Originally Posted by M2
I'm going to go on record as saying I don't mind this one bit.
I wouldn't have hired Baker and I'm sure this portends a slew of moves that I won't agree with one iota. That said, I've spent the past seven years disagreeing with what the Reds have been doing, so this is nothing new from my perspective.
What is different about it is that Baker probably means the Reds are going to make a concerted commitment to winning over the next three seasons. Moves are going to be made. Money is going to be spent. We're going to get the kind of go-for-it effort we haven't seen since the Jr. trade. It could be a disaster, but when you've got an old school owner and an old school GM you shouldn't expect them to act like the Red Sox braintrust. I don't have any argument with most of the criticisms made here about Dusty Baker, but he's close to the top of the heap when it comes to getting your 1970s on (and you can bet Bob Castellini goes to sleep counting big red mechanical sheep).
As edabbs astutely pointed out, this is THE guy they wanted. They have followed their instincts. While those aren't my instincts, for the first time in a long time I can at least recognize this isn't some sorry half measure. The Cincinnati Reds are going after it, hard. We knew who these guys were. For all the style points you might want to deduct, the commitment is impressive. And sometimes wanting it is more than half the battle.
I don't want to go all in like you, but that is kind of how I prefer to look at it. Maybe it portends comittment in other areas of the organization as well. I can only hope Baker was told there would be some money/philosophical changes coming. Otherwise, I can't understand why he would find this situation attractive to him at all. He's a west coast guy, he likes older players, used to a larger payroll, etc...
On the surface, I certainly don't disagree with anyone who believes this guy to be a horrible fit.