Zambrano

[jstraw]

<!--quoteo(post=116051:date=Oct 4 2010, 10:45 AM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Oct 4 2010, 10:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=116049:date=Oct 4 2010, 10:39 AM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Oct 4 2010, 10:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=116039:date=Oct 4 2010, 09:55 AM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Oct 4 2010, 09:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->You're conflating the effect of the suspension with the effect of the demotion. No demotion...no suspension.
<!--quoteo(post=116034:date=Oct 4 2010, 09:42 AM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Oct 4 2010, 09:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->



And that argues against my point how, exactly?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

You're right. Z needed to be taught a lesson. He never would have pitched an awesome second half if he weren't put in his place. Gaslighting him into dick-measuring with D-Lee was the only way to save him. It was brilliant. Give Hendry a contract extension NOW. Quick...get Lou on the phone...beg, plead....whatever it takes.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Nifty, but I'm serious. How does the idea that the demotion caused the suspension IN ANY WAY change my point? If my point is that the suspension either had no effect on Zambrano, or it helped him, what possible difference does it make that the demotion caused the suspension? If that is in fact that case, then you can make the argument that the the demotion either had no effect or it HELPED Zambrano.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

How is extending the number of starts he missed, beginning with the demotion, through the suspension, and the minor league stretch-out, either neutral or good?