How happy were you when the Cubs got Dusty Baker?

[Banedon]

Ok, be honest here. When the Cubs got Dusty Baker as manager, how happy were you at the time?

[pitchcs]

Pretty happy (7), but hardly through the roof.

[Sammys Boombox]

9. But I was also a freshman in HS so was very naive.

[Banedon]

9. But I was also a freshman in HS so was very naive.

 

I was out of college, but was pretty baseball dumb. So 9 is what I went with too. I might be giving myself too much credit though. It might really have been a 10. I was pretty excited. *sigh*

[Guest]

I was around a 2. I was on the "he crushed every pitcher he used in SF" bandwagon.

[treebird]

HIS TEAMS ALWAYS OVERPERFORM AND THE PLAYERS LOVE HIM AND WE WILL SIGN LOTS OF FREE AGENTS SINCE EVERYONE WANTS TO PLAY FOR HIM

 

i was like an 8 at the time. declined slightly to like a 6 over the course of the season, as i started doubting him and wondering if all these people talking about pitch counts knew anything.

 

then over the course of the offseason i developed full-fledged hatred for the guy as i got way smarter about baseball.

 

RELATED STORY:

Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 10:25 pm

[Guest]

I was excited because it seemed to signal we were trying to win, but at that point I was pretty convinced managers don't make much of a difference. Didn't take into account how he could destroy a young and talented pitching staff.

[Guest]

I don't remember having strong feelings one way or the other, but I'm pretty sure my reaction was positive. I put 5.

[sneakypower]

i vividly remember somebody talking about it on ESPN saying "he squeezes all the toothpaste out of the tube" which i now realize was only a metaphor for his effect on elbow and shoulder ligaments

[Tracer Bullet]

He visited ND for a fb game just before he signed with the Cubs and I was in the stands among those chanting something about the Cubs.

 

I also didn't know Ty's history when I was excited about him in 02 so I learned to study up a lot more on coaches before just being excited about something new.

[SouthSideRyan]

I was a 9. I didn't fully sour on him til the end of 2004-early '05. I seem to remember arguing on here that no other manager would've gotten us to the playoffs in '03.

 

I was a [expletive] moron.

[Little Slide Rooter]

I just remember thinking that it was kind of cool because he was the closest thing to a high profile manager we had in my lifetime, or at least while I'd been following baseball unless anyone considered Don Zimmer as a high profile manager, but even then I just though of a manager as an old guy who just sat in the dugout and came out to change pitchers or occasionally yell at an umpire. Even when Dusty came, I didn't value managers all that much.

[Sammy Sofa]

I don't remember having strong feelings one way or the other, but I'm pretty sure my reaction was positive. I put 5.

 

Same here. That's my attitude towards nearly anyone who is hired as a manager, and Dusty hadn't really established his monstrous reputation at that point. There were warning signs, but I was pretty indifferent.

[rocket]

yeah, he was hired before i knew anything about sabremetrics. my feeling was "this guy wins baseball games, great hire".

[Sammys Boombox]

9. But I was also a freshman in HS so was very naive.

 

I was out of college, but was pretty baseball dumb. So 9 is what I went with too. I might be giving myself too much credit though. It might really have been a 10. I was pretty excited. *sigh*

 

I was tired of him before the 03 postseason though. I thought he had no clue what he was doing with the pitching staff and couldn't believe he put himself in a position to rely on Estes in such a pivotal late September game. Thankfully Estes fooled us all by fooling the Cincy lineup that evening.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I had to pick 3 because 13 wasn't an option.

[bukie]

I was in the "Hey, he's got to be better than Don Baylor/Bruce Kimm, right?" camp. I guess that's 5.

[hardcorecubfan]

Negative numbers becuase I could see that he was surrounded by incredible talent and once removed from it he would struggle, like Joe Torre

[jersey cubs fan]

Somebody other than hccf must agree with me, I know I wasn't the only one sounding the alarm bells of how horrible a hire that was going to be.

[Sammy Sofa]

Probably not. Most people here, fortunately, don't view managers as too critical a component, and back in 2002-2003 the idea of pitching abuse and such wasn't as prevalent as it is now (or would be within a couple years of Dusty's hire).

[jersey cubs fan]

Probably not. Most people here, fortunately, don't view managers as too critical a component, and back in 2002-2003 the idea of pitching abuse and such wasn't as prevalent as it is now (or would be within a couple years of Dusty's hire).

 

Pitching abuse was much more widespread than the notion that managers don't really matter. I know I had those conversations with people on the espn board, but those people mostly came here.

[Sammy Sofa]

Probably not. Most people here, fortunately, don't view managers as too critical a component, and back in 2002-2003 the idea of pitching abuse and such wasn't as prevalent as it is now (or would be within a couple years of Dusty's hire).

 

Pitching abuse was much more widespread than the notion that managers don't really matter. I know I had those conversations with people on the espn board, but those people mostly came here.

 

There were not, however, many of them.

 

I mean, you can disagree all you want; I'm just trying to answer your question. Mostly people simply did not view him as the monster he would become.

[jersey cubs fan]

Probably not. Most people here, fortunately, don't view managers as too critical a component, and back in 2002-2003 the idea of pitching abuse and such wasn't as prevalent as it is now (or would be within a couple years of Dusty's hire).

 

Pitching abuse was much more widespread than the notion that managers don't really matter. I know I had those conversations with people on the espn board, but those people mostly came here.

 

There were not, however, many of them.

 

I mean, you can disagree all you want; I'm just trying to answer your question. Mostly people simply did not view him as the monster he would become.

 

Yes, I understand there were a lot of ignorant people who couldn't foresee the coming catastrophe, what I'm saying is there had to be somebody else.

[photoguy9883]

Probably not. Most people here, fortunately, don't view managers as too critical a component, and back in 2002-2003 the idea of pitching abuse and such wasn't as prevalent as it is now (or would be within a couple years of Dusty's hire).

 

Pitching abuse was much more widespread than the notion that managers don't really matter. I know I had those conversations with people on the espn board, but those people mostly came here.

 

There were not, however, many of them.

 

I mean, you can disagree all you want; I'm just trying to answer your question. Mostly people simply did not view him as the monster he would become.

 

Yes, I understand there were a lot of ignorant people who couldn't foresee the coming catastrophe, what I'm saying is there had to be somebody else.

 

I was with you, jersey. I was probably around a 2 when Dusty was signed.

[Guest]

I wasn't too happy b/c of the way he dealt with rookies, managed the pitching staff, and had little control in the clubhouse in SF.