PDA

View Full Version : Dusty Baker Offered An Extension



RedLegSuperStar
08-18-2010, 07:53 PM
per Fay via Twitter:

johnfayman

#Reds have offered Dusty Baker an extension, he said. He's weighing the offer.

Reds4Life
08-18-2010, 07:57 PM
Too early, IMO. I probably would have waited until if the offseason.

nemesis
08-18-2010, 08:00 PM
It might create more comfort in the Clubhouse. For that reason I am all for it. A new manager could mean a new hitting coach, new bench coach and new 1st and 3rd base coaches. Everyone gone but Price. The disruption could do alot of damage in the clubhouse then rollover onto the field. I am for this. 6 months ago not so much.

Brutus
08-18-2010, 08:03 PM
Too early, IMO. I probably would have waited until if the offseason.

Why? At this point, I think he's done enough that we don't need to see anymore to make our conclusions what he is.

The Reds are in the race and clearly he gets a lot out of them. If it comes down to simply whether or not they make the playoffs, I just don't see the point in letting that determine if he gets an extension.

I am not crazy about Baker. Never have been. But to the extent managers should get credit or blame, he clearly has a very close-knit clubhouse and they respect the heck out of him. For me that counts for something even if I don't care for his philosophy.

RFS62
08-18-2010, 08:14 PM
Well deserved.

RedLegSuperStar
08-18-2010, 08:21 PM
MLBTradeRumors.com

RedsManRick
08-18-2010, 08:23 PM
I think my position on Dusty is well known. However, I can't say that there are other managers floating around that I could comfortably say I'd prefer.

I just don't understand why managers get punished/rewarded so clearly based on the talent they are given. Dusty's not a better manager than he was in 2008, he just got dealt a much better hand. I'd like to know more about what he's done particularly well that makes him a manager worth retaining.

I fully appreciate that the ability to motivate players is an important skill and that Dusty is good at it. But when he so clearly struggles elsewhere, I'd certainly like to explore options. And as others have said, at minimum I would have liked to see how the next 6 weeks play out, particularly given his mismanagement of the Cubs' pitching staff during their last playoff push under his watch.

MrCinatit
08-18-2010, 08:26 PM
Honestly, I'd like to see a little stability in the manager's office, so I like this. I don't want the club to go crazy - a couple of years would be nice. But, to be honest, he has not proven to be the horrible manager many predicted.

redsfan30
08-18-2010, 08:31 PM
Very much deserved as far as I'm concerned. The team loves him and they play well for him. That's what you want in a manager.

I hope he accepts.

KoryMac5
08-18-2010, 08:32 PM
Usually when your weighing an offer it's because you feel the offer is a little light. Can't see the Reds going much above what they paid for him last contract.

Chip R
08-18-2010, 08:35 PM
Remember the last guy who took time to weigh an offer?

savafan
08-18-2010, 08:37 PM
Remember the last guy who took time to weigh an offer?

Was that Oester?

lollipopcurve
08-18-2010, 08:38 PM
In other words, manage for this year and beyond.

Makes a lot of sense.

Chip R
08-18-2010, 08:39 PM
Was that Oester?

Yep.

Edd Roush
08-18-2010, 08:41 PM
Usually when your weighing an offer it's because you feel the offer is a little light. Can't see the Reds going much above what they paid for him last contract.

Really? I didn't interpret it as that at all. It is more like one of those I want to sleep on the details kind of things. At least that's how I took it.

If you would have told me before the year that the Reds would re-up Dusty Baker during the year, I would have hated it. Right now, it is really hard to hate this move. Dusty is getting the players motivated every night and I think he is much better at the baseball tactics now (line-up, rotation, bullpen management).

toledodan
08-18-2010, 08:50 PM
Why? At this point, I think he's done enough that we don't need to see anymore to make our conclusions what he is.

The Reds are in the race and clearly he gets a lot out of them. If it comes down to simply whether or not they make the playoffs, I just don't see the point in letting that determine if he gets an extension.

I am not crazy about Baker. Never have been. But to the extent managers should get credit or blame, he clearly has a very close-knit clubhouse and they respect the heck out of him. For me that counts for something even if I don't care for his philosophy.



ditto

edabbs44
08-18-2010, 08:54 PM
I'm down with it as long as it is on the organization's terms and not Dusty's.

kbrake
08-18-2010, 09:01 PM
Good for Dusty he earned it.

HokieRed
08-18-2010, 09:10 PM
Hope the report is true and hope he takes it. He deserves it.

fearofpopvol1
08-18-2010, 09:20 PM
A little premature in my opinion. If he makes the playoffs, I would have offered him one. If not, I would not have.

And my reasoning is because while the talent on the field is going to be the primary reason the reds do or don't get into the playoffs, a few bad decisions made by Baker could be the difference maker in a close race. I'd like to see how things play out.

Brutus
08-18-2010, 09:22 PM
A little premature in my opinion. If he makes the playoffs, I would have offered him one. If not, I would not have.

And my reasoning is because while the talent on the field is going to be the primary reason the reds do or don't get into the playoffs, a few bad decisions made by Baker could be the difference maker in a close race. I'd like to see how things play out.

So one or two decisions in hindsight would affect whether or not to give the man an extension? Doesn't that seem like putting too much emphasis on minor details?

fearofpopvol1
08-18-2010, 09:29 PM
So one or two decisions in hindsight would affect whether or not to give the man an extension? Doesn't that seem like putting too much emphasis on minor details?

If it's the difference in the Reds making the playoffs or not, would that be considered minor?

Caveat Emperor
08-18-2010, 09:32 PM
If it's the difference in the Reds making the playoffs or not, would that be considered minor?

But that line of thought ignores all the decisions that put them in the position to be in the postseason to begin with.

Brutus
08-18-2010, 09:35 PM
If it's the difference in the Reds making the playoffs or not, would that be considered minor?

Because it disproportionately puts more emphasis on the manager than the players, that most likely, are at even greater fault for missing the playoffs.

It's a season of 162 games. To not give an extension because of a few perceived bad managerial moves in a few games down the stretch while overlooking the fact that the managerial moves over the course of 120-130 games may have got them in that position to begin with kind of defeats the purpose of handing out extensions.

That kind of supports the, "players get the credit, manager gets the blame," aspect doesn't it?

If they get to the playofffs, it's got to be the talent and the manager didn't ruin it. If they don't get to the playoffs, it's because the manager made mistakes.

That's kind of the message being sent with that philosophy.

fearofpopvol1
08-18-2010, 09:36 PM
But that line of thought ignores all the decisions that put them in the position to be in the postseason to begin with.

No, it most certainly doesn't. Poor decisions late in the season that lead to the Reds not making the playoffs focuses on the most important part of all--the Reds (not) making the playoffs.

fearofpopvol1
08-18-2010, 09:38 PM
Because it disproportionately puts more emphasis on the manager than the players, that most likely, are at even greater fault for missing the playoffs.

It's a season of 162 games. To not give an extension because of a few perceived bad managerial moves in a few games down the stretch while overlooking the fact that the managerial moves over the course of 120-130 games may have got them in that position to begin with kind of defeats the purpose of handing out extensions.

That kind of supports the, "players get the credit, manager gets the blame," aspect doesn't it?

If they get to the playofffs, it's got to be the talent and the manager didn't ruin it. If they don't get to the playoffs, it's because the manager made mistakes.

That's kind of the message being sent with that philosophy.

What if Baker starts pitching Cueto 130 pitches for the rest of his outings...and Cueto either injures himself or is gassed and totally implodes? Do I need to bring up the Prior (and Wood) pitch counts during his tenure in Chicago?

Brutus
08-18-2010, 09:43 PM
What if Baker starts pitching Cueto 130 pitches for the rest of his outings...and Cueto either injures himself or is gassed and totally implodes? Do I need to bring up the Prior (and Wood) pitch counts during his tenure in Chicago?

Wood & Prior had their problems because of other complimentary medical reasons. I'm sure if one reads up on the affects certain things can have on one's body, they will see that more than likely Baker's "usage" of them was nothing more than a red herring.

Further, I think pitch counts have yet to be proven to be worth anything scientifically. I've yet to see a credible study that links pitch counts with risk. So using that as grounds for Baker's extension is meaningless for me. But assuming you're justing throwing out an example, even so, I think you're just looking for a reason not to give him an extension if we're trying to wait for possible 'decisions' that could go wrong down the stretch.

To me... the Reds' front office has given him a solid nucleus and he has done the best one could expect him to do with it. He's done his job and done it well, and thereby, he deserves and extension. As the expectations grow and the talent base grows, his own performance expectation should also grow. But let's give the man the credit he deserves for this point in time. Reward him and let's not wait just so we can look for reasons to not give it to him.

RedLegSuperStar
08-18-2010, 09:43 PM
My guess it won't be announced on the road.. They will wait till the team returns to make it official but Dusty will be back. Just my opinion.

traderumor
08-18-2010, 09:46 PM
What if Baker starts pitching Cueto 130 pitches for the rest of his outings...and Cueto either injures himself or is gassed and totally implodes? Do I need to bring up the Prior (and Wood) pitch counts during his tenure in Chicago?Seriously?

fearofpopvol1
08-18-2010, 09:49 PM
Wood & Prior had their problems because of other complimentary medical reasons. I'm sure if one reads up on the affects certain things can have on one's body, they will see that more than likely Baker's "usage" of them was nothing more than a red herring.

Further, I think pitch counts have yet to be proven to be worth anything scientifically. I've yet to see a credible study that links pitch counts with risk. So using that as grounds for Baker's extension is meaningless for me. But assuming you're justing throwing out an example, even so, I think you're just looking for a reason not to give him an extension if we're trying to wait for possible 'decisions' that could go wrong down the stretch.

To me... the Reds' front office has given him a solid nucleus and he has done the best one could expect him to do with it. He's done his job and done it well, and thereby, he deserves and extension. As the expectations grow and the talent base grows, his own performance expectation should also grow. But let's give the man the credit he deserves for this point in time. Reward him and let's not wait just so we can look for reasons to not give it to him.

The impact of pitch counts can't be proven for OR against, so I don't really see how your argument is any more valid than mine.

At a minimum, it can be assumed that extremely high pitch counts for a young pitcher wasn't a "good" idea, especially during high stress innings.

I never said Dusty doesn't deserve credit nor should he "not" be given an extension. I am saying, if I were in charge, I would have waited until the end of the season to see how things have played out.

fearofpopvol1
08-18-2010, 09:50 PM
Seriously?

Very serious.

Hoosier Red
08-18-2010, 10:00 PM
What if Baker starts pitching Cueto 130 pitches for the rest of his outings...and Cueto either injures himself or is gassed and totally implodes? Do I need to bring up the Prior (and Wood) pitch counts during his tenure in Chicago?

The ones that were higher under the previous manager?

Hoosier Red
08-18-2010, 10:03 PM
My guess it won't be announced on the road.. They will wait till the team returns to make it official but Dusty will be back. Just my opinion.

Against the Cubs. THat's when you announce it.
"Oh good luck Cubbies with your new manager search. No I'm sure bringing in a first time major league manager for some on the job training will just go swimmingly with the patient fans at Wrigley, by the way thanks for firing Dusty. He's been swell for us."

oneupper
08-18-2010, 10:03 PM
I'd rather spend the money on better players.

Cicero
08-18-2010, 10:03 PM
Before the season I would have been against the idea but consider me a Dusty convert.

fearofpopvol1
08-18-2010, 10:04 PM
The ones that were higher under the previous manager?

Two wrongs make a right?

Brutus
08-18-2010, 10:04 PM
The impact of pitch counts can't be proven for OR against, so I don't really see how your argument is any more valid than mine.

At a minimum, it can be assumed that extremely high pitch counts for a young pitcher wasn't a "good" idea, especially during high stress innings.

I never said Dusty doesn't deserve credit nor should he "not" be given an extension. I am saying, if I were in charge, I would have waited until the end of the season to see how things have played out.

You were the one correlating high pitch counts to Wood's and Prior's injuries despite admitting there's absolutely no proof they even played a part. So what does that have to do with judging Dusty Baker as a manager?

By waiting until the end of the season, you're essentially looking for specific reasons not to give it to him. We're through 120 games now. We know Dusty Baker has the Reds' in position to likely go down to the wire. To judge him at the end based on a few games or decisions would be completely unfair, especially for an organization that needed to crawl before they could walk.

guttle11
08-18-2010, 10:05 PM
At the end of the day, for better or worse, whether a segment of the fanbase likes him or not, Dusty is succeeding with the Reds. That's all that matters.

Good for Dusty if and when he signs on for a few more years. I'm up for a few more years of eye rolling decisions if the club keeps winning.

Hoosier Red
08-18-2010, 10:07 PM
Two wrongs make a right?

I think it goes to show that high pitch counts was not a Dusty thing. It was an organizational thing. Trying to make the world series with two horse arms and no bullpen will do that. What makes you think that Dusty's just been biding his time until he got a new contract to burn up a pitcher's arm?
I'm trying to remember the last time I even thought about a starting pitcher's pitch count with Dusty managing.

fearofpopvol1
08-18-2010, 10:08 PM
You were the one correlating high pitch counts to Wood's and Prior's injuries despite admitting there's absolutely no proof they even played a part. So what does that have to do with judging Dusty Baker as a manager?

I do believe they played a part in their injuries. Can you prove that they didn't? As I said before, at a minimum, high pitch counts late in the season for young pitchers (especially in some unnecessary circumstances) wasn't the best idea.


By waiting until the end of the season, you're essentially looking for specific reasons not to give it to him. We're through 120 games now. We know Dusty Baker has the Reds' in position to likely go down to the wire. To judge him at the end based on a few games or decisions would be completely unfair, especially for an organization that needed to crawl before they could walk.

You're making false assumptions. I simply believe that the ENTIRE body of work should be looked at before making a decision on Baker. You see it differently.

fearofpopvol1
08-18-2010, 10:11 PM
I think it goes to show that high pitch counts was not a Dusty thing. It was an organizational thing. Trying to make the world series with two horse arms and no bullpen will do that. What makes you think that Dusty's just been biding his time until he got a new contract to burn up a pitcher's arm?
I'm trying to remember the last time I even thought about a starting pitcher's pitch count with Dusty managing.

Difficult to prove that. There were many instances where Dusty made the call to leave the pitchers in with big leads or in situations where it was unnecessary.

I do not believe Dusty has ever did anything to purposely damage a pitcher. I just believe that at times, Dusty runs unnecessary risks with young pitchers and pitch counts. I see nothing wrong with being more careful than not.

edabbs44
08-18-2010, 10:12 PM
I do believe they played a part in their injuries. Can you prove that they didn't? As I said before, at a minimum, high pitch counts late in the season for young pitchers (especially in some unnecessary circumstances) wasn't the best idea.



You're making false assumptions. I simply believe that the ENTIRE body of work should be looked at before making a decision on Baker. You see it differently.

What if Cincy loses in Game 7 of the NLCS and then, when Walt comes a knocking with a contract, Dusty shows him where to stick it?

Sometimes you know what you want before the entire body of work is completed.

Brutus
08-18-2010, 10:18 PM
I do believe they played a part in their injuries. Can you prove that they didn't? As I said before, at a minimum, high pitch counts late in the season for young pitchers (especially in some unnecessary circumstances) wasn't the best idea.


How about this... Dusty Baker is the reason Barry Bonds hit so well. Can you prove that he wasn't (the reason)?

I'm not out to prove or disprove anything. But I'm certainly not going to start bringing in factors to judge a manager on that have absolutely no scientific basis for relativity. Pitch counts have absolutely nothing to do with Dusty's job as a manager. Unless there is some understood dynamic as to cause and effect, it doesn't belong in the discussion.

Let's leave the blame on injuries to nature, medical science and pharmaceuticals and out of managerial discussions until we have something a little better to go on.

fearofpopvol1
08-18-2010, 10:19 PM
What if Cincy loses in Game 7 of the NLCS and then, when Walt comes a knocking with a contract, Dusty shows him where to stick it?

Sometimes you know what you want before the entire body of work is completed.

I would give him an extension if he gets the Reds to the playoffs. I see no reason to rush to give him one before it. He should earn it.

Edd Roush
08-18-2010, 10:19 PM
How about this... Dusty Baker is the reason Barry Bonds hit so well. Can you prove that he wasn't (the reason)?

I'm not out to prove or disprove anything. But I'm certainly not going to start bringing in factors to judge a manager on that have absolutely no scientific basis for relativity. Pitch counts have absolutely nothing to do with Dusty's job as a manager. Unless there is some understood dynamic as to cause and effect, it doesn't belong in the discussion.

Let's leave the blame on injuries to nature, medical science and pharmaceuticals and out of managerial discussions until we have something a little better to go on.

Agreed. Sometimes it is hard to distinguish causation from correlation.

edabbs44
08-18-2010, 10:20 PM
I would give him an extension if he gets the Reds to the playoffs. I see no reason to rush to give him one before it. He should earn it.

Many would say that he already has.

Hoosier Red
08-18-2010, 10:20 PM
Difficult to prove that. There were many instances where Dusty made the call to leave the pitchers in with big leads or in situations where it was unnecessary.

I do not believe Dusty has ever did anything to purposely damage a pitcher. I just believe that at times, Dusty runs unnecessary risks with young pitchers and pitch counts. I see nothing wrong with being more careful than not.

Sorry I'm not going to argue over something that happened 7 years ago in a completely different situation. Judged on what he's done with the Reds pitchers, especially this year, there is very little concern that he will burn out the young arms.

Judged on what he's done to this point, he deserves an extension.
There is very little he could do in the next month + that would convince me that he shouldn't get an extension.

fearofpopvol1
08-18-2010, 10:21 PM
I'm not out to prove or disprove anything. But I'm certainly not going to start bringing in factors to judge a manager on that have absolutely no scientific basis for relativity. Pitch counts have absolutely nothing to do with Dusty's job as a manager. Unless there is some understood dynamic as to cause and effect, it doesn't belong in the discussion.

You don't have to bring in factors to judge him. You have your opinion, I have mine. I choose to judge him based on factors you don't.


Let's leave the blame on injuries to nature, medical science and pharmaceuticals and out of managerial discussions until we have something a little better to go on.

There have been quite a few studies done that would suggest that high pitch counts for young pitchers is a bad idea.

fearofpopvol1
08-18-2010, 10:22 PM
Sorry I'm not going to argue over something that happened 7 years ago in a completely different situation. Judged on what he's done with the Reds pitchers, especially this year, there is very little concern that he will burn out the young arms.

Judged on what he's done to this point, he deserves an extension.
There is very little he could do in the next month + that would convince me that he shouldn't get an extension.

The past often predicts the future. Hopefully it won't here, but that is why I would prefer to wait on the extension. But that's my opinion as you have yours.

Brutus
08-18-2010, 10:32 PM
You don't have to bring in factors to judge him. You have your opinion, I have mine. I choose to judge him based on factors you don't.



There have been quite a few studies done that would suggest that high pitch counts for young pitchers is a bad idea.

The factors you are judging him are about anatomy and medical science. That's not managing that's playing God.

Where are these studies you speak of? Are you referring to Tom Verducci's absolutely non-scientific, and extremely subjective study on innings pitched increase?

There have been lots of studies. And none have come anywhere near the level of being scientifically significant. Like Edd Roush said... we have absolutely no idea of correlation or causation. At best, we thinkthat a signficant increase in pitch counts could increase injury risk.

But since each and every single person is completely, totally built differently and can handle different stress on their joints/tendons, even then pitch counts are absolutely, positively subjective and have no basis for how they operate or even if there's grounds for picking a number -- other than randomly assigning 100 pitches or more as this magical starting point.

I truly believe, before you jump on the pitch count bandwagon, you consider the period of baseball we've been watching the last several years -- right at the same time as PED usage. And with that in mind, do some reading on the medical studies that have already concluded many steroids or other PEDs lead to an increase in joint, tissue and bone tears, ruptures and fractures. We do know that our bodies are not able to handle the unnatural growth and it causes a significant increase in injuries.

But that deviates from the important point: either way, I can't believe injuries should be coming into play with regard to Dusty's extension.

Edd Roush
08-18-2010, 10:38 PM
The factors you are judging him are about anatomy and medical science. That's not managing that's playing God.

Where are these studies you speak of? Are you referring to Tom Verducci's absolutely non-scientific, and extremely subjective study on innings pitched increase?

There have been lots of studies. And none have come anywhere near the level of being scientifically significant. Like Edd Roush said... we have absolutely no idea of correlation or causation. At best, we thinkthat a signficant increase in pitch counts could increase injury risk.

But since each and every single person is completely, totally built differently and can handle different stress on their joints/tendons, even then pitch counts are absolutely, positively subjective and have no basis for how they operate or even if there's grounds for picking a number -- other than randomly assigning 100 pitches or more as this magical starting point.

I truly believe, before you jump on the pitch count bandwagon, you consider the period of baseball we've been watching the last several years -- right at the same time as PED usage. And with that in mind, do some reading on the medical studies that have already concluded many steroids or other PEDs lead to an increase in joint, tissue and bone tears, ruptures and fractures. We do know that our bodies are not able to handle the unnatural growth and it causes a significant increase in injuries.

But that deviates from the important point: either way, I can't believe injuries should be coming into play with regard to Dusty's extension.

Great post.

pedro
08-18-2010, 10:40 PM
I like Dusty and am glad he's the Reds manager. I hope he's around a while.

15fan
08-18-2010, 10:52 PM
Anyone who will get into a dustup on the field with LaRussa is someone I want in my clubhouse.

Wheelhouse
08-19-2010, 12:00 AM
I think my position on Dusty is well known. However, I can't say that there are other managers floating around that I could comfortably say I'd prefer.
Torre?

fearofpopvol1
08-19-2010, 12:09 AM
The factors you are judging him are about anatomy and medical science. That's not managing that's playing God.

Where are these studies you speak of? Are you referring to Tom Verducci's absolutely non-scientific, and extremely subjective study on innings pitched increase?

There have been lots of studies. And none have come anywhere near the level of being scientifically significant. Like Edd Roush said... we have absolutely no idea of correlation or causation. At best, we thinkthat a signficant increase in pitch counts could increase injury risk.

But since each and every single person is completely, totally built differently and can handle different stress on their joints/tendons, even then pitch counts are absolutely, positively subjective and have no basis for how they operate or even if there's grounds for picking a number -- other than randomly assigning 100 pitches or more as this magical starting point.

I truly believe, before you jump on the pitch count bandwagon, you consider the period of baseball we've been watching the last several years -- right at the same time as PED usage. And with that in mind, do some reading on the medical studies that have already concluded many steroids or other PEDs lead to an increase in joint, tissue and bone tears, ruptures and fractures. We do know that our bodies are not able to handle the unnatural growth and it causes a significant increase in injuries.

But that deviates from the important point: either way, I can't believe injuries should be coming into play with regard to Dusty's extension.

Between the "Verducci Effect" and BP's "Injury Nexus," there is plenty of reason to believe that being cautious as opposed to reckless with regard to young pitchers is the smarter strategy.

And again, you're flying off the deep end and missing my larger point. I say wait to the end of the season before giving the extension.

You don't agree with my methodology and I don't agree with yours.

KronoRed
08-19-2010, 12:14 AM
May as well sign him, if the Reds tank in the playoffs and lose 90 in a few years he can always be fired.

Like the Cubs did ;)

RFS62
08-19-2010, 12:18 AM
I'm just wondering what Dusty has to do to please some of us around here.

Chip R
08-19-2010, 12:59 AM
I'm just wondering what Dusty has to do to please some of us around here.

YouTube - No right to drink and drive (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGjN4i_Ruvc)

Kc61
08-19-2010, 01:59 AM
Dusty gaining negotiating leverage every night.

CTA513
08-19-2010, 02:03 AM
If they want him back then its better to try and sign him now instead of waiting until the offseason.

oregonred
08-19-2010, 02:15 AM
Dusty would be insane not to sign an extension with the way this franchise is setup and stacked for the next 3-4 years.

VR
08-19-2010, 02:25 AM
"Culture eats strategy for lunch"

I think it's a great move. Obvious, but great.

WVRedsFan
08-19-2010, 02:26 AM
I'm not a Dusty supporter, nor am I a retractor, but the record speaks for itself. Offer him and be glad of it. Like RFS62 says what does he have to do? Being 18 games over, he deserves it. Sign that contract, Dusty.

OnBaseMachine
08-19-2010, 02:32 AM
Bob Nightengale likes Dusty:

#mlb #reds The Reds, no surprise at all, are a direct reflection of Dusty Baker, proving again that he's one of the best managers in the biz

http://twitter.com/BNightengale

reds44
08-19-2010, 02:33 AM
Check out how Dusty managed the game today from the time he removed Volquez on.

It was a thing of beauty to watch.

oregonred
08-19-2010, 02:42 AM
Check out how Dusty managed the game today from the time he removed Volquez on.

It was a thing of beauty to watch.

He sent a clear message pulling Gomes on the double switch in the bottom of the 5th.

BearcatShane
08-19-2010, 05:13 AM
Remember when the Reds hired Dusty? There was a decent Rezoners that were outraged. He's done a great job.

remdog
08-19-2010, 05:57 AM
Dusty is a classic example of being in the right place at the right time. (Or, for his supporters, the wrong place at the wrong time prior to this year).

Personally, I didn't feel good about his hiring and I still don't. Until Walt got here and reined in Dusty's proclivities to drag in over-the-hill vets (or 'never were vets') DB was a train wreck in that area. Now, Walt has taken that away from him. Plus 1 for the Reds hiring Walt. No credit to Dusty.

As far as his mangerial abilities go I do credit him with gaining the loyalty of his players. I do think he does a good job there. Yet his decisions on the field leave much to be desired and they've been continually broken down and discussed on this board over the past three years. The fact that he has been delt a much better hand in terms of roster this year just means that he is the lucky winner of someone else's hard work in drafting, trading, coaching in the minors and players coming of age.

Once again, personally, I would not have offered Baker an extention at this point. I want to see how the season plays out. Then, I want to evaluate how he relates to what the team will deal with and what they want to accomplish next year. And, last of all, I would not offer Baker more than a one year extention. Walt Alston worked with it---that's good enough for me---and with the rise in potential of this team Baker would be ill advised to hold out for more.

Rem

GAC
08-19-2010, 06:01 AM
The dude is solidly in the running for NL Manager of the Year. How can he not be extended?

Mario-Rijo
08-19-2010, 06:23 AM
Dusty is a classic example of being in the right place at the right time. (Or, for his supporters, the wrong place at the wrong time prior to this year).

Personally, I didn't feel good about his hiring and I still don't. Until Walt got here and reined in Dusty's proclivities to drag in over-the-hill vets (or 'never were vets') DB was a train wreck in that area. Now, Walt has taken that away from him. Plus 1 for the Reds hiring Walt. No credit to Dusty.

As far as his mangerial abilities go I do credit him with gaining the loyalty of his players. I do think he does a good job there. Yet his decisions on the field leave much to be desired and they've been continually broken down and discussed on this board over the past three years. The fact that he has been delt a much better hand in terms of roster this year just means that he is the lucky winner of someone else's hard work in drafting, trading, coaching in the minors and players coming of age.

Once again, personally, I would not have offered Baker an extention at this point. I want to see how the season plays out. Then, I want to evaluate how he relates to what the team will deal with and what they want to accomplish next year. And, last of all, I would not offer Baker more than a one year extention. Walt Alston worked with it---that's good enough for me---and with the rise in potential of this team Baker would be ill advised to hold out for more.

Rem

Yeah, this.:thumbup:

remdog
08-19-2010, 06:30 AM
The dude is solidly in the running for NL Manager of the Year. How can he not be extended?

How? How not if the higher ups think that there are better choices and bigger demands? Being named MOTY for 2010 doesn't mean that you are the correct person to lead the team in 2011.

Since Walt arrived we've seen players that many here thought were solid jettisoned for better choices. We've seen the Reds make moves monetarily that were beyond comprehension at the time Dusty was hired. Conditions have changed in the last three years and organizations often make management choices based upon shifting landscapes. Someone that was hired to sheppard an organization to a particular point may sometimes be judged to to have reached their zenith and, for the organization to take the next step up, someone else needs to be brought in that recognizes what that next level is and how to manage it.

Sometimes management makes decisions that, while someone may have done a good job, it's necessary to make a change in a position in order to make the next step up. It's done quite often in business---and, make no mistake, the Reds are a business. Businesses that evaluate that successfully are the ones that stay at the top of the heap.

Rem

edabbs44
08-19-2010, 08:38 AM
Torre?

blah

edabbs44
08-19-2010, 08:42 AM
At this stage, how can anyone question this move if this is what the FO believes is best for this team. There is a lot more to managing than what we can see and I'd bet that Jocketty knows when there is a good fit with a manager and a team. Why fix what isn't broken?

As I said before, if the contract is on Cincy's terms then I have no issue. If he wants something excessive, it wouldn't kill me if he walked.

cumberlandreds
08-19-2010, 08:57 AM
If the Reds didn't offer Dusty and extension they should have got the boob of the year award. What more does he have to do? The Reds haven't had a winning season in a decade and haven't made the playoffs in 15 years. A winning season looks like a lock and a playoff team is very close,IMO. I don't agree with everything Dusty does. But I think every manager does things that make you scratch your head and say "what is he doing?" Better players make the manager better. This years Reds team has the best assembly of players since at least 1999. Dusty has taken advantage of that and done more than a credible job,IMO.

lollipopcurve
08-19-2010, 09:55 AM
If they want him back then its better to try and sign him now instead of waiting until the offseason.

Yep. It shouldn't be hanging over the team as it makes its run at the pennant.

There is no question he deserves the chance to re-up. You can say it's all about the talent, but this team was mired in a culture of losing, and it's people, not players, who make culture.

There are things Baker does that I don't like. He makes some bad mistakes with his pitching staff every now and then, IMO. But on the whole, the record speaks for itself. He's been a steady hand for a young group. And when the time comes to win, he still wants it bad. He's still hungry, still looking for that ring.

Chip R
08-19-2010, 09:58 AM
I'm curious why this was leaked before the extention was actually a done deal.

traderumor
08-19-2010, 10:24 AM
Maybe Dusty's waiting to make sure that he makes $1 more than Tony LaRussa.

Cyclone792
08-19-2010, 10:25 AM
Some folks who have been around here for a couple years will know that I was fiercely against hiring Dusty Baker. I've also been a pretty harsh Dusty critic in the past regarding certain facets of his managerial style, such as abusing pitchers, veteran love and his inability to put some on-base percentage at the top of the lineup.

Let's not forget, in 2008 and 2009, Dusty's flaws in those three aspects were easy to see. But what we've seen in 2010 has been a sort of work-in-progress, a type of evolution of Dusty as a manager. Of course, winning helps cloud a different perception, and that's also probably true to some degree in 2010. Organizational mandates also lessen the impact, such as Mike Leake's innings limitations.

But all things said, Dusty has been a positive work-in-progress in the three main areas where I've been most critical.

His penchant for abusing starting pitchers has pretty much been a non-issue this year. There have been a handful of times where he's left his starter in for too long (Leake in Philly, for example), but guys aren't out there throwing 125+ pitches on a regular occurance. In fact, most starters are settling in the routine 100-115 pitch outings, and that's perfectly acceptable. I do think he was driving Cordero into the ground earlier in the season, and I think that's played some role in Cordero's struggles. But if that's Dusty's worst offense with the entire pitching staff, then that's a move in the right direction. Most importantly, Dusty has handled young guys well which I'm glad to see.

His vet-love has also been lessened, partially because he's giving guys like Bruce and Stubbs all the chances in the world to succeed, and also partially because his old veterans such as Cairo started producing. Gomes' lack of production has been an issue that needs to be addressed, but I think that's starting to be addressed and I believe we'll see a reduction in Gomes' playing time. I'm still seeing too much Gomes, but at least it's not as much Gomes as we saw previously. I wanted more Janish in the lineup, and while it took an injury to Cabrera to get more Janish, we're moving in the right direction. Even when Cabrera returns, I have to think that Janish will get more starts than he had been getting. Not perfect, but again, a work-in-progress in a positive direction.

Lastly, the on-base percentage at the top of the lineup. The leadoff OBP still stinks at .280, but the two-hole OBP is a very pretty .360. So Dusty's solved one of two, which is better than solving zero. Here's what's important, though: Dusty has tried solving both, and I think he is solving both. He moved Cabrera to leadoff for a bit, and that worked for a little while earlier in the season. Now Phillips is hitting leadoff, and that's showing signs of working. The results - the leadoff OBP - isn't quite there yet, but Dusty has shown an ability to try to turn it around, and now with Phillips in that slot it has been turning around and will continue to turn around. Again, a work-in-progress in a positive direction.

Is Dusty where I want him to be in all three aspects? No, but he's much closer in 2010 than he has been in the past. Most importantly, he's showing a willingness to solve and try to solve some of the problems that had been eating away at this team. He at least deserves credit for starting to move down the right path even if he's not quite all the way there yet (and he may never fully get there).

Mix these above factors in with his loyalty to his players in the clubhouse, and I'm in favor of bringing him back. His guys obviously love playing for him, because they're out there busting their tails on a nightly basis.

Finally, the brawl with St. Louis showed me quite a bit. When Dusty's guys needed his support heavily in the brawl, Dusty was out there on the front lines in La Russa's face defending Brandon Phillips and everyone in that Reds clubhouse. When Carpenter subsequently ran his mouth to Dusty, Dusty didn't back down and his guys stood up for him as well. If there is a microcosm for how Dusty and everyone in the clubhouse supports each other, that scene is probably it.

Dusty and the Reds haven't ever backed down this year. Get swept in Seattle, rebound swiftly. Get swept in Philadelphia, rebound swiftly. Get swept by St. Louis and fuel a brawl, rebound swiftly.

Never back down. Perhaps that's the Dusty Baker mantra this season. If so, I'm onboard with it.

George Anderson
08-19-2010, 10:37 AM
If the Reds didn't offer Dusty and extension they should have got the boob of the year award. What more does he have to do? The Reds haven't had a winning season in a decade and haven't made the playoffs in 15 years. A winning season looks like a lock and a playoff team is very close,IMO. I don't agree with everything Dusty does. But I think every manager does things that make you scratch your head and say "what is he doing?" Better players make the manager better. This years Reds team has the best assembly of players since at least 1999. Dusty has taken advantage of that and done more than a credible job,IMO.

:beerme:

I was almost ill when I found out Baker was the new manager but he is more than deserving of an extension.

The Operator
08-19-2010, 11:23 AM
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'd be upset if he didn't come back next year. I don't always agree with his moves (infact I frequently loathe certain moves) but this club is focused, and they love playing for him. Even if they brought back every single player next year and even added on, it might be a different chemistry without Dusty here.

I think we're finally seeing the value of having a "name" manager. These player respect him. There's no chair debacles, no players openly questioning decisions. He's the man, they're the players, they know it. Then they go win games.

Homer Bailey
08-19-2010, 11:49 AM
I think my position on Dusty is well known. However, I can't say that there are other managers floating around that I could comfortably say I'd prefer.

I just don't understand why managers get punished/rewarded so clearly based on the talent they are given. Dusty's not a better manager than he was in 2008, he just got dealt a much better hand. I'd like to know more about what he's done particularly well that makes him a manager worth retaining.

I fully appreciate that the ability to motivate players is an important skill and that Dusty is good at it. But when he so clearly struggles elsewhere, I'd certainly like to explore options. And as others have said, at minimum I would have liked to see how the next 6 weeks play out, particularly given his mismanagement of the Cubs' pitching staff during their last playoff push under his watch.

Didn't read this whole thread, but wouldn't locking him up for the future help eliminate Dusty's temptation to overuse pitchers down the stretch? If he knew he wasn't coming back, he may just say "Oh well, let's let Cueto throw 140 pitches, I won't be here next year."

May be how the Reds are approaching this.

RANDY IN INDY
08-19-2010, 11:53 AM
Dusty has done a great job with this team and, in my opinion, has earned a contract extension. After all the years of losing records, it's hard to believe that anyone could argue against the great job that Dusty Baker has done with his team this season.

Well deserved in my opinion.

redsfan30
08-19-2010, 11:56 AM
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'd be upset if he didn't come back next year. I don't always agree with his moves (infact I frequently loathe certain moves) but this club is focused, and they love playing for him. Even if they brought back every single player next year and even added on, it might be a different chemistry without Dusty here.

I think we're finally seeing the value of having a "name" manager. These player respect him. There's no chair debacles, no players openly questioning decisions. He's the man, they're the players, they know it. Then they go win games.

My feelings exactly. I'll be disappointed if Dusty isn't back next season.

bucksfan2
08-19-2010, 12:01 PM
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'd be upset if he didn't come back next year. I don't always agree with his moves (infact I frequently loathe certain moves) but this club is focused, and they love playing for him. Even if they brought back every single player next year and even added on, it might be a different chemistry without Dusty here.

I think we're finally seeing the value of having a "name" manager. These player respect him. There's no chair debacles, no players openly questioning decisions. He's the man, they're the players, they know it. Then they go win games.

Every manager makes moves you don't agree with. You have to consider that the manager knows his team much better than what it may appear on TV. A guy could be struggling, laboring, battling a nagging injury and that is why he isn't used in a certain situation. That isn't readily available to the viewing public which can make a manager look bad. For most of Dusty's Reds career he hasn't made that head scratching in game decision like hitting Castro instead of Hamilton. For the most part I have no issue with Dusty's in game management.

As for Dusty's critics I think only one criticism warrants any concern and that is the lead off position. While I do think it is somewhat valid. But the reality is he hasn't had a high OBP leadoff hitter type with the Reds. I think this season has shown Dusty will tinker with a lineup in order to get it right.

Dusty's love for vet players has been proven wrong time and time again. During his tenure guys like Votto, Bruce, Stubbs, Encarnacion, Bailey, Leake, Cueto, Wood, Volquez, Smith, Ondrusek, etc. have all been given a chance to play.

Around midway this season I thought that it was time to consider an extension for Dusty. A lot of it depended on how the Reds played down the stretch. The last think I wanted to happen was a premature extension only to see the Reds tank it down the stretch. Didn't want a Narron or Boone fiasco to play out with these Reds. As of right now I am confident that it is the right move. If Dusty decides to pull a San Fran and walk because he wants more money than thats his prerogative. As of right now I would be disappointed if Dusty wasn't the manager opening day 2011.

Ghosts of 1990
08-19-2010, 12:12 PM
I love Dusty as a person and baseball man for the most part. His lineups are odd, but other then that he's done a great job here. I hope he comes back, but could anyone else see him walking away after this season or riding off into the sunset after he wins manager of the year?

Cyclone792
08-19-2010, 12:17 PM
I love Dusty as a person and baseball man for the most part. His lineups are odd, but other then that he's done a great job here. I hope he comes back, but could anyone else see him walking away after this season or riding off into the sunset after he wins manager of the year?

The only remote chance of that happening would be if the Reds win the World Series this year. And even if that's the case, I'd have to think Dusty would want to come back next year with much of the same group and do it again.

So in other words, no, I don't see him walking away after this season.

Puffy
08-19-2010, 12:33 PM
The dude is solidly in the running for NL Manager of the Year. How can he not be extended?

Ummmmm, aren't you a Cleveland fan now???

If he gets extended do you stay with the Indians or has Baker won you over?

SMcGavin
08-19-2010, 12:39 PM
Dusty has handled the pitching staff well.
Dusty is playing young guys who deserve to play.
Dusty's lineups still stink.

I had three problems with him in the beginning, two of them are no longer valid. And there would be some clubhouse backlash if you let him go. I'm surprised to hear myself say this, but I'm OK with the old man sticking around for another couple of seasons.

thatcoolguy_22
08-19-2010, 12:55 PM
Put me into the boat that believe managers cause more losses than wins. What are the numbers being discussed? If Redszone had this roster we would probably put up similar numbers as Dusty. Just saying

edabbs44
08-19-2010, 12:57 PM
Put me into the boat that believe managers cause more losses than wins. What are the numbers being discussed? If Redszone had this roster we would probably put up similar numbers as Dusty. Just saying

Right.

Brutus
08-19-2010, 01:00 PM
Put me into the boat that believe managers cause more losses than wins. What are the numbers being discussed? If Redszone had this roster we would probably put up similar numbers as Dusty. Just saying

Managing seems to be a lot like umpiring. Everyone says how they could or would do it better but when you get put in the position to make the decisions, it's amazing how your perception sure changes in a hurry. Suddenly, you are making all the choices you said you would make and you're finding out how many people now say they can do it better.

It sure is easy to be a message board manager.

Cedric
08-19-2010, 01:05 PM
Managing seems to be a lot like umpiring. Everyone says how they could or would do it better but when you get put in the position to make the decisions, it's amazing how your perception sure changes in a hurry. Suddenly, you are making all the choices you said you would make and you're finding out how many people now say they can do it better.

It sure is easy to be a message board manager.

It's also easy to win with this roster. Where was Dusty the last few years? Did he suddenly improve his game?

Wheelhouse
08-19-2010, 01:06 PM
I would bet if the offer wasn't accepted immediately, it is a low one. This is a smart move by the Reds FO. If Dusty takes the offer, the Reds get their price, and have stability and can focus on getting to the playoffs and beyond. If not, it lets the prime candidates know the job is out there, and removes the possibility of the Reds getting into a bidding war in the off season for Dusty's services. Well thought out, and well timed as usual, Walt.

bucksfan2
08-19-2010, 01:07 PM
It's also easy to win with this roster. Where was Dusty the last few years? Did he suddenly improve his game?

With Walt accused of being "asleep at the wheel".

OnBaseMachine
08-19-2010, 01:10 PM
Some folks who have been around here for a couple years will know that I was fiercely against hiring Dusty Baker. I've also been a pretty harsh Dusty critic in the past regarding certain facets of his managerial style, such as abusing pitchers, veteran love and his inability to put some on-base percentage at the top of the lineup.

Let's not forget, in 2008 and 2009, Dusty's flaws in those three aspects were easy to see. But what we've seen in 2010 has been a sort of work-in-progress, a type of evolution of Dusty as a manager. Of course, winning helps cloud a different perception, and that's also probably true to some degree in 2010. Organizational mandates also lessen the impact, such as Mike Leake's innings limitations.

But all things said, Dusty has been a positive work-in-progress in the three main areas where I've been most critical.

His penchant for abusing starting pitchers has pretty much been a non-issue this year. There have been a handful of times where he's left his starter in for too long (Leake in Philly, for example), but guys aren't out there throwing 125+ pitches on a regular occurance. In fact, most starters are settling in the routine 100-115 pitch outings, and that's perfectly acceptable. I do think he was driving Cordero into the ground earlier in the season, and I think that's played some role in Cordero's struggles. But if that's Dusty's worst offense with the entire pitching staff, then that's a move in the right direction. Most importantly, Dusty has handled young guys well which I'm glad to see.

His vet-love has also been lessened, partially because he's giving guys like Bruce and Stubbs all the chances in the world to succeed, and also partially because his old veterans such as Cairo started producing. Gomes' lack of production has been an issue that needs to be addressed, but I think that's starting to be addressed and I believe we'll see a reduction in Gomes' playing time. I'm still seeing too much Gomes, but at least it's not as much Gomes as we saw previously. I wanted more Janish in the lineup, and while it took an injury to Cabrera to get more Janish, we're moving in the right direction. Even when Cabrera returns, I have to think that Janish will get more starts than he had been getting. Not perfect, but again, a work-in-progress in a positive direction.

Lastly, the on-base percentage at the top of the lineup. The leadoff OBP still stinks at .280, but the two-hole OBP is a very pretty .360. So Dusty's solved one of two, which is better than solving zero. Here's what's important, though: Dusty has tried solving both, and I think he is solving both. He moved Cabrera to leadoff for a bit, and that worked for a little while earlier in the season. Now Phillips is hitting leadoff, and that's showing signs of working. The results - the leadoff OBP - isn't quite there yet, but Dusty has shown an ability to try to turn it around, and now with Phillips in that slot it has been turning around and will continue to turn around. Again, a work-in-progress in a positive direction.

Is Dusty where I want him to be in all three aspects? No, but he's much closer in 2010 than he has been in the past. Most importantly, he's showing a willingness to solve and try to solve some of the problems that had been eating away at this team. He at least deserves credit for starting to move down the right path even if he's not quite all the way there yet (and he may never fully get there).

Mix these above factors in with his loyalty to his players in the clubhouse, and I'm in favor of bringing him back. His guys obviously love playing for him, because they're out there busting their tails on a nightly basis.

Finally, the brawl with St. Louis showed me quite a bit. When Dusty's guys needed his support heavily in the brawl, Dusty was out there on the front lines in La Russa's face defending Brandon Phillips and everyone in that Reds clubhouse. When Carpenter subsequently ran his mouth to Dusty, Dusty didn't back down and his guys stood up for him as well. If there is a microcosm for how Dusty and everyone in the clubhouse supports each other, that scene is probably it.

Dusty and the Reds haven't ever backed down this year. Get swept in Seattle, rebound swiftly. Get swept in Philadelphia, rebound swiftly. Get swept by St. Louis and fuel a brawl, rebound swiftly.

Never back down. Perhaps that's the Dusty Baker mantra this season. If so, I'm onboard with it.

Excellent, excellent post. I agree with everything you said.

Brutus
08-19-2010, 01:10 PM
It's also easy to win with this roster. Where was Dusty the last few years? Did he suddenly improve his game?

I think talent is the most important thing, but I don't think it's so easy a caveman can do it. People act like because you have a lot of good players that it should be easy to do what Dusty does. Like I said, it's easy to say that until you have to go out and do it.

Also, one thing that I think several people have acknowledged: Dusty has actually changed some of his managerial habits this year. He's shuffled the lineup around in ways he hasn't done as much in the past. He's not going with the starting pitchers as habitually long. I see a guy that's trying not to be too set in his ways. That's admirable for a guy that could say 'screw it, I've already been to a World Series doing it my way.'

thatcoolguy_22
08-19-2010, 01:23 PM
Talent pays managers.

Anyone on this board with supervisor experience can handle the gig. Anyone who is not open minded for change leading to a better performance has no business being in a leadership role. We shouldn't give kudos just because he realized how faulty his last 2 years were.

MississippiRed
08-19-2010, 02:36 PM
Isn't it mostly about "keeping the 5 guys who hate you away from the 5 guys who are undecided?"

Roy Tucker
08-19-2010, 02:43 PM
Talent pays managers.

Anyone on this board with supervisor experience can handle the gig.

I always thought the manager at the local McDonald's looked a lot like Bobby Cox.

Lord love a duck. :rolleyes:

pedro
08-19-2010, 02:45 PM
Talent pays managers.

Anyone on this board with supervisor experience can handle the gig. .

You funny.

Brutus
08-19-2010, 02:50 PM
Talent pays managers.

Anyone on this board with supervisor experience can handle the gig. Anyone who is not open minded for change leading to a better performance has no business being in a leadership role. We shouldn't give kudos just because he realized how faulty his last 2 years were.

There are good supervisors and bad supervisors. I've had some with a ton of experience that frankly didn't maximize their personnel's productivity or relationships. There are some that were just coming through the ranks that hit a home run with getting work out of their people and were totally respected for it. Any supervisor can supervise... not any supervisor can supervise effectively.

traderumor
08-19-2010, 02:50 PM
Put me into the boat that believe managers cause more losses than wins. What are the numbers being discussed? If Redszone had this roster we would probably put up similar numbers as Dusty. Just sayingYea, because grown men would respond well to Joe Bumpkin from RedsZone giving them rah rah speeches and hitting advice. Heck, its hard to get a little leaguer to listen to a coach because they know it all, how much more a major leauger?

Everyone thinks everyone else's job is so easy, but the job we do, well, we're irreplaceable. Its a myth created by human pride and arrogance.

VR
08-19-2010, 02:53 PM
Reds have outperformed their talent level the last 3 years. Not really even close.

westofyou
08-19-2010, 02:56 PM
Saying that anybody can do a job is a cheap way out of noting the power of the human mind and the human personality.

Somewhere right now AJ Hinch is wearing flip flops and cleaning his pool.

Caveat Emperor
08-19-2010, 03:12 PM
Talent pays managers.

Anyone on this board with supervisor experience can handle the gig. Anyone who is not open minded for change leading to a better performance has no business being in a leadership role. We shouldn't give kudos just because he realized how faulty his last 2 years were.

Anyone on this board can fill out a lineup card or read the stats to find the proper matchups.

Very few, if any, people on this board would have the slightest clue how to deal with a major league ballplayer. It's all fun and games until you have to tell Jonny Gomes he's sitting on the pine in a way that keeps him upbeat and the clubhouse upbeat. It's easy to shuffle bullpen roles on paper, but it's entirely different to go tell Francisco Cordero he's moving to the 8th inning because a kid has been throwing the ball better the last few months.

These guys are pros, but they have egos to manage, and they have confidence that waxes and wanes just like everyone else. They're teammates, but they're also individual competitors. They're trying to win, but also thinking about their careers in the back of their heads.

Anyone with supervisory experience can do this gig? Ha. This gig chews up career baseball people and spits them out the back end. You better bring a lot to the table if you want to guide a team to a winning record.

thatcoolguy_22
08-19-2010, 04:56 PM
Anyone on this board can fill out a lineup card or read the stats to find the proper matchups.

Very few, if any, people on this board would have the slightest clue how to deal with a major league ballplayer. It's all fun and games until you have to tell Jonny Gomes he's sitting on the pine in a way that keeps him upbeat and the clubhouse upbeat. It's easy to shuffle bullpen roles on paper, but it's entirely different to go tell Francisco Cordero he's moving to the 8th inning because a kid has been throwing the ball better the last few months.

Anyone with supervisory experience can do this gig? Ha. This gig chews up career baseball people and spits them out the back end. You better bring a lot to the table if you want to guide a team to a winning record.



Anyone with a backbone. True the job "chews up career baseball people" but how many of them were because of sub par talent levels?



Yea, because grown men would respond well to Joe Bumpkin from RedsZone giving them rah rah speeches and hitting advice. Heck, its hard to get a little leaguer to listen to a coach because they know it all, how much more a major leauger?

Everyone thinks everyone else's job is so easy, but the job we do, well, we're irreplaceable. Its a myth created by human pride and arrogance.

Little Leaguers are not professionals. Also its not Bakers job to fix swings or pitching mechanics, he has coaches at his disposal.



I always thought the manager at the local McDonald's looked a lot like Bobby Cox.

Lord love a duck. :rolleyes:

How many wins could Jerry Narron have got with Maddox, Smoltz, Glavine, and Mazzone? Your local McDonalds manager might not be that close looking but he shares about 99.99999% of his dna. People manage people and true professionals act accordingly.

How well did Cox perform the last couple years without the talent level?




I'm not saying that managers do nothing for the team, but they receive praise for stuff really out of there control. If every baseball team loses 60 and wins 60, what matters is the 40 in the middle. Then for managers it would be closer to every team participates in 162 games, you might decide 3.

traderumor
08-19-2010, 05:08 PM
Little Leaguers are not professionals. Also its not Bakers job to fix swings or pitching mechanics, he has coaches at his disposal.
You are right, little leaguers are not professionals, which was exactly my point. They are new to the sport and do not take the advice of coaches who offer good advice. So, a professional, who knows a lot more about the game and how to play it and play it well would be uncoachable by a manager hired for his "supervisory skills."

Essentially, you are saying that a good civilian boss could lead troops in Afghanistan because of their supervisory skills, as if there is no special body of knowledge of the field one is supervising to be taken into account.

While Baker does have assistant's, he still needs to be able to talk the language to communicate to players. He has to know the basic mechanics of the game to relate at all to those he is managing. It is very simplistic to look at the major league manager as filling out a lineup card and making tactical moves, but that is essentially what you are reducing the position to with your comments. Seriously, would you follow a leader who did not know the basic fundamentals of your craft, especially one as specialized as major league baseball?

Hoosier Red
08-19-2010, 05:22 PM
Anyone on this board can fill out a lineup card or read the stats to find the proper matchups.

Very few, if any, people on this board would have the slightest clue how to deal with a major league ballplayer. It's all fun and games until you have to tell Jonny Gomes he's sitting on the pine in a way that keeps him upbeat and the clubhouse upbeat. It's easy to shuffle bullpen roles on paper, but it's entirely different to go tell Francisco Cordero he's moving to the 8th inning because a kid has been throwing the ball better the last few months.

These guys are pros, but they have egos to manage, and they have confidence that waxes and wanes just like everyone else. They're teammates, but they're also individual competitors. They're trying to win, but also thinking about their careers in the back of their heads.

Anyone with supervisory experience can do this gig? Ha. This gig chews up career baseball people and spits them out the back end. You better bring a lot to the table if you want to guide a team to a winning record.

This post pretty much says it all. I think it actually goes to what has been perceived as one of Dusty's biggest faults, "The Vet Love." I think that's not quite true. I think Dusty's love is for the status quo. Guys like Bruce and Stubbs and really Gomes are not vets, but they haven't lost their jobs because that would upset the status quo. Obviously guys like Cabrera are vets and when he keeps his job, people scream "Vet Love Vet Love, let Janish Play!"

But for whatever reason, Dusty has his pecking order. And wherever you are on the pecking order, that's where you stay. Until you prove that you don't belong there. And Dusty requires a lot more proof than we do. As a result guys like Stubbs, Bruce, and Cabrera can relax. If they get a day off, they don't need to worry if it's because they went 0 for 4 the night before or when they'll go back in.

Now, the downside of this is for guys on the bench. The Heiseys and Cairos and Janish's of the world have to prove over and over and over again that they deserve to be playing. And even if they do that, they need the guy in front of them to play poorly or get hurt for a long period of time.(And even that's not always enough.)
However, with the right mix of players personalities, this works out perfectly. I think you can say definitively the bench has not suffered from being disheartened. Not when Janish has an OPS of better than .800, not when Miguel Cairo is batting .295 and has an .852 OPS since May 1. Not when Laynce Nix is batting .404 since July 1 despite only 10 starts, and not when Chris Heisey has a ..400 BA and a 1.386 OPS when coming into games as a sub.


You can argue that if Janish played more, or Heisey played more, or Gomes played less that the Reds would win more and I can't argue definitively. But I can tell you this team is comfortable every day they come to the park. If guys are unhappy about playing time, you never hear it. I think given the evidence it's hard to argue on the whole that Dusty has put each player in a position where they are most likely to succeed.

westofyou
08-19-2010, 05:50 PM
Little Leaguers are not professionals. Also its not Bakers job to fix swings or pitching mechanics, he has coaches at his disposal.


Baker was well know hitter and batting coach prior to managing. In this mindset you'd say Bud Black shouldn't work with a LH on his pick off move, or Joe Torre couldn't give a catcher tips on pitch framing.

Titles should never stunt the learning process.

I(heart)Freel
08-19-2010, 07:51 PM
I would bet if the offer wasn't accepted immediately, it is a low one. This is a smart move by the Reds FO. If Dusty takes the offer, the Reds get their price, and have stability and can focus on getting to the playoffs and beyond. If not, it lets the prime candidates know the job is out there, and removes the possibility of the Reds getting into a bidding war in the off season for Dusty's services. Well thought out, and well timed as usual, Walt.

This x1000.

You have to think the Reds hold *most* of the power here. What manager worth his salt wouldn't want to oversee this young talented base of talent that also has strong vets in the clubhouse to take some of the babysitting duties away from the manager? Said manager also isn't under the media scrutiny that he would be in a bigger market. Said manager also has a boatload of starting pitching.

Dusty just can't know what's going to happen in the off-season with the other jobs. Although I'm sure he would love to return to ATL or LA, the sites of his glory days as a player. Interesting that both jobs are potentially open.

Still, this is very much a bird-in-the-hand scenario. The Reds know it, so they offered probably just enough to not be insulting.

RFS62
08-19-2010, 08:47 PM
Talent pays managers.

Anyone on this board with supervisor experience can handle the gig. Anyone who is not open minded for change leading to a better performance has no business being in a leadership role. We shouldn't give kudos just because he realized how faulty his last 2 years were.



Great googly mooglie!!!!

I'm sending my CV to Jocketty!!!!

Cicero
08-19-2010, 09:52 PM
You can say what you will about managers and talent levels etc. but there is something to being able to motivate guys and keeping a team on an even keel.

The 1999 and 1990 teams are great examples of the this. Part of the reason those teams won is because of the managers. Talent is crucial but leadership is very important as well.

Tony Cloninger
08-20-2010, 12:19 AM
Too bad Vern Rapp could not manage this team......since anyone could manage this team to the division.

The posters on fastball.com would disagree that McKeon was the reason that 1999 team won. People could not wait to get him outta here.
People on that board and other Reds like boards (before this one) ripped on him for his comment about how they still needed pitching after they got Griffey.
Crazy Old Man....he did not know nothing!

GAC
08-20-2010, 06:07 AM
Ummmmm, aren't you a Cleveland fan now???

My Browns did beat GB last week! :p:


If he gets extended do you stay with the Indians or has Baker won you over?

Still like kickin' the elderly don't you. LOL

It doesn't matter what rash statement I may have made in the past (which I apologized for). The proof is in the puddin' lawyer friend, and does Baker get any credit at all for this team's performance this year? And what about those guys that play for Dusty? Does their feelings matter, carry any relevance in this FO's decision?

Do you think he should be extended?

IMO, the guy DESERVES to be extended. If not, then who are we going to talk about in chat and on the game threads?

GAC
08-20-2010, 06:20 AM
Talent pays managers.

Anyone on this board with supervisor experience can handle the gig.

This has been said before on this forum, in so many words, and is still laughable.

I've got supervisory experience, and have been an avid Reds fan for over 40 years, but wouldn't want the gig. No way would I want to face an irate Gomes in the dugout, after pulling him from a game because I thought his defense sucked. LOL

I nominate rfs because he has vast experience in disaster relief skills.

Or how about this guy?

http://images.dvdcollectionsale.com/domain/B153360E/images/upload/Image/the-office-michael-scott.jpg

WMR
08-20-2010, 06:41 AM
I have certainly been one of Dusty's biggest detractors on this board. Much of what he espouses about baseball goes directly against what I believe.

Do I 'like' him as manager now? No, not really.

Do I think he deserves much credit for the team's performance this season? I think others could have done just as well considering the talent at Dusty's disposal...

My enjoyment of winning, however, certainly outweighs my negative feelings towards Dusty.

I called for 84 wins in the prediction thread and typed that the Reds would do just well enough to allow the front office to justify keeping Dusty...

well, they're on pace to do much better than that.

What are you gonna do?

The Reds are winning and that is the bottom line for now... hopefully the good times will keep rolling because it appears we're going to be 'stuck' with the Dusty for some time to come. :D

Caveat Emperor
08-20-2010, 11:18 AM
I called for 84 wins in the prediction thread and typed that the Reds would do just well enough to allow the front office to justify keeping Dusty...

well, they're on pace to do much better than that.

What are you gonna do?

The Reds are winning and that is the bottom line for now... hopefully the good times will keep rolling because it appears we're going to be 'stuck' with the Dusty for some time to come. :D

Here's all you need to know: Walt Jocketty (presumably) signed off on giving Baker an extension. At this point, I'm pretty much cool with just nodding along with whatever Walt says is a good idea. He isn't perfect, but there's no question that he's got this club headed exctly where it needs to be going.

WMR
08-20-2010, 11:37 AM
Here's all you need to know: Walt Jocketty (presumably) signed off on giving Baker an extension. At this point, I'm pretty much cool with just nodding along with whatever Walt says is a good idea. He isn't perfect, but there's no question that he's got this club headed exctly where it needs to be going.

Maybe that's all YOU need to know? I don't forget a lifetime of dumb comments and baffling moves just because the Reds have their best roster in 15 years.

None of our opinions amount to a hill of beans in the grand scheme of things where Dusty's contract extension with the Reds is concerned, and I was just giving mine.

I'm ecstatic the Reds are winning. If I have to put up with Dusty along the way, I can deal with that. Just keep winning.

Hoosier Red
08-20-2010, 12:35 PM
I have certainly been one of Dusty's biggest detractors on this board. Much of what he espouses about baseball goes directly against what I believe.

Do I 'like' him as manager now? No, not really.

Do I think he deserves much credit for the team's performance this season? I think others could have done just as well considering the talent at Dusty's disposal...


Those are all fair point WMR. I think you said one thing that is often overlooked. I agree others COULD have done just as well, but identifying specifically those others who WOULD have done just as well(if not better) is the tricky business.

The fickle thing about managers is knowing the difference between when a vague number of other managers could do as good of a job(or better) and when you have someone specifically in mind who you think would do a better job.

On one hand, I think thatcoolguy_22 is correct. Anyone can manage, and there's nothing to say that some guy who's done a great job motivating employees at the Toyota plant couldn't do it just as well. But until I'm certain about someone doing the job just as well, I'm sticking with the devil I know.

Puffy
08-20-2010, 12:43 PM
My Browns did beat GB last week! :p:



Still like kickin' the elderly don't you. LOL

It doesn't matter what rash statement I may have made in the past (which I apologized for). The proof is in the puddin' lawyer friend, and does Baker get any credit at all for this team's performance this year? And what about those guys that play for Dusty? Does their feelings matter, carry any relevance in this FO's decision?

Do you think he should be extended?

IMO, the guy DESERVES to be extended. If not, then who are we going to talk about in chat and on the game threads?

Well, the question wasn't about me - I was just wondering if you'd changed your mind (I didn't know you apologized for statements, all I knew was Chip still busted your balls over it, thats all). Wasn't trying to debate - just whether your mind was changed

But I was one of few who liked the hiring of Baker so yes, I definitely think he should be extended.

REDREAD
08-20-2010, 01:33 PM
Dusty earned an extension.

Let's say the Reds don't make the playoffs. Dusty still gets credit for helping the team get over 500 for the first time since 2000 (IIRC). Very few people (if any) were saying at the beginning of the season that this team was a solid contender. Dusty and Walt have turned the club around. Not offering Dusty an extension sends the wrong message to the players, and makes Cincy look like a pathetic organization again.

No matter who is managing, there's going to be people on this board that disagree with lineups, pitch counts, strategy, etc.
Dusty does fine with this stuff. As soon as he got a legit cleanup hitter (Rolen), he moved Phillips out of the #4 hole.

Once again, Walt is showing good judgement by offering Dusty an extension now. We've seen all we need to see. It's not as if Dusty is going to start tanking as soon as he signs the extension.

REDREAD
08-20-2010, 01:47 PM
How many wins could Jerry Narron have got with Maddox, Smoltz, Glavine, and Mazzone?


Less than Cox did, I can guarantee that.
Funny you mention Smoltz. The guy was somewhat of a headcase when he first came up. All the talent in the world, but didn't produce. The Braves took him through a sports phsycologist to help him out. Smoltz is a perfect example of the human side. Had Smoltz been under different management, he might've flamed out after a mediocre first 3 years.

traderumor
08-20-2010, 01:50 PM
In any discussion on the merits of a major league manager, I am reminded that the Reds fired Sparky, and there were some fans rejoicing.

Slyder
08-20-2010, 02:20 PM
I was probably one of the louder critics of Dusty and Ive become mostly neutral toward him at this point. Why? He shown this year that he can still learn, he didn't wait until we were already out of it or well in August to change. The offense was mediocre and he actually made a smart lineup out of what we had and Brandon Phillips has been the true table setter this team has sorely lacked for a LOOOOOOOOOOONGGGGGGGG time simply by changing his approach by hititng 2nd rather than miscast as a cleanup hitter.

I was worried about the team's hitting philosophy everytime Dusty opened his mouth about being aggressive but the team isnt the black hole of OBP that its been. Occasionally they are still a bit swing happy but the team seems to get the bigger picture of the quotes, which is why I was worried.

Is the talent better than its been since the 90s? Most definately especially with the pitching but Dusty with Rolen's aid has guided the ship through some rough patches to keep it afloat when many were calling the sky is falling.

Occasionally Dusty still leaves me banging my head and yelling at the radio with the pitching but it seems the organization as a whole has kept a much tighter leash on guys like Wood and Leake, maybe to the short term detriment of Leake (jacking around with his schedule recently) but havent seen the outright abuse.

Is he worth 4 mil a year? I would still argue no manager is worth that much, but if Walt and Co decide to extend him at similar cost of the previous contract I'll remain neutral. My problems lie that we have so much depth that we are losing guys like Sutton for nothing, why didnt we try to package some of the interchangable parts for a middle of the rotation type arm to provide some extra depth so we didnt have to lean on Volquez, Leake as much as we have and allowed them to come back/rest up going into September?

membengal
08-20-2010, 02:44 PM
In my opinion, some of the biggest knocks on Dusty coming into his Cincy tenure were that he was set in his ways and not open to being particularly adaptable in his approach. That was the source of much of jokes that followed him here (and still get tirelessly recycled at Baseball Prospectus).

What I have seen however, is a manager, in his third stop, willing to try new things. I, in particular, think he has done a better job than at previous stops handling the young arms on the staff. It took awhile, but he did tinker with his CF bats leadoff formula and helped jump start the offense by moving people around. His clubhouse stlye has been as advertised.

I guess I see no reason why anyone should think he has not earned a chance to keep managing this team. The willingness to tinker with how he views the game cannot be easy for an old baseball hand like Dusty, but I think he has done just that, and to his and the team's benefit.

Sure, more please.

Chip R
08-20-2010, 02:47 PM
Dusty earned an extension.

Let's say the Reds don't make the playoffs. Dusty still gets credit for helping the team get over 500 for the first time since 2000 (IIRC). Very few people (if any) were saying at the beginning of the season that this team was a solid contender. Dusty and Walt have turned the club around. Not offering Dusty an extension sends the wrong message to the players, and makes Cincy look like a pathetic organization again.

No matter who is managing, there's going to be people on this board that disagree with lineups, pitch counts, strategy, etc.
Dusty does fine with this stuff. As soon as he got a legit cleanup hitter (Rolen), he moved Phillips out of the #4 hole.

Once again, Walt is showing good judgement by offering Dusty an extension now. We've seen all we need to see. It's not as if Dusty is going to start tanking as soon as he signs the extension.

I agree. He's not perfect but no one is. I think it may be a bit premature to offer him one since I think talking contract in the middle of the season's a distraction but I certainly believe he's earned an extention no matter what happens.

I agree with Slyder when he said that Dusty's learning. At the beginning of the year it was the same old CF leads off and SS bats 2nd. After a few weeks, Dusty knew it wasn't working and switched OCab to leadoff and dropped Stubbs down. That worked for a while then when OCab tailed off he put Brandon at leadoff. I also don't think there are any instances that Dusty left a young starter in to rack up a huge amount of pitches. That tells me he's learning. Whether or not his managing Wood and Prior in CHI led to their eventual breakdowns, it's possible that he believes that he may have been at least partially culpable and he's not going to make that same mistake again.

bucksfan2
08-20-2010, 03:00 PM
Is he worth 4 mil a year? I would still argue no manager is worth that much, but if Walt and Co decide to extend him at similar cost of the previous contract I'll remain neutral. My problems lie that we have so much depth that we are losing guys like Sutton for nothing, why didnt we try to package some of the interchangable parts for a middle of the rotation type arm to provide some extra depth so we didnt have to lean on Volquez, Leake as much as we have and allowed them to come back/rest up going into September?

Interesting that you made note of this. I do think there is a difference between the Narron's, Miley's, and Boone's of the world as opposed to Dusty Baker. It may have more to do with quality than it does to how much money they make, but when you play Dusty some coin you know what you are getting. When you continue to go the cheap route you may end up with a nice find or you may just end up with the revolving door managerial office the Reds have seen since Jack left.

I also remember a situation that happened in Oakland a few years ago. Ken Macha had just come off a tremendous run as manager of the A's. 3 90 win seasons, two league titles, and one Giambi slide away form the World Series. Beene thought that it was senseless to pay a manager the amount of money that Macha wanted and more or less undervalued the manager's job. I don't remember what he said about it but he thought that manager were a dime a dozen. Macha walked and Beene hired Bob Geren who has yet to have any success. His managerial stint looks vaguely familiar to the lost decade of the Reds.

Slyder
08-20-2010, 03:21 PM
Interesting that you made note of this. I do think there is a difference between the Narron's, Miley's, and Boone's of the world as opposed to Dusty Baker. It may have more to do with quality than it does to how much money they make, but when you play Dusty some coin you know what you are getting. When you continue to go the cheap route you may end up with a nice find or you may just end up with the revolving door managerial office the Reds have seen since Jack left.

I also remember a situation that happened in Oakland a few years ago. Ken Macha had just come off a tremendous run as manager of the A's. 3 90 win seasons, two league titles, and one Giambi slide away form the World Series. Beene thought that it was senseless to pay a manager the amount of money that Macha wanted and more or less undervalued the manager's job. I don't remember what he said about it but he thought that manager were a dime a dozen. Macha walked and Beene hired Bob Geren who has yet to have any success. His managerial stint looks vaguely familiar to the lost decade of the Reds.

There is a difference in the Dusty Baker, Mike Scossia, etc and Dave Miley, Jerry Narron, Bob Greene but if the savings (even if you paid a couple mil) being used to bring in a stronger SS (Edgar Renteria for example) next year being more beneficial? Or maybe the difference in Jason Kubel as LF/4th of next year?

Im just bringing up names I see on the FA list for 2011, I dont know full details of d, health, etc just basic numbers.

I'm not saying go back to the 400-500k a year guys, I'm just saying I do not think managers (any manager, not just Dusty) is worth more than a large portion of the actual players on the field.

Or the difference in bringing a lottery ticket such as Jeff Francis (if the option isnt picked up by Colorado). I'm just bringing up ideas for discussion.

GAC
08-20-2010, 06:14 PM
all I knew was Chip still busted your balls over it, thats all

And bust my balls he did. But it was all in good fun. Learned (I hope) a valuable lesson..... never post in anger. :p:

I've "warmed" to Baker. I still have my differences, but he hasn't lived up totally to some of the stereotypical labels (accusations) that were thrown at him.

I have no problem at all with him being extended. What else is even out there?

RedsManRick
08-20-2010, 08:20 PM
How about this... Dusty Baker is the reason Barry Bonds hit so well. Can you prove that he wasn't (the reason)?

I'm not out to prove or disprove anything. But I'm certainly not going to start bringing in factors to judge a manager on that have absolutely no scientific basis for relativity.

Just curious, what aspects of a managers influence ARE scientifically proven? Can we really attribute the Reds good clubhouse to Dusty? You're going down an awfully deep hole.

The most "proven" impact a manager can have has to be the utilization of his players: roster construction (to the extent he has an influence), lineup construction, bullpen use, the distribution of playing time and tactical decisions such as hitting and running, bunting, etc. If we look at those inputs individually, how does Dusty fare? I don't know the answer, but if you want things that are very clearly linked to wins, that's where I'd look. To be fair, we should be comparing Dusty to a benchmark related to other managers, not perfection -- any other manager we hire will have his own weaknesses. Anecdotally, color me unimpressed with the job Dusty has done.

Dusty's teams struggled when they lacked talent and are succeeding now that we have more talent. I think firing and hiring/extending managers based on simple wins and losses is absolutely ridiculous. The outcome is just way too far removed from the inputs. Judge him on the quality of the things he does measured on their own terms and weigh them based on your assessment of their relative importance.


Pitch counts have absolutely nothing to do with Dusty's job as a manager. Unless there is some understood dynamic as to cause and effect, it doesn't belong in the discussion.

Let's leave the blame on injuries to nature, medical science and pharmaceuticals and out of managerial discussions until we have something a little better to go on.

I think you are grossly over simplifying this. We KNOW that pitching for a long time makes guys tired. We know that tired guys have trouble maintaining their mechanics. And we know that poor mechanics are a significant contributor to injuries.

Here are some good related articles:
http://www.csuchico.edu/~sbarker/pdf/youthpitching.pdf
http://fullcountpitch.com/2009/03/06/pitching-perspectives-with-rick-peterson-avoiding-the-overuse-and-fatigue-of-young-pitchers/
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1658

As for Dusty's misuse of pitchers, I think he's actually been pretty good about pulling starters before they're clearly gassed and struggling. Whether or not he's pulling them at the right time for strategic purposes is another issue entirely. My bigger concern in terms of health comes in the form of using guys too much in light of the amount of rest they've had -- be that Harang's SD outing or running Cordero through the meat grinder earlier this year.

Now, there is certainly no single magic bullet number that tells us whether a pitcher was being put at significant risk for injury. We need a bit more evidence than simply a run of high pitch counts. A qualitative analysis of actual injuries and their apparently causes would likely produce the best evidence. But to ignore the link between excessive usage and injuries entirely is just as ignorant as as slavishly adhering to an arbitrary number.

traderumor
08-20-2010, 08:58 PM
I could of swore there wasn't this much talent on the team this offseason. The Reds only had enough talent to maybe threaten a winning season but little else was what I read over and over on this esteemed message board. Did Cabrera and Gomes really add that much to the talent that now we are seemingly loaded and talent laden, thus Dusty is just succeeding with the horses, because now I keep on reading about all this talent we are loaded with?

Brutus
08-20-2010, 09:11 PM
Just curious, what aspects of a managers influence ARE scientifically proven? Can we really attribute the Reds good clubhouse to Dusty? You're going down an awfully deep hole.

I think we most certainly can tell from the glowing terms that have been spoken by his players and former players they enjoy showing up for work everyday. I think then, knowing the impact a good work environment has on productivity, we can say it's at least a good bet Dusty has done a good job keeping his players loose, prepared and happy. That leads to maximum success.


The most "proven" impact a manager can have has to be the utilization of his players: roster construction (to the extent he has an influence), lineup construction, bullpen use, the distribution of playing time and tactical decisions such as hitting and running, bunting, etc. If we look at those inputs individually, how does Dusty fare? I don't know the answer, but if you want things that are very clearly linked to wins, that's where I'd look. To be fair, we should be comparing Dusty to a benchmark related to other managers, not perfection -- any other manager we hire will have his own weaknesses. Anecdotally, color me unimpressed with the job Dusty has done.

You're focusing only on the physical, direct impact a manager has. I'm saying, in addition to the actual events a manager controls, his ability to keep players focused and enjoying playing for him can impact (maximize) the results of the players themselves.


Dusty's teams struggled when they lacked talent and are succeeding now that we have more talent. I think firing and hiring/extending managers based on simple wins and losses is absolutely ridiculous. The outcome is just way too far removed from the inputs. Judge him on the quality of the things he does measured on their own terms and weigh them based on your assessment of their relative importance.

I thought Dusty got a lot more out of his team in April, May and again in August & September last year than he should have. June & July saw reality set in a bit, but they were pretty competitive for over 4 months of the season.




I think you are grossly over simplifying this. We KNOW that pitching for a long time makes guys tired. We know that tired guys have trouble maintaining their mechanics. And we know that poor mechanics are a significant contributor to injuries.

Here are some good related articles:
http://www.csuchico.edu/~sbarker/pdf/youthpitching.pdf
http://fullcountpitch.com/2009/03/06/pitching-perspectives-with-rick-peterson-avoiding-the-overuse-and-fatigue-of-young-pitchers/
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1658



Now, there is certainly no single magic bullet number that tells us whether a pitcher was being put at significant risk for injury. We need a bit more evidence than simply a run of high pitch counts.

The third graf here is the point. Do pitchers get fatigued? Of course. Can that lead to poor mechanics and (eventually) an injury? Since throwing a baseball is unnatural, I would surmise absolutely.

But the point is we have absolutely no evidence, in the slightest, when that begins happening and even to the ballpark figure we could come up with, it would be 100% totally different for each player. We each have different stress levels, physical structure and ability to handle different levels.

So in my mind, arbitrarily hand-wringing over some mythical pitch count is an exercise in futility because we still have no idea where those levels actually lie. People see Dusty run out pitcher X for __ amount of innings and want to nail him to the cross when, in reality, we have absolutely no idea what the true number of innings a player can tolerate.

Players used to pitch both ends of a double-header. I realize pitch counts have increased steadily in this day and age because of being more patient, having more strikeouts, etc., but guys used to pitch all the time and there weren't an extreme number of serious injuries. I won't say there aren't some important differences these days to consider, nor should we not exercise caution with pitchers, but the truth of the matter is fans get really paranoid about innings and pitch counts without any true knowledge of what those numbers even mean.

RedsManRick
08-20-2010, 09:15 PM
I could of swore there wasn't this much talent on the team this offseason. The Reds only had enough talent to maybe threaten a winning season but little else was what I read over and over on this esteemed message board. Did Cabrera and Gomes really add that much to the talent that now we are seemingly loaded and talent laden, thus Dusty is just succeeding with the horses, because now I keep on reading about all this talent we are loaded with?

Do you give Dusty credit for Mike Leake and Travis Wood? For Votto? For Logan Ondrusek? For Ryan Hanigan and Scott Rolen? For Brandon Phillips? Only if you ding him for the two years he misused him, I hope.

I don't think it's necessarily fair to give the manager credit for how a player produces in his opportunities -- only for the quality and quantity of opportunities they are given. I think it is quite the stretch to suggest this team's performance relative to early expectations can be attributed to Dusty "putting guys in position to succeed" more-so than any other manager would have done. If it is, I'd love to get a better understanding of how that worked.

Dusty shouldn't get credit for our misread of the talent unless he also gets it for the under-performance of the last two years.

edabbs44
08-20-2010, 09:18 PM
Do you give Dusty credit for Mike Leake and Travis Wood? For Votto? For Logan Ondrusek? For Ryan Hanigan and Scott Rolen? For Brandon Phillips? Only if you ding him for the two years he misused him, I hope.

I don't think it's necessarily fair to give the manager credit for how a player produces in his opportunities -- only for the quality and quantity of opportunities they are given. I think it is quite the stretch to suggest this team's performance relative to early expectations can be attributed to Dusty "putting guys in position to succeed" more-so than any other manager would have done. If it is, I'd love to get a better understanding of how that worked.

Dusty shouldn't get credit for our misread of the talent unless he also gets it for the under-performance of the last two years.

Who underperformed the last two years? And since I guess Dusty would potentially get lambasted for misue of Ondrusek, Leake, Wood or others, maybe he does deserve a little credit.

_Sir_Charles_
08-20-2010, 09:20 PM
Who underperformed the last two years?

Harang? Junior?

edabbs44
08-20-2010, 09:20 PM
Harang? Junior?

Hairston Jr? :) I think KGJ was playing at his ability.

_Sir_Charles_
08-20-2010, 09:24 PM
Hairston Jr? :) I think KGJ was playing at his ability.

Lol. Well played.


But yeah, I meant Ken.

RedsManRick
08-20-2010, 09:32 PM
I think we most certainly can tell from the glowing terms that have been spoken by his players and former players they enjoy showing up for work everyday. I think then, knowing the impact a good work environment has on productivity, we can say it's at least a good bet Dusty has done a good job keeping his players loose, prepared and happy. That leads to maximum success.

You're focusing only on the physical, direct impact a manager has. I'm saying, in addition to the actual events a manager controls, his ability to keep players focused and enjoying playing for him can impact (maximize) the results of the players themselves.

What happened to your demand for a standard of scientific proof? I don't disagree with your point here. A positive work environment results in greater productivity and, by all accounts, Dusty creates a positive work environment. But greater productivity to what extent? Just how much credit does it merit? And what if people are producing more in their jobs, but in the wrong job to begin with? What's the balance there?



Players used to pitch both ends of a double-header. I realize pitch counts have increased steadily in this day and age because of being more patient, having more strikeouts, etc., but guys used to pitch all the time and there weren't an extreme number of serious injuries. I won't say there aren't some important differences these days to consider, nor should we not exercise caution with pitchers, but the truth of the matter is fans get really paranoid about innings and pitch counts without any true knowledge of what those numbers even mean.

You say there "weren't an extreme number of serious injuries". Do you have evidence to support this claim? I don't have quantifiable evidence, but I do know that pitchers, on balance, have longer careers than they used. They might have gone longer in a given game, but they may have ended up pitching in fewer of them. Ask Sandy Koufax. Or maybe Aaron Harang. Pitchers also used to only face 3-4 guys who could hit worth a darn in most lineups -- now they face 2B hitting 30 HR a year leading off and .300 hitting SS batting 8th.

Don't get me wrong. I agree that getting riled up over arbitrary pitch counts is stupid and way overdone. But you seem to suggest that we have absolutely no way of telling when a guy is fatigued and whether or not he is laboring; I beg to differ. We may not have a rigorous measurement system in place (though fastball velocity is a very good indicator) nor the studies which suggest exactly how much fatigue = how much risk. But I think this relationship is quite analogous to the situation above regarding showing up to work happy.

Brutus
08-20-2010, 09:41 PM
What happened to your demand for a standard of scientific proof? I don't disagree with your point here. A positive work environment results in greater productivity and, by all accounts, Dusty creates a positive work environment. But greater productivity to what extent? Just how much credit does it merit? And what if people are producing more in their jobs, but in the wrong job to begin with? What's the balance there?

I honestly don't know, and truthfully I'm not trying to quantify that. I firmly believe that's something we just can't say for sure. I believe it's enough to give him credit for, but I also can't begin to put a number on it.



You say there "weren't an extreme number of serious injuries". Do you have evidence to support this claim? I don't have quantifiable evidence, but I do know that pitchers, on balance, have longer careers than they used. They might have gone longer in a given game, but they may have ended up pitching in fewer of them. Ask Sandy Koufax. Or maybe Aaron Harang. Pitchers also used to only face 3-4 guys who could hit worth a darn in most lineups -- now they face 2B hitting 30 HR a year leading off and .300 hitting SS batting 8th.

Don't get me wrong. I agree that getting riled up over arbitrary pitch counts is stupid and way overdone. But you seem to suggest that we have absolutely no way of telling when a guy is fatigued and whether or not he is laboring; I beg to differ. We may not have a rigorous measurement system in place (though fastball velocity is a very good indicator) nor the studies which suggest exactly how much fatigue = how much risk. But I think this relationship is quite analogous to the situation above regarding showing up to work happy.

I'm definitely not suggesting that at all. I think there are times that's pretty readily apparent. Other times, I think fans read into a hit or two and automatically dismiss that as fatigue and being time to pull a player. I'm not saying a manager is never wrong if he throws caution to the wind and doesn't pull a player. Just that on the season as a whole, the worry over mounting counts/innings seems on the side of worrying too much.

To answer your above question about my comment RE: serious injuries... I saw a study somewhere that pitchers 20, 30 and 40 years ago had longer careers on the average. It's been a while since I've seen the article, so I'll have to see if I can locate it. There's a possibility the methodology used for the study was questionable (I don't remember if it was or wasn't), but it was an interesting piece.

Slyder
08-21-2010, 01:33 AM
I said my two cents is it worth reading the stuff about pitch counts and all the rest of the discussion? Its late and Im tired.

IslandRed
08-21-2010, 01:02 PM
Going back to the discussion of what a manager's worth -- I've seen it argued that at least 80% of managers will, over the course of their careers, bring in their teams in at about what the talent level and circumstances would figure. I figure Dusty is solidly in that group. Only a few managers will consistently find ways to outperform the talent on hand, and the handful that actively harm their teams usually don't keep the job for long. Which argues that Dusty is replaceable, and it's not very likely the replacement would be a meaningful upgrade.

The counter-argument to this is: In a game where flipping one at-bat a week from an out to a single can make a difference of 80 points in a guy's OPS and bump up his WAR by a win, and a win is supposedly worth around $4 million on the free-agent market, a little upgrade can go a long way in terms of bang for the buck.

Having said that, I don't agree with the line of thought that anyone who could beat Dusty in a Strat league would be an upgrade. Over 162 games, managing people is at least as important as managing strategy.

Heath
08-22-2010, 05:45 PM
The LA Daily News makes it known who they want to replace Joe Torre with Dusty Baker.

http://www.dailynews.com/ci_15847212?source=most_viewed

Captain Hook
08-22-2010, 07:18 PM
The LA Daily News makes it known who they want to replace Joe Torre with Dusty Baker.

http://www.dailynews.com/ci_15847212?source=most_viewed

If the Dodgers came calling and I think they could,Dusty would be gone.For some reason that makes me want him to stay a lot more then a successful 3/4 of a season.

Joseph
08-22-2010, 07:22 PM
If the Dodgers came calling and I think they could,Dusty would be gone.For some reason that makes me want him to stay a lot more then a successful 3/4 of a season.

Is this the old theory that your girlfriend is only hot when other guys are oogling her? :)

Brutus
08-22-2010, 07:22 PM
If the Dodgers came calling and I think they could,Dusty would be gone.For some reason that makes me want him to stay a lot more then a successful 3/4 of a season.

I can't believe what I'm about to type.

I think the Dodgers are a real threat to come after him, and if they did and succeeded, I would be a bit disappointed.

OK, I never thought I'd say that. I feel dirty.

RFS62
08-22-2010, 07:27 PM
Is this the old theory that your girlfriend is only hot when other guys are oogling her? :)


I was just thinking the same thing.

Captain Hook
08-22-2010, 07:30 PM
I think you both right.Dusty would make one ugly girlfriend though.:scared:

Heath
08-22-2010, 08:54 PM
I can't believe what I'm about to type.

I think the Dodgers are a real threat to come after him, and if they did and succeeded, I would be a bit disappointed.

OK, I never thought I'd say that. I feel dirty.

I don't expect Dusty to stay in Cincinnati if the LA job is still open. The contract extension will wait unsigned until after the season.

Maybe we can borrow Joe Torre for a year or two. Maybe he brings over Don Mattingly. Or does he want to retire retire??

Speculation abounds.

Reds4Life
08-22-2010, 08:56 PM
I don't expect Dusty to stay in Cincinnati if the LA job is still open. The contract extension will wait unsigned until after the season.

Maybe we can borrow Joe Torre for a year or two. Maybe he brings over Don Mattingly. Or does he want to retire retire??

Speculation abounds.

Isn't Torre's wife from Cincinnati?

11larkin11
08-22-2010, 08:57 PM
I don't expect Dusty to stay in Cincinnati if the LA job is still open. The contract extension will wait unsigned until after the season.

Maybe we can borrow Joe Torre for a year or two. Maybe he brings over Don Mattingly. Or does he want to retire retire??

Speculation abounds.

Honestly, I would have no problem promoting Rick Sweet to manager.

pedro
08-22-2010, 09:32 PM
Honestly, I would have no problem promoting Rick Sweet to manager.

I'm curious as to what you know about him that makes you feel he is a good candidate. I'm not saying he's not but I can't help but be sceptical of the idea of bringing in a guy who has only one year experience as a major league coach 14 years ago and is already 57 years old. After the Dave Miley fiasco the fact that someone has been a career minor league manager isn't all that attractive a qualification IMO.

Slyder
08-22-2010, 09:58 PM
Honestly, I would have no problem promoting Rick Sweet to manager.

Just don't neuter him by letting someone go over his head to the boss like what happened with Miley.

Caveat Emperor
08-23-2010, 09:36 AM
I'm curious as to what you know about him that makes you feel he is a good candidate. I'm not saying he's not but I can't help but be sceptical of the idea of bringing in a guy who has only one year experience as a major league coach 14 years ago and is already 57 years old. After the Dave Miley fiasco the fact that someone has been a career minor league manager isn't all that attractive a qualification IMO.

Miley had a lot of strikes against him -- he inherited a clubhouse that was, by all accounts, divided into several camps that all didn't get along with one another. He had a star player who had the ear of ownership and management as well as the undivided attention of several younger players. I don't know that ANY manager could've come in and fixed that without a blank check from management to clean house if necessary.

Plus, I think that the bigger issue for Miley wasn't that he was a careeer minor league manager but, rather, that he was a career minor league player. For all the complaining RZ does about Dusty name-dropping, I think that he has a better understanding of his players because he actually played in the majors. In turn, I think his players respect him more because he's actually been in their shoes before -- playing on the biggest stage.

RFS62
08-23-2010, 10:24 AM
If Dusty does leave, which I seriously doubt, I believe that Castellini will go after another established major league manager.

If he wanted to go cheap, he would have kept Mackanin, who by all accounts did a great job, instead of hiring Dusty in the first place.

Jpup
08-23-2010, 10:44 AM
It's wouldn't surprise me to see Lou as the Reds manager next year, if Dusty leaves.

BuckeyeRedleg
08-23-2010, 12:12 PM
Just in the few times I've seen Louisville in Columbus (right behind the Louisville dugout), I got the impression that Sweet was a player's manager. Very fiery. Emotional. Enthusiastic. I can't pinpoint it, but his players just seemed to respond to him in a good way.

During a rally he would turn from the 3B coaches box, look into the dugout, pump his fists, and and yell, "c'mon", like a football coach firing up his troops. Each time he'd do it, he do it with a smirk on his face and I'd see his players along the railing, smile back at him. I also loved it when he went from the bullpen (catching one of his relievers) during the game to sprinting out onto the field with his shin guards on to argue a call at 2nd base.

I don't know how he plays the numbers/stats game. I'm not sure if he's a manage by the gut leader like Dusty, but all things being equal......I would be okay with this hire.

Mario-Rijo
08-23-2010, 12:54 PM
Not worried if Dusty decides to take the L.A. job. The good news here is that the players would have to recognize that ownership offered him an extension well before the end of the season, and it was Dusty's decision to leave. I think this would make for a smooth transition to whomever. This is a team who can be just as competitive without him, in a slightly different way perhaps but they would be just fine.

The only question is who is the best fit and who is likely to at least get an interview. Maybe looking at that potential list would make the decision to up the ante in an attempt to keep Dusty or to allow this offer to stand and take the chance of him walking away an easier decision.

Potential candidates:

Chris Spier - I think he'd be a consideration if only not to mess too much with the staff.

Rick Sweet - Probably just a thank you gesture unless he impresses. On thing to remember here is that he likely already has alot of the young guys respect.

Sweet Lou - Things can change but I took him at his word yesterday, like he knew this was it, wasn't just sayin' it.

Tony LaRussa - Isn't his contract up? I doubt they would go this way, doesn't seem like the right fit at this point but he'd have to be a consideration.

Bobby Valentine - Now here is a guy who I could really see fit right in with this bunch of players.

Pete Mackanin - Ok not really but I like the guy so I thought I'd give him an honorable mention. And he has gained alot of much needed big league coaching (not to mention playoff) experience since he left.

Bob Melvin - You'd have to think Bryan Price would toss Melvins name in the ring for consideration. He seemed to think very high of him.

4 Dark horse candidates - Kirk Gibson, Don Mattingly, Jose Oquendo & Joey Cora. Mattingly & Gibson might make more sense than alot of guys what with the respect they would likely automatically get from the players due to their big league careers. Gibson only if he isn't retained.

Sea Ray
08-23-2010, 03:14 PM
If Dusty doesn't come back I'd call up Davey Johnson

Reds4Life
08-23-2010, 06:53 PM
I can't see Lou coming back, especially if his mother is still in very poor health. LaRussa isn't a spring chicken either, if he doesn't sign another contract with the Cards, he'll probably retire.

kaldaniels
08-23-2010, 08:28 PM
From the LA Times article linked to above...

"He's done it the same way at each stop, by finding a way to connect with everybody on the roster and somehow pulling the best out of each and every one of them"

I like that.

Bob Borkowski
08-23-2010, 10:36 PM
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100823/SPT04/308230119/Reds-offer-Baker-only-1-year-extension


Only a 1 year extension offer. Wow!

KronoRed
08-23-2010, 10:39 PM
One year? I like it! but is it a sign that Walt wants his own guy?

Brutus
08-23-2010, 10:40 PM
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100823/SPT04/308230119/Reds-offer-Baker-only-1-year-extension


Only a 1 year extension offer. Wow!

Sounds like a Redszone compromise! LOL

Bob Borkowski
08-23-2010, 11:14 PM
Just now, on the 'Marty talks to Dusty Show' just before the Reds/Giants broadcast Marty mentioned to Dusty that Harang had been scratched from being the starter on Wed. for Louisville. Marty asked Baker if being a reliever is what the Reds had in mind for Harang in the immediate future.

And Dusty said that no one had run this by him! He knew nothing about it and that he would have to check with Walt or Price to see what was going on!

This is very surprising to me. Is there so little communication between Walt and Dusty? What's going on here?

Slyder
08-23-2010, 11:52 PM
Just now, on the 'Marty talks to Dusty Show' just before the Reds/Giants broadcast Marty mentioned to Dusty that Harang had been scratched from being the starter on Wed. for Louisville. Marty asked Baker if being a reliever is what the Reds had in mind for Harang in the immediate future.

And Dusty said that no one had run this by him! He knew nothing about it and that he would have to check with Walt or Price to see what was going on!

This is very surprising to me. Is there so little communication between Walt and Dusty? What's going on here?

Maybe the decision was made just before and it leaked much faster than the FO thought it would?

RedLegSuperStar
08-24-2010, 12:16 AM
Dusty have an altimatum? I mean you have a first place team.. As a manager you have the leverage. Heck Dusty will likely win Manager of The Year award. So if I'm Dusty I demand more in terms of years. Go three and meet in the middle.

Personally.. I'm ok with one year. But Dusty deserves better then that offer. Especially after this season. Looks more and more like Dusty to LA might be a reality. Perhaps once they return to Cincinnati they hammer something out.

I'd look long and hard at names like Don Mattingly and Ryan Sandberg If Dusty rejects offer

CTA513
08-24-2010, 12:22 AM
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100823/SPT04/308230119/Reds-offer-Baker-only-1-year-extension


Only a 1 year extension offer. Wow!

If I was him I wouldn't accept a 1 year deal unless the Reds really overpay.

RedsManRick
08-24-2010, 12:41 AM
If I was him I wouldn't accept a 1 year deal unless the Reds really overpay.

Managers are really only ever on a 1 year deal -- the rest is just the buyout fee.

Always Red
08-24-2010, 12:01 PM
If it really is a one year offer, then it means the FO doesn't really want Dusty back.

I'd like to see him stay; the last 2 times that the Reds let managers with winning records get away, it didn't work out so well for the Reds (Johnson, McKeon).

I've enjoyed watching Dusty manage this year- everything he has touched seems to have turned to gold this year, and I tip my cap to him.

RFS62
08-25-2010, 08:32 AM
Well, it's a starting point in a negotiation. That's all.

And Walt usually plays all of his negotiations close to the vest.

We don't know what Dusty wants, I'd imagine he'll use his leverage of this year's success along with the number of jobs out there to his advantage.

A good negotiator will get concessions for the multi-year deal, not put it out there as a starting point.

Heath
08-25-2010, 08:39 AM
Dusty has had one 3/4 of a good year in 3. I would think a one-year extension is sufficient.

Let's face it from Walt's vantage point. This team is setting up pretty good in the next few years. Proficient & productive managers are going to come out of the woodwork to manage this club.

Let Dusty go to LA.

MattyHo4Life
08-25-2010, 09:20 AM
Dusty has had one 3/4 of a good year in 3. I would think a one-year extension is sufficient.

There are plenty of Managerial jobs available now, and for some good teams. If Dusty is only offered a one year deal, then it would probably be in his best interest to leave. If the Reds want to keep him, then I would think he would stay, but not for a one year deal.

westofyou
08-27-2010, 09:03 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/jon_heyman/08/26/scoop.managers/


There are unsubstantiated whispers that Baker, who has delayed taking a Reds extension after a big year, could wind up in L.A.. The ex-Dodger is a hot name right now and could take pressure off McCourt to sign big-name players at a time when he's spending so much on legal fees. Baker has said that he isn't interested in talking about the Dodgers job, but that only makes sense in that Torre's still there and Baker needs to be focused on the Reds' possible division title run. He hasn't rushed to re-sign with the Reds, though that doesn't necessarily mean anything.

Reds4Life
08-27-2010, 09:16 PM
It means Walt doesn't want Dusty, but probably felt obligated to offer him something, knowing he'd reject it.

GAC
08-27-2010, 09:22 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/jon_heyman/08/26/scoop.managers/

It will be interesting to see what Dusty does. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see the Dodgers offer him the job in the off-season and he accepts.

Bob Borkowski
08-27-2010, 10:19 PM
I tend to see a big warning sign around every corner here...

My fear is that Walt really doesn't want Dusty to come back as manager and offered a contract that is meager.

Then, knowing that he would turn it down, Walt goes after and signs Tony LaRussa.

This is my worst nightmare. :eek:

Help me, you baseball experts of RedsZone, and tell me why that is something I shouldn't be worrying about.

MattyHo4Life
08-27-2010, 10:30 PM
I tend to see a big warning sign around every corner here...

My fear is that Walt really doesn't want Dusty to come back as manager and offered a contract that is meager.

Then, knowing that he would turn it down, Walt goes after and signs Tony LaRussa.

This is my worst nightmare. :eek:

Help me, you baseball experts of RedsZone, and tell me why that is something I shouldn't be worrying about.

If the Reds sign Larussa...you would have a lot of happy Cardinals fans. lol

Reds4Life
08-27-2010, 10:31 PM
I tend to see a big warning sign around every corner here...

My fear is that Walt really doesn't want Dusty to come back as manager and offered a contract that is meager.

Then, knowing that he would turn it down, Walt goes after and signs Tony LaRussa.

This is my worst nightmare. :eek:

Help me, you baseball experts of RedsZone, and tell me why that is something I shouldn't be worrying about.

Honestly, I am thinking the same thing. A 1 year deal, to me, says it's pretty obvious that Walt isn't thrilled with having Dusty around. It smacks of an offer made out of obligation, rather than sincere interest in keeping him.

membengal
08-27-2010, 10:35 PM
I thought I read from one of the Reds reporters that Walt firmly denied that it was one-year contract extension that was offered.

mth123
08-27-2010, 10:40 PM
I tend to see a big warning sign around every corner here...

My fear is that Walt really doesn't want Dusty to come back as manager and offered a contract that is meager.

Then, knowing that he would turn it down, Walt goes after and signs Tony LaRussa.

This is my worst nightmare. :eek:

Help me, you baseball experts of RedsZone, and tell me why that is something I shouldn't be worrying about.

My shot at why you shouldn't worry.

Larussa won't come w/o Duncan IMO and Price is Walt's guy as the pitching coach. I don't think Larussa is the plan.

MattyHo4Life
08-27-2010, 10:50 PM
My shot at why you shouldn't worry.

"Larussa won't come w/o Duncan IMO and Price is Walt's guy as the pitching coach. I don't think Larussa is the plan.

Not necessarily:cool:

http://www.dailysportspages.com/forums/showthread.php?60547-St.-Louis-Cardinals-Dave-Duncan-says-he-ll-return-if-Tony-La-Russa-does&p=948721&viewfull=1

"Despite their 24-year relationship as manager and pitching coach, La Russa has insisted he and Duncan aren't necessarily wed professionally. But Duncan noted Tuesday that if La Russa does not return, "It would create a different situation."

Matt700wlw
08-29-2010, 06:22 PM
I was on the LaRussa bandwagon after last year, but I don't want him touching this team. His record speaks for itself, but I pretty much despise him now.


Give Dusty 2 more years.

Ghosts of 1990
08-29-2010, 07:00 PM
I was thinking about starting a new thread on this, but I guess it can fit in here.

I'm worried about one thing about this club's future, and it's the retention of the manager. Dusty was offered a one year deal. What's to say he doesn't say he's going to walk after a manager of the year type season and see what he is worth on the open market? What if he goes to LA (if Torre retires)?

This is one thing, that IMO could be very bad for this team. I've said to a few of my friends I have a gut feeling that the shocker will be in Dusty Baker not coming back for one reason or another. Some wouldn't mind, but I think these guys buy into him and I don't think that the chemistry with the manager/players could be replicated with anyone else. These guys love Dusty. I want him back personally. I hope it somehow ends up being a 3 to 4 year extension. I dont think a 1 year offer will get him back.

sabometrics
08-29-2010, 07:28 PM
A one year deal does seem like the club is trying to sell him short for what he has done. And lets be honest Dusty has done a more than acceptable job in his tenure here. He has this team willing to fight to the death for their manager and I don't like the idea of this team having to build that relationship all over again.

membengal
08-29-2010, 07:34 PM
Again, Walt has absolutely denied that the extension offer was one-year.

Ghosts of 1990
08-29-2010, 07:55 PM
Again, Walt has absolutely denied that the extension offer was one-year.

So what should we think that the hold-up is for right now? Dusty just wanting to focus on the pennant race? That could be I suppose. Nevertheless, I am a little concerned that it hasn't gotten done yet.

Captain Hook
08-29-2010, 07:56 PM
I was thinking about starting a new thread on this, but I guess it can fit in here.

I'm worried about one thing about this club's future, and it's the retention of the manager. Dusty was offered a one year deal. What's to say he doesn't say he's going to walk after a manager of the year type season and see what he is worth on the open market? What if he goes to LA (if Torre retires)?

This is one thing, that IMO could be very bad for this team. I've said to a few of my friends I have a gut feeling that the shocker will be in Dusty Baker not coming back for one reason or another. Some wouldn't mind, but I think these guys buy into him and I don't think that the chemistry with the manager/players could be replicated with anyone else. These guys love Dusty. I want him back personally. I hope it somehow ends up being a 3 to 4 year extension. I dont think a 1 year offer will get him back.

If he wants to go to LA then offering him 2 or 3 years won't matter.If the job opens up then he goes IMO and there's nothing the Reds can do about it.Offer Dusty what he wants.If the Dodger job doesn't open up and he takes it then great .If he splits to the WC then the FO can go to the players and say they did what they could.Everything should be fine with the players either way.

pedro
08-29-2010, 08:31 PM
Assuming the Reds offer a multi-year extension, if the Dodger job is also offered only two things will keep Dusty in Cincinnati IMO.

1. The Reds getting at least to the NLCS.
2. Utter fear of the uncertainty caused by the Dodgers ownership situation.

My guess is that managing the Dodgers is Dusty's dream job and who knows if he'd ever get another opportunity to have it.

Joseph
08-29-2010, 08:33 PM
Assuming the Reds offer a multi-year extension, if the Dodger job is also offered only two things will keep Dusty in Cincinnati IMO.

1. The Reds getting at least to the NLCS.
2. Utter fear of the uncertainty caused by the Dodgers ownership situation.

My guess is that managing the Dodgers is Dusty's dream job and who knows if he'd ever get another opportunity to have it.

Agreed, and I for one would not begrudge him his dream job one iota.

pedro
08-29-2010, 08:45 PM
Agreed, and I for one would not begrudge him his dream job one iota.

Not sure where he lives in off season (assuming that he lives in California) but his son Darron is probably 11 or 12 by now (not sure how old his daughter is) and working in same state as his family is probably a prime consideration knowing the kind of person Dusty is.

hebroncougar
08-29-2010, 08:56 PM
If Baker walks, Walt will pick the right guy to lead the team. He's done great in all other areas so far. I'm not worried. I don't like Baker, but the players obviously do. If he comes back, great, if not..........they'll pick someone who's capable.

Ghosts of 1990
08-29-2010, 08:57 PM
Agreed, and I for one would not begrudge him his dream job one iota.

I wouldn't begrudge him; but when we look at things that could derail the bright future we are looking at this could certainly be one of them. There isn't a man who walks the earth who is a better fit to manage this roster the next 3 to 4 years. Dusty has to be retained at all costs I think.

RedLegSuperStar
08-29-2010, 09:12 PM
He'll stay.. The more this team wins though the more leverage he has. He's getting what 2.5MM now? I'd go 3.25MM for each of the next 2 seasons.

Ron Madden
08-29-2010, 09:17 PM
He'll stay.. The more this team wins though the more leverage he has. He's getting what 2.5MM now? I'd go 3.25MM for each of the next 2 seasons.


I'm sure I read somewhere that Dusty makes 3MM per year to Manage the Reds.

fearofpopvol1
08-29-2010, 10:03 PM
LA is a sexier job, but there sure is a lot more uncertainty there right now. The Reds have a very bright future for the next few seasons. Dusty would have to really want that job to leave in my opinion. The situation here is quite good right now. Not to mention, let's be honest, the Central is a lot easier than the NL West is. I'm sure the Central will be better next year, but I doubt it will be as tough as the NL West.

WVRedsFan
08-29-2010, 10:09 PM
Dusty signed a 3-year 10.5 million dollar contract. Besides, Joe Torre hasn't resigned yet--has not made a decision. Dusty will be back for abut the same money and two years. He wants to win and he'll win here.

Ghosts of 1990
08-29-2010, 10:42 PM
I could see a situation where he leaves Cincy for his dream job I'm SoCal, and someone like Chris Speier takes over here. It's a gut feeling. Speier knows the roster well, but he is no Dusty. I don't know how I'd feel about that. I want Dusty back to see this thing all the way through.

corkedbat
08-30-2010, 02:38 AM
I've had my problems with dusty in the past, but after this season I won't say anything against re-upping him. The team is running smoothly and seem to be close and fond of Dusty. I can seem him leaving for the Dodgers if they come calling.

If they should, I'd like to see them go after an aggressive younger guy - I like Mattingly. Add my name to those who want no part of LaRussa. I think Jocketty will choose wisely though.

Wheelhouse
08-30-2010, 04:23 AM
I can see Torre coming here and Dusty to LA--Dusty's a CA guy and Torre's wife is from Cincinnati.

GAC
08-30-2010, 05:48 AM
I can see Torre coming here and Dusty to LA--Dusty's a CA guy and Torre's wife is from Cincinnati.

If Torre comes here this lifelong Reds fan is switching his allegiance to the Indians!!













[just kidding] :p:

I don't see the above happening with Torre coming here. I think if Dusty is offered the LA job though there is a pretty good chance he'll take it because he does reside, have roots, there. And I wouldn't begrudge him that one bit.

RFS62
08-30-2010, 09:53 AM
Does anyone really believe that we're bringing LaRussa in here with Rolen and Phillips on the team?

I don't. I don't care if Dusty comes back or not, I can't imagine Jocketty, a man who has carefully crafted the chemistry on this team, would bring in a guy that Rolen hates.

It will never happen.

redsmetz
08-30-2010, 05:40 PM
I don't see the above happening with Torre coming here. I think if Dusty is offered the LA job though there is a pretty good chance he'll take it because he does reside, have roots, there. And I wouldn't begrudge him that one bit.

I think Dusty still has a home up near where he grew up in the Sacramento area. The only roots he has in LA are from his playing days. I could be wrong, but at least a handful of years ago, he had a place up north.

westofyou
08-30-2010, 06:42 PM
I think Dusty still has a home up near where he grew up in the Sacramento area. The only roots he has in LA are from his playing days. I could be wrong, but at least a handful of years ago, he had a place up north.

Dusty is a Northern California guy, has a place in the valley, likes to fish in the delta. That said once one is a west coaster chances are they wish to be nearer to the coast than away from it and LA is a lot closer to the Valley than the Midwest.

OnBaseMachine
09-09-2010, 03:50 PM
From Jayson Stark:


"In the end, I think Dusty takes their offer and stays," said one longtime baseball man with connections both to Reds GM Walt Jocketty and Reds CEO Bob Castellini. "But if he doesn't, I could see Tony going there."

Read the rest:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&page=rumblings1000909

LaRussa? Ugh. No thanks!

MattyHo4Life
09-09-2010, 03:52 PM
From Jayson Stark:



Read the rest:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&page=rumblings1000909

LaRussa? Ugh. No thanks!

Well...LaRussa doesn't work well with young players. Doesn't seem like the ideal situation for him, but he is great friends with Jocketty.

TheNext44
09-09-2010, 04:01 PM
Well...LaRussa doesn't work well with young players. Doesn't seem like the ideal situation for him, but he is great friends with Jocketty.

And Cast, who probably dreams of Walt and La Russa working together on his team again.

Personally, I think if La Russa doesn't come back to the Cards, he takes a year off. He needs it.

If Dusty does leave, I think the next Reds manager is someone one no one on this board expects. I have no idea who that could be, but I think Cast is beyond his "big name" fetish by now.

bucksfan2
09-09-2010, 04:04 PM
And Cast, who probably dreams of Walt and La Russa working together on his team again.

Personally, I think if La Russa doesn't come back to the Cards, he takes a year off. He needs it.

If Dusty does leave, I think the next Reds manager is someone one no one on this board expects. I have no idea who that could be, but I think Cast is beyond his "big name" fetish by now.

I think its Barry Larkin if Dusty doesn't return.

pedro
09-09-2010, 04:06 PM
Despite the fact that Larussa is a great manager with a long history of success I think it would be a mistake to bring in a guy who is despised by so many of the teams fans.

I certainly hope it never happens. I can't stand the guy.

MattyHo4Life
09-09-2010, 04:10 PM
Despite the fact that Larussa is a great manager with a long history of success I think it would be a mistake to bring in a guy who is despised by so many of the teams fans.

I certainly hope it never happens. I can't stand the guy.

That would change once he put on a Reds uniform though. Jim Edmonds was viewed as the devil by many Reds fans when he was a Cardinal.

pedro
09-09-2010, 04:30 PM
That would change once he put on a Reds uniform though. Jim Edmonds was viewed as the devil by many Reds fans when he was a Cardinal.

It's really different with Larussa though IMO, but I've been hating him since his days with the A's so...

MattyHo4Life
09-09-2010, 04:41 PM
It's really different with Larussa though IMO, but I've been hating him since his days with the A's so...

A lot of Cardinals fans have hated him since the A's days and they still do. Don't worry about him, LaRussa is used to be disliked. lol Wasn't Dusty hated by a lot of Reds fans before he was hired as well?

pedro
09-09-2010, 04:46 PM
A lot of Cardinals fans have hated him since the A's days and they still do. Don't worry about him, LaRussa is used to be disliked. lol Wasn't Dusty hated by a lot of Reds fans before he was hired as well?

Dusty still is by many it seems, but Larussa's a whole different story IMO. Plus that DUI won;t play well in ultra conservative Cincinnati.

Edd Roush
09-09-2010, 04:50 PM
I think its Barry Larkin if Dusty doesn't return.

Without knowing anything about Barry Larkin's keenness for advanced baseball statistics, the child inside of me would love to see Barry leading this team for a long time into the future.

Griffey012
09-09-2010, 04:54 PM
That would change once he put on a Reds uniform though. Jim Edmonds was viewed as the devil by many Reds fans when he was a Cardinal.

Edmonds was a guy I really disliked because I watched him come up big many many times against the Reds. I also had to watch him play more than nearly any other player due to him being in the same division. But for the most part I respected what he had done as a player over his career and he seemed like a good guy off the field.

Now TLR on the other hand...sure he has a good track record, but I have never liked or respected the guy. He seems to me like an arrogant jerk and has seemed that way as long as I can remember. I can't stand his micro-managing to the extreme. I have a hard time believing that he was really "stunned" and had no idea McGwire used roids after McGwire came out and apologized. He has way to many feuds with players for my liking. And pretty much this entire season has been the last straw in that I would have a very, very hard time watching LaRussa as the Reds manager.

MattyHo4Life
09-09-2010, 04:54 PM
Dusty still is by many it seems, but Larussa's a whole different story IMO. Plus that DUI won;t play well in ultra conservative Cincinnati.

All will be forgiven by many fans once he slides on that Reds uni. :beerme:

KronoRed
09-09-2010, 04:56 PM
I think its Barry Larkin if Dusty doesn't return.

I can't see Walt hiring a guy with no experience to run the team, hiring the local name is something Jimbo would do.

KronoRed
09-09-2010, 04:57 PM
All will be forgiven by many fans once he slides on that Reds uni. :beerme:

Agreed.

Griffey012
09-09-2010, 04:58 PM
A lot of Cardinals fans have hated him since the A's days and they still do. Don't worry about him, LaRussa is used to be disliked. lol Wasn't Dusty hated by a lot of Reds fans before he was hired as well?

Dusty was definitely hated by many Reds fans when he was hired, and still is by a decent amount. The thing with Dusty is that his negative image was glorified way to much by the media following his departure from the Cubs. If you didn't pay that much attention to the Giants or Cubs when he was with him, you simply bought into what the media was saying, as I did myself. Of course the Cubs wanted to do anything but admit they failed again and still stink, so they made Dusty the scapegoat. Sure Dusty is by no means perfect, but I get the consensus around here that many of Dusty's perceived issues are different or not as extreme as the media portrayal (such as Dusty hates young guys).

pedro
09-09-2010, 05:09 PM
Dusty was definitely hated by many Reds fans when he was hired, and still is by a decent amount. The thing with Dusty is that his negative image was glorified way to much by the media following his departure from the Cubs. If you didn't pay that much attention to the Giants or Cubs when he was with him, you simply bought into what the media was saying, as I did myself. Of course the Cubs wanted to do anything but admit they failed again and still stink, so they made Dusty the scapegoat. Sure Dusty is by no means perfect, but I get the consensus around here that many of Dusty's perceived issues are different or not as extreme as the media portrayal (such as Dusty hates young guys).

I think it was easier for Dusty to repair his image with many Reds fans who may have been inclined to dislike him because Dusty by all accounts is a genuinely nice guy.

Larussa? Not so much.

MattyHo4Life
09-09-2010, 05:12 PM
I think it was easier for Dusty to repair his image with many Reds fans who may have been inclined to dislike him because Dusty by all accounts is a genuinely nice guy.

Larussa? Not so much.

How did most Reds fans feel about Dusty before the season started? Winning tends to change minds.

pedro
09-09-2010, 05:19 PM
How did most Reds fans feel about Dusty before the season started? Winning tends to change minds.

A lot of people didn't like him for his managerial tendencies, not because they thought he was an arrogant jerk. At least that's how I see it. Larussa OTOH, is disliked as a person, which is different. Again JMO.

MattyHo4Life
09-09-2010, 05:21 PM
A lot of people didn't like him for his managerial tendencies, not because they thought he was an arrogant jerk. At least that's how I see it. Larussa OTOH, is disliked as a person, which is different. Again JMO.

Carpenter is disliked as a person by Reds fans. I think most fans would change their minds if he became a Red.

Heath
09-09-2010, 05:36 PM
Maybe on September 11, Bud Selig will tell the world that Pete has been reinstated.

Pigs Fly in Porkopolis.

REDREAD
09-09-2010, 05:39 PM
Dusty still is by many it seems, but Larussa's a whole different story IMO. Plus that DUI won;t play well in ultra conservative Cincinnati.

People forgave Freel for DUIing pretty quick.
I've got to agree with MattyMo.. the minute LaRussa puts on a Reds uniform, 90% of the fans will like him (if it happens).

LaRussa is a talented manager. He might not be the perfect fit here, but I'd rather have him than another Dave Miley.

Chip R
09-09-2010, 09:20 PM
Plus that DUI won;t play well in ultra conservative Cincinnati.

Didn't seem to hurt Ryan Freel too much or numerous Bengals.

pedro
09-10-2010, 12:47 AM
Didn't seem to hurt Ryan Freel too much or numerous Bengals.

They're players, not coaches or managers. I could be wrong, I just feel it would be perceived differently.

Brutus
09-10-2010, 01:12 AM
People forgave Freel for DUIing pretty quick.
I've got to agree with MattyMo.. the minute LaRussa puts on a Reds uniform, 90% of the fans will like him (if it happens).

LaRussa is a talented manager. He might not be the perfect fit here, but I'd rather have him than another Dave Miley.

I'm not one of the 90%.

I hate the man. Hate everything about him. I think he's a pretentious, know-it-all who overmanages and creates a terrible work environment for his players.

I would be highly, highly disappointed if he's hired. I'd still support the Reds, but I would not like him.

HeatherC1212
09-10-2010, 05:37 PM
Twitter update regarding Dusty's contract status:


@TomGroeschen RT @JimBowdenXMFOX Walt Jocketty just told us that we can assume they have offered Dusty Baker more than one year, and they (cont.) #reds


@TomGroeschen are in negotiations with him NOW #reds

Wheelhouse
09-10-2010, 05:43 PM
I bet Joe Morgan is the next manager of the Reds.

Reds4Life
09-11-2010, 03:51 PM
I bet Joe Morgan is the next manager of the Reds.

I bet he's not. ;)

savafan
09-12-2010, 05:48 PM
I bet Joe Morgan is the next manager of the Reds.

He was always over .500 as a manager, but he hasn't been in the dugout since '91. ;)

http://www.baseball-reference.com/managers/morgajo01.shtml

Reds4Life
09-12-2010, 05:53 PM
Joe's had chances to manage before, I don't think he's interested. He likes his cushy deal with ESPN, and I don't think he wants the headaches or the travel schedule that comes with being a manager.