This is something I don't agree with. I'm not saying this is or isn't the case with Yost, but if you have an above-average manager with below-average talent, I want the above-average manager, because the alternative could very well worse, regardless is they're "responsible" for it from the traditional, managerial point of view. I've got no problem with Attanasio or Melvin making the team better by making personnel changes, but just firing the guy because it's the "thing you're supposed to do" isn't a theory I would personally subscribe to. I am not sure I understand your response, but with all do respect Brian, in the context I was trying to convey it is the right thing to do. He hasn't panned out, and its time to take the company in a different direction (other than down). In any results driven business, management is given to opportunity to produce results. If there are no results, especially after 5 years, then its time to make a switch. Ned shouldn't have to get caught soliciting sex in a bathroom in order to lose his job, all he has to do to lose his job is what he has done all season - and that is prove he isn't a very good manager. This team is/was plenty talented to take this division this year. All they needed was a little mojo from management. What they got instead was an em-battled manager with no huevos. My point is that you're operating under the assumption that is at the top of the food chain, and therefore should get the axe. I'm not saying he shouldn't, but the guy above him has been there for 5 years as well. If the criteria is 5 losing seasons, then why isn't all management given the heave-ho? Melvin, Ash, and Nichols would fall under those basic rules of business as well.