That's easy: Juan Cruz. He had good numbers as a starter, then Dusty put him in the bullpen where he sucked, and unfortunately the reliever label has stuck to him. Cruz' career could have taken a whole different trajectory if Dusty had displayed as much patience with him as a starter as was given to Shawn Estes. Ha! That's pretty funny. The two great organizations in ATL and OAK both gave up on Cruz because of the "reliever label Dusty stuck to him"? Maybe it is instead just because he was overated and not that good. Nah, blame it on Dusty. The whole question of damage done by a manager is really virtually impossible to prove. If a player is ruined by a manager and never recovers, people who defend the manager will say that "he just wasn't any good," when in fact it very well could have been that he was screwed up at a prime age and never recovered. Then again, he could have never been good in the first place. Either way, the actual damage done by a bad manager is impossible to really prove. Its possible that Cruz, Choi, Hill, etc. were just bad. Its also possible that Baker's bad managing ruined them forever. But simply because the players have not been good since leaving the Cubs does not absolve Baker from responsibility, nor does it prove that they weren't any good in the first place. Its solely an unprovable opinion...either way. The problem with Cruz and Choi is that is they played badly in their opportunities to earn jobs, and in 2003 we were in a playoff race, so we were in no position to let young guys take their lumps. Hill just plain bombed out.