This is more a criticism of scattershot Angels criticisms and not a pointed attack on Bud Black
In one of the diaries someone asked "Bud Black is going to be a big loss, I'm sure; what has Mike Butcher done in the minors?" in lamenting the upcoming seaosn without Bud Black as Angels pitching coach.
This leads me to ask, "What did Bud Black REALLY do?"
Was he integral to turning the franchise around or did he just happen to punch the clock at the right hour?
Did he turn around anyone's career?
Does he get any blame for Bartolo's injuries or lackluster 2004 first half?
Ramon Ortiz sure seemed to fizzle out pretty quick and Aaron Sele was great untill he was under Bud's tutelage.
Schoeneweiss never lived up to the hype. Washburn was as good as he was ever going to be before Black took the reins and Kevin Appier was a .500 pitcher at best for us - the 2002 staff was not a world beater, as the bullpen (assembled mostly with pre-Black acquisitions) did the job.
Patt Rapp, Kent Bottenfield, Ismael Valdes, Dennis Cook ... you know that pitching coaches have some input on pitching acquisitions.
How about Alexi Casilla for Jason Bulger?
Why does Stoneman bear the brunt of releasing Derrick Turnbow and Bobby Jenks?
Think he called Bud Black to see what to do?
Troy Percival is regarded as having kept order in the bullpen ... did he need to step up for a reason?
How about that trade of Schoeneweiss for Gary Glover and Scott Dunn?
Acquiring Escobar and Colon were no brainers - in fact, Arte Moreno should get most of the credit there.
I could go on ... the point being that as popular as Bud Black is/was, there are many things we might be overlooking as we stare toward San Diego thru rose-colored nostalgia ... if there are things to criticize as one analyzes the team, looking at an unknown quantity (i.e, Mike Butcher) as a negative ... this just strikes me as a bit premature...