Farrell on the hot seat

[EllisTheRimMan]

Hey, we have one every season. Have at it.

Someone in tonight's game thread posted a quote from Theo Epstein about sometimes you just need a change and it doesn't have to be rational. (paraphrasing). Think Malphabet and Cabrera for Garciaparra.

Again, have at it from both sides.

 

[E5 Yaz]

This thread would get off to a better start if the thread-starter voiced their own opinion first

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Way too soon. The team has endured slumps out of the gate from several key players, plus a couple of injuries, while mostly playing strong division rivals--yet they were a .500 team going into tonight. That does not say "the manager is the problem" to me.

I know some people around here have been convinced for a while that Farrell's a catastrophe. I wouldn't call him an in-game genius, but I think his suckage in this regard has been exaggerated, and I think he's been a fall guy to some degree for Ben's failures.

 

[EllisTheRimMan]

This thread would get off to a better start if the thread-starter voiced their own opinion first

Time for a change just for the sake of change. I know it will be hard for Sox leadership. They pried JF away from TOR after the BV abortion (They're fuck up on BV) and then the cancer so I don't take the optics lightly. That said, after 2 years of under performance, DDski inheriting JF and this being Papi's swan song, I believe something drastic is needed. If I'm Henry, I go to Papi and ask him what he thinks. If he wants a change then it's a slam dunk If not then I probably still do it, understanding that Ortiz may not be so ruthless.

How's that?

 

[Ale Xander]

He has the personality of an executive with skills and experience in coaching pitching

He is neither a stick (Durocher, Weaver) not a carrot (Francona, torre) motivator nor a tactician like Stengel, McGraw or a Larussa

He's not a game or a team Manager

Square peg round hole

 

[EllisTheRimMan]

Way too soon.....

..........

I know some people around here have been convinced for a while that Farrell's a catastrophe. I wouldn't call him an in-game genius, but I think his suckage in this regard has been exaggerated, and I think he's been a fall guy to some degree for Ben's failures.

It's early, but better to fail early and then have time to recover.

WRT Cherington. I'm calling his era the Curse of the Benbino. Not on Farrell, but I see little downside on replacing a questionably effective manager early in the season to send a message to the entire organization, especially the players. This team's payroll is obscene compared to wins over the last few seasons. Maybe a good firing will shake things up.

 

[Ale Xander]

It's early, but better to fail early and then have time to recover.

WRT Cherington. I'm calling his era the Curse of the Benbino

This team's payroll is obscene compared to wins over the last few seasons. Maybe a good firing will shake things up.

Im clearly not a Farrell fan, but the Porcello and Pablo bloat isn't his fault

 

[Curll]

It's early, but better to fail early and then have time to recover.

WRT Cherington. I'm calling his era the Curse of the Benbino. Not on Farrell, but I see little downside on replacing a questionably effective manager early in the season to send a message to the entire organization, especially the players. This team's payroll is obscene compared to wins over the last few seasons. Maybe a good firing will shake things up.

12 years late: http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/Curse-of-the-Ben-bino-2638897.php

 

[Corleone]

Dombrowski has yet to make a bold move or put his stamp on the Team.
When will that move be made is anyone's guess.
Will it happen? It has to. The payroll does not justify the results on the field the last two seasons.

Yes, we already know that. We already know past Management decisions have more than likely put a stranglehold on future moves.

Is Farrell the fall guy at the moment? Yes he is.
Is it the right move? Right now it's the only move you got that could bring respectability to an underachieving squad that did show promise the last 50 games in 15.

 

[riboflav]

While I don't think Farrell is a good manager and would be happy if he were replaced by a better manager (who wouldn't?), I think your rationale is suspect. It's VERY early in the season so why do the Sox need a shake up now? And why does a team with so many key younger players and newly arrived key veterans require a shake up only 13 games in? I don't get it.

I think DD and JH are giving JF until at least Memorial Day and even as an JF-hater (for lack of a better descriptor), I think that's prudent. Firing the manager at this point in the season in order to shake things up would only make sense if they were something like 1-12 or maybe, 2-11. I don't think firing the manager of a 6-7 ball club would have the impact you think it would.

Now, if you think JF is inferior and not competent as a manager like I do then we can discuss the proper time to replace him and with whom.

 

[Curll]

Dombrowski has yet to make a bold move or put his stamp on the Team.
When will that move be made is anyone's guess.
Will it happen? It has to.

You're cute.

 

[EllisTheRimMan]

Im clearly not a Farrell fan, but the Porcello and Pablo bloat isn't his fault

Yes, but Cherington's been canned. The team is looking shaky. It was even shakier before JF got sick.

The question to Henry, DDski et al. is Farrell the one man to turn it all around?

If the answer is no, and it almost certainly is, the next question is: What will be the damage if we cut him loose? This is the roll of the dice question. I'm very sure that JF is not Dombrowski's guy since DD came in after JF was here. This means that JF is really part of the Benbino administration and as such needs to take responsibility for Porcello, Panda, Rusney and Hanley. Sure he hasn't made a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but could he? Combine the 2013 lightening in a bottle with his illness and I know it's a hard decision. However, does anybody think that firing Farrell now would really be so much worse in both the short and long run than keeping him. I'd like to hear that argument.

 

[Corleone]

You're cute.

The move above took only money.

Moves that need to be made by way of trade will take time, luck and a set of b@lls.

 

[Moviegoer]

I had misgivings about Farrell when they pried him away from Toronto, which I never understood considering he wasn't doing all that great up there at the time. He's done nothing since then to make me think any better of him. And yeah, 2013 is included in that.
I wish they had 'promoted' him up into the front office when he went into remission, because I don't question his baseball mind, just his ability to lead on the field.

 

[Sprowl]

The move above took only money.

Moves that need to be made by way of trade will take time, luck and a set of b@lls.

 

[EllisTheRimMan]

12 years late: http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/Curse-of-the-Ben-bino-2638897.php

Touché Well, not really. Ben Affleck = Ben Cherington only in bizarro world.

 

[RG33]

This thread would get off to a better start if the thread-starter voiced their own opinion first

You had to ask, didn't you?

It is way too early for the Sox to can Farrell. If they were going to do it, it would have happened before Spring Training. What has changed in 13 games?

IMO, it will only happen if this team is struggling by Memorial Day/June 1st. I'm not a fan of him either, but making a move now doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

[E5 Yaz]

You had to ask, didn't you?

It's my ballet training

 

[Rasputin]

The move above took only money.

Moves that need to be made by way of trade will take time, luck and a set of b@lls.

The Craig Kimbrel trade. Now please, stop making a ridiculous thread more ridiculous.

 

[williams_482]

The move above took only money.

Moves that need to be made by way of trade will take time, luck and a set of b@lls.

He spent $217M on David Price, traded (and probably overpaid) for Craig Kimbrel, and benched Pablo Sandoval for a 26 year old with no track record or prospect pedigree. All three of those things were all significantly more "bold" and make for far more prominent "stamps" than firing the damn manager.

And while this could easily be construed as an attempt to stifle discussion on this topic, none of us have any bloody idea how good John Farrell is at his job beyond some rudimentary analysis of his tactical decision making and the fact that none of the players have publicly declared that they hate him. Claims that Farrell is "almost certainly" not "the one man to turn it all around," or that the Red Sox will benefit from a mid-April "shakeup" and start playing better as a result, are no more grounded in reality than an argument that Farrell is the managing messiah and can do no wrong.

End rant.

 

[Pilgrim]

I am of two minds about this.

On one hand I don't have many objections to his in game moves. The best players will play in ~150 games, and the best bullpen pitchers will pitch in ~80 games and everyone is fine with that in theory. But when its time for Josh Rutledge or Noe Ramirez, nobody wants to see that and the manager gets blamed. That comes with the territory, but people had similar complaints about Francona, and I think we all agree he was fantastic.

The clubhouse management has mostly been great. I don't take it for granted that a team can finish in last place, or demote guys with huge contracts, and get nothing but compliance. However, you can't hang your hat on finishing in last place and keeping everyone happy.

The counterpoint is that the results have been terrible. Steamer/ZIPS have projected the last two teams as high 80 win teams, and they have finished in last place. He did manage the hell out of a team full of veterans to a world series, but the year before that he lost 89 games with a roster than was expected to compete. Other than 2013, none of the veterans he has managed have really overachieved, in fact last year almost all of them were complete disasters. Even more damning is the performance of his rookies. By my count, he has managed 8 consensus top 50 prospects, and the only one who has stuck in the majors as a full blown top talent is Mookie Betts, who is off to a terrifyingly bad start, with cratering underlying numbers.

Taken individually, I can't find a reason to blame him for a single one of these things, but together it is a shoddy record.

Tonights loss starts a run where they should really clean up. The Rays are talented, but seem like the worst team in the division. The Yankees and Astros are decent teams. They get 4 games against the Braves, who are absolutely awful.

I dont think being a game under .500 right now is a disaster, but they need to be better than that at the end of the month. Sometimes coaches get fired purely because the team performance isn't good. Not everyone has to be a Bobby V level clusterfuck. Farrell seems ok to me, but it would be hard to complain too much if he gets canned, considering the results.

 

[Darnell's Son]

abs addressed this on the .com on Friday because silly people on Twitter were talking about it

 

[The Gray Eagle]

Taking away Lovullo's 28-20 record last year, Farrell's got a career W-L of 378-397, .488 career winning percentage. He has had some talented teams, maybe a couple with Toronto that weren't that talented.

Whether you think he's a good manager or not probably comes down to how well you think he managed in 2013. Was he a Brenly-like guy whose team won the title kind of in spite of the manager (Brandon Workman batting in the World Series, etc.) and the 2013 team was carried by a veteran core who were extraordinarily motivated by what happened to the city on Patriot's Day and brought together by that, and the manager didn't have much to do with it?

Or is he the highly respected, smart guy who inspired and led his team to the World Series title; and the many losses in the other years are due to the players just not being good enough?

I personally lean to the former, not the latter.

Nothing's going to happen soon-- unless the team loses several more in a row. It's very early, but Farrell was the manager when they lost 9 in a row last June and completely fell out of contention well before the All-Star break. If they start heading in that direction at any time, then a move has to be made before it's too late. Even in April, if it comes to that. They've now lost 3 in a row at home. Okay, that happens. But if they lose say 3 more in row, that would be 6 straight losses at home against divisional rivals, and presumably digging a hole in the standings. Then the seat gets really hot. He would be hanging by a thread if it gets to that point, no matter how early in the season it is.

Otherwise he will get more time, but that time will be measured in the standings, even early in the year. If they start dropping back to the point where it's questionable whether they are in the postseason race, then his job has to be on the line. He is going to be judged on the results and the standings. He has got a high priced roster with a lot of talented players. If he can't keep them in the hunt, then he needs to go. The guy sitting next to him went 28-20 last year, if Farrell can't keep them in the hunt then we need to go back to the guy who at least won for a couple months with most of these same players.

 

[YTF]

Dombrowski has yet to make a bold move or put his stamp on the Team.
When will that move be made is anyone's guess.
Will it happen? It has to. The payroll does not justify the results on the field the last two seasons.

Yes, we already know that. We already know past Management decisions have more than likely put a stranglehold on future moves.

Is Farrell the fall guy at the moment? Yes he is.
Is it the right move? Right now it's the only move you got that could bring respectability to an underachieving squad that did show promise the last 50 games in 15.

He identified and addressed the top four needs for this team. He got the best FA pitcher on the market...check. Traded for one of the top closers in the game...check. Acquired a legit 4th OF with power off the bench...check and traded for what is hoped to be a dominate bullpen arm to in an attempt to "shorten the game". Let's also remember that DD essentially extended/paid Farrell's close friend Lovullo not to take a job elsewhere to in effect be the manager in waiting. The Sox had DD in the fold as soon as he left Detroit. He spent the last few months of the season in house, making evaluations, formulating a plan and within months he executed said plan. He's been extremely hands on and I'd hardly say that "he has yet to make a bold move or put his stamp on this team." Hell, if all he did was bench Sandavol in favor of a guy making $17M less and name Brock Holt over Castillo as the lead in a LF platoon with Chris Young BEFORE the season started, that alone would qualify as bold moves that put his stamp on this team.

Edited to add one more point. If memory serves, it was shortly after Dombrowski's arrival that the Hanley Ramirez in LF era transitioned to the Hanley Ramirez first baseman era in preparation for the 2016 season.

 

[keninten]

DD did fire his GM and manager 6 games into the 2002 season. His 1st season with the Tigers. It was an 0-6 start but shows he could do it. I think this team needs a fire lit under them which is one reason to can the manager.

 

[NDame616]

John Farrell has done nothing througout his entire managing career to show anyone that he is a "good" manager. His entire career as a manager is mediocre and there's no disputing that.

If Farrell didn't get sick last year he would have been fired before leaving the park after #162.

Have the Red Sox exploded out of the gate? Nope. They are trading water, which almost every team under JF has done.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

John Farrell has done nothing througout his entire managing career to show anyone that he is a "good" manager. His entire career as a manager is mediocre and there's no disputing that.

If Farrell didn't get sick last year he would have been fired before leaving the park after #162.

Have the Red Sox exploded out of the gate? Nope. They are trading water, which almost every team under JF has done.

They're treading water through a schedule that so far has been loaded with mine fields. Seven games against the defending division champs who have the most potent lineup in the league and another three against a team that got out of the gate hotter than anyone else in baseball. It could be a lot worse than 6-7 right now. I think expecting them to "explode out of the gate" against that schedule is a bit unrealistic.

I'm no fan of Farrell at this point, and he's already done some questionable things, but I don't think he's going anywhere until at least the ASB and probably not until the end of the year unless the team completely bottoms out in the meantime.

 

[TheoShmeo]

I would have preferred that Farrell been let go during the off season. That was not possible in light of the cancer. But I think he is a bad manager and did not want him back.

Now that he is back, it is way too early to fire him. They are simply not doing poorly enough. Make no mistake, I think they would be better off if they did fire him. But firings along the lines of David Blatt (and I know the Cavs were playing a lot better than these Sox) are very rare, and I just don't see DD wanting to execute a manager in April or early May when the team is still very much in contention.

All that said, I hope we don't have to wait until after the season if the Sox scuffle.

 

[Reggie's Racquet]

They're treading water through a schedule that so far has been loaded with mine fields. Seven games against the defending division champs who have the most potent lineup in the league and another three against a team that got out of the gate hotter than anyone else in baseball. It could be a lot worse than 6-7 right now. I think expecting them to "explode out of the gate" against that schedule is a bit unrealistic.

I'm no fan of Farrell at this point, and he's already done some questionable things, but I don't think he's going anywhere until at least the ASB and probably not until the end of the year unless the team completely bottoms out in the meantime.

And that would be a terrible waste of Big Papi's last season.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

And that would be a terrible waste of Big Papi's last season.

Oh, of course, all personnel decisions for this team should be made through that prism. I love Ortiz like everyone else, but just because it's his last season doesn't mean the front office should abandon reason. Let's not overlook that while Farrell is under fire from us out here, he's thought of quite highly in the clubhouse. I think that before any other reason is why they won't fire him unless the team is absolutely floundering.

 

[j44thor]

Farrell was the manager last year when Betts, X and Bradley were all hitting well no? And he was the manager when Clay gave them his usual 10-15 quality starts. I think perhaps the expectations for this team may be overinflated. This is probably a .500 team if as usual a few players overachieve and a few underachieve. This isn't a contending rotation as we have already seen and the offense is largely made up of young, still mostly unproven players who are going to have more peaks and valleys than a veteran heavy roster.

Perhaps firing Farrell wakes the team up for a week or two but at some point water will seek its own level. Without consistent starting pitching any manager is going to struggle.

I guess I don't care one way or another because the greatest manager in the world (who I have no idea that might be) isn't likely to make this team a legit contender overnight. That is on some of the players becoming a lot more consistent and others better than they actually are. I don't think magical managerial fairy dust will do that.

 

[Reggie's Racquet]

Oh, of course, all personnel decisions for this team should be made through that prism. I love Ortiz like everyone else, but just because it's his last season doesn't mean the front office should abandon reason. Let's not overlook that while Farrell is under fire from us out here, he's thought of quite highly in the clubhouse. I think that before any other reason is why they won't fire him unless the team is absolutely floundering.

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say they should make a decision on Farrell based on Papi. It was just an observation. Another observation...this team is floundering. It has been for a long time.

 

[Toe Nash]

We know he's a bad tactical manager. He batted Workman in a tied ninth inning in a World Series game. If Grady leaving Pedro in is firable without considering the final result of the series, so is that move (and he makes plenty of other sub-optimal decisions all the time).

But, he is supposedly a good leader and the players and FO trust him. That is probably more important, and I don't see much evidence that it is wrong. With the Pablo and Hanley situations we never heard too much and they had the potential to get out of control both last and this year. As we know everyone seemed to get along very well in 2013 (winning helps). So, I think they stick with him for a couple months, but it is nice to know Lovullo is ready and seemed to do a fine job last year if they want to make a mid-season move.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

13 games, you insane clown posse. 13 games.

Here are the records of last year's AL playoff teams after 13 games:

KCR: 10-3
TOR: 6-7
TEX: 5-8
NYY: 6-7
HOU: 7-6

Three of the five had the same record as us, or worse. Only one would have been more than a game ahead of us at this point in the season, with 149 games to play. Yet you guys think there's a crisis and it's time to fire the manager.

I think the problem is that some of you still have your brains in football season, where each loss is a Waterloo fraught with global consequences. This is baseball. Each loss means almost nothing. One game under .500 halfway through April is basically a null result--it tells us nothing about anything, and puts no practical limit on possible outcomes. We could wind up 110-52 or 52-110 from this start, and either result is only very slightly more or less likely than it would be if we had started the season 10-3.

If you see specific things about Farrell's managing that you think are unsustainable, that's one thing. But saying "we're floundering" and "something has to be DONE" and all the rest of it is just--well, whatever the opposite of whistling in the dark is, it's that.

 

[grimshaw]

13 games, you insane clown posse. 13 games.

Here are the records of last year's AL playoff teams after 13 games:

KCR: 10-3
TOR: 6-7
TEX: 5-8
NYY: 6-7
HOU: 7-6

Three of the five had the same record as us, or worse. Only one would have been more than a game ahead of us at this point in the season, with 149 games to play. Yet you guys think there's a crisis and it's time to fire the manager.

I think the problem is that some of you still have your brains in football season, where each loss is a Waterloo fraught with global consequences. This is baseball. Each loss means almost nothing. One game under .500 halfway through April is basically a null result--it tells us nothing about anything, and puts no practical limit on possible outcomes. We could wind up 110-52 or 52-110 from this start, and either result is only very slightly more or less likely than it would be if we had started the season 10-3.

If you see specific things about Farrell's managing that you think are unsustainable, that's one thing. But saying "we're floundering" and "something has to be DONE" and all the rest of it is just--well, whatever the opposite of whistling in the dark is, it's that.

This is exactly where I'm at. He has made zero egregious errors this season in my mind. You can quibble about the Tazawa vs. Ue thing the other day, but that means Tazawa was likely going to be unavailable last night and Koji may still have been ineffective since he had been forced into duty a lot already. He went for it against our chief division rival, because Koji is our second best reliever, and a win is a win this early in the season.

You can maybe quibble about Chris Young, but his option was Brock Holt who had cooled off. If anything, the lack of a quality left handed bat off the bench is a roster construction issue. None of those things likely contributed to a net loss in games. And jesus, they played an 11am game after three grinders. If subs don't play then, when do they play?

If the offense scores one run last night, they win. If Travis Shaw, forced into playing 3B because our fat ass 3B is terrible, makes the routine play last night, there's a reasonable chance of a different outcome, and they don't need another reliever need to throw extra pitches and push his availability today, as well as needing to bring in Layne. The pen was lights out because they had enough warm bodies and fresh arms to keep the game completely winnable.

On top of that, the win probability had to be pretty damn low last night with a starter going down in the 1st inning, but they still were one walk or hit away from pulling it out, and then this thread doesn't get all reactionary.

Now they are in poor shape because they'll need to bring in their 8th and 9th depth chart guys to get them through the next few days, maybe even in key spots and will have the odds against them. Or he'll need to push a starter well past saturation point to get through 7 because the alternative is not good. Then Farrell is a terrible manager again.

I am by no means a Farrell fan, but he has done nothing wrong 13 games in.

Tangentially, comparing him to past managers and thinking he has been comparably good or better (with much better rosters) is kind of silly. Teams hire unproven guys all the time and they do fine (see Paul Molitor last year). If things go in the shitter, they don't need to go the recycled route. They very much can upgrade.

 

[Heating up in the bullpen]

Hot seat? Absolutely. The whole premise of the start of the season is that this team has to win early, with the presumption that JH is on the hot seat starting with Game One.
But now is too soon. The question is when is it not too soon? Last year at the end of April they were 12-10, but by the end of May they were 22-29. If a similar scenario played out this year, I'd say he'd have to be gone then (end of May). But what if they're just hanging around .500? Probably depends on the gap from the division leader, but I'd think they give him through June in that case, All-Star break at the most.
What I'd like to start seeing is the team finding ways to win close games rather than finding ways to lose them.

 

[Montana Fan]

This thread could use a heavy dose of Rudy Pemberton.

 

[threecy]

Tito was (somewhat on this forum) loved, but he's not coming back through that door.

Who else has been skipper?
Valentine
Grady
Jimy Williams
Kennedy
Kerrigan
Hobson
Snowplow Joe
McNamera

Farrell looks pretty good in comparison. Careful what you wish for.

 

[MiracleOfO2704]

DD did fire his GM and manager 6 games into the 2002 season. His 1st season with the Tigers. It was an 0-6 start but shows he could do it. I think this team needs a fire lit under them which is one reason to can the manager.

That kind of thinking by the Red Sox after 2011 gave us Bobby Valentine. It's a relic of a bygone era, where the only problem with the boys is they don't have a strict enough headmaster in the clubhouse to give 'em a good smack once in a while and yell at them.

Farrell's a not-good manager because he makes questionable tactical decisions, not because the players are disinterested in playing for him. Also, as has been pointed out ABUNDANTLY in this thread, making any judgement about Farrell or the Red Sox before the third time through the rotation seems alarmingly short-sighted. Why don't we at least get into mid-May before talking about firing anyone?

 

[absintheofmalaise]

Those of you in the "Fire Farrell" crowd, would you provide some examples of moves and non-moves that you feel cost the Sox games. Also, when you list these out, please list the likelihood of the hitter replaced or not replaced succeeding in that situation. Same for the pitchers. What you would have done differently etc.

 

[Moviegoer]

13 games, you insane clown posse. 13 games.

Here are the records of last year's AL playoff teams after 13 games:

KCR: 10-3
TOR: 6-7
TEX: 5-8
NYY: 6-7
HOU: 7-6

Three of the five had the same record as us, or worse. Only one would have been more than a game ahead of us at this point in the season, with 149 games to play. Yet you guys think there's a crisis and it's time to fire the manager.

I think the problem is that some of you still have your brains in football season, where each loss is a Waterloo fraught with global consequences. This is baseball. Each loss means almost nothing. One game under .500 halfway through April is basically a null result--it tells us nothing about anything, and puts no practical limit on possible outcomes. We could wind up 110-52 or 52-110 from this start, and either result is only very slightly more or less likely than it would be if we had started the season 10-3.

If you see specific things about Farrell's managing that you think are unsustainable, that's one thing. But saying "we're floundering" and "something has to be DONE" and all the rest of it is just--well, whatever the opposite of whistling in the dark is, it's that.

It's not thirteen games. It's two years and thirteen games. Farrell didn't just get here in January. He's been at the helm of underwhelming teams for long enough now for anyone to judge his ability to get his players up for the games. The only reason anyone is even talking about Farrell's job security so soon into this season is because we've all seen how this goes with his teams before and don't want to see it again.

 

[Reggie's Racquet]

It's not thirteen games. It's two years and thirteen games. Farrell didn't just get here in January. He's been at the helm of underwhelming teams for long enough now for anyone to judge his ability to get his players up for the games. The only reason anyone is even talking about Farrell's job security so soon into this season is because we've all seen how this goes with his teams before and don't want to see it again.

Ahh...perspective. With all due respect it's not about specific examples this season or any season. It's about results. The last two years and thirteen games the results haven't been underwhelming they have been terrible. So how long do we wait? A month...the All Star break...another year? Just asking of those who counsel patience. Where is your line and why?

 

[glennhoffmania]

John Farrell has done nothing througout his entire managing career to show anyone that he is a "good" manager. His entire career as a manager is mediocre and there's no disputing that.

If Farrell didn't get sick last year he would have been fired before leaving the park after #162.

Have the Red Sox exploded out of the gate? Nope. They are trading water, which almost every team under JF has done.

Exactly. The reason why I would consider a change is not based on the 2016 season. It's based on watching his whole managerial career and consistently being unimpressed with his ability to properly manage a game. He may be a great teacher and clubhouse guy and I'd love to see him in some sort of FO or development role. I'm not screaming for him to be fired but those who are shouldn't be so quickly dismissed by saying that it's only been a couple of weeks against tough opponents. We have a lot more data than that to consider.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

It's not thirteen games. It's two years and thirteen games. Farrell didn't just get here in January. He's been at the helm of underwhelming teams for long enough now for anyone to judge his ability to get his players up for the games. The only reason anyone is even talking about Farrell's job security so soon into this season is because we've all seen how this goes with his teams before and don't want to see it again.

I wouldn't quarrel with anybody who was arguing for Farrell's dispatch all winter and is continuing to argue for it now. But if you didn't think he should be fired over the winter, 13 games is not enough data to merit jumping to that conclusion now.

Also...."two years and thirteen games"? Really? You win the Cherry-Picking Super Bowl. If it's legit to go back two years, it's legit to go back three.

 

[j44thor]

It's not thirteen games. It's two years and thirteen games. Farrell didn't just get here in January. He's been at the helm of underwhelming teams for long enough now for anyone to judge his ability to get his players up for the games. The only reason anyone is even talking about Farrell's job security so soon into this season is because we've all seen how this goes with his teams before and don't want to see it again.

Since when is motivational speaker a key part of managing a baseball team through a 162 game schedule? When should he use his Miracle speech, before every home game or just vs. the yankees at home? If only the team were grittier they might win more.

We already saw what can happen with a rah rah manager, I'm not interested in revisiting the Bobby Valentine era.
A .500 record where 1/2 your games have come against a tough TOR team should not be reason for firing the manager. I'd give him to the ASB at least.

 

[Todd Benzinger]

Farrell seems annoyingly passive in close games; he doesn't seem to like pinch-hitting, or is so committed to days off that he doesn't PH for the scrubs with the guys that are being rested. And he sits on his hands for way too long in situations like the one in which Ue clearly had nothing on Patriots day. When the announcers have been saying "it's just one of those days when he has no feel for any of his pitches," and the manager leaves the guy in for three more batters, that seems like poor judgment.

That said, it really isn't his fault that the two times he tried to be aggressive and smart with his bullpen both blew up in his face.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

I'd think he's only on the hot seat if he was on the hot seat to begin the season. That opinion takes into account that DD would have outlined expectations going into the season, specifically what he expects early in the season as far as performance. I doubt the poor start puts him in the hot seat by itself, but couple with the last two years, Luvollo's record, and the extra marital stuff, I can see where he'd be on a shorter leash than normal to begin the season.

 

[TheoShmeo]

Those of you in the "Fire Farrell" crowd, would you provide some examples of moves and non-moves that you feel cost the Sox games. Also, when you list these out, please list the likelihood of the hitter replaced or not replaced succeeding in that situation. Same for the pitchers. What you would have done differently etc.

Respectfully, the standard is not, or should not be, moves that cost games. Very few moves or non-moves -- by themselves -- are outcome determinative.

I mean, I know (or think I konw) that you are trying to increase the substance level of this thread, and that's what behind your comments. But to me, the standard for dismissal is not necessarily tied to moves that directly lead to losses. It's the sum total of his work and whether he, in effect, makes winning more difficult. I also think that all of the observations about his record over time carry weight. Baseball is a marathon and you are what your record says you are...even if the individual moves don't look all that bad in isolation.

That said, the following relatively recent moves made winning individual games more difficult and were not beneficial to the Sox over the long run in my opinion:

1. Starting the horrendous against righties Chris Young on Sunday in order to get him so PT before he played against lefties on Monday and Tuesday.

2. Leaving Young in there in the 9th after the Sox had cut the lead to 5-3 with no outs. The "good swings" answer was laughable.

3. Pinch hitting Travis Shaw in the 5-7th innings several times early in the season was foolish in that Shaw did reasonably well against lefties last season and showed a lack of confidence in a rookie starter.

4. Hitting Shaw 4th against a lefty just a few weeks later showed a lack of an overall approach.

5. Bringing in Noe Ramirez into a 2-1 game was questionable.

I'm sure others could come up with many more examples. Probably better ones. The Workman move is famous and one that had virtually all Sox fans who pay attention to such things scratching their heads very hard at the time. Like Tito with Pedro in Game 7 2004, it all worked out so just became a curious footnote. But talk about a harbinger.

 

[j44thor]

Farrell seems annoyingly passive in close games; he doesn't seem to like pinch-hitting, or is so committed to days off that he doesn't PH for the scrubs with the guys that are being rested. And he sits on his hands for way too long in situations like the one in which Ue clearly had nothing on Patriots day. When the announcers have been saying "it's just one of those days when he has no feel for any of his pitches," and the manager leaves the guy in for three more batters, that seems like poor judgment.

That said, it really isn't his fault that the two times he tried to be aggressive and smart with his bullpen both blew up in his face.

You do realize that you have to have someone warming up before you can bring in another reliever right? You don't have someone warming up just in case your elite RP might not have it that day unless he comes to the manager ahead of time and says I'm not ready to go today. Koji didn't have it but I don't understand how that is Farrell's fault anymore than not scoring 1 single run in 10 innings would be his fault last night. Sometimes players don't perform but you can't have a contingency for every single possible outcome, esp the bullpen otherwise you will be burning half your staff just warming up.

 

[Todd Benzinger]

You do realize that you have to have someone warming up before you can bring in another reliever right? You don't have someone warming up just in case your elite RP might not have it that day unless he comes to the manager ahead of time and says I'm not ready to go today. .

Yes, I do realize that; but it takes him too long to get guys warming. When a guy has no feel and is taking forever to load the bases, generally, you could theoretically get someone to start warming after one or two lengthy and miserable ABs. My point is that Farrell's managerial style is irritating, in that he seems to be more committed to riding things out with his guy in those situations than other managers are. When Tim Neverett has noticed that a reliever has no feel for his pitches long before Farrell even gets someone to start warming, that's a problem.

Nonetheless, I did say it really isn't his fault that the two times he was aggressive with his best BP arms they spit the bit.