Managerial search over. It's Dusty.

[MrCinatit]

Originally Posted by TeamBoone

Just one question (okay, three)... why on earth would Castellini do this? I honestly can not comprehend why.

Why in the world were they so hell bent on a big name, even if he isn't all that great?

And why so quickly? It's only been two weeks since the season ended!

Stormy hit the nail on the head, several times. If fans can see all these things, I can't understand why ownership can not.

After the last couple of years of "You're doing a great job _____" and "We're only a couple of arms away" from the ownership, I am beginning to believe Bob lives in a giant bubble, where the cries of the masses are unheard.

[LoganBuck]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeRedleg

If they pass on Dunn and now with the Dusty Baker move, I will be done.

I can't put my heart into it anymore. It's too painful.....and frustrating.

Maybe we can all be Indians fans, they are a fundamentally sound organization. They hire up and coming managers, they bring in young talent. They can tell the difference between



and a

[jmcclain19]

Per Castellini - the Reds are close - I think he honestly thinks this is the last piece the Reds need. I honestly would not be shocked if the Reds did little in the offseason due to this ridiculous optimism.

[BuckeyeRedleg]

Originally Posted by LoganBuck

Maybe we can all be Indians fans, they are a fundamentally sound organization. They hire up and coming managers, they bring in young talent. They can tell the difference between



and a

Go Tribe.

[Aronchis]

I forgot about Arroyo. We saw what Narron did to him, just think what Dusty will do!!

[paintmered]

Originally Posted by jmcclain19

Per Castellini - the Reds are close - I think he honestly thinks this is the last piece the Reds need. I honestly would not be shocked if the Reds did little in the offseason due to this ridiculous optimism.

Castellini is delusional. This entire franchise has no sense of reality.

I need a break from baseball.

[George Anderson]

Im guessing Harang and Arroyo wont be pitching any day games!!





:Baker stands by heat comments
By Chuck Johnson, USA TODAY
Chicago Cubs manager Dusty Baker, dismissing suggestions he made a racist assertion when speaking with reporters about day baseball, stands by his comments that black and Hispanic players are better suited to playing in the sun and heat than white players.

Cubs manager Dusty Baker didn't back down from his comments, but he also won't address it any further after this.
By Aynsley Floyd, AP

"I'm not playing the race card. I'm telling it like it is," Baker said by telephone Monday.

"What I meant is that blacks and Latins take the heat better than most whites, and whites take the cold better than most blacks and Latins. That's it, pure and simple. Nothing deeper than that."

Harry Edwards, a sports sociologist who served on the faculty at the University of California-Berkeley for 30 years, called the comments "unfortunate and not totally informed" but said they weren't malicious.

"Dusty and I go back a long way, and Dusty by no means is enamored with ethnic or racial stereotypes," Edwards said. "If we didn't have a race issue in this country, that statement would have little or no consequence. But we do have a race issue."

Baker, whose Cubs play a majority of their home games in the daytime, made his comments Saturday.

"It's easier for most Latin guys and it's easier for most minority people because most of us come from heat," Baker said. "You don't find too many brothers in New Hampshire and Maine and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. ... We were brought over here for the heat, right? Isn't that history? Weren't we brought over because we could take the heat?"

Tony Bernazard, a former major leaguer from Puerto Rico who is special assistant for the players union, didn't think anything was wrong with the comments.

"It's somebody's opinion," Bernazard said. "I don't think anybody can accuse Dusty Baker of being a racist because Dusty Baker is not a racist."

Baker's comments were ripe fodder for the talk shows Monday. Some charged that a white manager would be under fire if he made similar statements.

"If a white manager made those statements, there's no question he would find himself in a group that includes Al Campanis and Jimmy 'The Greek' Snyder," Edwards said.

Baker, one of four African-Americans among seven minority managers in the major leagues, agrees. "But as a black manager, I can say things about blacks that a white manager can't say, and whites can say things about whites that blacks can't say."

Baker said he won't address the issue any further. "People have accused me of being sensitive, but maybe they're too sensitive," he said. "I'm not elaborating on it any more. End of topic. I said what I mean."

[M2]

I'm going to go on record as saying I don't mind this one bit.

I wouldn't have hired Baker and I'm sure this portends a slew of moves that I won't agree with one iota. That said, I've spent the past seven years disagreeing with what the Reds have been doing, so this is nothing new from my perspective.

What is different about it is that Baker probably means the Reds have concerted commitment to winning over the next three seasons. Moves are going to be made. Money is going to be spent. We're going to get the kind of go-for-it effort we haven't seen since the Jr. trade. It could be a disaster, but when you've got an old school owner and an old school GM you shouldn't expect them to act like the Red Sox braintrust. I don't have any argument with most of the criticisms made here about Dusty Baker, but he's close to the top of the heap when it comes to getting your 1970s on (and you can bet Bob Castellini goes to sleep counting big red mechanical sheep).

As edabbs astutely pointed out, this is THE guy they wanted. They have followed their instincts. While those aren't my instincts, for the first time in a long time I can at least recognize this isn't some sorry half measure. The Cincinnati Reds are going after it, hard. We knew who these guys were. For all the style points you might want to deduct, the commitment is impressive. And sometimes wanting it is more than half the battle.

[MartyFan]

Originally Posted by M2

I'm going to go on record as saying I don't mind this one bit.

I wouldn't have hired Baker and I'm sure this portends a slew of moves that I won't agree with one iota. That said, I've spent the past seven years disagreeing with what the Reds have been doing, so this is nothing new from my perspective.

What is different about it is that Baker probably means the Reds are going to make a concerted commitment to winning over the next three seasons. Moves are going to be made. Money is going to be spent. We're going to get the kind of go-for-it effort we haven't seen since the Jr. trade. It could be a disaster, but when you've got an old school owner and an old school GM you shouldn't expect them to act like the Red Sox braintrust. I don't have any argument with most of the criticisms made here about Dusty Baker, but he's close to the top of the heap when it comes to getting your 1970s on (and you can bet Bob Castellini goes to sleep counting big red mechanical sheep).

As edabbs astutely pointed out, this is THE guy they wanted. They have followed their instincts. While those aren't my instincts, for the first time in a long time I can at least recognize this isn't some sorry half measure. The Cincinnati Reds are going after it, hard. We knew who these guys were. For all the style points you might want to deduct, the commitment is impressive. And sometimes wanting it is more than half the battle.

I agree...

[RFS62]

Originally Posted by M2

I'm going to go on record as saying I don't mind this one bit.

I wouldn't have hired Baker and I'm sure this portends a slew of moves that I won't agree with one iota. That said, I've spent the past seven years disagreeing with what the Reds have been doing, so this is nothing new from my perspective.

What is different about it is that Baker probably means the Reds are going to make a concerted commitment to winning over the next three seasons. Moves are going to be made. Money is going to be spent. We're going to get the kind of go-for-it effort we haven't seen since the Jr. trade. It could be a disaster, but when you've got an old school owner and an old school GM you shouldn't expect them to act like the Red Sox braintrust. I don't have any argument with most of the criticisms made here about Dusty Baker, but he's close to the top of the heap when it comes to getting your 1970s on (and you can bet Bob Castellini goes to sleep counting big red mechanical sheep).

As edabbs astutely pointed out, this is THE guy they wanted. They have followed their instincts. While those aren't my instincts, for the first time in a long time I can at least recognize this isn't some sorry half measure. The Cincinnati Reds are going after it, hard. We knew who these guys were. For all the style points you might want to deduct, the commitment is impressive. And sometimes wanting it is more than half the battle.

Interesting take. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!!

[jmcclain19]

Originally Posted by RFS62

Interesting take. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!!

Every year for as long as I can remember, football starting in August is a welcome break from the boring drag Reds baseball is every season.

If anything else, is sure as heck isn't going to be boring.

We may be talking rubbernecking the trainwreck here, but he beggars can't be too choosy.

[westofyou]

At least he's not a former catcher... nor a a Mauch disciple.

First Reds manager since Lou to have played the OF throughout his career.

Has a record of having really good first seasons with his teams.

[OnBaseMachine]

Goodbye Jay Bruce and Joey Votto. It was nice knowing you, but we don't like young players. Goodbye to the arms of Homer Bailey and Johnny Cueto. Goodbye Adam Dunn, your high OBP just clogs up the bases. Hello Juan Castro, the new starting 3B.

[Phhhl]

Originally Posted by M2

I'm going to go on record as saying I don't mind this one bit.

I wouldn't have hired Baker and I'm sure this portends a slew of moves that I won't agree with one iota. That said, I've spent the past seven years disagreeing with what the Reds have been doing, so this is nothing new from my perspective.

What is different about it is that Baker probably means the Reds are going to make a concerted commitment to winning over the next three seasons. Moves are going to be made. Money is going to be spent. We're going to get the kind of go-for-it effort we haven't seen since the Jr. trade. It could be a disaster, but when you've got an old school owner and an old school GM you shouldn't expect them to act like the Red Sox braintrust. I don't have any argument with most of the criticisms made here about Dusty Baker, but he's close to the top of the heap when it comes to getting your 1970s on (and you can bet Bob Castellini goes to sleep counting big red mechanical sheep).

As edabbs astutely pointed out, this is THE guy they wanted. They have followed their instincts. While those aren't my instincts, for the first time in a long time I can at least recognize this isn't some sorry half measure. The Cincinnati Reds are going after it, hard. We knew who these guys were. For all the style points you might want to deduct, the commitment is impressive. And sometimes wanting it is more than half the battle.

I don't want to go all in like you, but that is kind of how I prefer to look at it. Maybe it portends comittment in other areas of the organization as well. I can only hope Baker was told there would be some money/philosophical changes coming. Otherwise, I can't understand why he would find this situation attractive to him at all. He's a west coast guy, he likes older players, used to a larger payroll, etc...

On the surface, I certainly don't disagree with anyone who believes this guy to be a horrible fit.

[Stormy]

Originally Posted by M2

What is different about it is that Baker probably means the Reds are going to make a concerted commitment to winning over the next three seasons. Moves are going to be made. Money is going to be spent. We're going to get the kind of go-for-it effort we haven't seen since the Jr. trade. It could be a disaster, but when you've got an old school owner and an old school GM you shouldn't expect them to act like the Red Sox braintrust.

What you are advocating as the upside of this move, a concerted effort to 'go for it', is exactly my primary rationale for disliking the move. In this market, with this personnel, and in this current division the recipe for success should be to follow through with the development of the youthful talent that was already paying dividends.

Following Mac's ascent, we posted one of the better records in the division and league, and that was with heavy contributions from the young talent that should be counted upon to improve and replicate similar production (and which had already demonstrated an ability to shine under Pete). In a division where 10 games over .500 ball runs away and hides with the crown, Pete's 2 games over .500 with a previously 20 games under club, was positive traction.

A franchise like the Reds should be looking to clubs like Cleveland for innovative and forward thinking approaches to rebuilding, and as a how to guide to competing with the larger market competitors. Instead, we went 180 degrees in the opposite direction, favoring retro-backwards thinking, and the common man appeal of a familiar name and nostalgia, to good baseball philosophy.

The problem with this Owner and F.O. 'going for it' is precisely the fact that this is the type of signing that happens when they 'go for it'... Sign a manager who was 34 games under .500 in his last 2 NL Central seasons with a superiorly funded team, over a manager who just went 2 games over with the a lesser team in the same division. When these guys 'go for it' what do we get? When we went for it in mid-2006 Majewski was the center piece of wining now, along with Cormier, and Guardado. When we were ready to contend again going into 2007, it was the addition of Stanton, and Gonzo and Conine etc...

The right track was staying the course with allowing the young positional players, and bullpen hands to continue to blossom (Hamilton, Phillips, EdE, Votto, Bruce, Bailey, Cueto, Burton, Cout, Salmon etc...) and to then augment them with a little veteran rotation help, and a more stalwart bullpen enforcer or two. That, and good health, and we're in contention in the volatile NL Central. Instead, where will the shakeup lead? How far will we backtrack? How many bad moves, and how much youth development impeded, will take place in favor of veteran filler who plays Dusty's old school style of ball? Given Dusty's atrocious sense of pitcher/batter matchups, flat earth concepts of lineup construction, and starter usage, will anyone be placed in an optimal position to succeed?

My guess is that Pete handled the bullpen much better, cared for the arms of our key investments (Harang and Arroyo) much better, and handled youth development much better, than Baker ever will. And that the small, incremental gains we made throughout 2007 were likely all just flushed for the splash of a PR move that will go terribly awry.