Yankees interested in Zambrano?

[Ace]

<!--quoteo(post=72938:date=Dec 24 2009, 11:17 AM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Dec 24 2009, 11:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72917:date=Dec 24 2009, 08:44 AM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Dec 24 2009, 08:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72909:date=Dec 24 2009, 02:50 AM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Dec 24 2009, 02:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->Like in most sports, coaches and GMs get too much credit when it goes well, and too much blame when it doesn't. I think Hendry is an illustration of that. He got a lot of credit for the back to back post season trips<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

actually, on this board? Not so much. Standing rules are if the Cubs lose, it's all Hendry's fault. If they win, it's because he had a huge payroll. There is no credit.

Otherwise, great post. It's nice not being the only guy having to make these arguments.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


What am I? Chopped liver?

I do want to make a point here as well. Everyone blasts BT and myself for being Hendry supporters all the time. I think people don't understand that it's not the fact that we like Hendry. I can't speak 100% for BT, but I can tell you that I just think Hendry is the easy target and get's blamed for problems when really... it's no one single person that caused us to get swept in the playoffs in 2007/2008. Or to underachieve this last year. I think cherp illustrated this point pretty well. Good stuff cherp.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Apologies Scarey. And yes, you've summed up my feelings nicely. I'm actually not a huge fan of Hendry, and I would put him probably somewhere in the second half when ranking "best GMs in baseball". I just think he gets unreasonable shit from people. As, I might add, does pretty much every GM from a team not winning championships.

I'll let you and Ace slug it out, but I'll just add that while I find Ace's statement perfectly reasonable, and to an extent I "agree" with it, I just don't think it can be that great of a metric, if shifting one 3 year span one single year, makes it go from a horrible indictment of a GM's inadequacy to showing the team essentially playing as it should. I don't think cost per win is very effective on a year per year basis due to myriad factors out of the GM's control, and I've already shown how even grouping things in 3 year spans can be manipulated quite easily to show 2 different outcomes.

Merry Christmas, I'm outta here.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Totally fair. I have no issues with this - I just disagree. I feel sane again.