Why did it have to? Other teams don't operate like that. The Braves moves in 2004 haven't impacted their ability to play well in 2005. You may think that passes for good front-office work. I'm telling you it doesn't. And I'm right, because the result is teams like the Braves win every year and we don't. Of course I agree putting the team in contention was a good choice. However, sacrificing the future for a season isn't what perennially successful clubs do. They win every season. That's what I like about you Vance. You pull up all the details. I'm not as concerned about details as I am about being a successful franchise year in and year out. And that isn't happening. I'm concerned about results. If I don't see them, then blame must be assigned. Everyone else feels the same way: that's why the Dusty bashing on this board never ceases, myself included. Hendry deserves some of that blame as well. Why did he have to "mortgage the future" for 2004 when other successful franchises, even on less money, don't have to do that? We have the largest payroll/budget in the NL, vance. If we can't win with that, then using the excuse that the "money wasn't there" is ridiculous. Even so, I certainly wouldn't have forgiven 2005 bad play just because we made the World Series in 2004. Only because he made it that way. The only thing that's ridiculous is making excuses for a failure. And yet, year after year, others make moves in each offseason, develop players each offseason, put together teams each offseason, and win each and every season. Yet we cannot. For your point to have validity, the moves that teams like the A's, Braves, Cardinals, and others would have to have a bad effect on future years. Yet it doesn't.