« She's No Julius Russell | Main | How Bill James Changed Our View of the Game of Baseball »

March 03, 2007

Forbes: Cashman Not The Pick Of The Litter

Forbes.com decided to grade each baseball GM on two "yardsticks" - his team's performance (regular season winning percentage and postseason wins) versus the performance of his predecessor and the GM's relative (to the league median) payroll compared with his predecessor's relative payroll.

How did Brian Cashman of the Yankees place, overall, in this study? See below:

ForbesGMs.jpg

But, to be fair, what killed Cashman in this study was "payroll containment." According to the study, Cashman spent 22% "more than the previous GM relative to the league median" - and that was one of the high marks for those in the study. Combine that with the fact that the Yankees were a winning team when Cashman took over, and he was dead in the water for the most part here - because there really was not any way to improve in that area (in a large way).

When you look at the "grades" within the study, Forbes is saying that Cashman has done the same "job" (overall) as Jim Hendry of Chicago Cubs with respect to relative spending and team improvement (even though Brian and Jim are not back-to-back in the "standings" of the study).

Go ahead and compare the Cubs to the Yankees over the last five years. Which GM has done the better job? The answer is clear. It's Cashman. This is why Forbes is missing something in their final findings.

Brian Cashman should not be at the top of this list. But, he should not be so far near the bottom as well.

Posted by Steve Lombardi at March 3, 2007 11:22 PM

Comments

I can think of few things that would waste the time of the Forbes editorial staff more perfectly, than this analysis.

Posted by: SteveB [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 4, 2007 12:50 AM

Yes, the results of that study are quite odd. I mean ranking Sabean over Cashman? Shapiro so far down the list?

And if it's about "payroll containment" I can't see how Epstein & Minaya can rank so high.

Posted by: Raf [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 4, 2007 09:33 AM

You know what bugs me about Cashman's alleged 'failures'? The Yankees truly were among the best teams in 2001, 2003, and 2004, and they failed to win it all. Well heck, they got the ball to Mo in 2001 and he blew it. How is that Cashman's fault? Same in '03, when they were a hop and a jump away from another title. They were by far and away the superior team, they just didn't get it done.

I mean, look at their starting rotation during those years. In 2001 Mussina and Clemens were absolute aces during the season - both Cashman acquisitions - along with holdover Pettitte. If those two pitchers hadn't been on the team I doubt the Yankees would have even won the East, much less come within an out of winning it all.

2002, Giambi puts up MVP numbers, and the pitching staff is aces again, with Mussina and Wells (again, a Cashman acquisition) winning 18 and 19 games, respectively, with darn good (if injury-shortened) performances from El Duque and Pettitte. Clemens was mediocre that year. And yet they were beaten by a destiny-driven Angels team, who did go on to win the Series. Again, if Cashman hadn't acquired Giambi and Wells, the Yanks would have been awful.

2003, the pitching staff was particularly good (with the exception of Weaver, ugh). Pettitte wins 21, Mussina and Clemens both win 17, and Wells wins 15, with an average ERA hovering around 3.70. That's better than Detroit this year - much better actually. And three of those pitchers were Cashman acquisitions.

I can't speak much for 2004-2006, because the pitching has really been pretty bad (although how much of that is Cashman's fault I can't say...who would he have signed? The market was crap), but the Yankees by all rights should have won 2001-2003, and Cashman and Torre would have been near locks for best all-time GM and Manager duo.

I don't fault Cashman for the crapshoot of the postseason. I laud him for constructing a continuously winning team, and for pulling off absolute steals like A-Rod for 2004, and Abreu this year. He's a damn good GM.

Posted by: Andrew [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 4, 2007 09:47 AM

I had been a long-time Forbes subscriber since my college days and read the bi-weekly cover to cover.

After Malcolm Forbes died there was a significant decline in quality yet it still remained a good source of occasionally unbiased business information.

When Steve Forbes was exploring his presidential ambitions the editorial content plunged into hyperbole, inuendo, and rumor, along with a decided political bent.

The magazine became irrelevant, unreliable, and unreadable. Hence I terminated my subscription.

The above baseball gneral manager analysis reaffirms my decision to ignore this rag.

Posted by: Paul [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 4, 2007 10:10 AM

The results of this poll aren't so much ridiculous as they are confusing. If cost containment is so important, Theo Epstein and Omar Minaya should obviously rank far lower than #2 and #3. And if winning is so important, I'm surprised to see Kenny Williams so far down the list, considering his team won a WS in 2005, went 11-1 in the playoffs and had a 90-win season last year. Moreover, I'd love to know how Mike Flanagan and the O's jumped ahead of Cashman. Does fielding a 4th place team every single year make you a good GM? In that case, Cash really sucks doesn't he?

Of course, this should all be prefaced by the fact that Kevin McHale was ranked #1 overall. If anyone on this site knows anything about basketball then they'd know that the poll should be thrown out the window immediately. The T'wolves have won exactly two playoff series in 17 years of existence and they haven't drafted and retained a single impact player besides Kevin Garnett. In fact, a good argument could be made that McHale's the worst GM in the NBA right now, and one of the 5 worst GM's in NBA history since his franchise was brought into the league via the 1990 expansion.

Posted by: MJ [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 4, 2007 12:14 PM