Yankees interested in Zambrano?

[Ace]

<!--quoteo(post=72937:date=Dec 24 2009, 11:03 AM:name=Scarey)-->QUOTE (Scarey @ Dec 24 2009, 11:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72936:date=Dec 24 2009, 11:49 AM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 24 2009, 11:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72934:date=Dec 24 2009, 10:47 AM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Dec 24 2009, 10:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72932:date=Dec 24 2009, 11:36 AM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 24 2009, 11:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72925:date=Dec 24 2009, 10:14 AM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 24 2009, 10:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I am heading out of town soon, so I need to wrap this up - and I can't be bashing my head in the whole trip, so let me try to phrase this in a way we can all agree, even if we disagree on the particulars.

If you have two teams, and over a long enough period of time (we can debate how long it has to be before it stops being "luck"), Team A has won 10 more games per season (again, we can debate how many games) than Team B, but the two teams have had the same payroll (again, we can debate how close they have to be to be the "same"), that SUGGESTS that Team A has a better front office than Team B.

I cannot fathom anyone disagreeing with this BASIC proposition. We can debate all those little internal things (and I suspect that's what you guys are doing), but the BASIC premise must be true.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

This post, and this post only. Agree with it. I need it. Note that "suggests" means "suggests but does not ALONE prove."
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I disagree with the post. I do however think that Boston has the better front office though.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

How is it even possible to disagree with that post? I am not exaggerating - I *literally* cannot understand it. And I'd like to, because I feel like I must be missing something.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Clone all MLB players, prospects, coaches, scouts, personel, and anyone else that has any affiliation with the teams as well as recreate all facilities and markets each team uses/plays in. Take two different GMs and put them in charge of the same franchise of both leagues and say "Go!". Give them four or five years to see what they can do. The one of the two GMs that has done consistently better in that time period is with very high probability the better GM.

There's just too many variables for me. If you put it in a vacuum, then I can agree with it. I just don't think the amount of wins is the complete telling factor. It is what GMs are judged on, and I do believe the amount of wins a club has annually has a high corelation with the ability of the GM. But only knowing the amount of wins in the year relative to other teams is not enough for me to draw a conclusion.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I suppose that's fair. I disagree, but now I see what you're saying. Whew. I am off the ledge now.

Merry Christmas, Scarey.