Should Dusty Baker Receive an Extension?

[Larkin Fan]

Originally Posted by GAC

Exactly. And for all those that want Baker canned? Do you have a viable replacement/candidate in mind? Or are you just so mad with frustration you want someone's head to roll.

I'm pretty sure it's the latter, GAC.

[Kc61]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

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.

Yes, I believe Cairo and Valdez were Jocketty's decision. Baker may have gone along with them, but they are primarily the decision of the front office. I hardly see the wisdom of firing the field manager because the FO acquires bad bench players.

As for Valdez' 200+ plate appearances and batting slot, this all took place in the regular season in which the Reds won more games than any team in baseball, save one. Again, I'd hardly fire Dusty for bad moves in the regular season, unless our new minimum standard is 98 games won.

Frankly, and this is not directed at AD, I think RedsZone spent more time blaming Valdez for the Reds' problems this year than any other player. What a joke! It's easy to pick on the fringe bench player. He was well down the list of the team's real problems, a backup middle infielder.

I don't personally care if the Reds renew Baker or go with another good manager, I admire Dusty enormously, but sometimes a fresh look at the team is good. But this team's problems were personnel related IMO.

I just watched CC Sabathia pitch a complete game victory to clinch a playoff series. Mat Latos, a great young talent, wasn't quite ready to do that. I wouldn't fire Dusty for that. Nor would I fire him for the men left on base and the total 8 runs scored in the three final home games, including games against Vogelsong and Zito.

[SunDeck]

Originally Posted by GAC

I just got done talking to a buddy... had to talk him down off a bridge because he was so distraught over the Reds..... but when they announced that Cueto was done, and decided to call up Leake, I immediately thought.. "Why not give the start to Chapman? You got Broxton and Marshall to close. It's one game, but a very important one. You close it out, and you have several days of rest.

I had a wild hare about going Lecure, Arredondo, Marshall. Three innings each, max.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by SunDeck

I had a wild hare about going Lecure, Arredondo, Marshall. Three innings each, max.

Oh jeez we're twins, that was my thought/wish too

[George Foster]

Originally Posted by Superdude

1) Phillips
2) Cozart
3) Votto
4) Ludwick
5) Bruce
6) Rolen
7) Hanigan
8) Stubbs

Someone give me a significantly better lineup.

1) Votto
2)Cozart
3)Phillips
4)Ludwick
5) Bruce
6) Frazier
7) Hannigan
8) Stubbs (San Fran) Heisey (home)

Votto had no power, he was a spray hitter who walks alot, almost a .500 OBP...perfect lead off hitter. Phillips in the 3 hole is perfect since Votto is injured.

Frazier after doing what he did for this team after Votto went down this summer more than proved he needed to be in the starting line-up.

Stubbs on the road in AT&T park is fine because of the large park. Heisey made every routine play he had to make all season while playing center field. We needed his bat at home.

Did anybody watch the New York series?? Guess who was benched? The mighty A-ROD. Girardi had no problem benching a struggling A-ROD because he knew this was not June. This is the playoff's. You manage differently. Yankees won game 5. This is the difference between Dusty and a manager who knows how to win and has won a World Series.

Is their anyone on this board that can honestly say Dusty would have benched A-ROD for any reason? If you do I say you are intellectually dishonest. WE ALL KNOW Dusty would never bench a struggling veteran, NEVER. Dusty feels that something is "owed" to the veteran. The veteran has paid his dues and therefore despite the situation "deserves" to play over a younger player or God forbid a rookie who is out performing him. You cannot have a manager who refuses to put the right players in the line-up in the right times out of a since of loyalty to certain players.

Girardi could give a rats #@#$ if he is "loved" by his players. You think A-ROD liked being benched? Who cares! It's about winning. You think Girardi would not move Votto in the line-up? Only 7 RBI's since his return? In a "New York minute!"

Yes...Dusty is "loved" by his players...and ALL of them are planning their vacations instead of wondering if they are going to Washington or St. Louis.

[CySeymour]

Originally Posted by Kc61

Frankly, and this is not directed at AD, I think RedsZone spent more time blaming Valdez for the Reds' problems this year than any other player. What a joke! It's easy to pick on the fringe bench player. He was well down the list of the team's real problems, a backup middle infielder.

Yep, it is farther down then centerfielder and leadoff hitter. Valdez is a capable backup utility infielder, whose primary skill is defense. But the problem most had, myself included, is Dusty trying to fit a square peg into a round hole and slotting him at the top of the lineup when he did play. The problem isn't Valdez himself, it was Dusty not utilizing this resource properly.

[757690]

Originally Posted by George Foster

Did anybody watch the New York series?? Guess who was benched? The mighty A-ROD. Girardi had no problem benching a struggling A-ROD because he knew this was not June. This is the playoff's. You manage differently. Yankees won game 5. This is the difference between Dusty and a manager who knows how to win and has won a World Series.

Is their anyone on this board that can honestly say Dusty would have benched A-ROD for any reason? If you do I say you are intellectually dishonest. WE ALL KNOW Dusty would never bench a struggling veteran, NEVER. Dusty feels that something is "owed" to the veteran. The veteran has paid his dues and therefore despite the situation "deserves" to play over a younger player or God forbid a rookie who is out performing him. You cannot have a manager who refuses to put the right players in the line-up in the right times out of a since of loyalty to certain players.

Girardi could give a rats #@#$ if he is "loved" by his players. You think A-ROD liked being benched? Who cares! It's about winning. You think Girardi who not move Votto in the line-up? Only 7 RBI's since his return? In a "New York minute!"

Yes...Dusty is "loved" by his players...and ALL of them are planning their vacations instead of wondering if they are going to Washington or St. Louis.

Nice rant, feel better? Too bad none of it is based on facts.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by Kc61

Yes, I believe Cairo and Valdez were Jocketty's decision. Baker may have gone along with them, but they are primarily the decision of the front office. I hardly see the wisdom of firing the field manager because the FO acquires bad bench players.

As for Valdez' 200+ plate appearances and batting slot, this all took place in the regular season in which the Reds won more games than any team in baseball, save one. Again, I'd hardly fire Dusty for bad moves in the regular season, unless our new minimum standard is 98 games won.

Frankly, and this is not directed at AD, I think RedsZone spent more time blaming Valdez for the Reds' problems this year than any other player. What a joke! It's easy to pick on the fringe bench player. He was well down the list of the team's real problems, a backup middle infielder.

I don't personally care if the Reds renew Baker or go with another good manager, I admire Dusty enormously, but sometimes a fresh look at the team is good. But this team's problems were personnel related IMO.

I just watched CC Sabathia pitch a complete game victory to clinch a playoff series. Mat Latos, a great young talent, wasn't quite ready to do that. I wouldn't fire Dusty for that. Nor would I fire him for the men left on base and the total 8 runs scored in the three final home games, including games against Vogelsong and Zito.

I don't think anyone is suggesting the Reds should fire Dusty Baker because the FO acquired bad players. On the contrary, the FO has amassed quite a lot of talent on the team. An extraordinary amount really. The personnel on the team are a manager's dream. That is why the team won 97 games despite having an average manager at best. Jocketty and Baker have worked together to assemble a team chock full of talent with only a couple of woeful duds like Valdez and Cairo, both of whom would be easily replaceable if Dusty and Walt wanted to replace them. Giving those duds hundreds of at-bats is mostly Dusty's fault, and partly Walt's fault for not forcing Dusty to let go of them. Most people can see that General Managers and managers work together to build a roster. GMs don't operate in a vacuum without communicating with the manager and forcing the manager to use players he doesn't want. Dusty Baker has plenty of input and had a big hand in the construction of this roster both good and bad.

The tired refrain that Dusty Baker cannot be criticized because the team won 97 games rings awfully hollow. No matter how many games a team wins they could always have done better. Baker has very clearly done some things poorly in his career here in Cincinnati. Many of the things people think Dusty did wrong in 2012 are the very same things he was doing wrong when the team had a losing record in prior seasons. If Dusty is the reason why the Reds are so good then why did they have a losing record last year? Same manager, different players. Adding Mat Latos, Ryan Ludwick, Todd Frazier, Sean Marshall and Zack Cozart is the reason the 2012 team was better than the 2011 team. Dusty was the same both seasons, so he was not the reason the team got better. The same criticisms of Dusty that were valid in 2011 are still valid in 2012 despite the excellent win/loss record. Dusty is not immune to criticism because he is managing a better group of players this year than last year. His strengths are still strengths and his weaknesses are still weaknesses. Fans and observers have every right to discuss those good and bad qualities without being shot down because the team has a good record this season.

Obviously the team's record has varied considerably over the years of Dusty's tenure, some good some bad. I think it is a bit gullible to believe the reason this year's team won 97 games is because Dusty Baker is the manager and that somehow that makes him immune to criticism because every one of his decisions and strategies were absolutely correct beyond question.

From what I have seen, Wilson Valdez has gotten very little blame for the Reds problems -- certainly not as mush as he deserved.

The Reds playoff loss to the Giants has very little to do with why most people want to move on from Dusty Baker. It is not like they have suddenly come to the realization that Dusty is not that great. They have seen his embarrassing lineup construction and poor in-game strategic moves for several years now. This team is loaded with talent that if utilized correctly could have done better in 2012.

[George Foster]

Originally Posted by 757690

Nice rant, feel better? Too bad none of it is based on facts.

Explain? Since none of it is based on facts, you can use your keyboard and educate me. Be specific. No more drive-by posts..

[George Foster]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

The Reds playoff loss to the Giants has very little to do with why most people want to move on from Dusty Baker. It is not like they have suddenly come to the realization that Dusty is not that great. They have seen his embarrassing lineup construction and poor in-game strategic moves for several years now. This team is loaded with talent that if utilized correctly could have done better in 2012.

Very good post. This was not a cinderella team...

[757690]

Originally Posted by George Foster

Explain? Since none of it is based on facts, you can use your keyboard and educate me. Be specific. No more drive-by posts..

A-Rod was benched for one game for Raul Ibanez, not some young kid rotting on the bench.

Exactly which struggling veteran has Baker refused to bench?

[CySeymour]

It's very hard to say if a better in-game manager would have won that series. But it is clear that a better one would have give the Reds a better chance to win the series. I don't think the decision to start Leake was horrible, he was just left out there too long. The same with Latos in game 5. Or not realizing Votto wasn't going to drive the ball and hitting him 2nd or leadoff. Giving Cozart too many at-bats at the top of the lineup. Pitching Arrendando instead of Hoover in game 4. Having Bruce attempt a steal of 3rd. The players win the games, but they need to be put in the best possible situations by the manager. You can overcome that in the 162 games of the regular season, but in a short series, each decision matters.

[757690]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling
The Reds playoff loss to the Giants has very little to do with why most people want to move on from Dusty Baker. It is not like they have suddenly come to the realization that Dusty is not that great. They have seen his embarrassing lineup construction and poor in-game strategic moves for several years now. This team is loaded with talent that if utilized correctly could have done better in 2012.

Reds made the playoffs with the second best record in baseball. Does a manager have to get the best record in baseball every year in order to keep his job? How much better is required for the Reds to do for the manager to keep his Job?

[Kc61]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

I don't think anyone is suggesting the Reds should fire Dusty Baker because the FO acquired bad players. On the contrary, the FO has amassed quite a lot of talent on the team. An extraordinary amount really. The personnel on the team are a manager's dream. That is why the team won 97 games despite having an average manager at best. Jocketty and Baker have worked together to assemble a team chock full of talent with only a couple of woeful duds like Valdez and Cairo, both of whom would be easily replaceable if Dusty and Walt wanted to replace them. Giving those duds hundreds of at-bats is mostly Dusty's fault, and partly Walt's fault for not forcing Dusty to let go of them. Most people can see that General Managers and managers work together to build a roster. GMs don't operate in a vacuum without communicating with the manager and forcing the manager to use players he doesn't want. Dusty Baker has plenty of input and had a big hand in the construction of this roster both good and bad.

The tired refrain that Dusty Baker cannot be criticized because the team won 97 games rings awfully hollow. No matter how many games a team wins they could always have done better. Baker has very clearly done some things poorly in his career here in Cincinnati. Many of the things people think Dusty did wrong in 2012 are the very same things he was doing wrong when the team had a losing record in prior seasons. If Dusty is the reason why the Reds are so good then why did they have a losing record last year? Same manager, different players. Adding Mat Latos, Ryan Ludwick, Todd Frazier, Sean Marshall and Zack Cozart is the reason the 2012 team was better than the 2011 team. Dusty was the same both seasons, so he was not the reason the team got better. The same criticisms of Dusty that were valid in 2011 are still valid in 2012 despite the excellent win/loss record. Dusty is not immune to criticism because he is managing a better group of players this year than last year. His strengths are still strengths and his weaknesses are still weaknesses. Fans and observers have every right to discuss those good and bad qualities without being shot down because the team has a good record this season.

Obviously the team's record has varied considerably over the years of Dusty's tenure, some good some bad. I think it is a bit gullible to believe the reason this year's team won 97 games is because Dusty Baker is the manager and that somehow that makes him immune to criticism because every one of his decisions and strategies were absolutely correct beyond question.

From what I have seen, Wilson Valdez has gotten very little blame for the Reds problems -- certainly not as mush as he deserved.

The Reds playoff loss to the Giants has very little to do with why most people want to move on from Dusty Baker. It is not like they have suddenly come to the realization that Dusty is not that great. They have seen his embarrassing lineup construction and poor in-game strategic moves for several years now. This team is loaded with talent that if utilized correctly could have done better in 2012.

Sorry, this makes no sense to me. Sounds like somebody looking for ways to criticize a manager.

Should I evaluate Baker by some fans' view of his in-game strategies and lineup construction?

Or should I evaluate him based on division championships two of three years and 97 wins this year, considering also the early playoff exits?

I'll look at the results and I think they've been better than the Reds have had since the days of Jack McKeon and Davey Johnson.

I kind of like the wins and division championships. Just me, I guess.

[757690]

Originally Posted by Kc61

Sorry, this makes no sense to me. Sounds like somebody looking for ways to criticize a manager.

Should I evaluate Baker by some fans' view of his in-game strategies and lineup construction?

Or should I evaluate him based on division championships two of three years and 97 wins this year, considering also the early playoff exits?

I'll look at the results and I think they've been better than the Reds have had since the days of Jack McKeon and Davey Johnson.

Speaking of whom, I guess he should be fired now too, along with Buck Showalter.