LeoCarrillo said:1. I'm in the camp of finding a guy who's best to lead the next wave. Young first-time MLB managers such as Matheny, Ausmus and Molitor (who didn't inherit a great team like the others) are enjoying success. Do young managers work better with young players? Who knows.
threecy said:
Paul Molitor: 58
John Farrell: 52
Brad Ausmus: 46
Mike Matheny: 44
Regarding cliques, because I think you're on the right track with clubhouse issues, I don't think it would hurt to have a bilingual manager or someone who has some chutzpah from the Dominican as a bigger influence given the mix of the 25 man roster.LeoCarrillo said:
There's talk of cliques this season. (I think it's been sufficiently noted, so I won't bother adding any Gammo or Edes links). Young guys (Betts, Bogearts, etc) don't have the standing to get cliquey. Pitchers often do but absent a prima donna like Beckett, Lackey or Lester, I'm doubtful that's the case. Miley's blow-up notwithstanding. Given the chumminess of the Three Amigos of Papi, Hanley and Panda beginning in Spring Training (hell, with the signings themselves), I think that's pretty obviously your clique right there.
If nothing else, maybe it's not a bad idea to let Farrell wear the black hat and be the guy who tells Papi he's cooked. Take the hit as it turns half the clubhouse against him. Or at least turns half the clubhouse into nodding along with Papi's gripes. Maybe that's in the next three months. Maybe they bounce back and Papimageddon happens next year.
The quetion is, if guys like Bogaerts, Betts, Rusney, Vazquez/Swihart etc seemingly need at least this year and 2016 to cut their teeth, do we really want to bring in a Varitek, Daubach, (fill in the blank) to be the new manager to tell the Living Legend he's sitting 1/3 of the games and hitting 7th? And start out on the wrong foot with Hanley, Panda, whomever else is in Camp Papi. I say let Farrell do it, then hire a new manager for 2017.
glennhoffmania said:If they reach the conclusion that Farrell isn't any good at developing the younger players (referring to Leo's first point) and they decide to punt 2016 and look towards 2017, keeping Farrell around next year sounds like an awful idea. Bring in someone who can get the most out of a year of development for the young guys. Whatever problems Ortiz may cause, assuming he doesn't retire, shouldn't influence that decision in my opinion.
I think you're probably correct, but presumably the new guy will want to hire his own staff, so firing Farrell is like firing the rest of the crew anyway (except maybe Willis and Davis who are still new-ish.)LeoCarrillo said:
I don't disagree with this. And if the bottom falls out this season, then broom Farrell too.
But as much as we debate how much influence a manager has on W-L (little or a bit more than a little), I wonder too how much effect a manager has on the development of young players at the MLB level. As a past pitching coach, I'd hope he'd have some input for guys like Eddie Rodriguez, Barnes, Johnson. But isn't it guys like Butter who's showing Xander how to play SS (sorry to evoke the name, but Jeter even credited Butter as a mentor), and Beyeler is working with the OFs and 1Bs (so he's probably on Hanley Duty nonstop). Catching is probably mostly reps and studying. Hitting coaches fix swings.
Anyway, I'm not sure a big cheese like Farrell is gonna have as much effect on development as 1. the supporting staff and 2. the kids just getting their reps.
Danny_Darwin said:I think you're probably correct, but presumably the new guy will want to hire his own staff, so firing Farrell is like firing the rest of the crew anyway (except maybe Willis and Davis who are still new-ish.)
LeoCarrillo said:
I don't disagree with this. And if the bottom falls out this season, then broom Farrell too.
But as much as we debate how much influence a manager has on W-L (little or a bit more than a little), I wonder too how much effect a manager has on the development of young players at the MLB level. As a past pitching coach, I'd hope he'd have some input for guys like Eddie Rodriguez, Barnes, Johnson. But isn't it guys like Butter who's showing Xander how to play SS (sorry to evoke the name, but Jeter even credited Butter as a mentor), and Beyeler is working with the OFs and 1Bs (so he's probably on Hanley Duty nonstop). Catching is probably mostly reps and studying. Hitting coaches fix swings.
Anyway, I'm not sure a big cheese like Farrell is gonna have as much effect on development as 1. the supporting staff and 2. the kids just getting their reps.
Given JF's experience with the Indians in player development, I thought this would be one of his strengths and it doesn't appear to be at all.glennhoffmania said:If they reach the conclusion that Farrell isn't any good at developing the younger players (referring to Leo's first point) and they decide to punt 2016 and look towards 2017, keeping Farrell around next year sounds like an awful idea. Bring in someone who can get the most out of a year of development for the young guys. Whatever problems Ortiz may cause, assuming he doesn't retire, shouldn't influence that decision in my opinion.
LeoCarrillo said:Two thoughts:
1. I'm in the camp of finding a guy who's best to lead the next wave. Young first-time MLB managers such as Matheny, Ausmus and Molitor (who didn't inherit a great team like the others) are enjoying success. Do young managers work better with young players? Who knows. Something for Ben to decide.
2. There's talk of cliques this season. (I think it's been sufficiently noted, so I won't bother adding any Gammo or Edes links). Young guys (Betts, Bogaerts, etc) don't have the standing to get cliquey. Pitchers often do but absent a prima donna like Beckett, Lackey or Lester, I'm doubtful that's the case. Miley's blow-up notwithstanding. Given the chumminess of the Three Amigos of Papi, Hanley and Panda beginning in Spring Training (hell, with the signings themselves), I think that's pretty obviously your clique right there.
So, there was some back-and-forth a few pages back about "Papi's cooked" ... "Not quite" ... "Can't hit a fastball." At any rate, he's nearing the end and certainly will be losing PAs vs. lefties to begin, sliding down in the order. I think we can assume that the inevitable Papi decay won't be a great vibe in the clubhouse. Big man has big ego. He's already getting terse after his two-day recharge and sitting vs. LHPs.
If nothing else, maybe it's not a bad idea to let Farrell wear the black hat and be the guy who tells Papi he's cooked. Take the hit as it turns half the clubhouse against him. Or at least turns half the clubhouse into nodding along with Papi's gripes. Maybe that's in the next three months. Maybe they bounce back and Papimageddon happens next year.
The quetion is, if guys like Bogaerts, Betts, Rusney, Vazquez/Swihart etc seemingly need at least this year and 2016 to cut their teeth, do we really want to bring in a Varitek, Daubach, (fill in the blank) to be the new manager to tell the Living Legend he's sitting 1/3 of the games and hitting 7th? And start out on the wrong foot with Hanley, Panda, whomever else is in Camp Papi. I say let Farrell do it, then hire a new manager for 2017.
Clears Cleaver said:why not walk ciriaco with runner on 2B with two outs and pitcher up next? dumb
Add in Kevin Cash at TB.He is breaking in young players.geoduck no quahog said:Taking the 3 managers highlighted:
Paul Molitor
Brad Ausmus
Mike Matheny
Where do they stand in the list of criteria?
For example, Matheny benched Craig when he wasn't performing, but he didn't bench any aging icons. Do we know if these guys broke up Caribbean (or other) Cliques? I'm not certain there's a comparison available here.
A better comparison would be the assessment of what they replaced:
Gardenhire
Leyland
La Russa
and how that may have solved some of the problems cited.
Twins - Jury Out (.432 win% to .531 early)
Tigers basically had the same record (93 wins to 90 wins)
Card's basically maintained the same record (90 wins to 88 wins)
Hard to see cause/effect here.
nattysez said:I'd love to hear why Rusney Castillo is sitting in favor of de Aza for the second night in a row.
nattysez said:I'd love to hear why Rusney Castillo is sitting in favor of de Aza for the second night in a row.
rembrat said:
De Aza is the only Red Sox who has faced Yohan Pino. 8 PA, 5H, .714/.750/.857.
All this stuff is really easy to find. You don't have to make a beeline for this thread ya know.
nattysez said:
Rusney Castillo needs ABs if he's ever going to adjust to playing in the US. Sitting him for the second game in a row because de Aza has 8 PA against tonight's starter is indefensible. I posted in this thread because I assumed Farrell would have a ridiculous reason for sitting Castillo, and I was right.
nattysez said:Rusney Castillo needs ABs if he's ever going to adjust to playing in the US. Sitting him for the second game in a row because de Aza has 8 PA against tonight's starter is indefensible. I posted in this thread because I assumed Farrell would have a ridiculous reason for sitting Castillo, and I was right.
glennhoffmania said:The difference between Castillo and De Aza is not that big. Since joining Boston De Aza's line is .267/.290/.433 in 31 PAs. Over the last two weeks and 28 PAs Castillo is at .231/.286/.385. So we're basically talking about 4 points of OBP and 48 points of SLG, assuming one wants to base a decision on about 7 or 8 games of data.
This isn't some anti-Farrell rant. It's an honest discussion of a lineup choice that at a minimum seems questionable, or at least worthy of a conversation.
glennhoffmania said:The difference between Castillo and De Aza is not that big. Since joining Boston De Aza's line is .267/.290/.433 in 31 PAs. Over the last two weeks and 28 PAs Castillo is at .231/.286/.385. So we're basically talking about 4 points of OBP and 48 points of SLG, assuming one wants to base a decision on about 7 or 8 games of data.
This isn't some anti-Farrell rant. It's an honest discussion of a lineup choice that at a minimum seems questionable, or at least worthy of a conversation.
[SIZE=10pt]For the fourth time in the last five games, Rusney Castillo isn't starting for the Red Sox. With right-hander Yohan Pino starting for Kansas City, Alejandro De Aza got the nod in right field.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]"We’re trying to put currently the best lineup on the field for a given night," manager John Farrell said. "That’s not to say Rusney doesn’t factor into that at some point, but right now given the history De Aza has had against Pino, that’s the alignment here."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]De Aza is 5-for-7 off Pino with a double in his career. Castillo has never faced him.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]The emergence of Brock Holt has also eaten into Castillo's playing time in right field, and with Dustin Pedroia expected back in the lineup on Saturday, it will only get harder for Farrell to find regular time for Castillo. Even so, the manager said there haven't been talks about sending Castillo down to get everyday at-bats.[/SIZE]
Laughable statement...the minimal difference between ADA and Castillo has been covered, and didn't even count defense. Plus, the Sox have the second-worst record AND run differential in the majors. Finally, if they ARE going to make a miracle turnaround, they're going to need some star performances, and who's more likely to put it together and do that, the journeyman recently DFA'd or the hotshot with loads of potential?rembrat said:
I agree that he needs plate appearances but right now De Aza is playing better baseball than Castillo and despite the mood around here it's still not white flag time. They need to win games more than they need to develop players.
Plympton91 said:
Castillo should be treated like JBJ. If he's not going to play everyday, then he needs to be at Pawtucket playing everyday. If they want someone to platoon with DeAza, call up Brentz. I get why they might be peeved as Castillo, but that's even more reason to send him down. This is why you don't want a manager who is fighting for his job playing out the string, he's going to make short-term decisions with an eye on winning today's game rather than managing for long-term health of the ballclub.
Then the case for firing Ben Cherimgton gets even stronger.MikeM said:
Or maybe after an extensive firsthand look, he's simply sided with the scouts that reportedly had Castillo pegged as more of a 4th OF type.
No way, that is nuts. That's even less his fault and more on the GM.Kilgore A. Trout said:Yes you can. That is his job. If this was one or two players, that would be one thing. But this is everybody.
Danny_Darwin said:Is Castillo going to develop his game at this point, though? He's 27 - soon to be 28 - and not 23. Isn't he already whatever it is he's going to be at this point? I know he hasn't really played that much baseball lately, but that seems like a reason to keep him on the bench to protect his body, which seems prudent given that he's already dealt with some injuries this year.
Plympton91 said:Then the case for firing Ben Cherimgton gets even stronger.
And it still argues for sending Castillo down to get regular ABs, rather than having him sit on the bench for effectively a third straight season.
The debate over the lack of Castillo actually playing compared to declaring him a bust based on JF's evaluation ,while on the hot seat, is essentially a debate how truly secure JF feels about his job and his requisite responsibilities. Within those one would assume is the always changing lineup.Toe Nash said:Laughable statement...the minimal difference between ADA and Castillo has been covered, and didn't even count defense. Plus, the Sox have the second-worst record AND run differential in the majors. Finally, if they ARE going to make a miracle turnaround, they're going to need some star performances, and who's more likely to put it together and do that, the journeyman recently DFA'd or the hotshot with loads of potential?
I think that the cw that "you are what you" are by 27 is based on the assumption that you've played a lot. I think he needs to play every day, or the investment will have been a waste.Danny_Darwin said:Is Castillo going to develop his game at this point, though? He's 27 - soon to be 28 - and not 23. Isn't he already whatever it is he's going to be at this point? I know he hasn't really played that much baseball lately, but that seems like a reason to keep him on the bench to protect his body, which seems prudent given that he's already dealt with some injuries this year.
Danny_Darwin said:Is Castillo going to develop his game at this point, though? He's 27 - soon to be 28 - and not 23. Isn't he already whatever it is he's going to be at this point?
Playing in Pawtucket won't necessarily help that, though. Or are we back to saying the gap between AAA and MLB isn't that big?Savin Hillbilly said:
As an athlete, yes. He's unlikely to get faster or stronger or develop more bat speed. But he can presumably learn and adapt to MLB pitching, and that will require playing time.
MikeM said:
Or maybe after an extensive firsthand look, he's simply sided with the scouts that reportedly had Castillo pegged as more of a 4th OF type.
Danny_Darwin said:Playing in Pawtucket won't necessarily help that, though. Or are we back to saying the gap between AAA and MLB isn't that big?
JohntheBaptist said:
Could you link me to a few of these? Literally never saw a single one that referred to him as a 4th OF type.
MikeM said:
It's been a while since i was actively trying to read up on it, but here's a quick and dirty search mentioning it before heading off to work:
http://www.baseballamerica.com/international/scouts-update-reports-rusney-castillo/
This is how the Sox 'finish' prospects.JBJ_HOF said:
110 OPS+ vs right handed pitchers this year and they don't care about developing Castillo
Such as in Cespedes last year "behavior issues" creating some conflict?geoduck no quahog said:Beginning to suspect a behavior issue.