Zambrano

[veryzer]

<!--quoteo(post=116531:date=Oct 7 2010, 08:22 AM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Oct 7 2010, 08:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=116522:date=Oct 7 2010, 07:25 AM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Oct 7 2010, 07:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->And like Butcher said, had he not been demoted (which he was), all that shit that happened mid-season, most likely wouldn't have happened.

No Zambrano tanking in the bullpen.
No Zambrano tanking after he got put back in the rotation.
No Zambrano meltdown.
No media frenzy.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

No 8-0 with a 1.38 ERA in the second half, right?

Assuming your version of events is correct, so what? After Zambrano tanked in the bullpen, after he tanked back in the rotation, after his meltdown, after the media frenzy, what was the end result? Zambrano pitched maybe the best stretch of baseball in his career. He is far more marketable right now than he was on April 30th. Would any of that had happened if he didn't get suspended? I have no idea. But I do know after he was suspended, he pitched really well.

So what is the problem?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

So you think he pitched better the second half because he was demoted? If so, why not demote every starting pitcher that struggles?