A few days late (but perhaps in response to Cashman's comments today), Peter Abraham weighs in with a series of tweets on the Rafael Soriano/Brian Cashman situation. The only reason I find this to be worth discussing is because Abraham was, until last year, the Yankee beat writer, and so I would think has a good perspective not only of whatever autonomy Cashman had after he essentially forced Tampa to butt out of his business but also of how his autonomy (or lack of same) in this situation compares to other GMs.
Maybe Soriano works out fine. But Cashman being nudged out of roster building by Hal + Levine not a great sign for the Yankees
$35 million and a 1st round pick for any set-up man is not good long-term business. Those sort of deals did them in post 2000
Autonomy also important for Cashman, which he had under Big Stein. If Hal wants a puppet, Cash ain't it. Interesting to watch
Apparently another tweeter had the same reaction to that last tweet as I had (which was that Cashman didn't have autonomy under King George). Pete's next tweet says Cashman had autonomy "from 2006 on." Another tweeter said the Soriano disagreement is "not Armageddon here," to which Pete replied:
Never said it was. But he said one thing, they went the revers[e]. That hasn't happened in 5 years.
This makes it sound like a bigger deal than the Heyman-esque "no GM has full autonomy" brushoff that has been used to downplay it. As I said before, if it's a big deal, we'll know it based on Cashman's actions at the end of the season, when his contract is up, but I have no problems admitting that a small portion of my happiness as a Red Sox fan is inversely related to the amount of control Brian Cashman has over Yankee personnel.