Let’s say you’re a salesman. In your first year at your company, you do alright. You hit your goals, you meet your quotas, and people like your style.

Let’s say then that in your second year, you shatter all expectations and set company records. You do things that year no one ever thought possible, let alone that you would be the one doing them. Halfway through the year, on your way to the mountaintop, your employer rewards you in advance with promises of huge sums of money, regardless of how you do in the future. You are a hero among your peers. You have the respect (sometimes begrudgingly) of everyone who knows you. For a little while, you can do no wrong.

In your third year, you do alright. You outperform most of your peers and competitors, but a handful of people have figured out how to beat you at your own game. You suffer some unforeseen setbacks, but all in all you have a decent year, albeit one that falls slightly short of the huge expectations you brought upon yourself. Still, the future looks bright. You’ve got some experience under your belt and your boss has brought in a few new tools and tactics for your use.

Then in your fourth year, you bottom out in a hurry. Everyone does a better job than you. You insist on sticking to the ways of doing business that worked two years ago, even though they are now failing you at every turn. Your old reliable tactics are no longer effective; your new ones are a total bust. Yet you proceed through situations the same way you always did, even though there is rarely a positive outcome. You hit lows few of your predecessors and even fewer of your contemporaries have ever hit.

As punishment for this misery, your employer gives you a huge raise and guarantees your job is safe for the next five years.

So here’s the question: who should your shareholders be mad at? Is it you for failing and refusing to adapt? Or is it your employer for nurturing this environment of stubborn failure?

+++

Yeah, I don’t know why they gave Ozzie Guillen that extension, either. The only answer I can come up with is that he’s enough of a lightning rod that he’ll take the attention away from the horrible moves the front office has made since 2005, and that he’ll make a good fall guy as the team very realistically keeps towards the bottom of the division through at least 2010.

It gets hard to watch, really. You see him going out there calling for the lefty/righty matchups, even though all his lefties and righties are equally as bad at facing batters on both sides of the plate. I imagine it’s like watching someone with phantom limb syndrome trying to ride a bike – in their mind, they still believe the necessary parts are there, but we all know they’re not, and it just breaks your heart to see them clinging to an era that’s so obviously over.

At any rate, it’s not my money to waste and it’s not like there would be a lot of better options available when Guillen’s contract would’ve expired after 2008. Sure, Joe Torre or Tony LaRussa would be nice to have, but do you honestly believe this organization would ever cough up that much money for a manager?

Best to save all that money where they can. After all, there’s a basement nearby that they’ll need to make comfortable.