therefore it was because of that period that the Yankees won (not because of the excellent job Peterson, Michael, Sabean, and others did with player acquisition and the development of players drafted after the first round, through free agency, etc.).

      Well, no, that’s not exactly true. It’s because the team of the 80′s collapsed (along with Steinbrenner’s suspension) that the Yankees finally got off the free agent treadmill, and finally got on with a true rebuilding job. Since the current ownership’s business plan/corporate philopsophy doesn’t allow for ANY down years, much less four of them in a row, that won’t happen under anyone they pick to be GM, even if/when they relieve Cashman from that responsibility. How do I know? Because they had the same philosophy under George from the decline of the 70′s mini-dynasty, and it required a total collapse to permit the rebuild of 1990-1994.

      Or the shtick about Brian Cashman winning 4 World Series as a GM?
      How’s this for chutzpah:
      “… But Cashman also yearns to show that the franchise doesn’t succeed simply by grossly outspending most of the 29 other big-league teams. Ask him if he’d ever like to win with a modest budget just to show he can and Cashman snaps, ‘I’ve already been a part of that! My first year, 1998, we were fifth or sixth in payroll.’”
      http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sports/features/9611/
      “I’ve already done that?” In 1998, when he inherited a team in February built to win more than 100 games by Gene Michael and others that would actually win 125 overall nine months later? And the Yankees had the second-highest payroll in MLB in 1998, not the fifth-or-sixth highest payroll; Cashman’s a narcissist and a liar, among other things, but he does suck as a GM.

    8. Mr. October
      March 2nd, 2014 | 4:47 pm

      The players traded for Martinez? Russell Stuart Davis – drafted in the 29th round; Sterling Alex Hitchcock – drafted in the 9th round…

      Interesting how the Atlanta Braves were able to finish in first place from 1991-2005 in all years except one (2nd place) wthout a “rebuilding year” or a “total collapse,” developed talent in the minor league system, etc. without a “corporate philosophy” to field a “championship-caliber” team every year… I wonder how Atlanta and Schuerholz might have done in all of those years with the highest payrolls in MLB with which to build out offenses around Glavine, Maddux, Smoltz, etc. – Atlanta might have had a lot more “luck” in the postseason.

      Boston, Los Angeles, and St. Louis all look poised to have a lot of luck in the postseason for years to come…

    9. Evan3457
      March 9th, 2014 | 12:26 am

      Mr. October wrote:

      Interesting how the Atlanta Braves were able to finish in first place from 1991-2005 in all years except one (2nd place) wthout a “rebuilding year” or a “total collapse,” developed talent in the minor league system, etc. without a “corporate philosophy” to field a “championship-caliber” team every year… I wonder how Atlanta and Schuerholz might have done in all of those years with the highest payrolls in MLB with which to build out offenses around Glavine, Maddux, Smoltz, etc. – Atlanta might have had a lot more “luck” in the postseason.

      Might have, but didn’t.

      Because in most of those yeare they did have one of the highest payrolls in MLB.

      1993: 7th in MLB, 4th in the NL
      1994: 3rd in MLB, 1st in NL
      1995: 3rd in MLB, 1st in NL
      1996: 3rd in MLB, 1st in NL
      1997: 5th in MLB, 1st in NL
      1998: 3rd in MLB, 1st in NL
      1999: 3rd in MLB, 1st in NL
      2000: 4th in MLB, 2nd in NL
      2001: 6th in MLB, 4th in NL
      2002: 7th in MLB, 4th in NL
      2003: 3rd in MLB, 2nd in NL

      In five seasons from 1993 through 2005, they lost in the NLDS or NLCS despite having a payroll at least 20% higher than the team they beat. One of them was losing to the Cards in the NLDS despite a payroll 30% higher.
      One of them was losing to the Padres in the 1998 NLCS despite having a payroll 30% higher. Another one was losing to the Phillies in the 1993 NLCS depite having a payroll nearly 50% higher. From 1993 on, the only team they ever lost to in the post-season who didn’t have a lower team payroll was the Yankees, in 1996 and 1999.
      Boston, Los Angeles, and St. Louis all look poised to have a lot of luck in the postseason for years to come…

    10. Mr. October
      March 9th, 2014 | 8:40 pm

      @ Evan3457:
      Without looking the answer up, which of the following four words is spelled correctly?

      1. miniscule
      2. mistatement
      3. attendence
      4. loser

    11. Evan3457
      March 9th, 2014 | 9:48 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      @ Evan3457:
      Without looking the answer up, which of the following four words is spelled correctly?
      1. miniscule
      2. mistatement
      3. attendence
      4. loser

      atten…
      …dunce

    12. March 9th, 2014 | 10:14 pm

      @ Evan3457:
      @ Mr. October:
      Can both of you please cut the crap? Learn to ignore each other – or, address each other within the guidelines of the Community Standards. If this continues, you will lose your posting rights here.

    13. MJ Recanati
      March 10th, 2014 | 12:12 pm

      @ Steve L.:
      You’ve got to be kidding me here. You’ve got a known troll who baits everyone on here and you’re talking about tossing a good commenter out?

      Just get rid of the troll already. Just because he agrees with your point of view doesn’t mean he’s adding any value around here.

    14. kenclay
      March 10th, 2014 | 12:59 pm

      @ MJ Recanati:
      I’d have gotten rid of him for thinking Aaron Small started a playoff game.

    15. Greg H.
      March 10th, 2014 | 1:13 pm

      @ MJ Recanati:
      Hear! Hear!

    16. March 10th, 2014 | 1:27 pm

      Community Standards, to be fair, apply to everyone.