Farrell is the manager in 2016

Who will take the helm of this ship on Opening Day?

  • John Farrell

    Votes: 83 41.5%
  • Torey Lovullo

    Votes: 94 47.0%
  • Someone else (feel free to post your guess as to who this is)

    Votes: 23 11.5%
  • Some other arrangement (co-managers or something else)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    200

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,489
Santa Monica, CA
It's possible to separate concern and sympathy for Farrell's health from an objective evaluation of his performance prior to his diagnosis.

I think most would agree that no one should lose a job because they were diagnosed with cancer.

But are folks really willing to argue that's what would be happening here? If the baseball season ended the day Farrell managed his last game, he would not have been brought back in 2016.

What manager for a large market, big budget, team should expect to keep his job after finishing in last place twice in a row?

It's not like he just missed the playoffs twice...he was dead last in a not-particularly-strong division. Twice.

The fact that the team rebounded after he left cuts against him, not for him, in my book.
 

Doctor G

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 24, 2007
2,331
The way I look at it is this.
If Farrell had not gotten sick, he would probably have been offered another position in the organization at the end of the season.
If this had been the case would Torey Lovullo have been among the candidates for the open job.

If the answer to both those questions is yes, there is no good reason for Lovullo not being hired as te 2016 manager and beyond.
This decision shouldn't be based on lovullo's loyalty to JF, but on a cold blooded assessment of the situation when Torey took over in season.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
24,636
Miami (oh, Miami!)
We ought to consider the makeup of the team. We're going to have a lot of young players and a few older vets. (Trades depending.) Right now the young core is playing very well for Lovullo. Perhaps that core adores Farrell. I really don't know. But I'd give that factor a lot of weight, given that Lovullo appears to offer at least as much as Farrell does in terms of clubhouse harmony, media relations, in game decisions, etc.
 

tomdeplonty

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 23, 2013
585
Gawd, I hope I have these numbers right:
 
50/64 (.438) under Farrell (through August 13)
28/16 (.636) under Lovullo (since August 14)
 
Conventional wisdom seems to say that only a small amount of the difference could be attributed to the managerial change, and we can point to a lot of other reasons (especially playing the young outfielders, JBJs short, incredible offensive explosion, better starting pitching, etc.) for the difference.
 
I wonder how much of the love for Lovullo (including mine - I was one of the L voters and said something upthread about chemistry) - and for that matter the opposite directed at Hanley and Pablo (who we haven't seen much lately) - is unduly influenced by the night-and-day contrast between .438 and .636.
 
EDIT: spelling
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,537
deep inside Guido territory
NEW YORK -- It's a question that has hovered over the Red Sox for several weeks now, intensifying with each day as the season draws to a close: Who will manage the team next year?
Some have come to label it the elephant in the room, since the decision involves incumbent manager John Farrell, who took a leave of absence in mid-August when he revealed he was battling stage one lymphoma.
The Red Sox have compiled a 28-16 mark (.636 winning percentage) since interim manager Torey Lovullo took over, compared to the 50-64 record (.439) they had under Farrell, further complicating the issue.
But multiple industry sources have confirmed that Farrell will return as manager of the Red Sox -- as long as he's healthy enough to do so.
Farrell is in the middle of his final chemotherapy treatments this week, which began Wednesday and conclude Thursday. In the last week of October, he will undergo a scan to determine if the cancer has been eradicated.
If it has, and Farrell is given a clean bill of health from his doctors, sources say the Red Sox will announce that he will return to manage the club in 2016.
Until then, the Sox are expected to have no official comment on their manager.
 
http://www.csnne.com/boston-red-sox/If-healthy-john-farrell-will-return-as-boston-red-sox-manager
 

patinorange

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 27, 2006
31,081
6 miles from Angel Stadium
Anyone but Farrell. I wish him all the luck with his health, but I can't believe they will bring him back. Lovullo is a clone in terms of game tactics and stupid bunting, but they really do appear to be playing better. My preference would be a whole new staff. Start over.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
59,414
San Andreas Fault
I'm going with "better the devil you know than the devil you don't know." It's hard as hell to tell for us fans, but I'd rather Lovullo. However, if they do look outside, I hope they consider Bud Black. 
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,249
patinorange said:
Anyone but Farrell. I wish him all the luck with his health, but I can't believe they will bring him back. Lovullo is a clone in terms of game tactics and stupid bunting, but they really do appear to be playing better. My preference would be a whole new staff. Start over.
The Sox have 40 sacrifice attempts this season, which puts them 10th in the AL (league average was 44).  2 of those were from pitchers, and 7 were from Sandy Leon, and 1 each from Victorino and Nava.  Which means 11 of those bunts were from players who were going to be out anyway.  And of those 9 attempts, 8 of them moved the runner along.  Sox average of 75% successful bunts is better than league average of 67%.
 
I am sure some of the remaining 29 bunts were unjustified.  And the stats don't point out cases where the batter bunted on his own.  But given the Sox were under the league average, I am not sure you can blame Farrel or Lovullo for an epidemic of bunting either.  The numbers don't lie. 
 

Snoop Soxy Dogg

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
May 30, 2014
407
This will be a young team. Farrell has shown consistently that he does not trust, not like young players. What is he going to do, the first time JBJ goes in a slump? This team has a different mix now, and Farrell, in my opinion, is not the right match for that mix.

Plus if you bring him back, he's essentially managing for his job over the first few months of the season. That rarely works out well..
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
Snoop Soxy Dogg said:
This will be a young team. Farrell has shown consistently that he does not trust, not like young players. What is he going to do, the first time JBJ goes in a slump? This team has a different mix now, and Farrell, in my opinion, is not the right match for that mix.

Plus if you bring him back, he's essentially managing for his job over the first few months of the season. That rarely works out well..
Yeah, the Sox have to say all the right things now, because cancer does suck and you can't justifiably fire a guy for getting it. That's horrible.

But objecively, Farrell is not a good manager for this team. He did not develop young players well in Toronto and he hasn't done it well in Boston.

He's shown he can win with a veteran team of motivated position players. But that does not describe what he's got on the roster, aside from Ortiz and Pedroia.

He's shown he can win with a veteran pitching staff that includes a great 1-2, a solid 3-5, and a shutdown closer. But he didn't show in Toronto that he could coax extra wins out of his pitchers through his management, and he hasn't shown that in Boston either. Furthermore, the Sox staff in 2015 was never worse than when the pitch sequences were being called from the dugout in May.

It's unfortunate that Farrell got cancer, lucky that he found it early, and wonderful that he seems to have beat it. But that doesn't mean he should be the Sox 2016 manager.
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
8,465
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
Buzzkill Pauley said:
Yeah, the Sox have to say all the right things now, because cancer does suck and you can't justifiably fire a guy for getting it. That's horrible.
But objecively, Farrell is not a good manager for this team. He did not develop young players well in Toronto and he hasn't done it well in Boston.
He's shown he can win with a veteran team of motivated position players. But that does not describe what he's got on the roster, aside from Ortiz and Pedroia.
He's shown he can win with a veteran pitching staff that includes a great 1-2, a solid 3-5, and a shutdown closer. But he didn't show in Toronto that he could coax extra wins out of his pitchers through his management, and he hasn't shown that in Boston either. Furthermore, the Sox staff in 2015 was never worse than when the pitch sequences were being called from the dugout in May.
It's unfortunate that Farrell got cancer, lucky that he found it early, and wonderful that he seems to have beat it. But that doesn't mean he should be the Sox 2016 manager.
Where is this "Farrell can't work with or develop young players" coming from? A cursory view would suggest Betts,Bogaerts, Swihart, Rodriguez, Vazquez, Owens, Shaw and Bradley have developed just fine thank you very much. The idea that he favours vets over kids is also pretty hard to justify. He was given Napoli and Ramirez and Victorino and Masterson as regulars .. What are you going to do? Not play them? Besides .. That's as much a FO decision as the Managers.

There have been struggles of course .. Bradley and Bogaets last year being prominent. But that happens all the time and you just have to give young players time.

Now, I'm not suggesting that JF is good at developing players .. I'm just saying there's no evidence to suggest he's bad at it. On the contrary the evidence would suggest just the opposite.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
It's people looking for points to justify their formed opinions.
 
What ever happened to "don't judge a team in April or September?"
 
The team has played well the last 44 games (1/4 of the season). Whether or not that's attributable to Luvallo is something no one outside of the clubhouse will ever know, including the sports copy writers, and certainly not any of the fans.
 

Snoop Soxy Dogg

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
May 30, 2014
407
BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
Where is this "Farrell can't work with or develop young players" coming from? A cursory view would suggest Betts,Bogaerts, Swihart, Rodriguez, Vazquez, Owens, Shaw and Bradley have developed just fine thank you very much. The idea that he favours vets over kids is also pretty hard to justify. He was given Napoli and Ramirez and Victorino and Masterson as regulars .. What are you going to do? Not play them? Besides .. That's as much a FO decision as the Managers.

There have been struggles of course .. Bradley and Bogaets last year being prominent. But that happens all the time and you just have to give young players time.

Now, I'm not suggesting that JF is good at developing players .. I'm just saying there's no evidence to suggest he's bad at it. On the contrary the evidence would suggest just the opposite.
 
Not sure Bogaerts, Owens, JBJ, Shaw are any thanks to Farrell.
 
Farrell has stuck with underperforming vets for a long time, even when there way credible (but young/MLB-unproven) alternatives in AAA. A vet under Farrell is pretty much guaranteed playing time from the beginning of the season at least through the trade deadline. Deep depth. Preserving trade value. You don't lose your spot to injury. They have a track record the young guys don't have. And so on, and so on. There's always a justification, but the bottom line is always the same: not playing the better player at any given point in time, and a lesser team. And when they brought up a young guy, kid better perform.
 
-Bogaerts struggled for a bit at shortstop; he was quickly moved out of there to Bring Drew. Sitting X against lefties for Drew.
-Continuously playing Gomes while Nava was on the bench.
-JBJ was up for a few games against Sale, Felix and Sonny Gray. Kid struck out a bunch of time, people were just about ready to trade him for a bag of balls. Three or four games (!!), and he was sent down, never to be seen again, while Farrell pushed Victorino, Napoli, De Aza, and others out there. You could just sense the disdain dripping from Farrell when he talked about JBJ. No wonder the kid thrived a bit with Farrell not there. (In fairness to Farrell, the disdain for JBJ was fairly well distributed, from the press to talk radio to this board).
-Castillo, I don't even know. He was a AAA for what seemed like forever while the team floundered with vets. Then continuously pushing De Aza out there while Castillo or Bradley rotted on the bench.
 
Now, you can say he did that because the FO made him do it, but I think that's a cop-out. If everything is on the FO, why is Farrell there then? His job is still to put the best line-up on the field.
 
This team will be young. more young players will come be coming in, some will struggle. For the sake of the team, I think they'll need somebody who can keep them involved, motivated, focused during the lows, somebody who at least seems to believe in them. I can see a scenario where the Sox bring back a De Aza (or Victorino..) as a fourth outfielder, and Farrell plays them out of spring training, or sends a Shaw/JBJ/Castillo down at the first sign of struggle. Though there's a new FO, so who knows.
 
I just don't trust Farrell with the kids, but I guess we can disagree. And I'm not saying Lovullo is the guy, I don't know. Just don't think Farrell is.
 

OCST

Sunny von Bulow
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2004
24,571
The 718
Al Zarilla said:
I know it's Boston, but media relations ahead of in game tactics/management? How about Belichick? I know football has a ton more room for scheming genius, before and during games, and maniacal preparation than baseball, but  if BB is bottom 20% among his peers for media relations, I couldn't care less.
Belichick benefits from playing once a week for 16 weeks, and his media face time is accordingly limited.

A baseball manager has to talk to the media 5-7 days/wk for six months.

BB simply would not be able to get by with the Sphinx act in MLB.
 

MuzzyField

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
Where is this "Farrell can't work with or develop young players" coming from? A cursory view would suggest Betts,Bogaerts, Swihart, Rodriguez, Vazquez, Owens, Shaw and Bradley have developed just fine thank you very much. The idea that he favours vets over kids is also pretty hard to justify. He was given Napoli and Ramirez and Victorino and Masterson as regulars .. What are you going to do? Not play them? Besides .. That's as much a FO decision as the Managers.

There have been struggles of course .. Bradley and Bogaets last year being prominent. But that happens all the time and you just have to give young players time.

Now, I'm not suggesting that JF is good at developing players .. I'm just saying there's no evidence to suggest he's bad at it. On the contrary the evidence would suggest just the opposite.
A cursory view of JF as a major league manager would see a 2013 tribute to Bob Brenly and nothing to put on his resume.
I'll sit back and enjoy this final chapter.
That said, get well John and kick cancers ass.
 

Corleone

Sleeps with the fishes
Jul 24, 2015
67
Buzzkill Pauley said:
Farrell's teams, both in Toronto and in Boston, may fairly be critcized for overall sloppy fundamentals and poor baserunning. Does that fall on "leadership" as you group things?

And what criteria is used to evaluate performance in "handling a pitching staff" when bullpen decisions fall under "in game tactics" instead? If you use pitching performance metrics, Farrell doesn't look elite there, either.

Farrell's now has several years of team underperformance bookending both sides of one spectacular year where the players rallied themselves to stand against a horrible act of terrorism.

It doesn't mean that Farrell's a bad guy, or that he wouldn't excel in a FO advisory role. But at the end of the day, it's a results-driven business.
 
Very good assessment. 
There were far to many mental mistakes by Players early on. I understand some of those players were young, that does not excuse them of "not being ready to play".
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,963
Maine
soxhop411 said:
That's surprising.
 
It's insurance against Farrell relapsing, but still surprising that Lovullo would hold himself back like that.  Then again, maybe after managing for the last couple months, there's something he thinks he's not quite ready for.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,548
@alexspeier: Red Sox announce that John Farrell will be back as manager, with all members of coaching staff returning except 1B coach Arnie Beyeler.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,963
Maine
MartyBarrettMVP said:
Any reason why Beyeler's not coming back?
 
Merloni is tweeting that he's the fall guy for the defensive failings of Hanley and Cespedes last year.  If they're going to scapegoat anybody for anything, that seems a bit of stretch.  My guess is Arnie's got other opportunities to pursue and his deal is up, and it's as simple as that.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,521
Based on what's being tweeted now, it sounds like Lovullo is going to be a top-paid bench coach, and it's not clear that Farrell will be 100% by Spring Training, as a full recovery usually takes at least 6 months, assuming no relapse.  
 
Hopefully they've figured out what caused the starting pitching to miraculously turn around in mid-August.  The lineup's improvement is easier to trace -- they got Panda, Hanley, ShaneVic, and Napoli's limp bats out of it.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,963
Maine
Scott Lauber @ScottLauber
Lovullo will be paid in "upper echelon" of bench coaches, Dombrowski said. #RedSox
 
Have to assume "upper echelon" means better than he'd get paid in Miami or where ever else there might be an opening this winter.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,963
Maine
nattysez said:
Based on what's being tweeted now, it sounds like Lovullo is going to be a top-paid bench coach, and it's not clear that Farrell will be 100% by Spring Training, as a full recovery usually takes at least 6 months, assuming no relapse.  
 
Hopefully they've figured out what caused the starting pitching to miraculously turn around in mid-August.  The lineup's improvement is easier to trace -- they got Panda, Hanley, ShaneVic, and Napoli's limp bats out of it.
 
I would think a big chunk of the improvement came from a couple guys named Jackie and Rusney.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,521
Red(s)HawksFan said:
 
I would think a big chunk of the improvement came from a couple guys named Jackie and Rusney.
 
Boy, that's a great point that I'm embarrassed not to have considered.  I also think Panda's defense improved a bit later in the year, and then things solidified at 3b when he went down.  
 

E5 Yaz

polka king
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,700
Oregon
If SD lets go its interim manager and coaching staff, Dave Roberts would be an interesting name for the 1B coaching job
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,548
@alexspeier: Lovullo said Farrell asked if he'd be OK stepping back into bench coach role. 'I said, 'I love you. I'm loyal. That will not be an issue'
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
E5 Yaz said:
If SD lets go its interim manager and coaching staff, Dave Roberts would be an interesting name for the 1B coaching job
Oh hell yes. Davey Lopes did wonders for Philadelphia's baserunning from 2007-2010.

I don't know how good a coach Roberts would be, but if he could do similar work on the raw material of Betts and Castillo, and also even Xander and Swihart...well, the Sox could maybe not be a cover-your-eyes-bad baserunning team.

That being said, I am surprised by this news. Either Farrell did a tremendous job behind-the-scenes with a terrible clubhouse, or he's got pics of Henry on his yacht. Or, perhaps DDski's signed Lovullo specifically because Farrell's on a really short leash.
 

Dave Stapleton

Just A Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 11, 2001
9,131
Newport, RI
soxhop411 said:
@alexspeier: Lovullo said Farrell asked if he'd be OK stepping back into bench coach role. 'I said, 'I love you. I'm loyal. That will not be an issue'
Farrell has surrounded himself with really good friends. Tito and Torey have been pretty impressive. Having a close relative dealing with cancer right now it's amazing what you learn about those close to you in such circumstances. Sometimes seeing surprises in both directions.
 

luckysox

Indiana Jones
SoSH Member
Apr 21, 2009
8,086
S.E. Pennsylvania
It's as simple as Lovullo believing this is Farrell's team, and not even thinking about replacing him as manager - what he would consider stabbing his sick friend in the back.  I kind of like that. 
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,548
 
 
CLEVELAND — The Red Sox aren’t bringing back every member of their coaching staff. The team announced Sunday morning that first-base coach Arnie Beyeler would not be retained for 2016.
Informed of the decision on Saturday night, Beyeler coached first for the Red Sox on Sunday. He also brought out the lineup card.
"I just really wanted to change a little bit of the mixture on [the coaching staff]," president of baseball operations Dave Dombrowski said. " I feel in Arnie’s case, he’s done a great job in so many ways. He took the news as well as you possibly can. He’s a good person. He’s worked hard. He’s been a Red Sox person. We just wanted to make a change on the staff in a direction, and that's the one we decided to go on."
"Arnie has been so dedicated, so loyal, and is one of the hardest-working coaches that I've ever been around," interim manager Torey Lovullo said. "He spends so much time watching video, positioning guys. He does a great job with their footwork and fundamental and getting them out there and drilling them. He also does a great job controlling our running game.
"I'm sorry to see him move on, sorry to see that decision, but as we all know in this game, things change quickly and there's reasons for a change. Arnie will be just fine. He'll land on his feet again. He's a very qualified coach."
Beyeler was disappointed but understanding of the decision.
"I was disappointed without a doubt, but that said, I have nothing but good things to say about these guys," said Beyeler, who has been with the Red Sox organization for nine seasons. "To get a chance to bring me up here on the big-league staff was a dream come true. I had a nice ride out of that."
It's hard not to see Beyeler as a kind of scapegoat for the failure of Hanley Ramirez to take to left field. Boston's outfield coordinator, Beyeler oversaw Ramirez's disastrous conversion to left. He was also criticized by Yoenis Cespedes after the outfielder was traded to Detroit last offseason.
At the same time, Beyeler was the man in charge when Brock Holt and Mookie Betts transitioned seamlessly to the outfield.
"I can look in the mirror walking out of here and I did the best I could do while I was here," Beyeler said. "When you finish in last place, things can change, guys get moved, people get fired. That’s the nature of the business."
Beyeler said he did not believe the problems with Ramirez were the deciding factor in the organization's decision to move on.
"I didn’t get that feeling at all," he said. "[Dombrowski] just said they needed to make a change. My spot was the one that they decided to change. I’ve been in this situation before and something good came out of it."
http://www.providencejournal.com/article/20151004/SPORTS/151009690/14009
 
more at the link
 

Green Monster

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2000
2,277
CT
Red(s)HawksFan said:
 
Merloni is tweeting that he's the fall guy for the defensive failings of Hanley and Cespedes last year.  If they're going to scapegoat anybody for anything, that seems a bit of stretch........................
 
 
I thought that was Don Orsillo's fault
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
28,017
Saskatoon Canada
I like this, in that instead of trading JBJ or Mookie, DD may can fire the manager next year as his big shakeup.
 
Hanley is officially a coach killer.
 

garlan5

Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2009
2,684
Virginia
reggiecleveland said:
I like this, in that instead of trading JBJ or Mookie, DD may can fire the manager next year as his big shakeup.
 
Hanley is officially a coach killer.
I'm not making excuses for Hanley. But you have to blame Ben for signing him. Everyone knew what we were getting with Hanley. You can teach guys how to play the wall and to get in position but it's hard to teach how to judge the ball coming of the bat. Hanley just isn't natural out there
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
nattysez said:
Hopefully they've figured out what caused the starting pitching to miraculously turn around in mid-August.  The lineup's improvement is easier to trace -- they got Panda, Hanley, ShaneVic, and Napoli's limp bats out of it.
 
 
Red(s)HawksFan said:
 
I would think a big chunk of the improvement came from a couple guys named Jackie and Rusney.
 
And some regression.
 
Porcello 1st half ERA/FIP/xFIP: 5.90/4.53/4.08
Porcello 2nd half ERA/FIP/xFIP: 3.64/3.79/3.35
 
1st half differences: -1.37/-1.82
2nd half differences: +0.15/-0.29
 
Kelly 1st half ERA/FIP/xFIP: 5.67/4.21/4.22
Kelly 2nd half ERA/FIP/xFIP: 3.37/4.14./3.90
 
1st half differences: -1.46/-1.45
2nd half differences: +0.77/-0.53
 
Miley 1st half ERA/FIP/xFIP: 4.80/4.00/4.44
Miley 2nd half ERA/FIP/xFIP: 4.09/3.60/3.69
 
1st half differences: -0.80/-0.36
2nd half differences: -0/49/0.40
 
Replacing Masterson with Rodriguez was a bit of boost as well, though the drop from Buchholz to the combination of Wright, Owens and Johnson was pretty severe. Rich Hill evens that out a little, but I'd imaging the collective shift from Masterson and Buchholz to to the rest was probably somewhere around neutral.
 

Gene Conleys Plane Ticket

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
3,371
OilCanShotTupac said:
Belichick benefits from playing once a week for 16 weeks, and his media face time is accordingly limited.

A baseball manager has to talk to the media 5-7 days/wk for six months.

BB simply would not be able to get by with the Sphinx act in MLB.
Jimy Williams did it. Talked to the media every damn day, never said anything. 
 
Anyway, if what this same group of owners did to the manager of Liverpool today is any indication, next year's team better not get off to a slow start or Farrell will be gone by the first week in May.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,696
I'm glad to see that the Sox treated this matter the way a team with their resources should.  Pay Lovullo handsomely enough to buy his services for another year and give JF time to get back to full health (hopefully) and resume his job duties when he's ready and (more importantly) give Dombrowski a proper opportunity to evaluate his performance. 
 
I'm not as down on Farrell as many others here are.  I'm not sure how many other managers could have successfully managed that 2014 team given the injuries to key veterans from the '13 squad and rocky seasons from rookies.  The Lester contract mess and subsequent trades of him and Lackey could have created a lot of bad blood among the remaining veterans but Farrell kept the team together.  He seems to get a bum rap from many on here regarding his handling of rookies but I don't see it.  He handled Bogaerts masterfully in 2013 and while last season was disappointing Farrell helped him navigate that rough patch and has Xander on the road to likely becoming a perennial All-Star.  Mookie has fully met expectations and EdRod has arguably outperformed expectations on his watch and both have enjoyed enormously successful rookie campaigns.  Swihart was forced to take on a much bigger role this year ahead of schedule and not only kept his head above water but showed growth and improvement as the year went along.  Farrell commands enormous respect in the clubhouse and within the organization as well as throughout baseball.  And references to Bob Brenly aside, I don't think that Farrell's credentials as manager of a world championship team should be minimized - the Natstown shitshow is only the latest example of how a manager with a lack of leadership skills can derail a contending team. 
 

Darnell's Son

He's a machine.
Moderator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
9,609
Providence, RI
abs broke down the front office and coaching situation on the .com today.
 
 
With a team like the Red Sox, with this many young players, too much change could easily be detrimental to their continued development, especially if the coaching staff was completely turned over. When the team announced the news about Farrell and Lovullo, the only other changes announced were that first base/outfield coach Arnie Beyeler and strength coach Pat Sandora would not be retained for 2016.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,249
I agree with the decision.  Farrell may have his faults, but whether those faults are truly as bad as we think they are when compared to other MLB managers is open to debate.  Farrell will be given the chance to prove himself with a retooled roster.  If the team falters again, he'll obviously take the fall first.  
 

ShaneTrot

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2002
6,462
Overland Park, KS
lexrageorge said:
I agree with the decision.  Farrell may have his faults, but whether those faults are truly as bad as we think they are when compared to other MLB managers is open to debate.  Farrell will be given the chance to prove himself with a retooled roster.  If the team falters again, he'll obviously take the fall first.  
I am of the school of thought that the roster construction was a big problem with this team. That is on Ben, he went too long with the LF experiment, Panda was atrocious, gambled on poor and mediocre starters etc.. Once Dombrowksi came in, decisions were much more logical. DD and Lovullo also benefited from the fact that the young players and pitchers performed so much better than the guys they replaced.
 
They are clearly hedging their bets. You have to feel that Farrell will be on a short leash.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,719
NY
I have no problem with the idea that you don't fire someone who's taking a leave of absence to deal with an illness.  But if that's what they're doing then I don't think Farrell will be on a short leash.  If they get off to a shitty start next year I doubt they fire him while he'll still potentially be going to follow up appointments or whatever.  If it's unacceptable to let him go now, at the end of another under-performing season, I don't see why letting him go during his first couple of months back from cancer treatment is any better.
 
The best solution would've been to give him some sort of FO player development job.  No PR issues, he's not unemployed, and he can continue dealing with his treatment in the offseason.  But the guy who led the team to two straight last place finishes would no longer be in charge.
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
8,465
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
glennhoffmania said:
I have no problem with the idea that you don't fire someone who's taking a leave of absence to deal with an illness.  But if that's what they're doing then I don't think Farrell will be on a short leash.  If they get off to a shitty start next year I doubt they fire him while he'll still potentially be going to follow up appointments or whatever.  If it's unacceptable to let him go now, at the end of another under-performing season, I don't see why letting him go during his first couple of months back from cancer treatment is any better.
 
The best solution would've been to give him some sort of FO player development job.  No PR issues, he's not unemployed, and he can continue dealing with his treatment in the offseason.  But the guy who led the team to two straight last place finishes would no longer be in charge.
 
This is a fine idea if the Sox wanted to fire him. But - perhaps they don't want to fire him? Maybe they see a lot of good things in Farrell's performance that far outweigh the publicly obvious bad things?
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
glennhoffmania said:
I have no problem with the idea that you don't fire someone who's taking a leave of absence to deal with an illness.  But if that's what they're doing then I don't think Farrell will be on a short leash.  If they get off to a shitty start next year I doubt they fire him while he'll still potentially be going to follow up appointments or whatever.  If it's unacceptable to let him go now, at the end of another under-performing season, I don't see why letting him go during his first couple of months back from cancer treatment is any better.
 
I don't agree with this. Bottom line, if you're well enough to do your job, you're well enough to get fired from it.