Zambrano

[BT]

<!--quoteo(post=116387:date=Oct 6 2010, 12:04 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Oct 6 2010, 12:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Swap whatever innings Wells/Gorz/Silva gave us for what Z would have given us, and I believe we would have been incrementally better. But that doesn't prove or disprove anyone's point. The point remains -- they moved Z (our "tenured" starting pitcher) to the bullpen instead of Gorz/Wells/Silva when Z has a far more impressive pedigree than any of those guys. You can say that all three of those guys were pitching better than Z at the time -- which is true. But you don't make decisions like that based on what is going on in April. You have to look at the big picture.

You're looking for the fallout? Here's a possible negative fallout -- it was a major distraction. Nobody would have blinked if Gorz was moved to the 'pen. Moving Zambrano to the 'pen was a huge story.

It also could have (I know -- it didn't) completely fucked over Zambrano's confidence. I know Z came out of the entire thing seemingly unscathed (and maybe even better), but how could Hendry/Lou have predicted that? Nobody could have -- not with someone as crazy as Z.

And what if Wells/Gorz/Silva turned out to be an amazing set-up man?

We can plan this what-if game all day. None of it matters. Even if Z pitched lights-out in the bullpen, it was still the wrong move.

You simply don't give Gorz/Wells/Silva 130 more innings than you give to Zambrano.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


I'm not trying to play the what if game. I'm playing the what happened game. I'm saying the Cubs gave Gorz/Wells/Silva 130 more innings than Zambrano, and by almost any measure were not only unhurt by it, but in all probably it helped them.

Yes, Gorz/Wells/Silva could have turned out to be amazing setup men, but we would currently be worse off because of it. It would not have helped our offense score more than 3 runs a game (any more than, in my opinion, the distraction of Z going to the bullpen caused our best hitters to blow). All three of them are infinitely more valuable as starters. Any/all of them have much higher trade value as starters. Gorz could easily be traded this offseason, Silva has a much better chance of being traded than he did in April, and I doubt the Cubs would trade Wells either way. So at least 2 of the 3 improved their stock by being kept in the rotation, and at least in my opinion Wells was better served by staying a starter.

You have every right to not like the move, and before they did it you had every right to worry about any number of things going wrong.

You don't have the right to continue to act as if those fears were realized. They weren't.