SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Farrell Fired + New Manager Search
|
Post by chrisfromnc on Oct 11, 2017 9:35:29 GMT -5
Forgive the ramble...
While this is a great job for nearly anyone in baseball, I don't think the job has as much luster as it did when Terry Francona left. The fact that the team will be on their fourth manager in 7 years doesn't say anything positive about the stability of the organization. The GM turnover speaks to this as well. Maybe I am wrong and being the GM for the Red Sox is a burnout job that no one can do well for an extended period of time. My own amateur impression is that being the field manager is not that way and a well run organization could find and retain the right manager for well over a decade.
I don't follow other teams very closely so I don't know what the average tenure is for a manager or for a GM. It seems to me the Red Sox, as one of the premier organizations in baseball should have more stability. I thought John Farrell was a good hire. I was late to the bandwagon in wanting him to leave. I only got there around the beginning of this July when the running game "philosophy" continued to be a problem, amongst other things. So I am glad he is gone but I worry the next guy will be worse.
I think the best manager they could hire works for The Indians and he wouldn't come back to Boston for anything. Letting him go was a very, very stupid thing to do. His results speak for themselves. He is good at managing a MLB team to deep playoff runs.
So.. find a guy like him. Make him happy. Set him up to succeed and leave him alone to manage a roster with a lot of talented players.
|
|
|
Post by soxfansince67 on Oct 11, 2017 9:41:00 GMT -5
Forgive the ramble... While this is a great job for nearly anyone in baseball, I don't think the job has as much luster as it did when Terry Francona left. The fact that the team will be on their fourth manager in 7 years doesn't say anything positive about the stability of the organization. The GM turnover speaks to this as well. Maybe I am wrong and being the GM for the Red Sox is a burnout job that no one can do well for an extended period of time. My own amateur impression is that being the field manager is not that way and a well run organization could find and retain the right manager for well over a decade. I don't follow other teams very closely so I don't know what the average tenure is for a manager or for a GM. It seems to me the Red Sox, as one of the premier organizations in baseball should have more stability. I thought John Farrell was a good hire. I was late to the bandwagon in wanting him to leave. I only got there around the beginning of this July when the running game "philosophy" continued to be a problem, amongst other things. So I am glad he is gone but I worry the next guy will be worse. I think the best manager they could hire works for The Indians and he wouldn't come back to Boston for anything. Letting him go was a very, very stupid thing to do. His results speak for themselves. He is good at managing a MLB team to deep playoff runs. So.. find a guy like him. Make him happy. Set him up to succeed and leave him alone to manage a roster with a lot of talented players. The big challenge for stability in Boston is the post-2004 Red Sox paradigm. It no longer seems to be good enough to win the division - it is about winning it all. And with all of the variables (what other teams are doing, shifts in the game - small ball to HR/Ks), intangibles (overrated prospects, bad trades, injuries), long tenures may be a thing of the past because winning it all every year or every few years simply can't happen. Red Sox managers have to please the media, the players, the fans, win it all most years, and be very, very lucky to avoid the impact of the intangibles and variables.
|
|
|
Post by carmenfanzone on Oct 11, 2017 9:45:20 GMT -5
A reminder of the downside here. Could not agree with you more. I remember all of the complaining about how bad Francona was and how Valentine was going to come in with fresh ideas and be the savior. Francona has done a great job in Cleveland and Valentine was a joke. I think it would be irresponsible to fire Farrell without having a good idea of who you wanted to replace him and have some petty solid reasons why you think the new person is better than Farrell. Moreover, DD's last choice for manager, Brad Ausmus, was a big failure in Detroit. Do we really trust him to be able to pick a manger who will have more success than Farrell's 3 Eastern Division titles and 1 World Series win in 5 years? Another example of what can happen when you fire a manager/ coach with a track record of success was the Michigan football program. Lloyd Carr, who had won a national championship but whose most recent teams were going 8-4 was forced out and Rich Rodriguez was brought in. Rodriguez seemed like a good choice at first glance but totally did not fit at Michigan and his results were much worse than 8-4. Firing Farrell is a risky move and we can only hope it turns out better than when Francona was forced out.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 11, 2017 9:49:41 GMT -5
I was all in on this last year and for putting Lovullo in that position. I gotta believe Willis is gone too.
I know who I don't want (Ausmus, Leyland, Girardi, Sciocia, Gibbons, Showalter at the top of that list).
I want a manager who can run a chill clubhouse and manage the egos while mentoring the young guy. On the field I want someone who understands that every out it precious, that makes sure the catchers know the weaknesses and strengths of every single batter the pitchers could face that day and leverage that with the starter's and reliever's strengths (and what's working that day), I don't want someone who ignores data and goes by "gut feel" or sticks with "gritty veterans" when all the data says not to, I want someone to understand when a pitcher is gassed, and I don't want this team running into 87 freaking outs on the base paths.
My pick - and I know nothing about his managerial style, so this could be wrong - would be Alex Cora. Let him pick his coaches.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 11, 2017 9:55:12 GMT -5
I have to believe that he was brought in to be the sacrificial lamb of what everyone knew was going to be a lost season no matter who the manager was. No. They were all in on him. It was ownership overruling Cherington, iirc, with Lucchino installing his guy. I wasn't around here then, but I said pretty much the exact same thing when he was hired and it was correct. I said it wouldn't be fair to a new manager that they cared about to leave him with that mess.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Oct 11, 2017 9:56:31 GMT -5
I think the idea that there's much risk in getting rid of Farrell is pretty overblown. I think it's been noted that Valentine was once-in-a-lifetime bad as a fit, and frankly I think that there's only a limited amount of impact a manager who's not objectively a complete ass can make. Talent tends to play, and I don't think any of us have ever lauded Farrell for his skill as a tactician - he was a clubhouse manager with a rep for having his players back. That didn't seem to do much good this year with all the price-eckersley/pedroia early season drama and the like, and we still won the division in spite of objectively bad management at times.
Someone who makes better tactical decisions and maybe has more of a rapport with position players would be my preference - I still think Farrell has really screwed bogaerts up by not giving him adequate rest and riding him through injuries the last two years and I don't want to see anything similar going forward. I love the idea of Cora who has always seemed like a smart guy, he's young for the manager role which might help him with the players, and honestly I can't see how he'd do much damage. Or maybe we can dust off Jim Leyland and see how he looks?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 11, 2017 10:03:12 GMT -5
Forgive the ramble... While this is a great job for nearly anyone in baseball, I don't think the job has as much luster as it did when Terry Francona left. The fact that the team will be on their fourth manager in 7 years doesn't say anything positive about the stability of the organization. The GM turnover speaks to this as well. Maybe I am wrong and being the GM for the Red Sox is a burnout job that no one can do well for an extended period of time. My own amateur impression is that being the field manager is not that way and a well run organization could find and retain the right manager for well over a decade. I don't follow other teams very closely so I don't know what the average tenure is for a manager or for a GM. It seems to me the Red Sox, as one of the premier organizations in baseball should have more stability. I thought John Farrell was a good hire. I was late to the bandwagon in wanting him to leave. I only got there around the beginning of this July when the running game "philosophy" continued to be a problem, amongst other things. So I am glad he is gone but I worry the next guy will be worse. I think the best manager they could hire works for The Indians and he wouldn't come back to Boston for anything. Letting him go was a very, very stupid thing to do. His results speak for themselves. He is good at managing a MLB team to deep playoff runs. So.. find a guy like him. Make him happy. Set him up to succeed and leave him alone to manage a roster with a lot of talented players. Farrell was here for 5 years. I don't think 4 managers in 7 years paints an accurate picture of what is/was going on. I also don't think it points to the instability of the organization as much as it points to how much baseball has changed in a short period of time. Baseball has changed A LOT in the last 10 years and completely changed from an old steroid using vet game into a young man's game that relies on bullpens as much as starting pitching. There are tons of old school managers that have no business sticking around because they are too set in their ways. You have to be flexible and change from season to season, game to game and even inning to inning. You have to manage work loads and rest players instead of running them into the ground the way everyone used to do it. I'm all in on a young new school manager.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
|
Post by nomar on Oct 11, 2017 10:03:57 GMT -5
Soxscout putting the fear of Ausmus into us all:
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Oct 11, 2017 10:06:17 GMT -5
gardenhire and Ausmus seem like DD type hires.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Oct 11, 2017 10:07:21 GMT -5
Some of us really deserve Ausmus.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 11, 2017 10:23:52 GMT -5
I'll go against the grain here and could probably talk myself into Ausmus. He improved on the job - unfortunately, it was as the talent on the field withered away. The Tigers hiring him with his lack of experience in the first place was a huge mistake, but he's a smart guy and a hard worker.
I also think a lot of the problem people have with Ausmus comes from him getting lumped in with Matheny as former defense-first catchers hired around the same time by their former teams to replace HOF managers while that team was still a championship contender. Around 2013 they were like the Brian Rose and Carl Pavano of young managers. Personality-wise, Ausmus is nothing like Matheny who has a much more prickly, old-school type of approach.
|
|
|
Post by danredhawk on Oct 11, 2017 10:34:46 GMT -5
A reminder of the downside here. There are certainly risks when you hire a new manager that things could get worse, but they're not hiring a manager this time for the sole purpose of being a hard ass. So I don't think specific Valentine concerns are really relevant. That type of approach doesn't work with adult major leaguers... It reminds me of the time the Twins hired George O'Farrell just to 'rattle the cages of those animals'. It doesn't work - the Sox aren't making that mistake again... This is a change that needed to be made, IMO. I feel pretty sure they made this decision - and will hire a new manager - for the 'right' reasons. I think that gives the decision a better chance to work out and, of course, I hope it does...
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Oct 11, 2017 10:36:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 11, 2017 10:39:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Oct 11, 2017 10:41:25 GMT -5
As other people pointed out, im not sure why this move wasn't made last off season, with Lovullo waiting in the wings.
Im no Farrell fan but I actually think he did substantially better with bullpen management this year.
|
|
|
Post by jbuttah on Oct 11, 2017 10:41:43 GMT -5
I'll go against the grain here and could probably talk myself into Ausmus. He improved on the job - unfortunately, it was as the talent on the field withered away. The Tigers hiring him with his lack of experience in the first place was a huge mistake, but he's a smart guy and a hard worker. I also think a lot of the problem people have with Ausmus comes from him getting lumped in with Matheny as former defense-first catchers hired around the same time by their former teams to replace HOF managers while that team was still a championship contender. Around 2013 they were like the Brian Rose and Carl Pavano of young managers. Personality-wise, Ausmus is nothing like Matheny who has a much more prickly, old-school type of approach. Well, if he has the mental plasticity to learn from his Detroit experience and adapt (as a poster above noted) to the game from year to year, I'd be ok with Ausmus as well. This description, btw, is what I thought Farrell was, but the complaints about his tenure here were pretty much the same as the complaints Toronto fans had.
|
|
|
Post by kevfc89 on Oct 11, 2017 10:42:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jbuttah on Oct 11, 2017 10:44:55 GMT -5
Yeah, I thought he'd say something along the lines of wanted to go in a different direction or just felt it was time for a change. Something generic, but this leaves a big question mark hanging over his firing. Not sure why he'd do that to Farrell even if true.
|
|
|
Post by daltonjones on Oct 11, 2017 10:52:04 GMT -5
Kind of surprised, pleasantly, getting inured to Farrell's limitations was not a good thing. What I would like to see in the replacement:
1) less deference to established regulars (and how did Holt become one?)
2) less playing through injuries. If the backup isn't better than the regular at 85% (or less) then it is a roster construction problem.
3) less predictability. There are smart people on other teams, they take advantage of us always taking a lot of pitches, or this year, always trying for the extra base.
4) less playing to the opponent's level. Sure it is a long season, but this the AL East, every win matters.
4) more attention to scouting. (Given that the belief that we have good scouts, which almost all here have, is true) Please, please, no more making scrub pitchers look like Cy Young candidates three or four times a year.
I developed these complaints during the Francona era, so I think they have become part of the organizational culture. So I would like see a shakeup in the coaching, training, scouting and medical staffs come in with the new manager. We have also got to be able to develop some home-grown starting pitching.
|
|
|
Post by danredhawk on Oct 11, 2017 10:54:20 GMT -5
As other people pointed out, im not sure why this move wasn't made last off season, with Lovullo waiting in the wings. Im no Farrell fan but I actually think he did substantially better with bullpen management this year. I think the bullpen simply pitched better...
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Oct 11, 2017 10:55:16 GMT -5
Seeing that quote from Dombrowski leaves me scratching my head, they should have left it as we are going another direction. This makes me worry that eventually there will be a leak that will attempt to paint Farrell in a bad light in a similar situation as Tito on his way out. Farrell was not as beloved as Tito by any means but we all saw how poorly that backfired on the upper management and one would hope that they would be smart enough to not go down the same path with Farrell. If that does happen I would have to wonder how appealing a situation Boston would be for any manager to step into.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 11, 2017 10:57:13 GMT -5
Wow is right. However, I do question if this would be the case if he made it to ALCS or WS.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 11, 2017 10:58:26 GMT -5
Yeah, I thought he'd say something along the lines of wanted to go in a different direction or just felt it was time for a change. Something generic, but this leaves a big question mark hanging over his firing. Not sure why he'd do that to Farrell even if true. It's either some kind of clubhouse garbage or it's his unwillingness to change when he's being given advice by the stat guys. I'd lean towards the latter. He actually changed quite a bit down the stretch, but maybe the stat guys were screaming at him to take Brentz and play him over Young and play Lin over Holt and he refused to do it. And maybe he ignored the advice to rest Sale a lot more.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 11, 2017 11:01:25 GMT -5
but maybe the stat guys were screaming at him to take Brentz and play him over Young. If the front office wanted Brentz that badly he'd have been on the roster. You're giving Farrell a very outsized portion of the blame for that. ------ That Dombrowski quote is nuts. Can a Boston team ever part ways with someone without trying to light them on fire on the way out the door?
|
|
|
Post by jbuttah on Oct 11, 2017 11:02:31 GMT -5
Yeah, I thought he'd say something along the lines of wanted to go in a different direction or just felt it was time for a change. Something generic, but this leaves a big question mark hanging over his firing. Not sure why he'd do that to Farrell even if true. It's either some kind of clubhouse garbage or it's his unwillingness to change when he's being given advice by the stat guys. I'd lean towards the latter. He actually changed quite a bit down the stretch, but maybe the stat guys were screaming at him to take Brentz and play him over Young and play Lin over Holt and he refused to do it. And maybe he ignored the advice to rest Sale a lot more. I don't know about that. Didn't Farrell speak at some sabermetric conferences? Just looking at their backgrounds, I would think Farrell would be the more stats oriented one. OTOH, the on-field management of the team didn't really reflect a stats oriented approach.
|
|
|