Re: "The Poll" on Dusty Baker, part two
My first time around, I voted "no" and I still did mainly because. You know, just because. Truth is, as we get away from the shock of it all, I see some positives. The main positives are:
1. He isn't a manager who doesn't have a record.
Since Jack McKeon, we've had Bob Boone (losing record), Dave Miley (no record), Jerry Narron (losing record), and Pete Macklanin (no record). Now some may say a manager makes no difference, but I differ with this opinion. There's a reson why some guys win and others lose. Dusty is a winner.
2. He may have connections.
OK, so maybe not, but you have to admit that Boone, Miley, and Narron didn't have any that we knew of. Well, maybe the Josh Hamilton connection, but that was a shot in the dark. Truth is that we have hired so many nobodies, it a wonder we have done as well as we have.
3. He's good with the press if you're not Steve Stone. And he's good with the players.
Listening to Boone,. Miley, and Narron was torture. Same old lines game after game. At least with Dusty there's no Gene Mauch connection (why do I want to drive a stake into the heart of anyone who has that connection??). The players will be happy and they'll love him -- if they win. It's easy to hate someone when you lose. His record probably means we'll probably win more than we lose so it assures us of a happy clubhouse. As for the press, Steve Stone isn't here (or Kurt Merkur for that matter), so it should be OK.
As much as I hate to say it, he needs to have a chance. We gave that chance to Boone (well, barely), Miley (after a year and a half honeymoon) and Narron (I stil can hear the arguments for why he should not be blamed for the downward slide he presided over). We loved Mack just because the team won two more games than they lost. He deserves a chance to prove his worth.