I am not getting into another full-on argument about the Pirates’ trades (my doctor says if I continue ranting about these at my current pace, I’m looking at a heart attack sometime around next Wednesday – and yes, I only have a doctor for the purpose of old timey jokes), but I will make one comment about Bob Smizik’s blog post today, entitled “Huntington trading report card: F”.
Nowhere in the column does he mention the words “free agency” or “years of control”. This makes the entire column irrelevant.
This is a flagrant piece of statistical cherry-picking and conveniently-ignorant journalism designed to further preach to a choir of irate Pirate fans, rather than an attempt to make a rational, legitimate case against Huntington’s executive decisions. It’s irresponsible, manipulative, and offers nothing to the greater discourse of a well-worn topic.
I’ll stop there – I can feel my heart shooting me a dirty look.
UPDATE: A friend of mine couldn’t resist leaving the following lengthy comment on Smizik’s post…
Disgruntled_Aging_PPG_Writer wrote re: Huntington trading report card: F on Fri, Jun 25 2010 3:32 PM
Gonna have to agree with Bob on this one. The nay-sayers, or better yet “yay-sayers” among you front office sympathizers I’m sure would question Bob’s piece.
You’d bring up points like:
-At no time did Bob mention that most of the Pirates who were traded were about to become free agents.
-Then, you’d ramble on about how they’re predominately players who were entering their 30′s and would have needed to be signed to more lucrative long term contracts.
-Then you’d finish off your mundane argument stating that, ‘if we weren’t able to win 70 games with those players in their prime, what would we accomplish by extending them?’
Look, none of those points are valid because they’re stupid. What Bob’s saying, is that it doesn’t matter that Neil Huntington was trying to sell off lemons whose values were decreasing as their contracts were about to expire. What matters is the return… and in return, we didn’t get much beyond Jose Tabata, valid prospects like Bryan Morris, Nathan Adcock, Jeff Locke and serviceable play from pitchers like Karstens / Ohlendorf. And, of course you’d bring up some meaningless stuff about, ‘extended years of contract control’ and ‘upside’.
Look, none of those things are worth getting above an “F” grade; which in case you didn’t know, is the lowest grade you can give. If Huntington traded everyone for Chelsea Clinton and a box of Matchbox Twenty CD’s, he would still warrant the same grade… and that’s a valid opinion.
Wait, what? Did I hear someone just say that no one complained when Bautista was traded and Bob also didn’t mention that he’s currently batting .233? And what’s that? You’re moaning about the fact that Bob had the nerve to even bring up Ronny Paulino’s name?
You know what, you don’t know anything, okay? You haven’t been around as long as we have, and you’re clearly not in touch with the way baseball is currently being run or with technology or with ipods.
Tags: Neal Huntington