By the way, I'm not as anti-Dusty as many of ya'll.  I don't think he was the best choice and I do think that his greatest attribute is that he's a good cheerleader and he looks pretty cool with a toothpick in his mouth and I agree with Man Mountain that the hirings of Dusty and Jockety (if it happens) are indicative of a team "flailing around" instead of developing and adhering to any particular philosophy, but Dusty and Jockety do have some National League titles to their credit and as much as "knowing how to win" is mocked and derided around here, these moves are (correctly or incorrectly) going to be seen as the "jolt" that this franchise needs.  They'll get Jockety, they'll extend Dunn, they might even reel in some re-tread third or fourth starter.  The radio talk show hosts will be loud.  The fans will be proud. Season ticket sales will increase. The "Junior-in-the-500-Club" marketing campaign will begin.  And Castellini will be able to smile smugly over the banks of the Ohio River.

C'mon, they'll win a few more games.  (And in the Central, any team that doesn't have allow Jerry Narron a seat at the table and spends the off-season putting themselves in a position to win said "few more games" has to considered in contention, yes?)

Okay, okay. You're all probably right.  It probably won't work.

But I give it a 27% chance of success.  Measured success.

Go Reds.

Go google "clogging the bases" and then we'll talk.

Zach's predictions have an odd way of ending up completely laughable.

God, I hope he proves me wrong.

There are many of us who hold this same view (well, there's at least me and Red Menace).  I hope people don't mistake all of the reactions in this thread as blind hatred or irrational distrust of everything management does.  As Menace says, there are viable reasons to believe that Baker is the wrong fit for this club.  It very much feels like the Reds are trying to get a big name for the sake of getting a big name.

I said back in July that there was one manager that I didn't want and that was Dusty Baker.  I'm perfectly willing to be wrong on this one.  Hell, I hope I'm wrong.  I want to be wrong.  But right now I don't feel good about this choice.

I'm still going to give the Reds the off-season though.  I'm not giving up on them after just this move.  I still believe they can build a winner.  They can, can't they?  Please?

1.  That's not really a positive.  Baseball, like sports in general, is about the now, and also context.  He hasn't managed a team like the Reds before (small market and young).
2.  This is the same guy who practically sawed off the arms of some of his starting pitchers in Chicago.  He also suffers from Bob McNamara Disease (an overt dependence on playing veteran players [on a team with younger players]).  Frankly, I'm worried about this more than anything, although that doesn't guarantee that he'll repeat his behavior in Cinci.
3.  The biggest criticism of Dusty Baker, from the Cubs fans I've talked to, is how he let his team go after 2003.  In fact, he let them do what they wanted, and allowed the players to regulate themselves (and defended their conduct, regardless of how awful it was).  I posted about the Steve Stone incident, which is probably one of the worst incidents of a manager defending bad behavior by his players I have ever seen from a Major League team.  Again, this doesn't guarantee that he'll repeat this in Cinci.  He took alot of criticism in Chicago for losing control of his team the last couple of years, so maybe he learned from it, but if we're using his track record as an enabling rationale to justify his hiring, then we need to look at the other, less worthy aspects of his past behavior as a field manager.

Supposedly Jocketty deeply pissed off his bosses - owner Bill DeWitt and team president Mark Lamping - for failing to develop an amicable working relationship with VP of player development (and stat maven) Jeff Luhnow. Supposedly Luhnow lived in fear of being seen around Busch Stadium, especially with reporters, for fear it would get back to Jocketty.  And the Jocketty wing of the organization - the old-school scouting types - generally treated Luhnow, according to one source, "like a war criminal."

If the Jocketty rumors are true, it looks like the Reds are going old-school in a big way.

All Things Bubba: Because how can you not love a baseball player named Bubba?

Aaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy............

I touched on this in my post above. This is why people think he's a horrible fit. You're hiring someone who has never evinced the abilities needed to manage this team. It's like paying Jackson Pollack a million dollars to paint your portrait. Maybe he can do that...

(I also disagree that the Indians are doing without the new school formula)

1. Uh, have you seen the way the Reds management has been treating Homer thus far?  They have been overly careful, and they aren't going to let some manager come in and change that philosophy.
As I mentioned in my post above, you might be right about Baker's handling of Bailey, but if you bring in a guy with as much clout as Baker has, it's going to be harder to strong arm him. I'm hoping you're right, but we're still left in a position of hoping against hope that our manager won't derail young talent rather than feeling confident he won't. Not fun.

2. Baker has never managed a young team like the Reds, so how do we know he can't do it?
Weak. Red Menace has already sort of addressed this argument here and above. Dusty has a long record of managing "veterans" because he prefers "veterans." IIRC, the Cubs had the first or second best farm system in MLB when Dusty took over and you still saw them going after Meh veterans like Burnitz and Hollandsworth, while Dusty pulled an Edwin with Matt Murton. (I couldn't find a link for their system ranking. Someone tell me of I'm way off on this). Again, we're stuck hoping that he isn't what he seems to be.

3. Baker will bring some national attention to the Reds.  National attention = E$PN, more cap sales, etc.  Will it have a huge impact?  Not yet, but people won't simply dismiss the Reds.  I've had enough with this "we're a small market team, so we HAVE to do it this way" mentality.  We had Davy Johnson and came in first both his his full seasons.  This "small market/large market" thing is yawn worthy, as I've come to realize.  Look who's playing in the post season now?  Just because it worked for Bill Beane doesn't mean you have to use the same formula for every team with a $70 million payroll.  Looks to me that the Indians, whose payroll is 23rd in baseball, are doing just fine without the new school formula.

This is several different arguments thrown into a huge heap under the nebulous title "Money Stuff." Baker will bring some national exposure--certainly--but much more than the Reds already get? Probably not, if they're not kicking ass. Does Dusty Baker bring in much money? I can hardly see why in merchandise or ticket sales. He may be worth a game or two on ESPN or Fox (playing against the Cubs?). But that's not really worth it.

I think it will be of some passing significance that he is the first AfAm manager of the Reds etc etc, and I'm almost positive that criticism of him will be characterized as racism sooner or later. But he's got a lot of baggage. He still has the Prior/Wood thing hanging over his head, the white players in the sun thing, and a penchant for being overly sensitive to criticism and quite defensive. Perhaps it's unfair to bring up the incredibly silly decision of letting his young son Darren be a bat boy, but it seems to fit within the fabric of very memorable, very unwise decisions he's made in and around a diamond.

The Reds are second tier baseball market, but not necessarily a small one. They have some geographical reach and their success in the 70s still gives them some broader appeal. But that demographic is quickly aging.

The Reds payroll is whatever Bob wants it to be. Dusty had his most success with San Fran, a team willing to bring in big contracts. The Cubs were stingier, but he still got Lee, Aramis Ramirez, Maddux, and Burnitz. Doing it with a smaller payroll means doing it smarter and cheaper than the other guys. Young guys are cheaper at the moment. There may come a time when guys like Burnitz in '03 are undervalued compared to prospects, then it might be wise to go after them, but I still don't think that's the case right now. That's all Beane's philosophy is: find what the market undervalues.

FWIW, I'd take another look at the Indians and Shapiro. They're constructed in a pretty sabr-savvy way. Except for Borowski closing.

I'm not sure what Davey Johnson has to do with anything.

4. Dusty Baker has won manager of the year three times.  Dusty Baker has been to the World Series and has led three teams to Division titles in 14 seasons and finished second 6 other times (one of those times was with 103 wins).  Do the math - that's nine seasons of finishing first or second out of 14 seasons.

Awards are nice and, every once in a while, deserving. He was enormously successful his first year with San Fran in 1993. In 1994, the NL went to 3 divisions. The NL West only had 4 teams (including an expansion Colorado franchise) until 1998, when it added another expansion franchise. Over that ten year span, the Giants won the division twice. With the best baseball player ever, ever, ever in his absolute prime and one of the ten best offensive second baseman ever. They sort of had spotty pitching, so I'm not underwhelmed, but I'm not overwhelmed. Actually, I'm underwhelmed.

The Cubs were great in his first year there, but went into the toilet after that in a 6 team Central division.

5. Baker knows how to manage a clubhouse.  It took skilz to manage the egos of Bonds and Kent - and he managed them to the World Series.  It's obvious the clubhouse issues under Narron influenced their play, so having someone who can keep them in line is a big plus.  (Oh, and will someone send me the link to the article saying the Reds didn't interview Mackanin?  I can't find that one.)

This is true by all accounts, but I'm a little flummoxed by the love Baker gets for "handling" Bonds and Kent. How come we know how much those guys hated each other? How come they were always taking veiled and not-so-veiled shots at each other in the San Fran papers? How come Kent left to go to the Giants' biggest rival? How come millions saw them getting into a shoving match in the dugout on television?

I guess we're supposed to give him credit for keeping Bonds and Kent from killing one another. Okay, fine, done. I'm really glad the Reds convinced him to take some time off from patrolling the DMZ to mediate the bristling Juan Castro-Buck Coats slugfest that embarrased us all this year.

Give him a chance instead of freaking out.

The Reds are going to give him a chance, which seems, in my view, totally unwarranted. I'm not freaking out, but I am sad that a team with such promise and young talent is relying on the stewardship of a bad strategist with a horrible record with young players.

It's like someone dismissing pepperoni pizza as bad when the only kind you've ever had is cheese.

I think it's more like dismissing shit served in a hot dog bun when you've only had shit served in an ice cream cone.

I appreciate you trying to look on the bright side on this hiring, Daedalus, but it looks like a superficial, conventional wisdom type hire to me: gutless, thoughtless, and totally without imagination. I'm sure you saw your share of that working and living in DC.

Sad that Eastern Europe has been better managed than the Reds the last decade.

Let's rev up MicrosoftCliche 2004 (tm): gravitas, bad pitching, Great American Ball Park, directional metaphors...Done.

Man, I'm glad Reilly installed this program in SI's computer."

For the sake of this team, I truly hope he adapts.  However, I'm not going to bank on his wins in San Fran and Chicago anymore than as a Mets fan in the 1960s I'm going to see Casey Stengel as the savior because of his track record with the Yankees.  Situational context should mean something (and to put this in context, the Reds haven't had a winning record since Bill Clinton was President).

As for the Steve Stone incident (yes, dare the thought, I know people who are Cubs fans), Baker is the one who enabled it by trying to boot Stone off the plane, and have him run out of the organization (which he succeeded in doing, before getting the can himself), and refused to discipline his players for their behavior (which included not just threatening Stone on a plane but calling a press box in the middle of a game [instead of actually paying attention to the game itself, which you would think someone who is paid to be a big league player would understand]), and all of this precipitated by a rather benign (by Marty standards) critique of their play.  This isn't being ridiculous.  It typified his loss of control over the team, which culminated in some other behavioral displays by his star players.  As the manager, he's responsible for maintaining some modicum of professionalism on his team, and I cannot imagine that most managers would respond positively to their players spending in-game time behaving the way Mercker did.

Again, I hope Baker learned from his experience in Chicago.  I hope I'm wrong, he takes to the idea of playing the younger players, and doesn't allow any behavioral problems to go unchecked.  He's the manager now, regardless.

and i think everyone's comments so far have been very measured and well-reasoned. Except yours, which have been more along the lines of "these comments are RETARDED" and "chill out and stop being so negative." dusty has a large body of work (and a well-documented catalog of commentary to display his philosophy of the game). his comments re: on-base percentage make joe morgan look open-minded.

Besides, most of us here have despised the man for a long time. A sampling:

I agree
about the manager making little difference, as long as it's not Bob Boone or Dusty Baker.

by Pops on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 04:25:30 PM EDT

---

For my money, Johnny Narron should be placed in a rocking chair in front of Great American Ball Park, holding a shotgun, and if Brenly or Baker show their face, he needs to tell them to just keep moving on.

by Brendanukkah on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 01:46:45 PM EDT

---

No. 1: I agree the Reds want a "name." Both Brenly and Baker are atrocious.

by Man Mountain on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 02:04:59 PM EDT

---

If Baker comes here,
we can pencil in 230 IP for Homer next year.  And surgery the year after.

by ken on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 03:13:47 PM EDT

---

Even worse...

Norris Hopper will hit leadoff in every single game.

by Paul Householder on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 03:47:04 PM EDT

---

Dusty Baker {is} an incompetent assclown.

by Geki on Tue May 29, 2007 at 02:43:25 PM EDT

---

If Dusty Baker is named the Reds manager then I'll be done for awhile. There's just no way I could handle having to watch that.

by JD Arney on Sun May 06, 2007 at 07:12:31 PM EDT

---

Dusty Baker

Please God no.

How about Bucky Dent?

by Caleb on Sun May 06, 2007 at 06:47:48 PM EDT

---

BREAKING NEWS

The Reds have traded Jerry Narron to the Chicago Cubs for Dusty Baker. Seems to be a lateral move for both teams.

by greg456 on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 12:30:49 AM EDT

---

I get the feeling that (Dusty is) smarter than he lets on, and that he doesn't believe all the bullshit he says.

or maybe im just looking too much into it.

by boobs on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 03:07:56 PM EDT

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20071014/SPT04/310140025/

in essence, the cowboy gets a sore wrist.

Being unhappy with a move that is made is not ledge jumping.  Yeah, maybe some people are a little dramatic about it, but I think the general mood has been one of serious disappointment.  Disappointment that is piled on top of 7 straight years of losing.  

And I don't understand why we're not supposed to look beyond his record to see if Dusty Baker is a good fit for this team.  The Reds don't have Barry Bonds or Jeff Kent.  They don't have Sammy Sosa or anything near the pitching staff that the 2003 Cubs had.  Why doesn't it make sense to look at the way Baker does his job and try to extrapolate what it means to the Reds rather than just assuming that he was successful elsewhere so he'll be successful here?

You don't really mean this. When you're hiring employees at your store, you don't take into account background checks or ask for references? Would you hire a gangly, awkward kid who got fired from his last 2 job for knocking over statues and knick-knacks all day long and leaving the doors unlocked, just because he hadn't done it at your store?

As for present performance, Baker's been spreading his peculiar brand of drivel over the airwaves for ESPN this entire season. His philosophy on baseball is no secret.

"Hey hey! I just hit the meat jackpot!"

by Fat Vegas Alan on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 12:13:58 AM EDT
[ Parent | Reply to This ]  

I will never be able to trust you again.

Dunn, Griffey, Harang, Gonzalez, and Arroyo will make more than him.

I don't know if this is a good or a bad thing.  It does seem odd for a manager to be paid more than most of the players, but maybe that's just because the Reds have always gone the cheap route on managers.

"indeed could"?!?!

What does that even mean?

I know I'm nitpicking here, but this man is being paid to speak after all.