If it somehow meant we got a championship out of it, yes. This is definitely off topic, but here's my short and sweet version: Remember when the Twins were rumored to be in the mix for Cliff Lee at the trade deadline, whatever year that was, but they didn't want to "risk the future" by trading away assets? Well, they saved all those assets, didn't make a deep playoff run, and are sitting on 3 straight 90+ loss seasons with a 4th a definite possibility. My interpretation: They wanted to be competitive for the division title for years to come, rather than go for broke that season. My personal feelings: I'd rather go for broke, and miss, than play it safe to be "competitive." 3 90+ loss seasons would be more understandable if we beefed up those stronger teams we had rather than playing it safe and still sucking years later. What does this have to do with managers? Zero. But what I'm leading to is that I'd personally prefer one amazing season followed by sucking than just being sort of good for a longer time period.