So they should stick to a bad decision because they don't have the guts to admit a mistake sooner rather than later? They shouldn't let one start change the conclusion they drew after having 8 weeks of performance to consider. If Miller was their guy out of ST, he's still got to be their guy one week/one start into the season. Why? Give me a good reason. Is there some sort of honor or toughness associated with sticking to a stupid and poorly reasoned decision? You're the one using terms like "stupid" and "poorly reasoned". If Guzman was a better option than Miller today, then he would've been so a week ago too. But he wasn't -- not in the Cubs' eyes anyway. Obviously the Cubs didn't think Guzman was a better option than Miller a week ago, and little has happened in the interim to cause them to rethink that judgement -- Miller had one bad outing, and Guzman has been hit out of the 'pen. The first major flaw in your reasoning here is to assume Guzman would be good if he was just allowed to start. There's no reason to assume that, and in fact Guzman's been pretty godawful in his prior ML starts. The second is to assume that you know better than the Cubs who would be better. Actually it's your reasoning that's flawed here. You don't have to assume that Guzman would be good. Just as effective or better than Miller.