Huntington took the job in late in the 2007 season and pretty much began shredding the roster.
* Paulino is starting for Florida and batting .309 (all statistics through Wed.).
Jogging Ronny hated being in Pittsburgh. He wouldn't be batting .309 here because his laziness made starting him impossible. How does one discuss Paulino and not acknowledge this? No amount of skill will make management put up with a lazy player.
* LaRoche has 10 homers and 50 RBIs, tied for fifth in the National League, for Arizona.
LaRoche's average is conspicuously absent because it's around .259. I have always liked Adam LaRoche; he was unfairly criticized in this city. The fact is this: LaRoche is a fantastic impact player for a team with a solid batting order who needs a guy to get hot towards the end of the season. As one of the only power bats in an offensively-weak lineup, however, he is too streaky and struggles too much during the first half of the season. LaRoche is a good player, but he's just not what the Pirates need right now.
* Sanchez is batting .317 for San Francisco.
When he's not on the DL for a recurring shoulder injury.
* Bautista leads MLB with 20 home runs with Toronto.
Yes, trading Bautista for since-released Cruz was not a good move. However, I would argue that Bautista's bat has come as a surprise to just about everyone. Did the Twins expect Garrett Jones to hit 21 home runs at any point in his career ever?
* Bay and Morgan are having disappointing years but starting for the Mets and Washington, respectively.
As of now yes. Morgan is getting benched more and more frequently as a result of ever-decreasing productivity.
* Hinske is batting .314 in a part-time role with the Braves.
* Wilson and McLouth are having disappointing years with Seattle and Atlanta but were starting before going on the disabled list.
This is ridiculous. Wilson has recently stated that he is considering retirement due to a recurring hamstring injury, and Nate McLouth has been hitting under .200 this season. "Disappointing years" really doesn't cover it.
Let it be said that I don't hate Smizik for his hatred of the Pirates franchise. After 17 years, it is more than understandable. I also don't expect him to be non-biased; he is providing commentary, which is expected to be biased. However, I take offense to a deliberate manipulation of certain facts and complete omission of others in an attempt to prove a point.
Is there a way to validly argue that Pirates Management has been unsuccessful? Yes. I won't agree with most of it for my own fact-based reasons, but it can absolutely be done. However, this is classic spin city; an ode to ignorance and nothing more.