He actually interviewed with the Astros. I'm not sure if a job was offered but he didn't seem that interested. I would hope that people would understand that it is possible to be a traditionalist and criticize other traditionalists and be a new age guy and criticize other new age guys. I'd like to think I'm fairly balanced in my treatment of both GMs. There is a book on political strategy called "cracking the code". The whole book surrounds the concept of "issue framing". In terms of baseball, it would essentially revolve around how a GM frames his decisions. How eloquently (or clumsily) a GM describes their thinking process matters. People who approach the game from an old-school perspective are more likely to gravitate to people that couch things in old school terms. The same is true on the new school end. The issue is that no one is 100 percent one way or the other.

There was a certain amount of cognitive dissonance that occurred in my own brain every time I heard Wade speak. You'd have decisions (like signing Pedro Feliz) that I thought were solid decisions couched in ways that made me cringe. I think Luhnow often has the same problem on the other side. I think most draft decisions (by Wade) have actually panned out. Most of Luhnow's trades have either panned out or been neutral. Both had their goofs but probably did more good than bad (up to this point). The trick for analysts of all stripes is to simply acknowledge that they have prejudices in the way that GMs categorize their moves and then filter that out of their analysis.

I am a senior writer at thefantasyfix.com and a staff writer at bigleaguesmag.com. The Hall of Fame Index is also still for sale and as relevant as ever.