Comments on: Why Pay Dusty Baker $3.5 Million?

By: Brian Mills

Brian Mills — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 01:04:27 +0000

I understand the name recognition and ‘representing a change in philosophy’, but when Baker was in San Francisco, he didn’t exactly settle down the Bond-Kent problems. I also don’t understand this image of Arod as an attention hog with a huge ego. Yes, I’m sure he has an ego, he’s the best player in baseball. But it has never gotten in the way of his contributions to the team. Not to mention, there’s no way the Reds get Arod. They should have a plan, you’re right. The plan should be to field a team that can win games and make money for the owners. I don’t see how this move helps that in any way.

By: Jason P.

Jason P. — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 21:11:24 +0000

I think it is safe to say the Reds need a manager that:
1) Does signal a serious change in philosophy of just floating into each season without a plan
2) Has some name recognition (and former division rival)
3) Could manage a big banana like A-Rod, ego and money being the reason
4) Has seen a WS in recent memory – unlike the Reds

By: GUS

GUS — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:45:14 +0000

It has been reported that the Reds spoke with Scott Boras the morning of oct. 31. concerning ARod.

The Reds were rumored to have offered Griffey, Dunn, The Gold Star Chili franchise and Chad Johnson for ARod.

When Boras informed them that ARod was a free agent and not in trade negotiations, the Reds reportedly said, “Our bad, carry on”.

By: Brian Mills

Brian Mills — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 21:32:46 +0000

Honestly, I agree with JC on this one. There is no reason to fork over sums of money like this on any manager. The effect on field performance that the manager has is so small that you’re better off hiring someone within the organization that knows it inside and out and has a standing relationship with the players. Hopefully, if the Reds are looking for a publicity stunt, they have a former team star that can fill that role (see Mattingly, Pena, and Girardi with the Yankees). I think the Yanks are on the right track here, but I’m sure they will splurge ridiculous amounts on one of these guys. On top of this, Dusty Baker is totally clueless in the press box AND on the field.

By: JeremyR

JeremyR — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 06:19:35 +0000

The Reds owner wanted Tony LaRussa, but failing that, signed the next closest thing, which would be Dusty.

By: Marc Schneider

Marc Schneider — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 15:36:40 +0000

The question is, who are the best managers and how do you determine how good a manager is? What factors are important; eg, is being able to handle the clubhouse more important than game strategy and, if so, how do you rate that? How much difference does one manager make over another?

By: Ron

Ron — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:20:11 +0000

I guess the Reds really, really wanted Baker and wanted to make sure he signed with them now rather than see what other offers he got. I feel sorry for any promising pitching prospects the Reds have.

By: realbbbb

realbbbb — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 20:04:46 +0000

I think the real question is why sign Dusty Baker at all for any price. Even ignoring the fact that he destroyed Prior & Wood with ungodly pitch counts, he has not clue about the modern game. You think it was a coincidence that the guy who complained about “clogging up the bases” led to his team OBP’s of .319 in 2006 (dead last in NL), .324 in 2005 (11th in NL), and .328 in 2004 (11th in NL).

By: David

David — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:30:09 +0000

For Homer Bailey’s sake, I hope he’s trade bait.

By: Thomas Greaves

Thomas Greaves — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:31:26 +0000

I suspect that the Reds are trying to signal to fans and free agents that this team is going to make a major effort to turn the team around.

This is the same impulse that led to the Eric Milton signing. Good times for Reds fans!