clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Phil Rogers Is At It Again

New, 177 comments

Today, he proposes Dusty Baker be given a two-year extension:

Baker offers you one thing you're not going to get anywhere else--stability. The greatest failing of the Cubs in the Tribune Co. era is the tendency to make knee-jerk decisions, never sticking to a course. Jim Riggleman is the only Cubs manager since Leo Durocher to last even five years. Why not give Baker six and see what happens?

Now, before you accuse me of going off the deep end because I agree with Rogers (and I don't, at least not right now), let me say this: I know I've made the "stability" argument in the past, and that argument DOES have merit.

Given the events of the last couple of months, however, I can't see how giving Baker an extension NOW would serve any purpose other than to make the collective eyes of Cub Nation roll.

Some of the other things Rogers mentions in his article (getting a big bat in LF, re-signing Juan Pierre, even trading Michael Barrett) make sense to me.

But it's WAY too soon to commit to more Dusty Baker. I'm still not sure myself, and as you know, I've been a Baker backer in the past.

Figured this would give all of you something to chew on while waiting for tonight's game.