So, 19 at-bats and Travis Shaw is a shoe-in?

[TheoShmeo]

I think that this is it. Farrell doesn't have the luxury of throwing Sandoval and Castillo out in the field and hope that both of them will hit their ways out of it. He knows that he has a very, very short rope and that his successor is literally sitting five feet away from him. Incidentally that guy got the Red Sox to play the best two months of baseball that this team has done since the end of 2013, so that rope might be even shorter.

Therefore, Farrell is going to manage as if his pants are on fire. I wouldn't be surprised if Kimbrel was in every April game nailing it down and the hot-hitting position players were playing 13, 14 or 15 games in a row. If Farrell manages like his job is on the line (IE, I don't give a fuck) then this is going to be a dead-ass team in August and September.

But doesn't that assume, at least in part, that this was John Farrell's decision alone? Or that it was almost all his decision?

There are so many ramifications to this move. It impacts their ability to win now, sure, but it also affects Sandoval's trade value, risks turning Sandoval into jello and has potential affects on team chemistry. Given all those implications, I would think that Farrell would only do this after having discussed it at length with DD, who is likely completely on board with the decision.

To be clear, I think this does speak of Farrell's sense of urgency and the thin ice that he's on. But I just don't see this as only reflective of Farrell. I think the whole organization, perhaps to Pedroia's chagrin, has bought into that sense of urgency and for many the reasons way transcend Farrell's job security. After two years in the crapper, no one was willing to suffer seeing Fat Panda kick the ball around at third and hear the fans' reaction to that.

 

[Saints Rest]

I think that this is it. Farrell doesn't have the luxury of throwing Sandoval and Castillo out in the field and hope that both of them will hit their ways out of it. He knows that he has a very, very short rope and that his successor is literally sitting five feet away from him. Incidentally that guy got the Red Sox to play the best two months of baseball that this team has done since the end of 2013, so that rope might be even shorter.

Therefore, Farrell is going to manage as if his pants are on fire. I wouldn't be surprised if Kimbrel was in every April game nailing it down and the hot-hitting position players were playing 13, 14 or 15 games in a row. If Farrell manages like his job is on the line (IE, I don't give a fuck) then this is going to be a dead-ass team in August and September.

Don Zimmer (ca. 1978) approves this message.

 

[InsideTheParker]

Shaw must now be feeling a strong pressure to perform. I hope it doesn't distract him. In every game I happen to have seen lately, he hasn't been hitting much.

 

[Saints Rest]

Wow. This is something insane.

With Panda getting benched, the Sox have $170MM remaining guaranteed salary committed to 5 reserve position players.

$75.0 - Sandoval
$56.5 - Castillo
$21.0 - Craig
$13.0 - Young
$ 4.5 - Hanigan

The Sox have EXACTLY the same $170MM of guaranteed money allocated to the 9 opening day starters.

$84 - Pedroia
$66 - Ramirez
$16 - Ortiz
$ 4 - Bogaerts/Holt/Betts/Bradley/Swihart/Shaw

Who needs a Punto trade, when you can just non-roster and bench your mistakes?

The decisions might lead to the best team on the field, but I would be absolutely stunned if Cherington ever finds work as an MLB GM again.

Maybe he can coach first base?

Other than Holt, every positional starter on Opening Day will have been drafted or signed internationally originally by the Sox. I bet that that hasn't happened since pre-Free Agency

 

[dynomite]

I agree, with the caveat that even a brief slump at the plate could open the door back to Sandoval if he starts showing something in practice. No point in wathicng Shaw turn into Willie Middlebrooks 2.0 when you've got an experienced backup right behind him.

1) You're assuming Panda is still on the team, which I think is even more uncertain than before. If the Sox are willing to bench him before real games even begin (in year 2 of a 5 year deal), they (edit: could be) willing to part ways with him for very few cents on the dollar.

2) Assuming he remains on the team, it doesn't even have to be a slump -- Panda had a slightly higher OPS than Shaw against RHP last season (.744 to .723), so it would make sense to give Shaw a day off every now and again against righties.

 

[Van Everyman]

I think that this is it. Farrell doesn't have the luxury of throwing Sandoval and Castillo out in the field and hope that both of them will hit their ways out of it. He knows that he has a very, very short rope and that his successor is literally sitting five feet away from him. Incidentally that guy got the Red Sox to play the best two months of baseball that this team has done since the end of 2013, so that rope might be even shorter.

Therefore, Farrell is going to manage as if his pants are on fire. I wouldn't be surprised if Kimbrel was in every April game nailing it down and the hot-hitting position players were playing 13, 14 or 15 games in a row. If Farrell manages like his job is on the line (IE, I don't give a fuck) then this is going to be a dead-ass team in August and September.

I have a hard time believing that Farrell is that much on the hot seat. Yes, Torrey got them to play well late in the season when the pressure was off. But is it his fault that Vic and Napoli turned to dust? That a reanimated Grady Sizemore became the starting CF? That Hanley was signed to start a position he'd never played? That Wade Miley was the anchor of the staff?

I liked Cherington and think he had an interesting approach to team-building. But he was responsible for some godawful roster decisions made over the last 2+ seasons that have made it next to impossible to judge the work of the manager or many of the players he coaches.

My sense is that they made a clear decision in the late season and offseason w Dombrowski: to figure out what they have, fix what is clearly broken and not further put the team in a hole by making rash or unnecessary moves based on incomplete or erroneous data. That means acquiring guys where there are clear needs (Price, Kimbrel, Smith) and trying out guys where you don't know what you have (JBJ and Shaw last August, but also Sandoval and Castillo and Hanley at 1B). It means saying contract be damned, the guy who plays best is going to get the nod. My sense is that they believe that if Panda and Rusney (and to a lesser extent Hanley who has higher upside w the bat) are cut out for this team, they will not sulk but fight their way back into the starting lineup. And they are trusting The Jaw to manage that.

Will it work? I have no idea. This isn't a scientific process—people have emotions after all—and as noted above, the team has the financial flexibility to cover for their mistakes. They are also trying to win games and compete in the division during all this.

But by the end of it, DD will have a better idea of what he has on this roster and whether the developmental staff they have in place—from Farrell to Willis to Chili—have what it takes to get them playing to their potential. Oh, and whether that's enough to win.

If only Brad Stevens coached baseball.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

I have a hard time believing that Farrell is that much on the hot seat. Yes, Torrey got them to play well late in the season when the pressure was off. But is it his fault that Vic and Napoli turned to dust? That a reanimated Grady Sizemore became the starting CF? That Hanley was signed to start a position he'd never played? That Wade Miley was the anchor of the staff?

We can certainly disagree on this, but I think that if the Sox start the year off under .500 (and I'm talking April) then he's gone. I wouldn't be surprised one bit if the Red Sox FO wanted to can him last year but didn't because of his cancer diagnosis. The fact that Torey did such a fine job with the same players that Farrell had also undercuts him because he could have used the excuse that you made, "Hey, I didn't pick these players, Cherington did!" Also, DD owes Farrell nothing, he didn't hire him.

Because at the end of the day, that's what a major league manager does: he has some input into what decisions the GM makes, but by-and-large, you play what you're given.

 

[Darnell's Son]

abs has his take on the situation up at the .com for your reading pleasure.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Other than Holt, every positional starter on Opening Day will have been drafted or signed internationally originally by the Sox. I bet that that hasn't happened since pre-Free Agency

And Ortiz, too, but it is really remarkable how "home-grown" the 2016 Boston Red Sox are.

Even more remarkable, one-quarter of the opening day 25-man roster was drafted in June 2011. That was one hell of a good draft, out of one hell of a good draft class.

 

[Saints Rest]

Ortiz was signed by the Mariners, then traded to the Twins, before coming to Boston.

And my point is a bit of smoke and mirrors as Hanley, though signed originally by Boston, has been much travelled since.

 

[uncannymanny]

Wow. This is something insane.

With Panda getting benched, the Sox have $170MM remaining guaranteed salary committed to 5 reserve position players.

$75.0 - Sandoval
$56.5 - Castillo
$21.0 - Craig
$13.0 - Young
$ 4.5 - Hanigan

The Sox have EXACTLY the same $170MM of guaranteed money allocated to the 9 opening day starters.

$84 - Pedroia
$66 - Ramirez
$16 - Ortiz
$ 4 - Bogaerts/Holt/Betts/Bradley/Swihart/Shaw

Who needs a Punto trade, when you can just non-roster and bench your mistakes?

The decisions might lead to the best team on the field, but I would be absolutely stunned if Cherington ever finds work as an MLB GM again.

Maybe he can coach first base?

Is it really fair to include Young and Hanigan in the bust category here, considering they are paid and were signed as bench/stopgap players?

As to Panda, this seems to me to be a defacto weight clause. You don't want to lose weight, fine, if it causes you to be a liability in the field, you're going to ride the pine. It doesn't have the contractual effect of a weight clause (as in getting out of the contract), but it does say "you're only going to play if your weight dictates you're capable."

 

[DJnVa]

Is it really fair to include Young and Hanigan in the bust category here, considering they are paid and were signed as bench/stopgap players?

He didn't call them busts. He said they're bench players.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

I'm just a little surprised Sandoval wasn't given some time at 1B this spring - particularly at the minor league complex. As Van noted, his future (if he stays with the Red Sox) may be as a chunky first baseman. If Hanley goes down, the current plan would be Shaw at 1B and Sandoval at 3B, but if Shaw is clearly the better fielder - wouldn't it make sense to try Sandoval at 1st? Not in a real game for the first time. 2017 will find Hanley as the full time DH and the Red Sox filling in a corner fielding position (which I guess as of today would be Sam Travis or a new 3B). It makes sense to me to see what you have (for $75M) in Sandoval at 1B.

 

[TheoShmeo]

Could part of not giving Pablo reps at first been aimed and minimizing the circus? Things have worked out pretty well thus far with Hanley but that was an open question when ST started, to say the least. Having Butter working with two questionable signings rather than one might have raised the distraction meter somewhat. They might have also wanted to give Ramirez as much time as possible. And they still have the Brockstar on the major league club and Sam Travis in the minors if Ramirez goes out for a while.

 

[PayrodsFirstClutchHit]

It is certainly possible that they ship Panda out now for pennies on the dollar. I would think that most teams have their opening day roster set and are willing to see what they have. Waiting on a team or two to have some injury issues and giving Panda time to show something in a backup role would seem to be the likely path for Panda to be moved.

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

I'm just a little surprised Sandoval wasn't given some time at 1B this spring - particularly at the minor league complex. As Van noted, his future (if he stays with the Red Sox) may be as a chunky first baseman. If Hanley goes down, the current plan would be Shaw at 1B and Sandoval at 3B, but if Shaw is clearly the better fielder - wouldn't it make sense to try Sandoval at 1st? Not in a real game for the first time. 2017 will find Hanley as the full time DH and the Red Sox filling in a corner fielding position (which I guess as of today would be Sam Travis or a new 3B). It makes sense to me to see what you have (for $75M) in Sandoval at 1B.

But there are other options, though. The current plan might, in fact, be Shaw at 1B, Holt at 3B, and Castillo/Young in LF. Sure seems like they don't like the idea of Sandoval playing any corner IF position right now, much less one with which he isn't particularly familiar.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

There are so many ramifications to this move. It impacts their ability to win now, sure, but it also affects Sandoval's trade value, risks turning Sandoval into jello and has potential affects on team chemistry. Given all those implications, I would think that Farrell would only do this after having discussed it at length with DD, who is likely completely on board with the decision.

Sorry, didn't see this.

You're right, these moves do impact the organization as a whole, but if you're John Farrell what do you care about Sandoval's trade value? Your only concern is whether you have a job in May, June or 2017. If Shaw gives you the best chance to win now--and save your job--you make that decision to to play him every day until the wheels come off, Sandoval be damned. And if DD doesn't like it, then you're truly screwed and you're going to get fired anyway, so you may as well do what you think is right.

It kind of reminds me of 1988 when Joe Morgan took over the Sox. He was only supposed to have the job for a week (Whitey Herzog was in line to be his successor but they were in negotiations to bring him in -- this was in Herzog's book BTW) and the Sox kept winning and winning and winning. So much so that even if Lou Gorman wanted to demote Morgan back to third base coach and bring in Herzog, he couldn't. I have to assume that's what Farrell's ploy is here: keep playing the best guys, even if the FO is yelling at you not to (and I don't know if this is true), and keep winning. Essentially force their hand into keeping you around for the rest of the year.

That's how I would manage the situation anyway.

 

[Al Zarilla]

As to Panda, this seems to me to be a defacto weight clause. You don't want to lose weight, fine, if it causes you to be a liability in the field, you're going to ride the pine. It doesn't have the contractual effect of a weight clause (as in getting out of the contract), but it does say "you're only going to play if your weight dictates you're capable."

I haven't seen it put that way here. Nice.

Damn that 2014 post-season performance by Sandoval anyway. I wonder how much that increased the ante on him. Probably not a large amount percentage-wise, but 2014 was his third straight declining offensive year, albeit a better defensive one than he'd had since 2011. That offense decline should have been a large clue. Also, Ben C. and his player evaluation team should have focused on the weight thing more than they did, like so many here did.

 

[plucy]

But there are other options, though. The current plan might, in fact, be Shaw at 1B, Holt at 3B, and Castillo/Young in LF. Sure seems like they don't like the idea of Sandoval playing any corner IF position right now, much less one with which he isn't particularly familiar.

Cherington tried to trade for Sandoval post 2013 with the intent to install him at 1B. Napoli was a FA, Sandoval was coming off a down year. I will try to,locate links but wanted to throw this into the discussion as it still begs the question, why sign both if there were positional questions, even with Pablo's bounce back in 14. Defense does not age well.

 

[uncannymanny]

He didn't call them busts. He said they're bench players.

Who needs a Punto trade, when you can just non-roster and bench your mistakes?

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Just like to point out one thing - has it been stated anywhere that Shaw is the permanent 3B? All I've read is that he will start the season over Sandoval. Haven't seen anything to indicate Sandoval may not be back at 3B after the first series.

 

[rembrat]

Sorry, didn't see this.

You're right, these moves do impact the organization as a whole, but if you're John Farrell what do you care about Sandoval's trade value? Your only concern is whether you have a job in May, June or 2017. If Shaw gives you the best chance to win now--and save your job--you make that decision to to play him every day until the wheels come off, Sandoval be damned. And if DD doesn't like it, then you're truly screwed and you're going to get fired anyway, so you may as well do what you think is right.

It kind of reminds me of 1988 when Joe Morgan took over the Sox. He was only supposed to have the job for a week (Whitey Herzog was in line to be his successor but they were in negotiations to bring him in -- this was in Herzog's book BTW) and the Sox kept winning and winning and winning. So much so that even if Lou Gorman wanted to demote Morgan back to third base coach and bring in Herzog, he couldn't. I have to assume that's what Farrell's ploy is here: keep playing the best guys, even if the FO is yelling at you not to (and I don't know if this is true), and keep winning. Essentially force their hand into keeping you around for the rest of the year.

That's how I would manage the situation anyway.

Ah, the Farrell is managing for his job meme. I can't wait for the micromanaging analysis to begin.

Dombrowski didn't sign Pablo Sandoval or Rusney Castillo so it's entirely feasible that these moves are coming down from the top. Why can't it be Dombrowski dictating policy (hey let's start winning, ok?) and Farrell just following orders?

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Is it really fair to include Young and Hanigan in the bust category here, considering they are paid and were signed as bench/stopgap players?

$17.5MM guaranteed to bench players is a luxury that only a large market team can afford. But it's the next $150MM guaranteed to bench players that's unheard-of. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough for you.

I never called Hanigan or Young busts, but they are nevertheless quite expensive for non-starting players.

 

[smastroyin]

Other than Holt, every positional starter on Opening Day will have been drafted or signed internationally originally by the Sox. I bet that that hasn't happened since pre-Free Agency

Presented for info not argument

78: Remy (not Sox), Burleson, Rice, Yaz, Fisk, Lynn, Scott (gone and come back), Evans, Hobson
83: Boggs, Evans, Rice, Armas (not Sox), Yaz, Stapleton, Gedman, Hoffman, Valdez

Lots of years in the 80s with 7 of 9.

 

[zimmerguy4]

With Panda getting benched, the Sox have $170MM remaining guaranteed salary committed to 5 reserve position players.

$75.0 - Sandoval
$56.5 - Castillo
$21.0 - Craig
$13.0 - Young
$ 4.5 - Hanigan

The Sox have EXACTLY the same $170MM of guaranteed money allocated to the 9 opening day starters.

$84 - Pedroia
$66 - Ramirez
$16 - Ortiz
$ 4 - Bogaerts/Holt/Betts/Bradley/Swihart/Shaw

This is pretty atrocious to look at when written out like this. At least he's willing to swallow his pride and have the gall to bench his mistakes, but they shouldn't be here anyway. Doesn't seem like a surprise that the Sox have been so willing to do deals with San Diego over the past couple years; we might be just as crazy as they are over there.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

Ah, the Farrell is managing for his job meme. I can't wait for the micromanaging analysis to begin.

Your right, Farrell probably doesn't care one way or the other if he has his job.

If you don't think that Farrell is feeling any sort of added pressure to keep his job and that that pressure is not going to manifest itself in the way he runs the club, you're crazy.

 

[DJnVa]

Who needs a Punto trade, when you can just non-roster and bench your mistakes?

Yeah--I'm pretty sure that was in reference to Sandoval and Castillo--not that the entire bench was full of busts. Then he made the point that the bench is owed a lot of money.

 

[bohous]

Just like to point out one thing - has it been stated anywhere that Shaw is the permanent 3B? All I've read is that he will start the season over Sandoval. Haven't seen anything to indicate Sandoval may not be back at 3B after the first series.

NM, I was thinking of Home opening series vs O's

 

[mauidano]

abs has his take on the situation up at the .com for your reading pleasure.

Great article and the point that this is really DD being hands on involved. Don't think for a second that this is on JF. I'm the eternal optimist and hope that Shaw lights it up. Sandoval has had his chances as Castillo has. I like the attitude as the article mentions 'Damn the salaries, full speed ahead". I'm not about playing someone just because he's making a lot of dough if he's not getting it done. Play ball and let the chips fall where they may!

 

[BaseballJones]

Just like to point out one thing - has it been stated anywhere that Shaw is the permanent 3B? All I've read is that he will start the season over Sandoval. Haven't seen anything to indicate Sandoval may not be back at 3B after the first series.

Unless Shaw gets off to a torrid start, I fully expect Panda to get a pretty good amount of playing time early on as well. Then, as the month moves along, Farrell adapts to who is playing better. If the production is pretty even, I bet Panda gets the majority of ABs. Something like 60/40. Just a guess.

 

[rembrat]

Your right, Farrell probably doesn't care one way or the other if he has his job.

If you don't think that Farrell is feeling any sort of added pressure to keep his job and that that pressure is not going to manifest itself in the way he runs the club, you're crazy.

No but I can forsee every single move being dissected and analyzed through the "he wants to keep his job" lens and I'm already sick of it. We're talking about a guy who already has an aggressive managerial style.

And way to sidestep the crux of my original post.

 

[Rovin Romine]

No but I can forsee every single move being dissected and analyzed through the "he wants to keep his job" lens and I'm already sick of it. We're talking about a guy who already has an aggressive managerial style.

And way to sidestep the crux of my original post.

Well the irony of this is that much of it would just be good managing, like using L/R match-ups to the team's advantage.

The only things I can see would be:
"over-managing," which I don't care about, as long as it's intelligent,
keeping starting pitchers in too long to steal innings, which Farrell seems to be bad at anyway,
overusing a reliable bullpen arm by failing to plan ahead, which Farrell seems to be bad at anyway,
letting injured players play, which Farrell seems to be bad at anyway.

 

[E5 Yaz]

Brian MacPherson and Tim Britton with a very good chat today about the 3B decision, Castillo and the Farrell/Dombrowski dynamic in makiing decisions

http://www.providencejournal.com/sports/20160331/live-now-red-sox-chat-with-britton-and-macpherson

 

[TheoShmeo]

No but I can forsee every single move being dissected and analyzed through the "he wants to keep his job" lens and I'm already sick of it. We're talking about a guy who already has an aggressive managerial style.

And way to sidestep the crux of my original post.

Not to be overly paternalistic but it seems to me that you have two choices. Avoid SoSH or read it and make your peace with this. Because it's not as if your wishing this away will do any good.

I don't think there is a manager in baseball whose job is more in play to start the season than JF's. Between the last place finishes, some of Farrell's questionable in game moves, the fact that he would probably already be gone if firing him post cancer return would not have been a PR nightmare a la Tito and Orsillo,Torey's relative success as manager, and, of course, the shtupping of Jessica Moran, it's the biggest open secret in recent memory that Farrell is toast if the Sox get off to a bad start. The only real question is how long DD waits before he pulls the plug.

Given that reality, how could fans NOT analyze Farrell's decision making in the context of, well, the context? Wouldn't failing to take the context into account when evaluating moves require a willful disregard of the reality of the circumstances? Now, yeah, of course, not every move will be made with one eye focused on the sword of Damocles hanging over his head. But surely some will, no? And as mentioned, things like the concern that Farrell might be willing to Proctor some of his better relievers in the early going goes beyond prurient interests.

 

[glennhoffmania]

No but I can forsee every single move being dissected and analyzed through the "he wants to keep his job" lens and I'm already sick of it. We're talking about a guy who already has an aggressive managerial style.

And way to sidestep the crux of my original post.

When is a manager not managing for his job? Do you think that guys with more security make different decisions because they're less concerned about getting fired? The job is to win as many games as possible. Whether a manager is on the hot seat or not doesn't change that.

In other words, if Farrell was the most secure manager in MLB do you really think that the decisions on LF and 3B would've been different?

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Not being sabremetric, I'm curious if there's any analysis that could show whether or not Mr. A is a better manager than Mr. B. It's so easy to blame a manager for a team's bad performance (or credit him with its good performance) but it really comes down to the players he has, the lineups he throws out, bullpen management, in game strategy and strength of the opposition - doesn't it? Seems two of those factors are out of his control.

Outliers aside (hello, Mr. Valentine) - what data can reveal a bad manager? A site like this surely can't judge Lovullo's team outperforming Farrell's team based solely on win-loss.

 

[rembrat]

When is a manager not managing for his job? Do you think that guys with more security make different decisions because they're less concerned about getting fired? The job is to win as many games as possible. Whether a manager is on the hot seat or not doesn't change that.

In other words, if Farrell was the most secure manager in MLB do you really think that the decisions on LF and 3B would've been different?

First Bold: A, duh.

Second Bold: I don't think they were his decisions.

 

[glennhoffmania]

First Bold: A, duh.

Second Bold: I don't think they were his decisions.

Sorry, but that doesn't make sense to me. Decisions should be made to put the team in the best position to win games and the manager's security doesn't change the option that would be best for the team.

Second, I was responding to this:

No but I can forsee every single move being dissected and analyzed through the "he wants to keep his job" lens and I'm already sick of it.

Good and bad decisions will be judged the same regardless of how much Farrell wants to keep his job.

 

[Al Zarilla]

I'm just a little surprised Sandoval wasn't given some time at 1B this spring - particularly at the minor league complex. As Van noted, his future (if he stays with the Red Sox) may be as a chunky first baseman. If Hanley goes down, the current plan would be Shaw at 1B and Sandoval at 3B, but if Shaw is clearly the better fielder - wouldn't it make sense to try Sandoval at 1st? Not in a real game for the first time. 2017 will find Hanley as the full time DH and the Red Sox filling in a corner fielding position (which I guess as of today would be Sam Travis or a new 3B). It makes sense to me to see what you have (for $75M) in Sandoval at 1B.

Sandoval played a little first base for the Giants one year, I guess when Brandon Belt was hurt and Travis Ishikawa wasn't on the team, whatever. I think it was his first game there that this happened, and either he or Giants coaching or both said he probably wouldn't play any more 1B. Anyway, he strained his ass or something. Nice stretch though.

 

[mauidano]

Sandoval played a little first base for the Giants one year, I guess when Brandon Belt was hurt and Travis Ishikawa wasn't on the team, whatever. I think it was his first game there that this happened, and either he or Giants coaching or both said he probably wouldn't play any more 1B. Anyway, he strained his ass or something. Nice stretch though.

I reached for the ice bag just looking at this picture. He had to have help getting up right?

 

[InsideTheParker]

First Bold: A, duh.

Second Bold: I don't think they were his decisions.

I agree with this entirely. Dombrowski is running the show.They certainly consult, but benching PS doesn't happy without the full approval of the front office.

 

[Al Zarilla]

I reached for the ice bag just looking at this picture. He had to have help getting up right?

As I recall, he was down for quite a while, missed some games, and I don't think he saw any more first base duty with the Giants after that. Wait, BBREF says he did play a few games at first in each of years 2008 through 2012, so I'm wrong. He's really not ideally suited for first, though, with the (relatively) short and, you know, portly (to be kind) stature. Poor guy, are there even any Venezuelan restaurants in Boston to make him feel less shitty? Although, $95 million...

 

[chrisfont9]

This is pretty atrocious to look at when written out like this. At least he's willing to swallow his pride and have the gall to bench his mistakes, but they shouldn't be here anyway. Doesn't seem like a surprise that the Sox have been so willing to do deals with San Diego over the past couple years; we might be just as crazy as they are over there.

On the plus side, they will be filling a lot of their long term needs from the minors, so it's not like these sunk costs -- assuming they end up being that -- are preventing them from doing much. I don't care about Henry's money unless we need him to spend some and he can't or won't.

 

[Al Zarilla]

I agree with this entirely. Dombrowski is running the show.They certainly consult, but benching PS doesn't happy without the full approval of the front office.

Hasn't Dombrowski said this year (like GMs always do, wink, wink) that all player playing decisions are Farrell's?

 

[alwyn96]

Sorry, but that doesn't make sense to me. Decisions should be made to put the team in the best position to win games and the manager's security doesn't change the option that would be best for the team.

Second, I was responding to this:


Good and bad decisions will be judged the same regardless of how much Farrell wants to keep his job.

Yeah, I would think Farrell managing to keep his job would mean that he'd be trying to win baseball games, which is an outcome I'm on board with. Managing for today at the expense of tomorrow is obviously the concern one would have in this situation. I'm trying to think of what specific types of decisions that would impact.

-Burning out the bullpen? This seems like the most likely negative consequence of 'managing for today.' Pulling starters early, really leaning on the back end of the bullpen. Hopefully this won't be an issue, but it's certainly worth criticizing if it actually happens. I can't say I've felt like Farrell pulled pitchers too early very much in the past. Pitchers often get pulled a little earlier in the early season anyway, so this might be a little hard to spot. Ideally the starters will be totally awesome and the offense will be so good that this is basically irrelevant. It'll be interesting to see what they do if Porcello does something like, H, K, BB, BB, 7, 2B (3R), HBP, WP, H (2R) ....in the 2nd inning...after having 2 previously bad starts. Let him work through it and try to save the bullpen or pull him and try to save the game? When would you warm a guy up in that sequence, if at all?

-Burying hitters who aren't doing well and not giving guys days off? I guess this is a possibility. Chris Young might not get a lot of starts if the Sox don't face many lefties, but on the flip side I would imagine Farrell would pinch hit more in later innings. He almost never pinch hit for catchers late to gain the platoon advantage - I wonder if that will change (for Hanigan, anyway). It looks pretty bad to have so much payroll on the bench, but the point is to win games, not win roster beauty contests. I don't have a huge problem with riding the hot hand, if such a thing exists. Ultimately if Farrell is wearing guys out such that they play badly then it's sort of counter productive to his goals. There's a continuum between having guys tired in October but in first place and having guys rested but the team out of contention - it'll certainly be a test for Farrell to try to manage that.

-Bunting more? I guess this is possible, but again, seems counter productive to Farrell's goals.

I can't really think of much else offhand. I guess it mostly comes down to pitching changes and playing time. Maybe Farrell would yell at the players more, but I'm not sure that's a super effective strategy and it's not really Farrell's style. I do think the idea of playing the guys who are performing best is generally respected in the clubhouse, so hopefully it'll inspire everyone to step it up a little.

 

[Strike4]

Brian MacPherson and Tim Britton with a very good chat today about the 3B decision, Castillo and the Farrell/Dombrowski dynamic in makiing decisions

http://www.providencejournal.com/sports/20160331/live-now-red-sox-chat-with-britton-and-macpherson

Crazy that they mention that an 0-6 or 1-8 start could get Farrell fired.

 

[Sprowl]

So we get to see Playoff Farrell in April?

 

[KillerBs]

Recall, just over a year ago, they signed this guy:

http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/63106348/v36877881/ws2014-gm7-pandas-26th-hit-sets-postseason-record/?player_id=467055

The only way this makes sense is that the Sox have determined that Shaw is a markedly better player than Sandoval right now. I am not at all convinced of this, offensively or defensively, noting Pablo's extended track record and Shaw's underwhelming minor league numbers and lack of experience as a 3B. I have doubts that Pablo really has fallen off the cliff at 29 but time should tell. It is the sort of "bold" decision which deserves kudos if correct and consequences if not.

From this extended distance, the wiser course of action would seem to be to give Sandoval at least 1.5-2 mos of steady playing time to see if last year was simply a down year due to injury, while working Shaw in here and there a couple times a week while waiting in the wings for a larger role if need be at 1b or 3b. Shaw now comes in starting a newish position, with Sandoval lurking over this shoulder, with pressure to succeed immediately, which is less than an ideal way to break in a younger player IMO. Your ability to find someone to take Sandoval off your hands would seem to be seriously compromised by this move too, which implies at least that the Sox think Sandoval is a very bad 3b defensively now.

To me, this and the Holt v Castillo situation in LF gives off a shambolic sort of early season vibe -- reminscent of some curious pre-Lovullo 2015 decision-making re playing time -- all of which will be forgotten soon enough with a quick start.

 

[Strike4]

So we get to see Playoff Farrell in April?

Britton and MacPherson are assuming that because Farrell is managing this way - benching Sandoval and Castillo, rather than giving veterans rope as he seemingly did last year - it is logical to conclude that his job is on the line. And they don't seem like the types to throw wild speculation out there as clickbait or something.

If true, it speaks poorly of Farrell that he has one managing style for when his job is secure, and one for when his job is in jeopardy. It's never smart to do something like burn through your bullpen because you still have to do something after that. You might save your job for ten games, but that's not very sustainable.

 

[uncannymanny]

$17.5MM guaranteed to bench players is a luxury that only a large market team can afford. But it's the next $150MM guaranteed to bench players that's unheard-of. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough for you.

I never called Hanigan or Young busts, but they are nevertheless quite expensive for non-starting players.

I hear you and I didn't disagree much, just nit picking. That we can afford such bench players really isn't the same point you were trying to make. The overall point is sound (and depressing) and I think it would have been even more impactful if you left those guys out (since the average salary of the list would go up and the remainder are in fact in bust territory).