if that's what you want to believe, fine. we've had this argument before, and i don't know what else to tell you. he was good in 2004...there, i admitted it. you can tell yourself that he was good for most of 2005 all you want, but a 4.50 era and (especially) a 1.57 whip say otherwise. like i said, i don't know what else to say. glendon rusch was terrible in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, and 2006. his career era is a shade under 5, and his career whip is 1.46. if you can look into those numbers and find hope that he's going to be worth the 4 mil he has left on his contract, knock yourself out.