Turn Off Ads?

View Poll Results: Should Dusty receive an extension?

Voters
110. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yay

    34 30.91%
  • Nay

    55 50.00%
  • Maybe

    21 19.09%
Page 11 of 17 FirstFirst ... 789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 251

Thread: Should Dusty Baker Receive an Extension?

  1. #151
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Shelburne Falls, MA
    Posts
    10,071

    Re: Should Dusty Baker Receive an Extension?

    I'm sick of losing. I'm sick of looking up and seeing 1990 as the last year this organization had any relevance. I don't want to turn into another Chicago or Cleveland -- where you have fans who are born, live, and die never seeing their favorite team hoisting a trophy or raising a banner. Accepting good regular seasons and poor postseasons as positive things embraces mediocrity.

    It's time to go find someone who can bring this team to better things than mediocrity while there is still a chance.
    Please. Winning 97 games is not mediocrity.

    We are not all entitled to be king.
    "Baseball is a very, very complex business. It's more of a people business than most businesses." - Bob Castellini

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #152
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    42,448

    Re: Should Dusty Baker Receive an Extension?

    Quote Originally Posted by lollipopcurve View Post
    Please. Winning 97 games is not mediocrity.

    We are not all entitled to be king.
    8th most wins in team history, in 131 seasons and yet some still want the video game version of perfection.

  4. #153
    Five Tool Fool jojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    18,681

    Re: Should Dusty Baker Receive an Extension?

    There are a lot worse things that could happen then the Reds giving Dusty a 1 year deal.
    "This isnít stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner

  5. #154
    Stat Wanker Hodiernus RedsManRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    15,935

    Re: Should Dusty Baker Receive an Extension?

    I don't think a team with our budget can be managed with such tactical inefficiency and expect to come on top at the end of the day.

    I really do respect what Dusty brings to the table. That this team won so many games in the regular season is a testament to that to some degree. But when the rubber hits the road, you need to be able to maximize your chances to win an individual game and, like Ron Washington, Dusty just isn't up to par in that area.
    Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.

  6. #155
    Box of Frogs edabbs44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    16,296

    Re: Should Dusty Baker Receive an Extension?

    Quote Originally Posted by RedsManRick View Post
    I don't think a team with our budget can be managed with such tactical inefficiency and expect to come on top at the end of the day.

    I really do respect what Dusty brings to the table. That this team won so many games in the regular season is a testament to that to some degree. But when the rubber hits the road, you need to be able to maximize your chances to win an individual game and, like Ron Washington, Dusty just isn't up to par in that area.
    So Ron Washington can't win an individual game, however he can take his team to the WS two years in a row? That's ridiculous.

  7. #156
    Box of Frogs edabbs44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    16,296

    Re: Should Dusty Baker Receive an Extension?

    Quote Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor View Post
    Think of it this way:

    Would you keep around a salesman who is constantly able to drum up new potential clients, but is absolutely incapable of closing the sale?

    That's Dusty Baker. When the games count the most, he gets outmanaged and his teams find creative ways to lose.

    I'm sick of losing. I'm sick of looking up and seeing 1990 as the last year this organization had any relevance. I don't want to turn into another Chicago or Cleveland -- where you have fans who are born, live, and die never seeing their favorite team hoisting a trophy or raising a banner. Accepting good regular seasons and poor postseasons as positive things embraces mediocrity.

    It's time to go find someone who can bring this team to better things than mediocrity while there is still a chance.
    Don't you think that teams typically need to build towards the levels of success that you are looking for? The Reds are on the upswing, give it time. Everyone wants to blame the manager and its pretty lame. You want to moan about lineup construction and whatever. All I know is I saw our "big bats" up a whole lot yesterday with men on and they didn't come through. Not sure that Dusty got up in those situations.

  8. #157
    Member 757690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dayton
    Posts
    10,071

    Re: Should Dusty Baker Receive an Extension?

    I wonder if the Reds lost the first two games, then won the next two, the lost the final game, would the same number of people want Dusty fired?
    "Man, the pitch looks fast, even in slow motion." Thom Brennaman on Chapman's fastball.

  9. #158
    Kmac5 KoryMac5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Waterloo, NY
    Posts
    3,681

    Re: Should Dusty Baker Receive an Extension?

    Not a great question to ask fans a day after losing a playoff series, some folks are still on the bridge contemplating the jump. I think it depends on the price. I would not be willing to pay Baker what some of the elite coaches in the league make but I do feel he has the support of the FO and the team. Overall I think he does a pretty good job with the Reds and would like to see him back.
    If you have a losing record at Reds games, please stop going.

  10. #159
    First Time Caller SunDeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    5,388

    Re: Should Dusty Baker Receive an Extension?

    Quote Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor View Post
    Think of it this way:

    Would you keep around a salesman who is constantly able to drum up new potential clients, but is absolutely incapable of closing the sale?

    That's Dusty Baker. When the games count the most, he gets outmanaged and his teams find creative ways to lose.

    I'm sick of losing. I'm sick of looking up and seeing 1990 as the last year this organization had any relevance. I don't want to turn into another Chicago or Cleveland -- where you have fans who are born, live, and die never seeing their favorite team hoisting a trophy or raising a banner. Accepting good regular seasons and poor postseasons as positive things embraces mediocrity.

    It's time to go find someone who can bring this team to better things than mediocrity while there is still a chance.

    Winning the division is mediocre?

    Bobby Cox had teams in the post season 16 times, winning 1 World Series.
    I have a hard time saying winning only once is his fault.


    True, Baker has been in 6 post seasons, with no WS wins. However, that performance is not too far shy of the following group; which of these guys do you not want to be your manager?

    Whitey Herzog: 6 Playoffs, 1 WS win
    Davey Johnson: 6:1
    Charlie Manuel: 6:1
    Jim Leyland: 7:1
    Lou Piniella: 7:1
    Mike Scioscia: 6:1
    Earl Weaver: 6:1
    Billy Martin: 5:1

    OK, I would never have wanted Billy, either, but the rest of these guys are pretty good.
    Next Reds manager, second shooter. --Confirmed on Redszone.

  11. #160
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    42,448

    Re: Should Dusty Baker Receive an Extension?

    Quote Originally Posted by SunDeck View Post
    Winning the division is mediocre?

    Bobby Cox had teams in the post season 16 times, winning 1 World Series.
    I have a hard time saying winning only once is his fault.


    True, Baker has been in 6 post seasons, with no WS wins. However, that performance is not too far shy of the following group; which of these guys do you not want to be your manager?

    Whitey Herzog: 6 Playoffs, 1 WS win
    Davey Johnson: 6:1
    Charlie Manuel: 6:1
    Jim Leyland: 7:1
    Lou Piniella: 7:1
    Mike Scioscia: 6:1
    Earl Weaver: 6:1
    Billy Martin: 5:1

    OK, I would never have wanted Billy, either, but the rest of these guys are pretty good.
    Pennants and banners are all that matter, the rest is just an excuse to spend time in the yard on a nice summer evening.

    Or so I've been told.

  12. #161
    Stat Wanker Hodiernus RedsManRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    15,935

    Re: Should Dusty Baker Receive an Extension?

    Quote Originally Posted by edabbs44 View Post
    So Ron Washington can't win an individual game, however he can take his team to the WS two years in a row? That's ridiculous.
    And why did the Rangers lose those series?

    A GM can build a team that nearly any manager could get the playoffs. But nothing the GM does can make up for a manager making poor choices when the outcome of a single game means the season. I'm generally of the opinion that you need a manager who doesn't screw up the clubhouse or abuse your pitching staff to win in the regular season and one who can maximize every opportunity to win individual games in the playoffs.

    I'm completely open to the idea that neither team would have been there in the first place without their respective manager. And I recognize that the biggest driver of success of success is the execution by the players, which is largely out of the managers' hands. But when teams lose playoff games because of tactical errors that could have easily been avoided, I can't help but wonder about the alternative.

    As I've said elsewhere. I'm not advocating getty rid of Dusty for the sake of getting rid of him. But I'd give serious consideration to the alternatives with an eye towards managers who are superior tactically. The guy I really wanted was Francona (assuming we couldn't steal Davey Johnson back from Washington). I like Acta on the tactical side, but have no clue about the human side of things with him. I certainly do NOT want Bobby V or Jim Tracy.
    Last edited by RedsManRick; 10-12-2012 at 06:36 PM.
    Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.

  13. #162
    KungFu Fighter AtomicDumpling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Hamilton, OH
    Posts
    2,714

    Re: Should Dusty Baker Receive an Extension?

    Quote Originally Posted by edabbs44 View Post
    So Ron Washington can't win an individual game, however he can take his team to the WS two years in a row? That's ridiculous.
    Ron Washington is a terrible manager. Just because a team is good does not mean the manager is good. Dusty Baker is an average manager. Ron Washington is one of the absolute worst. Totally clueless. Just listen to the guy.

  14. #163
    KungFu Fighter AtomicDumpling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Hamilton, OH
    Posts
    2,714

    Re: Should Dusty Baker Receive an Extension?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kc61 View Post
    This is really unfair. Dusty doesn't acquire the talent. Dusty didn't sign Cairo to a two year deal. He didn't acquire Valdez to replace Janish. Those are front office moves.

    With a five man bench, you have to play your subs sometimes. When Votto and Rolen were both out, he had to use Cairo. When Cozart was out, he had to use Valdez. When both CFers were out, he used Valdez.

    When he rested guys at their positions, he used Cairo and Valdez. He didn't acquire them.
    You think Valdez and Cairo would be on the team in 2012 if Dusty Baker didn't want them there? No way. Those guys were there because Dusty Baker wanted them there. Jocketty could easily replace those guys at any time. They were both literally in the bottom five worst players in the major leagues this season offensively and they are both poor defensive players too according to UZR. If Dusty wanted them gone they would be gone.

    Why do so many people want to give Dusty a pass when it comes to deciding which players are acquired and which players make the team? Dusty and Walt work together to build the team. Walt goes and gets players that Dusty wants. I don't buy the excuse that Dusty is forced to use players he doesn't want on the team. That is not an excuse based in reality.

    Putting Wilson Valdez in the lineup for 200+ plate appearances (half of them in the 2 slot) this season is just asinine. If you absolutely must put him in the lineup then put him at the bottom or else you will look like a complete fool. Valdez had the worst OPS in major league baseball in 2012 (min. 150 PAs). He has a .594 career OPS and is a below average fielder. His .463 OPS in 2012 was nearly 300 points lower than pitcher Mike Leake's .749 OPS. Even pitcher Mat Latos had a better OPS than Wilson Valdez.

  15. #164
    Member Superdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,780

    Re: Should Dusty Baker Receive an Extension?

    Quote Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling View Post
    You think Valdez and Cairo would be on the team in 2012 if Dusty Baker didn't want them there? No way. Those guys were there because Dusty Baker wanted them there. Jocketty could easily replace those guys at any time. They were both literally in the bottom five worst players in the major leagues this season offensively and they are both poor defensive players too according to UZR. If Dusty wanted them gone they would be gone.

    Why do so many people want to give Dusty a pass when it comes to deciding which players are acquired and which players make the team? Dusty and Walt work together to build the team. Walt goes and gets players that Dusty wants. I don't buy the excuse that Dusty is forced to use players he doesn't want on the team. That is not an excuse based in reality.

    Putting Wilson Valdez in the lineup for 200+ plate appearances (half of them in the 2 slot) this season is just asinine. If you absolutely must put him in the lineup then put him at the bottom or else you will look like a complete fool. Valdez had the worst OPS in major league baseball in 2012 (min. 150 PAs). He has a .594 career OPS and is a below average fielder. His .463 OPS in 2012 was nearly 300 points lower than pitcher Mike Leake's .749 OPS. Even pitcher Mat Latos had a better OPS than Wilson Valdez.
    We had plenty of reason to believe both of those guys would be decent role players. Give any mediocre player 200 sporadic at bats, and sometimes it's just going to end up the way it did. H Rod was out for a lot of the year, Gregorius is still viewed as a potential starter and needed regular at bats...who else was supposed to fill those 200 plate appearances?

  16. #165
    KungFu Fighter AtomicDumpling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Hamilton, OH
    Posts
    2,714

    Re: Should Dusty Baker Receive an Extension?

    Quote Originally Posted by Superdude View Post
    We had plenty of reason to believe both of those guys would be decent role players. Give any mediocre player 200 sporadic at bats, and sometimes it's just going to end up the way it did. H Rod was out for a lot of the year, Gregorius is still viewed as a potential starter and needed regular at bats...who else was supposed to fill those 200 plate appearances?
    There are dozens of players throughout baseball that could have been acquired very cheaply at any time who would be upgrades for Valdez and Cairo. Replacing the worst player in the league is actually pretty easy to do. It wasn't done because Dusty wanted to stick with Valdez and Cairo. If he had wanted to replace them they would have been quickly and easily replaced just like they replaced Willie Harris with Xavier Paul.

    To replace Valdez or Cairo you don't need to sell the farm. You likely won't get a star player to replace them, but a player worthy of being in the major leagues is not all that hard to get. Sometimes all it takes is cash considerations or a minor league journeyman PTBNL. The bar for upgrading the Reds bench was very low.
    Last edited by AtomicDumpling; 10-12-2012 at 07:31 PM.


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25