PDA

View Full Version : LaRussa was close to becoming Reds manager



jimbo
10-29-2007, 01:33 PM
Major league sources indicate La Russa had a chance to sign a multiyear deal with the Cincinnati Reds because of his relationship with owner Bob Castellini but would not commit to anything beyond two years.

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2007/10/28/leading_questions_addressed/

Trent just posted this link on his blog. I can't believe Castellini wouldn't give in for the one year less commitment if it meant signing LaRussa.

IMO, LaRussa for 2 years > Baker for 3 years.

mroby85
10-29-2007, 02:48 PM
I wouldve been happy with him, but so far, i'm pretty pleased with Baker.

PickOff
10-29-2007, 04:02 PM
IMO, LaRussa for 2 years > Baker for 3 years.

I agree. I don't understand the vitriol on ORG and the Sundeck in regards to Larussa - unless everyone is channeling Marty here. He has a .534 winning percentage lifetime, and even better than that recently. In his past 22 seasons as manager with the A's and Cards, he has had 6 losing ones.

His teams are always prepared (advance scouting), fundamentally sound, and competitive. I would have welcomed him with open arms - he is one manager I could see making significant positive changes to the Red's on the field and in the clubhouse.

Hopefully, Baker will be a success - and perhaps he can be the one to restore a winning attitude and work ethic to Cincy - but I would have preferred to have Larussa in this role, if the rumor is true.

LincolnLandReds
10-29-2007, 05:26 PM
I think he would need more than 2 years as well. Plus I think LaRussa is starting to wind down. He looks pretty beaten after this year in St. Louis. I was actually surprised that he resigned with the Cardinals in all honesty. I wouldn't have wanted him to come in for just 2 years and then take off again with the Reds starting over. Just not worth it. Plus Dusty looks hungry again, like he has something to prove, so I think he might bring more energy to the table than LaRussa does, which is what I think the Reds needed more of.

GoReds33
10-29-2007, 05:48 PM
LaRussa would have provided the guy that nobody would have questioned. Right now we have our doubts about Baker. If we had signed LaRussa, it would have made everybody happy. He would be greated with a new enthusiasm. Now all we have is a good manager that everybody second guesses, because of his years in Chicago.

Stephenk29
10-29-2007, 06:18 PM
What makes Baker so much better than LaRussa? How can we not guarantee three years to a stud manager like LaRussa but we can to Dusty Baker?

I find this down right ridiculous.

AmarilloRed
10-29-2007, 06:21 PM
The money: LaRussa would have cost much more.

jimbo
10-29-2007, 07:16 PM
How can we not guarantee three years to a stud manager like LaRussa but we can to Dusty Baker?


The Reds were willing to offer LaRussa a 3-year contract, but he didn't want to commit to anything more than 2.

Prf15
10-29-2007, 07:43 PM
While I would like to of had Tony come to Cincy, this shows that management is serious about winning next year.

Dunner44
10-29-2007, 10:08 PM
There still would have been plenty of negative backlash if LaRussa had come here. Between his feud with Harang and his DUI, there are plenty of resaons not to like Tony as well. Not saying he wouldn't have been a better choice, but he would have been met with ire, much like Dusty. Just not as much ire...

Orenda
10-30-2007, 01:36 PM
LaRussa < Pujols