Ultimately though, I don’t see why this is getting so many people so worked up, aside from paranoia about returning to the “bad old days” (which weren’t really that bad, but I digress). As I’ve said a few times on Twitter, this argument is pretty much pointless without knowing what the disagreements was about. Was it about money? In that case, I don’t see why anyone really cares. Ownership can spend whatever they want to on players, and if they decided they were willing to pay for Soriano then why should anyone else care? It’s not like they decided to sign Soriano instead of some other, superior player by any means. And as much as we like to look at contract value and so on (and yes, the Yankees are overpaying Soriano, no argument there), at the end of the day, they’re still the Yankees, and it’s not like they can’t afford the contract.
On the other hand, if they bought into the media chatter that the Yankees were “hibernating” and needed to do something to keep up with the Red Sox, and decided to make the move just for the sake of doing something, that’s a bad thing. I don’t see any indication that that’s true though, and I also don’t see anyone arguing that the signing makes the Yankees worse in 2011, so while I obviously don’t know what happened, I’d say this is pretty unlikely.
The final possibility is the most difficult one though; did the two sides disagree over the importance of the draft pick the Yankees forfeited in the deal? If this is the case, then whose side you come down on is going to depend on what you think of the value of the pick. I’d rather have Soriano than the 31st pick in the draft, so if Cashman was insistent on holding the pick and was overruled by his superiors, I have a hard time getting too worked up about it. I’m also not really sure it’s true, and this is why: