‘Things Have Changed’ for Cashman, Yankees

Peter Abraham:

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.

“Things have changed here in the third year,” 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 nearly left the Yankees after the 2005 season before agreeing to a three-year deal that included widespread control over baseball decisions. It’s clear that Cashman’s power has eroded since Hank and Hal Steinbrenner came to power.

If the usually tight-lipped Cashman is willing to say that much in public, what is it like behind the scenes?

Edit: Rob Bradford has more.

“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."

13 comments… add one
  • Paul, you beat me to it, was preparing a post about this. Again, this confirms my earlier speculation that Cashman is not a happy camper with Hankenstein at the helm.

    Nick-YF January 6, 2008, 1:15 am
  • He really does sound like a guy on the way out. “Trying to assist them”?

    Nick-YF January 6, 2008, 1:17 am
  • Ah, sorry, Nick. My first inclination was to let a YF have at it, but it seemed big enough news to necessitate an immediate post…

    Paul SF January 6, 2008, 1:18 am
  • If Brian Cashman is losing/has lost power in the Yankee organization, as a Red Sox fan, all I can say is: “Yipeee!”

    Paul SF January 6, 2008, 1:19 am
  • Don’t worry, Paul. Basically you wrote it more succinctly, more to the point.

    Nick-YF January 6, 2008, 1:19 am
  • although, one of the ironies of that position, Paul, is that you think the Yanks should go for Johan and Cashman doesn’t. Unless I’m misreading your position. But really you’re right. This is not good news for Yanks fans. I worry about Hank being the cliched meddlesome owner. What bothers me more is not the potential loss of Cashman but the rise of Hank.

    Nick-YF January 6, 2008, 1:22 am
  • Yes, it is a bit ironic. I do disagree with Cashman about Santana, so his losing power might actually result in what I think is the worst possible scenario to come out of the Santana sweepstakes.
    Overall, though, the Yankees have become a younger, deeper, stronger (read: scarier) team since Cashman got the power back from George. Can’t say I’d be upset to see a return to a more impetuous style of Yankee management…

    Paul SF January 6, 2008, 1:27 am
  • Although i can easily see that this is the situation, I still dont see too much evidence that Cashman’s advice isnt actually being listened to in the organization. I know there is the supposition that Posada got an extra year due to Hank. There is no evidence of that being true. Other than that the moves made so far have all been in line with what Cash would do left to his own devices. To me its really just confusing looking in from the outside but looking at the only end result of the moves made this offseason, it feels like business as usual for the yankees. How the Santana saga plays out will certainly effect this view.
    This all said these quotes are certainly disturbing. I like Cashman alot and would be sad to see him depart.

    sam-YF January 6, 2008, 2:00 am
  • Again, for all the words, I’ll point to the only thing that matters – results. And what’s remarkable to me is that they’ve transitioned from a domineering owner of almost three and half decades to a new generation of leadership without skipping a beat. It’s too simple (and lazy) to assume dysfunction where everything points in the opposite direction. There has been not one change of organization philosophy. They kept the players they said they were going to keep and they have traded not one prospect. Indeed, what we’re witnessing is an improvement of a Steinbrenner-run organization. It’s all the money of old with the smarts of new.
    By contrast, how many twists and turns have there been in the way the Sox have been run just in the last three years?

    Mike YF January 6, 2008, 10:09 am
  • If anything Cashman’s strengths have been political. Nothing points better to that than his ability to last ten-plus years in the job. If he is finally fed up, I’m okay with them parting ways. It’s not like he’s been responsible for the recent drafts and Oppenheimer would be a fine replacement.
    Indeed, whereas Theo is okay, I’m more impressed by Josh Byrnes, especially his deals this off-season. What has always killed me about Cashman is his seeming “ability” to let holes fester for seasons on end without making moves to address them. He’s a good GM, but he’s far from a great GM. With the 200 million spent last off-season, and then Gagne, Theo seems to have entered a similarly uncreative period.

    Mike YF January 6, 2008, 10:16 am
  • The disagreements/discussion over Santana ought to be expected in any organization with the means to bring him on board. This is a lot bigger than whether they trade for Santano or not. Cashman’s comments are more interesting in that they directly concern a broad area of executive responsibility that was very publicly of great importance to him. Theo left Fenway in a gorilla suit over issues with Lucchino that were, if similar, less fundamental than this. “We gave you this power and we can take it away because we own the club. Deal with it you insignificant little serf.” If Yanks fans want to lose Cashman because he can’t build a dependable bullpen or makes mistakes on longterm deals, well go ahead let Tampa run the franchise again, as a Sox fan I’ll welcome that. They’ll get some good years out of the farm system but that type of ownership will crush it sooner or later. For ownership playing GM by sheer force of personality, I think this’ll look a lot more like the Angelos family ruining the Orioles than like Big Stein badgering the Yanks into becoming winners in the 70s. Hank is confusing ownership with leadership.

    CT ball fan -SF January 6, 2008, 3:22 pm
  • Hye guys. Miss me?
    We should have a gamer for Clemens’ interview, so we can mock Wallace’s soft tosses

    Dionysus January 6, 2008, 7:45 pm
  • Yeah, we need a 60-minutes gamer. Clemens says he had no idea that Pettitte–his best friend–took HGH to get healthier? That makes me believe that Clemens is lying more than anything else I’ve heard so far!

    Atheose January 6, 2008, 8:35 pm

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.