You know, it would probably be better if I would think of everything when I'm originally discussing something, rather than having something pop in my head a week later.
But anyway, to follow up on my post de-bunking the theory that Eaton "proved" he was better than Young last year because of his performance before he got hurt (since Young out-pitched him over that same stretch)...
The other argument those who support the trade make is that Young goes too deep into counts, throws too many pitches each inning, and thus puts more of a strain on the bullpen than Eaton would.
In 2005, Chris Young averaged 17.4 pitches per inning.
In 2005, Adam Eaton averaged...17.4 pitches per inning.
Both of them were on the very high end of the scale, of course. But regardless, Eaton doesn't seem any more likely to work deep in games than Young does.
And before I start getting ripped for being a management-hater, let me reiterate...I really, really liked almost every move Jon Daniels made this offseason. I think he's done a tremendous job. I'm excited about the coming season.
But the San Diego trade simply doesn't make sense to me. And the more I look at it, the more I compare the purported reasons for the deal to reality, the more it doesn't make sense.