Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Cafardo: Sox beyond preliminary stage in talks for Farrell


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
67 replies to this topic

#1 Corsi


  • Wes Chamberlain's Sasha Rockets


  • 9185 posts

Posted 18 October 2012 - 04:38 PM

This probably deserves its own thread at this point.

Major League source: Sox-Jays beyond "preliminary" stage of compensation talks in a deal for Toronto manager John Farrell.

https://twitter.com/nickcafardo/status/259045144051974144
link to tweet

#2 Van Everyman


  • SoSH Member


  • 7183 posts

Posted 18 October 2012 - 04:53 PM

CHB will be thrilled.

#3 trekfan55


  • SoSH Member


  • 5496 posts

Posted 18 October 2012 - 05:06 PM

So, they talk to the Jays, work out a deal and done? No interview?

I mean, I know they like the guy, and he was their employee for years, but you have to at least put the guy through some questions to evaluate how he'd perform as your field manager.

#4 C4CRVT

  • 2355 posts

Posted 18 October 2012 - 05:11 PM

I think as stated in the other thread, this is to determine the "cost" of hiring him prior to the interview. It could have a big impact on if he's worth pursuing.

Edit- of course due to last year's disaster negotiation with the Cubs.

Edited by C4CRVT, 18 October 2012 - 05:12 PM.


#5 redsoxstiff


  • hip-tossed Yogi in a bar fight


  • 6657 posts

Posted 18 October 2012 - 05:12 PM

I should have opened this thread with a barf bag handy...

#6 Carl Everetts Therapist


  • yossarian


  • PipPip
  • 1558 posts

Posted 18 October 2012 - 05:25 PM

This is more crazy string pulling management..... To give up anything of value for a manager that doesn't have a long record of success is nuts. I wonder if they are trying to go back to the next best thing to Francona.

#7 75cent bleacher seat

  • 422 posts

Posted 18 October 2012 - 05:29 PM

Isn't this what we've come to expect from this organization? seriously....

I say we give Ben the job for a year...

Edited by 75cent bleacher seat, 18 October 2012 - 05:33 PM.


#8 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 11951 posts

Posted 18 October 2012 - 05:35 PM

I would rather have Wallach or Ausmus, but I can live with Farrell if he's the choice.

The part that bothers me is the public way this is playing out. I mean, either the Jays are willing to take a fringe guy like Zach Stewart as compensation, or the Sox are going to go in a different direction, right? Having the story all over the press is going to make it hard for Toronto to let Farrell go for a pittance. And if they don't do that, it will either result in the Sox giving up something significant for a field manager who was a candidate to be fired by Memorial Day, or it will create the public appearance that the Sox have settled for their second choice.

#9 SoxScout


  • Maalox Territory


  • 30160 posts

Posted 18 October 2012 - 05:40 PM

This is more crazy string pulling management..... To give up anything of value for a manager that doesn't have a long record of success is nuts. I wonder if they are trying to go back to the next best thing to Francona.


How do you know what they are giving up? And I don't understand your point whatsoever, Farrell has been they guy they identified and wanted for two managerial searches in a row now. String pulling? Yeah, to get the guy they want for the job badly at all level of management.

For God sakes this is the first time they have actually looked functional in over a year.

Edited by SoxScout, 18 October 2012 - 05:44 PM.


#10 DLew On Roids


  • guilty of being sex


  • 11727 posts

Posted 18 October 2012 - 05:57 PM

This is more crazy string pulling management..... To give up anything of value for a manager that doesn't have a long record of success is nuts. I wonder if they are trying to go back to the next best thing to Francona.


How much would you have given up for Tito in, say, November of 2003?

I don't think you give up a lot of value for any manager, since a plus manager is probably not worth more than a few wins a year, and that kind of benefit is unpredictable and somewhat fungible--like a kicker in football. But if you think a given manager is worth a couple of wins for your roster and philosophy, which translates to (ballpark) $5 million to a team like the Red Sox, why not give up a Carpenter or similar?

#11 wutang112878


  • SoSH Member


  • 5377 posts

Posted 18 October 2012 - 06:11 PM

I don't think you give up a lot of value for any manager, since a plus manager is probably not worth more than a few wins a year


I agree that a great 'in-game' manager might only net a few extra wins compared to a bad in-game manager.

Over the long term though, I think there is significant value in Boston for having a manager that can handle the press [the anti-Kerrigan], and command players respect [the anti-Bobby]. So there is some value to be had/gained if they think Farrell is that guy. I would also argue there is value in the short-term if they are convinced that he can get Lester straightened out as well.

#12 The_Powa_of_Seiji_Ozawa

  • 4095 posts

Posted 18 October 2012 - 06:28 PM

Not sure if this is just idle speculation (which it seems to be from the way it is worded) but on the compensation issue this article from MLB.com a few days ago drops the name Rubby De La Rosa, which would be pure insanity.

http://mlb.mlb.com/n...ws_tor&c_id=tor

#13 Savin Hillbilly


  • SoSH Member


  • 11204 posts

Posted 18 October 2012 - 06:35 PM

I would also argue there is value in the short-term if they are convinced that he can get Lester straightened out as well.


Not to mention Bard.

There's still a part of me that thinks they should go outside their recent history and comfort zone here, but there are certainly some good arguments to be made for Farrell.




Not sure if this is just idle speculation (which it seems to be from the way it is worded) but on the compensation issue this article from MLB.com a few days ago drops the name Rubby De La Rosa, which would be pure insanity.


If they give up de la Rosa here, Cherington should not only be fired but deported. And not to Canada, either. Kazakhstan comes to mind.

Edited by Savin Hillbilly, 18 October 2012 - 06:36 PM.


#14 pjr

  • 436 posts

Posted 18 October 2012 - 06:56 PM

John Tomase@jtomase
Sox source impressed with all 4 candidates. Says next step is to "regroup" and assess where they stand tomorrow. No further word on Farrell.

#15 Dick Pole Upside

  • 3318 posts

Posted 18 October 2012 - 07:26 PM

I agree that a great 'in-game' manager might only net a few extra wins compared to a bad in-game manager.

Over the long term though, I think there is significant value in Boston for having a manager that can handle the press [the anti-Kerrigan], and command players respect [the anti-Bobby]. So there is some value to be had/gained if they think Farrell is that guy. I would also argue there is value in the short-term if they are convinced that he can get Lester straightened out as well.


Command player's respect? Sounds like that is an issue in Toronto, not a strength...

#16 The Gray Eagle


  • SoSH Member


  • 9232 posts

Posted 18 October 2012 - 09:21 PM

Not sure if this is just idle speculation (which it seems to be from the way it is worded) but on the compensation issue this article from MLB.com a few days ago drops the name Rubby De La Rosa, which would be pure insanity.

http://mlb.mlb.com/n...ws_tor&c_id=tor


If the Blue Jays actually mentioned Rubby, then the Red Sox should have laughed for five minutes, then said this is over, Farrell's all yours, have a nice life.

The way to do this is to give Toronto a take it or leave it offer of Sweeney. He's a major league player, that lets them save face with their fans. He's also someone we need to dump anyway. Give them a day to think about it, and if they turn it down, then tell them to go screw and move on.

You can't give the other team leverage in this sort of thing. Let them keep their manager in his last year of his contract, who might rather be somewhere else, who has a lousy record, and who has had real questions raised about his handling of their team. And then we go hire one of our other promising candidates. This doesn't need to drag on and on until Toronto gets more than they should, give them the take-it-or-leave-it offer, and if they leave it, then move on.

There's way too much to do this offseason to let Toronto drag this out and get a decent player for a manager they don't even want. The Red Sox have had weeks and weeks to think about their next manager, hire one and move on to the many other important things we need to do this offseason.

Edited by The Gray Eagle, 18 October 2012 - 09:22 PM.


#17 OnWisc

  • 968 posts

Posted 18 October 2012 - 09:29 PM

I hope "beyond preliminary" means "near final". Under all but the most optimistic scenarios, the marginal value that Farrell is likely to offer over the other candidates should pretty clearly define the pool of low ceiling players that Toronto should find on the table in the way of compensation. The fact that there are even multiple stages to the discussions makes me somewhat apprehensive about what the Sox may consider parting with. After all, this isn't like the Theo situation where things unfolded backwards and Ben had every reason to hold out for as big a payday as possible. Somewhat concerned that the precedent for this is the comp Miami sent to the White Sox for a manager who had worn out his welcome and was likely to be available anyway.

Might just be a stare down at this point. Sox have already interviewed four guys, the clock is ticking, and Toronto knows that if they really want Farrell, then there best offer needs to be out there probably by Monday at the latest. Conversely, the Sox have other candidates, presumably (hopefully?) have a reasonable value assigned to Farrell, and have set a deadline where either Toronto accepts what they've offered by Sunday evening, or they move forward with the other candidates.

Or maybe there are actually ongoing substantive discussions with proposals shooting back and forth, and the negotiations will drag into midweek or beyond. Wouldn't that be fun. I love retro 2012.



#18 Savin Hillbilly


  • SoSH Member


  • 11204 posts

Posted 18 October 2012 - 09:38 PM

The way to do this is to give Toronto a take it or leave it offer of Sweeney.


Or even Nava. In some ways I think Sweeney is a better guy to have around as a bench player--he's two years younger, a better defender who can cover CF in a pinch, and his platoon split issue isn't significantly worse than Nava's--they're both useless vs. LHPs.

OTOH, Sweeney costs more and will be an FA sooner (in fact it's open to question whether Nava will stick in the majors long enough to hit FA). So it's kind of a wash.

#19 JohntheBaptist


  • SoSH Member


  • 7716 posts

Posted 18 October 2012 - 10:47 PM

Yeah, I think Sweeney is in the right direction but too much even as he is. I'm comfortable with Farrell being a major candidate, but the level of compensation should be somewhere at Linares and a low lottery ticket or forget it. Compensation much above that for a manager when there are many perfectly capable candidates out there would be really galling.

#20 Rudy Pemberton


  • Just a string of characters


  • 27883 posts

Posted 18 October 2012 - 10:59 PM

Sweeney is a likely non tender, why would the Jays want him? The precedent seems pretty clear based on what Guillen went for, this shouldn't be that complicated.

#21 E5 Yaz


  • Transcends message boarding


  • 24628 posts

Posted 19 October 2012 - 12:51 AM

There is still speculation that the Jays are eager to part ways with Farrell, with one team-connected source telling Jon Heyman of CBS Sports that, “The people there [in Toronto] would charter a jet to get him out.''


Why are we so anxious for Farrell again?

#22 Sprowl


  • mikey lowell of the sandbox


  • 20215 posts

Posted 19 October 2012 - 01:12 AM

Not to mention Bard.

There's still a part of me that thinks they should go outside their recent history and comfort zone here, but there are certainly some good arguments to be made for Farrell.

If they give up de la Rosa here, Cherington should not only be fired but deported. And not to Canada, either. Kazakhstan comes to mind.


Of course not. We wouldn't accept him. We want our immigrants to be self-supporting, with a modicum of intelligence. Trading RDLR for Farrell's granite jaw would be disqualifying.

There's reason to think that Farrell would get a brief honeymoon with the jaded Boston press. Farrell knows the local sensititivities, and the local hacks want rezbect.

Local sensitivities be damned, hiring Farrell has too strong a whiff of Last Year's Solution for me. I think the brain trust should be looking for new blood from outside the organization. I'd more happily watch RS2013 if I knew that the management was building strategically for 2014. If that means watching a sub-Mendoza Iggy Dazzle at shortstop for 2013, I'm OK with that.

#23 SoxFanInPdx

  • 1660 posts

Posted 19 October 2012 - 01:53 AM

Seems ownership has run out of new ideas. I agree with Sprowl and I mentioned it in the other thread that someone with no affiliation with the club would be my choice. I'm not too crazy about Ferrell to begin with and I don't think his arrival will create miracles for this team. Giving up any talent from the farm makes it worse IMO, no matter how low it is. I hope this isn't the person they've had in their minds all along and are just giving other candidates a courtesy interview and not really listening to their plans.

As much success as this ownership has had, I'm concerned that they're looking for a band-aid to fix this mess and not looking long term. If that is the case, I hope they do sell.

#24 Quintanariffic

  • 4397 posts

Posted 19 October 2012 - 02:05 AM

Farrell is the Lugo of managers. Over-rated guy they covet for years and then finally pay too much for when he becomes available instead of trying for a creative solution.

It's like Theo never left!

#25 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 11951 posts

Posted 19 October 2012 - 02:57 AM

Sweeney is a likely non tender, why would the Jays want him? The precedent seems pretty clear based on what Guillen went for, this shouldn't be that complicated.


The Guillen compensation also resolved tampering charges against the Marlins, so the Sox may think that's too high a price.

Agree that Sweeney's not going to get it done. If the Jays want him, they can sign him after we non-tender him in December.

#26 geoduck no quahog


  • SoSH Member


  • 5382 posts

Posted 19 October 2012 - 03:04 AM

Would make more sense for the Sox to ask compensation from the Blue Jays to get Farrel out of his last contract year...allowing the Jays to replace him with one of the better candidates the Sox are already interviewing.

#27 Lose Remerswaal


  • Leaves after the 8th inning


  • 22180 posts

Posted 19 October 2012 - 07:11 AM

Why are we so anxious for Farrell again?

Because Lester and Buchholz had their best seasons under him? And even Lackey pitched fairly well the second half of 2010 with Farrell coaching?

Which may be why he should be our pitching coach again, but maybe it also would come out if he was managing.

#28 Dick Pole Upside

  • 3318 posts

Posted 19 October 2012 - 07:12 AM

Farrell is the Lugo of managers. Over-rated guy they covet for years and then finally pay too much for when he becomes available instead of trying for a creative solution.

It's like Theo never left!


Bingo.

This is even more unsettling to me than BV. Also an additional sign that Cherington has no juice whatsoever... hire the senior adviser to make his decisions for him on talent, hand over a 40-man player to have an underachieving manager familiar with La Cosa Nostra Carmine foisted on the franchise, trust fund babies in the clubhouse... this is true Chernobyl territory, and Ben would need to go, IMO.

(Is that an overreaction?)

#29 Rudy Pemberton


  • Just a string of characters


  • 27883 posts

Posted 19 October 2012 - 07:26 AM

I don't think the comparison to Lugo works. Farrell was here for five years; the strong feelings towards him are based on real, first hand knowledge. I agree that there are concerns based on his Toronto experience, but why is someone with no experience and no ties here preferable? Farrell seems to have universal support of management, that's a hell of a start.

#30 DeJesus Built My Hotrod


  • SoSH Member


  • 10013 posts

Posted 19 October 2012 - 07:27 AM

Have the Sox announced the compensation for and hiring of Farrell yet and I've simply missed it? These posts above mine seem to indicate Boston has already overpaid for their new manager and that Cherrington cannot use his mobile phone without Lucky moving his arms for him.

Forgive me if I thought they were simply having conversations without actually saying done on anything.

#31 Rudy Pemberton


  • Just a string of characters


  • 27883 posts

Posted 19 October 2012 - 07:34 AM

So we've decided Cherington doesn't want Farrell and Lucchino does, based on what exactly?

#32 wutang112878


  • SoSH Member


  • 5377 posts

Posted 19 October 2012 - 07:36 AM

Not to mention Bard.


I would like to think Farrell could help Bard, but its really debatable if he is beyond help. Personally I think there is maybe a 20% chance we ever see the good Bard again.

Command player's respect? Sounds like that is an issue in Toronto, not a strength...


Well, it will still probably be an upgrade over Bobby. And while he was here he was able to keep the pitchers on their programs, so I have a feeling the FO thinks, and its possible they are incorrect in thinking so, that Farrell could command that respect with all the players.

Plus, there is also the school of thought that sometimes managers and coaches need that first job to learn from their failures and are better in their 2nd jobs and fresh start.

#33 Red(s)HawksFan

  • 4823 posts

Posted 19 October 2012 - 07:36 AM

Why are we so anxious for Farrell again?

Couldn't you say the same thing about any manager that has ever been fired by any team ever? "They didn't want him, why should we?"

I really don't have a strong opinion one way or the other about Farrell or any of the other candidates. I just can't pretend like I know who the right guy is. I'm not in on the interviews, I've never been in the clubhouse with these guys who have experience. It's all speculation. I feel like it's easy to identify who I don't like as a candidate when it's obvious, like with Valentine. I'm not getting that same "no way in hell" feeling about anyone who's been interviewed or rumored to be discussed this time around.

#34 OttoC


  • SoSH Member


  • 7208 posts

Posted 19 October 2012 - 08:06 AM

MLB is not excited about having news compete with post-season play, especially the World Series, so I'd be surprised if there was any announcement regarding a trade for Farrell before the series is completed. If the trade involves a major-league player it can't be done (except as a handshake) until the trading period opens after the World Series ends.

That said, I still think it is silly for a rebuilding club to spend assets on a manager as there may be better things to do with them. But, suppose they actually do get Farrell and he bombs. What then? I cannot see him accepting a one-year contract, so they would be faced with paying another manager they don't want. How many times will people like Ausmus, et al., be willing to interview and be turned down for the job. They should have had a manager already, which would give time to get new coaches before the free agency/trading period opens.

My fear is that the front office/owners will decide they need to make a 'blockbuster' deal to help restore the fans' faith and they will end up with someone who really does not fit, weakening the existing roster and/or decimating the farm system.

#35 Rudy Pemberton


  • Just a string of characters


  • 27883 posts

Posted 19 October 2012 - 08:19 AM

That said, I still think it is silly for a rebuilding club to spend assets on a manager as there may be better things to do with them. But, suppose they actually do get Farrell and he bombs. What then? I cannot see him accepting a one-year contract, so they would be faced with paying another manager they don't want. How many times will people like Ausmus, et al., be willing to interview and be turned down for the job. They should have had a manager already, which would give time to get new coaches before the free agency/trading period opens.


Well, what if Ausmus bombs? That can be said of anyone. I wouldn't be worried about guys not being willing to interview in the future. There aren't a lot of big league managing jobs out there, I don't think they'll ever have trouble filling the position.

#36 BoSoxLady


  • Rules Red Sox Nation with an Iron Fist


  • 2929 posts

Posted 19 October 2012 - 08:22 AM

Because Lester and Buchholz had their best seasons under him? And even Lackey pitched fairly well the second half of 2010 with Farrell coaching?

Which may be why he should be our pitching coach again, but maybe it also would come out if he was managing.


FWIW....Buchholz said he never spoke to Farrell but was "afraid" of him. Perhaps now that Buchholz has matured the situation will be different.

There's no evidence that Farrell would be a successful manager in Boston. There's no question his area of expertise is pitching but those duties are delegated to the pitching coach. Do we have any idea how he'd manage the entitled, spoiled clubhouse? No, we don't.

#37 Lose Remerswaal


  • Leaves after the 8th inning


  • 22180 posts

Posted 19 October 2012 - 08:22 AM

MLB is not excited about having news compete with post-season play, especially the World Series, so I'd be surprised if there was any announcement regarding a trade for Farrell before the series is completed. If the trade involves a major-league player it can't be done (except as a handshake) until the trading period opens after the World Series ends.


If St Louis wins tonight, MLB might be very excited to have an announcement made on the John Farrell issue. They'll have 4 days of buildup to the WS, they need all the news they can get.

#38 BoSoxLady


  • Rules Red Sox Nation with an Iron Fist


  • 2929 posts

Posted 19 October 2012 - 08:24 AM

MLB is not excited about having news compete with post-season play, especially the World Series, so I'd be surprised if there was any announcement regarding a trade for Farrell before the series is completed.


Terry Francona was hired during the Division Series.

#39 Rudy Pemberton


  • Just a string of characters


  • 27883 posts

Posted 19 October 2012 - 08:25 AM

There's no evidence that Farrell would be a successful manager in Boston. There's no question his area of expertise is pitching but those duties are delegated to the pitching coach. Do we have any idea how he'd manage the entitled, spoiled clubhouse? No, we don't.


The clubhouse of '11 and '12 is not the same as the clubhouse of '13. It's a totally different dynamic. Do we have any idea how Farrell will handle the clubhouse? Well, probably a better idea than we have about any of the guys who have less experience and no familiarity with Boston.

#40 jacklamabe65


  • A New Frontier butt boy


  • 5981 posts

Posted 19 October 2012 - 08:26 AM

Farrell is the Lugo of managers. Over-rated guy they covet for years and then finally pay too much for when he becomes available instead of trying for a creative solution.

It's like Theo never left!


I just went fetal with this comment.

#41 Hokie Sox

  • 83 posts

Posted 19 October 2012 - 08:28 AM

This is over-analyzed. Is anyone really all that impressed with Leyland, Girardi, Matheny, or Bochy???

#42 MalzoneExpress


  • Thanks, gramps.


  • 660 posts

Posted 19 October 2012 - 08:31 AM

Terry Francona was hired during the Division Series.


No. He was hired on December 4, 2003.

edited to add:

Posted Image

for failing to realize you meant his most recent hire.

Edited by MalzoneExpress, 19 October 2012 - 11:43 AM.


#43 TheoShmeo


  • made johnny damon think long and hard


  • 8018 posts

Posted 19 October 2012 - 08:32 AM

This is over-analyzed. Is anyone really all that impressed with Leyland, Girardi, Matheny, or Bochy???

What's your point? That having a good manager is not important? Why not re-hire Bobby on that basis? Maybe the Sox should bring back Zimmer.

And yes, a lot of people are extremely impressed with Leyland, and rightfully so in my view. I think that's the case with Matheny and Bochy, as well. But Leyland certainly gets strong reviews.

#44 ScubaSteveAvery


  • the goats! think of the goats!


  • 6798 posts

Posted 19 October 2012 - 08:35 AM

No. He was hired on December 4, 2003.


I think she meant his latest job with the Indians.

#45 Toe Nash

  • 2940 posts

Posted 19 October 2012 - 08:57 AM

What's your point? That having a good manager is not important? Why not re-hire Bobby on that basis? Maybe the Sox should bring back Zimmer.

And yes, a lot of people are extremely impressed with Leyland, and rightfully so in my view. I think that's the case with Matheny and Bochy, as well. But Leyland certainly gets strong reviews.

It seems like as long as you have a competent manager and enough talent the rest kind of flows. Bobby was not competent.

Probably more importantly we really have very little idea how anyone besides (kinda) Bobby and Francona would do in Boston with this ownership group and these players. Nor do we know how they answered a lot of the potentially important questions in their interviews. So, I agree that it is over-analyzed, but we don't really have anything else to talk about right now, either.

#46 bd11

  • 570 posts

Posted 19 October 2012 - 09:02 AM

How do you know what they are giving up? And I don't understand your point whatsoever, Farrell has been they guy they identified and wanted for two managerial searches in a row now. String pulling? Yeah, to get the guy they want for the job badly at all level of management.

For God sakes this is the first time they have actually looked functional in over a year.


What do you see as functional right now?

#47 someoneanywhere

  • 3123 posts

Posted 19 October 2012 - 09:04 AM

This is over-analyzed. Is anyone really all that impressed with Leyland, Girardi, Matheny, or Bochy???


Wait . . . a bunch of people sitting around talking about their last-place ballclub on the internet?

Overanalysis is what we do here, people.

#48 brs3


  • sings praises of pinstripes


  • 3525 posts

Posted 19 October 2012 - 09:16 AM

Wait . . . a bunch of people sitting around talking about their last-place ballclub on the internet?

Overanalysis is what we do here, people.


I wonder who would pick the better manager, the Red Sox FO, or SoSH via the GOAT style threads. Have a Q&A with each candidate, then allows members to vote each week, bring candidates back for a second Q&A, have 3 rounds. This needs to happen.

#49 redsoxstiff


  • hip-tossed Yogi in a bar fight


  • 6657 posts

Posted 19 October 2012 - 09:28 AM

Trees die from the top down...Henry interceding withToronto is sickening...The rest is unfortunatly been hashed over ad nauseam,,,

The pressure on tickets will be terrific...

#50 ElcaballitoMVP

  • 2094 posts

Posted 19 October 2012 - 09:38 AM

I think a fresh start would be wise, but if Farrell is the guy the Sox brass seem to think he is, I have no problem with them trying to get the guy they really want. If we look at it from Toronto's perspective, how much bargaining power do they really have here? They have a manager who hasn't performed well (both in terms of record and clubhouse issues) on the last year of his contract. If they really valued Farrell like we seem to, they'd have offered him a contract extension by now. They haven't done this and by negotiating with the Red Sox are showing Farrell that he may not be in their long-term plans. They've often stated that they don't allow interviews and moves to a new team for lateral moves, yet they're talking with us about letting their head coach do just that, within the division, no less.

If Toronto asks us for Ruby or another valuable piece, the Red Sox would be wise to walk away and let them go into next season with a lame-duck manager or force their hand into giving him an extension they don't seem all that interested in giving. There's no reason to give them anything more than a Chris Carpenter or Michael Almanzar type of player in a deal for Farrell.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users