Zambrano

[rok]

If Z perceived it to be a demotion (which any SP would including Gorz who as I mentioned also was upset that he *might* be sent to the pen when Lilly came off the DL), then perception is everything. Reasons don't matter, it's how people (with gigantic egos) interpret things. Any type of role change would be considered an insult.

[veryzer]

<!--quoteo(post=116248:date=Oct 5 2010, 12:58 PM:name=leonardsipes)-->QUOTE (leonardsipes @ Oct 5 2010, 12:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=116183:date=Oct 4 2010, 05:04 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Oct 4 2010, 05:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Question - why do we consider the Z to the pen move a "demotion"? Because he was pitching badly? That's not really the MAIN reason he was moved to the pen. Lilly was coming back and all the other starters were pitching well. If Gorzelanny - who had an ERA around 2 at the time - had been moved to the pen, would that have been a "demotion"? Of course not. It would have been a move that had to be made because there wasn't a spot for Lilly.

I pretty much think the same is true of Z. He wasn't demoted. He was chosen. It just happened to be the wrong choice (I thought it should have been Wells, but whateves).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

When the move was made, I posted my support. The Cubs needed a set up man and had one extra starter. Four guys who's stock in trade was being decent over six innings, and Zambrano they guy who it seemed most likely could be dominant over 1 inning. It turned out to be a stupid move. One would hope, the people running the team were smarter than me, but I was in no position to complain.

Then, when Zambrano was at his low, Hendry said that they did not just move him to the bullpen because of his bad start, but based on his last 40 games. It pissed me off, that they put so much thought into what was a very bad decision. They really thought Zambrano was the worst of the 5. They really thought it was smart to demote the pitcher who they had the most money invested in, with the most fragile ego and who deserved to be treated with the most respect.

It was a very stupid move. It was sold as not a demotion, that Z was on board, and the best solution to solidify the bullpen. Even if all that was true, I think it would have turned out to be the wrong decision. Then when everthing goes to hell, Hendry basicly says, "see I demoted the right one."
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Best post in the thread.

[veryzer]

<!--quoteo(post=116296:date=Oct 5 2010, 08:15 PM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Oct 5 2010, 08:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=116295:date=Oct 5 2010, 09:01 PM:name=Giff)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Giff @ Oct 5 2010, 09:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->de·mote (d-mt)
tr.v. de·mot·ed, de·mot·ing, de·motes
To reduce in grade, rank, or status.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Reason has nothing to do whether it was a demotion or not. Zambrano's role was reduced in grade, rank, and status, thus he was demoted.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Leaving aside the fact that roles in the bullpen are not necessarily always a lower rank or status than starting (I'd guess that many closers and top setup men would not like to be put in the rotation, and I'd guess that some starters would view becoming a closer or 8th inning man as a lateral move), reducing the discussion to the dictionary definition of "demotion" completely misses the point - which is that the Cubs did not move Zambrano to the bullpen IN ORDER TO DEMOTE HIM. They ***HAD*** to move ***SOMEBODY*** to the bullpen. They chose Zambrano. I don't see that situation as a "demotion," regardless of the semantics surrounding what Webster has to say about the word "demotion." In other words - if we must be stuck on the dictionary definition - from the Cubs' perspective, they were not "reducing Z's grade, rank, or status;" they were changing his role. *From the Cubs' perspective* is the only point I've been making, and that part is wholly about reason.

This all, of course, is the most ridiculous discussion ever, since we all (that is to say, all of us in this recent spate) agree that Zambrano was the wrong choice (for whatever your reasons) to be moved to the pen at the time.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Even though I disagree with just about this entire post, let me just pick one part to comment on. Moving from starter to closer isn't really a demotion, as the closer is almost as important. Moving to middle relief is most definitely a demotion, because the vast majority of middle relievers are failed starters.

For a pitcher of Zambrano's calibre, moving to middle relief is a slap to the face. There was never a chance of it working. None. He saw it as a demotion and he was right, because it was.

[Ace]

<!--quoteo(post=116298:date=Oct 5 2010, 09:23 PM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Oct 5 2010, 09:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->To restate: all I'm saying is I don't think the Cubs moved Z to the pen because he was sucking. I think it factored into the decision, but I think the primary reason for the move was that they had to move someone, and they felt Z was the best man for the job. I thought they were wrong then; obviously it bore out that they were wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hi.

[Ace]

<!--quoteo(post=116298:date=Oct 5 2010, 09:23 PM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Oct 5 2010, 09:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->To restate: all I'm saying is I don't think the Cubs moved Z to the pen because he was sucking. I think it factored into the decision, but I think the primary reason for the move was that they had to move someone, and they felt Z was the best man for the job. I thought they were wrong then; obviously it bore out that they were wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hello.

[Coldneck]

You're all wrong. Z was caught banging Hendry's wife and that was his punishment.

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=116327:date=Oct 6 2010, 07:21 AM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Oct 6 2010, 07:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=116298:date=Oct 5 2010, 09:23 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Oct 5 2010, 09:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->To restate: all I'm saying is I don't think the Cubs moved Z to the pen because he was sucking. I think it factored into the decision, but I think the primary reason for the move was that they had to move someone, and they felt Z was the best man for the job. I thought they were wrong then; obviously it bore out that they were wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hello.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So...are you saying that Hendry and Lou realized that it would be seen as a demotion, but they forged ahead anyway? Because I don't see how that's any different than what anyone else is saying.

[Jody]

<!--quoteo(post=116328:date=Oct 6 2010, 08:02 AM:name=Coldneck)-->QUOTE (Coldneck @ Oct 6 2010, 08:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->You're all wrong. Z was caught banging Hendry's doughnut and that was his punishment.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


fixed

[veryzer]

<!--quoteo(post=116327:date=Oct 6 2010, 07:21 AM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Oct 6 2010, 07:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=116298:date=Oct 5 2010, 09:23 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Oct 5 2010, 09:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->To restate: all I'm saying is I don't think the Cubs moved Z to the pen because he was sucking. I think it factored into the decision, but I think the primary reason for the move was that they had to move someone, and they felt Z was the best man for the job. I thought they were wrong then; obviously it bore out that they were wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hello.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

It's still a demotion, Dude. Call it what you will, sugarcoat it anyway you want, but what you just described is a demotion. I'm not sure how this can be argued.

[BT]

<!--quoteo(post=116323:date=Oct 6 2010, 07:06 AM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Oct 6 2010, 07:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=116248:date=Oct 5 2010, 12:58 PM:name=leonardsipes)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (leonardsipes @ Oct 5 2010, 12:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=116183:date=Oct 4 2010, 05:04 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Oct 4 2010, 05:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Question - why do we consider the Z to the pen move a "demotion"? Because he was pitching badly? That's not really the MAIN reason he was moved to the pen. Lilly was coming back and all the other starters were pitching well. If Gorzelanny - who had an ERA around 2 at the time - had been moved to the pen, would that have been a "demotion"? Of course not. It would have been a move that had to be made because there wasn't a spot for Lilly.

I pretty much think the same is true of Z. He wasn't demoted. He was chosen. It just happened to be the wrong choice (I thought it should have been Wells, but whateves).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

When the move was made, I posted my support. The Cubs needed a set up man and had one extra starter. Four guys who's stock in trade was being decent over six innings, and Zambrano they guy who it seemed most likely could be dominant over 1 inning. It turned out to be a stupid move. One would hope, the people running the team were smarter than me, but I was in no position to complain.

Then, when Zambrano was at his low, Hendry said that they did not just move him to the bullpen because of his bad start, but based on his last 40 games. It pissed me off, that they put so much thought into what was a very bad decision. They really thought Zambrano was the worst of the 5. They really thought it was smart to demote the pitcher who they had the most money invested in, with the most fragile ego and who deserved to be treated with the most respect.

It was a very stupid move. It was sold as not a demotion, that Z was on board, and the best solution to solidify the bullpen. Even if all that was true, I think it would have turned out to be the wrong decision. Then when everthing goes to hell, Hendry basicly says, "see I demoted the right one."
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Best post in the thread.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


OK, I'll try this again.

If this is the best post in the thread, if the Zambrano "demotion" (and I pretty much agree with Ace on this one, but I can only fight one battle at a time) was so stupid, it should be very very easy for someone on this board to explain to me what the negative ramifications were. If it is as universally stupid as everyone says, please, someone, explain to me the downside. How was the team hurt? How was Zambrano hurt (besides his feelings I guess). What would have been better (other than theoretically Zambrano's stats) if they had chosen someone else? I'm not asking why you would have done something different, but what was the negative fallout of this move? I can think of a few good things that happened because of it, but no one seems to be able to answer what the downside was.

[rok]

The end doesn't always justify the mean. Maybe this was exactly what Z needed, or maybe all he needed was to be given time to work out his issues. I have no idea. No one does. I would still argue that losing 50-70 innings from one of your best SPs (which believe it or not Z was compared to even the great Gorzelanny and Silva in 2009 and prior to that) is a bad thing. How do you quantify it? Fuck if I know. Z's trade value was also lowered (it is still low now) by demoting him. So there were at least 2 downsides.

[BT]

<!--quoteo(post=116382:date=Oct 6 2010, 11:37 AM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Oct 6 2010, 11:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->The end doesn't always justify the mean. Maybe this was exactly what Z needed, or maybe all he needed was to be given time to work out his issues. I have no idea. I would still argue that losing 50-70 innings from one of your best SPs (which believe it or not Z was compared to even the great Gorzelanny and Silva in 2009 and prior to that) is a bad thing. How do you quantify it? Fuck if I know. Z's trade value was also hurt (it is still low now) by demoting him. So there were at least 2 downsides.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

In the abstract, this is true. However despite how much Silva sucked in 2009, he DIDN'T suck when Zambrano went out. The Cubs starting pitching continued to pitch very well while Zambrano was in the pen. This COULD have been a problem, and would be a good reason to not like the move when it was made, but the fact is, those fears were unfounded. Our starting rotation did not suffer because of the loss of 50-70 innings by Zambrano.

[Butcher]

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.

[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.

[Butcher]

The outcome (in either direction) doesn't justify the decision.

If Lou pinch hit Marshall for Ramirez in a game-on-the-line RBI situation and Marshall hit a grand slam, that doesn't make it the right decision.