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

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,599
NY
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.
This was exactly my point. Thanks for articulating it better. And I don't think that Farrell will manage differently if his job is on the line. I'm sure his goal is to be there until the end as opposed to making it an extra month or two with short-sighted moves.
 

alwyn96

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 24, 2005
1,351
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.
Well, we can wait until Farrell actually burns through his bullpen before we speak poorly of him. I would think that's something the FO would be monitoring.

I do think it's reasonable to re-calibrate one's management style if your previous management style was causing your employer to consider firing you, though. I think it's generally a good idea to remain open to suggestions from your employer and their evolving priorities.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,422
Not here
Am I the only one that doesn't think Farrell's job is in any particular jeopardy? They could have let him go just because Dombrowski came on and didn't. Why would they do it now? Or two months from now?
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,847
Am I the only one that doesn't think Farrell's job is in any particular jeopardy?
You may be.

Someone should fire up the preseason thread with polls about wins and all those things to see where SoSH stands on if JF will last the season.
 

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,785
La Mancha.
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.
I see what you did there.

(edit: I read that as "plus size" for some reason. Ignore me.)
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,690
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Am I the only one that doesn't think Farrell's job is in any particular jeopardy? They could have let him go just because Dombrowski came on and didn't. Why would they do it now? Or two months from now?
I don't think DD is sitting with his finger on the button, but a 3-10 start will certainly put Farrell's job in jeopardy. Especially if Farrell blows a game or two in which he didn't manage optimally. We've all suffered through Farrell getting out-managed. He needs to raise his game on that score because I doubt management's going to tolerate a repeat of the past two years, just because John's a nice guy to chat with, or has some sort of magic managerial talent that has yet to appear (such as - he was such a great pitching coach, he'll get wonderful results out of the staff.) There are no magic pixie dust results that we can even debate about attributing to Farrell.
 

Strike4

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,896
Portland, Maine
Am I the only one that doesn't think Farrell's job is in any particular jeopardy? They could have let him go just because Dombrowski came on and didn't. Why would they do it now? Or two months from now?
Tim Britton said this in the chat (link posted earlier): "I think Farrell is safe until the second off-day on April 14, where if the Sox are like 1-8, maybe you watch out. That we're having this conversation doesn't bode well."
 

alwyn96

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 24, 2005
1,351
Am I the only one that doesn't think Farrell's job is in any particular jeopardy? They could have let him go just because Dombrowski came on and didn't. Why would they do it now? Or two months from now?
I think the idea is that firing the guy that proximal to the time he was recovering from cancer treatment would look pretty bad. It looks less bad if the team is getting off to yet another lousy start.

I didn't really believe Cherington's job was in much danger either - and I guess it wasn't since he was never technically fired - but with some of the more respectable media members chattering about it, Farrell's job being in jeopardy certainly seems like a possibility. The roster moves do seem to suggest a sense of urgency, which would be consistent with his needing to get off to a better start.
 
Last edited:

alwyn96

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 24, 2005
1,351
After looking at the stats, I am a little surprised about this move. It's not like Sandoval has been hitting that poorly this Spring:

Sandoval: 270/308/541
Shaw: 333/379/519

I mean, Shaw is hitting better, but it's not like Sandoval hit his was out of a job. I assume Sandoval's defense must look terrible?
 

dynomite

Member
SoSH Member
After looking at the stats, I am a little surprised about this move. It's not like Sandoval has been hitting that poorly this Spring:

Sandoval: 270/308/541
Shaw: 333/379/519

I mean, Shaw is hitting better, but it's not like Sandoval hit his was out of a job. I assume Sandoval's defense must look terrible?
Farrell himself said that this was a lot about defense. And yes, those have been the reports as well.
 

SydneySox

A dash of cool to add the heat
SoSH Member
Sep 19, 2005
15,605
The Eastern Suburbs
The article from today on ESPN by Lauber (http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/15103490/boston-red-sox-going-travis-shaw-pablo-sandoval-third-base) actually had an illuminating, straight up quote on this:

"The more we exposed Travis to third base, the defense became really a decision factor," Farrell said. "In this case, you have to compare one-on-one. There's better overall range, and Pablo's well aware of this."
To have Farrell say so clearly basically makes the point that Shaw's better defensively AND Sandoval knows it.
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
After looking at the stats, I am a little surprised about this move. It's not like Sandoval has been hitting that poorly this Spring:

Sandoval: 270/308/541
Shaw: 333/379/519

I mean, Shaw is hitting better, but it's not like Sandoval hit his was out of a job. I assume Sandoval's defense must look terrible?
Well, Pablo made 4 errors earlier, and then on a nice play he made he hurt his back. That weight is going to be a problem north of 30 and maybe its best to give Shaw his shot w/o a lot of bench rust when Pablo falls down and breaks like Humpty Dumpty. I think one also looks at last years results as well. Shaw hit well last year and had a nice start to the ST. There may also be a part of this demotion that hopes to wake Pablo up (Shaw can always take over Holts role in LF if he does). Perhaps being benched gets through to him about his weight. He may just not even give a damn, since the pay checks keep coming, but you got to try something. As a last resort, pick a few spots for him to play where he might do well off the bench and then perhaps you can unload him to some sucker.

As Theo, or maybe it was Ben liked to say, many decisions are multi-factorial. Its not always one thing
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
And let's not forget when and against whom those batting stats came from. We need to get off this spring training statistics thing. It might prove someone sucks (Castillo) but it will never prove someone's good (Sizemore).
 

barbed wire Bob

crippled by fear
SoSH Member
Am I the only one that doesn't think Farrell's job is in any particular jeopardy? They could have let him go just because Dombrowski came on and didn't. Why would they do it now? Or two months from now?
No, I don't think his job is in jeopardy more than any other manager. I think if they wanted to get rid of him after last season they would have by promoting him to a desk job within the organization. That would have been the politically correct way since it would be bad form to fire a guy with cancer. At the same time they could say the stress of managing a team would be too much for a guy recovering from cancer and " it would be best for John and his recovery" if he moved to a position in the front office. The fact that he is still manager suggests the organization still thinks highly of him and Cherington was the one at fault.
 

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
34,440
Haiku
I don't think DD is sitting with his finger on the button, but a 3-10 start will certainly put Farrell's job in jeopardy. Especially if Farrell blows a game or two in which he didn't manage optimally. We've all suffered through Farrell getting out-managed. He needs to raise his game on that score because I doubt management's going to tolerate a repeat of the past two years, just because John's a nice guy to chat with, or has some sort of magic managerial talent that has yet to appear (such as - he was such a great pitching coach, he'll get wonderful results out of the staff.) There are no magic pixie dust results that we can even debate about attributing to Farrell.
I think Farrell was worth keeping around the last two years because he knew how to lose gracefully. When there's a lot of losing to be done, it feels much worse when it goes down like Bobby the Fifth.

When the Red Sox were losing under Farrell, nobody had a tantrum, went on a bender, got strung out, loaded up on beer and chicken, or made it into the headlines as a boor, a lecher or an outright asshole.

The Jaw needs to win again, and soon, or the charms of not being Bobby Valentine will wear thin quickly.
 

Moviegoer

broken record
Feb 6, 2016
4,889
I think Farrell was worth keeping around the last two years because he knew how to lose gracefully. When there's a lot of losing to be done, it feels much worse when it goes down like Bobby the Fifth.

When the Red Sox were losing under Farrell, nobody had a tantrum, went on a bender, got strung out, loaded up on beer and chicken, or made it into the headlines as a boor, a lecher or an outright asshole.

The Jaw needs to win again, and soon, or the charms of not being Bobby Valentine will wear thin quickly.
I'm pretty sure all that happened regularly in the gamethreads the last two years.
 

mauidano

Mai Tais for everyone!
SoSH Member
Aug 21, 2006
35,627
Maui
I think Farrell was worth keeping around the last two years because he knew how to lose gracefully. When there's a lot of losing to be done, it feels much worse when it goes down like Bobby the Fifth.

When the Red Sox were losing under Farrell, nobody had a tantrum, went on a bender, got strung out, loaded up on beer and chicken, or made it into the headlines as a boor, a lecher or an outright asshole.

The Jaw needs to win again, and soon, or the charms of not being Bobby Valentine will wear thin quickly.
The team is behind him even Panda. Love the eternal optimism of Spring. Let's play some meaningful ball and the hell with the MFY's.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,096
The team is behind him even Panda. Love the eternal optimism of Spring. Let's play some meaningful ball and the hell with the MFY's.
Am I the only one bothered by how accepting Pablo is of this?
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,376
Well, I look at it as he's being a professional about it. He could offer a whiny attitude and then we'd all criticize him for that and worry that he's going to be a clubhouse cancer.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,096
Well, I look at it as he's being a professional about it. He could offer a whiny attitude and then we'd all criticize him for that and worry that he's going to be a clubhouse cancer.

It's a fine line, but I was hoping for a little "I'm disappointed in myself".
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
Well, he already got crucified in the media once, for slamming his bat on the table when repeatedly questioned by the press about his defense.

It's not like this was a last-minute snap decision. This bitter drink's been brewing since last August.

He's got to go along as peaceably as possible, if he has any hope of not being permanently buried.
 

Strike4

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,896
Portland, Maine
With the Ortiz comments where he says he understands why the move was made, and Sandoval's measured take, it looks like:

1) Whatever the reasons are for the benching and switch to Shaw, it is very clear in the clubhouse that it is an understandable move;
or
2) Farrell and whoever has done a great job of heading off any clubhouse cancer stuff or dissent from players who might have taken Sandoval's side.

Sometimes things look different from the inside...maybe the "competition" wasn't as close as it seems to us.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
Strike4 said:
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.
Well, we can wait until Farrell actually burns through his bullpen before we speak poorly of him. I would think that's something the FO would be monitoring.

I do think it's reasonable to re-calibrate one's management style if your previous management style was causing your employer to consider firing you, though. I think it's generally a good idea to remain open to suggestions from your employer and their evolving priorities.

It's fair to say that Farrell's style --whatever you want to call it -- wasn't effective as often as he, us or management would like. He would have to be an idiot not to consider altering it.

Am I the only one bothered by how accepting Pablo is of this?
He can't win, no matter how he reacts. Either he "doesn't get it," or he's too accepting.

How about seeing his reaction as resulting from some effective communication between him and management about the situation. (perhaps more effective than the communication about his physical condition....). Also, his English isn;t too good.

I think there's an awful lot of eggs in the Travis Shaw basket. I dont think we've seen the last of Sandoval.

EDIT: strike4 beat me to the "effective communication" point.
 

Strike4

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,896
Portland, Maine
It's fair to say that Farrell's style --whatever you want to call it -- wasn't effective as often as he, us or management would like. He would have to be an idiot not to consider altering it.
It might just be that Farrell is not an effective manager in some ways, and it has little to do with style. He started with the organization under the Francona/Epstein regime, and it was clear that they gave veterans a lot of rope when they started to slide (Foulke, Lugo, Lowell, etc.). That was the style then, and Farrell followed suit. Dombrowski has a different style, and Farrell is probably just adapting by placing less emphasis on giving veteran players lots of rope, and placing more emphasis on giving younger players the chance to win starting jobs. This notion seems to dovetail nicely with the fact that Sandoval and Castillo are not Dombrowski signings and he probably doesn't feel the need to "justify" their contracts by playing them. And it further dovetails with the composition of the roster: young, exciting, inexpensive players like Betts and Bogaerts are the meat and potatoes going forward. While Ramirez and Sandoval are key players the team will rely on, I don't think anybody would rank them as the most important. I think it would be tough to even rank even Ramirez as a top five player on the team.
 

Yossarian

New Member
Jan 22, 2015
89
The problem with Sandoval's "body of work" is that it includes a now fairly extensive record of decline, even going back to when the Sox signed him in the first place (indeed, a lot of people were nervous about the signing for precisely that reason). He then got worse in his first year here, and it sounds like the coaching staff didn't see much this spring to make them think he's on the verge of turning it around. I mean, last year he was a legitimately bad player, and preceded that with some significant fall-off. If I were betting on a turnaround of a formerly good player, I probably wouldn't choose the free-swinging, low power corner infielder with highly diminished defensive range and a bad body. Shaw may or may not be a good all around third baseman -- but there's a lot of evidence now to suggest Sandoval is simply not a good player anymore and never will be again. In that context, why not roll the dice on the younger guy?
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
I think there's an awful lot of eggs in the Travis Shaw basket. I dont think we've seen the last of Sandoval.
You're right that there are an awful lot of eggs in the Travis Shaw basket.

But then again, this move also almost insures that Yoan Moncada will be Portland's starting 3B by mid-June. DDski will have him fast-tracked him on the Nick Castellanos timetable for sure, and the pathway to Boston's third sack is almost absurdly clear of speed-bumps (unless Moncada creates them himself through ineffectiveness or injury).

Right now, all the pressure is on Sandoval to lose enough weight to adequately field his position. If that doesn't happen, he's not going to reclaim the starting role on any sort of permanent basis.

And let's be honest, that's not really going to happen. Sandoval might be sent packing, if DDski can manage to find a taker, otherwise I'd say we haven't seen the last of Sandoval riding pine.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
You're right that there are an awful lot of eggs in the Travis Shaw basket.

But then again, this move also almost insures that Yoan Moncada will be Portland's starting 3B by mid-June. DDski will have him fast-tracked him on the Nick Castellanos timetable for sure, and the pathway to Boston's third sack is almost absurdly clear of speed-bumps (unless Moncada creates them himself through ineffectiveness or injury).

Right now, all the pressure is on Sandoval to lose enough weight to adequately field his position. If that doesn't happen, he's not going to reclaim the starting role on any sort of permanent basis.

And let's be honest, that's not really going to happen. Sandoval might be sent packing, if DDski can manage to find a taker, otherwise I'd say we haven't seen the last of Sandoval riding pine.
I hadnt thought of the Moncada side of things. Good point.
 

mt8thsw9th

anti-SoSHal
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
17,120
Brooklyn
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.
Probably because he was under contract with the Cardinals at the time, and until 1990. The Herzog chatter wasn't until 1991.
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
Where does that put Devers?
Hopefully playing 3B in Salem for the entire year, but knowing DDski quite possibly traded with Henry Owens+ for a #2 pitcher.

Moncada's MLB eta is probably a good 18-months ahead of Devers, regardless of position. He's got more tools, and tools that play up with less development time (like his elite speed). Devers' power may be likely to eclipse Moncada's, but it will take time.

And, although Moncada may end up in LF long-term...just look at the organizational filler currently manning the hot corner in AA/AAA. The grease is already on the rails.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
But then again, this move also almost insures that Yoan Moncada will be Portland's starting 3B by mid-June. DDski will have him fast-tracked him on the Nick Castellanos timetable for sure, and the pathway to Boston's third sack is almost absurdly clear of speed-bumps (unless Moncada creates them himself through ineffectiveness or injury).
I've said this for a while, with Pedroia a fixture at 2b that Moncada was bound for third as it was the open IF spot. Panda or no. I'll be interested in how quickly he forces his way into Boston (I still think that he gets called up before the end of August so that they have him available for the playoffs).
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,548
Probably because he was under contract with the Cardinals at the time, and until 1990. The Herzog chatter wasn't until 1991.
Man. I feel like Nick Cafardo.

Then who was waiting by the phone for Morgan to get canned? I could have sworn that it was Herzog. Oh well, live and learn.
 

Laser Show

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 7, 2008
5,094
Heyman reporting that Pablo and his agent met with the Sox and aren't happy. Agent: "If you want to win, why leave the Ferrari in the garage?"

 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
Heyman reporting that Pablo and his agent met with the Sox and aren't happy. Agent: "If you want to win, why leave the Ferrari in the garage?"

Did they also report that one doesn't expect a Ferrari to run on 86 octane or without proper maintenance.
 

SouthernBoSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2005
12,084
Heyman reporting that Pablo and his agent met with the Sox and aren't happy. Agent: "If you want to win, why leave the Ferrari in the garage?"

The analogy of Pablo Sandoval to a Ferrari might be the most egregious comment ever made by a sports agent.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
4,723
Pretty sure there's no Ferrari in our garage. We've got what, a Jaguar that needs to go the shop and a Toyota that will get us to work in the morning?
 

Adrian's Dome

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2010
4,424
Pretty sure there's no Ferrari in our garage. We've got what, a Jaguar that needs to go the shop and a Toyota that will get us to work in the morning?
We've got a mid range SUV that managed to be a serviceable transportation unit for a few years before it ended up on the lot coming off its first lease as a rattly, sputting mess, but someone still up and paid top dollar for it.
 

mt8thsw9th

anti-SoSHal
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
17,120
Brooklyn
Man. I feel like Nick Cafardo.

Then who was waiting by the phone for Morgan to get canned? I could have sworn that it was Herzog. Oh well, live and learn.
No, it was Morgan and Herzog, but in the 1991 season. Tough to can him after 1990, and the 1991 team started off well. My guess is they couldn't work anything out while the team was floundering in June/July, and then the team went on a tear around mid-August that complicated any managerial move. It's referenced here, and I think it may have been Hobson who was a placeholder for Herzog.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,548
No, it was Morgan and Herzog, but in the 1991 season. Tough to can him after 1990, and the 1991 team started off well. My guess is they couldn't work anything out while the team was floundering in June/July, and then the team went on a tear around mid-August that complicated any managerial move. It's referenced here, and I think it may have been Hobson who was a placeholder for Herzog.
Thank you for that, I thought that I was going crazy.