NoMaas was founded in May 2005 to protest the tremendous dysfunction that existed in the Yankees’ organization. When Brian Cashman’s contract expired at the end of the 2005 season, we strongly campaigned for him to return because he was one of the only sane voices in the Bronx/Tampa soap opera.
Check out some of the statements he made during the 2005 season:
“We have to get back to doing what made the Yankees so good for such a long period beginning in the ’90s,” said Cashman. “We’re in the position we’re in because we stopped developing our own young players.”
“… storm clouds are on the horizon if we keep just staying old,” Cashman said. “You’ve got to reinvent yourself with youth and mix them in with the veterans, instead of going all veterans.”
“I’m not looking to trade these guys [Cano & Wang], because we do have to be younger, and trading them for some quick fix is contrary to the long-term goal that’s necessary here,” Cashman said. “But we take every decision at that moment in time and weigh it. I’m not interested in moving these guys, but at the same time, they don’t have any no-trades, and I don’t make all the decisions.”
Amazing to read those again, isn’t it? Look at the emphasis he placed on youth. And look at the results since he re-signed and was giving “full authority.”
Average age of Yankee pitchers
2005: 34.2
2006: 32.5
2007: 31.4
2008: 30.6
2009: 29.3 (which happens to be the average age of pitchers on the ’96 team)
2005: 32.2
2006: 30.8
2007: 30.6
2008: 31.3
2009: 30.5
This is a great trend.
When Phil Hughes was allowed to develop in the farm system, we witnessed the birth of a new Yankee philosophy.
30 Comments
Pete A December 29, 2009 20:28
Word up.
Kevin December 29, 2009 20:40
Word up.
chase December 29, 2009 20:46
Fantastic job by Cash. I can’t wait to watch Granderson play everyday. #28 if our rotation stays healthy.
dave December 29, 2009 20:59
What young talent was traded during that period that really went on to develop into players we should have kept?
28 next year December 29, 2009 21:27
Mike Lowell might have been decent for the Yankees.
Mark Prior, without Dusty could have been good for a while.
That is all I can think of off the top of my head but I know I am missing a lot of obvious ones but that is because I didn’t follow those types of things till a few years ago.
Steve December 29, 2009 21:49
The point isn’t that the Yankees traded away all their young talent, it’s that they stopped bringing in new young talent. That’s the point. The Yankees wasted almost an entire decade’s worth of drafts before Cashman took over the draft and installed Oppenheimer.
Brian Cashman is Watching December 30, 2009 02:27
Yes, there may have been players that didn’t develop into all stars or impact players. But the Yankees never took the farm system seriously when Tampa was in charge. Before Brian Cashman took over, drafts and international scouting were, well, poor. Cashman forced the organization to take the draft and the IFA seriously. Cashman brought in impact talent that the Yankees had been ignoring for years. Is it any coincidence the best drafts were under Gene Michael?
Also, allowing players to develop saves money and prevents the team from making worthless trades later. Look at the bullpen: young interchangeable players. Low cost, so you can invest elsewhere. Same with the bench: young, interchangeable players (Cervelli, Pena, Gardner). This is where I think Cashman deserves the most credit: he understands the bench and the bullpen do not need high priced talent; most of those positions are easy to fill, so why waste money and prospects? Pena and Cervelli would be very good on the bench, just as Melancon, Robertson, Coke, etc. had been decent in the bullpen. Spend the money on stars, use the system for the holes.
Butcher December 30, 2009 08:15
BC IS WATCHING I agree. It’s genius to watch Cashman work. I’m a pretty critical guy because I think I’m always right…but there’s not much I disagree on when it comes to Cashman. The managing of the bullpen has been a thing of beauty. Even the one questionable move in my mind..damaso…worked brillantly in the WS. His contract is worth it just for the playoffs/WS last year alone. He’s not afraid to let the role players walk and fill the gaps from within.
They have a great formula working right now. I still think they need a LF though. Not even a star, but just someone who’s more solid then Gardner.
Also…Granderson is going to have a monster year. This kid is so fun to watch…He will quickly become a fan favorite…and will turn into a full fledged super star in NY.
The Deli Man December 30, 2009 08:31
Great post, Nomaas.
Stevie Lombardi December 30, 2009 08:53
Cashman sux
Theo Epstein December 30, 2009 11:35
It’s not as easy when you’re a small market team.
A-Bomb December 30, 2009 13:03
Ca$hmoney > Theo. The 2009 Red Sox were the equivalent of the 2005-2006 Yankees. But ESPN keeps on overhyping Theo and the Sox’s great farm system and Pedroia.
greebs December 30, 2009 18:31
Can someone have Brian Cashman call up Brian Sabean and talk some sense into him? Sabean may have Yankee roots, but he certainly didn’t learn this lesson.
MattNC December 30, 2009 18:45
Rob Neyer just quoted this entire NoMaas post on ESPN:
http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/1900/cashmans-made-yankees-younger-better
Jason @ IIATMS December 30, 2009 20:06
Great job, guys. Couldn’t agree more!
Pingback: YankeesVine » Blog Archive » Getting Younger
Phil December 31, 2009 01:00
As mentioned- nice exposure being mentioned by Neyer. He is one of the most fair writers when it comes to the Yankees AND he championed the proper exclusion of Jim Rice from Cooperstown.
Brad Wesley December 31, 2009 06:38
To say Jim Rice was not a hall of famer is equal to 30 years from now saying Manny Ramirez is not a hall of famer. Clearly you never saw Rice play. Every at bat he was a threat to do damage.
What is considered one of the greatest World Series of all time, the 1975 Big Red Machine vs. Red Sox – had Rice on the DL. If he was on that roster the Red Sox SWEEP the Reds.
Rice was a FORCE. Neyer maybe fair but he is lazy and copy and pasted an article of in depth perception by NoMaas. Now we need NoMaas to school him on Rice being a HOF’er then you can play with his couch potato writing skills.
By the way I killed Wade Garrett. Neyer is dumb.
Butcher December 31, 2009 07:59
Brad are you really comparing Rice to Manny? Really?
Elephant Pirate December 31, 2009 09:16
30 is the perfect age. In the next 2 years Mo, Andy & Posada will retire and bring that age down further. Great Post….
JGS December 31, 2009 11:27
Manny >>>>>>>>>>> Rice
also, 1991 and 2001 WS >> 1975 WS
stevie b December 31, 2009 15:05
nomaas is the king.
Brad Wesley December 31, 2009 15:49
Butcher you butchered the context.
I didn’t say Rice was better – I said it’s like 30 years from now saying Manny is not a hall of famer. A whole host of writers who will be writing will have not seen him play.
Rice was a clear hall of famer – so clear that he is enshrined in the Hall. In fact, Manny most likely will be designated to the steroid wing of the hall. Which means, he will not be voted in first ballot as a “punishment” for “cheating” the game.
Phil December 31, 2009 16:23
Brad- Rice was such a clear Hall of Famer that he got voted in in his last year of eligibility. Give me a break. Dwight Evans was better.
phil December 31, 2009 16:39
Call me crazy, but seeing as the Yankees never had Mark Prior in their system (drafted by Cubs in 2001 & made his debut for them in May), it would have been pretty hard for them to trade him. They drafted him in 98 but he didn’t sign.
It doesn’t matter who they traded. They won titles & the ends justify the means. Nobody would criticize Smoltz going to Atlanta had Detroit won the title. Prospects are just that. No one knew Smoltz would be a HOF-er. Do you think the Expos thought Randy Johnson (with his at the time 10-17 career record with a 6.00 ERA) would turn out to be what he did? No.
28 next year says:
December 29, 2009 at 9:27 pm
…Mark Prior, without Dusty could have been good for a while….
That is all I can think of off the top of my head but I know I am missing a lot of obvious ones but that is because I didn’t follow those types of things till a few years ago.
dave December 31, 2009 17:53
“The point isn’t that the Yankees traded away all their young talent, it’s that they stopped bringing in new young talent. That’s the point.”
Ok, but one of the three quotes is directly related to trading players, and one of the other two is about developing young players.
So my question is, who did we trade during that time period that we shouldn’t have… and who did we not develop?
I concede the point that the people we were trading FOR were old dogs, and we should have brought in more talent in their prime.
Pingback: Are The Yankees Actually Getting Younger? | Bronx Baseball Daily
Voomo Zanzibar January 1, 2010 18:50
ok, someone help me out here.
For the last week i have been proposing that we go after Hanley Ramirez. He’s a FA after 2011, so SOMEBODY is going to get him sooner than later.
FACT: the left side of our infield is older than younger, and these dudes got 324 plate appearances last year:
Angel Berroa: .136 .174 .182 .356
Cody Ransom: .190 .256 .329 .585
Ramiro Pena: .287 .317 .383 .699
Jerry Hairston:.237 .352 .382 .733
We stick Hanley in LF for 50 games, let him play SS for 50 and 3B for 50 while Alex, Derek, and Jorge split DH.
Brilliant, i would say.
Agreed?
Only problem is (and, admittedly, it is a significant problem) how do we get him? Florida has no third baseman or heir apparent to HR. And out best SS prospect (Nunez) is a couple years away.
So what do you think?
How do we create a three (or four) team trade to get at Hanley?
Yunel Escobar? Elvis Andrus? Seriously. Why wait two years? How do we get that mofo Right Now?
(Imagine a 2011 lineup with Hanley, Grandy, Gardner, and Carl Crawford! And we coax Rickey out of retirement to pinch run for the fatsos!)
Andrew January 3, 2010 01:34
Brad, do you realize the logic fail that occurs when one suggests that one has to see a player play ever day in order to appreciate his contributions? If that’s the requirement, then no-one can ever know how good players are–you watch Rice everday, but cannot know how good anyone on another team is, because you don’t watch them everyday. At the end of a career, all that you would be able to determine is who was the best Red Sox player. (and by the way, Dwight was the best player of that era.)
Brad Wesley January 5, 2010 09:23
Andrew – I never said you have to watch him or anyone everyday to know he was a threat. Ruth was a force every at bat. I never saw him play. But I can assure you that when you go the hall of fame – Rice will be there and Dwight won’t.
Also writers who have the ballots in their hands, not the fans, do see many players from different teams play in their prime on many occasions That’s why they have the ballot and not the bias fans.
Those writers have voted for Jim Rice as a hall of famer. You just deal with that and go back to bed. Actually Dwight will be at the hall of fame…selling Jim Rice’s autograph, and dented hoods and broken windshields from all the cars his bashed outside fenway park.
Dwight fell off the ballot in 1999 after three tries. Yikes!