05-27-2010, 10:22 AM
<!--quoteo(post=98549:date=May 27 2010, 09:18 AM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ May 27 2010, 09:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98546:date=May 27 2010, 09:03 AM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ May 27 2010, 09:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->So, I just read the Cashner news via Bleacher Nation. Very odd. In the short-run this could be really good for us, but I'm starting to wonder why the switch after watching him dominate as a starter for almost 2 months. I wonder how he will deal with this, or if it matters at all to him.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think the Cubs want him to relieve, but unfortunately they NEED him to. If they wanted him to serve as a late inning guy, they probably could have called him up at the end of 2008, but they moved him to starter (which I think was the right move). Now that he is clearly ready for the majors, there isn't a spot for him in the rotation, so they making him a short man again.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have no problem with it, and actually wanted this for a while, and still do actually. Then again, I didn't expect him to be so dominant as a starter, so that is the only part that confuses me. Hell, if he gets called up and is a lights out setup man, I see no downside.
I don't think the Cubs want him to relieve, but unfortunately they NEED him to. If they wanted him to serve as a late inning guy, they probably could have called him up at the end of 2008, but they moved him to starter (which I think was the right move). Now that he is clearly ready for the majors, there isn't a spot for him in the rotation, so they making him a short man again.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have no problem with it, and actually wanted this for a while, and still do actually. Then again, I didn't expect him to be so dominant as a starter, so that is the only part that confuses me. Hell, if he gets called up and is a lights out setup man, I see no downside.