Haven't we had this conversation before? Whatever career the player in question has is of little relavence to what happens at a given point in time. I'll see if I can simplify it. Player A is a vet who sucks but has had a decent carreer but he will likely not get better Player B is a rookie who is better than than player A right now but still not real good, but has the potential of getting better. What do you do? If you are smart you play player B. This isn't a matter of competition of careers, it is a matter of who is the better player at the time and who will likely be a better player going forward. allow me to preface by saying that I think Dusty prefers vets over younger players. however, I think it is quite overblown. when time after time it turns out Dusty was right, ie. the younger player doesn't develop into anything, don't you think he may be on to something? I wanted to see Choi get the PT, but Karros and Simon did well. I wanted to see Bobby Hill be the starter, but Grudz had a great year. I wanted to see more of DuBois, but he's back down in AAA, and Hollandworth again is getting his PT. none of these guys amounted or will amount to much. so when does it get to the point where some of us are willing to admit our expectations might have been wrong, and Dusty was right that the young player would not be an asset to the team? if you are smart, you play the player that gives you the best chance to win, and nobody is able to point to an example of when Dusty was wrong in choosing a vet over a young player, with the exception of Perez over Cedeno last year. in other words, your assumption of "Player B is a rookie who is better than than player A right now" is just that, an assumption. if you want to decide who the better player was at a given time, you can stick with your opinion no matter how false it turned out to be, or you can look at how the players actually performed. What are you talking about? That was a hypothetical. Hollandsworth over Dubois and Grudz over Hill are but two examples. And again it does not matter that Hollandsworth or Grudz might have better careers than Dubios or Hill. What matters is that at the time of the decision, playing the vet over the rookie was made even though the numbers for the vet were putrid.