For the first time in public, Cashman admitted what has become increasingly evident: That his job has changed since the Steinbrenner sons took control of the team.
“The dynamics are changing with us. When I signed up with this current three-year deal, and this is the last year of it, it was with full authority to run the entire program. George had given me that. But things have changed in this third year now with the emergence of Hal and Hank Steinbrenner and that started this winter,” he said, “I’m learning as I go along, too. But it is different. But one thing is that I’ve been with this family, the Steinbrenner family, for well over 20 years. So I’m focused fully on doing everything I possibly can to assist them in their emergence now as decision makers.”
Cashman’s contract runs out in October. Asked whether he wanted to return, he didn’t answer directly.
“Because of all the work that gets involved with doing the job, it kind of prevents me from really looking ahead past this year,” he said. “I’m just doing everything I possibly can to assist the transition with the new manager, the new owners, with the involvement now with the Steinbrenner sons. And then the rest will take care of itself at another time.”
Repoz
Posted: January 06, 2008 at 07:43 AM |
19 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags:
yankees
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Best Regards, L.M. Posted: January 06, 2008 at 08:07 AM (#2661551)Exactly what I thought as soon as I read the headline. Not a good thing for the Yankees.
Over the next few seasons the Yankees are going to need to replace basically the whole team apart from A-Rod, Wang, Cano, Melky(if he isn't traded) and whichever young pitchers pan out(I don't see Jeter remaining useful for long go forward, especially if they keep him at SS). That's an ok core to build around if you do it right but without Cashman I can easily see it not turning out very well.
Unless you assume George is incompetent when it comes to baseball, that should work both ways. That Stein was also basically making and vetoing both good and bad moves.
What I want will never happen either, as long as the haybilly used car salesman & his fat ass cronies run & ruin MLB. And that is, Mark Cuban owning the Yankees. So, good luck, Cash-In or Cash-Out. . ..
I dunno, they tried but I think they had pretty bad luck. The traded for 2 top young pitchers in Weaver and Vasquez and got burned both times and I don't remember many people predicting that when the trades went down. The Clemens trade worked out although he never replicated the insane numbers he put up in Toronto before or Houston after. The Johnson and Brown trades were questionable because of their age/health but they both immediately tanked in NY on a level that was rather unexpected considering the high level of performance they both put up right before coming to NY.
Free agent-wise I guess the Moose signing worked out well enough. The Pavano signing was questionable but he was highly sought after by a ton of teams and I don't think anyone would've predicted he would be quite as useless as he has been.
Actually, the new Yankee Stadium has relatively little to do with public funding (about $225M out of $1B+ total cost, mostly for parking and railroad station) and A LOT to do with the revenue sharing rules. The Yanks get to deduct the stadium cost from their revenue sharing payments, so the rest of the league actually pays for like 40% of the stadium.
Maybe, but the last time he and the owners went through this what he wanted was autonomy, not more money. I don't get the feeling that he'll let Hank buy him out of the autonomy he won the last time around, and he's probably not pleased to suddenly find his powers of decision running squarely through a(nother) loud-mouthed owner...
And the evidence George isn't, er wasn't, incompetent, is??
Only in a america is a $225M handout to a wealthy business owned by wealthy businessman "little to do" with public funding.
The rest of the league doesn't pay for it. The rest of the league doesn't get money because of it. That's a big difference.
If you bought a house, deducted 10K of interest payments from your income tax, and used that 10K to purchase a car, would you say that the rest of the country just paid for your car?
There are plenty of GMs that would love to run the Yankees (probably including Cashman himself even). The question is who wants to be the GM of the Yankees and get all of the blame for everything that goes wrong and little of the credit for what goes right when most of your moves are dictated by Hank and Hal.
I imagine Cashman will do OK financially wherever he ends up, with the Yankees or any other team. But much like Epstein took a stance when he left for a few months over a lack of autonomy, it's very easy to see Cashman not re-signing as Yankees GM in order to get a position where he has 100% control over personnel moves.
Actually, there is no difference at all currently. What you say is accurate in theory but applied to the actual facts of MLB revenue sharing it's not really the case. That's just because of the Yankees current situation, of course, but that is what it is, too....if you change the revenue sharing rules or look at a larger time window (during which the Yankees economics could change) that may no longer be true.
The only difference between the original statement and yours today, though, is that not every team receives revenue sharing dollars, and thus it's only those who do which are effectively paying for the new stadium in an economic sense. For those teams (and for the Yankees) a cost avoided is no different than a lost revenue source and in this case, those two items are the flip-sides of a coin for the teams involved.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main