Re: Strasburg throws a shutout...
posted at 4/25/2013 8:29 AM EDT
In response to georom4's comment:
dont know why my response was deleted but i will say it again - Strasburg has NO LIMITS for this year...so basically what you folks are saying who supported this move that those 5 starts or so in the postseason (maybe 35 innings) would have jeopardized his career and shortened it? Really? I can understand puling him off of some starts late in the year after they made the playoffs but to sit him for the remainder of the season, including pennant games? over 35 innings?
please tell me again how that was a good idea...
To say that it would have shortened his career is forecasting the future, something none of us are particularly good at. What we are saying is that it could have jeopardized his career. And that was a chance the Nats didn't want to take.
Call it "the straw that broke the camel's back" syndrome if you like. Strasberg was coming off TJ surgery and pitching better than anyone could have imagined he would, but where is the breaking point after that surgery? People who know a lot more about medicine than you and I do (I refer to them as "doctors") apparently told the FO of the risk involved and the FO made the decision.
Apparently you would have had him pitch in the playoffs last year in the hope that the Nats would be WS champions. You've been around sports long enough to know that no team has a lock on a championship. Stuff happens and the best team doesn't always win. Had Strasberg pitched and the Nats NOT won the WS and trasberg got hurt the second-guessers (you?) would have been out in force asking why in the name of God did they let this young pitcher pitch KNOWING he could ruin his arm???
There's a risk/reward ratio in everything. The Nats FO decided that the risk (potentially losing his career) was greater than the potential reward (one potential WS championship). As a fan I don't like that decision but I still think it was the right one.
The "Win now at all costs" attitude is IMO one of the reasons why the Sox went 84 years without a WS championship. They made some foolhardy trades and acquisitions in an attempt to win it NOW rather than hold on to people who could be the mainstays of future teams.
The most glaring example of that is the trade of Jeff Bagwelll for Larry Anderson. Bagwell had the MiLB numbers to clealy be a major contributor at the next level but the Sox needed a BP aram to make a run at the WS that year. Anderson did his job but in the long run...was it worth giving up Bagwell's career for?
The same thing holds true for the Nats as well as for the Sox in the JBJ decision. There's nothing wroing with short term pain in exchange for long term gains.