But apparently there are people within baseball who think this could be trouble for Cashman, professionally, and they talked about it (anonymously, naturally) with the Daily News yesterday. The story paints a superficially coherent theory that Cashman’s actions have “embarrassed” the Yankees and, as such, the franchise might have to get rid of him, but, really? I suppose it probably has become something of a nuisance for Cashman, and maybe the team’s PR department, but a) that’s mostly a function of our social inability to mind our business and, b) once again, is such a nuisance really worth firing a guy who’s done as good of a job of running the Yankees’ baseball operations as Cashman has since gaining control of the shop? After all, at the worst we’re talking about activity that amounts to nothing more than having fully consensual extra-marital relationships which, though your mileage may vary as the degree of moral stain that puts on a person (personally, I don’t really approve of judging the personal lives of people I don’t know at all and, as a child of divorced parents, came to believe some time ago that it’s ultimately in everyone’s best interests for people to do what makes them happy) is both completely legal and not altogether unusual behavior.
But the oddest part of the Daily News’ story is the slap-dash comparison to former Mets’ GM Steve Phillips history of indiscretions:
“This has absolutely nothing to do with Brian Cashman’s ability to do his job or the New York Yankees’ ability to do business,” the agent said.
But all that might change if Hal and Hank Steinbrenner find Cashman’s dirty laundry too much to bear.
“Cash wields a lot of power in the organization,” one American league executive said. “But if there are embarrassing details that come out, that could make it a lot harder for the Yankees to look the other way.”
Just ask former Mets GM Steve Phillips, who was suspended in 1998 after a former team employee said she would sue him and the team for sexual harassment. When Phillips returned to work, he admitted having a “brief, consensual relationship” with the woman, and other women, during his marriage. Phillips was fired in 2009 from his job as a baseball analyst by ESPN because of a sexual relationship with a 22-year-old production assistant.
I should certainly hope that I don’t need to spell this out, but just in case: there’s obviously a rather big difference between what Cashman is “accused” of doing and engaging in an inappropriate relationship with a co-worker, especially when that co-worker is subordinate to you. That sort of behavior raises all sorts of ethical issues in the workplace that doesn’t exist in Cashman’s circumstance, and that’s to say nothing of the sexual harassment angle which is, you know, illegal.
Now maybe something else comes out that is much different than what has been revealed so far, and perhaps that will change the dynamic somewhat. But right now I sincerely doubt that there’s any discussion of Cashman losing his job whatsoever, and rightly so.
(As a brief editorial note, I do not anticipate paying much attention at all to this story in the future. This does not mean that I’m in the tank for the Yankees’ organization or that I’m being bullied to keep quiet by them, it simply means that I don’t have an interest on focusing on a personal story involving a team executive that has virtually no impact on the baseball team I cover. Mary Cashman has apparently filed for divorce in the wake of this story, and I sincerely wish the entire Cashman family happiness in their futures, and that’s all I have to say about the matter.)
Honestly, in this day an age, few should care what's happening with Cashman off the field. He's not in Phillips' category and if this weren't the Yankees, nobody would care. And even if it is the Yankees, nobody should care.
The Steve Philips thing is completely different. When the "other party" is an employee there is a much higher standard and in that case, Cashman should rightfully fear for his job.
If they are truly committed to Cashman, the only way he gets fired is if he did something illegal. I think the standard would have to be pretty high in terms of embarrassing the organization and he would be in for a significant pay day to avoid a lawsuit.
Works for me, Brien. afaic, I'm willing to be "surprised," should Cash be fired over this. Just as Pineda could be signed out of the blue, I'd much rather find out after that fact, than be reading about what Cashman has ostensibly done and not done, and how it MIGHT affect Hank and Hal.
I'm fine with you keeping me posted on baseball – if I find the need to catch up on sex, I can always hit the Post or the News.
I would not be surprised by anything that happens at this point. On the surface this should not affect his job, and so there should be no reason to fire him. However, if this drags out, if tawdry(er) details get dragged out into the light of day, it is possible the Steins would it as embrassing the organization and ask him to step down. Same could happen if, for whatever reason, it is seen as affecting his relationship with other GM's. Actions often have unforseen consequences, and it is too early in this tale to know what those might be.
The premise of the story's angle explored here is a pretty dumb one. The AL executive source suggests that "if there are embarrassing details" that emerge out of this, then Yankee ownership could party ways with Cashman. Well, yeah. Thanks Daily News.
Not going to happen. It's easy to buy players with the Yankees payroll, but Cashman has done an excellent job of prepping the Yankees payroll to decrease in the coming years, all while still putting quality talent on the field for this year and the future years. Nobody could GM the Yankees like Cashman.
Cashman has done an excellent (although by no means perfect — an impossible task) job managing the Yankees baseball operations. I don't know, maybe George would have fired him for this, but everything we know about Hal is that he's "business first." Retaining Cashman is, based on what we know, good business. If he's fired, who replaces him? There's nothing to this. More interesting is, who are these anonymous "baseball people" that are raising these doubts and what are THEIR motivation?