Congratulations, Assholes. You Got Your Wish. (Fuckers.)

Things with which I will agree:

-Dusty Baker is probably not the greatest manager who ever lived. Dusty Baker is probably not the best manager in baseball currently. (Ok, well, not a manager at all now, but you know what I mean.) Dusty Baker--all baseball-managing qualities considered--may not be a "good" manager at all.

-If Dusty Baker has one fairly obvious weakness, it's a bias toward favorite, usually veteran players (e.g. you know who). If the Cubs actually commit to developing young talent--as well asactually playing it at the major-league level (as they should but doubtfully will)--Dusty is probably not the best guy to have managing the team and not playing said young hotshots.

Thing with which I do not agree:

-The firing of Dusty Baker and subsequent hiring of Joe Girardi / Lou Pinella / Lou Brown / John McGraw resurrected in the flesh will significantly improve the Chicago Cubs.

I realize only fools actually do believe this (as I immediately alienate the very people I wish to convince), but it warrants some discussion anyway.

The success of the Chicago Cubs organization as a business relies on but two things: 1) a gate draw, e.g. Sammy "baseball been very very good to me look at what a happy happy smiley grateful Latino stereotype I play for you" Sosa, and 2) a scapegoat, e.g. Corey Patterson, Ernie Broglio, Guy With Billy Goat, "Torn Miniscubus" (the injury demon that preys on Kerry Wood's musculoskeletal system), Jim Rigglefebvressianfrey-Zimderocher.

So it makes perfect sense that when my parents went to Wrigley to watch loss No. 80-something a couple weeks back--a purely electric experience, they assure me--many of the late-season belligerents at the park were concentrating their hostility toward the managing situation, even brandishing signs with "hire Girardi"-type slogans.

For those fans, the scapegoating fixation has been satisfied. Now throw them a Barry Zito signing, and presto!--they're lickin' your salt just like before. (Hush now--that wasn't intended to be dirty.)

All year, the Dusty issue has served as an excellent single-source distraction for a multi-faceted-ly bad Cubs season. And now by turning on the guy they sold as a savior in equally overblown fashion three-and-a-half years ago, the organization has bought itself another season (at least) of suck--probably two, if they hire that pleasant, clean-cut Italian boy born and raised nearby.

As has been said so so many times, managers don't make a damned difference in the proverbial grand scheme of things. Even Tony LaRussa--the reputed manager-god and most intensive, scholarly, dedicated competitor in all of sport--concedes in his own collaborative biography-type book, a book written in large part to elicit a fond appreciation for baseball managing, that managers only make a few games difference over the course of a year.

It's an opinion that's impossible to quantify, but I agree with Tony. And even given some room for single-season variance in the performance of a manager, it's 100% inane (--inanity is quantifiable so you know--) to attribute either the 2006 Marlins' 10+-game performance above expectation to Joe Girardi or the Cubs' 15+ games below expectation to Dusty Baker. In fact, it's reallly pushing it--I would say--to even attribute a half or a third of those differences to the managing.

So while Dusty admittedly had his faults, he also had some pretty rare strengths. As non-players without locker-room access, we have to take it on faith that Dusty had a special knack for relating to talented veterans and keeping them happy. I also credit him for taking a lot of press heat away from his players--a lot of times really really embarassing himself by saying really really crazy or stupid stuff. These qualitites didn't always reflect well on him, yet they served as strengths nonetheless. And like all managing strengths, they amount to virtually nothing.

I'll hash out my reasons for these general opinions on managing sometime soon, but tonight's not the night. Maybe I'll wait until the Cubs hire the next poor bastard to take Dusty's spot. Mostly, my point for tonight is this: managing changes make for good tabloid-style shit but have little relevance otherwise, despite how badly a certain blogger wanted to kill Dusty not so long ago. (Sorry Pat; I promise I ain't pickin' on ya. You were sure right about one guy in there.)

Sure, there were reasons to fire Dusty Baker, just as there are reasons to fire any manager at any given time from any given team. But no matter how compelling those reasons may be, I always have to wonder--what difference can it make?