Zzzzzzzzzz.

Shysterball's Take:

... I suppose it's entertaining on some level to see someone work so hard to construct such complicated put-downs, but ultimately the piece is a showy, ignorant mess.
...
Taibbi's larger point -- that Cashman has always played the Yankee political game well and has been safe because of it -- is largely correct. I fail to grasp, however, how this makes him such a loathsome figure.
...
At least there is one small bit of value to this article: I now know that if I want to get published in Men's Journal, all I need to do is drop bombs for 15-20 paragraphs and froth at the mouth a little.

Wait, a lot.

Taibbi's larger point -- that Cashman has always played the Yankee political game well and has been safe because of it -- is largely correct. I fail to grasp, however, how this makes him such a loathsome figure.

Well, for those of us who dislike the Yankees he's kind of a favored figure since he combines mediocre performance with a bullet-proof media and fan rep. That is the combination that enables $200 mil to generate lack of pitching depth, poor roster construction, aging, and overall disappointment year after year. In other words, he's doing a helluva job in our view!

I don't disagree pkb, but the terms in which Taibbi condemns Cashman are about ten orders of magnitude more severe than what you're saying. I agree that Cashman hasn't done as well as he could have at all times. I also think he gets a pass for it from the press. Taibbi makes him out to be the anti-Christ, however. The points he makes subordinated to showy attention whoring.

I agree that Cashman hasn't done as well as he could have at all times.

Actually, he's hampered with the one thing that most teams usually has an opportunity at, being a bad team. It's no coincidence that the last great dynasty rose from the ashes of Stump Merrill, Mel Hall and Sam Millitello led Yankees. If the Yankees were given the opportunity to be a last place team for three years and restock their farm system with high draft picks and get roster flexibility via attrition of older players with huge contracts, I'd think Cashman would actually take it. But given that the team is tied in to filling up an outrageously overpriced new stadium, a regional sports network and a corporate brand that sells not only jerseys and caps, but also steaks and sports concessions, the business realities will force the Yankees to continue to upgrade by plugging in holes with big names. Cashman's reluctance to lose Phil Hughes and IPK via trade for Santana is actually a great move considering that one year later, he has these same players and three shiny new FA filling out their rotation and first base.

At least there is one small bit of value to this article: I now know that if I want to get published in Men's Journal, all I need to do is drop bombs for 15-20 paragraphs and froth at the mouth a little.

Go for it. Let us know how that works out.

It's no coincidence that the last great dynasty rose from the ashes of Stump Merrill, Mel Hall and Sam Millitello led Yankees.

You know, Millitello would have been a hell of a pitcher if he hadn't blown out his shoulder.

I don't disagree pkb, but the terms in which Taibbi condemns Cashman are about ten orders of magnitude more severe than what you're saying. I agree that Cashman hasn't done as well as he could have at all times. I also think he gets a pass for it from the press. Taibbi makes him out to be the anti-Christ, however. The points he makes subordinated to showy attention whoring.

Wholly agree with you on the presentation of the points...the article is quite overdone.

If the Yankees were given the opportunity to be a last place team for three years and restock their farm system with high draft picks and get roster flexibility via attrition of older players with huge contracts, I'd think Cashman would actually take it.

This argument kind of ignores the reality that the Yankees are able to take as much talent in the draft as anyone because they can spend far over slot and far more internationally. The decision to keep aging vets and extend them, rather than let them walk is a choice borne, best we can tell, from either a lack of understanding of the aging curve or a lack of will. In either case, it doesn't suggest he's a victim of circumstance to me, it suggests he's not doing a great job assessing what the team needs going forward.

I agree that Cashman hasn't done as well as he could have at all times.

Is there a GM you can't say this about? Benifest?

Wholly agree with you on the presentation of the points...the article is quite overdone.

That's surprising. I would have bet that you had written it.

Cashman made one of his few Machiavellian political mistakes by publicly opposing a high-priced trade for Johan Santana and instead hitching his career wagon to a youth movement led by Hughes, Ian Kennedy, and Robby Cano.

He opposed the trade, in part, because the Yankees were 99% certain that Sabathia would be available in the offseason for about the same dollar amount as Santana, without having to give up any prospects.

They would not have been able to sign Santana to an extension *and* sign Sabathia, so when the choice is between Santana or Sabathia, Hughes and Kennedy, it's something of a no-brainer.

Now, if they hadn't been able to sign Sabathia, then Cashman would have made a mistake. But New York was always the most likely landing spot for Sabathia. It was a worthwhile gamble.

They would not have been able to sign Santana to an extension *and* sign Sabathia, so when the choice is between Santana or Sabathia, Hughes and Kennedy, it's something of a no-brainer.

Why wouldn't they? They signed Sabathia, and then threw 5/$82.5 at Burnett. For roughly an extra $5M a season, they could have had Santana and Sabathia, rather than Sabathia and Burnett - the difference between the Burnett and Santana contracts was roughly equivalent to a Nady or Swisher contract, or only a bit more than a Marte.

EDIT: Also, the signing of Burnett and Sabathia also ate some draft picks for the Yankees, which means fewer prospects in the minor league system.

Why wouldn't they? They signed Sabathia, and then threw 5/$82.5 at Burnett. For roughly an extra $5M a season, they could have had Santana and Sabathia, rather than Sabathia and Burnett - the difference between the Burnett and Santana contracts was roughly equivalent to a Nady or Swisher contract, or only a bit more than a Marte.

Considering that they weren't willing to spend an extra $5 million for one season of Pettitte after they signed Burnett, I don't think they would have been willing to drop $5 million more to have Santana and Sabathia.

The Yankees *do* have a budget. It's just a massive one.

Now, if they hadn't been able to sign Sabathia, then Cashman would have made a mistake. But New York was always the most likely landing spot for Sabathia. It was a worthwhile gamble.

Probably, but I remain unconvinced that the Yankees did the right thing. As I said last winter, Ian Kennedy is not a guy to hold up a deal for a Cy Young-type pitcher; neither is Melky Cabrera. It comes down to Philip Hughes. Ryan's points in #11 are good ones and the Yankees might conceivably have made post-season last year with Santana.

Why wouldn't they? They signed Sabathia, and then threw 5/$82.5 at Burnett. For roughly an extra $5M a season, they could have had Santana and Sabathia, rather than Sabathia and Burnett - the difference between the Burnett and Santana contracts was roughly equivalent to a Nady or Swisher contract, or only a bit more than a Marte.

I think they're pretty happy now that they have Swisher and Burnett (and Hughes and Kennedy), rather than Santana.

You also must remember that everyone way overestimated the cost of Santana (both prospects and $).

- the difference between the Burnett and Santana contracts was roughly equivalent to a Nady or Swisher contract, or only a bit more than a Marte.

Or the difference in being able to outbid everyone on Tex. There's an extra 40 million at the end of Santana's contract that you have to count to.

As I said last winter, Ian Kennedy is not a guy to hold up a deal for a Cy Young-type pitcher

I wonder if Kennedy is going to go down as the greatest AAA pitcher to never make it in the Majors.

It comes down to Philip Hughes.

Who apparently looks great to start the season!

I wonder if Kennedy is going to go down as the greatest AAA pitcher to never make it in the Majors.

Scott Ruffcorn is my personal gold standard. With the White Sox:

Triple-A: 30-9, 3.31 ERA, 3:1 K/BB
White Sox: 0-5, 9.68 ERA, 1:3 K/BB

There's an extra 40 million at the end of Santana's contract that you have to count to.

Actually, there isn't - over the 2009 to 2013 years, Burnett will make $82.5M, while Santana will make $113M, or a difference of $6M per season. After 2013, Burnett becomes a free agent, and Santana has a $5.5M buyout. There also the difference of the deferred money in Santana's contract ($5M a season, deferred at 1.25%), which brings down the overall cost of him. Burnett, on the other hand, has no deferred money.

The deferred money alone brings the difference between the Burnett and Santana contracts closer by about $2M a season - effectively, the Mets are paying Santana only $4M more a season than the Yankees are paying Burnett. That $4M is the same amount the Yankees are paying Marte, without who they almost certainly could have survived.

EDIT: This all is also not intended to say that the Yankees should have acquired Santana and Sabathia, but rather than I disagree with the statement that they woulnd't have been able to sign both Santana and Sabathia.

The deferred money alone brings the difference between the Burnett and Santana contracts closer by about $2M a season

That was very confusing for a moment, but I think I've got my head wrapped around it. But, per Cots:

# $5M deferred annually at 1.25% compound interest (payable June 30 seven years after season in which salary was earned), reducing present-day value of package to $123.1M

So the value of the contract with the deferred money is still 123.1 million. Which is still 40+ million more than AJ is making. 19 of it would have had to have been paid last year, and based on the Yankee spending over the last few years, I don't think they could have added 19 more million dollars last year (they lowered payroll this year). The other option would have been to wait a year to sign him after trading, but I don't think that would have made sense because then you'd just be signing him as a free agent. So maybe they could have afforded it this year, but I don't think that they could have afforded him last year. I realize I'm changing the goal posts a bit here, but I hadn't thought it through completely.

The other option would have been to wait a year to sign him after trading

Not an option -- Santana said he was going to reject any trade that didn't come with an extension. He didn't want to go somewhere new for just one season.

So the value of the contract with the deferred money is still 123.1 million. Which is still 40+ million more than AJ is making.

It's $40M more than AJ, but only $20M more for the years AJ is under contract.

19 of it would have had to have been paid last year, and based on the Yankee spending over the last few years, I don't think they could have added 19 more million dollars last year (they lowered payroll this year).

Andy Pettitte made $16M for last season's performance. There's Santana's money for last season. Of course, that also assumes the Yankees could have stalled Pettitte long enough to finish any talks about Santana. Given that Pettitte was willing to only negotiate with the Yankees this offseason, it's probably a reasonable bet.

Of course, swapping out Pettitte for Santana doesn't solve the back of the rotation and injury problems the Yankees suffered through last season, but it does create a more reliable front of the rotation.

Andy Pettitte made $16M for last season's performance.

But it was a two year deal and he was pretty important to the 07 team.

Of course, that also assumes the Yankees could have stalled Pettitte long enough to finish any talks about Santana. Given that Pettitte was willing to only negotiate with the Yankees this offseason, it's probably a reasonable bet.

I still don't think they could have stalled him for a year and change! There's been plenty of wasteful spending on the Yanks the last few years, I'm not trying to absolve Cashman of that. But as of the winter 07/spring 08, they had zero financial flexibility. They were essentially forced to resign Posada, Mo and A-rod (their leaving would have left gigantic holes with no reasonable alternative in the Yankee lineup) and they didn't have any big money players they could have traded away without having to eat most of the contract. That's definitely Cashman's fault (especially that stupid Matsui deal). But I don't think there's any easy way to put the Yanks in a position to sign Santana without them having a down year in one year or another.

Even last year, they were probably the 4th best team in the AL, only the surprising surge of the D-rays kept them out of the playoffs.

It's interesting that they get angry at the Yankees for both a lack of depth and not getting Santana. Their pitching depth would be much worse if they had Santana instead of Burnett, Hughes, and Kennedy.

But it was a two year deal and he was pretty important to the 07 team.

It was sort of a 2-year deal. They signed him to a 1+1 in 2007, then declined his option for 2008, then accepted arbitration before signing a one-year for 2008, at $16M.

So, you're wrong about the 2 year deal in 2007, but (more importantly, since it undercuts my argument about the 2008 money just sitting there) I'm wrong about the option for them to stall Pettitte in 2008 - if he declined arb, then they couldn't use him as a fallback if Santana talks fell through, and since he accepted arb, they couldn't wait to see how the Santana talks went.

That's definitely Cashman's fault (especially that stupid Matsui deal).

A question: was the Matsui deal generally considered to be one organized and executed by Cashman, or is it more like the Wells deal in Toronto, or the Jojima deal in Seattle, where it's generally considered to be a matter of ownership stepping in and overriding their GM?

I'm pretty sure that the Matsui deal was supported by the entire organization.

was the Matsui deal generally considered to be one organized and executed by Cashman, or is it more like the Wells deal in Toronto, or the Jojima deal in Seattle, where it's generally considered to be a matter of ownership stepping in and overriding their GM?

I think that one was squarely on Cashman's head, but to be honest I don't know. I don't remember it getting much coverage at the time, even googling it now, I can't find much written about it.

If Matsui makes them a lot more money than an otherwise comparable player would, due to the connection to the Japanese market... and if he hits well enough to at least give you something at DH, i.e., significantly better than Jose Vidro '08... then I don't see how you can realistically criticize the signing. Dude's job is to make money.

Cashman is either brilliant or lucky to have signed Mariano and Posada for their unprecedented late-30s peaks. It's sort of rare to see a late-30s catcher coming off an injury throwing better than and hitting as well as he did in his prime. It's also surprising to see Mariano remaining one of the top few relievers.

Posada and Rivera were signings made mostly out of necessity. The Yankees were facing true mediocrity if they lost A-Rod, Rivera and Posada in the same offseason, and at the time they signed Posada and Rivera, they assumed that A-Rod wasn't coming back.

I don't think Posada was a particularly good signing, but there weren't (and aren't) any better options for them, so it was kind of a "best we can do" signing. Hopefully it works out reasonably well in the end.

then I don't see how you can realistically criticize the signing.

I think that Japanese revenue is shared, so while Matsui might bring in extra cash from domestic purchases by Japanese born fans in the US, it's not clear that he's bringing in a significant amount, especially when you're talking about a team that is already making the most money in the league. Matsui was a 31 year old bad corner outfielder with limited athleticism and a pretty good bat. From strictly a baseball sense, those aren't really guys you want to lock up for big money through 35 typically. Maybe the value of his marketing was greater than I am giving it credit, but I didn't like the signing the day it happened and it looks worse now.

It's also surprising to see Mariano remaining one of the top few relievers.

This does not surprise me in the least, Mo is immortal. The Posada thing is surprising though. He's thrown out 40% of baserunners this year.

The bizarrest thing about Taibbi's rant -- his rants are always entertaining but rarely fair or accurate -- is the implied premise that Cashman has done a bad job. Have I missed the Yankee collapse during the Cashman tenure?

Have I missed the Yankee collapse during the Cashman tenure?

They've had the highest payroll in the game for (more-or-less) the last decade, yet they haven't won a WS since 2000, and missed the playoffs last year with a $200M+ payroll. For a lot of people, that qualifies as a collapse.

They've had the highest payroll in the game for (more-or-less) the last decade, yet they haven't won a WS since 2000, and missed the playoffs last year with a $200M+ payroll. For a lot of peopleretards with the attention span of fruit flies, that qualifies as a collapse.

FIFY. To be less snarky, if one really demands complete and instant gratification, one could complain about the 2008 team, I guess. But not surprisingly, Taibbi fails to identify anything Cashman did that kept them from winning the WS from 2001-2007.

I'd like Taibbi if he realized that he's as slanted and hyperbolic as any other journalist; instead, he holds himself out to be the pillar of objectivity in a sea of idiots and partisans.

FIFY. To be less snarky, if one really demands complete and instant gratification, one could complain about the 2008 team, I guess. But not surprisingly, Taibbi fails to identify anything Cashman did that kept them from winning the WS from 2001-2007.

Hey, I'm not disagreeing with you (for once). Personally, after no Blue Jay playoff appearances for the last 15 years, I'd be pretty happy if they started emulating the lack of success the Yankees have suffered through under Cashman's reign.

They've had the highest payroll in the game for (more-or-less) the last decade, yet they haven't won a WS since 2000, and missed the playoffs last year with a $200M+ payroll. For a lot of people, that qualifies as a collapse.

i hear about this in the media all the time, but i (perhaps surprisingly) almost never hear these complaints from other yankee fans in real life. just about every fan i know is disappointed at the lack of world series/a.l. pennants and at not making the postseason last year but understand that realistically the team is still successful, especially considering how hard the division just became. the most common people i hear opine about how much of a failure the yankees as an organization are are fans of other teams looking for fodder to belittle the team with.

The bizarrest thing about Taibbi's rant -- his rants are always entertaining but rarely fair or accurate -- is the implied premise that Cashman has done a bad job. Have I missed the Yankee collapse during the Cashman tenure?

I think one of the issues with the Cashman Yankees is that the best argument against Cashman's performance is not that they collapsed on the field (unless you just want to Count the Ringz!), but that their payroll became bloated to the point of absurdity and perhaps to the point that they've missed on on important opportunities - I'm principally thinking about Beltran.

I don't have the exact figures handy at the moment, but I once figured out the Yanks payroll as a percentage of average payrolls. It was something like 166% from 1996-2001 and more like 225% since then. That's a difference of something like 300M. Sure maybe it doesn't matter because the Yanks can (or could?) print money, but that's serious money and it makes it hard to accept the GM of that team as someone with serious interest in payroll flexibility and efficiency.

At the very least, it sure seems likely to me that if the Yanks payroll was closer to 165% of average instead of 225% that the Yankees would have signed Beltran in the winter of 2004/05.

While it may be pretty to think that allowed to rebuild Cashman would all of a sudden do a good gob with the draft and player development, but 10+ years into his tenure that's still mostly a whole lot of speculation without much supporting evidence.

I think one of the issues with the Cashman Yankees is that the best argument against Cashman's performance is not that they collapsed on the field (unless you just want to Count the Ringz!), but that their payroll became bloated to the point of absurdity and perhaps to the point that they've missed on on important opportunities - I'm principally thinking about Beltran.

The problem is that Cashman can't afford to have too many off-years. He has to try to win in the short term and long term, and knows that the long term won't matter to him unless they win in the short term as well. Thus they have to add years and a few million in salary to ensure they get the best free agents that they can. So they end up with 2 years and $35 million of a player that has little value to them. Add in an ownership that will often overrule it's GM, and you basically have a formula for a $200 million payroll that may not be big enough to consistently win.

The problem is that Cashman can't afford to have too many off-years. He has to try to win in the short term and long term, and knows that the long term won't matter to him unless they win in the short term as well. Thus they have to add years and a few million in salary to ensure they get the best free agents that they can. So they end up with 2 years and $35 million of a player that has little value to them. Add in an ownership that will often overrule it's GM, and you basically have a formula for a $200 million payroll that may not be big enough to consistently win.

Well, isn't the solution to this having a robust farm system that is pushing talented players onto the major league team?

Cashman seems to have beleived that simply declaring the Ian Kennedys and Melky Cabreras of the world untouchable means that he has succeeded in delivering significant yong talent to his aged roster.

Well, isn't the solution to this having a robust farm system that is pushing talented players onto the major league team?

Weren't the Yankees one slot away from drafting Porcello before the Tigers took him? The Yankees have been able to get by with players that fall into their lap because of signability issues, but having to draft at the bottom of each round and losing picks due to free agent signings makes developing a strong farm system pretty hard. And I think Cashman's job of cobbling together a bullpen from other team's spare parts and castoffs has been superb. He's also augmented the depth in the farm system by holding on to players like Austin Jackson, Mark Melancon and Hughes.

Cashman seems to have beleived that simply declaring the Ian Kennedys and Melky Cabreras of the world untouchable means that he has succeeded in delivering significant yong talent to his aged roster.
...
He's also augmented the depth in the farm system by holding on to players like Austin Jackson, Mark Melancon and Hughes.

I think this basically gets at the issue. Cashman has massive resources, so he should be able to both build a winning team and a strong farm system.

It's basically impossible to judge how well he's done at building a winning team, because no one seems to agree what the standards are for a $200M+ payroll club. It's hard to say he's done really badly on that front, since 2008 was the first time they've missed the playoffs in forever.

On the farm system, though, the judgment is relatively simple, because we can judge the Yankees against a wide variety of other good, well-capitalized clubs. The Yankees have made a really big deal about re-stocking the farm system and building from within (as well as from without, the two will always been complementary when you're the Yankees) over the past several years. This process has produced Joba Chamberlain, Phil Hughes, Ian Kennedy, Mark Melancon, Dellin Betances, Jose Tabata, Melky Cabrera, Austin Jackson, Brett Gardner, Jesus Montero, and you can extend the list as you like. Right now, Joba Chamberlain is a solid contributor at the major league level, and the jury is out on everyone else. In a few years, we'll have a much better sense of how well Cashman has done with the farm system. Given that most of the guys who've been through the high minors have not made much of a mark in the majors, it'd be hard to say Cashman's done superbly great, but there's a big region between very good and not good in which he could still land.

Well, it's pretty darn likely that the Phil Hughes will be up to take CMW's next start, so we will soon be able to better gauge Cashman's decision to keep the young man......

And I think Cashman's job of cobbling together a bullpen from other team's spare parts and castoffs has been superb.

Anthony Claggett says hi!

More seriously, Cashman has been in charge since 1998. How long has he been "superb" at cobbling together bullpens from spare parts? The last half of last year and a couple weeks of this year? As with so many things about Cashman's tenure that a thin, thin bit of evidence used to make wild declarative statements. Maybe starting now - Anthony Claggett not withstanding - he will start to do that, but it is not his track record.

Weren't the Yankees one slot away from drafting Porcello before the Tigers took him? The Yankees have been able to get by with players that fall into their lap because of signability issues, but having to draft at the bottom of each round and losing picks due to free agent signings makes developing a strong farm system pretty hard.

Again, thin speculation for a guy who's been in charge of 11 drafts. The best evidence that he would be good at building a farm is that in his 10th draft he almost had the chance to draft Porcello? I suppose we could wonder if Gerrit Cole had slipped to the Yankees too...

I just have a hard time seeing the evidence for Cashman being any better than a middle of the road GM. The tenacity with which Yankee fans seem to want to hold onto his mediocrity is odd to me.

I just have a hard time seeing the evidence for Cashman being any better than a middle of the road GM. The tenacity with which Yankee fans seem to want to hold onto his mediocrity is odd to me.

Well, the Yankees do seem to have a better than "middle of the road" record under Cashman. That would be evidence. Obviously the counterargument is "Look at his payroll; how can anybody not win with that payroll?" but that seems somewhat speculative, don't you think?

Obviously the counterargument is "Look at his payroll; how can anybody not win with that payroll?" but that seems somewhat speculative, don't you think?

No, I don't beleive the relationship between player cost and player talent is speculative. It's not a perfect relationship to be sure, but it's quite a bit more than mere speculation.

And I suppose I should note that the thing that primarily skews that relationship is a productive farm system, ie that thing Cashman does by declaring Melky Cabrera untouchable and almost drafting Rick Porcello.

No, I don't beleive the relationship between player cost and player talent is speculative. It's not a perfect relationship to be sure, but it's quite a bit more than mere speculation.

Let me rephrase it the other way: what I'm saying is that it seems sort of speculative to say, "He wouldn't win without that payroll."

I don't think we can blame Yankee drafts since 1998 on Cashman. If I remember correctly, Tampa had control over draft until 2005. Also, he couldn't do much about coaching staff until Torre left (like firing Mel in 2002 or before). Also, coaching in minors wasn't that good, specially for power hitters. Cashman made some changes in the last 2-3 years, we'll see how good they are. As for the bullpen, Torre played guys he wanted and since those Witasick's runs in game 6 2001 inexperienced guys were buried after first mistake. As for FA's, the only two I can remember he missed were Manny and Beltran, and he was probably overruled on Beltran.

Obviously the counterargument is "Look at his payroll; how can anybody not win with that payroll?" but that seems somewhat speculative, don't you think?

If I found the stats of a player who hit 320/380/480 in the Eastern Dakota League from 1934-1938, I would be skeptical that he was a bad player, but I would have absolutely no idea whether he was very good, good, or average unless I knew the context in which he put up those stats. It would be speculative either way. It's also speculative to say he's good before you have a full understanding of his context.

I don't think we can blame Yankee drafts since 1998 on Cashman. If I remember correctly, Tampa had control over draft until 2005. Also, he couldn't do much about coaching staff until Torre left (like firing Mel in 2002 or before). Also, coaching in minors wasn't that good, specially for power hitters. Cashman made some changes in the last 2-3 years, we'll see how good they are. As for the bullpen, Torre played guys he wanted and since those Witasick's runs in game 6 2001 inexperienced guys were buried after first mistake. As for FA's, the only two I can remember he missed were Manny and Beltran, and he was probably overruled on Beltran.

I don't know the extent to which Cashman is or is not directly responsible for some of the things that have occurred during his tenure. I also don't beleive that Yankee fans who remove any blame from Cashman for so many things know as much as they think they do.

But I do know that they are not consistent in the positions they take. If Cashman is blameless for the poor draft and poor player development prior to 2005, then why does he receive credit for the good job the Yankees did internationally (Cano, the good Wang, etc) prior to 2005?

If Torre and that Tampa contingent hamstrung Cashman's roster moves prior to 2005, then why bring up 1998-2005? Shouldn't we hold Cashman "blameless" for the Yankees success in that period too? In the "true Cashman years" of 2005-2008 the Yankees have outspent the average team by more than 100% and made the playoffs 3 out 4 times. I don't see that and the last 4 drafts as the track record of a clearly very good GM.

If Torre and that Tampa contingent hamstrung Cashman's roster moves prior to 2005, then why bring up 1998-2005? Shouldn't we hold Cashman "blameless" for the Yankees success in that period too? In the "true Cashman years" of 2005-2008 the Yankees have outspent the average team by more than 100% and made the playoffs 3 out 4 times. I don't see that and the last 4 drafts as the track record of a clearly very good GM.

Cashman didn't have complete control in that time, but he had some. The extent is everyone's guess. It is generally considered (at least that's what I mostly heard) that Cashman had mostly control over free agents and trades, except for ones that Boss/Tampa had to have (Sheffield, Johnson, Womack). He had very little control over draft, but, since international signings were at that time usually over longer period of time, he probably had greater input. Who pushed more for Wang and Soriano, nobody knows, but I would guess that both Tampa and Cashman were for both of them. Based on his early moves, I would say that he tried to get as much young pitching as possible and that he tried to give Torre many relievers, essentially what he did now, but since Torre preferred experienced veterans, he had to get them those.
I wouldn't call Cashman genius, but I think he was at least average to above average. Many of his moves which were great at the time fell apart. If Weaver pitched above-average, and Vazquez like an ace, like most of the experts considered them to be (weaver should have been above-average with ace potential, and Vazquez clear ace), we would all say that Cashman is a genius.