Dusty Interested in Extension? Reds Declined?

[westofyou]

FWIW Rich Aurilia was a rookie on the Giants, not a seasoned vet.

[dougdirt]

Why does ownership get a free pass? Their the ones running the whole thing.

I know that I am not the only one who has said it, but I think problem numero uno is Bob stepping in too much. He doesn't get a pass from me. His 'win now' mantra set this organization back several years from the plan that was in place by the current GM who was trying to build from within and had that carpet ripped out from under him. Bob wants to win, but he doesn't have the money to do it the way he wants to (or at least doesn't want to lose money to do it the way he needs to spend to win how he wants) or the patience to win at the current budget he is willing to set for the Reds.

[Slyder]

FWIW Rich Aurilia was a rookie on the Giants, not a seasoned vet.

Whooops was thinking of Matt Williams.

[Captain Hook]

I have to confess that I don’t.

I just think that the team is under funded by the Reds ownership group and has been for going on ten years.

If they were or had been working with a Tampa, Minnesota, Oakland or Florida model their low funding, can work, those organizations had success. That is not what Reds ownership has been doing.

This time they brought in Mr. Baker and Mr. Jocketty to implement the plans, and models that had made them each successful in their previous organizations, San Francisco, Chicago and St. Louis, but, they provide funding like they did for the late 90’s Reds organization. Not funding that is and was needed to make the St. Louis model successful over the years with Mr. Jocketty as a chief architect, here in Cincinnati.

Now they want Mr. Jocketty and Mr. Baker to work some kind of magic for the past two years and a piece with a St. Louis or Chicago type plan or model, how ? Those are much larger money operations.

Here they have a man and with a history of success as shown by his history in St. Louis, they brought him to Cincinnati due to that history and success, but, they don’t provide the funding that helps fuel his methods. Mr. Jocketty is stranded trying to build something against wealthy teams with one hand tied behind his back.

Then we, myself and other’s complain about Jocketty and his players, pitchers, his manager. Sometimes I have to think that they did the best they could with what they were provided by ownership.

Why does ownership get a free pass? Their the ones running the whole thing.

How many players, managers, general managers, and coaches have they turned over? To get basically the same end product?

Jack Mckeon seemed to do well.

If Dusty can't can't get the job done this year then he should go.You can blame ownership along with the GM but managers just don't get to go on loosing year after year because he didn't get the players he needed.

By the way I think this team is fine and should compete this year.Dusty Baker agrees with this.Knowing this about Dusty, if the team doesn't compete isn't Dusty doing a poor job?Shouldn't he be fired?Shouldn't he himself agree that he should be fired?

If the the excuse is that Managers don't make that much difference and that the team is just lousy with or without Dusty then why pay him one of the higher salaries in baseball?To me, those who think this should be the first ones to want Baker out.

[Spring~Fields]

Jack Mckeon seemed to do well.

Jack McKeon did have success in Cincinnati and Florida. He was with the Reds when the Reds funding was in line with the other teams, there were times before McKeon that the Reds had one of the higher payrolls in baseball. Bowden and Lindner brought in Griffey, and did not provide the tools or additional talent to go along with Griffey. One of the primary complaints back then was that the Reds would not succeed because the Griffey signing was taking up a large percentage of their payroll budget.

Jim Bowden seemed to do well at the same time, until the funding was held to the nineties levels, while St. Louis and Chicago went in a different financial direction. The Reds who were competitive, and even bettered St. Louis and Chicago was left in their wake.

If Dusty can't get the job done this year then he should go. You can blame ownership along with the GM but managers just don't get to go on loosing year after year because he didn't get the players he needed.

They have to have near equal to, equal to or greater than talent that produces with the other teams that are their primary competition or they simply are not suppose to come out ahead of the teams with greater production numbers. No general manager can provide that under some type of St. Louis or Chicago model or plan without the necessary funding, year after year to build, supply, and to correct mistakes that are going to happen, and compete, well, not compete, all teams compete. I mean be comparable to the better teams.

If the excuse is that Managers don't make that much difference and that the team is just lousy with or without Dusty then why pay him one of the higher salaries in baseball? To me, those who think this should be the first ones to want Baker out.

Normally I would reason as you have, why pay one three million to get what they can from one for 3-4 hundred thousand.

In this case ownership implied if not directly stated that they would support and supply Mr. Jocketty and Mr. Baker with what they needed by the very fact of bringing them both into Cincinnati. Those two came from success models that utilizes heavy funding. I don’t think those two would have accepted positions in Cincinnati if they had been given a clear and accurate picture. Just as Lou interviewed, and said, no thank you. I think that Jocketty and Baker would have passed too.

They brought in two higher profiled individuals with a history of success, that have to be supported by funds, and players to achieve what they were known for in their other organizations. The ownership group has not done that. They have not done that since 1999.

How many times have they fired someone only to get the same end product? There is a reason for that, that same end product, not all GM’s, managers, and coaches were bad.

The same thing is going to happen to Jocketty and Baker after time, but not because they are bad, but because ownership group fails to supply the complete support that they need to succeed under the win now/rebuild for the future plan.

By the way I think this team is fine and should compete this year. Dusty Baker agrees with this. Knowing this about Dusty, if the team doesn't compete isn't Dusty doing a poor job? Shouldn't he be fired? Shouldn't he himself agree that he should be fired?

This teams presumed success was based upon the pitching and defense, and yes, they have enough offense if the pitching and defense holds up and it still can adapt and adjust to turn out to be a team that is just fine, there is still time for that.

I felt earlier when they were marketing the team with such positives to excite the fan base, that it would exploit Mr. Baker because of some of his ideas on batting orders, speed, player substitutes, and playing time allotted by him, PA to the players with lower OBP.

Exploited meaning that when we all bought into their marketing and expected better and it did not show up, that he would be exploited because of some of his ideas, that stand out to the fans. That he consistently follows, that he would still be doing that in 2010.

But, Mr. Jocketty, his boss has it within his power and authority to talk with Dusty, and ask him to modify some of his ideas with the type or level of player talent that he has currently.

Before Dusty Baker.

Terminate this powerful association Carl H. Lindner, Mrs. Louis Nippert, William J. Reik and George L. Strike, the same people who have had an interest in the way things are ran and financial plans are executed in the Cincinnati Reds organization for decades, dating back to the Schott era and I suspect that you might see some refreshing changes to the team and the teams success.

[Captain Hook]

Houston 97-65 56 mil
Cincinnati 96-67 38 mil
Pittsburgh 78-83 23 mil
St Louis 75-86 46 mil
Milwaukee 74-87 42 mil
Chi Cubs 67-95 55 mil

In 1999 the Reds were 2nd to last in their own division and 20th overall in team payroll.The NYY of course led all teams at just 91 mil. and the league average was about 49 mil.Maybe not the same disadvantage financially that the team now faces but not exactly on par with the rest of baseball.

Most of the other things you point out makes perfect sense but really give no good reason to keep Baker around if this season ends and the team is below the .500 mark once again.

I've only been around RZ during Dusty's tenure as coach so I don't know what kind of things were said about his predecessors.I just wonder if there were these same excuses made for them.

[Spring~Fields]

Houston 97-65 56 mil
Cincinnati 96-67 38 mil
Pittsburgh 78-83 23 mil
St Louis 75-86 46 mil
Milwaukee 74-87 42 mil
Chi Cubs 67-95 55 mil

In 1999 the Reds were 2nd to last in their own division and 20th overall in team payroll.The NYY of course led all teams at just 91 mil. and the league average was about 49 mil.Maybe not the same disadvantage financially that the team now faces but not exactly on par with the rest of baseball.

Those payrolls are all within reasonable range for the 90's. It is in the next decade where very large disparities appear each year, each building year, and time that goes with each year.

Ownership was having the taxpayers, using OPM other peoples money to build a new stadium under the mantra that they were buidling for 2003, when in fact they were keeping the expenses lean especially in player payroll, preparing for the sale of the team to take their profits from the equity of the sale of the team.

The Reds remained behind St. Louis and Chicago throughout the decade, and will continue to. They should, with the number disparity.
Or maybe catch up with some miracles from prospects or trades.

Most of the other things you point out makes perfect sense but really give no good reason to keep Baker around if this season ends and the team is below the .500 mark once again.

I've only been around RZ during Dusty's tenure as coach so I don't know what kind of things were said about his predecessors.I just wonder if there were these same excuses made for them.

They each had their own problems or issues that we criticized them for. Fans do that, it is a part of sports, and sports talk. The optimist defended them and ridiculed the skeptics, the skeptics ridiculed the organization, gm's, managers, coaches and players. The optimist were wrong, every year, unfortunately.

The real problem was that the teams lacked talent and production. You either trade for the talent, buy the talent, or grow the talent, it all cost money. The more you have, well you know.

What happens when you're short year after year for ten years?

[Spring~Fields]

Houston 97-65 56 mil
Cincinnati 96-67 38 mil
Pittsburgh 78-83 23 mil
St Louis 75-86 46 mil
Milwaukee 74-87 42 mil
Chi Cubs 67-95 55 mil

Most money does not dictate that a team will win, most money and it's proper distribution, gives a greater opportunity to improve and win. We have all seen teams spend large sums and lose.

I wish that we could simulate Mr. Jocketty as the identicle GM over the 2000 decade for each organization and to see how the teams with their various funding would have came out. Of course that too will be variable, won't it?

[Ron Madden]

I can honestly not think of one reason why I would want Dusty to return. Honestly, not one. Sure, he's not to blame for everything. Maybe he shouldn't be blamed for any of it. But I don't see how bringing him back next year will help this team at all. It just doesn't seem like a good fit. Dusty is a great guy, and I thoroughly enjoyed the one conversation that I had with him, but I do NOT want him as the Reds manager past 2010.

That might be because there is no good reason to want Dusty to return.

[Will M]

How about an incentivized contract for a manager? say base $1M. for every game won over 81 you get an extra $100K. then an extra $250K for each playoff round won?

go 76-86: no bonus. just the $1M (a very nice chunk of change)
go 86-76: $1.5M
go 91-71 & win the first playoff round: $2.25M

Dusty is getting $3M a year. Thats more than most folks make in their entire life. seems a bit high as a base salary.

[jojo]

While it's good news on the surface of it, it leaves me a bit concerned. If Dusty is worried about his job security come August/September, how likely is he to prioritize the short term wins and losses compared to the long term implications of pushing his players hard? History suggests Dusty prefers to play for the immediate return. Not good. If the Reds don't intend to bring him back, I'd love to see him sent on his way sooner rather than later solely for the sake of our young pitchers' arms.

Or maybe he's likely to refuse to talk to the media following a game more often....

[REDREAD]

Obviously, I don't know Cast personally, but he seems typical of many big coorporate executives. He seems to believe that if you put the right management in place, success will happen. I have seen this in many places I work.. Supposedly, "superstar" managers are put in place, and then they penny pinch on the "worker bees" that actually get the task done. After all, the worker bees are just commodities (in their opinion) and with the right leadership, the company will still succeed

I like the team's legitimate commitment to investing in the farm system, but if Dusty is let go, I see a high chance of an established manager coming to replace him. I doubt anyone is going to be able to convince Cast that he's better off spending 500k on a manager and 3.5 million on a bullpen arm (as opposed to 3.5 million on a manager and 500k on a bullpen arm).

[lollipopcurve]

Baker is not Jocketty's choice. Would be interesting to see who he'd hire (provided Castellini backs off and lets him do his job), and we may find out before 2010 is up.

[Falls City Beer]

I couldn't possibly care less who manages the Reds.

[WMR]

Dusty has got some major stones asking for an extension, I'll give him that.