John Farrell receives contract extension

[RedOctober3829]

@RedSox: #RedSox today extended manager John Farrells contract through the 2017 season with a club option for 2018.

https://twitter.com/redsox/status/569154286392877056

 

[Rovin Romine]

Nice.  I like this.  
 
I go back and forth on Farrell, but I think even his harshest critics would ahve to admit that over a season, he's a better than average manager.  

 

[Soxfan in Fla]

Good move. Solid manager, better leader. Takes possible distraction off the table.

 

[twibnotes]

I do not understand why the Sox didn't just commit to his 2016 option, thus making him a non-lame duck in 2015.

I agree with other posters that his demeanor is a great fit, but his in-game moves were often baffling if not indefensible. Is this a guy they really needed to commit to beyond 2016?

 

[Sausage in Section 17]

I do not understand why the Sox didn't just commit to his 2016 option, thus making him a non-lame duck in 2015.

I agree with other posters that his demeanor is a great fit, but his in-game moves were often baffling if not indefensible. Is this a guy they really needed to commit to beyond 2016?

 
With all the new guys and their big new contracts in the clubhouse, and with an impending expiration date on one of the club's current player leaders (Papi), management sends a strong message that Farrell's our guy. It seems like a prudent, proactive move to set the leadership tone in the midst of some transitions. Given his track record so far, I can't see what's not to like. 

 

[joe dokes]

I do not understand why the Sox didn't just commit to his 2016 option, thus making him a non-lame duck in 2015.

I agree with other posters that his demeanor is a great fit, but his in-game moves were often baffling if not indefensible. Is this a guy they really needed to commit to beyond 2016?

 
 
It goes beyond "he's not a lame duck" to "this is the guy. get with the program." 
They can always fire him and eat the contract.

 

[twibnotes]

 
With all the new guys and their big new contracts in the clubhouse, and with an impending expiration date on one of the club's current player leaders (Papi), management sends a strong message that Farrell's our guy. It seems like a prudent, proactive move to set the leadership tone in the midst of some transitions. Given his track record so far, I can't see what's not to like. 

This is nice positive thinking, but one only need revisit a few game threads from last year at random to find plenty of lousy in-game decisions.

Last year was also a bad year as it relates to young guys developing (X, JBJ, numerous pitchers). Is Farrell solely responsible for this? No, but it's fair to question his role.

Not saying he's a bad manager. Just saying there are question marks, and they could have just picked up his option.

 

[twibnotes]

 
 
It goes beyond "he's not a lame duck" to "this is the guy. get with the program." 
They can always fire him and eat the contract.

Farrell's top strength seems to be that he is a strong leader. With a commitment through 2016, he would absolutely be able to keep guys with "the program."

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

This is nice positive thinking, but one only need revisit a few game threads from last year at random to find plenty of lousy in-game decisions.

Last year was also a bad year as it relates to young guys developing (X, JBJ, numerous pitchers). Is Farrell solely responsible for this? No, but it's fair to question his role.

Not saying he's a bad manager. Just saying there are question marks, and they could have just picked up his option.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the analytics guys in the FO were somewhat less baffled by and upset with his in-game decision making than are SoSH posters.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Not saying he's a bad manager. Just saying there are question marks, and they could have just picked up his option.

 
I'm not sure I see how an argument against extending him doesn't also apply to picking up the option, though. If they think the in-game decision making (which we shouldn't assume they rate as low as some here) outweighs the leadership, then why not let him go after this year, or even fire him now? This is not like a situation with a 30-something player with a strong likelihood of physical decline. His in-game management is more likely to get better with time than worse. The only real risk I can see associated with three years rather than one is that he'll lose the clubhouse along the way; this extension is presumably a vote of confidence that this won't happen.

 

[HangingW/ScottCooper]

Gotta like this a lot. For me, Farrell keeps things quiet in the clubhouse and is a decent game manager.

 

[Toe Nash]

Seems pretty rare that a manager of a team largely expected to compete for a title would finish last and then get extended. That's probably a good thing. 

 

[rembrat]

I do not understand why the Sox didn't just commit to his 2016 option, thus making him a non-lame duck in 2015.

I agree with other posters that his demeanor is a great fit, but his in-game moves were often baffling if not indefensible. Is this a guy they really needed to commit to beyond 2016?

 
You're viewing Farrell as if he were a reclamation project when he isn't. His strengths and weaknesses are known to the front office personnel and whether you agree or not they have decided the pros outweigh the cons. Extending him is also the decent thing to do as an employer. It provides stability for the players and staff and for Farrell's personal life.
 
Of course if things go really bad, you can always just fire him. He is just the manager after all.

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

This is nice positive thinking, but one only need revisit a few game threads from last year at random to find plenty of lousy in-game decisions.

 

No, you will find plenty of reactions by people who think they know more than Farrell and the Red Sox.  But they don't.
 
This sets the tone that the Sox are looking to go on a multi-year run, and Farrell will lead the way.  And as others have said, if things go badly, they'll fire him.  I like this a lot.

 

[twibnotes]

No, you will find plenty of reactions by people who think they know more than Farrell and the Red Sox.  But they don't.
 
This sets the tone that the Sox are looking to go on a multi-year run, and Farrell will lead the way.  And as others have said, if things go badly, they'll fire him.  I like this a lot.

I think we have a tendency around here to talk ourselves into something being good after the Sox FO does it. That's probably fair given that they know a lot more than we do, but I also think it's fair to remind ourselves that last year Farrell did a lot of stuff that on its face seemed pretty illogical.

Edit: it's also a fair point that the sox FO, even if they have questions about Farrell, may think the stability factor and the message it sends is worth it (can always fire him).

 

[Ed Hillel]

Coaching extensions are always good in sports, provided you have a team willing to eat the money if the coach underperforms. It doesn't hit the cap (not that there's a cap in baseball anyway), it isn't our money, and it locks the coach down in case it's someone you want to keep around. Now, if Farrell has a poor season this year and they hold onto him because of that extension, it's a problem. Otherwise, good, and this coming from a guy who's not a fan of Farrell (though I certainly think he deserves at least another year).

 

[JimD]

Farrell's top strength seems to be that he is a strong leader. With a commitment through 2016, he would absolutely be able to keep guys with "the program."

The problem is, merely executing his option would lead to media speculation that the front office has questions about Farrell.  Extending his contract eliminates that narrative and sends a message to the clubhouse that JF is the man and any dissension from players will get zero traction with Farrell's bosses.