No More Years

There are dolts out there who keep saying that Dusty Baker deserves to keep his job. They list a litany of reasons as to why he should keep his job. Given an analysis, only two reasons are valid. Let's list the invalid reasons and break down why they are invalid.

People are only clamoring for Dusty’s head since the Cubs are on pace for a 90+ loss season.

This is known as the straw man argument. You set up an easy-to-destroy argument and pitch it as the argument others are making. People who have watched this team play know two things about Dusty Baker. The first is that he brought the Cubs some much needed cohones during that 5-game series with the Cardinals back in September of 2003. Reading his lips in this instance was the highlight of Dusty's tenure.

The second thing they know (but refuse to admit) is that the descent of Dusty into drooling fool began about 5 weeks later when he used Dave Veres in Game 7 of the NLCS. Since then, he's de-evolved from super human to primordial slime in only two and a half years. What's been the low point? Probably having a meeting with Steve Stone the last week of 2004 to discuss Stone's broadcast instead of worrying about how his team was blowing a playoff spot.

He can recruit free agents to come to Chicago.

This one holds no water for a couple of reasons. First, what good does that skill do if the Cubs don't go after free agents? When was the last time that Jim Hendry went after a prime free agent? Hell, back in the winter of 2002, Jim Thome offered the Cubs a hometown discount to sign. Jim Hendry bought lunch and passed on the contract. What could Dusty have done there? Thome was begging to play in Wrigley (which would have given the Cubs the pennant that year, easily). Dusty's recruiting job would have been superfluous.

OK, you say. They did go after Rafael Furcal. That brings up reason number two why this argument doesn't work. The Cubs finally go after a prime guy and Dusty can't land him. Why? Supposedly, Furcal demurred because the Cubs insisted on a DUI Free contract. You mean that Dusty couldn't call Furcal and say, "Don't worry, dude. I've got 'yer back."

Dusty had a chance to perform here. He failed. He doesn't help recruit free agents. The argument is moot.

He had down years in SF before a string a great years.

That's also a straw man. The San Francisco team had a lot more talent, much of it probably chemically enhanced. All this shows is that if you give Dusty a hyper talented (and drugged) team, he can win (at least until he over-manages in the playoffs). He did that here with Sammy Sosa. Do you see a lot of hyper talened, drug fueled types here? Do you see Jim Hendry going out to get those types of players? Another moot argument.

You don't want to change regimes every few years.

Now this would hold water if the regime was new. Given that the people hiring Dusty have had 12 years with minimal success, it's hardly a novel suggestion that people be fired for imcompetance.

There are two valid reasons to keep Dusty.

Hiring an interim manager can do more harm than good.

Such managers may actually be auditioning for the job permanently and may put wins ahead of development of players. The Cubs have a way to handle this: Make ex-Creighton coach Jim Hendry manage out the year.

Unless you replace Andy MacPhail and then Jim Hendry, it doesn't really matter who the manager is.

This is really the only, acceptable reason to keep Dusty. Luckily, Ariel Capital and the Chandlers give us fans a chance to see real change.