Farrell out

shepard50

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 18, 2006
8,167
Sydney, Australia
He was in the game earlier than usual, hadn't gotten up in the pen that early in a couple of months, had only 1 appearance of more than one inning over the last couple of months of the season (and that was for only 1.1 innings). He didn't look ready from the outset and it's fair to wonder if he wasn't ready because he hadn't been practicing coming into the game that early.
I don't understand what there is to practice. It's the start of a high leverage clean inning late in the ballgame. He had been used sparingly in the 8th in his career and almost always in high leverage situations.

And Kimbrel's career splits for 8th and 9th inning and pretty damn close. It was a day game, so you can't argue that it was earlier than usual in the evening.

It seems like a reach to put Kimbrel's poor performance on Farrell.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
You're just talking nonsense now. Thornburg got hurt, therefore in your mind the trade was made for an injured player. That's objectively stupid.

DD is also the same guy who did not rescind the Pom trade over the doctored medicals and the guy played a huge part in getting the team to the postseason this year, even if he like every other starter did not pitch well while in it.
The Pomeranz trade is one where the probability distributions worked out well in DD's favor, absolutely. You need those to offset brain dead decisions to trade someone who was at worst a highly functional strong side of a platoon (and 3 other prospects) for a single middle reliever.

Middle relievers get hurt all the time. Thornburg had already had a PRP injection (which is why I refer to him as injured). In order for amthatvtrade to work out for Boston, Thornburg would have had to have been an all star MR while Shaw settled in well below his career numbers to date and shifted to 1B. You just can't justify trading an everyday player for a middle reliever. The value is against you from the start.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Did any writer have the guts to ask Dave Dombrowski what role his trade of a 30-HR starting 3B for an injured middle reliever played in this season's outcome?

Or whether John Farrell would still have been fired if the relief ace that Dave Dombrowski had traded 4 prospects to obtain hadn't shit his pants in the highest leverage situation he's been placed in since the trade?
He answered the second question. Yes.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,734
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Yeah, this argument makes very little sense. For whatever people think of Farrell, I think he probably told Kimbrel "hey, be ready to come in during the 8th today". Seems like its just chalking up a bad result to being unprepared and then trying to find a reason for a bad thing happening beyond just a good pitcher was a little off and got beat by a good hitting team for a run.
I am a big believer in putting players in the best position to succeed. If you look at, say, Koji's usage patterns down the stretch in 2013 you'll see many more multi-inning appearances than Kimbrel had. I believe that players really do need practice in getting ready to come into the game earlier than they are used to; if modern baseball is going to be enslaved to this closer idea then the closers will simply practice for 1 inning at a time. If they want to use a guy for multiple innings then I truly believe they need to practice doing so by making multi-inning appearances beforehand.
 

czar

fanboy
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
4,312
Ann Arbor
He was in the game earlier than usual, hadn't gotten up in the pen that early in a couple of months, had only 1 appearance of more than one inning over the last couple of months of the season (and that was for only 1.1 innings). He didn't look ready from the outset and it's fair to wonder if he wasn't ready because he hadn't been practicing coming into the game that early.
This is totally a bridge too far for me.

First, Kimbrel was not good in his first inning of work. I don't understand how him not going multiple innings during the regular season impacted his first inning of work. It's not like he was electric during the 8th and then wore down on pitch #40 or something.

Second, if Kimbrel's performance is *that* sensitive to "coming into the game early" (which makes no sense since games start at different times, are different lengths, have rain delays, whatever -- like, does he sleep innings 1-8 usually?), then I'm not super confident having him pitch multiple innings a handful of times during the regular season was really going to help. Plenty of one-inning relievers work multiple innings during the playoffs.

Andrew Miller went >1 inning 11 times last year and followed that up with a postseason where folks gushed over his multi-inning "fireman" usage. Craig Kimbrel went >1 inning 7 times this year. Do we really think Kimbrel getting another 3-4 outings of 1.1 inning is the difference in him being good and bad the other day?

A much simpler explanation is Kimbrel, who has had bouts of wildness throughout his career (with Red Sox and before) was clearly amped and overthrowing and was not able to get swings-misses on his fastball (0 for 25).
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,734
Deep inside Muppet Labs
The Pomeranz trade is one where the probability distributions worked out well in DD's favor, absolutely. You need those to offset brain dead decisions to trade someone who was at worst a highly functional strong side of a platoon (and 3 other prospects) for a single middle reliever.

Middle relievers get hurt all the time. Thornburg had already had a PRP injection (which is why I refer to him as injured). In order for amthatvtrade to work out for Boston, Thornburg would have had to have been an all star MR while Shaw settled in well below his career numbers to date and shifted to 1B. You just can't justify trading an everyday player for a middle reliever. The value is against you from the start.
Continuing to call Thornburg a "middle reliever" is disingenuous at best and an outright falsehood at worst. He pitched in either the 8th or 9th inning in 2016 in 58 out of his 67 appearances. He was first their setup man and then their closer. Setup men and closers are farmore valuable than the Heath Hembrees of the world.

And they traded a guy who had an OPS of 90 for him, who had a horrific second half in 2016 and who got benched for the playoffs.

Travis Shaw doesn't love you and has never loved you. Stop pining for him.
 

steveluck7

Member
SoSH Member
May 10, 2007
3,994
Burrillville, RI
Part of me wondered at the time and immediately afterwards if Farrell got a bit ahead of himself in game 4 when we had the lead and Sale was cruising. The broadcasters mentioned a few times that Reed and Kimbrel were available for 3 innings in game 4. Once it got to the 7th, i wonder if John started to think about game 5 and managing the 'pen to make sure he had as much available then.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,721
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Nice surprise to find out about this at the end of the workday.

I'm grateful for 2013. The relative success Farrell has had as a manager should serve him well in the future, whatever he chooses to pursue. Despite the stomach acid and hair loss he caused, he seems to be a very decent guy, which is most certainly not damning with faint praise.

I think we're left with three non-exclusive possibilities for the firing. One, is performance - that the RS have some kind of metric that suggests Farrell's in-game management was worse than we (on average) thought, or that Farrell screwed up more often than we knew about in his "behind the scenes" role, whatever that was. Two is personal - that Farrell, despite aptitude for his role, burned bridges behind the scenes. Three is simply that there was enough of a mis-alignment of factors one and two, that the club felt they didn't want to commit to multiple years of JF. especially during the young player/Price/Sale window.

Looking forward, I'm excited for the possibility of some change leading to better player performances and a very competitive 2018. Obviously, we could get another BV/Bard type situation, but we could also get some performances that are more in-line with what we think might be our younger player's potential.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
This is totally a bridge too far for me.

First, Kimbrel was not good in his first inning of work. I don't understand how him not going multiple innings during the regular season impacted his first inning of work. It's not like he was electric during the 8th and then wore down on pitch #40 or something.

Second, if Kimbrel's performance is *that* sensitive to "coming into the game early" (which makes no sense since games start at different times, are different lengths, have rain delays, whatever -- like, does he sleep innings 1-8 usually?), then I'm not super confident having him pitch multiple innings a handful of times during the regular season was really going to help. Plenty of one-inning relievers work multiple innings during the playoffs.

Andrew Miller went >1 inning 11 times last year and followed that up with a postseason where folks gushed over his multi-inning "fireman" usage. Craig Kimbrel went >1 inning 7 times this year. Do we really think Kimbrel getting another 3-4 outings of 1.1 inning is the difference in him being good and bad the other day?

A much simpler explanation is Kimbrel, who has had bouts of wildness throughout his career (with Red Sox and before) was clearly amped and overthrowing and was not able to get swings-misses on his fastball (0 for 25).
I count 9 multi inning appearances by Koji in 2013 vs. 7 by Kimbrel in 2017.

Your last sentence seems like a more likely explanation.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,734
Deep inside Muppet Labs
A much simpler explanation is Kimbrel, who has had bouts of wildness throughout his career (with Red Sox and before) was clearly amped and overthrowing and was not able to get swings-misses on his fastball (0 for 25).
If he was overthrowing he would have in fact gotten swings and misses. He would have been wild, but he would have been throwing harder.

This is more of a philosophical question than anything else so we're never going to agree on this. My take is that if you want to use a guy for multiple innings in the postseason you should get him ready to do so by using him that way leading up to the postseason.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,734
Deep inside Muppet Labs
I count 9 multi inning appearances by Koji in 2013 vs. 7 by Kimbrel in 2017.

Your last sentence seems like a more likely explanation.
Koji had 6 multi-inning appearances over the last two months of 2013.

Kimbrel had only 1 over the last two months of 2017.

Remember Koji wasn't the closer until much later in the year back in 2013.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
A year ago the Marlins had two franchise centerpiece players, now all they have is Stanton. They need to trade him, not just to get out from under his contract but also because they need to bring in multiple young talented players to fill some of their many holes. At least one player coming back must be a proven ML-level talent that they can promote to their fans. They can't risk trading for just prospects, all of whom may not become much of anything. It would be a PR nightmare and kill attendance/merchandising for the immediate future.

If it was a salary dump, the Marlins wouldn't care about what they got in return. That is simply not the case, he will require a great deal of talent in return.

There's only 3 players in MLB that I would trade one of Mookie/Benny/Devers for, and Stanton is one of them.

Yes, the Yankees have plenty of young talent to trade for Stanton. I wonder though, how will the Marlins fanbase react to a trade of Stanton to the Yankees? If it seems like Jeter didn't get enough for him, you know they'll be suspicious.
1. They don't have attendance to kill and merchandising is split evenly among the thirty teams regardless of who sells what, so that's a non factor.

2. Again, Benintendi as the centerpiece is nice, but they a have no prospects to add to him. They don't have the chips. It's a pipe dream. This organization MIGHT have 2 top 100 prospects (Chavis and Groome) and even if they do, they'll be back end guys. It's possible they'll have 1 or none on some lists. The cupboard is empty. They aren't trading for Stanton.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
I feel for Farrell but if I am DD, this was his chance to get his own guy and he took it. Is it as simple as that?
DD was very generous to and protective of a manager he did not hire. That's to DD's credit. I don't think this was knee jerk, as it would be with lots of GMs. I think DD believes improvement was necessary and achievable. Because this move was made at DD's initiative, DD is now on the clock.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Was there any discussion of this before Game 4?

Why is two months the right cutoff?

Just seems like a giant stretch to me, particularly if this wasnt discussed until after Kimbrel gave up a run.
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
16,725
Chad Finn in the Glob yesterday commented that Kimbrel was "a puddle."

"the more I think about it, the worse I recognize the Sale decision to be. As I wrote in my column this morning, that strikeout pitch to Marwin Gonzalez should have been his walk-off moment. Then again, even if he’d brought in Addison Reed and he had done the job, I’m skeptical Craig Kimbrel would have come through. He was a puddle. He had an incredible season. And I’ll never trust him as much as I did Koji Uehara."

From that context it sounds like he was saying Kimbrel seemed too nervous or amped up to pitch effectively.

On the topic of whether Sale was weakening or not, the managers of the two teams had different opinions:

"Houston manager A.J. Hinch said, “We did feel Sale was tiring a bit. But that doesn’t make him easier to hit. So our guys just hung in there the whole time “

Sox manager John Farrell and his staff thought Sale was still strong."
 

DanoooME

above replacement level
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
19,831
Henderson, NV
A year ago the Marlins had two franchise centerpiece players, now all they have is Stanton. They need to trade him, not just to get out from under his contract but also because they need to bring in multiple young talented players to fill some of their many holes. At least one player coming back must be a proven ML-level talent that they can promote to their fans. They can't risk trading for just prospects, all of whom may not become much of anything. It would be a PR nightmare and kill attendance/merchandising for the immediate future.

If it was a salary dump, the Marlins wouldn't care about what they got in return. That is simply not the case, he will require a great deal of talent in return.

There's only 3 players in MLB that I would trade one of Mookie/Benny/Devers for, and Stanton is one of them.

Yes, the Yankees have plenty of young talent to trade for Stanton. I wonder though, how will the Marlins fanbase react to a trade of Stanton to the Yankees? If it seems like Jeter didn't get enough for him, you know they'll be suspicious.
Many holes? The lineup is pretty decent as it is. The only "holes" are 3B, where they have a prospect on the verge of taking the job (Brian Anderson), and SS, where they have a defensive whiz when healthy (Hechavarria). Where they are hurting is in the rotation where they have Jose Urena, Edinson Volquez, Dan Straily, Wei-Yin Chen, and a mess of retreads and a couple of decent prospects. They really need a #1 and #2 starters (this is where losing Fernandez hurts), and bench/bullpen depth. They aren't as far off as people think and with new ownership they might make the right investments to get right back into the division race year to year. This isn't a team like the Padres or Tigers that really have tons of holes. They really don't have a big incentive to deal Stanton unless blown away, and the Sox aren't going to be that team to blow them away, if anyone could.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,721
Miami (oh, Miami!)
A much simpler explanation is Kimbrel, who has had bouts of wildness throughout his career (with Red Sox and before) was clearly amped and overthrowing and was not able to get swings-misses on his fastball (0 for 25).
Whatever it was, isn't the potential unreliability of Kimbrel, being used outside his usual role in an elimination game, something that's in the pitching coach's purview? Or for the manager to take into account?

I mean that's sort of cutting to the chase re: responsibility. The players must execute, but if they're not effective, it behooves the manager to react and adapt and put the team in a position to win. Asking a player to move outside a typical usage had better be something that the player, the manager (and coaches) are comfortable with, and, if possible, have already provided a safety net for. Like, say, Reed or anyone else warming up. We all know baseball has a mental component and different players have different comfort levels about their real or perceived roles. IMO, it's borderline idiotic to embrace limited and defined roles for 162 games and then get funky in an elimination game.

(Arguably, bringing Verlander in to a relief situation might have been the biggest favor the Astros did for us.)
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
Many holes? The lineup is pretty decent as it is. The only "holes" are 3B, where they have a prospect on the verge of taking the job (Brian Anderson), and SS, where they have a defensive whiz when healthy (Hechavarria). Where they are hurting is in the rotation where they have Jose Urena, Edinson Volquez, Dan Straily, Wei-Yin Chen, and a mess of retreads and a couple of decent prospects. They really need a #1 and #2 starters (this is where losing Fernandez hurts), and bench/bullpen depth. They aren't as far off as people think and with new ownership they might make the right investments to get right back into the division race year to year. This isn't a team like the Padres or Tigers that really have tons of holes. They really don't have a big incentive to deal Stanton unless blown away, and the Sox aren't going to be that team to blow them away, if anyone could.
I'm with you as far as the Marlins having fewer holes than was implied (save for their rotation), but either you missed the fact that they traded Hechavarria in June or you meant to put another name for their defensive whiz shortstop.
 

czar

fanboy
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
4,312
Ann Arbor
If he was overthrowing he would have in fact gotten swings and misses. He would have been wild, but he would have been throwing harder.

This is more of a philosophical question than anything else so we're never going to agree on this. My take is that if you want to use a guy for multiple innings in the postseason you should get him ready to do so by using him that way leading up to the postseason.
... but Kimbrel was throwing harder.

By Brooks Baseball PF/X, Kimbrel's average four-seam velo was 97.8mph this year. It was 99.9mph on Monday.

Kimbrel's FB is quite straight. If he's not commanding any of his stuff well, it wouldn't be surprising to think you could lay off, get in a good count, and wait for a FB over the plate.

I maintain that it's ludicrous to pin Kimbrel's suck Monday on Farrell. I think it actively hurts the argument for removing Farrell if things arguments like that are held up as beacons of Farrell's ineptitude.

But I digress since, as you said, I guess we'll have to disagree on this one.
 

Dr Manhattan

New Member
Oct 9, 2017
46
If he was overthrowing he would have in fact gotten swings and misses. He would have been wild, but he would have been throwing harder.

This is more of a philosophical question than anything else so we're never going to agree on this. My take is that if you want to use a guy for multiple innings in the postseason you should get him ready to do so by using him that way leading up to the postseason.
I've already filed it away as a bad memory, but overthrowing per se doesnt necessarily equate to more swings and misses does it? If you end up throwing way over or out of the zone, maybe its just lots easier to lay off pitches and just wait for the times hes forced to groove one. Indeed, wasnt it the case that when things went to shit it was precisely because he got into a full count situation with bases loaded, or bases to load with Altuve up next?
 

shepard50

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 18, 2006
8,167
Sydney, Australia
Farrell released a statement. Sorry I can only link to the tweet currently and can't embed the statement.

he thanked every possible constituency except Dave
Whatever it was, isn't the potential unreliability of Kimbrel, being used outside his usual role in an elimination game, something that's in the pitching coach's purview? Or for the manager to take into account?

I mean that's sort of cutting to the chase re: responsibility. The players must execute, but if they're not effective, it behooves the manager to react and adapt and put the team in a position to win. Asking a player to move outside a typical usage had better be something that the player, the manager (and coaches) are comfortable with, and, if possible, have already provided a safety net for. Like, say, Reed or anyone else warming up. We all know baseball has a mental component and different players have different comfort levels about their real or perceived roles. IMO, it's borderline idiotic to embrace limited and defined roles for 162 games and then get funky in an elimination game.

(Arguably, bringing Verlander in to a relief situation might have been the biggest favor the Astros did for us.)
And using Price and Sale as relievers kept our playoffs alive. They were way further out of their usual role than a closer is being used on the 8th inning.

This whole example is so far from indicative of Farrell's managerial skills as to be ridiculous.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Many holes? The lineup is pretty decent as it is. The only "holes" are 3B, where they have a prospect on the verge of taking the job (Brian Anderson), and SS, where they have a defensive whiz when healthy (Hechavarria). Where they are hurting is in the rotation where they have Jose Urena, Edinson Volquez, Dan Straily, Wei-Yin Chen, and a mess of retreads and a couple of decent prospects. They really need a #1 and #2 starters (this is where losing Fernandez hurts), and bench/bullpen depth. They aren't as far off as people think and with new ownership they might make the right investments to get right back into the division race year to year. This isn't a team like the Padres or Tigers that really have tons of holes. They really don't have a big incentive to deal Stanton unless blown away, and the Sox aren't going to be that team to blow them away, if anyone could.
I agree that the Marlins don't need to blow it up right now and could certainly build on their roster to try and compete going forward, but Jeter made it pretty clear he wants payroll cut down to 60M next year and plans on rebuilding. Stanton said he wants no part of rebuilding anymore, so it seems likely Jeter will make every effort to find a deal and move him. Not really the typical "blow me away" Stanton trade scenario that we've seen in the past.
 

czar

fanboy
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
4,312
Ann Arbor
Whatever it was, isn't the potential unreliability of Kimbrel, being used outside his usual role in an elimination game, something that's in the pitching coach's purview? Or for the manager to take into account?

I mean that's sort of cutting to the chase re: responsibility. The players must execute, but if they're not effective, it behooves the manager to react and adapt and put the team in a position to win. Asking a player to move outside a typical usage had better be something that the player, the manager (and coaches) are comfortable with, and, if possible, have already provided a safety net for. Like, say, Reed or anyone else warming up. We all know baseball has a mental component and different players have different comfort levels about their real or perceived roles. IMO, it's borderline idiotic to embrace limited and defined roles for 162 games and then get funky in an elimination game.

(Arguably, bringing Verlander in to a relief situation might have been the biggest favor the Astros did for us.)
This is nuts. I mean, I'm done with this argument. Reed was warming up. It's unclear if Farrell was managing the game. But whatever.

You guys are ascribing way too much of player performance to the manager. David Price worked in relief and was fine. Chris Sale worked in relief and was fine. Justin Verlander worked in relief and outside of one pitch to Benintendi that was 2 rows deep in RF was fine.

Craig Kimbrel is an elite closer for a major league baseball team. It is not like he is some 18 year old from A ball pitching in his first game. I refuse to believe that him sucking should be pinned on the manager "because he was pitching in the 8th inning instead of the 9th inning," particularly when he was almost certainly told "you may be pitching as early as the 8th inning" all series long. And if that *is* actually why he sucked, is it magically going to be fixed by him pitching the 8th inning a few more times during the regular season? Shouldn't DD have just not traded for a guy that has those issues?
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
8,401
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
This is totally a bridge too far for me.

First, Kimbrel was not good in his first inning of work. I don't understand how him not going multiple innings during the regular season impacted his first inning of work. It's not like he was electric during the 8th and then wore down on pitch #40 or something.

Second, if Kimbrel's performance is *that* sensitive to "coming into the game early" (which makes no sense since games start at different times, are different lengths, have rain delays, whatever -- like, does he sleep innings 1-8 usually?), then I'm not super confident having him pitch multiple innings a handful of times during the regular season was really going to help. Plenty of one-inning relievers work multiple innings during the playoffs.

Andrew Miller went >1 inning 11 times last year and followed that up with a postseason where folks gushed over his multi-inning "fireman" usage. Craig Kimbrel went >1 inning 7 times this year. Do we really think Kimbrel getting another 3-4 outings of 1.1 inning is the difference in him being good and bad the other day?

A much simpler explanation is Kimbrel, who has had bouts of wildness throughout his career (with Red Sox and before) was clearly amped and overthrowing and was not able to get swings-misses on his fastball (0 for 25).
To my eye - it wasn't just FB command - his curve/slider/whatever it is/ was mediocre at best. He threw it a few of times that I remember and it was a total cookie - hardly any break at all or bounced it. So much so that Vazquez seemed to stop calling for it.
 
Last edited:

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
This is nuts. I mean, I'm done with this argument. Reed was warming up. It's unclear if Farrell was managing the game. But whatever.

You guys are ascribing way too much of player performance to the manager. David Price worked in relief and was fine. Chris Sale worked in relief and was fine. Justin Verlander worked in relief and outside of one pitch to Benintendi that was 2 rows deep in RF was fine.

Craig Kimbrel is an elite closer for a major league baseball team. It is not like he is some 18 year old from A ball pitching in his first game. I refuse to believe that him sucking should be pinned on the manager "because he was pitching in the 8th inning instead of the 9th inning," particularly when he was almost certainly told "you may be pitching as early as the 8th inning" all series long. And if that *is* actually why he sucked, is it magically going to be fixed by him pitching the 8th inning a few more times during the regular season? Shouldn't DD have just not traded for a guy that has those issues?
Adding to this a bit. Wasn't part of the reason Kimbrel wasn't used in the 8th more in the second half of the season because HE asked not to be used so much in that capacity? I seem to remember it was him that pushed back a bit after he was used so effectively in a few 8th inning spots in the first couple months of the season.

Now playoffs are a different animal and I have no doubt that Kimbrel was eager and willing to pitch as early and often as needed in the playoffs. But the idea that his not being used more for 4-5 out saves in the last couple months of the season was entirely on Farrell seems a bit unfair, as well as being a weak argument at best for explaining Kimbrel's performance on Monday.
 

DanoooME

above replacement level
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
19,831
Henderson, NV
Continuing to call Thornburg a "middle reliever" is disingenuous at best and an outright falsehood at worst. He pitched in either the 8th or 9th inning in 2016 in 58 out of his 67 appearances. He was first their setup man and then their closer. Setup men and closers are farmore valuable than the Heath Hembrees of the world.

And they traded a guy who had an OPS of 90 for him, who had a horrific second half in 2016 and who got benched for the playoffs.

Travis Shaw doesn't love you and has never loved you. Stop pining for him.
He needed someone to replace the corpse of Jacoby. He'll probably shift to Manuel after Shaw turns into a pumpkin again.

I'm with you as far as the Marlins having fewer holes than was implied (save for their rotation), but either you missed the fact that they traded Hechavarria in June or you meant to put another name for their defensive whiz shortstop.
Yeah, I brain farted there. Forgot it was Riddle mostly at the end. So there's one hole.

I agree that the Marlins don't need to blow it up right now and could certainly build on their roster to try and compete going forward, but Jeter made it pretty clear he wants payroll cut down to 60M next year and plans on rebuilding. Stanton said he wants no part of rebuilding anymore, so it seems likely Jeter will make every effort to find a deal and move him. Not really the typical "blow me away" Stanton trade scenario that we've seen in the past.
He's still going to get more from someone else than he'll get from the Sox, so it's a pipe dream for people on this board.
 

TonyPenaNeverJuiced

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 7, 2015
318
he thanked every possible constituency except Dave
That's not fair. He thanked 3 people by name, all of whom have a piece of ownership. He thanked the front office for giving him great players, that cover DD. He said he got to be around HoFers, but didn't name Ortiz specifically. I feel your take is nitpicking.
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
16,725
Werner's quote makes it clear that firing Farrell is all on Dombrowski:
“John didn’t do anything wrong,” Werner said by phone. “This is really a decision made by Dave Dombrowski. John did a great job for the Boston Red Sox. We have nothing but gratitude.

“But change is a part of baseball. Change is a part of life. This is obviously something Dave thought would benefit the organization.”

If the next manager doesn't work out really well, ownership is going to be putting that blame on Dombrowski.

I'm wondering if Dombrowski and Farrell clashed, and DD just didn't like Farrell's decisions. They had at least one argument behind closed doors that the players overheard:
"A major league source said the Machado incident led to a loud discussion between Dombrowski and Farrell that could be heard by players in the clubhouse."
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,721
Miami (oh, Miami!)
And using Price and Sale as relievers kept our playoffs alive. They were way further out of their usual role than a closer is being used on the 8th inning.

This whole example is so far from indicative of Farrell's managerial skills as to be ridiculous.
Well, it's kind of a moot issue since he's gone. However, the use of roles and comfort within the role are often discussed by the actual players. Some people do better than others in certain roles - witness batting order effects, or guys who can't close out games. So its a real thing. Whether or not Kimbrel was vulnerable to it is another issue. But clearly, he had problems.

Also, Price had been pitching in relief since he came back in September, and he knew that would be his post season role. Sale was asked to come in for long relief in the event of a starter implosion and did well. I hope someone discussed it with him beforehand and he was OK with it and prepared, and I suppose they did, since he was in the bullpen. Meanwhile, E-Rod was terrible post season (no recent experience relieving), even though he knew that would be his role. Presumably he had been vetted for the role and had some dry run practices coming in with men on base? I don't know if he had been, but before taking him over a reliever, they should have done so.

(And let's not forget that the initial playoff roster featured Holt, Morrero, Davis and Nunez, despite Farrell knowing that his starters had struggled recently.) Holt never had a plate appearance, nor did Davis.

But Farrell may have just been a very unlucky man.
 

shepard50

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 18, 2006
8,167
Sydney, Australia
That's not fair. He thanked 3 people by name, all of whom have a piece of ownership. He thanked the front office for giving him great players, that cover DD. He said he got to be around HoFers, but didn't name Ortiz specifically. I feel your take is nitpicking.
You might be right. I agree with Canderson that I would not thank the guy who just fired me by name. And he didn't.

I hate this move.

Maybe I'm still mad they fired Tito.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
He's still going to get more from someone else than he'll get from the Sox, so it's a pipe dream for people on this board.
Right. The farm system has very little in the way of trade chips and certainly not enough to keep up with other teams that might be interested in acquiring him (again, the Yankees seem like an obvious fit).
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,721
Miami (oh, Miami!)
This is nuts. I mean, I'm done with this argument. Reed was warming up. It's unclear if Farrell was managing the game. But whatever.
Was he warmed up when Kimbrel came in the 8th? If so, that was clearly the right thing to do.

Farrell was pretty clear post-game that he was calling the shots. And I have to say his BP usage this year was overall good. So it's just weird that he ignored Reed for the 8th.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
That's not fair. He thanked 3 people by name, all of whom have a piece of ownership. He thanked the front office for giving him great players, that cover DD. He said he got to be around HoFers, but didn't name Ortiz specifically. I feel your take is nitpicking.
Agreed. He thanked "two front office groups", how does that not include Dombrowski? And he thanked the owners by name because they sign his paycheck. It was actually a very nice statement, IMO. Hopefully, that's the last we hear about it from him or the team.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
Kimbrel's usage this season was not much different than Chapman's usage in 2016. Chapman was fine in the playoffs. Kimbrel was bit by both bad BABIP luck on a weak grounder and his own ineffectiveness in the 9th. Noone can seriously conclude that either of those was a direct result of his usage in September or the fact that he came into the 8th inning.

There are plenty of other things to pin on Farrell; Kimbrel's problems in Game 4 are not one of them.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,278
Hensley Meulens is apparently a candidate for SOX manager


TIL: his nickname is Bam Bam
 

Flunky

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 3, 2009
1,918
CT
On that theory, ask Angelos about Buck.

Might as well have some fun while we're trying to get serious business done.
even knowing this was a joke, I just threw up a little in my mouth...
 

HangingW/ScottCooper

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
2,493
Scituate, MA
This is totally a bridge too far for me.

First, Kimbrel was not good in his first inning of work. I don't understand how him not going multiple innings during the regular season impacted his first inning of work. It's not like he was electric during the 8th and then wore down on pitch #40 or something.

Second, if Kimbrel's performance is *that* sensitive to "coming into the game early" (which makes no sense since games start at different times, are different lengths, have rain delays, whatever -- like, does he sleep innings 1-8 usually?), then I'm not super confident having him pitch multiple innings a handful of times during the regular season was really going to help. Plenty of one-inning relievers work multiple innings during the playoffs.

Andrew Miller went >1 inning 11 times last year and followed that up with a postseason where folks gushed over his multi-inning "fireman" usage. Craig Kimbrel went >1 inning 7 times this year. Do we really think Kimbrel getting another 3-4 outings of 1.1 inning is the difference in him being good and bad the other day?

A much simpler explanation is Kimbrel, who has had bouts of wildness throughout his career (with Red Sox and before) was clearly amped and overthrowing and was not able to get swings-misses on his fastball (0 for 25).
While I'm sure this was all discussed before hand, let's not forget that Farrell was in the clubhouse in the 2nd inning and it would have been up to DiSarcina and Willis to see that Kimbrell didn't look right in the 8th and 9th.
 

SouthernBoSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2005
12,084
FWIW


Reporter in MIN (sports reporter for the pioneer press)
We already have a final three?

Ron Gardnehire is awful. He's entire way he sees baseball is awful. I was ALL for getting rid of John Farrell, but with the assumption we would hire someone not-awful. Gross.
 

CoffeeNerdness

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2012
8,718
So a reporter from Minnesota already knows the Sox are down to three managerial candidates? Seems like hot stove click bait season has started early this year.