Trey Hillman: Visionary
Each game has seen the Royals' bullpen, whose ineptitude I detailed just a day ago, collectively snatch defeat from the grips of victory.
Each game has seen Trey Hillman stubbornly refuse to put a well-rested Joakim Soria in to take care of a few hitters in the eighth.
This, of course, is the same Joakim Soria who has not pitched since July 12.
The same Joakim Soria who was the Royals lone All-Star representative last season.
The same Joakim Soria who is the only Royals reliever this season with an ERA below 4.24.
The same Joakim Soria who has struck out 20 in 15.1 innings of work since coming off the DL.
The same Joakim Soria who has allowed five earned runs all season.
But Trey Hillman refused for three straight games to turn the ball over to the only competent reliever the Royals have on staff, favoring a game of Russian roulette with the Royals' reliever corps.
Or maybe there should be an 'e' added to the end of 'corps'.
After the game, Royals fans (or perhaps at this point it would be more appropriate to pare that word down to its singular form) were greeted by this article on the Kansas City Star's website. In that article, it was stated that not only would Royals fans be driven away in droves by Trey Hillman's inept bullpen management this year, but that he would be back for another year of alienating and abusing the fan base in 2010.
There was a time not too long ago that Royals fans possessed hope for this current regime.
This parasitic relationship in which a vampiric front office feeds on the hopes and dreams of the fan base has taken a turn for the worse, as promises of being brought over to the realm of sports fans who have enjoyed the fruits of their teams' successes have been exposed as being outright lies.
Now all that the remaining masochists have is a floundering team that can't hold the few leads it gets because its manager (who "has the chance to be one of the very best baseball men in a generation," according to this article that only further damns the current administration's vision) is averse to using even a shred of common sense.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?