Managerial search over. It's Dusty.

[membengal]

First time since I adopted the Reds at 5 years of age that I've been tempted to temporarily turn my back on the franchise. How utterly, and totally, disheartening. This is a telltale that BCast likes to make an indiscriminate splash, not based on merit but upon name recognition. No wonder we shell out for past their prime vets with name recognition, over more talented, less expensive alternatives.

Cleveland might be headed to the World Series with youngsters, and a guy named Wedge as their head coach. We need innovation in the F.O. and amidst the scouting ranks, not a splashy manager and an antiquated F.O. philosophy.

My optimism for this team steadily heading in the right direction the past 3-4 months is utterly dashed, and I'm guessing we'll now hit rock bottom before ever rebounding. I'm sorry in advance for Harang and Arroyo (thanks for the good years), and for Bailey's imminent demise.

And, as usual, Stormy all over the point as well.

I woke up to this news this morning. It's like being punched square in the unmentionables as you are walking down the street minding your own business.

Unless Baker has been specifically told to handle pitchers differently than he has in the past, this is a border-line undefensible hiring for an organization that counts its pennies and desperately needs pitchers to be good, develop, and live up to contracts.

Bizarre.

Oh, and nice "search".

[lollipopcurve]

Oh, the squawking.

You don't think Baker is going to want the beat Cubs, bad? If Jocketty comes, you don't think he's going to want to stick it to the Cards?

Castellini is upping the ante, bringing in guys who have chips on the shoulders and winning backgrounds. It's clear to me that he thinks changing the culture of the organization -- from the front office to the field -- is too much for Krivsky to do on his own, and that may or may not be an indictment of the GM, I don't know. So, he's shocking the system with big-name outsiders.

There are questions about Baker, sure, but I look at his track record and see a guy who has done well the majority of the time. Same with Jocketty. I look at the Reds of the last 12 years, and I see a lot of losing. You don't think Castellini knows a thing or two about becoming successful?

I'm all for seeing how this shakes out, because it's seismic.

[StillFunkyB]

And, as usual, Stormy all over the point as well.

I woke up to this news this morning. It's like being punched square in the unmentionables as you are walking down the street minding your own business.

Unless Baker has been specifically told to handle pitchers differently than he has in the past, this is a border-line undefensible hiring for an organization that counts its pennies and desperately needs pitchers to be good, develop, and live up to contracts.

Bizarre.

Oh, and nice "search".

Yeah, the "punch" reference is what I felt like when I got home from KI last night and read this.

[GAC]

Oh, the squawking.

You don't think Baker is going to want the beat Cubs, bad? If Jocketty comes, you don't think he's going to want to stick it to the Cards?

There's a difference between wanting to and being able to.

I'm all for seeing how this shakes out, because it's seismic.

It's seismic alright. Like straddling the San Andreas Fault.

[mth123]

Another thing to consider: Dusty did have some horses that could get guys out, which is part of why he rode them hard. Here, that shouldn't be such a problem because no one can get anyone out, save for Harang.

Other thoughts: Mark Prior is made of glass, he probably comes up lame anywhere. Kerry Wood is the one I think Dusty is most responsible for from that crew. He had a known injury history and accumulated high pitch counts very fast. I consider Dusty to be more culpable on that one.

I kind of agree. Wood had already had TJ surgery prior to Dusty's arrival and his career high in innings pitched actually occurred the year before Baker arrived. I think both Prior and Wood would have been hurt whether Baker was there or not.

I'm personally in the wait and see, unsure camp. I know that Dusty has publicly stated his disdain for walks, but Bonds sure walked a lot and on those teams opposing pitchers went straight after everyone else as part of the plan to avoid Bonds. Baker should want them to swing in that situation. I want to wait and see if this is really an issue or a simply an outrageous quote to make a point and slap at some critics.

So what will the implications be?

Will the team raise its payroll to allow its new manager to thrive? If so, overpaying for a vet starter who can log lots of mediocre innings may not be the bad idea we all have been saying it is. Might we see Livan Hernandez, Jon Lieber or even Josh Fogg eating innings in the middle of the rotation? Assuming that no corresponding reductions in payroll will be required, it wouldn't be the worst thing. Of course if it means that Dunn's option is declined to pay for it then it would be a horrible move.

Will we see speedy types at the top of the order? Will Freel and Hopper be manning CF daily as the lead-off options a la Juan Pierre? If so, lets hope we get a rebound in Freel's OBP. If that occurs, what happens to Josh Hamilton?

Do the Reds stick with Griffey an extra year and invoke his option while Jay Bruce languishes in the minors?

Who plays 1B? Hatte is a vet, but he is also a base clogging walk dependent offensive player - something Dusty supposedly disdains. Votto is a "hated" young player who also walks a lot, but is less a base clogger and has some "swing the bat" pop in his favor. If the reputation is true, Baker's head may explode trying to decide between the two.

Does Baker bring in any of his former associates? Does Cincy become a place for a year of Barry Bonds? Do the Reds refuse Dunn's option and give Bonds the money instead? Bonds stated a desire to play with Griffey and with Baker aboard, the commitment probably only for a year and Dunn's money available for financing, it may not be so far out of the realm of possibility. (Let me say I want Dunn long term and Griffey to go with Hammy and Bruce in the OF and the money going toward pitching.)

Does Baker's presence make cincy a player for vet free agents? Baseball is full of cronyism and most players aren't as analytical as the fans on this board. Baker being here may make players consider cincy when they wouldn't look this direction in the past.

Does Baker's hiring put to rest the Jocketty rumors? Seems that Jocketty would want to be involved in the process if he was coming.


If the reputation is true we may see:

1. Dunn's option declined.
2, Bailey, Arroyo and maybe Cueto all on the DL (though Cueto may stay in the minors long enough to esape the overuse until he's built up to it).
3. Votto, Hamilton and Bruce all langusihing in supporting part-time or minor league roles while mediocre vets (Freel, Hopper and Griffey for example) man the OF and Hatte or the like plays 1B.
4. Mike Stanton becomes a centerpiece and gets enough appearances to guarantee his 2009 option is invoked.
5. Eddie Guardado's option invoked.

or maybe its overblown and the Red's young talent is what lured Baker in the first place and we'll see:

1. Griffey and Freel phased out with Bruce and Hamilton taking center stage.
2. Votto at 1B and productive.
3. Bailey and Cueto productive members of the rotation for years to come.
4. A solid vet acquired for the inning eater role to save the pen and make it less necessary to extend the young guys.

I'm guessing we'll probably get a little of column A and a little of column B. I'm not ready to jump ship over this and am kind of excited to see what happens based mostly on my thinking that Baker wouldn't have agreed without some information on the Reds intent to improve. Of course if the very smart people on this board that are calling this a huge mistake are correct, I'll be complaining as loudly as anyone. I think Dunn's option may be the most immediate indication of how things are going to go.

[Ltlabner]

If Dusty is as anti-walk as his past comments indicate, it's not unreasonable to assume he's going to be whispering into every players ear to go to the plate and swing more.

There's already too many free-swingers, and flail at the first pitch guys on the club. A line up with Freel, Ross and AGon swinging away at every last pitch isn't a good thing. Dunn had a fantastic season in 2007. Assuming he's back in 2008 the last thing he needs is someone pressuring him to swing at more junk and "be more agressive". Brandon Phillips, who has a tendency to swing-for-the-fences anyway, certianlly doesn't need someone pushing him to swing more wildly. Let EE do his thing if he's doing well. But if he gets off to another slow start you can count on him being banished. Except this time it woln't be to get his attention (and the position is his again when he gets his head on straight)...it will likely be for good.

Those most in jeprody; young players with good/decent OBP's. Hamilton and Votto especially. Might as well plan on them being targeted for "taking too many walks" and "not being agressive".

[osuceltic]

This a move toward legitimacy. They're not swimming in the shallow end anymore. Dusty Baker has a lot of winning on his resume. He has managed some very difficult clubhouses (something that will serve him well in this job) and taken some teams without great talent to the postseason.

This move says "we're not the Pirates."

Everyone seems worried about Dusty preferring veterans over young players. Who cares? Your thinking is the same thing that had Rich Aurilia in a walker when he arguably was the MVP of this team last season. This is the big leagues. You don't get extra credit for doing it with kids. Besides, I'd hazard a guess that Dusty finds room for impact youngsters. I don't think he's going to bury Jay Bruce behind an inferior player.

Everyone against this hire, I hope you're willing to step up and say "I was wrong" if Dusty takes us to the playoffs.

[KittyDuran]

Everyone against this hire, I hope you're willing to step up and say "I was wrong" if Dusty takes us to the playoffs.

FAT CHANCE! But you will hear a lot of crickets chirping...

[membengal]

Sure OSU and Kitty, why not? I've been up front about things I've been wrong on in the past (Milton signing, Aurilia's usage), so why duck it now?

But right back at both of you if works out like I think it will...

[KittyDuran]

Sure OSU and Kitty, why not? I've been up front about things I've been wrong on in the past (Milton signing, Aurilia' usage), so why duck it now?

But right back at both of you if works out like I think it will...

I have NO problem admitting I'm wrong - better yet come up from Memphis and I'll buy you dinner at Arnie's if you're right that Dusty will ruin Dunn, make the pitcher's arms fall off, give the veterans (even if they're awful) more time playing than rookies, etc.

WAIT! Hasn't that already happened???

[membengal]

I have NO problem admitting I'm wrong - better yet come up from Memphis and I'll buy you dinner at Arnie's if you're right that Dusty will ruin Dunn, make the pitcher's arms fall off, give the veterans (even if they're awful) more time playing than rookies, etc.

WAIT! Hasn't that already happened???

Fair enough, Kitty. As for your last line, I consider that die cast and the path toward that result already being trod...

And if I'm wrong, c'mon down to Memphis and watch the Reds in the their road NLDS game while eating ribs at the Rendeouz with me and the missus.

[GAC]

FAT CHANCE! But you will hear a lot of crickets chirping...

Uh no. Anything is possible. And it's not like I haven't been wrong before either.

But I don't see it with Baker at all. What has Baker got, looking at his history and managerial style, that shows people, buoys their optimism, that he's going to come in here and turn this team around? Because he's "big name"? Knows how to win? Gets players to perform for him?

Did I leave out any cliches that we all endear to?

[jojo]

This is a guy who a few years ago was discussed as being the best manager in the game:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1449940.html

As Rob Neyer points out in the link above, that was hyperbole. He wasn't THAT good.

But the hyperbole on this thread is worse. The Reds have hired their best manager since Davey Johnson. Baker has a .527 career winning percentage.

I would have chosen someone else, but I do think the Reds will be a better than .500 team by 2009.

I think people are reading into the hire to see what it says about the Reds "plan" and philosophy. To many in this thread, hiring Baker to run the current version of the Reds is something like hiring Jeff Gordon to drive Ms Daisy. Basically Baker seems miscast for what appeared to be a role where the Reds go forth with a youth movement that includes significant playing time (and probably significant growing pains) for some highly thought of prospects.

Dusty has proven he can win with talent. That said, I tend to think the impact of managers is generally overrated. Most will win with talent and struggle with flawed rosters. I'm not sure many in history have been able to consistently win with no talent. So it boils down to whether your manager has a style that fits with where you roster currently is (and where you see yourself going) or does he have tendencies that could hurt what you're trying to do? Dusty has never been known as a guy who puts up with growing pains and he has a well-earned reputation as a butcher of pitching staffs. It's possible that he'll have no choice but to play youth and he could always pull a Piniella (another arm butcher) and abdicate his control of the staff to a quality pitching coach. This doesn't have to be disaster but it does seem like forcing a square peg into a round hole (in part for the sake of signaling a commitment to winning?). Will he adapt to the Reds roster? Will he decimate it by killing the Reds young arms and stagnating their youth (how about Bruce as a defensive replacement in '08?) or will the Reds reshape their roster via trade and free agency to suit Dusty?

To many, this is a frustrating hire. The Reds had a chance to go a new direction, "new school" in a sense where they follow models like Cleveland, Boston etc. But now with Baker's hire and talk of reshaping the FO with Jocketty, it seems clearer that the Reds are more apt to chase a more traditional approach which at least IMHO, is full of inefficiencies that many smart clubs have recognized and begun to exploit expertly.

What happened the last time a Baker-run team had bullpen issues? The Cubs dramatically overreached in free agency to give him a retooled, expensive pen he still couldn't win with....Jocketty was basically forced out of St Louis because they have begun emphasizing a melding of stats and scouting while decidedly relying more on player development.

Where does this leave Cincy? They've made some strides with player development (but are they sustainable ones?), picked up some nice additions for their 25 man roster by exploiting undervalued commodities (Arroyo, Phillips, Hamilton) but have been clueless regarding free agency. On the whole, I think we should wonder if they have a coherent organisational philosophy in place that will lead to consistent winning (TeamClark has eloquently questioned this multiple times) or are they simply pecking around at the margins in what amounts to jogging on a treadmill as other teams are running full steam ahead?

I'm thinking that we're looking at a franchise that may get lucky once in a while (i suck at darts but still hit the bullseye occasionally), but I'm not convinced that they'll make their own luck consistently...

[GAC]

I'm going out and buy a dog just so I have something to kick!

[Krusty]

I can live with Dusty Baker as a manager as long as he doesn't have pitchers throwing 150 pitches in a game.

If I'm Krivsky the first question I ask is how many pitches Baker should allow a pitcher to throw in a game even if that pitcher is pitching solidly.