[M2]

Originally Posted by Stormy

1. The Reds weakest unit in 2007 was their bullpen. If not properly addressed (and Wayne's demonstrated an ability to whiff on BP improvement twice in two years), how might that impact Dusty's demonstrated tendency to ride his starters longer conventional wisdom indicates is prudent?

Fair question. Wayne's bullpen building foibles and Dusty's whip hand could form a perfect storm.

Originally Posted by Stormy

2. The Reds haven't developed a pair of top of the rotation starters in more than a decade, and until Harang's and Arroyo's advent, hadn't boasted a decent #1-2 since the brevity of Harnisch and Neagle. So, history would demonstrate that we don't have the luxury of flaming out a pair of arms, and quickly replacing them. Taking the chance that a pitcher abusing phenom like Dusty Baker, under directives to 'win immediately', possibly devoid of a viable and deep bullpen, is going to handle them with care is a pretty big risk. that's without even taking into account the potential handling of youngsters like Bailey.

That's where I go back to Dick Pole. He's been here. He handled Harang fairly well last season and it looked like he figured out that you count pound on Arroyo after the early season ringer they put him through. I'll add that Harang pitches efficiently enough that he can go 7 IP without getting into crazy high pitch counts, so he's self-protecting in that regard.

Originally Posted by Stormy

3. Speaking of the fast forward to a mandate of 'winning now', how might it affect an organization whose GM was just articulating the inception of a 'rebuilding process' less than 18 months ago? At year's end, the future was spelled Bruce, Hamilton, Votto, Bailey, Cueto, Encarnacion, Phillips etc... but aside from BP, there isn't a guy in the group who has a stranglehold on a starting job. How much of the future might be moved via trade to 'go for it now'? How much of a rope will Dusty give young players who demonstrate the typical coming of age inconsistencies, if he's given veteran options in their stead? Is the youth movement going to be derailed, and should it be, before it starts paying it's dividends.

Honestly, I don't think there was ever any real evidence the Reds were pursuing a rebuilding plan. They've taken a look at some younger guys when they had injuries and fell out of the race, but I wouldn't confuse that with a youth movement. Before the franchise hired Baker I said that we ought to be prepared for the reality that at least one of Bruce, Bailey, Cueto and Votto will be traded. That's just realpolitik. If they make such a deal and get a good return, then that's cool with me.

The Castellini/Krivsky regime has consistently said it wants to win now and it's actions have generally been in pursuit of that goal. Even during this dog of a season the only veterans traded were Kyle Lohse and Jeff Conine, who were pending free agents.

Originally Posted by Stormy

4. Dusty doesn't have any regard for the relevance of OBP, and i'm not sure how it can be anymore explicitly stated. In the event that Dusty's speedy CF type happened to possess +OBP skills, then his teams lucked into a decent OBP at leadoff, in the far more frequent circumstance that his speedy CFers didn't possess those skills, his teams were stuck with 280-320OBPs in the #1-2 slots. Frankly, that's no more enlightened than a Miley or Narron batting whoever played SS #2.

Well, seeing that his primary CF options look to have OB skills, that most of the team in fact has OB skills, I'm not overly worried on that score. For the record, during his 10 seasons with the Giants, his primary leadoff hitter had a .333 or better OB seven times.

And while he was with Chicago, he actually got fairly decent OB from his primary leadoff hitters in 2003 (Grudzielanek, .366 OB, and Lofton, .381 OB) and 2004 (Walker, .352 OB, and Grudzielanek, .347 OB). Jerry Hairston (.336 OB) was his primary leadoff guy in 2005 and he had a fairly gaudy OB considering Baker's other options that season. Juan Pierre was at .330 in 2006. While I'm not going to want a .330ish OB up top, the point I'm making here is that Neifi Perez was an exception, not the rule.

Originally Posted by Stormy

Personally, I saw an enormous difference in this offense when Pete placed Hamilton and Keppinger in the #1-2 slot based upon their ability to get on base (as did our offensive output which rose by a statistically significant margin following such moves in July), so the idea of the potential desire to put a rabbit CFer at #1 and a bat handler at #2 gives me premonitions of a potential Hopper and Gonzo tandem at #1-2, and that dismays me.

We'll see, but I'd be extremely surprised to see Hopper getting many starts. Baker would have to bench Hamilton and Freel and keep Bruce in the minors to do it. Let's not forget, Dusty likes him some tools. Hamilton and Bruce are going to appeal to him. Keppinger's not going to start, but we already knew that. My expectation is that Phillips will hit #2.

Originally Posted by Stormy

I think extremely valid points have been made that Dusty is a good manager, but that he might not fit well with the construct of this team (a team which was showing signs of only being a starter and a reliver or two away from contending in the NL Central). I think Dusty's signing has a good chance of derailing the Reds first signs of positive direction this decade.

I think you made some good arguments on that front here. Law didn't. He soiled the bed.

Obviously if Dusty Baker manages like a caricature of himself then it won't bode well for the team. Yet, when I look at his body of work, I see more depth than he's being credited for having.