Will John Farrell still be the manager after the season?

[TheYellowDart5]

Since the All-Star break, the Red Sox are 2-12, headed for 2-13. The team came into the second half with a small shot at contention and instead fell flat on its face and has looked awful in every facet of the game for the last two weeks.
 
Obviously, it's not Farrell's fault that his rotation is garbage or that Hanley Ramirez plays left field with all the defensive aptitude of an overturned trash can, but it's hard to look at how the team is playing—sloppy, unfocused and lazy—and feel confident in his leadership.
 
I'm not trying to argue that Farrell should be fired; it's not as if a new manager is suddenly going to make this team any better on the field, and I believe the real problem is the front office anyway. But I just wanted to throw the question out to SOSH at large: Do you believe Farrell makes it to October, or do you think he's going to be updating his resume sooner rather than later?

 

[snowmanny]

I think that if they have a losing record on or about June 15 of next year he is fired.  The 2013 season buys a fair amount of rope but there are limits.  

 

[Hee Sox Choi]

Where's the Poll?!?!?

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

I would assume that there's a non-trivial chance Cherington is given his walking papers in November, and if that happens, it's likely that Farrell is toast too. But I think if Ben stays, Farrell stays, at least to start the season. I don't think Farrell gets fired the rest of this year. What's the point?

 

[grimshaw]

If a guy like Valentine, who dragged a World Series trophy around a parking lot, and unfroze Ted Williams head can't get fired mid-season, then I don't think Farrell will.
 
I think he would have already been fired if it was based on team performance.  He hasn't (to our knowledge) lost the clubhouse.  There hasn't been much, if any, public griping either.  May as well suck the rest of the year and get a great draft pick.  
 
I think he's deservedly gone in November though. and Varitek is the new guy in 2016.

 

[rembrat]

John Farrell nor Ben Cherington are going anywhere.

 

[soxhop411]

If anything it will be after the season. The sox don't really fire managers in the middle of the season

 

[riboflav]

John Farrell nor Ben Cherington are going anywhere.

 
Bingo. Unfortunately.

 

[Marbleheader]

Its more about talent evaluation than the manager. Take whoever you think is the best manager in baseball, put him in charge from game one, and how much better is their record today?

 

[derekson]

The time to fire Farrell was in June when there was still time to turn this team around. There's not much point to doing it right now.
 
I'd like to think he'd be gone in the offseason, but I fear that he'll get another few losing months next year until he's gone, unless Cherington is axed.

 

[canderson]

It's not his fault he has one of the worst pitching staffs imaginable who can't get through 5 IP without giving up 4+ runs, so no he won't be.

 

[Cellar-Door]

It's not his fault he has one of the worst pitching staffs imaginable who can't get through 5 IP without giving up 4+ runs, so no he won't be.

Who do you put most of the staff far underperforming projections on? They already fired a pitching coach.
It might not be his fault, but all Farrell ever brought to the table was his supposed big impact on the pitchers, he's pretty shitty at every other part of his job.

 

[glennhoffmania]

There's no point in firing him now but after the last two seasons I don't see any reason to bring him back next year.  Maybe it's not mostly his fault, but it would've been hard to do much worse.  Give someone else a shot.  It's not like Farrell is a once in a generation type of manager that you can't afford to let go.

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

Clearly this is needed here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POuH8MGZrJw

 

[Rasputin]

Who do you put most of the staff far underperforming projections on?

It doesn't have to be anyone.

 

[teddykgb]

Its more about talent evaluation than the manager. Take whoever you think is the best manager in baseball, put him in charge from game one, and how much better is their record today?

 
You know, I honestly wonder.  I don't know how many more games the best manager in baseball wins but I think all the hallmark signs of a poor manager have been on display this season.  There's been a ton of sloppy, uninspired baseball played and to me that's on the manager.  I can live with player under performance being on the GM, but player effort and focus issues are on the manager to me.  It then comes down to the fact that the talent proved not good enough is not a reason to avoid dealing with the separate issue of players who are dropping pop ups, running into outs, making errors, etc.  To some extent, that stuff happens on every team, but when a team is struggling at the plate and when pitching, it needs to bear down and focus on not inflicting any more wounds.  This team has not demonstrated that ability and I see that as one of that manager's key responsibilities.
 
To answer the OP, I'd probably fire him and bring someone in from an interim perspective if it were up to me -- this team needs something approaching accountability and this would be one way to start it.  That's not to say that they need to hire some fire and brimstone manager in the interim, I don't think those old codgers work any more, but as a GM while I can stand to watch the team simply under perform without requiring some sort of special accountability I don't think I can watch the team continue to play this type of baseball without demonstrating that the front office won't tolerate this stuff.  I know that's a bit old fashioned but I just don't think the focus has been there.
 
All of that said, I doubt the Red Sox GM does anything until very late in the season, if at all.  There's very little to be gained at this point from a standings perspective.

 

[canderson]

Who do you put most of the staff far underperforming projections on? They already fired a pitching coach.
It might not be his fault, but all Farrell ever brought to the table was his supposed big impact on the pitchers, he's pretty shitty at every other part of his job.

I think projections were bogus, honestly. Only guy I'm disappointed in is Porcello. The rest don't shock me they suck.

 

[Kilgore A. Trout]

Two straight years of team wide underperformance, bad fundamentals, and lazy, unmotivated play.  This isn't Tony Clark's inexplicable lost year, this is everyone playing way below what they are capable of, at the level they should be playing at.  This coupled with two years of pretty much the same track record in Toronto.  And the only year his club wasn't in a teamwide malaise is clearly an outlier.  On top of that, he is a terrible in game manager.
Why he has lasted this long is inexcusable, and if the team's horrible performance loses Ben his job too then he should for being too stubborn to admit his choice was no better than Lucchino's choice of Valentine.
Farrell should have been fired a month ago, when it might have made a difference.  Now, unless you think his mismanagement is hurting some of the kid's development, the only reason to fire him before the end of the World Series is if you want to give someone already in the org., like Lovullo or Beyeler, an extended audition for the job.  Otherwise, wait till the off season when there are more options to replace him.

 

[Cellar-Door]

I think projections were bogus, honestly. Only guy I'm disappointed in is Porcello. The rest don't shock me they suck.

So coming into the season you assumed a bunch of guys were going to have the worst seasons of their career without aging or injury as a factor?

 

[Papo The Snow Tiger]

I think Farrell survives the season, but if I were him I wouldn't buy a house in the Boston area. He may have been dealt a shitty hand, but he was at the helm for two consecutive years of outright suck. That being said, the front office should come under some very heavy scrutiny, and if I were Cherrington I'd buy some asbestos underwear because his seat should be getting very warm.
 
 
Changes need to be made, at the top. My biggest fear is that this ownership group will revert to the philosophy of the Haywood Sullivan days; Don't do something, just stand there.

 

[lexrageorge]

Two straight years of team wide underperformance, bad fundamentals, and lazy, unmotivated play.  This isn't Tony Clark's inexplicable lost year, this is everyone playing way below what they are capable of, at the level they should be playing at.  This coupled with two years of pretty much the same track record in Toronto.  And the only year his club wasn't in a teamwide malaise is clearly an outlier.  On top of that, he is a terrible in game manager.
Why he has lasted this long is inexcusable, and if the team's horrible performance loses Ben his job too then he should for being too stubborn to admit his choice was no better than Lucchino's choice of Valentine.
Farrell should have been fired a month ago, when it might have made a difference.  Now, unless you think his mismanagement is hurting some of the kid's development, the only reason to fire him before the end of the World Series is if you want to give someone already in the org., like Lovullo or Beyeler, an extended audition for the job.  Otherwise, wait till the off season when there are more options to replace him.

The impact of the manager on the player's performance is certainly a question worthy of debate.  There have been studies that have attempted to quantify this, and few have shown any effect.  However, I can both understand and in many cases agree with the idea that if the players continually underperform, then it's time to replace the manager.  However, just don't expect the new manager to sprinkle pixie dust on the players and have them magically turn around next season.  The roster has its own flaws as well.
 
However, I do need to challenge the bolded.  Do we have any objective evidence that Farrell is any worse or better at game management than, say, the immortal and unassailable Joe Maddon?  Sure, Farrell has made mistakes, some of which are easy to do with what is obviously a weak roster.  His "terrible in game management" didn't hurt them at all in 2013, either regular season or playoffs.  I'm not saying he's a great manager, but this board naturally tends to focus on the decisions that the Sox manager makes.  
 
Not singling you out; I've heard the same mentioned here before.  But what is the objective evidence that Farrell is worse or better?  Or is it my irrational hate for Joe Maddon and the associated Cafardo-like worship of his every move that is coloring my opinion? 

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

Two straight years of team wide underperformance, bad fundamentals, and lazy, unmotivated play. 

You hate Farrell, and that's fine.  But you constantly talk about how the team is unmotivated or has given up.  I've seen a lot of evidence of suck, but no evidence of this, right up to the 9th inning of a blowout loss tonight.  And the whole game last night.
 
We can debate other things, but the team is trying.  They just suck.

 

[tomdeplonty]

I think Farrell is gone shortly after the end of the season. Hired to be fired etc. etc. Fair or not, 2013 did not buy them enough grace to avoid lopping off some heads come this offseason.

 

[canderson]

So coming into the season you assumed a bunch of guys were going to have the worst seasons of their career without aging or injury as a factor?

I expected a 83 win team powered by a highly effective offense. So, in a way, yes.

 

[LostinNJ]

This is a team in the middle of a transition from a mostly veteran group to a mostly young group. Over the next three seasons we will see a steady influx of young talent from the farm system. The question Ben or whoever needs to answer is whether John Farrell is the right guy to manage a bunch of youngsters adjusting to the major leagues. Is he?

 

[lexrageorge]

The trends with Sandoval, Masterson, and Napoli were not good. Is it shocking that they've been worse than they have been? I don't think so. Porcello, Miley, and Kelly are guys that have largely been average to below average for their careers. I suspect those kinds of guys are more likely to have lousy seasons than pitchers that are really good, but maybe not.

What aeasons are completely taking people by surprise?

Sandoval.  Yeah, there were warning signs, but he was touted as being a good-to-excellent defensive 3B. And I don't think it was that obvious to predict a 0.435 OPS against LHP, which is more than 100 points worse than last season. 
 
Napoli:  Not a total surprise, but we hoped for some recovery after his surgery.
 
Victorino:  Again, maybe not a complete surprise.  But not sure it was obvious he would be a complete non-factor.
 
Ramirez's defense:  He should have been better than this.  
 
Porcello:  He was proclaimed to be a solid #2 worthy of a $20M contract. 
 
Kelly:  Everyone was raving about his "stuff", and his 2013 was definitely not "below average". 
 
Finally, as has been noted, it's not just that some of these guys are underperforming.  It's the fact that *all* of them are underperforming, sometimes by a lot. Tells me those projections are worth squat.

 

[SumnerH]

Eh.  This year has sucked.  At the same time, this year and 2010 were two very interesting offseasons that had the FO showing a real plan with hope for cornering an undervalued asset (defense then, sinkerballers now).  
 
They didn't work out, but I'd much rather have a front office trying something clear, concrete, and interesting then flailing without a plan.  This didn't work out, but it was (IMO) an interesting and focused--albeit flawed--plan that they'll learn from and move on to something better.  It wasn't a nonsensical series of stupid moves.  
 
I'd rather have smart people who had a failure of an idea than shitcan them and get dumb people managing the team.  If you can get a big competitive advantage every 4-5 years when your big idea hits, and stink in the interim, that's a lot better than just playing it safe year after year.

 

[jtn46]

Yeah I think Farrell has a mandate to play the kids so if he plays the kids he'll be fine. I don't know that Farrell is so terrific it's worth holding onto him, but Valentine proved our ownership can do a lot worse, so I'm fine with the devil we know. If Cherington does anything dramatic in the offseason to improve the team and they lose anyways, Farrell is screwed unless ownership cans Cherington first. 
 
I don't want any of that yet, I think Cherington's a smart guy and he's capable of learning from this the way Theo learned from '03.

 

[pantsparty]

I think a lot of Farrell's in-game decision making is crap, but when off the field stuff happens it doesn't happen again and it never escalates. We could do better, but we could easily do a lot worse.

 

[Adrian's Dome]

It wasn't a nonsensical series of stupid moves.  

 
It wasn't? I mean, you could've easily gone into the season without Sandoval, Hanley, Masterson, and without extending Miley and Porcello and the team would likely be in a similar spot. That's a lot of hooch blown somewhat unnecessarily. I don't believe an OF of JBJ, Betts, and Castillo with Holt at 3B would've been significantly worse, if at all. A different utility IF for the bench wouldn't have been overly difficult or expensive to find. Masterson's 9.5 million would've been much more wisely invested in the bullpen (and not on Breslow,) and although I didn't like the acquisitions of Miley and Porcello, they did need to fill the slots in the rotation. What they didn't need to do was hand those guys extensions.
 
I understand what you're saying about trying to gain an edge through undervalued assets, but this is twice in a five year span where that plan has bombed spectacularly and put a large dent in future payroll flexibility. We're not going to get another get out of jail free card on bad contracts, and right now, can you say that out of Castillo, Sandoval, Hanley, Miley, and Porcello if you could go back in time, would you still ink them in the same manner? Perhaps Hanley, definitely not on the rest.
 
None of the above is Farrell's fault, but all that aside, right now, his managerial sample size is significant, and one season looks like an outlier. I wouldn't be upset with a change. I believe there are things behind closed doors that Farrell does do well, but I'm not so sure they outweigh his below-average in-game management (yes, this did almost cost us in 2013, Jonny Gomes starting against several RHP in the playoffs) and the overall lack of discipline on his teams.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

It's a package deal.
 
If BC does, so does JF. If BC gets another bite at the apple - which I think might be a mistake - than JF likely stays, as someone else already mentioned. You don't let a GM who is awaiting his turn at the gallows pick a new manager. And you don't hire a new GM and not let him pick his manager (as we witnessed in Ben's inaugural campaign). 
 
Now, I don't buy much into projection models. Frankly I think they are horse shit. But projections aside, there's multiple guys with pretty significant roles (and even more importantly, significant price tags) attached to them that are performing well below career norms. Sadly someone needs to pay the price for that and it's not going to be the players. Argue with the justice of that all you will, but it's a simple fact. The owners are not going to sign off on BC eating a bunch of cash to send them elsewhere in salary dumps. Punto Trade 2.0 isn't coming either. So changes need to be made. Because whether you want to debate 2013 being "luck" or not, the bottom line is that it's not happening again - GMs and managers don't etch their HoF plaques by finishing last 3/4 years and winning the WS the other time. 
 
Quite frankly I think both need to go and a wholesale change needs to come. The scouting department should stay, because that's the one thing they are doing well, but the ML ops needs an overhaul. Yes, I get it that "this front office" brought us three rings. But clearly something is not working anymore. Maybe it was the vast exodus of talent they suffered over the years. Maybe it's all random or even ownership intervention causing issues. Or, maybe, it's just that the template doesn't work anymore. 
 
When Theo left, he spoke about Bill Walsh's theory that a coach or a team or an executive has about a ten year run before everyone needs a fresh view on things. We've seen this multiples times in sports, mostly with coaches, but also with GMs and executives. There have certainly been long runs by GMs, the Schuerholzes, Sabeans or the Cashmans. But the only guy I see who has stayed mainly because of his ability to adapt has been Billy Beane and we all know even that hasn't flown many flags. And when Theo left, they promoted his disciple, to continue on most of his practices. 
 
Can them both. Can the whole FO. Get new proprietary metrics, new models, new tenets and new ideas on how to evaluate players and build a team. Go out and get Kim Ng or Mike Girsch or some other young, bright mind that has a fresh take. Just bring in a fresh voice and skill set. This organization has the young players and pocketbook to be a powerhouse and I'm going to be pretty upset if they continue to waste the opportunity. 

 

[Rasputin]

It's a package deal.
 
If BC does, so does JF. If BC gets another bite at the apple - which I think might be a mistake - than JF likely stays, as someone else already mentioned. You don't let a GM who is awaiting his turn at the gallows pick a new manager. And you don't hire a new GM and not let him pick his manager (as we witnessed in Ben's inaugural campaign). 
 
Now, I don't buy much into projection models. Frankly I think they are horse shit. But projections aside, there's multiple guys with pretty significant roles (and even more importantly, significant price tags) attached to them that are performing well below career norms. Sadly someone needs to pay the price for that and it's not going to be the players. Argue with the justice of that all you will, but it's a simple fact. The owners are not going to sign off on BC eating a bunch of cash to send them elsewhere in salary dumps. Punto Trade 2.0 isn't coming either. So changes need to be made. Because whether you want to debate 2013 being "luck" or not, the bottom line is that it's not happening again - GMs and managers don't etch their HoF plaques by finishing last 3/4 years and winning the WS the other time. 
 
Quite frankly I think both need to go and a wholesale change needs to come. The scouting department should stay, because that's the one thing they are doing well, but the ML ops needs an overhaul. Yes, I get it that "this front office" brought us three rings. But clearly something is not working anymore. Maybe it was the vast exodus of talent they suffered over the years. Maybe it's all random or even ownership intervention causing issues. Or, maybe, it's just that the template doesn't work anymore. 
 
When Theo left, he spoke about Bill Walsh's theory that a coach or a team or an executive has about a ten year run before everyone needs a fresh view on things. We've seen this multiples times in sports, mostly with coaches, but also with GMs and executives. There have certainly been long runs by GMs, the Schuerholzes, Sabeans or the Cashmans. But the only guy I see who has stayed mainly because of his ability to adapt has been Billy Beane and we all know even that hasn't flown many flags. And when Theo left, they promoted his disciple, to continue on most of his practices. 
 
Can them both. Can the whole FO. Get new proprietary metrics, new models, new tenets and new ideas on how to evaluate players and build a team. Go out and get Kim Ng or Mike Girsch or some other young, bright mind that has a fresh take. Just bring in a fresh voice and skill set. This organization has the young players and pocketbook to be a powerhouse and I'm going to be pretty upset if they continue to waste the opportunity. 

Why does someone need to pay the price?

How do you know the players who are underperforming are going to underperforming next year? If you don't know that--and you don't--then why are you in a hurry to get rid of people?

 

[Sprowl]

If anything it will be after the season. The sox don't really fire managers in the middle of the season

 
This is true. Bobby the Fifth was not defenestrated until October, and the Jaw should be safe for a good deal longer. I don't see Farrell and Cherington as linked, and if I were making the call, Cherington would go at the season's end, and Farrell would get another year's grace.
 

I think a lot of Farrell's in-game decision making is crap, but when off the field stuff happens it doesn't happen again and it never escalates. We could do better, but we could easily do a lot worse.

Exactly. It's not easy to keep an organization functional during an extended period of failure, and avoiding backbiting, press leaks and beer & chicken is a priority for the Red Sox for the next ten weeks. Farrell's professionalism is important for avoiding some of the corrosive effects of a losing season that turns into a tailspin.

 

[CaptainLaddie]

It doesn't have to be anyone.

Well, no.
 
I'd say it's on the actual pitchers, who are mostly hot garbage.

 

[Rasputin]

Well, no.
 
I'd say it's on the actual pitchers, who are mostly hot garbage.

But they aren't. Well, Masterson is, but Porcello and Kelly all have a track record of pitching pretty well and Miley has a track record of pitching decently. Tonight's results aside, Miley hasn't really been the problem this year.

Maybe there's a coaching reason why Porcello and Kelly were so much worse than before, we can't really know. So far the only evidence we have that is backed up by anything is that he's pitched better to Hanigan, and that doesn't even approach a decent sample size.

We want there to be a concrete reason for their struggles but that doesn't mean there is one. It could just be an accumulation of a million small things including luck, poor execution of pitches, adjusting to me catchers, adjusting to be ballparks and in Miley's case, adjusting to a new league.

Even if we had all the information available, it isn't perfect information and there might not be a simple reason for the poor performance this year.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Why does someone need to pay the price?

How do you know the players who are underperforming are going to underperforming next year? If you don't know that--and you don't--then why are you in a hurry to get rid of people?

When performance doesn't meet expectation someone pays the price. That's business. And you can cuddle your fandom and say teams shouldn't be run like businesses but that's not realistic. They are and they should be.

I'm not saying I 'know' the players are going to underperform again next year and I haven't stated I do. I do know that three out of the last four years this team has finished in last place, with a whole lot of shit attached. Be free to give a pass on the Bobby V year. I know even before that they had the greatest collapse in MLB history. I know they needed a friggin miracle trade to pull them out of the quicksand they stepped in.

Right, wrong or indifferent, when shit like this happens heads roll. I, personally, don't see BC as anything but an extension of Theo, so while the Rings are certainly appreciated, there's a track record that can't be ignored. That we caught lightning in a bottle in 2013 is great but it's not a reason to stay the course.

Something is wrong. Teams spending to the cap don't suck this much, so often. Fix it.

As to your question, specifically, how do you know the players will perform to their expectations next year? You don't. Nor do I. Nor does anyone. But the fact is that this FO has effed up a lot lately.

I'm not going to crown a new GM or manager as God if they can them and next year they win the WS. But when shit keeps sliding downhill, it needs to stop at some point.

Outside of Miller for ERod (god I hate that shorthand), BC has basically lost every trade he's made, except for grabbing Holt. For FAs, he's got Koji on his first deal and Nap on his first. Vic prob earned his deal when you factor in the ring, but otherwise no.

Otherwise, i fail to see where the BC chant comes from except for '2013!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'

Tell me why, outside of the scouting department and 2013, this FO deserves support. I'll hang up and listen.

 

[rembrat]

Where are all these successful businesses that blow it up every couple of years? Please point them out to me.

 

[grimshaw]

Where are all these successful businesses that blow it up every couple of years? Please point them out to me.

Define successful.  They all make tons of money.
Teams cycle through GM's and managers all the time.  And the reverse isn't true either since 3 of the 5 longest tenured GM's haven't won a World Series yet.
It's part of the business.  Even the crappy ass Marlins franchise has won two world series and they're the team that blows it up the most.

 

[phenweigh]

... It could just be an accumulation of a million small things including luck, poor execution of pitches, ....

 
Poor execution of pitches is not a small thing.  And frankly, I thought the number one reason to believe in Farrell is that with him at the helm poor execution of pitches would be addressed sooner rather than later.
 
I agree with the idea that John Henry needs to start with the front office.  The new GM/president (depending on how the FO is organized) picks the next manager.

 

[yecul]

It's likely they have an internally stated goal of being competitive for an extended period starting in the '16/'17 season. I imagine they have until that point and right now I don't see how you can laud their system and youth movement and not be optimistic about their chances of getting there.
 
If you would rather had burned the system down to make '15 more exciting, then you should probably want them fired.
 
Neither has been perfect. Both have made some significant errors, especially BC. I think it's unwise to be unable to accept imperfection so long as the course and plan are sound. I see a good plan and that the team is on course. Accepting some shit between our desserts is to be expected. 2013 was a flukey outlier; this was always going to be a multi-year retool.

 

[Erik Hanson's Hook]

Wait...Farrell might get fired? I don't get it...Rembrat, Rasputin, and Bob Montomery's Helmet Hat keep telling me everything's fine. "Small sample size! Porcello was going to be expensive! There were no 3rd basemen available! But but but 2013!"
 
Seriously, though, what's it gonna take for the kool-aid drinkers to wake the fuck up? Last place again next year?
 

Where are all these successful businesses that blow it up every couple of years? Please point them out to me.

 
Your act is getting old.
 

Can them both. Can the whole FO. Get new proprietary metrics, new models, new tenets and new ideas on how to evaluate players and build a team. Go out and get Kim Ng or Mike Girsch or some other young, bright mind that has a fresh take. Just bring in a fresh voice and skill set. This organization has the young players and pocketbook to be a powerhouse and I'm going to be pretty upset if they continue to waste the opportunity. 

 
This is exactly where I'm at. And every post I see defending the current state of things...telling us we're all overreacting...infuriates me further. "Ooo look at what a contrarian I am! Everyone relax!" 
 
One final tangent: Why does everyone think Farrell is so well-spoken? I don't think he is at all. He speaks in a very halting fashion, and chooses odd word combinations. Take last night for example (talking about Mookie): "He went through some field tests right there, and it was immediate to get him off the field and get him out of the game at that point." Field tests? It was immediate? 
 
He and pizza face Cherington can GTFO.

 

[mauf]

How often do GMs who have built top-5 farm systems get fired? Like it or not, Cherington isn't going anywhere.
 
Farrell is a different story. The 2013 championship gets Farrell more leeway than most of his peers, but back-to-back last-place finishes have used up most of that. Unless the club shows unexpected life down the stretch (which I'd define as a winning record in August and September), I think he's out after the season.

 

[PayrodsFirstClutchHit]

Farrell is given a pass by many for this year and last with the blame mostly going to the players and the front office, yet he is given full credit for the team performance in 2013.
 
I suspect Farrell needs the team to be competitive/watchable down the stretch so Fenway is not a ghost town in August and September.  I would think that would be his best hope of retaining his job for next season.  If the team goes fully into the tank, then he cannot even make the argument that he is a motivator.

 

[grimshaw]

How often do GMs who have built top-5 farm systems get fired? Like it or not, Cherington isn't going anywhere.
 
Farrell is a different story. The 2013 championship gets Farrell more leeway than most of his peers, but back-to-back last-place finishes have used up most of that. Unless the club shows unexpected life down the stretch (which I'd define as a winning record in August and September), I think he's out after the season.

They've had a really good farm system for much of his tenure in the system though (1999 - present).  It isn't a new thing, and it isn't necessarily because of him, just like the poor free agent signings don't all fall on him.  Nor do I think it's critical that a big market team be reliant on a good farm to win.
 
I am slightly in Ben's corner though, and would give him another year because I would like to see what a more offensive minded manager can do with a full pantry.

 

[Al Zarilla]

Wait...Farrell might get fired? I don't get it...Rembrat, Rasputin, and Bob Montomery's Helmet Hat keep telling me everything's fine. "Small sample size! Porcello was going to be expensive! There were no 3rd basemen available! But but but 2013!"
 
Seriously, though, what's it gonna take for the kool-aid drinkers to wake the fuck up? Last place again next year?
 
 
Your act is getting old.
 
 
This is exactly where I'm at. And every post I see defending the current state of things...telling us we're all overreacting...infuriates me further. "Ooo look at what a contrarian I am! Everyone relax!" 
 
One final tangent: Why does everyone think Farrell is so well-spoken? I don't think he is at all. He speaks in a very halting fashion, and chooses odd word combinations. Take last night for example (talking about Mookie): "He went through some field tests right there, and it was immediate to get him off the field and get him out of the game at that point." Field tests? It was immediate? 
 
He and pizza face Cherington can GTFO.

More about Farrell's speaking: he's boring with practically zero wit. OK, what does a sense of humor have to do with anything? Tito, for example, kept things loose, cracking people up at times, and just might have, along with his baseball knowledge and managerial acumen, had his teams playing better because of his overall personality and leadership abilities. Back to Farrell, maybe it's hard to run through a wall for a boring guy. I don't know. It's hard to do a keep or fire decision thing from a fan's perspective. What do we know? I heard guys like Ortiz and Pedroia totally get behind Farrell before the 2013 season, but after BV, almost anybody would get full support, and what else are they going to do but throw full support for a new manager? No leaks from the players about losing respect for Farrell either, right?
 
Bit of advice though, things like your descriptive for Cherington and your overall caustic tone won't endear you much here. 

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

This is a team in the middle of a transition from a mostly veteran group to a mostly young group. Over the next three seasons we will see a steady influx of young talent from the farm system. The question Ben or whoever needs to answer is whether John Farrell is the right guy to manage a bunch of youngsters adjusting to the major leagues. Is he?

 
I agree. I think this is the question.
 
His success in 2013 was, despite some contributions from Xander, Iglesias, and Workman, mostly built on the success of veterans doing what they do. But Xander struggled really badly in 2014, and I'm not sure his success is attributable to Farrell specifically (credit for that would go to Davis and Butterfield, in my opinion). Bradley, obviously, had a rough go for two years.  Middlebrooks did poorly, but I am not sure the front office can be blamed for that. The various pitchers have taken their lumps, and the one who has given everyone the most hope - Rodriguez - has had issues with pitch-tipping, which I would argue is at least somewhat on the coaching staff. Betts and Holt have fared better, though. And I don't know how to factor Castillo into this. His track record in Toronto is similar - this guy started off hot, but never got back to that point; maybe it is unfair to hold the fact that he didn't know what he had in this guy against him. Other under-30 players like Rasmus and Snider performed poorly under him, but I don't think it's quite the same thing.
 
I would also note that it seems like he's shown a tendency in 2015, at least, to defer to veterans. Playing de Aza over Castillo, for instance - a move that makes sense if your priority is to win, but less so if your goal is to get reps for the less-experienced player.
 
I thought this would lead to a more definitive conclusion, but maybe it is not so clear. This is tough to separate out, as it is with all managerial functions, obviously, but it looks like a mixed bag.

 

[glennhoffmania]

They're on a pace to win 71 games this year after winning 71 last year.  Anyone who thought this team was only good enough to win 71 games each year is a hell of a lot smarter than most.  Even if Ben did a shitty job putting together the two rosters, Farrell's job is to get the most out of the 25 guys he's given.  Can anyone really claim he's done that?  Was it really a 65 win team that he led to 6 extra wins?
 
Ben's job is to manage the entire organization, not just the 25 guys on the MLB roster.  If one thinks that the organization as a whole is in bad shape and Ben should go, that's an argument that maybe can be made.  I'd say that the state of the farm system at least cancels out the crappiness of the current MLB roster.  Farrell doesn't get credit for the whole system, because that's not part of his job description. 
 
Regardless of how much a manager can impact a season, there are clearly still good ones and bad ones, guys who have gotten teams to over-achieve and under-achieve.  Farrell seems like a really good guy and a smart guy.  But there is absolutely zero evidence over the last two years that he's a good manager who has accomplished the goal of getting the most out of the team he's given.  To me that is the standard that should be used to evaluate a manager and I don't think it's at all unfair to say that Farrell has failed.

 

[fineyoungarm]

Where are all these successful businesses that blow it up every couple of years? Please point them out to me.

No can do. They're gone. Blowed up.

 

[rembrat]

They're on a pace to win 71 games this year after winning 71 last year.  Anyone who thought this team was only good enough to win 71 games each year is a hell of a lot smarter than most.  Even if Ben did a shitty job putting together the two rosters, Farrell's job is to get the most out of the 25 guys he's given.  Can anyone really claim he's done that?  Was it really a 65 win team that he led to 6 extra wins?
 
Ben's job is to manage the entire organization, not just the 25 guys on the MLB roster.  If one thinks that the organization as a whole is in bad shape and Ben should go, that's an argument that maybe can be made.  I'd say that the state of the farm system at least cancels out the crappiness of the current MLB roster.  Farrell doesn't get credit for the whole system, because that's not part of his job description. 
 
Regardless of how much a manager can impact a season, there are clearly still good ones and bad ones, guys who have gotten teams to over-achieve and under-achieve.  Farrell seems like a really good guy and a smart guy.  But there is absolutely zero evidence over the last two years that he's a good manager who has accomplished the goal of getting the most out of the team he's given.  To me that is the standard that should be used to evaluate a manager and I don't think it's at all unfair to say that Farrell has failed.

 
This crap drives me nuts. His entire pitching staff outside of Taz and Koji are absolute garbage and volatile. How is he suppose to get the most out of garbage? Explain that to me. 

 

[mauf]

 
This crap drives me nuts. His entire pitching staff outside of Taz and Koji are absolute garbage and volatile. How is he suppose to get the most out of garbage? Explain that to me. 

 
Farrell isn't presumptively entitled to manage the Red Sox unless he screws something up. The FO is only going to retain him if they think he's better than the alternatives.
 
If the Sox finish strong, I think the FO will decide Farrell is better than the alternatives. If they don't, I think the FO will bring in someone else -- not because the failures of the past two years are his fault, but because they want to see if someone else can do a better job managing this particular group of players.