WasWatching.com

How are we supposed to know which decisions are Cashman's, which are Steinbrenner's, which belong to the "Tampa contingent," which belong to Linn Garrett, and which belong to Damon Oppenheimer? Without this inside information, one is just guessing. Spending time on a project which has such uncertain foundations is somewhat pointless.

Do you have some inside source, Steve?

Steve, just come out and say it: you don't like Brian Cashman and you think he's a terrible GM. We all get it.

~~~Steve, just come out and say it: you don't like Brian Cashman and you think he's a terrible GM. We all get it.~~~

I have said it - and, people have gotten on me for it...so, in the spirit of fair play, I'm now allowing those who feel differently to have the same forum as me...and a chance to back-up why I should say/feel differently.

Shoot, I would love for someone to prove to me (and others?) why Cashman is a great G.M. and why we should be thrilled to have him.

I haven't seen the proof yet - but, I would love to see it, check it out, and be proven wrong to feel the way that I do.

~~~How are we supposed to know which decisions are Cashman's, which are Steinbrenner's, which belong to the "Tampa contingent," which belong to Linn Garrett, and which belong to Damon Oppenheimer? Without this inside information, one is just guessing. ~~~

Well, then, how could anyone ever give Cashman credit for doing anything well - as so many often do?

Well, then, how could anyone ever give Cashman credit for doing anything well - as so many often do?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We can't -- what we should be talking about is the Yankee front office, not any individual. There's not enough information to say who is responsible for what. Evaluating individual front office personnel is impossible unless you actually have insider status.

what brought cause for the need for arms = pitching is an aspect of the game of baseball, it involves throwing and you cannot pitch without arms

i don't really think that's anyone's fault except for abner doubleday, right? (or whoever actually invented baseball)

i mean, seriously, every team needs pitching and you can't seriously try to find a way to pin blame on a general manager for needing young arms. its just good strategy, not some sort of plan B for if your gm screws up buying established arms (which is suppose is the implication you're trying to make).

I have said it - and, people have gotten on me for it...so, in the spirit of fair play, I'm now allowing those who feel differently to have the same forum as me...and a chance to back-up why I should say/feel differently.
=============
I've expressed my views in the relevant comments section...

I feel like this offer is a bit like the time I was invited to a "debate" on Creationism v Evolution by a Creationist website. They weren't actually interested in a debate, they were interested in knocking down evolutionists with arguments outside the scope of the issue at hand (with saying things like "The devil planted fossils to trick us"). I have no response to things like that and so the creationists would claim victory (I didn't agree to the "debate".)

Similarly, it appears that you have already concocted a ready, catch-all response to anyone who wants to say something good about what Cashman did- "Prove it wasn't attributable to someone else!" Well, to that, I say: prove that the negative things you've talked about ARE attributable to Cashman, and not to someone else in the organization who whispers into Cash's ear that he should sign, say, Carl Pavano.

I'm guessing that your response to this challenge would be along the lines of: "Well, but the job of a good GM is to know whose advice to follow." And so we have an answer to your challenge... Cashman followed the good advice of Oppenhiemer and dedicated himself to a drafting well, starting in 2004.

If you agree to drop the notion that all positive things are attributable to someone else, while all negative things are attributable to only Cashman, then I would be happy to write about the good things Cashman has done.

~~If you agree to drop the notion that all positive things are attributable to someone else, while all negative things are attributable to only Cashman, then I would be happy to write about the good things Cashman has done.~~

What if "the lack of positive things" IS the negative thing? That's my point.

When someone can give me the list of "positive" things - that can be proven - then I will be happy to drop my list of "negative" things - which, in reality, is just a list of "no positives" - - unless someone can prove that to be untrue.

Well said, mehmattski. It is a phony offer. As a matter of fact, the same offer could be made to evaluate, and condemn, any GM in baseball.

I will add that any effort to evaluate a GM simply by listing good and bad decisions and seeing how they balance out is absurd. Every GM in the business can be either lionized or damned using such an approach. In fact, prior to the 2007 season, a Boston columnist did precisely that to demonstrate what a lousy GM Epstein is.

For every deal that worked, by the very nature of the game, there are going to be more that fail. And in every case, it is not so much the result as the logic of the deal at the time that needs to be appraised. For example, Quantrill flopped, but it was an excellent decision to get him when Cashman did.

Also, the differing circumstances of teams need to be addressed to make judgments. For example, it would have been fatal for TB to sign Karsay, but not for NY. And furthermore, the fact that the Yankees outbid at least 2 other teams to get Pavano simply means he used the Yankees' financial power effectively, not that it was a mistake to get Pavano. True, there were many at the time who thought it was wrong-headed regardless, but apparently Boston, for example, was not one of them, so we have to at least moderate our condemnation of that decision, in the same way that the Contreras deal is defensible.

And for that matter so too can the Weaver and Vazquez deals be defended as many analysts considered them perfectly reasonable at the time.

That does not mean a GM cannot be evaluated. GMs like Littlefield and LaMar were lousy, not because their teams lost, but because they had no plan and consistently flailed around with no clear sense of what it takes to build a winner. Friedman has been an excellent GM despite the Rays' failures because it is crystal clear what he is trying to do with his resources, and his plan makes sense. To evaluate intelligently you have to consider the overall body of work and the results as well as the planning that lies behind decisions. Given the Yankees' financial power, needs and status, did Cashman make rational choices?

While he has been GM, they have been in the playoffs every year. They have always won the division until 2007. They have rebuilt a denuded farm system more rapidly than anyone could have expected. They have begun to address the need to supplement their stars with useful role players. They have recognized the foolishness of granting long term contracts to mediocrities and stopped doing it. Clearly, with Cashman in charge, there has been a plan to maintain competitiveness while restocking the team.

The kind of discussion you suggest Steve is unworthy of a serious blog; it fits with Mike and the Mad Dog mentalities.

What if "the lack of positive things" IS the negative thing? That's my point.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Since 1998, during the regular season, the Yankees have won 985 games and lost 631 for a winning percentage of .610 (the best showing in baseball).
The team has qualified for the post-season every season.

Of course, during this period, there is NOTHING positive to say about such an organization.

Despite my reservations, Steve, I'm willing to give it a shot. My semester is over and I've got nothing better to do. I should have it to you later tonight; I'm going to do a bit of research, looking for quotes from Cashman and stuff like that.

Per Bob R's comment, I will not be writing a pro-con breakdown of every move Cashman has made. I'm going to look for patterns and use various moves as evidence of those patterns, regardless of whether the specific personnel was successful. In short, I will not fall into the Creationist trap ;-)

~~~Since 1998, during the regular season, the Yankees have won 985 games and lost 631 for a winning percentage of .610 (the best showing in baseball). The team has qualified for the post-season every season.~~~

Since their collapse in the 2004 ALCS, the Yankees have now been bounced in three straight ALDS match-ups: 2005, 2006 & 2007.

Including 2004, with their loss now in Game 4 of the 2007 ALDS, the Yankees have lost four of their last six October "elimination games."

Going back to Game Four of the 2004 ALCS, the Yankees have now lost 13 of their last 17 post-season games.

How's that for a report card? Or, wait, that's right - it's just bad luck, right? Bad luck for for FOUR YEARS in a row.

Or, could it be that the GM has built a team that can win 95+ games in a weak DIV during the regular season but who cannot win in October?

Oh, no, it's GOT to be BAD LUCK, right?

Cashman has acknowledged that he was responsible for the acquisitions of Weaver, Vazquez, Pavano, and Brown (it should be noted that the first three were in great demand by a number of teams). OTOH, he was the driving force behind the A-Rod trade. He didn't want Wright or Womack; he would have preferred using the allotted money to sign Beltran instead of trading for Randy Johnson, and he wanted to sign Vlad instead of Sheffield.

All of those moves took place in era when the power base was constantly shifting.

For the first time during his Yankee tenure, in late October of 2005, he was given power over baseball operations in his current contract:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/28/sports/baseball/28cashman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

It may be a symbolic gesture, but what it symbolizes means everything to Cashman. Though it is not spelled out in his contract, Cashman said that he received an understanding that he, and only he, would sit atop the chain of command in the Yankees' fractured baseball operations department.

"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."

Cashman said that Steinbrenner and the rest of the Yankees' upper management - including the general partner Steve Swindal, the president Randy Levine and the chief operating officer Lonn Trost - supported him.
__

Although the article states goes on to say that:

But it is still Steinbrenner's team, Cashman said, and everybody knows who has the final say on all matters.

"The Boss is the managing general partner, and he's going to guide the ship accordingly," Swindal said. "But we certainly want to improve the process as well."
__

I think that it bears watching to see whether Hank will be as deferential to Cashmaan as Swindal was.

~~Despite my reservations, Steve, I'm willing to give it a shot.~~

Excellent - I look forward to it - as I would from any others that want to do it.

~~~That does not mean a GM cannot be evaluated. GMs like Littlefield and LaMar were lousy, not because their teams lost, but because they had no plan and consistently flailed around with no clear sense of what it takes to build a winner.~~~

Fine Bob - then show me where Cashman has had a plan and a clear sense of what it takes to build a team that can win a ring.

~~~While [Cashman] has been GM, they have been in the playoffs every year. They have always won the division until 2007. They have rebuilt a denuded farm system more rapidly than anyone could have expected. They have begun to address the need to supplement their stars with useful role players. They have recognized the foolishness of granting long term contracts to mediocrities and stopped doing it. Clearly, with Cashman in charge, there has been a plan to maintain competitiveness while restocking the team.~~~

Last time I checked, it was Cashman's team from 1998 to 2006 too. Should he not take some of the blame, if not most of it, for allowing the team to get into this state?

If you want to play the "Stein/Tampa" card, that only works for a while too - as Big Stein has been out of it since December 2003 (when he had his collapse). 99% of what's happen with the team from 2004 forward has been all "Cashman."

So, Bob, tell what Cashman has done well since the end of 2003, and, prove, how it's helped the major league team.

Prospects? Try googling "Brian Cashman Prospects Suspects" and this is what you will find:

"Brian Cashman loves to use the phrase, 'Prospects are suspects.' "

So, even CASHMAN knows that getting prospects does not mean, for sure, that you're going to see something good out of them.

But, even if I give you that, getting prospects, show me SOMETHING, over the last four years, where Cashman has done something positive, at the big league level, to help the team.

Pavano? Igawa? Farnsworth?

Yeah, I know, you're going to say that it all looked good at the time.

But, to me, that just says that Cashman got fooled - - like the common fan who would be fooled "at the time" that something looked good.

That's not what I want from a GM with $200 million under his control - I want someone smarter that that.

~~~Oh, no, it's GOT to be BAD LUCK, right?~~~

Given the randomness of the postseason, yeah, I'd say so. Who would've thunk that Wang (the ACE) would've imploded twice? That midges would swarm the field?

Look at Jeff Weaver's 2006 postseason result. Do you think he's a "big game pitcher?" He was terrible during the regular season for the Angels AND the Cardinals. Whatever he figured out during the postseason, he quickly lost, because he posted a 6.20 (ERA+ 78) with the Mariners the following year.

What do you think about Ricky Ledee? 1998 WS he posted the following line .600 BA, 1.515 OPS

Just like they had a run of good luck from 1996-2000 (Jeffrey Maier, Tim Welke (96), Tino Martinez/Rich Garcia (98)to name a few incidents), it can go the other way. And it has.

~~Or, could it be that the GM has built a team that can win 95+ games in a weak DIV during the regular season but who cannot win in October?~~

How bout during the regular season; have the Yanks ever gone 1-3 over 4 games? 2-3 over 5 games?

Have you seen how the White Sox have done since 2005? The Cardinals since 2006?

Yeah, I know, you're going to say that it all looked good at the time.
==========
Pavano was a stupid signing. Farnsworth was somewhat justifiable. There were too many moving parts to the Igawa deal (meaning I'm hearing too many different things), I'm waiting to see more than a year's worth of work.

Obviously Steve hates Cashman.

And Cashman has a lot of negatives on his resume. But when did he have full control? When was it purely his call on trades or signings?

I think we can safely say post 2005 is Brians time.

And he built the farm system up from nothing to a top notch system. And dont be saying the other guys are the real workers. If you're going to take shots at Cashman for being a leader he deserves credit when his leadership pans out.

One of the functions of being a good GM is hiring the right people.

~~~Obviously Steve hates Cashman.~~~

"Hate" is a strong word.

I think he's overrated. I think he doesn't help the team as much as a smarter talent evaluator would, etc. I'd like to see someone else in the job after 10 years of Cashman.

But, I don't hate the person - just his track record.

FWIW, that's the last that I will say on this, here, in these comments.

The purpose of this entry was not to have a debate here - the purpose was to get someone to write "the other side" of this for the blog.

I'm done on this entry.

I think we can safely say post 2005 is Brians time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Josh,
This point has been made many, many times and Steve refuses to accept it. Whenever anyone says that, he accuses the person of being a Cashman lover.

What Steve doesn't realize is that no one really loves Brian Cashman. If he would talk about the Yankee organization of the last ten years rather than one man, there would be much less controversy here. People aren't defending Cashman; they are attacking Steve's irrationality.

~~~People aren't defending Cashman; they are attacking Steve's irrationality. ~~~

If I'm being "irrational" that means there's someting "rational" that I'm missing or ignoring - so, please, do me a favor - write the essay that I'm asking for and show me what it is.

Until that time, you have no right, without the proof, to say that I'm being "irrational."

~~~I think we can safely say post 2005 is Brians time.~~~

But, for fact, we know that Pavano was 100% Cashman - and that was before 2005. Just because the papers say that post-2005 is Cashman does not mean that Cashman doesn't have his finger prints on things before 2005...

..damn, you got me. I promised not to talk about it more here...OK, now, I'm done.

There was actually a pretty intelligent discussion on this topic in the Bay Area this past season, because Sabean's contract was up with the Giants, and they actually brought him back after the pile of crap season they had last year. (Of course they took 2 of 3 from us, but I digress). One thing that was brought up was Brian Sabean's relative value from other clubs who were at the time looking for a GM. The consensus was that he was a good GM with a bad team, for a wide variety of reasons. After an awful last-place season - in the NL west mind you - they gave him 3 more years, I think.

Now, SF and NY are at opposite ends of the scale when it comes to the forgiveness quotient of its fan base, but that said, I remember Ralph Barbieri comparing the Sabean's case to Cashman's and remarking, "who else would you get? - and how many seconds after he was released before Cashman got five offers from other clubs?" I don't agree with every Cashman move, but I can support his general approach.

To answer Ralph's question, you get rid of Torre, you get Girardi - different style entirely, so I can understand that move. What would you change about Cashman's approach? I wouldn't change that much personally - I like the youth direction and only hope that he finds the right balance between keeping prospects and moving them to aquire the pieces we need. No one I know has a crystal ball.

And furthermore, the fact that the Yankees outbid at least 2 other teams to get Pavano simply means he used the Yankees' financial power effectively, not that it was a mistake to get Pavano.
============
Didn't Pavano take less $$ to come to NY?

Anyway, it was a bad signing no matter which way you cut it. STILL don't know what they were thinking. At least Contreras was justifiable.

I can think of few things as-alright, I won't use incendiary language even if it is appropriate-invalid as using failure in the post season to evaluate a team or its management. That is one of the truly unfortunate aspects of the Yankees' legacy.

I want to be clear. I grew up in the 1950s, and as a child always considered a failure in the World Series as a bad season. (Failure to win the pennant seemed simply unreal.) But I grew up! Naturally, I still mourn not winning the championship, but I do not count that as failure or as a sign the team is poorly constructed or the players are chokers or the GM is not doing his job. Such views are those of a spoiled child, and it is the only time I sympathize with Yankee haters who resent what they see as a NY sense of entitlement.

What Cashman has done since 2003 is revive a moribund minor league system, acquire A-Rod, and oversee a team that has made the playoffs every year, winning the division every year but one. He has consistently identified the weaknesses correctly-bullpen, rotation, for example-and made reasonable efforts to improve on them. I do think a major criticism is that he ignored the bench, but even that he is now improving.

His plan is obvious. Use the Yankee's resources to keep star talent, overpay if necessary to fill holes and increasingly move the team away from simply accumulating names to building a self-sustaining system. Given the Yankee situation, what he is doing makes perfect sense and has worked. In 2002, I predicted the Yankees would fall from contention within 2-3 years; I saw them getting old, thin in talent and with too many potential holes to fill via free agency. I was wrong, and to a large extent that is because Cashman averted what appeared to be inevitable decline.

The notion that he has been fooled or unable to identify talent makes no sense. Every GM has a history of misfires in acquiring players; getting Vazquez was a coup even if it did not work out as hoped. Cashman wasn't fooled about Bruney or Britton or Craig Wilson, Lawton, Bellhorn et al. They were players who had a chance to contribute, but as in most cases, few actually do. In each case, they were acquired to fill a particular hole, and in each case there was perfectly good reason to think they would, not as fans would hope but as a GM might reasonably expect. In a sense, the failure of Wilson was equally as unpredictable as the sudden contribution of Chacon or Small. Cashman does not deserve credit for Chacon or Small except insofar as he was casting around for someone to help; in the same way, he cannot be debited for Wilson's or Bellhorn's sudden decline.

On the other hand, picking up Matsui and Sheffield did work out. Acquiring Tony Clark, Lofton, Olerud and the host of relievers I listed elsewhere was eminently proper. Getting Abreu was a major coup; getting Damon made sense. These players helped the Yankees remain competitive. Even universally panned deals, like signing Mientkiewicz made sense and did not turn out as badly as many predicted.

Who are considered the best GMs in the game? Schuerholz? Exceptionally effective, despite just one championship and his giving away Jason Schmidt among others. Beane? Brilliant, although suddenly under fire from the neanderthal columnists. Epstein? Read the review of his work in the Boston Globe last March.

Go ahead and engage in the discussion mehmattski. I'll be interested, but am guessing it will be a frustrating exercise because the criteria and framing of the question is flawed from the get-go and set up to prove a point, not to open a real debate.