View Single Post
Old
05-22-2012, 04:33 PM
  #368
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 13,580
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RDriesenUD View Post
Even though I don't like Baker, the Reds did this. They got a proven winner at GM and a proven winner at Manager. Then they got rid of all their "star" players. Now they are winning. It can happen. You just have to have an owner willing to make it happen.
Seattle thought they did the same thing...they got rid of Griffey, got rid of Randy Johnson, and then they won 116 games. Then the bottom fell out entirely, and they've been largely irrelevant for a decade.

I'm curious to know who this "proven winner at manager" is; it sure isn't Dusty Baker. He's someone who, in 19 years, has gotten to exactly one World Series (which they lost) despite having numerous advantages during his 19 years that lesser managers would kill to have. He had Barry Bonds for 10 years in San Francisco, plus another top-20 all-time at his position (Jeff Kent). His lifetime win percentage, expressed in 162 games, is 84-78. Cincinnati got a name manager on the rebound after completely bombing out with the Cubs.

The other thing is that a baseball manager simply doesn't make that much of a difference. The best of all-time might be good for an extra 3-5 games a year, and the worst...well, the extremes of "worst" generally go further down than "best" can go up. The worst of all-time who actually had staying power are usually 3-5 games worse. Dusty Baker falls into that latter category. And he's a guy who always has managed to escape criticism until his ineptitude becomes apparent. The Reds have won two years ago, and to some extent so far this year, because they have accumulated good young talent and even Dusty Baker hasn't yet figured out how to screw it up.

Don't worry though...he will. He always does.

Mayor Bee is offline