Managerial search over. It's Dusty.

[Cyclone792]

Originally Posted by Team Clark

If it's Ok with you I would like to copy that for my signature....

Go for it, TC.

Just know that if the Reds do eventually hire Baker, I'm sure I'll be able to provide you with a whole bunch of worthy signature quotables.

[Mario-Rijo]

Originally Posted by Matt700wlw

Take it for what it's worth, from Lance's blog...

Bob Brenly is not a candidate for the job. The Reds would have to move off their "extremley short list" for his name to become a factor. Joe Girardi is not interested in the job. All signs point to Dusty Baker.



Before you rip his sources....remember who had the Thom Brennaman and Jeff Brantley news well in advance

Well, they are just listening to the fans pleas for a "Big Name". I guess some shouldn't have ever broached that idea with the powers that be.

Mackanin is the man for the job IMO, at least based on what we seem to have as alternatives. I would have rather had only Davey Johnson, again based on what we had/have to choose from. Heck I think I'd rather have Jim Tracy than Dusty Baker right about now. But since we are tossing around so many ex-dodgers how about this one. Orel Hershiser??? Now this guy could help our pitching staff!

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by Cyclone792

I'm not going to jump ship and not be a Reds fan, but I somewhat understand the sentiment of those who may be hanging on by a few fingers. Eventually it gets to the point that the stupid crap piles up so high that some people just simply stop caring.

To me, the hiring of Dusty Baker would be yet another fresh symbol that this is an organization that just plain out doesn't get it. There's been a lengthy [and pretty good, I might add] discussion in another thread about the Yankees, market size, payrolls, smart organizations, bad organizations, etc. RMR made a point in that thread that if you don't spend a ton of money and you're stupid, then you have little to no chance to succeed in baseball, and that's a point I very much agree with.

We already know that the Reds won't shake the barrel with a large payroll. Of course, they can elect to not hire Baker and remain to be a farce; that's always a viable option too. But if this team hired Baker, it'd just throw another plainly visible nail in the coffin that the Reds' organization continues to be one of the most incompetent organizations in all of baseball. And if this organization continues to be just that, then it's just simply not going to start winning anytime soon.

I guess. If last offseason didn't turn people's agnosticism to plum atheism, then nothing will, in my opinion.

My last straw broke a long time ago. I watch because it's baseball at this point.

[MWM]

Originally Posted by Cyclone792

To me, the hiring of Dusty Baker would be yet another fresh symbol that this is an organization that just plain out doesn't get it.

Sums up my feelings perfectly. I'd still be as big a fan as I am now, but it would be a huge downer that the new regime doesn't have a clue. And that's incredibly disheartening considering how new they are and that they aren't going away any time soon.

[Mario-Rijo]

Originally Posted by Cyclone792

Go for it, TC.

Just know that if the Reds do eventually hire Baker, I'm sure I'll be able to provide you with a whole bunch of worthy signature quotables.

One good thing is that most everyone on this site finally agrees on 1 thing! Dusty can hang his hat somewhere other than Cincy next year and beyond!!! Let's just hope this FO is using the Baker thing as a marketing ploy to make a Mack re-signing seem more palatable for those not enamored with him.

[Ltlabner]

Dusty Baker does many stupid things during a baseball game. He bunts too much, he overworks his bullpens, his lineups are often oddball, he seems to have a preference for "proven" veteran players over young guys who might actually be able to play well. But Dusty also has two Manager of the Year awards, given for seasons where his team seemed to outperform expectations in a huge way. Coincidence? Mere chance? Perhaps. But it's possible that opposed to all the negative stuff Dusty does with strategy, tactics, or lineup construction is one huge positive that more than overcomes anything else you can say about him: he commands the respect of his players. Maybe they play better for Dusty than they would for other managers. How do we quantify that? How important is it that Dusty gets the best possible season out of guys like Rey Sanchez, when Rey Sanchez isn't much good to begin with? That's pretty hard to say, but Baker's success with two different Giants' teams tells me that he is doing something right, and it doesn't seem to have much to do with knowing when to bunt.

From a BP article in 1998 evaluating managers....

[paintmered]

Originally Posted by Mario-Rijo

Let's just hope this FO is using the Baker thing as a marketing ploy to make a Mack re-signing seem more palatable for those not enamored with him.

It's working.

[osuceltic]

Baker wouldn't have been my first choice, but I have no problem with it. His record speaks for itself. He has won with some pretty average teams over the years. He commands the respect of his players. He cares about winning the game, something that sometimes gets lost in all the talk of development on this board. Yes, sometimes that means a Rich Aurilia ahead of an Edwin Encarnacion -- and that's OK sometimes.

Now, there are very real concerns about the way he handles a pitching staff. But most of it is due to Mark Prior and Kerry Wood. Prior has been labeled a china doll for quite a while, and Wood was pegged as an injury risk from the day he entered the big leagues. Maybe, just maybe, Dusty Baker isn't the reason they got hurt. Maybe they just got hurt. He didn't destroy pitching staffs in San Francisco.

I just don't understand the wailing and moaning over this move. The guy is a winner and brings some legitimacy to this team that is sorely lacking. You hire a Dusty Baker and you're making a statement that you're not the Pirates or the Royals. That's important.

[Ltlabner]

(Jose) Macias is exactly the type of player Dusty Baker has a history of preferring: veterans who bring nothing to the table and could be replaced by a rookie in half a second. Baker does have a reputation of getting the most out of guys like this, and to his credit, he hasn't actually used Macias a whole lot this year. The switch-hitter has logged just 140 plate appearances, and while that's arguably 140 too many, his .210 EqA hasn't hurt the Cubs as much as it could have. Despite an atrocious batting line, it's only cumulatively added up to a -3.1 VORP, which is right around replacement level.

From article on BP, 9/9/05

[paintmered]

Dusty Baker is a situation that you thought couldn't get any worse but does.

[M2]

The one probable upside about Baker is that if the Reds hired, it would be an undeniable signal that they were planning to go for it.

Are they positioned to go for it? Can Krivsky deliver the pitching upgrades? Will Castellini open up the corporate wallet? Can Baker make strange, but effective moves with this club?

The answer might be no to all of those. Baker wouldn't be my pick, but if the Reds put him in charge I'll admire the bravery of it.

[Ltlabner]

The move is another step in the steady aging process the Cubs have undergone since Dusty Baker arrived 15 months ago. Bobby Hill lost the second-base job that was to be his to Mark Grudzielanek and was traded; Hee Seop Choi lost his first-base job to Eric Karros and was traded. Now Maddux replaces Cruz. Only Corey Patterson has been able to establish himself under Baker, and his 2003 season was cut short by an knee injury before he had a chance to fall out of favor. The Cubs may win a championship, but there's no question that Baker's impact has shortened their timeframe for doing so. I'll stand by what I wrote after last year's NLCS: the Cubs will never again be so close to a World Series under Baker.

From article on BP - 2.20.04

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

I guess. If last offseason didn't turn people's agnosticism to plum atheism, then nothing will, in my opinion.

My last straw broke a long time ago. I watch because it's baseball at this point.

There's inaction which can leave you spinning your wheels and then there's gross stupidity. Like Morgan as announcer, Baker doesn't just not do good, he's does bad.

If Baker has a strength, it's his ability to keep the clubhouse functioning with a bunch of big egos around. With Junior on the way out, this is a team with no significant veteran presence and a lot of young guys who will need to be given the opportunity to succeed. Baker is quite possibly the worst choice of all the possible candidates.

The idea that somehow avoiding clubhouse discord supercedes bad baseball is like saying Dusty Baker is a guy you want around if you want to lose and be happy about it.

[Ltlabner]

"I put Tony [Womack] at the top because Juan [Pierre] was having trouble getting on base. … Juan's a leadoff man, but Tony's a leadoff man, too. It's kind of a double leadoff man.

"Tony Womack's done pretty (darn) good, too, since he’s been here. … Not everybody wants power. I thought we wanted small ball for a while.

"I love power. I love power and small ball. I like the option. It is a valid argument, but at the same time, some of my better defenses were with Womack out there, too, and speed. I'll try to use them all if I can."

Dusty Baker quote in BP story - 8.10.06

[guttle11]

I would rather listen to Fall Out Boy 162 days a year than Dusty Baker manage the Reds.