I guess this is what you call a Hissey fit

I'm still shocked Bowden didn't get fired last year. The team stunk. The minor league system seemed to regress. They didn't sign their first rounder. Bowden bizarrely announced the non-tendering of Chad Cordero on a radio show. He had a DUI before the season even started. The radio audience for the team is less than the number of people in the Times Square ESPN zone on a Thursday night. AND the organization was being investigated by the feds for skimming off the top of bonuses in the DR. I mean...damn! That, my friends, is Teflon.

@Shooty - Bowden is BFF with Mark Lerner. It's going to take much more than that for us to be saved from Bowden.

@Shooty - Bowden is BFF with Mark Lerner. It's going to take much more than that for us to be saved from Bowden.

You guys might want to photo shop some pictures of Bowden holding hands with Jeff Wilpon, then. A lovers' quarrel sounds like your only hope.

Apparently Mark Lerner is secretly into leather.

When can we expect that exposé on nbcwashington.com?

It occurs to me that Lerner hasn't fired Bowden because he can't catch him.

Is Bowden really that bad of a gm, I always thought of him as somewhat below average but not Sabean bad.

I love that picture. I'm not sure whether it's the grin that'd best be served with a cheap wine, or the flowing strawberry mane behind him.

Bowden's not a good GM. Not sure he's a truly terrible one, but with the culling of the herd over the last year or so, he's definitely in the bottom tier.

The problem is that 95% of the attacks and criticisms against him are wrong, or based on how he looks when he models jeans. (or leather pants)

The biggest issue with Bowden is that his talents as a GM are limited but he carries himself like he is the second coming of Branch Rickey.

He has a few strengths (IDing reclamation projects; single-minded focus when he targets a player). But he cannot assemble a staff of major league starting pitchers. Has an obsession with certain types of players.

But it's more the way he presents himself rubs most people the wrong way. He comes across as a slick self-promoter. His mouth more often engages before his brain.

He has a few strengths (IDing reclamation projects; single-minded focus when he targets a player). But he cannot assemble a staff of major league starting pitchers. Has an obsession with certain types of players.

But it's more the way he presents himself rubs most people the wrong way. He comes across as a slick self-promoter. His mouth more often engages before his brain.

And he simply isn't a good match for Washington; this isn't Cincinnati, where a slick self-promoter might work. This is a sophisticated market, and his act doesn't play well here.

Unfortunately for Bowden - I think deals that should have been bonanzas just haven't panned out.

The Kearns/Lopez robbery of the Reds still looks like a deal you'd fall over yourself to get done, even in hindsight... but it just hasn't worked out.

The Milledge/Church deal likewise still looks good in retrospect (Milledge is still just 24) - but didn't pay immediate dividends.

One issue I see with Bowden - he's been way too painfully slow to pull the trigger on dealing vets and players the Nats won't be keeping long-term... Dimitri Young, Belliard, LoDuca, Perez, Soriano, Lopez -- there are lots of examples of players that Bowden has hung onto too long or held out for too much.

Obviously, I - and none of us - know what might have been available for them, but with the Nats situation, those are all players that should have been shipped for whatever was on the table.

I agree with 13 about a few of his deals should have worked out and you can't fault the guy for failing when most people argue he was right to make the deal. And I agree about him not trading earlier, as a rebuilding team one of the reasons you sign veteran players is to eventually flip them for anything to fill out your minors or even bench players at the ml level.

I think part of the problem is that his moves do not seem to follow any sort of rhyme or reason. It often times feels like he is not looking at the big picture. He has stocked the 40-man roster with far too many corner outfield/first basemen.

The problem is that most of the players he's had to trade haven't been worth much, if anything. I mean, who the hell wanted LoDuca? And I don't really remember any Perez rumors.

The one exception there is Soriano, who did have real value. While Bowden certainly asked for a lot for him, the only actual reported offer was for Phil Humber.

In that case, the Nats did the right thing -- even before you realize they got their top pitching prospect for him. (and a guy who's probably their #2/3 pitching prospect).

That's an example of one of those unfair criticisms. It's not clear then or now that it was a bad decision, yet it's constantly held up as something he definitely should've done.

If Bowden was the GM of the Mets the previous 3 offseasons, they likly would have at worst made the playoffs in one of the last two years.

I would add that in the past, Bowden has indeed been able to turn veterans into prospects. He got two good pitching prospects for Livan Hernandez, and a good one for Mike Stanton (Mike Stanton!). It's been a while since those trades were made, but then as Chris Needham points out its been a while since the Nats had veterans other teams had any interest in.

Bowden's problem has always been, IMHO, that he has never fit into one of the comfortable stereotypes of GMs--solid old baseball man (John Scheuerholz, Pat Gillick, Bill Stoneman) or sharp young operator (Billy Beane, Theo Epstein, Brian Cashman, Kenny Williams). He's got this goofy personality that, as others have pointed out, doesn't wear well, and a lot of people really don't like him--a liability in and of itself for a MLB GM. The Nats may be better off with another GM, but we can't be sure a new GM will be better unless they get one with a proven track record, and maybe not even then.

Bowden's problem has always been, IMHO, that he has never fit into one of the comfortable stereotypes of GMs

This is an interesting point.

I don't know if he still does this, but Bowden used to "write\" a column for the DC Examiner during the season (an as-told-to piece, at any rate). In one column, he categorized each GM by type: old school operator, Moneyball dude, prospect hound, etc., etc. Well, each GM but him. He said he was a little bit of all of these types. This was fairly revealing -- not in the sense that every GM has to fit into some sort of narrow and/or phony description, but because Bowden himself often lacks direction and reliability.

I wouldn't say he's the worst GM out there, but he's very easy to dislike.

This is a sophisticated market

You are obviously unfamiliar with the Ballpark Guys board and the Post's Nationals Journal comments section!

You are obviously unfamiliar with the Ballpark Guys board

Every family has the cousins that are embarassing

I'd certainly like to see Bowden segway into another career, but I was kind of glad I got to see Soriano do a 40/40 season. He hit one of only two foul balls to reach my section too.

I've argued in the past that the only reason they were probably keeping Bowden around was to have a scapegoat when things didn't turn around for the Nats quickly. That certainly hasn't proven to be true That franchise was left in a terrible state after MLB owned it for a little while. It seemed to me like whoever the first GM to get the job was would wind up being fired after 4 or 5 years almost regardless of the job he did. They were just going to pile up too many losing seasons while trying to get the farm system in order.

I will say I haven't been as enamored with a lot of Bowden's trades as the people on this site have been. I wasn't sold on the Kearns/Lopez trade at the time it was made, and I said so. I understand that it was a bad trade from the Reds point of view. I just didn't see how what the Nats were getting was going to help them in any way. Both guys had mixed track records at the time and were at the point where their salaries were going to steadily increase through arbitration. Lopez seemed like a good candidate to be non-tendered, and probably would have been this off-season if he hadn't been released mid-year. Kearns had more potential, but also some downsides.

I will say that the fact that Bowden was able to trade Jose Vidro for anything is amazing and probably earned him his salary many times over.

I think part of the problem is that his moves do not seem to follow any sort of rhyme or reason. It often times feels like he is not looking at the big picture. He has stocked the 40-man roster with far too many corner outfield/first basemen.

I think this nails it. I like Bowden because he knows how to bargain shop. When other GMs are paying millions for a mediocre outfielder or reliever, Bodes finds a similar talent off the waiver wire. However, he lacks any kind of strategy. He just stockpiles shiny things hoping it will all work out. And he has done nothing to improve his minor league system. That is no way to run a ballclub.

Bowden deserves credit for his bargain shopping, but how much?

For every amazing find like Dmitri (before the extension!), we've gotta deal with crap like Tony Batista, Rob Mackowiak and Alex Escobar.

You've gotta fling a whole lot of crap at the wall to get it to stick. We notice what's left on the wall, not the three foot pile of muck at our feet.

And he has done nothing to improve his minor league system.

I'm not sure this is entirely fair. They did have the #1 rated draft the year before. And had they signed Crow this year (yeah yeah candy and nuts), they'd have been right up there.

The dropback in the farm system has as much to do with the injuries of a few of their key prospects as anything. I don't think they really were the #9 farm system as BA said last year, but they're certainly not the #29 like Law says.

If anything, Bowden's done fairly well there.

If anything, Bowden's done fairly well there.

Without investigating, I'd say they've made some slight progress, yes. Not great before, a little less not great now.

There are several other GMs I'd rather not have than Bowden. However, it's hard to think of a situation where he's the hire you want - to tie in with other comments, he lacks a defining strength that you can build/win with.

He'd be the perfect minor league GM.

He's got that PR hucksterism. Lots of creativity. He loves the limelight. He'd think up all kinds of crazy stunts to get his team some coverage in the local media. All that energy needs an outlet!

While there was no place to go but up from what MLB had done to the Expos farm system, Bowden has done a solid job rebuilding the farm.

From the 2005 draft, he drafted Ryan Zimmerman and John Lannan, two guys who have positively contributed to the major league roster. Justin Maxwell and Marco Estrada have also made their major league debuts (to mixed results).

In 2006, he went the high school player route and it's still too early to make a complete assessment, I'd think this year is a big one for those high school players, as this would be the first draft would have been in (assuming they went to a four year college). He did turn one of those players (Glenn Gibson) into Elijah Dukes.

The 2007 draft was highly rated by Baseball America and saw him turn the picks he got from Soriano and Guillen into Jordan Zimmermann and Josh Smoker (for Soriano) and Michael Burgess for Guillen. Detwiler has been a disappointment but they did grab a signability guy later (Jack McGeary). He did flip two of the guys (Jake Smolinski and PJ Dean along with Emilio Bonifacio) to the Marlins for Scott Olsen and Josh Willingham ... results TBD.

As Chris mentioned, the 2008 draft is seen as a failure because of the Crow fiasco. But they did still grab yet more high risk/reward high schoolers.

Given that he has only had five "extra" picks (two in 2006 and three in 2007) in his tenure as GM for the Nationals, he's done a solid job. The final grade for his effort is going to be based upon how all of these early high risk/high reward players pan out.

He'd be the perfect minor league GM.

He's got that PR hucksterism. Lots of creativity. He loves the limelight. He'd think up all kinds of crazy stunts to get his team some coverage in the local media. All that energy needs an outlet!

This combined with that doofus-ey photo of Bowden on the Segway makes me think he's a lot like Murray from "Flight of the Conchords."

Unfortunately the Nationals have bet on Nick Johnson remaining healthy for more than 100 games per year and that doesn't seem to be in the cards.
Everyone loves his .400+ OBP and good glove work but he can never seem to stay in the lineup for an entire season.
Willy Mo can't hit a curveball; Austin Kearns signed an expensive extension then went into the crapper(he got hurt so I'll cut him some slack but he is NOT the amswer in RF) and Lopez was/is a head case - good riddance.

I fault the Lerners for running this club like it's a normal business. They are unwilling to spend in anticipation of revenue, i.e.; open their checkbooks for an impact player like Dunn and then watch the fans show up. They want to see high attendance with a crappy product on the field. We all know it don't work that way.

That picture of Bowden on the segway reminds me of Tom Runnells' stunt - arriving at in military fatiques at the start of the 1992 Montreal Expos camp. If only Bowdens' tenure with the Nationals was a short.

Bowden's blowhard approach is annoying to say the least, because the future of the franchise is more important that his thinly veiled attempts at self promotion.

But as mentioned above, it is now all bad, and as proof I would offer Manny Acta...an intriguing and innovative on-field manager hired during Bowden's tenure.

The problem is that most of the players he's had to trade haven't been worth much, if anything. I mean, who the hell wanted LoDuca? And I don't really remember any Perez rumors.

Sure - but every veteran trade doesn't need to bring back a blockbuster haul. Young, Perez, Belliard -- even LoDuca -- you can't tell me that NO ONE would have even offered up a grade C/lukewarm prospect. You can lose 100 games with unknown kids and minor league flotsam just as surely as you can with 'known' veterans. These players served no purpose on the Nats - even if all you get is a moderately projectable A ball reliever back, that still has more value to the Nats in the grand scheme of things than does holding onto them.

Sometimes you just younger and cheaper because you're not very good -- and you gotta leave 'better' to the crapshoot when it comes to trades. Turn those found nickels into lottery tickets.

That picture of Bowden on the segway reminds me of Tom Runnells' stunt - arriving at in military fatiques at the start of the 1992 Montreal Expos camp.

The best part of the picture for me is that it's all tricked out with Nats logos. Segway detailing should be a show on TLC.

Go through the rumor boards... show me ONE team that was even interested in any of those players.

There was _some_ talk of Belliard to the Dodgers. Young was supposedly close to going to MN that one year (but then they tanked right before the deadline).

But what team wanted LoDuca? And as well as he pitched, I can't remember seeing one story about anyone even mildly interested in Odalis Perez.

The problem the Nats have had is that the crap they've had to trade isn't the kind of stuff that a team that's actually fighting for the playoffs would want.

Regardless of Bowden's merits and failings, I continue to think pretty highly of Mike Rizzo. If the Nats do decide to make a change, I hope they don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Go through the rumor boards... show me ONE team that was even interested in any of those players.

There was _some_ talk of Belliard to the Dodgers. Young was supposedly close to going to MN that one year (but then they tanked right before the deadline).

But what team wanted LoDuca? And as well as he pitched, I can't remember seeing one story about anyone even mildly interested in Odalis Perez.

The problem the Nats have had is that the crap they've had to trade isn't the kind of stuff that a team that's actually fighting for the playoffs would want.

Forget the rumor boards - and I don't doubt that no one was ACTIVELY approaching Bowden about any number of those players.

But he should have been more actively shopping them....

Were the Astros or Yankees likely to be TARGETTING LoDuca? Certainly not... but if Bowden had called asking for nothing more than a fringe A ball reliever, would they have said no?

Everyone thinks they need more pitching at the deadline - I don't think there's a single contender that wouldn't have found a spot on the staff for Odalis Perez.

No - you wouldn't have gotten a true prospect back... but what about a project like say... a Ryan Harvey from the Cubs - some former former prospect that was all tools without much to show for it. It's a lottery ticket. The one in 100 chance that something clicks with a player like that has more value than hanging on to them.

Were the Astros or Yankees likely to be TARGETTING LoDuca? Certainly not... but if Bowden had called asking for nothing more than a fringe A ball reliever, would they have said no?

Insofar as he was straight up released, the answer is perhaps no.

Granted, PLoD was released on 7/31/08, not even into the August waivers trading period, but his release was part of a larger veteran purge that was apparently designed to 'make a statement' about the future of the club. Whether Bowden, Acta, Kasten, or Uncle Teddy was responsible for that, who knows.

At $5 million, nobody would've taken LoDuca. Even after his release, when any team could've had him for the pro-rated minimum, he went to the minors. There was no demand for him at all. (which is how the Nats got him in the first place anyway)

Perez, yeah, there probably should've been a little more interest, but teams aren't exactly lining up to sign him this offseason either. I don't think his name has been in connection with anyone.

I'm sure the Nats were willing to talk trade. But someone's gotta not hang up when Bodes calls. "Thanks, but no thanks, Jim."

I'm skeptical that a failure to trade crappy veterans for marginal non-prospects is going to be the flaw that sinks Bowden as a GM.

Bowden's blowhard approach is annoying to say the least, because the future of the franchise is more important that his thinly veiled attempts at self promotion.

But as mentioned above, it is now all bad, and as proof I would offer Manny Acta...an intriguing and innovative on-field manager hired during Bowden's tenure.

It seems as if there's a typo here, and that "now all bad" should be "not all bad," because you have some complimentary (and well-deserved) things to say about Acta. Few Nats fans with any intelligence blame him for the current fiasco.

Bowden, however, has been close minded when it comes to the newer metrics, ignoring tools at his disposal that could undoubtedly help him do his job more effectively and run a more cost-efficient club.

I wonder where Hissey got this information. The Nationals DO have a stats-oriented operation; in fact, probably the most consistent comment I heard from several of my scouting friends (who know what I do) is that the Nats' scouts were probably a little bit TOO focused on statistical performance.

-- MWE

I sat out this conversation since I've more than said my piece. But I do think the excuse about how he's had no good players to trade away is overplayed. No, he wasn't overflowing with great veterans to deal away, but what opportunities he had he hasn't used well. If he had dealt Chad Cordero, Brad Wilkerson, Nick Johnson, John Patterson, or Luis Ayala at their peak value for prospects he could have gotten some solid pieces. Nick and Chief in particular. Now, you can't predict injury, I realize, and so those situations worked out exceedingly badly, but it's just not accurate to say that he had no assets to deal.

Similar on the payroll. He's been very limited, but if you look at how he's spent what money he did have, it's just hard to say that given more money he'd do a lot better.

I also think this chat and Hissey's piece both suffer from the same flaw--that you lose the obvious forest in the trees. Jim's teams just haven't won. You can pick through the details and convince yourself that this move or that was understandable, but at the end of the day, factoring in the good and the bad, if you're doing a good job as a GM your teams will win more often than not or at least get better over time. That hasn't happened here or in Cincy. So if people want to spin that he should get credit for this or that, fine, go with god. You'll never convince me that one (or two if you count 1994) playoff appearances in 15 years is good enough to get a passing grade or that the trendlines here and in Cincy were positive. They weren't. Jim's teams have consistently been bad and gotten worse over time. Bottom line results matter. Is he the worst in the league? I dunno. But he's not good enough. He should have been gone a long time ago.

you lose the obvious forest in the trees

Says the person who uses Scott Downs as a reason to fire Bowden.

I think Jim should be fired because his teams haven't won enough games, not because of any single move. I think I've been clear about that.

But in hindsight waiving Scott Downs to make room for Gary Bennett was a mistake, obviously. Unless you didn't think they had room for 71 innings of 1.78 ERA relief in 2008.

But the key part of that sentence is "in hindsight". I don't think that Downs' success was remotely predictable after his 2004 season, or even his 2005 season. It was only in 2006 that he posted great numbers as a reliever. Even if you look at his minor league numbers, he was a starter who struck out 4.5 per 9.

What exactly were the signs in Scott Downs (either scouting or stats) that should've been screaming to Bowden "Future success story here!"

If he had dealt Chad Cordero, Brad Wilkerson, Nick Johnson, John Patterson, or Luis Ayala at their peak value for prospects he could have gotten some solid pieces.

He dealt Brad Wilkerson for Alfonso Soriano. Hard to do much better than that, really. And also, how could anyone have seriously predicted the complete and utter breakdowns of Luis Ayala (who blew his arm out in a WBC that the Nationals desperately didn't want Ayala to compete in) or John Patterson? Really, the only screw-up in the names you've listed is Cordero.

I do love the idea that Bowden should've traded John Patterson after his 200 IP, low 3 ERA season. What was he? 27 at most?

Yep. Bodes is an idiot for not trading him away.

Sometimes it's hard to see the forest OR the trees after you've smacked your head into one, and are face down in a pile of pine needles.

My point, which each of you are re-demonstrating quite aptly, thank you, is that the more you focus on specifics, the less obvious the conclusion that Jim's failed at his goal, which is to build a winner. You're all responding by going back to the specifics, which each have some debatable nuance.

But a GM shouldn't be graded by looking at each move and adding up whether this move or that move was a win, and could it have been predicted by an amateur outsider, etc. He should be graded on how many games his team wins ultimately.

If anyone wants to argue that 102 losses in year 4 is an adequate definition of success, fine. Otherwise, none of you are disagreeing with my point.

However, since I'm a sucker for getting sucked in to the minutae--

@46--1. he's a ground ball machine. 52% groundball rate in 2004. 2. he's left-handed. 3. His command was solid, with an 8% walk rate. 4. at the time he was cast aside for nothing he was still just 28 and a minimum-wage player. Christina Kahrl at the time that the Jays picked him up said this: "I do like the low-risk risks taken on checking out Billy Koch and Pete Walker and particularly Scott Downs, because there isn't that much at stake, and any or all of them could turn into assets." I wouldn't have predicted that he would become the best non-closer RP in baseball, but at the time I saw no reason for tossing aside any youngish arms with a chance to help. Again, that team carried Joey Eichen and Joe Horgan in their bullpen. I think it's absurd to argue that Jim made the right choice there.

Re: Wilkerson--My point was that if Jim had traded him for *prospects* (not a one-year rental of a veteran to play on a 74-win team) at his peak value (which would have been the 2004-05 off-season, not after his fade had already started), that he could have gotten a good package of prospects. It's also not accurate to say he traded Wilky for Soriano. He traded Wilky, Armando Galarraga (a top 10 prospect at the time who many felt was the real key to the deal), and Terrmel Sledge. Yes, we may well get an ace out of the whole experience in Jordan Zimmermann, but it's rather a happy coincidence that Zimmermann was drafted with that choice. I think you'd have been hard pressed to convince anyone here that trading Soriano for the 67th pick in the draft represents good value.

Sorry the system was timing out and I accidentally posted twice.

No, I don't think anyone is arguing with your overall point. Jim Bowden isn't a very good GM.

But 3/4 of the arguments, including 7/8ths of the ones you make -- this renewed focus on the bottom line is a refreshing change -- are pretty much hindsight BS.

I mean, Scott Downs? Really?

The obtuseness of many of your arguments only makes it appear that some people disagree with your overall premise. We just usually think that the minor points you're making are unfair or wrong.

I fault the Lerners for running this club like it's a normal business. They are unwilling to spend in anticipation of revenue, i.e.; open their checkbooks for an impact player like Dunn and then watch the fans show up. They want to see high attendance with a crappy product on the field. We all know it don't work that way.

Otherwise known as the McClatchy model of ownership.

@Chris--Your comment just shows that you don't read my blog or else just prefer to rip a straw man. I've always focused on the bottom line as the overwhelming reason why he should go.

The only reason Scott Downs's name even came up is because you raised it as a total red herring non-sequitor response to my first comment. I do think it's odd that you seem to believe the Nationals are better off without a guy who has the best ERA of any non-closer RP in baseball over the last 2 years, but Scott Downs is not and has never been a big argument for firing Jim.

I dunno. 24 posts doesn't seem like a red herring to me.

So I take it your position is that Scott Downs is so bad, so useless, so without merit as a pitcher that you would rather have any of the guys we've sent out there over the last 4 years than him. You'd rather have Ray King, Joey Eichen, Jason Simontacchi, Ryan Drese, Sunny Kim, or Mike Bascik take the mound than Scott Downs. You'd rather have Jerome Williams, Joe Horgan, John Halama, Antonio Otsuka, C.J. Nitkowski...

To be so strenuously supportive of Jim's decision to waive Downs, you have to believe that he wouldn't be an upgrade over any of the pitchers we've sent out there since. There's no other justification for the move. He didn't cost anything. He wasn't a clubhouse cancer. The only reason to dump him is because you believe every other pitcher we had available was better.

Instead of having an intelligent discussion, you're trying to put words in my mouth, that somehow I'm saying that because of Scott Downs Jim should be fired, or that if we still had him that we'd be a winner, or something I dunno what. But in the process of constructing your straw man you're backing yourself into an absurd position.

No. I'm saying the idea of someone who's cited Scott Downs as a reason for firing Jim Bowden 24 times saying that people are losing sight of the forest for the trees is pretty damn laughable.

Bowden should be fired. I'll give you that. And I'll give you that the main reason is his track record. But you've been focusing on the minutia so much -- even ripping minor league signings -- that you've lost sight of that one... til this thread, it seems.

To be so strenuously supportive of Jim's decision to waive Downs, you have to believe that he wouldn't be an upgrade over any of the pitchers we've sent out there since.

Do you really? I think all you have to believe is that Downs was the worst pitcher on the roster when he was waived. That seems like a justifiable conclusion, Downs was pretty mediocre before joining the Blue Jays and Montreal had a whole staff full of pitchers with the same or better performance who had more potential/hype/whatever. They dumped the wrong one (along with many who deserved to be dumped, Bowden churns pitchers like crazy), it happens all the time to even the best general managers. It isn't really a good example of why Bowden sucks so badly.

Well, to be fair, I'll acknowledge that I have in fact used the words "Scott" and "down" in the same post 24 times. As in "Scott Olsen's velocity is WAY down." Excellent research on your part. But alas I have not once written that since Jim Bowden released Scott Downs he should be fired, and no matter how many times you build your straw man, people can read my blog and judge for themselves.

As for ripping minor league signings, I don't like Joel Guzman. And I don't have to if I don't want to. He's fat and lazy. I just don't like the look of him.

@61--under that more limited definition I still stand by my assessment that it's absurd for Chris to continually argue that Jim made the right decision there. It's not close to his most consequential blunder, but if you have a 27-year-old minimum wage lefty who can hit 93, walks 8%, and gets 52% groundballs, you hold onto him. Especially when you're going into a season planning on starting Zach Day, Tomo Ohka, and Tony Armas, and your bullpen includes such stalwarts as TJ Tucker,Joe Horgan, and Antonio Osuna. This is a team that gave starts to Hector Carrasco in the heat of a pennant race in 2005. We did NOT have a surplus of pitchers. The fact that Downs has since become one of the most effective relievers in baseball while we count on the likes of Terrell Young, Gary Glover, and Jorge Sosa just highlights the original error.

Not that this decision alone is a fireable offense, Chris, just that it was a mistake.