I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying he was a good pitcher or something. I wasn't trying to defend the Astros for their idiocy.
Eh, not necessarily. Career minor leaguers are routinely placed on the teams of clubs 30 games under .500 in August and September to play out the string. Veterans take longer to recover from their injuries in those situations and essentially shut it down until the next season. In the technical sense, yes Reineke has played in a MLB game -- but I think when most people said he wasn't a MLB talent, they were referring to a useful piece for a team that takes its games seriously, not one that's 48-76 and playing out the string.
you're confusing intent with results. the astros, when they made the trade, gambled/assumed - however you want to phrase it - that randy wolf would upgrade the team more than chad reineke. given the track records, that's a more than defensible position.
I don't think you are properly reading what I wrote in the context of the words that I was responding to. I don't recall saying anything or justtxyank saying anything about intent. Justtxyank posted that Reineke's line was bad. I pointed out that Wolf's was worse. This is simply a fact. We weren't discussing intent. We were discussing results. If you want to discuss the second part, that is more of an 'intent relevant' statement. But not the part you quoted.
i just don't think results can be the only way to evaluate a trade, which, if i'm wrong, sorry: but that's how i read your angle. but i'll jump back to your first post and address it, too.... i'm gonna assume i'm one of the genuises... i'd have to go back through the thread, page by page, which i'm not going to do - but i promise you, at some point, i said reineke would never grace a MLB stadium unless he was an injury call-up*. and that's exactly what he is. plus, he was dealt to the second-worst team in baseball. they're usually a breeding ground for AAAA talent. i don't think making one mediocre start is the beginning of anything remotely special. it may be wolf truly is done; i still don't think reineke was much of a price to pay to find out, nor am i worried about the money owed wolf. it was a low-risk, high-reward proposition. (* at least, i at some point HAD written that, and maybe i changed it. but i know i'd never make such a blanket statement.)
This was the very first thing I read clicking in this thread. I haven't been a part of any discussions, but if results don't matter perhaps they should, or do to 75% of people. I know you're not saying it, but it can come off to the casual onlooker that results don't matter. Baseball is the only sport where its so what if you give away 4 major league level contributing prospects, getting the long reliever for the pennant run or 2nd closer you dont even need just to keep away from another team, is justifiable enough trade.
i didn't say results don't matter; only that it's not the *only* way to evaluate a trade. if ron artest gets suspended for a long stretch this year... does that mean it was a bad trade? yes, to a degree - but it was certainly more than justifiable at the time they completed the deal, and that shouldn't be discounted.
