SI ranks MacPhail the 12th best GM in MLB (but 4th in AL East)

[mweb]

I don't think Cashman can be properly evaluated. I don't think he can be called a great GM, nor do I think he can be called a poor one based on some bad signings, considering he is able to take those chances without hurting the team much.

He's likey a good GM, but I don't see a good case for him being in the top 3. I also agree with Pedro that Theo is somewhat overrated.

[Dipper9]

Getting back to the blurb about MacPhail, how about the line "This is a lousy team." Really? Lousy? I guess we'll see about that. The more these national articles bash us, the more I remember the 1989 season. :clap3:

[RShack]

I don't agree with those who are trashing Cashman. The guy has averaged 96.5 wins over the last decade. I don't care how much money you have, it's hard to stay on top all the time. Just look at the mess the Mets have made of it.

Now, could be be a successful GM of a team with a < $100 mm budget? I don't know because he hasn't been faced with those circumstances.

Yes, this. I can't believe the people who constantly bash Cashman, as if any monkey could win 100+ games a year with his payroll, so he's less than a monkey because he only wins 97.

You simply can't judge Cashman on the failure of guys like Carl Pavano. He signed Pavano, and bunch of other high-risk, high-reward players, with the knowledge that they might fail. But since he has that crazy payroll, that was ok. Cashman knows that the Yanks' money lets him take risks and absorb failures that no other team could, and he uses that to his advantage.

You're crazy if you think a guy is a failure or a joke or just plain mediocre if the absolute nadir of his tenure is 87 wins. No matter what the payroll.

We have no idea how he'd run the Royals. But we also don't know that the guys in charge of the A's or Twins or Rays wouldn't end up being Omar Minaya II if they were given $150M a year to work with.

If Cashman and Epstein are mediocre at best then we live in some kind of anti-Lake Wobegon where everyone is below average.

I agree with all of this. Plus, let's not forget that the guy has managed to have a long job-lifespan with a boss named Steinbrenner. That's hard to do. He's done that part better than anybody. He's not only managed his admittedly-excessive resources, he's also managed George, and I'm sure it's harder than it looks.

The MFY's pre-Cashman history shows that just money doesn't do it. Steinbrenner tried the buy-a-ring approach. He pretty much invented huge-dollar contracts, and what he produced is the longest ring-less era in MFY history.

[Dipper9]

I agree with all of this. Plus, let's not forget that the guy has managed to have a long job-lifespan with a boss named Steinbrenner. That's hard to do. He's done that part better than anybody. He's not only managed his admittedly-excessive resources, he's also managed George, and I'm sure it's harder than it looks.

The MFY's pre-Cashman history shows that just money doesn't do it. Steinbrenner tried the buy-a-ring approach. He pretty much invented huge-dollar contracts, and what he produced is the longest ring-less era in MFY history.

I agree with your point and agree that Cash is good.

However, handling George isn't like it used to be. The guy is virtually on his death bed. Its not like we're talking about the Billy Martin version of Steinbrenner!

[crowmst3k!]

Cashman shouldn't be anywhere on that list, I'm sorry. Sure, he lasted under Steinbrenner and built some competitive teams, but ANY of us on this board could really play the GM game the same way that he does.

It's like fantasy baseball for him, and he has unlimited resources.

[ShaneDawg85]

The overall theme and argument belongs more on the MLB thread. But it sure beats what we've had on here the last few days!

[Satyr3206]

Please point out where anyone said it wasn't an advantage. Of course it is.

But the Mets have most of the Yanks' advantages and they've finished with <85 wins six times in the years since Cashman has been Yanks' GM. Same city. Many of the same city percs like a new $billion stadium. One of the highest revenue totals in baseball for many years. Playing in a lesser league. Yet on average they're 10-15 games a year behind Cashman's Yanks.

And you're deluding yourself if you think you could pick someone out of the stands at OPACY, make them Yanks GM, and think it's likely they could win 90+ games a year for a decade. Even if assembling a team Rotisserie-style was a GM's only job that's pure fantasy.

You honestly think the average fan couldn't put together a winning team at 8 mil per player?

[Dipper9]

http://brittghiroli.mlblogs.com/

Britt agrees that Cashman doesn't deserve to be there.

[byrdz]

I don't agree with those who are trashing Cashman. The guy has averaged 96.5 wins over the last decade. I don't care how much money you have, it's hard to stay on top all the time. Just look at the mess the Mets have made of it.

Now, could be be a successful GM of a team with a < $100 mm budget? I don't know because he hasn't been faced with those circumstances.

Shouldn't any top notch GM be able to win consistently with a budget of <$100 million? If he's such a baseball genius he should have no problems winning in any environment. How can we definitively say that a GM is worthy of a top 3 ranking when we can't even say for sure if he'd be successful with way less money?

One way of ranking GM's could be by dollars spent per win. I don't know where that would place Cashman but it wouldn't be at the top.

[Satyr3206]

Shouldn't any top notch GM be able to win consistently with a budget of <$100 million? If he's such a baseball genius he should have no problems winning in any environment. How can we definitively say that a GM is worthy of a top 3 ranking when we can't even say for sure if he'd be successful with way less money?

One way of ranking GM's could be by dollars spent per win. I don't know where that would place Cashman but it wouldn't be at the top.

They touched on that in the article. Friedman was first and Cashman would have been last in dollars per win.

[Dipper9]

Shouldn't any top notch GM be able to win consistently with a budget of <$100 million? If he's such a baseball genius he should have no problems winning in any environment. How can we definitively say that a GM is worthy of a top 3 ranking when we can't even say for sure if he'd be successful with way less money?

One way of ranking GM's could be by dollars spent per win. I don't know where that would place Cashman but it wouldn't be at the top.

The entire ranking is stupid. What criteria are they using to base these rankings on? If it minor league system, then scouts, ownership dollars, etc needs to play a role here, not just the GM. If its major league performance, then you definetly need to look at payroll, ownership willingness to pay HUGE costs for free agents, performance of homegrown talent, etc. The thing is, the GM is not the one who neccessarily makes the team a winner or a loser. This whole ranking system is flawed!

[Yard Bird]

There are not 11 other GM's I would rather have than McPhail. Definitely not Cashman.

[Birds08]

Please point out where anyone said it wasn't an advantage. Of course it is.

But the Mets have most of the Yanks' advantages and they've finished with <85 wins six times in the years since Cashman has been Yanks' GM. Same city. Many of the same city percs like a new $billion stadium. One of the highest revenue totals in baseball for many years. Playing in a lesser league. Yet on average they're 10-15 games a year behind Cashman's Yanks.

And you're deluding yourself if you think you could pick someone out of the stands at OPACY, make them Yanks GM, and think it's likely they could win 90+ games a year for a decade. Even if assembling a team Rotisserie-style was a GM's only job that's pure fantasy.

In comparing to the Mets, you could say the Mets are where they are compared to the Yankees due to their own incompetence, not to Cashman's greatness.

[DrungoHazewood]

You honestly think the average fan couldn't put together a winning team at 8 mil per player?

For one year, if everyone was just auctioned off like a fantasy draft with your drinking buddies? Sure.

But in real life, with a real team, dealing with real players/agents/owners/GMs, with real constraints, with real personalities, with real contracts, with real consequences in dealing with 100s of $millions, and with a real staff of dozens of front office employees all providing often conflicting inputs? And crafting all of that into an organization that acquires players from international markets, the draft, MLB free agents, assigns them to various affiliates and molds them into ballplayers? An average fan would be in over his head on day one, and it would be downhill from there.

Brian Cashman is in charge of the most visible employees and the product on the field for a multi-$billion company. He's not just clicking on Johnny Damon's name when it's his turn to draft on fantasybaseball.com.

The people here at OH are mainly much smarter than average fans, and there was a pretty strong sentiment that the O's should spend $200M+ on Mark Teixiera, or $10-$15M on Matt Wieters' signing bonus. And that was as anonymous guys on a messageboard, without Scott Boras telling you, to your face, that your bid is silly and trivial.

[DrungoHazewood]

In comparing to the Mets, you could say the Mets are where they are compared to the Yankees due to their own incompetence, not to Cashman's greatness.

You could argue a lot of things.

But all I'm saying is that there's a direct comp for the Yanks that doesn't even approach their success. Which kind of flies in the face of those who say any team with New York resources could win 90+ games annually with a coma patient running things.