Here's what good organizations don't do.

They don't panic.

They don't overreact.

They don't scapegoat.

Here's what the Reds didn't do:

They didn't panic.

They didn't overreact.

They didn't scapegoat.

The Reds did the right thing today in bringing back Dusty Baker.  Instead of making an emotional decision to satisfy the louder and angrier fringes of the fan base, they used a measured approach in bringing back their most successful and least-controversial manager in two decades.

Is the move popular?  Probably not.  Should it matter? Absolutely not.

Instead of doing an assessment of last week's damage and igniting a massive overhaul, the Reds stepped back and looked big picture.  They saw a manager wildly successful with his players, who has overseen the transition from a very forgettable almost unlikable era of Reds baseball into a newer, more endearing, far more successful one.

Does it matter that some of Dusty's moves didn't work last week?  Sure.  I'm pretty sure though, that effectively canning him and holding him solely responsible for the collapse against the Giants wouldn't undo them.

What matters more, a few decisions in a handful of games where the players didn't do enough to either overcome their manager or make him look really smart? Or a few years worth of big-picture developments?

The Major League arrivals of Votto, Bruce, Hanigan, Cueto, Bailey, Chapman, Stubbs, Leake, Cozart, Frazier, and Mesoraco to the Major Leagues have much more to do with sound drafting and careful player development, but all either occurred under Dusty's watch, or barely predated the beginning of his tenure.   A manager who was thought to not be able to work and win with young players, ending up winning two division titles with those players playing major roles, and with a number of them blossoming into stars.  Dusty might not get much credit for their individual accomplishments, but he should get at least some for their collective successes.

It's been a mostly controversy-free time during Dusty's tenure.  Where for years, most Reds-related talk focused on anything but what was happening on the field, most issues these last five years were quickly diffused, at times with the manager putting the onus on himself. 

He's used lineups that made no sense, and played some guys to the point that their usefulness had long-since expired, but he's also found ways to get the most out of retreads like Gomes and Heisey and past-their-prime guys like Rolen and Cairo.

Not every move has made sense.  Many made me want to stick something sharp into my thorax, but I always felt like those micro issues paled in comparison to the macro.

The macro meant a serene clubhouse, oversight over developing pitching rotations, managing normally effective bullpens, delegating playing time across a 162-game season, understanding both the different moods of individual players and the evolving moods of individual teams.  He aired 'em out when he had to (see the 7-11 start in 2010) and maintained calm when a downward spiral seemed inevitable (see the time immediately after the Cardinals sweep in 2010 and how this team performed right after Votto went on the DL in 2012).

It's always seemed like Dusty had the players' backs (which he's often criticized for) and in turn, they seem to have his.

He deserves scrutiny.  He doesn't deserve scapegoating.

Neither does his team.

The Reds are as stable right now as they've been in decades.  The core is intact.  They are by all accounts, financially sound.  The farm system has produced a wealth of contributing Major League bodies, and arguable the most-followed and exciting Reds prospect ever will be here soon.  This is a team in need of some tweaks, not even the most wide-eyed optimist would argue that, but they're not in need of a shakeup.

A new manager would have constituted a shakeup.

It also might have alienated the players.

Do I think we would've seen a Boston-style mutiny had they moved on from Dusty Baker?  No.  But would letting go a manager who's biggest mistakes are a debatable decisions that are ultimately subject to how players perform be worth disrupting the chemistry this manager helped foster?  And what matters more, how the Reds manger the roster for next year or who manages it?

I think what the Reds do with their team matters a lot more than what they do with their manager.

I know today's news won't go over well.  I know it will only add bubbles to the foam at the mouths of certain fans.  I know this is something we'll come back to time and again if the Reds don't live up to expectations in 2013. 

But if the Reds are going to consistently be one of the best and most consistent organizations in the game, they must approach crises along the same lines as the other good, consistent, organizations. That includes falling into the trap of the over-reactionary fan, it includes making sudden, panic-filled moves, and it includes looking beyond one person when failure is the fault of many.  

Today, the Reds did what good organizations do.

This team has a lot of work ahead of it.  They have critical upgrades to make on the roster, and the coming weeks and months will be filled with critical decisions that will greatly impact their chances of improving upon 2012 in 2013.

Their first decision of an important offseason was the right one.