Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 62

Thread: Cashman responds

  1. #1

    Cashman responds

    http://weblogs.newsday.com/sports/ba.../yankees/blog/

    “If you had bet on the kids doing great out of the gate, it wouldn’t be necessarily a safe bet,” Cashman said by phone, “but we’re betting on them in the long-term, not necessarily in the short-term, and so that’s all I can say about that.Joba’s staying in the bullpen right now. That’s where we’re at. That’s (Chamberlain moving to the rotation) not something that’s going to happen here early on, and he (Steinbrenner) knows that. We’ve talked about it.”

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rockland, New York
    Posts
    5,359
    All i know is, if they don't keep cashman around, the Yankees are going to go down the ****ter. Hank is impetuous...

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Jets Voice of Reason View Post
    All i know is, if they don't keep cashman around, the Yankees are going to go down the ****ter. Hank is impetuous...
    +1

  4. #4
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Upper East Side
    Posts
    6,832
    Hank is an even bigger clown than his father. Agreed about the Yanks needing to hold onto Cashman.

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Long Island/Tampa
    Posts
    3,469
    Yeah, who knows where we'd be right now without Cashman.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Jbro22 View Post

    Yeah, who knows where we'd be right now without Cashman.
    Plus Johan Santana and minus Phil Hughes?

    BTW, this team has consistently gone downhill under Brian Cashman

    Gene Michael and Bob Watson handed this accountant masquerading as a GM a dynasty

    Lets not forget that, this book-keeper inherited a dynasty and that dynasty crumbled on Cashman's watch

    Just sayin
    Last edited by Green Jets & Ham; 04-21-2008 at 02:37 PM.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Green Jets & Ham View Post
    Plus Johan Santana and minus Phil Hughes?

    BTW, this team has consistently gone downhill under Brian Cashman

    Gene Michael and Bob Watson handed this accountant masquerading as a GM a dynasty

    Lets not forget that, this bookkeeper was handed a dynasty, and that dynasty crumbled on Cashman's watch

    Just sayin
    You are so reactionary Ham...After 3 games you are off the Hughes bandwagon? You where fine with the deal a few months back.

    And why don't you get it straight. We would be minus Hughes, our starting center fielder, another top prospect, and $137 million.
    Last edited by Tyler Durden; 04-21-2008 at 02:34 PM.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Sean Ryan View Post

    You where fine with the deal a few months back.
    Once it became clear we were keeping Hughes and passing on Santana I tried to see the bright side and support the decision, but when it was still a debate and still a possibility I was as adamant as anyone that we should deal Hughes for Santana .. I might have been that trades biggest supporter when it was still a debate, other than Hank

  9. #9
    The Yankees knew exactly what they were doing when they decided to go with the kids. They aren't dumb - they knew that not pursuing Santana meant very possibly missing the playoffs. However, they have faith in the youngsters already up here and in the farm system to make this team a consistent playoff and WS contender for a long time. Sacrificing ONE year is no big deal in the grand scheme of things and I wholeheartedly approve; in a few years, this lineup will not be so old and we will hopefully have a nice young outfield (Jackson, Melky, Tabata) along with some vets. If some fans are obsessed with the payroll and insist on winning now, they can either spend their time getting ulcers over a possible non-playoff situation or they can get on the same page as their team (which almost every baseball expert believes is the right page)

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    In transit
    Posts
    6,192
    Quote Originally Posted by Green Jets & Ham View Post
    Plus Johan Santana and minus Phil Hughes?

    BTW, this team has consistently gone downhill under Brian Cashman

    Gene Michael and Bob Watson handed this accountant masquerading as a GM a dynasty

    Lets not forget that, this book-keeper inherited a dynasty and that dynasty crumbled on Cashman's watch

    Just sayin
    Yeah, it was Cashman. Cashman and Torre, "get Vlad." George, "nah, I'll get Sheff, he's better." That's how most of the moves have happened.

    If you had traded Melky and Hughes for Johan, you would have exactly 1 day to day player under 32. Not that having two is that much better. You would have also added 22 million in salary for Johan, and another 5-8 million for a Melky replacement. You want the Yanks to compete for a long team, you bring in the youngsters. Like they did in 93, 94.

    If Hughes becomes decent, and is a good #2 pitcher, so what. You'll have a good #2 until about 2020 or so.

    You should read the book "Last Night of the Yankee Dynsasty." Gives some good incite about how insane George was/is, and how Torre and Cash had to work to keep the team going.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Green Jets & Ham View Post
    Plus Johan Santana and minus Phil Hughes?

    BTW, this team has consistently gone downhill under Brian Cashman

    Gene Michael and Bob Watson handed this accountant masquerading as a GM a dynasty

    Lets not forget that, this book-keeper inherited a dynasty and that dynasty crumbled on Cashman's watch

    Just sayin

    wow, real bright response...

    Dynasty's end fella, and the team has had to be rebuilt. Cashman's hands were tied for a good part of his regime. The organization, maybe not this particular team here in April, is in excellent shape. But if you want to provide your better alternative, proceed...

  12. #12
    btw, ham is right about the santana trade.

    trading for the best pitcher in the game....who is left-handed to boot is almost a no brainer, imo. if i were a yankees fan i'd be disappointed they didn't make the trade.

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Long Island/Tampa
    Posts
    3,469
    Not disappointed...

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by neckdemon View Post
    btw, ham is right about the santana trade.

    trading for the best pitcher in the game....who is left-handed to boot is almost a no brainer, imo. if i were a yankees fan i'd be disappointed they didn't make the trade.
    How is it a no brainer? The deal made 10x more sense for a team like the Mets.

    We would of had to pay Santana 137 million dollars, We would now have the highest paid position player, and pitcher. We would of had to trade our center field, we then had to go ahead and replace him. That is more big $$.

    A please, don't bother replying if all you are going to say is money is no object to the Yankees.
    Last edited by Tyler Durden; 04-21-2008 at 06:58 PM.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Sean Ryan View Post
    How is it a no brainer? The deal made 10x more sense for a team like the Mets.

    We would of had to pay Santana 137 million dollars, We would now have the highest paid position player, and pitcher. We would of had to trade our center field, we then had to go ahead and replace him. That is more big $$.

    A please, don't bother replying if all you are going to say is money is no object to the Yankees.

    for the amount of money the yankees put out in payroll, they are always a win now team. imo, a win now team can't go into the season with a rotation like the ones the yankees have. johan would have just made so much more sense to me. how much better does santana, wang, pettitte, kennedy and mussina look?

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by neckdemon View Post
    for the amount of money the yankees put out in payroll, they are always a win now team. imo, a win now team can't go into the season with a rotation like the ones the yankees have. johan would have just made so much more sense to me. how much better does santana, wang, pettitte, kennedy and mussina look?
    Cashman has admitted in the past they are rebuilding on the fly. You don't have to believe it, but the signs are there.

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Long Island/Tampa
    Posts
    3,469
    I was unaware that there were ball clubs out there that didn't want to "Win Now". I hate people say that about the yankees. ESPN is all over the Yankees and how they have to win a WS this year because the Red Sox won two since the Yankees last. Are there really teams out there that don't want to win the World Series? I dont get it

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Jbro22 View Post
    I was unaware that there were ball clubs out there that didn't want to "Win Now". I hate people say that about the yankees. ESPN is all over the Yankees and how they have to win a WS this year because the Red Sox won two since the Yankees last. Are there really teams out there that don't want to win the World Series? I dont get it

    if you don't know the difference between a team that is built to win now or a team in rebuilding mode then i don't know what to say.

  19. #19
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Long Island/Tampa
    Posts
    3,469
    No I understand rebuilding, I just don't understand how any team can say they don't want to win now.

  20. #20
    I Just heard something on SNY that made my stomach turn

    Up until now I was under the impression Gene Michael was in favor of NOT trading Phil Hughes for Johan Santana, certainly that was the impression we were given in the off season when this trade was the hot topic of discussion, but now I hear from SNY that Gene Michael actually supported Hank's position and wanted to deal Hughes for Santana, but Cashman and Hal felt otherwise and they eventually won that fight

    Well if I recall one of the strongest arguments for keeping Hughes during the off season was that Gene Michael was on board with Cashman and Hal, and Hank was on an island .. that certainly had an effect on me because I have so much respect for Gene Michael's evaluations, WAY MORE THAN CASHMAN'S, now I findout Michael was actually with Hank?

    Is this true, was Gene Michael on Hank's side of that debate and did we actually allow Brian Cashman, that book-keeper masquerading as a GM, to overrule Gene Michael?

    No wonder Hank is sick about this, I would imagine he wants to choke Brian Cashman AND his brother!

    I can Just see Hank talking to Gene Michael ...

    "Another year without an ace, can you believe we let these two guys talk us out of that deal"
    Last edited by Green Jets & Ham; 04-21-2008 at 11:33 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us