Granted, Dusty is not a perfect manager and quite possibly may not be the "right" guy for Chicago. However, that is a pretty bold statment. Off the top of my head, I can think of a few guys (under Bakers Managment) who have had career years... Barry Bonds - Giants Jeff Kent - Giants Russ Ortiz - Giants Rich Aurlia - Giants DLee ARam Mark Prior Joe Bo Moises Alou Glendon Rusch Carlos Zambrano Ryan Dempster (30+saves) Michael Barrett I am sure there are more, and sure, there are some players who sucked during there career in Chicago or even SF. However, to say that it doesn't matter who we get as long as we have Dusty to manage...is simply wrong! Bonds: no worse after dusty left Kent: better under dusty (peak years) Russ ortiz: about the same his first year out of SF as in SF. Has had a negative career trend since 2001. Aurilia: a whole bunch of the same sort of years under dusty and other managers, then that one monster year (2001) Prior: getting worse under dusty Zambrano: irrelevant, only manager he's ever had (excluding his rookie season) Barret: positive under dusty. Also been healthy and entering peak years. borowski: went way downhill under dusty, was better before he got here. No career year here. Was getting old when dusty arrived. Alou: best seasons away from dusty, nothing close to a career year for him under dusty. Lee: Big year, better than anyone expected. that's a career year for you. Aram: Had his best seasons in chicago, but hardly unexpected given his age. Dempster: new position, no real applicable trend line here. So the actual positives we have here: Lee, barret, Aram, aurilia, kent. I'm going to toss out aurilia's season because (assuming his 2001 was all dusty's doing) what use is a manager who can make you play out of your mind 1 year in 10? This looks like random chance to me. Not that this is evidence that dusty makes players suck. Ha, that is classic. I understand the frustration with Dusty... but man, give the guy some credit.