Will John Farrell still be the manager after the season?
- Thread starter TheYellowDart5
- Start date
- Status
How does he survive two last place finishes with large payrolls in the New England market? Put aside the merits (such as, would the team have a better record had it resigned the 5 - 8/3.++ ERA Jon Lester?). I suspect it will be as simple as that.
Are there any merits to axing him (other than those two last place finish things)? Here's a couple of snapshots that may provide some guidance. The Sandoval signing was problematic, but does a manager, who has control of hit team, not discipline him for gaining even more weight? By sitting him. Even if that means replacing him with somebody less talented.
Then there is this, although he no longer has day to day responsibility for coaching the pitchers - that is his background, his claim to fame, his ticket to the top job. Whom has been "fixed" during his tenure as manager? Even if "fixing" is a questionable concept, one has to believe that there are those in the FO who expected guys pitching for the great John Farrell to put on a better show than has the current staff. (I go along with that, so I am throwing it into the merits column. Even if the expectations were misguided, because the talent is not there, he has to be taking heavy flak for non-performance - either to his face or behind his back - or both.)
Are there any merits to axing him (other than those two last place finish things)? Here's a couple of snapshots that may provide some guidance. The Sandoval signing was problematic, but does a manager, who has control of hit team, not discipline him for gaining even more weight? By sitting him. Even if that means replacing him with somebody less talented.
Then there is this, although he no longer has day to day responsibility for coaching the pitchers - that is his background, his claim to fame, his ticket to the top job. Whom has been "fixed" during his tenure as manager? Even if "fixing" is a questionable concept, one has to believe that there are those in the FO who expected guys pitching for the great John Farrell to put on a better show than has the current staff. (I go along with that, so I am throwing it into the merits column. Even if the expectations were misguided, because the talent is not there, he has to be taking heavy flak for non-performance - either to his face or behind his back - or both.)
rembrat said:
I just posted below Rasp. Whether it's fair or not, I believe Farrell's bosses expected him to "manage" some of these guys into being better pitchers. If we are talking about whether he will be fired, as opposed to should be fired, that would be a serious problem for him.
rembrat said:
Farrell was given a pitching staff. How shitty or great it was isn't the point. If you truly believe that none of them are performing below reasonable expectations you're entitled to that opinion. I guess if you think this was a 50 win team then Farrell is a genius. I don't recall anyone, here or otherwise, making any such prediction. Predicting they'd be a .500 team wouldn't have been ridiculous. But a 70 win team two years in a row? Give me a break.
If all he has is garbage then yes, his job is to get the most out of the garbage. I don't know how he does that. That's his job to figure out. Instead of challenging everyone who thinks Farrell should go to provide evidence that he's done a bad job maybe you can provide some evidence that he's done a good job despite Ben's shitty roster construction. In what areas has the team performed better than expected?
The answer to the question at the outset of the thread is yes, Farrell will survive the season.
I don't think ownership can figure out why the decision-making and analytical processes that led to a team that never finished below .500 during Theo's tenure (and only won fewer than 90 games twice) have resulted in disaster three out of four years. Cherington and Farrell have known the owners for a long time -- nearly a decade in Farrell's case, and longer in Ben's. They're not going to fire anyone until they determine why the results are the way they are and are sure that specific people deserve blame. I think that's a very rational way of doing business, and also accounts for the fact that the owners are human beings who are not going to oust someone they've worked with for a long time without knowing it's the right move.
I don't think ownership can figure out why the decision-making and analytical processes that led to a team that never finished below .500 during Theo's tenure (and only won fewer than 90 games twice) have resulted in disaster three out of four years. Cherington and Farrell have known the owners for a long time -- nearly a decade in Farrell's case, and longer in Ben's. They're not going to fire anyone until they determine why the results are the way they are and are sure that specific people deserve blame. I think that's a very rational way of doing business, and also accounts for the fact that the owners are human beings who are not going to oust someone they've worked with for a long time without knowing it's the right move.
I think this is an interesting dilemma, though. How is "finish strong" defined? If is means have the best record possible, he won't be playing guys as auditions for 2016. If it means getting playing time for players who may be a part of the future, then "finish strong" becomes a very subjective term.maufman said:
glennhoffmania said:
The fact remains that Farrell did a very good job in 2013, with a team that was constructed better, and with players who played closer to their career track records. So we at least know he "can" be a good manager in a city like Boston. We're not talking about a "Butch Hobson."
My only complaint woutld be that once the team's starters began to tank in mid-April, the pressure on the hitters began to show, as they may have been trying to "do too much," as well has the lack of awareness that the strike zone was expanding in 2015. The most valuable element of field managing is keeping the team "loose," but also focused. Think of Bill Belichick's mantra, that each of his players s should just concentrate on doing their particular job. Different sport with different dynamics, but it seems like Farrell let the horrid pitching spread to the rest of the team's performance in other areas of the game. I don't think this year's team can be accused of "not trying," but they are guitly of not being focused. Too many things have just spun out of control.
The big test, during the last two months, is keeping a lid on the clubhouse, while still making reasonable demands on his players. Players like Castillo and JBJ must have a professional MLB enviroment around them, so they can work on bringing their skills up to MLB standards. If the last two months turn into a circus, then Farrell should be dismissed. But I do have faith that he'll be up to the task.
rembrat said:
What's evidence supports him having strong leadership skills? Hanley not taking sufficient fielding practice to improve? Hanley still playing the OF even when they've needed a first baseman? Panda getting fatter without repercussions? Napoli getting thrown out repeatedly early in games? The only encouraging thing I've seen along these lines is Panda stopping his switch-hitting, and I'm not sure what drove that decision.
And since he doesn't force guys to do anything that they don't want to do that would improve the team, there's no reason for any clubhouse issues. If you let the players roll over you, why would there by any controversy?
rembrat said:
I don't have a side. I've had issues with some of his in game decisions but I didn't think he was horrible. I give him credit for what seems to be good leadership and clubhouse management. If the team was decent but not horrid I wouldn't have a problem bringing him back. But they've been horrid. People have to be accountable for the results of their work. Guys don't continue to manage last place teams solely because the clubhouse hasn't had a controversy.
If there was any evidence that, despite their record, Farrell has done a good job and they'd be worse off without him I'd change my position. So I'm listening. How has he improved this team? How has he made what you apparently think is a really shitty roster play better than the talent indicates? In what ways would they be worse off if a different manager was in charge? Would they win less than 70 games per year?
I have yet to hear a hitter call out the crappy pitching, or vice versa. I have yet to hear a starter blame Hanley for blowing a play or two, early in the game and lead to a 40 pitch inning. The players still appear to be rooting fo reach other, at least in public. I imagine they've gone to Farrell to complain about in private. Tito was great at this part of the job, as well, but as a fan of the Sox for many, many years, I don't take it for granted.nattysez said:
Exactly. As fans, we gripe his management of game situations--the starter he left in too long or the sacrifice bunt that shouldn't have been called. The management of people is a much harder skill to hire. If and when he "loses the clubhouse," I'd be prepared to discuss replacing him.
The record is secondary to the problems at the ML level and the logical argument for replacing Farrell.
1. The Red Sox are horrible in-division. So either the ML scouts, John Farrell, or both are doing something wrong here. This team has a substantially worse record in-division than out of it when the AL East isn't exactly a powerhouse where Baltimore, Toronto, Tampa, and New York go beating up on all out of division opponents. At times this year the AL East has looked like the worst division in baseball. This is a clear sign of an organizational problem that needs to be corrected, and if you don't believe it is the source of some sudden new scouting deficiency that happened to coincide with Cherington and Farrell arriving on the scene it's pretty hard to view it as anything other than Farrell getting out-managed routinely by every other manager in the division. If so that is simply inexcusable.
2. The Red Sox have done a very poor job introducing young players to the majors. John Farrell's job includes bringing up young new talent, finding a comfortable environment for them, and getting the most out of them in addition to his veterans. He has been manager of the club during what I would think anyone would agree is the greatest recent wave of young home grown talent. He has produced fewer standouts from that bumper crop that Tito did with FA cast offs and mid-tier prospects. His only two (bordering on three with EdRod) successes were premier blue chippers. He hasn't been at the helm when any young solid but not elite talent made the next step to become a legitimate contributor. His closest claims of those sorts are three journeymen who in the mid/late 20's got over the hump and became valuable role players (Salty, Nava, Holt).
3. He frequently costs the team wins by favoring veterans in all things. He plays obviously toast/ailing/hobbled vets over young players already promoted to the active roster. He lets veterans continue to flail away against statistically hopeless split match-ups to show loyalty. When it comes to making out the lineup card Farrell is on a polar extreme of the "win games today v. win hearts/minds for tomorrow" debate and extremists need idealized scenarios to succeed.
4. As others have said, a huge part of Farrell's claim to fame is his pitching pedigree. That has been nowhere to be found post-2013. At this point whether he and Nieves actually "fixed" Lester and Lackey or those two established veterans self corrected isn't really important. We're on the second year in a row where Farrell has been unable to get projected or better production from his staff.
Farrell is good at not rocking the boat. I think he was the perfect guy for the 2013 roster built almost exclusively with proven veterans with little young talent pushing for time. Given that kind of roster and getting the right seasons out of the players on that roster Farrell can win a title, obviously. He won't rock the boat, maintain an even keeled clubhouse to the end, and avoid the disastrous blow ups that can derail that kind of team. As the 2015 Sox pursue their second last place finish in two years and third in four I at least feel like maybe some boat rocking would do the club some good.
He just isn't the guy to manage a club trying to execute a youth movement. He isn't getting it done in many other elements of his job either, so there isn't some major benefit to living with that shortcoming.
Beyond that the club needs to consider why they ever thought Allard Baird was a worthwhile hire. The club's FA signings have, in direct correlation with his arrival, gone into the toilet. They also need to ask themselves if Ben Cherington is really a quality Major League General Manager, or just so damn good as a director of player development that you feel like you have to promote him, when doing so is just fulfilling the peter principal and dooming him to failure. The farm is stocked but god damn have they made some spectacularly bad decisions at the ML level, and not the "wow, that looks bad in hindsight" kind but the "this doesn't look good day one" followed by "wow, this looks awful one year out" kind.
1. The Red Sox are horrible in-division. So either the ML scouts, John Farrell, or both are doing something wrong here. This team has a substantially worse record in-division than out of it when the AL East isn't exactly a powerhouse where Baltimore, Toronto, Tampa, and New York go beating up on all out of division opponents. At times this year the AL East has looked like the worst division in baseball. This is a clear sign of an organizational problem that needs to be corrected, and if you don't believe it is the source of some sudden new scouting deficiency that happened to coincide with Cherington and Farrell arriving on the scene it's pretty hard to view it as anything other than Farrell getting out-managed routinely by every other manager in the division. If so that is simply inexcusable.
2. The Red Sox have done a very poor job introducing young players to the majors. John Farrell's job includes bringing up young new talent, finding a comfortable environment for them, and getting the most out of them in addition to his veterans. He has been manager of the club during what I would think anyone would agree is the greatest recent wave of young home grown talent. He has produced fewer standouts from that bumper crop that Tito did with FA cast offs and mid-tier prospects. His only two (bordering on three with EdRod) successes were premier blue chippers. He hasn't been at the helm when any young solid but not elite talent made the next step to become a legitimate contributor. His closest claims of those sorts are three journeymen who in the mid/late 20's got over the hump and became valuable role players (Salty, Nava, Holt).
3. He frequently costs the team wins by favoring veterans in all things. He plays obviously toast/ailing/hobbled vets over young players already promoted to the active roster. He lets veterans continue to flail away against statistically hopeless split match-ups to show loyalty. When it comes to making out the lineup card Farrell is on a polar extreme of the "win games today v. win hearts/minds for tomorrow" debate and extremists need idealized scenarios to succeed.
4. As others have said, a huge part of Farrell's claim to fame is his pitching pedigree. That has been nowhere to be found post-2013. At this point whether he and Nieves actually "fixed" Lester and Lackey or those two established veterans self corrected isn't really important. We're on the second year in a row where Farrell has been unable to get projected or better production from his staff.
Farrell is good at not rocking the boat. I think he was the perfect guy for the 2013 roster built almost exclusively with proven veterans with little young talent pushing for time. Given that kind of roster and getting the right seasons out of the players on that roster Farrell can win a title, obviously. He won't rock the boat, maintain an even keeled clubhouse to the end, and avoid the disastrous blow ups that can derail that kind of team. As the 2015 Sox pursue their second last place finish in two years and third in four I at least feel like maybe some boat rocking would do the club some good.
He just isn't the guy to manage a club trying to execute a youth movement. He isn't getting it done in many other elements of his job either, so there isn't some major benefit to living with that shortcoming.
Beyond that the club needs to consider why they ever thought Allard Baird was a worthwhile hire. The club's FA signings have, in direct correlation with his arrival, gone into the toilet. They also need to ask themselves if Ben Cherington is really a quality Major League General Manager, or just so damn good as a director of player development that you feel like you have to promote him, when doing so is just fulfilling the peter principal and dooming him to failure. The farm is stocked but god damn have they made some spectacularly bad decisions at the ML level, and not the "wow, that looks bad in hindsight" kind but the "this doesn't look good day one" followed by "wow, this looks awful one year out" kind.
WenZink said:
Who cares? I'd rather watch a team win 90 games and give CHB some stupid clubhouse disagreement to write about every single day than have a 70 win team that never gets bothered by anyone's terrible performance.
Max Power said:
Consider the context of this Thread, "Will John Farrell survive the season?" At this stage of the season Farrell's qualities are what you want. Do you remember Joe Kerrigan's short tenure in 2001?
Besides, I'd say that the difference between a team winning 90 and 70 games has about 95% to do with the Front Office, and, at most, 5% wih the field manager. You're never going to convice me any field manager in the history of MLB made a 20 win difference.
Rasputin said:
As a result of his in-game decisions? Sure. But how do we know the impact of all of the other aspects of the job, such as preparing the players, fixing mechanics, changing approaches, etc.? It's not so black and white.
glennhoffmania said:
Yeah, I don't think it's possible for any single person to make a 20 win difference in a single season unless they are buying the groceries or intentionally trying to lose.
The fact that replacing that asshole with Morgan resulted in an immediate large win streak suggests that it wasn't anything that Morgan did regarding preparation or coaching. Those things take time.
The 1988 Red Sox team that Joe Morgan took over was one game over .500 (43-42). If they'd maintained that pace through the end of the year, they'd have ended the season with about 83 wins. The team won 89. Unless we assume that a McNamara led second half would have seen the team nose-dive, there's no way Morgan alone was worth 20 more wins to that team. I'd estimate, at best, he was worth about 6 games. And it's arguable that at least some of those six wins were simply due to the fact that he wasn't John McNamara. Honestly, I think it's the same kind of bounce, even if it was over an off-season, that Farrell got in 2013 following Bobby V.
Morgan's teams won between 83, 88, and 84 games the next three years. Unless those rosters were only about 63-68 win teams without him, he wasn't worth 20 wins to them either.
Morgan's teams won between 83, 88, and 84 games the next three years. Unless those rosters were only about 63-68 win teams without him, he wasn't worth 20 wins to them either.
Rasputin said:
Ok my bad, because I wasn't specifically referring to Morgan. And 20 games seems like a stretch no matter what. I was only trying to say that while an idiot manager can probably lose 4 or 5 games per year by making dumb moves during games, there are plenty of other ways a manager can help win or lose games.
glennhoffmania said:
Sure, there are plenty of ways. Deciding which players to use when is pretty important. Getting players to play hard even when you're a thousand games back is pretty important. Mechanics and coaching and all that crap is pretty important.
But the difference between the optimal player in a given position and the worst player in a given position is often pretty small. Every now and then there's an egregious situation like not bringing in the loogy or not pinch hitting with a huge split, but remember, we have imperfect information, and in at least some of those situations, the good option wasn't available for whatever reason.
I do think Farrell lasts the season, and that's mostly because there's no point in trying to turn anything around now. The ship has sailed and the rest of this year is tryouts for 2016. Farrell seems good at managing personalities and keeping the ship on an even keel and that would seem handy if you're going to have a bunch of callups and you're trying to manage playing time for 30 guys.
Obviously, there have been stretches - like, say, the month of May - where this team couldn't score, but the fundamental problem is pitching. They've given up more runs than anyone else in the American league. 484 of them. Exactly 100 more than the Oakland As. 69 more than league average. When you're giving up 3/4 of a run more per game than even the average team, you're not going to win a lot of games.
Does Farrell, with his pedigree, have to take some blame for that? It seems like it.
But, mostly, it seems like the pitching staff isn't even giving him a chance. In games where the starter takes a loss, those starters have a collective 9.29 ERA.
And, sure, you're saying, when starters lose, they're going to have a high ERA, but this is not typical. Here's starter ERAs in losses for decent teams:
HOU - 6.88
NYY - 6.88
KCR - 7.97
LAA - 7.39
MIN - 7.85
BAL - 7.46
Basically, the starter gets shelled and game over. What's he supposed to do?
(fun fact: Starter ERA in wins for the Sox is 1.88 - don't have the time, but has there ever been a swing that large? Anecdotally, all those teams are in at least the 2s in starter ERA in wins)
Obviously, there have been stretches - like, say, the month of May - where this team couldn't score, but the fundamental problem is pitching. They've given up more runs than anyone else in the American league. 484 of them. Exactly 100 more than the Oakland As. 69 more than league average. When you're giving up 3/4 of a run more per game than even the average team, you're not going to win a lot of games.
Does Farrell, with his pedigree, have to take some blame for that? It seems like it.
But, mostly, it seems like the pitching staff isn't even giving him a chance. In games where the starter takes a loss, those starters have a collective 9.29 ERA.
And, sure, you're saying, when starters lose, they're going to have a high ERA, but this is not typical. Here's starter ERAs in losses for decent teams:
HOU - 6.88
NYY - 6.88
KCR - 7.97
LAA - 7.39
MIN - 7.85
BAL - 7.46
Basically, the starter gets shelled and game over. What's he supposed to do?
(fun fact: Starter ERA in wins for the Sox is 1.88 - don't have the time, but has there ever been a swing that large? Anecdotally, all those teams are in at least the 2s in starter ERA in wins)
Pick any company you want. Successful businesses fire managers all the time.rembrat said:
And it's not "every couple of years" since its been over a dozen IMO, because as I said, I consider BC to just be an extension of Theo. you can make a distinction there, but then it changes the conversation.
In this analogy the owner of a baseball team is equivalent of the CEO of a big company. They fire managers (which is essentially what BC and his staff are) on a daily basis. If you don't think Jack Welch or Steve Jobs or Bill Gates didn't fire the head of a certain underperforming department, probably on a daily basis, then you're extremely naive.
Difference is that those people were down the chain of public knowledge, so we don't hear about them. No one is writing an article because C. Douglas Mcmillon - or one of his underlings - sacked the NE regional director of sales.
That there is a difference in scale does not mean the same principles are not applicable.
Produce. Or gtfo.
And aside from the randomness of 2013 - where pretty much every player *over* performed - this FO has ceased to produce.
So, gtfo.
My main problem - above and beyond individual player evaluation - is that it still seems like this team has the same mindset of ten years ago - mash the ball and have decent pitching and you'll be fine. Even Theo himself has evolved from that - he is building offense, because it's rarer now, and planning/acting to trade it for pitching, which is more abundant now but tougher to identify.
Jesus fuck, how can you defend this FO right now? We've basically moved back into the dead ball era and with a $190M payroll, we are 4th to last in era. You can blame underperformance all you like, but yes, just like a successful business, someone pays for it. And the player signed to a million dollar contract won't be the guy led to the gallows.
If anyone in any MLB front office shared your opinion, Joe Morgan would have managed into his 70s, and would still be working as the highest paid consultant in MLB history. Think of what you're saying. If Morgan was worth 20 wins a year, he'd be twice as valuable to a team as Mike Trout.Kilgore A. Trout said:
As was mentioned, when Morgan took over, the Sox got a dead-cat-bounce from Johnny Mac's departure. They made up 6 games in the standings, closed to within 3 games of the lead, and the Sox traded for Mike Boddicker who accumulated 2.5 WAR over the last two months.
Morgan, btw, was a horrible in-game manager -- he made Grady look like Bill James. But, what a manager can do is mitigate a team's down-cycles, and get an extra win or two out of it's upturns. Maybe 5 games, at most, but that is not insignificant, particularly if the team is talented to begin with -- the 1988 Sox team had Clemens, Hurst and Boddicker at the top of the rotation.
Just wanted to add that MLB front offices, can't believe that field managers matter much. The highest paid managers in the game make just a little more than Alejandro De Aza. If a FO could ever predict a manager would even be worth 5 games a year, they'd pay them a lot more than what teams pay a 4th outfielder. Managers are fungible, which is why they get hired, fired and re-hired all the time.
So you think that if John McNamara hadn't been replaced by Joe Morgan, the Red Aox would have had the same winning streak that year, but it just would've ended 2 games sooner?Rasputin said:
I say no, but they will spend this winter and push very hard to win next year. He'll be on notice, where even a 2-10 start might do it.
I'm not going to hazard a guess as to when Farrell will get fired, but I will point out that, since the All-Star break, the Sox have been outscored by a margin of 73-41 over almost two full weeks. That's not just a bad stretch -- that's downright atrocious.
And if anyone is trying to make the case that the manager couldn't have done any better with what the FO gave him, that's revisionist history. Everyone expected him to do better. You've got between 1/3 and 1/2 the roster having something like the worst performance of their careers. Isn't that, by definition, proof that other managers do better with the same talent?
And if anyone is trying to make the case that the manager couldn't have done any better with what the FO gave him, that's revisionist history. Everyone expected him to do better. You've got between 1/3 and 1/2 the roster having something like the worst performance of their careers. Isn't that, by definition, proof that other managers do better with the same talent?
This.AB in DC said:
And it's especially damning that Farrell's area of expertise, pitching, has been particularly ugly. Porcello may have been a lousy signing, but no one projected that his performance would be among the worst in baseball. Kelly is rightly seen as an unfinished product, but did anyone think his performance would warrant a trip to the minors?
Things are ugly enough that Farrell almost HAS to be doing a lousy job.
Edit: typo
It isn't "proof" -- for all you know, the 2015 Red Sox are a star-crossed bunch, and they'd be doing much worse if John Farrell weren't an amazing leader.AB in DC said:
Of course, I don't think that's true, and I doubt the FO does either. If he doesn't right the ship (and we can debate what that should mean), he won't be back next year.
The Sox haven't fired a manager in-season since Dan Duquette fired Jimy Williams in 2001. The current FO doesn't roll like that -- even Bobby V got to play out the string. If the FO is down enough on Farrell that a 2-10 start would prompt them to sack him, they won't bring him to Florida in February.bosockboy said:
Which is one reason why I'm less inclined than the majority of folks here to say Farrell will be back next year.
maufman said:
Yeah, if the FO/ownership thinks Farrell should go after something like a 2-10 start, then he has no business heading to Spring Training next year with the team. You don't start a new season with a manager you lack confidence in; it's just setting up to fail. It's comparable to leaving a pitcher in until he gives up a few base runners, even though you know he's tiring. You're hoping that you get lucky and don't have to do what you know you should do.
Doctor G said:
I don't know about Butterfield being a poor infield coach, but a lack of accountability was also a characteristic of Farrell's teams in Toronto. Omar Vizquel went on the record saying that he didn't think the coaching staff was holding young players accountable enough for mistakes, and it was harming their ability to learn and grow into better baseball players.
Farrell's failure to get prospects to integrate especially well over the past few years doesn't exactly make me think Vizquel was wrong.
Disagree utterly.Doctor G said:
Bogaerts has been obviously much better, and the other three IF positions are fielded by vets. Butterfield may be a crap 3b coach (or more likely, following orders to be more aggressive), but XB has gotten decidedly better as an
j IF under his gguidance.
100 percent agree. X didn't just get better on his own and there's no way he can take heat for Panda all of a sudden becoming a statue at 3rd.Buzzkill Pauley said:
Butters is the least of this team's problems. Why not be aggressive? What do you have to lose?
BROCKHOLT disagrees with you!Doctor G said:
“As far as defensively I feel like I’ve gotten tons better just from the 2-3 years I’ve been working with (infield instructor Brian Butterfield). He’s the best infield coach in baseball, best one I’ve ever had. He’s made me tremendously better defensively and more confident.
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox_mlb/boston_red_sox/2015/07/red_sox_notebook_brock_holt_hopes_not_to_be_traded
I for one acknowledge this point and would even argue that under the circumstances it's no small feat. Having said that I'm not sure how anybody can watch this team play and get destroyed every night and not hold the manager more accountable. It's not just the pitching - it's bad base running, poor fielding, and a failure to even be remotely competitive in a disturbingly large percentage of games. Saying he got handed a suck pitching staff doesn't adequately explain the level of poor performance across the board. I think the front office should absolutely be culpable in terms of this shitshow, but I find it hard to defend Farrell as not being at least part of the problem based on the level of ineptitude we are seeing night in and night out.rembrat said:
There was an incident that prompted the criticism says my google search on Omar: Toronto Sunderekson said:
He’s admired for what he did in June that season. The Jays back-up infielder chose to fly in the family of starter Henderson Alvarez from Valencia, Venz., to Miami. The family could not afford the flight and Alvarez was earning basically the major-league minimum of $482,900 US.
The Alvarez family made the seven-hour flight north to see the right-hander pitch against the Marlins. Alvarez was scheduled to start the final game of the series on Sunday June 24.
Farrell had other ideas.
Now, you have to remember this was just days after the not-so-memorable week which saw Brandon Morrow, Kyle Drabek and Drew Hutchison all walked off the mound with injuries after pitching a combined five innings (facing a total of 25 hitters in the three games).
They Jays headed on the road starting Alvarez, Jesse Chavez and Joel Carreno in Milwaukee against the Brewers and then headed to south Florida.
The Alvarez family arrived with one and all giving Vizquel hugs of thanks.
Meanwhile, in the manager’s office, Farrell had decided to bump Alvarez from his scheduled Sunday start to Monday when the Jays were at Fenway Park. Instead, Chavez would pitch the finale of the Marlins series.
Eventually news filtered to Vizquel. Knowing the expense he’d gone to flying the Alvarez family in to see him pitch and now he was not going to start, the infielder headed for Farrell’s office.
Farrell’s reply was something “I’m not running a Little League team here, I’m doing what’s best for the team.”
It was the right call.
And after the season Omar endorsed Butterfield for manager on Twitter: "Butterfield for Manager of Jays. Good Luck."
Managers really don't often survive runs like this with teams with this much talent. Yes, all of the talent is underperforming, and yes, we can all sit and say objectively the manager doesn't have that much to do with getting the talent to perform. But, subjectively, that's their fucking job. Otherwise, you could set up a dumb expert system running on an iphone to make pitching changes and substitutions based on the box score.
The Red Sox are 3-13 since the start of the Yankees series, when they were set to actually make some kind of run. That's pathetic. It's not Farrell's fault that Clay Buchholz got injured in the first of those games, that Pedroia came back too soon and gimpy, that everyone's slumps and hot streaks seem to be counter balancing to leave them on the losing side. But, 3-13.
People seem to be stuck on the question of "should" rather than "will" which is what the post asks for. Some people don't think a manager is responsible for anything and therefore never "should" be replaced and that's fine. Or that the only job of a manager is to make sure people aren't talking about bad clubhouse chemistry or something. I don't know. I tend to feel changing the manager isn't going to change the fortunes of the team. But, it really is rare that managers survive 2 seasons like the Sox have had, particularly this year where you can't make any argument they have made moves that they knew would make the team worse (like trading Lester and Lackey last year).
So, either there is a collective removal of heads from ass, or I think Farrell will lose his job. I'm not sure he can really survive a sub 70 win season. Maybe it's unfair, maybe it's not the right thing for the organization, but, generally speaking, it's what happens.
The Red Sox are 3-13 since the start of the Yankees series, when they were set to actually make some kind of run. That's pathetic. It's not Farrell's fault that Clay Buchholz got injured in the first of those games, that Pedroia came back too soon and gimpy, that everyone's slumps and hot streaks seem to be counter balancing to leave them on the losing side. But, 3-13.
People seem to be stuck on the question of "should" rather than "will" which is what the post asks for. Some people don't think a manager is responsible for anything and therefore never "should" be replaced and that's fine. Or that the only job of a manager is to make sure people aren't talking about bad clubhouse chemistry or something. I don't know. I tend to feel changing the manager isn't going to change the fortunes of the team. But, it really is rare that managers survive 2 seasons like the Sox have had, particularly this year where you can't make any argument they have made moves that they knew would make the team worse (like trading Lester and Lackey last year).
So, either there is a collective removal of heads from ass, or I think Farrell will lose his job. I'm not sure he can really survive a sub 70 win season. Maybe it's unfair, maybe it's not the right thing for the organization, but, generally speaking, it's what happens.
I'm going to put my trust in the team's ownership. They've seen Tito and Theo at work so they know what a good manager and GM are supposed to look and act like. If Farrell or Ben aren't cutting it, I believe ownership will make a move this offseason. If they are seeing strong performances behind the scenes, though, I believe they will stand behind Farrell and Cherington. Henry knows he screwed up in letting Francona get the axe in 2011 and will not make the same mistake.
Despite the disappointing performance in recent years, this ownership group has overseen three world championship years - I think they've earned the benefit of the doubt.
Despite the disappointing performance in recent years, this ownership group has overseen three world championship years - I think they've earned the benefit of the doubt.
Because teaching guys how to get back into a game is important for future years. Butterbrain stomped on an opportunity to put one, maybe two on the board by getting a runner thrown out at home for the first out. Again. And the runner was Sandoval, who spent the rest of the night hooked up to an IV bag of saline. There's "situationally aggressive" and then there's "ideologically stupid."MyDaughterLovesTomGordon said:
Funny thing; bosses who do their jobs with their heads up their asses frequently get the same types of performances from their employees.
Had to make one of my infrequent comments here, but as one who has actively followed the team for 60+ years, this feels like deja vu all over again. This used to be the time of year I started to focus on individual statistics and would scan the box scores to see if a player might achieve some goal by the end of the year like 20 victories or 100 rbis. Nothing like that to look forward to this year unless they begin to weigh Sandoval daily to see if he can hit the magic 300 lb. mark. Thank goodness college football is just around the corner. So let's all enjoy the blue moon tomorrow night since the team as constituted now will see many of them before contending again.
We have all read and heard about (and it has been discussed in this thread) Farrell's alleged failure to hold players "accountable" for poor play in Toronto. Accountability is short hand for you are paid to do your job properly and, if you do not, there will be adverse consequences. In baseball the one consequence with which the field manager has to work is playing time.
We have a snapshot that provides positive proof that John Farrell does not hold his players accountable - Pablo Sandoval. A competent manager would have benched him long ago, when Sandoval established that he did not care to remain in even marginally good enough shape to play baseball at an elite level. By whom he was replaced would not have been all that important - as long as the replacement played to the best of his ability and gave a damn.
Certainly Farrell has been provided with a problematic team by the FO, but his job is to get the most out of what he has. With Sandoval as a crystal clear example, that is not something Farrell is inclined to or capable of doing.
BTW - and I am confident that many here are weary (to say the least) of tales of yore about the Red Sox. Still for those you honestly believe that a manager can only make a difference of a few wins (one way or the other), reflect on how the 1967 Red Sox would had performed under Billy Herman, Johnny Pesky or Pinky Higgins.
Finally, there are guys who seem to be "turn around artists" (Dick Willliams probably being one). Sometimes - maybe even often - they wear out their welcome rather rapidly. Nevertheless, for this team to succeed (and by that I am thinking winning more than losing), the FO has to find such a person. The talent level of most on this squad (or some variation of this squad) dictates performance that exceeds expectations to have a winning record. Without a manager who can obtain the same, the Boston Red Sox are years from contending, even for a wild card spot.
We have a snapshot that provides positive proof that John Farrell does not hold his players accountable - Pablo Sandoval. A competent manager would have benched him long ago, when Sandoval established that he did not care to remain in even marginally good enough shape to play baseball at an elite level. By whom he was replaced would not have been all that important - as long as the replacement played to the best of his ability and gave a damn.
Certainly Farrell has been provided with a problematic team by the FO, but his job is to get the most out of what he has. With Sandoval as a crystal clear example, that is not something Farrell is inclined to or capable of doing.
BTW - and I am confident that many here are weary (to say the least) of tales of yore about the Red Sox. Still for those you honestly believe that a manager can only make a difference of a few wins (one way or the other), reflect on how the 1967 Red Sox would had performed under Billy Herman, Johnny Pesky or Pinky Higgins.
Finally, there are guys who seem to be "turn around artists" (Dick Willliams probably being one). Sometimes - maybe even often - they wear out their welcome rather rapidly. Nevertheless, for this team to succeed (and by that I am thinking winning more than losing), the FO has to find such a person. The talent level of most on this squad (or some variation of this squad) dictates performance that exceeds expectations to have a winning record. Without a manager who can obtain the same, the Boston Red Sox are years from contending, even for a wild card spot.
- Status