Zambrano

[veryzer]

<!--quoteo(post=116564:date=Oct 7 2010, 12:03 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Oct 7 2010, 12:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=116536:date=Oct 7 2010, 08:58 AM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Oct 7 2010, 08:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=116531:date=Oct 7 2010, 08:22 AM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>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?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


so you are attributing shitty pitching and a nervous breakdown to a change from the rotation to the bullpen, but a guy pitching better after being suspended a seeing a shrink is preposterous?

I honestly have no idea if the better record is because he saw a shrink. I do know that if he sucked after the suspension, many (not all as I don't want BZ freaking out on me again) would attribute it to how the Cubs treated him. It seems only logical the opposite should be a possibility.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


I honestly believe that he not been demoted, he would've righted the ship on his own, as he'd done every year of his career. I believe he'd not only would've finished the season the same way, but would've done it for a longer period. I also believe the meltdown would never have happened.

And really, even if there was no downside to the demotion, as you claim, that doesn't mean it was the right decision. Because it wasn't. It was retarded.