Jun
15

The Front Office Post

By

During the chaos of last week’s amateur draft, two tweets from Baseball America’s Conor Glassey made the rounds, but I have yet to address them. Here’s what they said…

@rwolfe09 Not coincidentally, the Red Sox and Blue Jays have two of the biggest scouting staffs. Yankees? One of the smallest.

@JoeRo23 By my count, they have 23 scouts. Blue Jays have 70. Red Sox have 71.

I don’t know how the topic came up or how the rest of the conversation went, and frankly I don’t really care. I also don’t want to challenge Glassey’s info or anything, I’m sure his numbers are correct (or are at least in the ballpark). Either way, again I don’t really care. I think we’re all smart enough to understand that the more scouts a team employs, the better off they’ll be. It’s not rocket science. I just want to use these two tweets as a jumping off point about the Yankees and their front office. Forgive me in advance, I’m not exactly sure where I’m going with this.

Brian Cashman has been the Yankees GM for the long time, an eternity compared to his peers. The only GMs who have been at it longer than him are Brian Sabean of the Giants and Billy Beane of the A’s. Cashman’s been at the helm since February of 1998, Sabean since September of 1996, and Beane since October of 1997. The other 27 teams have (unofficially) combined for 79 (!!!) different full-time GMs since Cashman took over, which puts the average life span of a big league GM at 4.44 years or so. Obviously the successful ones will last longer, and it’s hard to argue with the success the Yankees have had during Cashman’s tenure.

When I look at the Yankees front office, one thing really stands out to me: there’s no obvious, in-house candidate to replace Cashman. I’m guessing that’s by design, because why would Cashman want competition from the inside? He’s made himself that much more valuable to the franchise by making sure no one emerges as a potential replacement. From a business perspective, it’s brilliant. Assistant GM Jean Afterman reportedly specializes in contracts and negotiations, not necessarily baseball operations. Scouting directors Billy Eppler (pro) and Damon Oppenheimer (amateur) don’t have any kind of GM’ing experience, even at the assistant level. The closest thing the Yankees have had to a potential in-house GM alternative during Cashman’s tenure (at least recently) was Kevin Towers, who served as a special advisor in 2010 before taking the Diamondbacks GM job over the winter.

Anyway, the reason I bring this up is because when you look around the league, this is something pretty unique to the Yankees. Just to use the Red Sox as an example (since apparently they’re the measuring stick for everything the Yankees do), their official site lists something like eight assistants (with various titles) to GM Theo Epstein, including one former GM in Allard Baird (Royals). If Epstein leaves for whatever reason, AGM Ben Cherington could step in and the team wouldn’t miss a beat. In fact, he and current Padres GM Jed Hoyer served as co-GMs when Epstein briefly left the club in December of 2005, and the duo actually brokered the Hanley Ramirez-Josh Beckett trade in Epstein’s short absence. I just don’t see how that kind of seamless transition would occur with the Yankees.

Of course Cashman has advisors, namely former GM Gene Michael. I don’t want to make it sound like he’s calling all the shots on his own, because no GM does. Remember, the title is general manager; Cashman manages people. He makes decisions based on input from Michael, Eppler, and a ton of other people we don’t even know exist. From the outside looking in, it just seems like there are fewer people with input than there are elsewhere in the league. But then again, what do I know? I could be completely off base. There is such a thing as too many voices in the room, no doubt about it, but there’s certainly a ton of value in having others to make suggestions, challenge ideas, etc. Ten people in a room agreeing with each other is not necessarily a good thing, not when it comes to multi-million dollar baseball decisions and things like that.

Cashman’s contract is up after the season, and I do want him to return. Aside from the usual GM’ing duties, I also think he’s the perfect “bad guy,” so to speak, as these legacy players start to hit the end of the line. Need to move Derek Jeter off shortstop? Cashman will be the bad guy. Need to release Jorge Posada? Cashman’s the bad guy. Let Johnny Damon and Hideki Matsui walk? Blame Cashman. He handles the role well. I also think his relationship with ownership is extremely, extremely important. I really can’t emphasize that enough. A meddlesome ownership can be a franchise killer, and Cash clearly has the respect of the Steinbrenners. That’s important.

Although I do want Cashman to return, I can definitely see the benefit to bringing in a new GM, if that’s the way the team goes. Thirteen years is a long time man … fresh opinions, fresh evaluations, fresh perspective, and fresh ideas can obviously provide a great deal of good. However there’s no clear candidate to take over, at least not internally. I think I said that already. If someone from the outside is brought in, then you’ve got to worry about them adjusting to New York and all the things that come along with it. The media coverage*, the huge payroll**, the fans, ownership, the stadium, literally everything involved with the job. The ideal candidate would be someone with GM experience, the kind of person that will walk into the office on day one and already be respected. Someone that’s been there before, been through getting hired and getting fired, been through winning and losing and dealing with expectations. New Mets GM Sandy Alderson fits the bill, just for example.

Now if Cashman does remain the GM beyond this year, that doesn’t necessarily mean that everything should stay the same, at least in my opinion. I would like to see some level of front office restructuring, including the addition of some more traditional assistants and advisors, people with different backgrounds and varying levels of experience just to … freshen things up. I guess that’s the best way to put it. After doing things one way for so long, a little change can go a long way. That’s just the way this game is. You’ve got to constantly adapt, though the Yankees play with a much bigger safety net.

So after all that, it’s probably a good time to mention that I think Cashman’s return is more in question now than ever before. This has nothing to do with the team’s performance on the field, I don’t think they’re going to fire him or anything, it has more to do with his uncharacteristic outspokenness during the winter (that has continued into the season). I actually find the honesty refreshing, but it’s just that we’re not used to seeing it from Cash. He’s mastered the art of saying many words while saying nothing (of substance) at the same time, but this was the exact opposite. Very blunt and straight forward, “you asked a question, here’s your answer, are we done?” style. That outspokenness makes me wonder if he’s going to make/has made the decision to leave on his own terms. Maybe he’s burnt out. Maybe ownership went over his head too many times and he’s fed up. Maybe he wants a new challenge or to prove that can win with a small payroll. Who knows. The “why” isn’t important***, the “if” is.

How I got here from a pair of tweets about the number of amateur scouts the team employs … I have no idea. I guess they tie back into the stuff about having more input. It’s better to have three different sets of eyes watch a prospect than just two, which is better than just one. Information is a powerful thing, and the more you have the better the decision you’ll make. Regardless of what happens with Cashman after the season, I’d welcome some change to brain trust just to improve decision making as whole. It’s super cliche but I’m going to say it anyway because it’s: these are the Yankees. They should dominate the sport with their resources, and that includes having the best front office personnel. The Rays and Red Sox and every other team survives only because the Yankees make mistakes, so why not take some steps to reduce them?

* That includes amateur know-it-all schmucks like me.
** Big payrolls lead to bigger mistakes. It’s just the way it goes.
*** I suppose if the “why” has to do with some major internal dysfunction that pushes Cashman away, then yeah, that’s important. Important in that it needs to be addressed.

Categories : Front Office, Musings
  • jay destro

    the only obvious replacement is me. duh.

  • http://twitter.com/steveh_MandAura Steve H

    As far as number of scouts go, those numbers do look concerning, though at some point quality would have to outweigh quantity. I’m not saying the Yankees have that quality, and I would like to see them increase the quantity.

    What I don’t want are scouts who think Francisco Cervelli is better than Montero, or a scout who thinks Derek Lowe is the best pitcher in baseball. While these may just be scouts made up by writers (though I don’t see why someone would make up the Lowe quote), the overall point is that some scouts are great at their jobs, some are terrible.

    • http://www.twitter.com/JoeRo23 The Honorable Congressman Mondesi

      I can’t provide a link but someone said at some point that Pilliere responded to Glassey’s tweets in one of Pilliere’s chats and said he thought the Yanks/Sox/Jays actually have similar-sized amateur scouting staffs, so who knows.

      • JohnnyC

        From Piliere’s answer:

        Red Sox

        Amateur

        Crosscheckers – 6 (Boston breaks it up more, like northeast checkers, etc.)
        Area Scouts – 18

        Pro

        Pro Scouts – 11

        International

        International Scouts – 15

        Yankees

        Amateur

        Crosscheckers – 3
        Area Scouts – 18

        Pro

        Pro Scouts – 16

        International

        International Scouts – 17

        • Gonzo

          Wow for Glassey to have 71 and Piliere to have 24 for the Sox, that is interesting. If I read that right.

          I don’t know either’s specific network, but I would think that Glassey and BA’s staff (if they share the same information) would have a better network than Piliere. Not that I would know. That’s just an assumption.

          • CP

            My guess is that the discrepancy is caused by the definition of “scout” by the various teams. It’s possible that the Red Sox refer to everyone in the scouting department as a scout while the Yankees only refer to full time area scouts as scouts.

            Or, there could be part time scouts that are accounted for differently by the teams – there’s not much domestic amateur scouting to be done for 6-8 months of the year.

            • Gonzo

              It’s times like these that I wish teams had to disclose like publicly traded companies.

  • http://www.youcantpredictbaseball.com bexarama

    I thought this was a really good article, but I do have to address one point.

    The Rays and Red Sox and every other team survives only because the Yankees make mistakes, so why not take some steps to reduce them?
    I don’t think that’s accurate. I do think the Yankees should take steps to reduce mistakes (obvious statement is obvious), and from the limited knowledge I have of the FO, more (good) scouts and etc. sounds like a fine way to do that, but it’s not like the Yankee front office getting smarter is going to make the Rays and Red Sox FOs any less smart. They have very good FOs, too.

    • http://www.youcantpredictbaseball.com bexarama

      Also, if I totally missed your point on that sentence, I apologize. It just jumped out to me, probably because it was at the end.

      • Gonzo

        I think he means that if you level the playing field with FO intelligence and smarts, the Yankees financial advantage would make them “better” than the other teams.

        He’s not saying the Red Sox or Rays would be less smart. He’s saying that if the Yanks can be just as smart as the Rays, the Yanks would have a definite advantage considering their resources.

        At least that’s how I read it.

        • CMP

          I agree with your interpretation and totally agree with Mike here.

        • Ted Nelson

          AThe Yankees already are better, and have been to the playoffs 15 of the last 16 years. So they may be as smart. Even if you’re as smart and spend more… it’s hard to just bowl over the comp anymore than 15 playoffs in 16 years in such a competitive environment.

          • Gonzo

            Again, this is just my interpretation of what I read. I think he is more concerned about future events not past events.

            • Ted Nelson

              I just think he’s making an argument with zero behind it.

              He starts by taking as fact # of scouts stats that have been disputed. He then goes on about the inner-workings of an organization he has no part of… speculating that they have no succession plan or even candidates capable of succeeding Cashman. That because their title is not “Assistant GM” they clearly do not have the skill-set to be a GM. He takes this pure speculation to form an argument that the Yankees are not as smart as the Rays or Red Sox. Then he goes on to say that the Yankees should dominate the sport and the Rays and Sox only survive because the Yankees don’t block all their moves with the 25 active roster spots and limited draft picks available to them. It’s bat-shit insane to me. If this wasn’t Mike writing, I think others would agree.

              Take away the pure speculation and all it boils down to is: Cashman is more talkative these days, maybe that means something about his future. Not an original point.

              • Gonzo

                Hey, you have your opinion, and I’ll have mine. I think he goes into why he thinks no one is ready to take the role of GM from within. He might not know the inner-workings, and he might be wrong, but he doesn’t just say “That because their title is not “Assistant GM” they clearly do not have the skill-set to be a GM.”

                Because I don’t want to be here for the next 2 hours discussing someone else’s writing (I’m not in college anymore), can you please send Mike an e-mail how he arrived at his premise and leave me alone.

                • Ted Nelson

                  “I think he goes into why he thinks no one is ready to take the role of GM from within.”

                  He commends the Rays… and their GM was from Wall Street, not even MLB. So that’s a HUGE contradiction there.

                  “I’m not in college anymore”

                  Neither am I… what’s your point?

                  ” can you please send Mike an e-mail how he arrived at his premise and leave me alone.”

                  No. You don’t have to respond. If I see a comment I feel like commenting on… I will comment on it. Just like you do to other people.

                  • Gonzo

                    He commends the Rays… and their GM was from Wall Street, not even MLB. So that’s a HUGE contradiction there.

                    I never said there wasn’t a contradiction. I never said he was right. I said:
                    He might not know the inner-workings, and he might be wrong, but he doesn’t just say “That because their title is not “Assistant GM” they clearly do not have the skill-set to be a GM.”

                    I guess you complain so much that other people don’t read what you write, you don’t bother to read what they write. I guess that’s par for the course for old Ted Nelson.

                    • Ted Nelson

                      He basically implies what you said…

                      “When I look at the Yankees front office, one thing really stands out to me: there’s no obvious, in-house candidate to replace Cashman. I’m guessing that’s by design, because why would Cashman want competition from the inside? He’s made himself that much more valuable to the franchise by making sure no one emerges as a potential replacement.”

                      That’s a direct quote… come on… is he really not saying there that Cashman is “making sure no one emerges as a potential replacement.” That’s literally what he says… that there’s no replacement.

                    • Ted Nelson

                      The Rays thing was just introducing a new point about how Mike point made little sense. I was not trying to argue about the other point, because he clearly said in his opinion those guys are not obvious replacements and basically that Cashman is some Machiavellian evil genius who is hoarding power (that’s an exaggeration… but basically what he’s implying). I didn’t see much point in arguing with you about something there clear as day. If his point was not that there aren’t good in-house candidates… why did Mike go on for a paragraph about how the Yankees had no good in-house candidates because they have no “Assistant GMs” but the Red Sox do have good candidates because they have “Assistant GMs.” One of their Assistant GMs is a great candidate because he helped run the Royals into the ground… Why did he say all that stuff if he didn’t mean it?

                    • Gonzo

                      You are not understanding what I am saying. Again, maybe you are inferring.

                      That’s a direct quote… come on… is he really not saying there that Cashman is “making sure no one emerges as a potential replacement.” That’s literally what he says… that there’s no replacement.

                      I never commented about this. I don’t know why you are bringing it up. I am not saying he didn’t say or mean that. I don’t know why you would think I mean otherwise.

                      Again, this is my quote:
                      I think he goes into why he thinks no one is ready to take the role of GM from within. He might not know the inner-workings, and he might be wrong, but he doesn’t just say “That because their title is not “Assistant GM” they clearly do not have the skill-set to be a GM.”

                      I don’t know how you are taking that to mean what you are saying, but I am not saying it. You are putting words into my mouth again.

                    • Gonzo

                      If his point was not that there aren’t good in-house candidates… why did Mike go on for a paragraph about how the Yankees had no good in-house candidates because they have no “Assistant GMs” but the Red Sox do have good candidates because they have “Assistant GMs.”

                      Ok, you are not reading what I am writing. You are deliberately muddying the waters. I am not arguing what Mike’s point was. I am saying you made a factual error. That’s it.

                    • Ted Nelson

                      I do have no idea what you’re talking about. Where does he make a good case for why Eppler and/or Oppenheimer and/or anyone else in the Yankees organization is not well suited to be a GM other than them not being Assistant GMs.

                      That is his entire argument. I don’t see what factual error you are talking about. That’s his argument.

                      Your quote: “I think he goes into why he thinks no one is ready to take the role of GM from within. He might not know the inner-workings, and he might be wrong, but he doesn’t just say “That because their title is not “Assistant GM” they clearly do not have the skill-set to be a GM.””

                      I completely disagree. I think he does nothing to point out why no one is ready… ******** other than ******** saying they are not Assistant GMs. That they have no Assistant GMing experience is literally his argument for why Opp and Epp are not candidates. If he makes a better one, please feel free to quote it. He made that argument and you keep giving me shit for saying he made that argument. I do not understand. You are right.

                    • Ted Nelson

                      Here is his argument… please point out how it rellies on anything other than Opp and Eppler not having Assistant GM titles to say they are not ready…

                      “When I look at the Yankees front office, one thing really stands out to me: there’s no obvious, in-house candidate to replace Cashman. I’m guessing that’s by design, because why would Cashman want competition from the inside? He’s made himself that much more valuable to the franchise by making sure no one emerges as a potential replacement. From a business perspective, it’s brilliant. Assistant GM Jean Afterman reportedly specializes in contracts and negotiations, not necessarily baseball operations. Scouting directors Billy Eppler (pro) and Damon Oppenheimer (amateur) don’t have any kind of GM’ing experience, even at the assistant level. The closest thing the Yankees have had to a potential in-house GM alternative during Cashman’s tenure (at least recently) was Kevin Towers, who served as a special advisor in 2010 before taking the Diamondbacks GM job over the winter.

                      Anyway, the reason I bring this up is because when you look around the league, this is something pretty unique to the Yankees. Just to use the Red Sox as an example (since apparently they’re the measuring for everything the Yankees do), their official site lists something like eight assistants (with various titles) to GM Theo Epstein, including one former GM in Allard Baird (Royals). If Epstein leaves for whatever reason, AGM Ben Cherington could step in and the team wouldn’t miss a beat.

                      …From the outside looking in, it just seems like there are fewer people with input than there are elsewhere in the league. But then again, what do I know? I could be completely off base. There is such a thing as too many voices in the room, no doubt about it, but there’s certainly a ton of value in having others to make suggestions, challenge ideas, etc. Ten people in a room agreeing with each other is not necessarily a good thing, not when it comes to multi-million dollar baseball decisions and things like that.”

                    • Gonzo

                      These are your words:
                      He then goes on about the inner-workings of an organization he has no part of… speculating that they have no succession plan or even candidates capable of succeeding Cashman. That because their title is not “Assistant GM” they clearly do not have the skill-set to be a GM.

                      Before this goes further than it already has to be. What do you mean by That because their title is not “Assistant GM” they clearly do not have the skill-set to be a GM.?

        • http://www.youcantpredictbaseball.com bexarama

          Gotcha. I think that’s fair, and if that’s the case I agree with Mike (and I thought this article was very good overall, btw, but I always feel like commenting with “good article!” is so pointless). Just scratched my head at that sentence.

    • hornblower

      Cash is a pro. The Yanks are lucky to have him. He is the perfect guy to turn over the team while trying to contend. In case you didn’t a new core is needed.

      • DCBX

        This. This and the “bad guy” point.

        Someone is going to take a lot of bull about the core and potentially replacing them with Nunez/DRob/Jesus/ManBan over the next 2-3 years, and Cashmoney has the cujones and the rings to back them up.

    • Ted Nelson

      Good points.

      I think it’s silly to expect more domination in an industry as competitive as MLB than 15 playoffs in 16 years.

  • AndrewYF

    Does he mean the Red Sox who can’t develop a Latin American free agent to save their lives, and whose draft classes have underwhelmed the last several years? The ones who thought John Lackey was worth $18M a year? That Carl Crawford was worth $20+M? Those Red Sox? Where were the scouts to tell them those were terrible decisions?

    • http://www.twitter.com/JoeRo23 The Honorable Congressman Mondesi

      Glassey was referring to amateur, domestic scouting staffs. (Scouts looking at U.S. amateurs for the draft.)

    • AndrewYF

      The Blue Jays, though. Any team that can get rid of over a hundred million dollars of contract obligations AND get quality players in return…phew. Now that is impressive.

      • http://www.riveraveblues.com Mike Axisa

        The Jays are a sleeping giant, man. Something like 8M people in Toronto and the surrounding area, Rogers communicate has a huge, huge checkbook, great city … they could very, very dangerous in a few years now that they have a GM with his head screwed on straight.

        • Foghorn Leghorn

          agree…it could be a return to the late 80s/early 90s very soon for the Jays.

        • AndrewYF

          Yep, this is why I’m hoping hard for the ‘non-divisional’ format where the top 5 teams go to the playoffs. Of course this means the east-coast Yankees, Red Sox, Rays, and Toronto could be perennial playoff contenders and the west-coasters will get all butt-hurt over it.

    • http://www.youcantpredictbaseball.com bexarama

      Maybe those extra ~50 scouts were used for stalking Carl Crawford #obligatory

      • Gonzo

        I heard they were all trained by Howie Spira.

    • JobaWockeeZ

      Now I know nothing about the front office of a baseball team but I doubt those decisions are mainly on the scouts.

      • Ted Nelson

        Point is not that the scouts made those decisions… it’s that even *if* they have 10000000x the scouts the Yankees do, they still aren’t as smart as Mike makes them out to be. They still make mistakes just like the Yankees.

    • Pat D

      Well, I think we all know why the Red Sox are loathe to develop Latin American players…

      /yes this is No Maas-ian, but I can’t help myself’d

  • Eric

    I’m pretty sure the amateur scouts disparity was debunked, I’ll have to find where I read that though. Interesting post anyhoo.

  • http://twitter.com/Bismarck1872 Jerome S.

    cashman failed.

    • Esteban

      If there is a post for him to show up, this is it.

      • Pat D

        Are we meme’ing this?

    • the tenth inning stretch

      Surprised it took this long.

  • http://myspace.com/bksmalls Smallz

    Honestly I’d love to see the Yankees be more paitent with thier young talent rather then trade them for big name established guys because I dont feel like they’re Yankees. They’re just hired guns really. The problem is teams like the Red Sox, the Phillies and even the Mets for a little while have turned to this “buy your team” mentality that the Yankees unsuccesfully used for 9 years. If the Red Sox or Phillies do win the world series this year, would any Red Sox fan or Phillie fan REALLY be able to say they didnt buy thier championship? Cause if they did then they’d be a hypocrite.

    • http://www.riveraveblues.com Mike Axisa

      Honestly I’d love to see the Yankees be more paitent with thier young talent rather then trade them for big name established guys because I dont feel like they’re Yankees.

      I agree with the patience, particularly when it comes to pitchers. I can’t help but look at Tampa and see how long Shields, Hellickson, and Davis spent in the minors developing. We’re talking hundreds and hundreds of innings. Maybe promoting everyone with a low ERA in June isn’t the best idea.

      • JohnC

        Problem is there is such great demand and pressure to win here, from fans and the media, that Yanks are not afforded the patience that other teams have with young pitchers and position players.

        • JobaWockeeZ

          If the fans and media have any impact in the decision making of the Yankees then they have a poor FO.

          • FernandoP

            +10

        • http://www.riveraveblues.com Mike Axisa

          Of course, but they really shouldn’t care about the opinions of the fans and media when it comes to stuff like that.

          • King of Fruitless Hypotheticals

            They have to care somewhat–we’re the customers, and if they don’t deliver the right product, they’re screwed. Just because they’re a fantastic business doesn’t mean they don’t think about it. The message counts as much as the results sometimes.

            Obviously they don’t overweight our opinions, otherwise Montero would be here getting smoked right now.

        • The Big City of Dreams

          “that Yanks are not afforded the patience that other teams have with young pitchers and position players.”

          Hopefully that changes once some players come up and have success. The problem with the Yankees is many of the kids are expected to come up and wow the world immediately because the Yankees need them. I’m sure there are examples where I’m completely wrong but when was the last time a Yankee prospect was called up because he was ready and not because the was desperately.

          • Ed

            Nova? Melancon? Robertson? Gardner? Cano? Wang?

            Those guys were all ready. Any rough starts they had was just normal adjustment to the majors. Most guys don’t get prompted and excel immediately – Wang was really the exception with his early success.

            The Yankees generally don’t plan on just giving a roster spot to a prospect, they make them force their way in. Hughes and Kennedy getting rotation spots in ’08 was the exception. Being promoted due to a need on the major league team doesn’t necessarily mean the player was rushed.

            • The Big City of Dreams

              “Being promoted due to a need on the major league team doesn’t necessarily mean the player was rushed.”

              True doesn’t mean they were rushed but at the same time when the need arises there is a tremendous amount of pressure on the player to produce because they have to be the “savior”

              • Ed

                I don’t think I’d agree with that. Hughes & Joba probably had some pressure like that. I don’t think anyone else did in recent years.

                Cano was given a lot of slack and simply had to perform better than a clearly finished Tony Womack to keep his job.

                There didn’t seem to be high expectations for Wang. His success was a pleasant surprise.

                The team tends to break in relief prospects by making them the last guy in the pen, bouncing between AAA and the majors as needed. They rarely get high pressure spots until they prove they can handle it. Noesi’s on this track as well.

                Nova went right to the rotation, but he got the 5th starter’s spot when the team was coasting to the playoffs. He just had to be better than Mitre.

                Cano simply was expected to be better than a clearly finished Tony Womack. Robertson and Melancon came up as the last guy in the bullpen. Nova just had to be better than Mitre. Gardner had to be better than a slumping Melky Cabrera. Not exactly high standards for these guys.

                • The Big City of Dreams

                  Good points.

                  But Cano and Wang were under the radar. Not many ppl expected to get what they got from them. I remember some fans believing they would go in a package to fill in void the OF.

                  I disagree about Melancon. He was thrown into the fire right away.

                  Robertson was was under the radar as well IMO.

      • steve (different one)

        And yet everyone (ok, not everyone) flips out when they sign someone from another org to make 2-3 spot starts and claims this is why they “can’t develop pitchers…”

      • Ted Nelson

        Do the Yankees actually do this? If so, why is Brian Gordon being brought in? Why are Betances and Banuelos in AA? Where is your frustration with the Yankees and insistence that they’re “dumber” than the Rays and Red Sox based on unsubstantiated number of scouts and your opinion of their FO structure even coming from?

        Saying all prospects should take forever based on 3 examples is as disingenuous as saying all prospects should be rushed. Comparing the innings worked in MiLB by HS guys to college guys is equally disingenuous.
        I look at David Price and see that all prospects should spend exactly 144 IP in the minors… see why that doesn’t work? The Rays themselves brought up Price in a hurry. The Rays themselves game Price some relief appearances when he came up.

    • Foghorn Leghorn

      The Red Sox lost that right a few years ago and certainly this offseason with the deal to Crawford and the eventual deal with AGonz…still, some of them don’t get it.

  • lower case j

    Well done Mike. Enjoyed this post.

  • Ross

    I would like to know how many international amateur scouts the yankees have compared to other teams because that’s where they seem to really do their best work. As everyone seems to say, the baseball draft is a crapshoot. I’m sure the more scouts a team has, the more prepared they are, but that doesnt necessarily mean they have a better draft. International players seem to also be a crapshoot, but at least the Yankees don’t have to worry about what pick they have to get the guys they want.

    • Soft hands Sojo

      Agree with this. The Yankees aren’t going to be in position to get the top U.S. talent in the draft so they should have their best scouts looking at international players.

  • Dan

    I think that Cash is particularly irked by the interference and success of non-baseball execs. If it were not for owner and levine interference the current A-Rod contract would not exist, 2010 would have been Jorge’s last year, jeter contract would have probably been a max two years with a team, not player, option, and we would not have signed Soriano and given up a prime draft pick.
    This would cause anyone to be a bit outspoken.
    The restructuring needs to begin at the very top. In Levine, Trost and the Bros. we have a lot of chiefs to get involved in everybody else’s business.

    • Ed

      I’m not convinced Cash wouldn’t have resigned A-Rod. I don’t think A-Rod would have gotten as much as he did, but the Yankees needed him and there wasn’t anyone else willing to come anywhere near what A-Rod wanted.

      The Posada got his 4th year because the Mets were serious about signing him. That was the value the market set for him, and there were no good alternatives.

      From what we’ve heard, Jeter convinced Levine to give him more money, not more years.

      Soriano, yeah, that wasn’t Cashman at all.

      Yeah, Levine’s not great, in recent years the worst that’s happened is he’s wasted some money and we lost a draft pick. I’m not convinced it matters much, as even with the financial waste, the team clearly had a ton of money to throw at free agents.

  • David

    I think the Yankees should have AT LEAST double the number of scouts to the next closest team in both amateur scouting and regular mlb team scouts.

    Plus they should have various GM assistants in the front office

    It takes a few dollars for the added brains and eyes, and maybe then they’ll be able make better decisions.

    They need to wake up and smell the coffee.

    • The Big City of Dreams

      Coffee is for closers only.

      But seriously you made some good points.

    • CP

      Will more scouts lead to better results? Or just more conflicting opinions that need to be sorted through?

      The Yankees should have the BEST scouting staff, not necessarily the largest.

      • Skip

        Truth!

        I think the Yankees are a very well run team. Cashman respects D-Opp and Eppler (who report to Cash) and you better believe that D-Opp and Eppler respect the opinions of those who report to them. More trust = better efficiency. I think if someone were to make a list of good and bad moves over the last 5 years, the good would far outweigh the bad.

        Remember, for every Javier Vazquez trade, there is a Nick Swisher trade and Curtis Granderson trade to counter it. Every Pedro Feliciano signing also counters with a Russell Martin, Freddy Garcia and Bartolo Colon addition as well.

      • Gonzo

        I am not sure, but aren’t the Rays the team that people consider to have the best scouts?

      • crawdaddie

        You’re right, it’s more important to have the best scouting staff, not the largest one.

  • pat

    Elsewhere on the internets Frankie P took the time to break down that disparity. He said that both Boston and NYY have 18 full time amateur scouts while Toronto has 24. The only way Toronto and Boston have 70+ “scouts” as mentioned in the tweets is if you count every associate scout, cross checker and employee of the scouting department. The Yankees have just as many of those unofficial scouting department employees as the other teams, yet the people who made those posts chose to ignore that.

    • Pat D

      70 scouts just for amateur levels seems like overkill anyway.

    • nick

      truth

  • nathan

    I find that the numbers gap to be too large to believe. Maybe the Yanks hire a ton of consultants and don’t list them.

    One failure on the Yanks’ part is the lack of a solid #2 behind Cash$$. If Cash$$ has set it up that way then thats where ownership should step in and tell him “if you got hit by a golf cart tomorrow then we need to know someone can handle this”. Maybe that’s where they should go over his head not with bullpen signings.

    Overall I do feel Yanks picks are more concentrated geographically then most teams, is that due to having a smaller scouting team, not sure. But it is hard to believe that 23 v 70, its not all about numbers but I dont think 23 is a big enough contingent, so for now I dont believe these tweets.

  • http://nyystadiuminsider.com Ross

    Might there also be a “too many cooks in the kitchen” effect of having that many scouts? Probably harder to come to conclusions when you have that many opinions flying around.

    Unless of course the Blue Jays and Red Sox have built super-efficient organizations that divide the scouting staff appropriately. allowing them to cover regions and aspects of the game that the Yankees scouts would never be able to do. In that case, the Yankees need to get on it.

    • Ted Nelson

      Absolutely. Mike does nothing to prove that bigger is better except to say anyone who disagrees is not smart… that he hopes we’re all smart enough to agree with his whimsical and nearly bat-shit insane rant.

  • Gonzo

    Well done Mike. This guy deserves a drink. You’ve been cranking out some good stuff at record pace.

    I can definitely see the Yankees’ FO being in a different situation this offseason than in some years past. It’s going to be interesting.

    Maybe if Cash leaves, he will take one of those “consulting” jobs that always gets thrown at departing GM’s. Shoot, maybe he’s planning on it.

  • PhiilyMatt

    What about that assistant to the traveling secretary Costanza?
    Could he move to GM?

  • Bpdelia

    Meh 1) didnt pilierre dispute this and say (paraphrasing here) “i dont know where he got that number every team has the same amount of scouts give or take”

    And 2) if it is true (i highly doubt it is. I just cant believe those teams would have literally 3 times as many scouts. Hed would have to source that info for me to believe it) how do we know if the yankees dont have 3 times the intl scouts? How do we know if its merely deployment? Maybe ny scouts asia and sa more heavily as a strategic position.

    One tweet isnt enough. We dont have ANY reliable sourced info here.

    I dont buy it.

  • Ted Nelson

    I honestly just feel like you wasted your time. You admit that you have no idea at all what you’re talking about… so why bother? Those tweets have literally been dismissed as inaccurate by other “industry insiders”… yet you are not going to question them? It’s like 50/50 on whether they’re right from where I’m sitting.

    And not having any GM experience doesn’t mean someone can’t be a first time GM… The Yankees and Red Sox might have similar roles with different titles. Or the Yankees might just have more streamlined operations. I would suggest looking up “diminishing returns” and “marginal value” based on your comments about how more is always better and anyone who disagrees is stupid. At least cite some sort of management theory.

    “I think we’re all smart enough to understand that the more scouts a team employs, the better off they’ll be. It’s not rocket science.”

    I would hope that we’re all smart enough to know that this is not true. If you have 23 good scouts and the Red Sox have 23 good scouts and almost 50 mediocre or bad scouts… the marginal value of the extra 50 is close to zero. Considering that they all make some salary, it also diverts money that could be spent on signing actual players. Even at $20,000/year, 50 extra scouts is $1,000,000 annually… or a 1st round pick. Even if they’re part time guys at $10,000/year… it’s $500,000. That’s an extra draft pick or IFA you can sign. Heck, an extra MLB players you can sign.
    And we have no idea how many scouts these teams actually have. You are arbitrarily taking one journalists’ word over another.

    You are commenting on a bunch of crap you know very, very little about. I see no point. I would really suggest sticking to your strengths.

    • King of Fruitless Hypotheticals

      Dude, that’s exactly what i was thinking. You should start a blog.

    • Al Gore

      Simmer down..I created this internet thingamajig so people can write whatever they want, including you. if you don’t like it go suck on a fart.

      i can only imagine what you’d say if you were actually paying for this site…you are one angry SOB

      • El Busto

        He off his meds or something. The article isn’t about how the Yanks need to get more scouts, but that’s all he sees in his narrow focus.

        • Ted Nelson

          I was making a comment, not analyzing every aspect of his rant.

          • El Busto

            Oh, so you were commenting and he was ranting. Thanks for clearing that up. I thought you were the one ranting. Total difference maker there.

            • Ted Nelson

              We’re both ranting then… whatever.

      • Ted Nelson

        “I created this internet thingamajig so people can write whatever they want, including you. if you don’t like it go suck on a fart.”

        You say that I can write whatever I want, and then imply that I shouldn’t have written what I wrote? Real logical. I don’t know what the Al Gore thing is about, but do yourself a favor and get an education like he has.

        • The Big City of Dreams

          Maybe he was just joking.

          • Al Gore

            bingo…

            • The Big City of Dreams

              I think Ted gets worked up when ppl infer that the Yankee FO is incompetent.

              • DCBX

                Levine should use his own name when he posts here.

                • The Big City of Dreams

                  And blow his cover psssst yea right. RAB is where he gets his ideas from.

              • Ted Nelson

                When they do it without a solid argument or exaggerate the facts. If you want to say they should have kept Aceves… sure. If you want to say something about how they made an obvious medical “process” mistake or a huge mistake… no. If you want to say they could draft better… sure, who couldn’t? If you want to say they are terrible drafters who made a huge mistake by drafting kids you’ve never seen play… no.

          • Mister Delaware

            Maybe it wasn’t even Al Gore?

            • Senator Weiner

              my cover is blown

              • The Big City of Dreams

                Been a tough couple of weeks man. The only person in your corner right now is Prince James.

    • Stryker

      You admit that you have no idea at all what you’re talking about

      except that’s not what mike said at all…

      • Al Gore

        I think Mike’s doing a bang up job…

      • Ted Nelson

        Yes, he does. The last paragraph ends:

        “Forgive me in advance, I’m not exactly sure where I’m going with this.”

        Just rambling on about made up numbers of scouts that haven’t been verified and what roles people fill in a private organization he’s not a part of. If this wasn’t Mike writing this, but some commenter with a male first name handle… I am willing to bet people would just call the guy batshit insane and be done with it. I can understand why people support Mike as the driving force behind a great blog, but that doesn’t mean everything he writes is good.

        • Stryker

          that’s not explicitly coming out and saying that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, though. what you quoted comes across as an advanced “warning” that the piece to follow had no definite direction at the time he was writing it.

          • Ted Nelson

            I was paraphrasing… he is actually 100% talking about stuff he doesn’t know (# of scouts, roles within FO, succession plans, Cashman’s future) and he basically says he doesn’t know what he’s *going to be* talking about upfront…

            • http://www.yankeeanalysts.com/ Matt Imbrogno

              The next time I completely misinterpret something, I’m going to just say I was paraphrasing.

              • King of Fruitless Hypotheticals

                before you say you were paraphrasing you should say you were pranked. then hacked. THEN you were paraphrasing–dont waste those early outs.

            • Stryker

              and he basically says he doesn’t know what he’s *going to be* talking about upfront

              that’s exactly what i said in different words.

              • Ted Nelson

                Mike also later says “But then again, what do I know? I could be completely off base. There is such a thing as too many voices in the room, no doubt about it”

        • http://www.yankeeanalysts.com/ Matt Imbrogno

          “Forgive me in advance, I’m not exactly sure where I’m going with this” =/= “I don’t know what I’m talking about.” It means that he’s not exactly sure if he has one unifying purpose to the post, which he didn’t. Which is okay.

          • Ted Nelson

            Yeah, it does… it means he doesn’t know what he’s about to talk about and I found that ironic because he then goes on to talk about things he has no idea about. He doesn’t actually know the # of scouts. He doesn’t actually know the succession plans. He does know damn well that previous GMing experience is not a pre-req for GMing, yet ignores that.

            You get it now or are you still misinterpreting it?

            • http://www.yankeeanalysts.com/ Matt Imbrogno

              I just want to use these two tweets as a jumping off point about the Yankees and their front office. Forgive me in advance, I’m not exactly sure where I’m going with this.

              “Jumping off point” and “I’m not exactly sure…” both imply that Mike isn’t discussing his knowledge of something, but rather he’s not sure if he’s going to stick to one main point or if the post is going to have a ton of flow to it. How is that not clear?

              • Ted Nelson

                Double meaning… irony… How is that not clear from my last comment?

              • Ted Nelson

                “both imply that Mike isn’t discussing his knowledge of something, but rather he’s not sure if he’s going to stick to one main point or if the post is going to have a ton of flow to it.”

                This doesn’t even make sense… How does that imply that he isn’t discussing his knowledge of something.

                I understand full well what he meant. I still find it ironic that he basically said in one sense he doesn’t know what he’s going to be talking about… then goes on to talk about things that he literally has no idea about. Do I need to continue breaking this down for you or what?

                • Ted Nelson

                  “You admit that you have no idea at all what you’re talking about… so why bother?”

                  There is my actual quote. He admits that he has no idea what he’s *going to be* talking about. Follow me so far? He then goes on to talk about things he has no idea about. Follow there? So, my question is why did he bother writing an article when he didn’t know where he was going with it (he literally said that… not paraphrasing or interpretation involved… are we on the same page there or you feel like being a dick some more?) and where he went with it ended up being talking about a bunch of crap he doesn’t know about. He does not know the # of scouts as a fact… he’s taking one guys guess, when the media guide (via Ben) says a different number and another guy (Piliere) says a different number. He does not know how Opp or Eppler would do as GMs (no one can really say as they’ve never done it… but it would at least be nice to interview them before judging), and implies only an “Assistant GM” (basically one with GMing experience) can become a GM… even when he lauds the Rays GM who came from Wall Street not Assitant GMing. Even Epstein was young as well when he became GM… pointing to those two guys successes and then implying the Yankees need a guy who has already been GM to be their GM…

                  Listen… I disagree with most all of what Mike wrote. (Save the part about Cashman’s change in behavior possibly meaning something.) I said as much. If you disagree with me… tell me why you disagree instead of just nitpicking at trivial bs points in my argument.

                  • Ted Nelson

                    “he’s taking one guys guess, when the media guide (via Ben) says a different number and another guy (Piliere) says a different number.”

                    Piliere’s number might actually be the media guide number. Not sure.

    • Mister Delaware

      “I would hope that we’re all smart enough to know that this is not true. If you have 23 good scouts and the Red Sox have 23 good scouts and almost 50 mediocre or bad scouts… the marginal value of the extra 50 is close to zero. Considering that they all make some salary, it also diverts money that could be spent on signing actual players. Even at $20,000/year, 50 extra scouts is $1,000,000 annually… or a 1st round pick. Even if they’re part time guys at $10,000/year… it’s $500,000. That’s an extra draft pick or IFA you can sign. Heck, an extra MLB players you can sign.”

      Aren’t you guilty of making assumptions too? In this case, that the cost of the additional scouts came at the expense of another area. Couldn’t they have just as plausibly raised scouting expenses $1MM, kept the player expense portion of the budget the same and simply taken a $1MM hit to their net profit?

      • Ted Nelson

        Sure, but they’re a for-profit organization.

        Point is not about the money. Point is that it’s not necessarily true that a bigger scouting department will deliver better results than a smaller one. Mike doesn’t attempt to prove it is better, he just implies that anyone who thinks it’s not is stupid.

        I think it absolutely might be better to have more scouts… it also might not. Why bother speculating? Especially when Pilliere has said he does not think those numbers are even accurate… It’s like 50/50 those numbers are accurate, and then maybe 50/50 bigger is better. Not all smart people would just accept Mike’s rant about this.

        • Mister Delaware

          And not all smart people would be just accept your counterpoint. Specifically, the part I quoted where you indicated the additional scouting salaries would come at the expense of player signing bonuses. That would certainly prove a point. But if it comes out of net profit, it negates the point.

          • Ted Nelson

            This is nitpicking at the margins of my point. That is not at all what I’m doing with Mike. I disagree with his entire argument: potentially incorrect # of scouts plus Mike’s own opinion on the org structure means Yankees are stupid, they should be smarter. The only thing that makes sense to me is the speculation on what Cashman’s recent behavior means.

            I explain above how that was not my point… just an example I tacked on at the end to show why a bigger scouting department is not always better. I never said a bigger scouting department is worse. I said it’s not always better.
            If you’d like to continue hounding me on trivial bullshit be my guest.

            • Mister Delaware

              Mike said the Yankees are stupid?

              • Ted Nelson

                “They should dominate the sport with their resources, and that includes having the best front office personnel.”

                He did not in fact say that. It sort of follows naturally from his rant, though:

                They do not have the best front office personnel according to Mike. They would be smart to have the best according to Mike. “Stupid” isn’t exactly the same as “not smart” but smart and stupid are pretty well antonyms and I think what I was getting at was pretty clear.

        • Mister Delaware

          (And them being for profit means nothing. Companies invest in R&D and add’l salaries at the expense of ownership/investor profits all the time.)

          • Ted Nelson

            The fact that they are a for-profit company means that I can’t speculate on what profit margin they’re seeking… so I treat it as a given. I can speculate that if they literally ARE SPENDING $x on scouts they could be spending it on players instead… they *could* be… does that imply any certainty to you? C-O-U-L-D. That’s all I was doing was speculating based on numbers that are probably made up… just as an example of how bigger is not better 100% of the time. That’s it. Nothing deeper than that.

            You criticize me for nitpicking when I disagree with a whole argument but use details of that argument to prove how the entire argument is not valid, and then nitpick me to death about trivial details that are not even the basis for my argument but just examples.

            • Mister Delaware

              You didn’t say could (C-O-U-L-D), you said …

              “Considering that they all make some salary, it also diverts money that could be spent on signing actual players.”

              Had you said “it also could divert money …”, that would be another story. You act like you have access to Boston’s budget!

              • Ted Nelson

                “money that could be spent”

                Are you blind? C-O-U-L-D… that money ***could*** be spent on players, it ***could*** be spent on Cap’n Crunch for CC, it ***could*** be spent on strippers.

                If you’re going to be a ragging dick to me all the time, do a decent job of not being an idiot about it.

                • Mister Delaware

                  Just having the word could in the sentence doesn’t save you, Teddy, since its misplaced. You’re claiming money *is* diverted then saying where that money *could* be diverted to. That’s not our debate. I’m saying you have no idea if money is being diverted at all, it could come as a hit to net profit. “… it also could divert money …”

                  Also, I believe you mean “raging”.

                  • Ted Nelson

                    No it’s not. You are incorrect. I literally show you above why it is placed in a fine place (with the CC and stripper example). It does as a 100% fact divert money that could be used for something else. 100% fact. No debate. If you spend money one place, you could have spent it another place instead. Look up “opportunity cost.”

                    Or just get a brain. Use it. Stop bothering me.

                    My spelling is not perfect… big fucking deal. Show me one single place where I comment on someone else’s spelling. I don’t. You think you’re so clever nitpicking me on details because that’s what you think I’m doing to others. That’s not what I’m doing, though, so you are not clever. I am disagreeing with the very root of his argument. 90% if the time you just disagree with trivial mistakes or even correct things. In this case I am correct, yet you still feel like trying to prove me wrong. I will admit when I’m wrong. I was wrong on wFB, and have since admitted as much.

                    All you do my giving me shit is take away from any meaningful discussion. I disagree with Mike for the above reasons. I said as much in the appropriate forum. If you actually want to discuss the subject, please feel free. Otherwise, stop wasting my time being a dick. You don’t know where Tony Sanchez was on the Pirates’ board, so get over it. Suck it up. It’s been a personal vendetta ever since I pointed out that you were wrong once. That the entire basis of your argument was wrong. Not some trivial detail. That you didn’t know the Pirates would draft Hultzen (they didn’t smart guy) and you didn’t know why they drafted Sanchez.

                  • Ted Nelson

                    “I’m saying you have no idea if money is being diverted at all, it could come as a hit to net profit.”

                    Then it would be *diverted* from their bottom-line/pockets genius. It is diverted. You are wrong. Suck it up. Stop bugging me and just deal with it.

                • Mister Delaware

                  I have to head out, but this might help if you’re still flustered …

                  1. “I’m going to the mall and could get a soft pretzel,” Ted said.

                  2. “I could go to the mall and get a soft pretzel,” Ted said.

                  See how moving the could changes what you’re making a certainty and what you’re making a variable? In the first, you are going to the mall and could get a pretzel. In the second, you might not even be going to the mall. I’m sure someone will help you out while I’m gone if you need it. Good luck!

                  • Ted Nelson

                    The money was diverted from other uses. When you use money one way, you necessarily divert is from other uses. Look up “opportunity cost.”

                    • Ted Nelson

                      Waiting to see if you admit you’re wrong here for the first time ever or just keep beating your head against the wall. It’s ok to be wrong.

                    • Mister Delaware

                      I think you might need to look up opportunity cost. Refers to other uses, not the absence of usage.

                      Did you get a pretzel?

                    • Ted Nelson

                      “I think you might need to look up opportunity cost. Refers to other uses, not the absence of usage.”

                      That’s exactly what I said… Taking it as a profit *is another use.* I don’t know if you’re really that stupid, or just really like being a dick.

                    • Mister Delaware

                      Do me a favor. Take an economics class and if a hypothetical involving a private company comes up, argue the opportunity cost of hiring an additional two employees isn’t just 50 new laptops, but 50 new laptops and the owner renovating the kitchen at his beach house since it could have been profit.

                    • Ted Nelson

                      I double majored in Economics and International Business, and that could be the opportunity cost. Yes.

                      “Opportunity cost is the cost of any activity measured in terms of the best alternative forgone.”

                      If the Yankees thought the best alternative was pocketing the money… that was the opp cost. If they thought it was buying lubricant so they could have a big circle jerk… that was the opportunity cost.

                    • Ted Nelson

                      The owner of a business absolutely does face a trade off between taking a profit and re-investing in the business.

                      Do me a favor and stop bothering me with your ignorance.

                    • Mister Delaware

                      Did you get your soft pretzel?

                    • Ted Nelson

                      Are you ready to admit you are wrong?

                    • El Busto

                      This is funny. Has Ted Nelson ever admitted he was wrong ever? If he hasn’t then, he really shouldn’t ask other people to admit it.

    • Pete Fontana Law Student Extraordinaire

      You say he wasted his time, yet you spent more than a few sentences saying it. That seems like a waste of time to me.

      • Al Gore

        +1…long posts like his just clog up the interwebs.

      • Ted Nelson

        I never said it wasn’t

        • Pete Fontana Law Student Extraordinaire

          I never said you said it wasn’t.

          • Ted Nelson

            This is a really productive conversation. Thanks for replying to me comment.

            • Pete Fontana Law Student Extraordinaire

              I got the impression you liked wasting time.

    • crawdaddie

      You’re right, the Rays GM, who people sang praises for wasn’t someone with GM experience. I don’t think he was even in MLB when he was appointed to be GM.

  • King of Fruitless Hypotheticals

    I asked glassey how to become a scout–his response: be a professional ballplayer.

    • Mister Delaware

      Or atleast a D-1 college player.

  • Dominik

    Brian Cashman is the GM the Yankees need, not the one they deserve. And so we’ll complain about him. Because he can take it. Because he’s not our hero. He’s a silent gaurdian. A watchful protector. A general manager.

    • JohnC

      He’s certainly taken enough bullets from fans on all the Yankee forums

    • http://www.blueseatblogs.com Dave

      Quality Dark Knight reference there.

    • http://www.riveraveblues.com Mike Axisa

      … starts a slow clap …

      • Gonzo

        …slowly stands up clapping…

    • http://twitter.com/buckfunts buckfunts

      Levine: D’you wanna know how I got these scars?

  • RobertGKramer@AOL.Com

    I’m a big fan of Cashman’s. If he took a leave like Epstein’s in 2005, we have Gene Michael to step in, as well as any other temporary situation. Long term, it would be interesting to see how large the number of applicants would be without the medelsome George around.

  • steve (different one)

    I thought Randy Levine was the GM?

  • James

    New Yankees GM: Omar Minaya

    /Kidding

    New Yankees GM: Isiah Thomas

    /Kidding More

    • JobaWockeeZ

      I’d take Isiah over Omar.

      • James

        lol, Isiah would trade Montero for Mark Mulder.

        • JobaWockeeZ

          Maybe Omar could get use Sizemore, Lee and Brandon Phillips.

  • Jirge

    Reaquire Melky and IPK. Make them scouts. Then trade them for Felix Hernandez. All problems solved.

  • Bpdelia

    Yeah as for assistsnt gms that could simply be semantics.

    Id assume eppler or oppenheimer would be acting gm while an interview proccess took place.

    Not convinced any gm would be any better. Keep cashman.

    A bird in hand is better etc etc.

    And.again with pilierre disputing the scoutgate issue I just dont buy it.

    Perhaps we need someone from lohud or pinstripe bible to actually get an answer from an actual source actually employed by the actual nyy before deciding

    • Ted Nelson

      Good points.

  • JohnnyC

    Piliere got his numbers for the Yankees and the Red Sox from their media guides — everyone is listed by name in each department. It’s not inside information. Maybe someone who has press contacts could obtain copies and confirm this for themselves. Or we can just continue to speculate based on nothing.

    • http://www.secondavenuesagas.com Benjamin Kabak

      Just to dispute the notion that we at RAB are talking out of our asses, I’ve looked through the media guides. Here are the numbers, based on titles.

      In terms of player development, the Yanks have 18 names listed in the “professional scout” section. They have 23 folks listed in the “amateur scout” section, and they have a staff of 27 listed in the “international scouting” section.

      Boston’s media guide features 34 full- or part-time amateur scouts, 12 professional scouts and 15 international scouts.

      • Stryker

        i hope this makes ted nelson’s diatribes moot now.

        • Ted Nelson

          Does 34 = 71? Mike’s number was over twice as high as Ben’s. 11 more scouts vs. 48 more. Pilliere puts them at about even.

          I never said that RAB as a whole is irresponsible, etc. so I don’t see what the hell this has to do with my comments anyway. I said that I personally didn’t like Mike’s article and disagreed with a lot of his points… that’s my personal opinion, feel free to disagree.

          As far as this particular stat… Mike didn’t make it up. He quoted it. I never said he’s “talking out of his ass” on it. I have no idea if it’s right, but I do disagree with Mike saying he will not question it and then going on to use it as the basis for an argument that the Yankees don’t have the best people in their FO.

          Get a clue. That you don’t understand my comments doesn’t mean you have to insult me.

          • Ted Nelson

            Furthermore, I specifically said that even if the number is 23 to 71… that doesn’t make 71 necessarily better. Your point makes no sense.

    • Stryker

      you can buy a yankees media guide from their website, i believe.

      http://mlb.mlb.com/nyy/fan_forum/publications.jsp

  • Kostas

    Mike, great piece.

  • Dave

    Mike is starting to enter into Steve Lombardi territory with his blogs.

    The scout thing has already been refuted. Why bring it up again?

  • Rainbow Connection

    How about this: Whatever happens happens.
    It’s only a game.

  • Johnny Yu

    Is there a cap on # of scouts a team can employ?