Skip to content

Brian Cashman can’t spend money

Dec 6, 2012, 8:59 AM EDT

The Yankees have watched as several players who could help them in 2013 have gone to other teams. And, depending on who you believe, Brian Cashman is not even making offers on these dudes. Andrew Marchand hears why:

 

Even if this does represent something new in YankeeLand — and I have my doubts, because Cashman probably always had to ask permission before making significant outlays back in the big-spending days — this comment sort of makes me chuckle.

Might it be the case that “Cashman told an agent he can’t spend money” is the equivalent of a girl telling a guy “I’m just not interested in dating anyone right now?”  In both cases, the effort could very well be made for the right guy, but He/She is just not that into you, dude.

Seriously, though, the Yankees are in deep, deep trouble and will likely have to field a team of six position players next Opening Day.

  1. sdelmonte - Dec 6, 2012 at 9:10 AM

    I think Marchand meant to type Alderson.

    Except that even Alderson has spent money this off-season.

    (Fear not, Yankees fans. Cashman will make some trade in January or early February that changes everything. Or at least fixes some things. I think that this season, the AL East will be a rugby scrum and nothing short of a constantly dominating rotation will let any team run away.)

    • ezthinking - Dec 6, 2012 at 11:20 AM

      Can’t spend money montra is alittle weak without acknowledging the $15 for Kuroda, $12 for Pettite, $10 for Mo, not to mention picking up the options of $15 on Cano and $14 on Granderson.

      That’s $62 million in new money for 2013 when you back out the potential $2 mil each buyouts of Cano and Granderson. To put it another way, more new money spent for 2013 than any other team so far.

  2. randygnyc - Dec 6, 2012 at 9:14 AM

    Yankees would have signed all these guys had they agreed to one year deals. Of course, they didn’t, and left. This should remove any doubt about how serious the Yankees are serious about getting below that $189 million dollar figure for next year. I heard the penalties are like 1 dollar for every 2 spent. Yankees refuse to allow these other billionaire owners to continue to suckle from their tit. MLB should be on notice that the Yankees are no longer responsible to subsidize your welfare teams.

    • fanofevilempire - Dec 6, 2012 at 10:23 AM

      you nailed it……………..
      the Pittsburgh owners will get less of that bonus they usually stuff in their pockets, the Yankees
      are smart to that shit now, why do you think they built that BIG stadium, to get the right off for the debt…………………………………
      all these mfer teams sticking Yankee money in their pockets then selling out their stadium when we roll in to town…………………………..

      I’m glad Georges kids got a lot of money by selling 50% of YES…………….

      George was the best when it came to spending to bring a winner to NYC.

    • fndan9 - Dec 6, 2012 at 11:00 AM

      Luxury Tax $$ doesn’t go toward revenue sharing.

  3. Old Gator - Dec 6, 2012 at 9:17 AM

    I can’t wait till the news breaks that Bernie Madoff lost all of Steinbrenner’s money, and the Borg has just about exhausted its old credit lines.

    • sdelmonte - Dec 6, 2012 at 9:47 AM

      The Steinbrenners would be too smart to invest with Bernie. Unlike some owners, they know how to pick partners.

    • fanofevilempire - Dec 6, 2012 at 10:28 AM

      Hey Gator, I haven’t posted for about three years, good to see you still around….
      Keep wating old gator………..
      Steinbrenners just got a lot green backs on from sale of YES…………
      but keep in mind the Yankees have a 189mil. roof, they are fed up with
      owners stuffin their pockets with ” BONUS” money and not using it for salary…….
      remember when Yanks come to KC, they sell out!

      • Old Gator - Dec 6, 2012 at 2:24 PM

        I like the idea of Scrooge McLoria being starved out by the Steinbrenners. Too bad they can’t convince Mike Illitch, Magic Johnson and Artie Moreno to breech to the same squall.

  4. stex52 - Dec 6, 2012 at 9:18 AM

    By all accounts Cashman has always been a good GM who just had the extra benefit of a huge spending base.

    If that leash is shortened, we will get to see how good he really is.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Dec 6, 2012 at 9:22 AM

      Yes because the only thing a GM does it sign players. He has no influence on drafting or trading, just signing a check…

      • stex52 - Dec 6, 2012 at 9:30 AM

        I don’t remember saying that.

      • stex52 - Dec 6, 2012 at 9:33 AM

        If you will actually look at my statement, I said that by all accounts he is good.

        Well, now he has various problems and a short budget, we will really get to see how he performs.

        Not everything is a dig. That is a simple statement of rather obvious fact.

    • anxovies - Dec 6, 2012 at 7:50 PM

      The problem with that observation is if you don’t have the money to compete you can’t show your stuff. If momma won’t give you the money it don’t matter how good you are at picking the horses.

  5. deathmonkey41 - Dec 6, 2012 at 9:21 AM

    Somebody keep an eye on Cashman- he might try jumping off one of those buildings next time instead repelling down it! I have no problem with the Yankees not signing any big name free agents. I don’t like the team as currently constituted and would like to see them go younger and with hungrier players.

  6. bronco1991 - Dec 6, 2012 at 9:25 AM

    Go Jays!

  7. zzalapski - Dec 6, 2012 at 9:26 AM

    I’m pretty sure “Yankees can’t spend money” was filmed as part of this scene and left on the cutting room floor because it was too unrealistic.

  8. Jason @ IIATMS - Dec 6, 2012 at 9:35 AM

    I get the Cash-bashing. “If I had unlimited funds…” Hell, I’ve said it too.

    But right now, he’s dealing with the reality forced upon him by Hank/Randy’s collassal F-up called 10/$275M and the subsequent changing of the rules in the CBA. It’s a handcap, for sure.

    But yes, it will be tough to win with 6.

    • paperlions - Dec 6, 2012 at 11:56 AM

      I agree. If they’ve given him a spending cap, he has a lot less room to maneuver because of some bad deals that likely were not his doing. ARod isn’t the only guy they are severely overpaying.

  9. angrycorgi - Dec 6, 2012 at 10:05 AM

    Brian Cashman without infinite funds? Holy S–t! He probably has no idea what to do now.

  10. fanofevilempire - Dec 6, 2012 at 10:32 AM

    you know, I find it funny that other than Yankee fans I don’t know who any of you guys cheer for….
    why don’t you fellas id who your team is……………………..
    are you fellas scared…………….

    • umrguy42 - Dec 6, 2012 at 12:00 PM

      Cardinals fan here, and damn proud of it. The rest of us just don’t feel the need to include a sports team in our monikers, I guess. (Personally, I use this handle for a whole lot of stuff across the ‘net.)

    • paperlions - Dec 6, 2012 at 12:00 PM

      I grew up in StL – Cardinal fan.

      Better?

    • angrycorgi - Dec 6, 2012 at 12:56 PM

      Grew up in DeSoto, TX – Ranger fan (and I’m 36, so no I’m not some kid who just picked the team up when they started being decent)

  11. modellforprez - Dec 6, 2012 at 10:34 AM

    what these herbs spend?? like 7 billion dollars over the past 10-11 years with one trophy. they screwed themselves now they are losing out on their own players to the pi-RATS

  12. sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Dec 6, 2012 at 10:46 AM

    The most glaring blunders were forced on Cashman by ownership, so he is certainly not to blame for the ARod contract, or Soriano or others. As a Yankee fan, I refuse to weep for the lack of Jeff Keppinger on the team, or Chavez, or Ibanez for that matter. Remember, these guys were nothing more than scrap heap fodder in most estimations prior to their Yankees tenure and Cashman got excellent value out of them. If someone else wants to pay full price for their services, let them. There are other bargains to be had, and I trust Cashman to find them. He has done quite well at finding value in the twilight years of veterans.

    While budget constraints are new to the Yankees, nobody should pity them for their “meager” $189MM budget next year.

    • stex52 - Dec 6, 2012 at 11:08 AM

      I agree. Cashman is now faced with a lot of the problems of other GM’s (many holes, no money, no trades) but in a lot of ways he didn’t get himself into this problem.

  13. deadrabbit79 - Dec 6, 2012 at 11:08 AM

    Yankees will be sold inside of 3 years

  14. bostonboy82 - Dec 6, 2012 at 12:12 PM

    Love it!!!!!

    • slartibartfast4242 - Dec 6, 2012 at 2:03 PM

      … says the team finished last in the division to the ones finished first!!!!!

  15. theskinsman - Dec 7, 2012 at 3:07 AM

    Red Sox fan here, And while the Sox roster was blown up,and the AAA team on the field finished last, at least the organization began the process of getting younger Love seeing Cashman watching at the winter meetings instead of buying. The Yanks still have the team that won last year,so no worries Yanks fans.
    Take it from this Red Sox fan, winning on paper in the off season with ancient players will work out just fine…
    I’d be all kinds of impressed if the Yankees had won so many times if there was a salary cap. Just buying all-stars from other teams and having the highest payroll forever significantly improves the chances a team will make the playoffs.

    If there was a salary cap in MLB,the Yanks would be baseballs’ equivalent of the Knicks.
    Don’t get your knickers in a bunch, it’s just one season the Evil Empire has to stay at the TOP of the salary to avoid a 50% luxury tax. Then they can go back to signing any all-star they need.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Pitching duel highlights Game 1 of WS
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. M. Bumgarner (2796)
  2. T. Ishikawa (2737)
  3. J. Shields (2534)
  4. L. Cain (2165)
  5. T. Lincecum (2072)
  1. Y. Molina (2055)
  2. M. Morse (1801)
  3. Y. Cespedes (1801)
  4. B. Posey (1769)
  5. A. Wainwright (1746)