I thought I was being funny when I suggested in the comments of Philip's last post that my six-year-old daughter would be qualified to be the A's next manager. But nothing is as funny as this:

I just wish Beane would broaden his scope a little, because Dusty Baker is the man for this job.

...

In my wildest dreams, I can't imagine him being at odds with Baker, but I suppose we can rule out Dusty, Girardi or anyone else who would steal Beane's thunder.

I literally laughed out loud when I read this.

Sometimes the Chronicle's Bruce Jenkins can make some interesting and astute observations, but sometimes...wow. In my wildest dreams I can't imagine anyone thinking that Dusty Baker should be the first person on earth the A's should hire to be their manager instead of the last. That anyone who has read Moneyball would not understand that if anyone in organized baseball personifies everything the A's think is wrong with traditional baseball management practices, it's Dusty Baker. And more amazingly, Jenkins is not alone. Dave Newhouse at the Oakland Tribune suggests the very same thing.

Dusty Baker will not and should not be the next A's manager, guys. It has nothing to do with Billy Beane's ego. It's about belief systems. Their personalities might not clash, and yes, Baker is good in the clubhouse, but besides that, no two management philosophies are more at odds than Billy Beane and Dusty Baker. Beane is all about the rational approach to management; Baker is all about instincts and tradition. It could never, ever work. It doesn't take a wild dream to see that hiring someone who believes the total opposite of what you believe is a bad idea.

I don't mean to step on Zachary Manprin's turf and bash local writers. But I am truly astonished here. How can anybody follow this team and this sport and not understand this obvious fact?

My six-year-old daughter is a better fit to be the next manager of the Oakland A's than Dusty Baker. That's no joke.