and I am very much looking forward to it. I am really not sure what you could do to Wrigley along the lines of what they have done with Fenway in regards to adding seats.

If MLB wanted to concoct a scheme to destroy interest in the postseason, they couldn't have done better than the 2007 schedule, with all its off days.

Oh, I feel as though they have really gone the whole nine yards - games on until past one a.m. Eastern, tons of commercials which drag games out forever, horrific, over-the-top, "Access Hollywood"-esque announcers...

Hell, I started rooting for the BoSox strictly based on the backlash to Manny Ramirez' completely sane remarks - "If we don't win, who cares? There is always next year."

It is a children's game played by grown men, fer Cripes' sakes! They throw the ball and catch the ball and hit the ball and run...The off-field drama (trumped up by the media) dilutes and tarnishes the actual drama and beauty of the game being played between the lines.

I recall being very excited when the Cubs hired Dusty Baker.  Fans were told not to expect a master strategist but rather a "player's manager."  The way I recall it, this particular "player's manager" was said to be two things:

1.  A good handler of people, including those with, er, "difficult personalities."
2.  A man so popular with major league players that superstars would flock to the north side of Chicago and give the Cubs a discount just so they could play for Dusty Baker.

To be fair, Dusty seemed to handle the more difficult players on the Giants pretty well and over a 10 year stretch he probably played some role (perhaps even a large role) in attracting high quality players who had 7 winning seasons, won a pennant, a wildcard, and two division titles.  His Giants roster in 1993 (103 wins) was dramatically different than his Giants roster in 2002 (NL pennant) so he didn't simply stand pat with the cards he was originally dealt.  I should also point out that a large number of the team's big contributors were free agents as opposed to the home grown talent.

It seems there was some reason for Cub fans to believe the hype.  In my opinion, however, evidence from Baker's stint in Chicago suggests that he was a terrible handler of people.  Furthermore, the hordes of superstar free agents never materialized.  Jim Thome was the only superstar free agent clamoring to play on the north side but I got the sense he would have offered a home town discount whether Baker was managing or not.  And for the purposes of this post, it is irrelevant that he ended up playing for the White Sox.  The team seemed to attract somewhat better players under Baker than it had under Don "Every Situation Calls for a Bunt" Baylor but overall I think Dusty Baker the Free Agent Magnet performed substantially below the level fans were led to expect.

So which Dusty Baker will we see in Cincinnati?  It's impossible to say with certainty, of course, but I'll make a guess.  The Chicago Dusty Baker is a more recent vintage than the San Francisco Dusty Baker so it's reasonable to expect a performance similar to the Chicago version.  On the other hand, different conditions might not give Baker the opportunity to repeat his Chicago performance.  Cincy is hardly awash in revenue so I would not expect the club to be particularly competitive in signing the top free agents.  I can't imagine why any established pitcher would choose to ply his trade in that ballpark so the club will probably have to rely on farm products and well crafted trades but that sort of transaction says nothing about which Dusty Baker we'll see in Cincinnati.  Will Baker be the deciding factor in a big free agent's decision to choose Cincinnati's offer over a better offer from another club?  Forgive me if I'm skeptical.  Regarding Dusty the Free Agent Magnet I think Reds fans should expect the deep dish Chicago style Dusty.

And will Dusty Baker be the guy who helped drive Steve Stone from the broadcast booth or will he be the guy who miraculously kept some semblance of peace between Barry Bonds and Jeff Kent?  Well, I think the Reds team Baker inherits probably has less clubhouse strife (if such a thing can be measured**) than his Giants teams and his Cubs teams.  Even so, every season sees new additions to every major league roster so I suppose it's remotely possible the 2008 Reds will be more contentious than the Athletics of the early 70s or the Bronx Zoo Yankees.  Not likely, however.  With easier personalities on the roster I suspect Baker will handle his new team without creating too many big incidents.  It seems unlikely that he and, say, Eddie Guardado will drive Marty or Thom Brennaman out of town.  It's difficult for me to envision the return of such a thin-skinned, passive-agressive Dusty.

Ultimately, I expect Baker to do very little in Cincy.  He has a relatively subdued team to manage but they aren't especially good (well, the pitching anyway).  It seems unlikely that Baker alone will draw big impact free agent pitchers to a hitters' park or a small market team that tends to perform poorly.  Frankly, without some very talented rookies bubbling up through their farm system (and the rooks might not get playing time if Cincinnati gets the Chicago version of Dusty Baker) I have a hard time seeing the Reds doing much more than they did in 2007.  I'm guessing that Dusty Baker's primary contribution to the Reds will be a slight increase in national media attention but not much more than that.

I'm flying into Boston on Thursday, and just found out that the plane will land two hours before game time.  Right now I'm trying to balance my temptation against my fear of traffic.

....a sportswriter acquaintance of ours, who has been in the business since the 60's, says his paper's beat writer has found out that since Stoneman has stepped down, the Angels have not rejected out of hand the possibility of signing Bonds to be a DH. They have not had a regular season long DH in quite some time, usually rotating in the position the extra outfielder, a decent hitting utility guy or someone who is just a bit too nicked up to play the field. No word on how Scioscia feels about this, but it's the kind of "out of the box" thinking (for the Angels, anyway) they want to encourage with Stoneman no longer the GM.

Living in Boston, I have been to Fenway many times.  What Wrigley needs is a jumbo video screen like the one at Fenway.  Take away the old-fashioned scoreboard and update with electronic scoring and video replays.  Purists will complain of course, but come on, this is the 21st Century!