The Familiar Case for Saving Dusty

Coming back home yesterday, the Cubs not only lost another one, and in easy fashion, but they appeared to play lifeless and did not have their collective head in the game. I know: Tell you something you didn’t already know.

The familiar signs of a Dusty Baker team falling apart were on display during a bizarre rainy Friday afternoon at Wrigley Field. We had ugly errors, perhaps the ugliest being Ronny Cedeno’s toss-away of a ball still in play allowing runners to take an extra base. Matt Murton’s attempt to catch a sinking liner, and a miserable errant throw to try to complete a double play were also horrors to behold. 

Then there was Michael Barrett’s strange emotional outburst against Dave Roberts for—well—I’m not sure what. Maybe having the gall to steal a base when the game had not yet been decided? Barrett’s response may be evidence of cathartic frustration release, but it was channelled inappropriately. Roberts didn’t deserve to be on the receiving end of a mini-tantrum, and he should be admired for his classy response to it if anyone has read his quotes.

We’ve all been down this road before. We’ve seen Dusty Baker teams implode before our very eyes. There has even been radio rumors—unsubstantiated—that some Cub players have vocalized unhappiness over criticism by announcer Bob Brenly. Deja Vu all over again? If Carlos Zambrano gets hit hard in his next outing, I can only shudder to think what his reaction might be.

All of this is a way of saying that Dusty Baker should have been fired many moons ago. That he hasn’t been means he should be fired now. Right now.

The talk about Baker’s dismissal—especially in the final year of a contract that has not yet been extended—has predictably heated up. And just as predictably, there are some keep-Baker advocates sounding the same familiar defenses of past times.

Some of them:

*) Hendry/MacPhail deserves more of the blame. Baker didn’t assemble this team.

The problems that have plagued this Cubs team and the franchise as a whole certainly extend beyond Baker. Advocating that Dusty Baker should be fired is not giving a pass to Jim Hendry or Andy MacPhail. There seems little argument from many here that this franchise—especially at the managerial levels—should be overhauled.

We can talk about that all day and night, but it’s not likely to happen anytime soon. MacPhail is doing just fine by his stockholders and Hendry has a new contract extension. So we can acknowledge that Baker does not have much to work with right now because of his two bosses (as well as his own input into personnel decisions). That being the case, however, does not absolve Baker of a poor managerial showing with the team that he does have.

It’s simply not enough to say that Hendry’s off-season was miserable so we can avoid any real analysis of the job the manager is doing.

*) Who are you going to get that’s any better?

This one comes up over and over again.

An example comes from a recent Cubs newsgroup post: “Those that say anybody is better than what we have are the same ones who said that when Trebelhorn and Riggleman and Baylor left, so that statement means nothing. IMO, that is just the usual -------- and moaning. Who would I want?....Can’t come up with an answer.”

If Baker is evaluated as a poor manager, then it is the Cubs that have the responsibility of finding a better one. I have trouble accepting the argument that a big-market baseball team should hold onto a very lousy manager because of the belief that the organization is unable or too inept to find a better replacement.

That many fans have been unhappy with most of the managers hired by the Cubs does not mean that these fans would not be happy with any available candidate for the manager job. It means that the organization has repeatedly done a poor job in selecting its managers. In baseball today, there have been more young managers who have never managed before and are being given shots at jobs. Fans have not interviewed young and untested managers—they’re not inside the game. So not having a definitive position for a replacement for Baker in no way invalidates the position that he should go, IMO.

Still, it’s easy to suggest better baseball organizations that can be examined by the Cubs for managerial candidates. It’s also easy to put a few manager candidates on a list of those to at least be considered. Lou Piniella has been mentioned by many. I’d like to see some initial interest in Davey Johnson and Bobby Valentine. And to bring in a controversial name, I like the idea of putting in a call to Wally Backman...although I know I have just listed three guys with ties to the Mets. That may be hard for a Cub fan to stomach. 

My point though is whether you like or hate these names—whether these baseball men are available or are the right choice for the job—there are names we know and names we don’t know that can be assembled by a responsible organization. If Baker is not doing a satisfactory job, that’s enough in itself to say he should be canned. Now it’s up to the Cubs—not us—to get someone better.

*) Baker doesn’t hit or throw or pitch.

This one comes up again and again as well. The manager is absolved of a team’s wretched performance because he doesn’t play. It’s the players’ fault. That argument suggests that the manager’s job is completely irrelevant and should never be discussed. And that the only manager who should ever be fired is a player-manager if that. This ready-made defense is always available to any manager considered for dismissal.

The only question that should matter in determining Baker’s stability with the Cubs is whether he is doing an acceptable job with the team he has.

Baker in the past has made managerial and strategy decisions that have warranted serious consideration for dismissal, IMO. The handling of Corey Patterson, his inability to choose better table-setters for almost one-third of the year, his reluctance to remove suicidal relievers from their roles, the workload abuse of pitchers such as Wood, Prior and Zambrano, his mishandling of promising prospects...to name a few.

Admittedly, many of these problems are not in play this year. Baker’s lineups and strategy continue to give all of us fits from time to time, but he has been much less egregious in these areas because of the roster he has. Even Murton and Cedeno have received the playing time many of us have wanted. 

But his team is dead once again, lifeless and often mindless in the field whenever they experience a setback. Without Lee, the Cubs should be better than this, and they should at the very least be playing with more spark. Baker came from SF with a reputation as a motivator, but I’ve seen one weak-minded display after another from Baker Cub teams that are delivered blows. His teams seldom rise to the occasion; they often sink into the mud.

That Baker is unwilling to truly accept accountability for his team’s awful play is another reason that should get him fired. Showing optimisim in the face of ugliness on the field is a part of being a manager, but so is shaking up a team. Sometimes, it’s OK and even good for a manager to echo the words of Ryan Dempster: “We stink.” Instead, the reasons for bad play include not having a pitcher who throws left-handed batting practice and Jacque Jones’ unfamiliarity with the air in Arizona. 

What we saw from Michael Barrett yesterday happens with this team too frequently because Baker loses control of his club during bad times. He talks about how counter-productive it is to throw over tables or raise hell, recalling how little that helped when manager Eddie Matthews responded in such a way on a team for which he played.

But certainly there has to be a place between Baker with his arms crossed, shaking his head and later meekly defending his players and over-the-top Larry Bowa-style histrionics. Does his approach to his team not contribute to the emotional meltdowns we have seen on several occasions during dire times?

To me, this all leads to one question: If the Cubs repeatedly implode during tough times and do not appear motivated in any way for long stretches, what exactly is it that Dusty Baker is bringing to this team? What does he do well that a better manager wouldn’t?