"We have two guys we can count on right now," Tracy said, referring to Ian Snell and Tom Gorzelanny. "That's why you have to go with that veteran, to try stabilize things."
"So, see, we had to take Armas, a veteran, out of the rotation because he was terrible. In fact, we've only gotten good performance from two relatively inexperienced starters. So, to get stability in the rotation, we need to add another veteran, one whose ERA as a starter last year was 6.06."
Assuming we can take Tracy's published statements at face value - and I'm going to go ahead and assume that, since I've seen little evidence that he's more intelligent than a well-trained German Shepherd - that's extremely stupid. The performance of Starter A has nothing to do with Starter B's age. Of course, if you have a couple of starters who've been unreliable, a "stabilizing" presence would help, but why would you choose the guy who was far worse than Armas last year as the stabilizing guy? What makes the guy with the 6.06 ERA a more stable option than someone who's performing well at AAA?
I know: "veteran" = "stability"! Veteran stable, rookie wobble! Woof woof woof!
Very good, Tracy. Arentyouagoodboy! Now come get your treat.