Should Farrell's Seat Start To Be Getting A Little Warm?

[Zupcic Fan]

This has nothing to do with Farrell or anyone else as a manager, but I have a question that I have always wondered about.
To what extent  in your opinion can the hitting coach or the manager be blamed when a player consistently takes an approach that isn't working.
Can the manager, for example, be blamed for not saying something like : "Hey A.J., you gotta stop swinging at every pitch no matter where it is. You're killing us in a bunch of ways. It almost never produces the result you want, you often swing at shit, and you do nothing to contribute to raising the pitcher's pitch count.  If you want to keep playing, you gotta change that.  I'd rather you struck out looking than have to keep watching this silly approach at the plate"
Does a manager have any control over that kind of stuff, or should he just let the player hit the way he's always hit, especially if he's a veteran?
and to go back to this topic---if you do feel that a manager has some control over things like that, do you see approaches other than A.J's that you feel Farrell has been negligent about changing?

 

[OttoC]

So let's stop talking about touchy-feely stuff. Here's a list of teams that are either 75 points better than this time last year, or 75 points worse. Please advise which managers should be fired and which should get raises:
 
Worse (managed by idiots? Or unlucky...):
 
1. Rangers
2. Red Sox
3. Rays
4. Diamondbacks
5, Cardinals
6. Pirates
 
Better (managed by geniuses? Or lucky...):
 
1. Brewers
2. Marlins
3. Mariners
4. Angels
5. Giants
6. White Sox
 
Which managers would you fire? Which ones do you think are really good at what they do?
 
Of particular note to me are the Giants (a WS team that seems to go up and down) and the Cardinals (a WS team that can no longer hit)

 
Injuries probably have a lot to do with the ones doing worse:
 
Cardinals have 1 on 60-day, 7 on 40-day DL, 3 on 15-day.
Pirates have 5 on 40-day DL, 6 on 15-day.
Rangers have 4 on 60-day DL, 4 on 40-day, 5 on 15-day.
Rays have 1 on 60-day DL, 6 on 40-day, 4 on 15-day (Matt Moore, who was 17-4 last season is 0-2 this season and on the 60-day).
Red Sox have 1 on 60-day DL, 6 on 40-day, 2 on 15-day.
 
I didn't look at the teams over.

 

[alwyn96]

This has nothing to do with Farrell or anyone else as a manager, but I have a question that I have always wondered about.
To what extent  in your opinion can the hitting coach or the manager be blamed when a player consistently takes an approach that isn't working.
Can the manager, for example, be blamed for not saying something like : "Hey A.J., you gotta stop swinging at every pitch no matter where it is. You're killing us in a bunch of ways. It almost never produces the result you want, you often swing at shit, and you do nothing to contribute to raising the pitcher's pitch count.  If you want to keep playing, you gotta change that.  I'd rather you struck out looking than have to keep watching this silly approach at the plate"
Does a manager have any control over that kind of stuff, or should he just let the player hit the way he's always hit, especially if he's a veteran?
and to go back to this topic---if you do feel that a manager has some control over things like that, do you see approaches other than A.J's that you feel Farrell has been negligent about changing?

 
I think that's the sort of thing that Bobby V would say to AJ. Telling AJ to change the approach he's had his entire career, and that the Red Sox knew full well he had when they signed him, and that he's probably incapable of changing at this stage in his career, is just counterproductive. Tearing a guy down for doing the thing you knew he was going to do when you signed him just seems to turn the clubhouse against a manager. Seems like the thing to do would be to tell him to relax, we know you're a great player - you don't always have to tell players the truth - and we just know you're going to hit a ton of dingers. Just relax. 
 
Also: Pitches per plate appearance, Boston
2014: 4.03
2013: 4.01

 

[Papo The Snow Tiger]

Given the appearance that this team is no longer playing hard, the to be kind "questionable" in game managing, and the utter lack of success of everyone who's come up from Pawtucket, it may be time to revisit this question.

 

[AbbyNoho]

Why?

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Why?

 
He gave three reasons. If you think they are bad reasons, critique them. But asking "why" seems like a non sequitur.
 
Personally, I think reason 1 may have some truth to it at this point, though how much it's Farrell's fault is hard to say; I don't buy that reason 2 has been a major factor (but then I think in-game managing almost never is a major factor, pro or con); and reason 3 makes no sense unless you can come up with something about Farrell's managerial style that is specifically conducive to young players failing. (Also, "utter lack of success" seems a little harsh in describing a group that has included two of the best young defensive players we have seen in a long, long time, at two of the most important positions.)

 

[Laser Show]

 
He gave three reasons. If you think they are bad reasons, critique them. But asking "why" seems like a non sequitur.
 
Personally, I think reason 1 may have some truth to it at this point, though how much it's Farrell's fault is hard to say; I don't buy that reason 2 has been a major factor (but then I think in-game managing almost never is a major factor, pro or con); and reason 3 makes no sense unless you can come up with something about Farrell's managerial style that is specifically conducive to young players failing. (Also, "utter lack of success" seems a little harsh in describing a group that has included two of the best young defensive players we have seen in a long, long time, at two of the most important positions.)

Not to mention RDLR's emergence and the slow improvement Webster has shown.

 

[Plympton91]

One thing that appears to me to be very different about this year is the sloppy defense. It's not just errors and balls getting through, but mental mistakes as well. Is that lack of preparation and focus on the manager? Is my impression even correct?

 

[AbbyNoho]

 
He gave three reasons. If you think they are bad reasons, critique them. But asking "why" seems like a non sequitur.
 
Personally, I think reason 1 may have some truth to it at this point, though how much it's Farrell's fault is hard to say; I don't buy that reason 2 has been a major factor (but then I think in-game managing almost never is a major factor, pro or con); and reason 3 makes no sense unless you can come up with something about Farrell's managerial style that is specifically conducive to young players failing. (Also, "utter lack of success" seems a little harsh in describing a group that has included two of the best young defensive players we have seen in a long, long time, at two of the most important positions.)

 
He listed things about the team doing poorly, the team that traded away 4/5ths of their pitching staff, and then some impossible-to-prove things about not trying. And then blaming Farrell for 21-to-24 year olds not being instant successes in the majors. Frankly, as uncreative as "why?" is as a response is, that is about how creative calling for the manager's head is whenever a team does poorly.
 
Would replacing John Farrell do anything to improve this team for 2015? I can't see any reason to think it would. So, why?

 

[Papo The Snow Tiger]

He gave three reasons. If you think they are bad reasons, critique them. But asking "why" seems like a non sequitur.
 
Personally, I think reason 1 may have some truth to it at this point, though how much it's Farrell's fault is hard to say; I don't buy that reason 2 has been a major factor (but then I think in-game managing almost never is a major factor, pro or con); and reason 3 makes no sense unless you can come up with something about Farrell's managerial style that is specifically conducive to young players failing. (Also, "utter lack of success" seems a little harsh in describing a group that has included two of the best young defensive players we have seen in a long, long time, at two of the most important positions.)

I have admit that my "utter lack of success" comment was too harsh. That's what I get for posting while aggravated. By the in game managing I was talking about the Proctoring of Taz, leaving an obviously cooked Workman in much too long today, leaving X in after getting beaned last night, and stuff like that.

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

I have admit that my "utter lack of success" comment was too harsh. That's what I get for posting while aggravated. By the in game managing I was talking about the Proctoring of Taz, leaving an obviously cooked Workman in much too long today, leaving X in after getting beaned last night, and stuff like that.

So, Holt should have made his debut on the mound today?
 
I'm not a huge fan of Farrell's, but honestly, if I had to try to balance some of the stuff on his managerial plate this year, I'd be writing out lineup cards with my own blood at this point.

 

[tmorgan]

One thing that appears to me to be very different about this year is the sloppy defense. It's not just errors and balls getting through, but mental mistakes as well. Is that lack of preparation and focus on the manager? Is my impression even correct?

Overall the team is .02 below average in DER and their error rate is exactly league average so the team as a whole hasn't been. UZR actually thinks they are third best, that's mostly because of JBJ and Pedroia. There are some real strengths and weaknesses on the team but I'm not sure you can put much on Farrell and especially on Butterfield who seems to handle most of that element. Bogaerts hasn't been great, but those were the issues I expected coming in, and the OF coverage other than JBJ has been an issue but those all look like injury or personnel issues rather than coaching or preparation ones. If Farrell's staff is having issues with handling young position players, it certainly hasn't been the case they've had issues with the transition for pitchers. Given the talk over the bigger gap between AAA and the majors now the Sox might try to change their process for bringing up hitters and how they coach them in the majors, but I imagine the vulnerable coaches would be Colbrunn/Rodriguez and Beyeler rather than Farrell himself.

 

[twibnotes]

I have admit that my "utter lack of success" comment was too harsh. That's what I get for posting while aggravated. By the in game managing I was talking about the Proctoring of Taz, leaving an obviously cooked Workman in much too long today, leaving X in after getting beaned last night, and stuff like that.

...leaving Kelly in after hurting his shoulder

 

[MuzzyField]

So, Holt should have made his debut on the mound today?
 
I'm not a huge fan of Farrell's, but honestly, if I had to try to balance some of the stuff on his managerial plate this year, I'd be writing out lineup cards with my own blood at this point.

No need for Holt, I was wondering why Mujica wasn't available after his 4-pitch marathon last night? Is he being saved to close a game while Koji grows a new arm?

 

[OttoC]

Could one of the problems be that the owners of the Red Sox are trying to tun them as a Fortune 500 business rather than as a baseball team?

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

No need for Holt, I was wondering why Mujica wasn't available after his 4-pitch marathon last night? Is he being saved to close a game while Koji grows a new arm?

He had pitched four of the five previous games.  Taz, two.  Farrell just doesn't have many good options when his starter can't give him seven innings, and he doesn't have many starters left who can do that.  

 

[twibnotes]

Could one of the problems be that the owners of the Red Sox are trying to tun them as a Fortune 500 business rather than as a baseball team?

I don't think this is fair or right. This ownership group has demonstrated a willingness to spend in order to win. If you're thinking about Lester, it's well documented that Henry has performance concerns about older pitchers. Further, it's a lot harder to spend to win than it used to be.

I think they know they are a couple years away and want to develop the young kids. I also think it's fair to ask whether Farrell is the right guy for that mission. Hopefully he is.

 

[MuzzyField]

He had pitched four of the five previous games.  Taz, two.  Farrell just doesn't have many good options when his starter can't give him seven innings, and he doesn't have many starters left who can do that.  

I'll give you the three straight leading into today (2.1IP/31 pitches). Yes, 4-days straight is bad.
However, going back to 4 out of 5 misses an off day on the 19th, and he started the 4 out of 5 with two days of rest on the 16th and 17th before probably throwing his most efficient appearance of the season with a 5-pitch inning on the 18th.
How this team eats innings in September is going to be interesting to follow.

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

How this team eats innings in September is going to be interesting to follow.

With the expanded roster, it shouldn't be all that difficult.

 

[patinorange]

Why?

Why not? When baseball teams fail to meet expectations the manager can get fired. Fair or unfair. That's baseball. Now I don't believe for a minute he is any danger of getting fired. No way. But I can see a scenario where he could get canned before the end of the season next year. I don't think the FO is going to take two last place finishes in a row.

Let's hope we are not talking about it next year.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

...leaving Kelly in after hurting his shoulder

And Boegarts after getting hit in the head. That made zero sense to me.

 

[MuzzyField]

With the expanded roster, it shouldn't be all that difficult.

I was referring to the actual arms that will be eating the innings (I'm tired of watching the current innings eaters), and maybe seeing some development in September to figure out the trade chips and keepers.  I'm concerned that the we suck, I don't give a shit team I've been watching lately is going to piss away the opportunity to set the stage for 2015.  Ferrell isn't going anywhere, there will be no post-BV bounce in the clubhouse come February.  The future needs to start now and not wait for Truck Day to commence.  I'm just hoping that the Sox can find Astros-level fight to carry them the rest of the way.  That's the bar I'm setting for Farrell and his staff.  Currently, it looks like the team has tuned him out and is already enjoying the off season, and that's not the professional environment the post-BV era is supposed to champion.

 

[Plympton91]

Well said. Loosing is contagious. That's why bridge years often turn into bridge decades.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Well said. Loosing is contagious. That's why bridge years often turn into bridge decades.

 
If it happens often, you should be able to give us several examples.

 

[Niastri]

Well said. Loosing is contagious. That's why bridge years often turn into bridge decades.

 

 
If it happens often, you should be able to give us several examples.

Doesn't everybody know a couple loose women that fell into a rut?

 

[Plympton91]

 
If it happens often, you should be able to give us several examples.

Orioles 1997 to 2012; Royals no playoffs since 1985, Pirates 2o year drought prior to last year, Padres forever since 1998, Blue Jays nothing since early 1990s, etc.

 

[MuzzyField]

i'm not in favor of bridge decades, so the Sox better figure this out pronto... but the big market Mets have been building a bridge to nowhere for few years. 

 

[BornToRun]

I think many of you are forgetting that the last bridge year ended with a trophy and some champagne baths. Let's not freak out just yet.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Well said. Loosing is contagious. That's why bridge years often turn into bridge decades.

Orioles 1997 to 2012; Royals no playoffs since 1985, Pirates 2o year drought prior to last year, Padres forever since 1998, Blue Jays nothing since early 1990s, etc.

Jesus tap-dancing Christ, do you have any other notes to play? This one is old and sour. How about the last time the RED SOX had back to back sub-.500 seasons, let alone a decade of losing?

But yes, let's get in a hysterical panic over one poor season.

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

Jesus tap-dancing Christ, do you have any other notes to play? This one is old and sour. How about the last time the RED SOX had back to back sub-.500 seasons, let alone a decade of losing?

But yes, let's get in a hysterical panic over one poor season.

I've always suspected that Fred Wilpon, Peter Angelos and John Henry were triplets separated at birth.

 

[Traut]

Farrell has tactically sucked this year. He makes a dozen completely foolish moves a week. And it has cost the Sox.
 
However, he may be a better manager of men than he is an in game tactician. This team, despite the suck, hasn't quit. There's something to be said for that. But yeah, if the Sox aren't contending for the playoffs next year - he'll be gone.

 

[MuzzyField]

Farrell has tactically sucked this year. He makes a dozen completely foolish moves a week. And it has cost the Sox.
 
However, he may be a better manager of men than he is an in game tactician. This team, despite the suck, hasn't quit. There's something to be said for that. But yeah, if the Sox aren't contending for the playoffs next year - he'll be gone.

The men he's claiming to manage may not have reached quit, yet, but they sure do lack focus and considering the number of players currently and soon to be auditioning for 2015 it's on him to change that over the next six weeks.

 

[Rough Carrigan]

Orioles 1997 to 2012; Royals no playoffs since 1985, Pirates 2o year drought prior to last year, Padres forever since 1998, Blue Jays nothing since early 1990s, etc.

This comment is ridiculously wrong.
For this comment to make sense, the Orioles would have to have been thinking of 1998 and 1999 as just bridge years with an upcoming surge of talent expected in the years after that.  The same would have to be true of the Royals in 1986 and 1987, the Pirates in 1993 and 1994 and Jays in 1994 and 1995.  This is risibly false.  All four were older teams whose windows of contention simply closed on them.  The Padres of that era always tried to thread the needle every couple years to get past the much higher payroll teams.  Tony Gwynn was out of baseball 3 years later as was Caminiti.  Greg Vaughn may as well have been.  I'm sure they were just planning on it being a bridge year and that they'd come up with another guy who plays 20 years and bats .338 and a couple more power hitters.  Yeah, that must've been their plan and representation of it to the media and fans.
Ridiculously wrong.

 

[Pumpsie]

I don't think that replacing Farrell should even be a consideration right now.  I don't think that there's a lot of difference between managers at this level. I think Farrell's average as a tactician (half of ML managers are better, half are worse) and that the players seem to like him (which is important). As we saw in 2013, that's good enough if the players play well.  However, if 2015 is not a successful year, I would start thinking about Ben Cherington's future association with the club. Three bad years out of four should never happen with the resources the Sox have going for them.

 

[Flynn4ever]

The short answer to the original question is yes, the seat is getting a bit warm, but nothing should be done this season or even in the off-season. I would chalk most of this year's suckitude up to injury, regression and just plain crappy pitching, not crappy managing. You do not, however, go from WS champions to last place and well below .500 without some heat. I'm not sure, though, what Farrell should do differently. I also agree that Ben had better hope that the Castillo signing turns us into a wild-card team at least or he is also in some heat. I love the Sox, but this team went from the most fun to watch and follow in one year to a late 1990's Pirates imitation in a hurry. I also think that Ben should make getting Lester back a priority, those of us who love the personalities in the laundry would cut him a bit more slack with the guy I used to worry about over a cancer diagnosis on board.

 

[LondonSox]

Less than a year a team given low hopes of anything won the world series.
And now after a bad season while developing 3 starting rookies at CF, ss and c no less and a similar number of starting pitchers and with one of the best farms in the game developing behind all this and it's time for torches and pitchforks?

Sad. Sounds like Yankees level entitlement.

 

[nattysez]

Less than a year a team given low hopes of anything won the world series.
And now after a bad season while developing 3 starting rookies at CF, ss and c no less and a similar number of starting pitchers and with one of the best farms in the game developing behind all this and it's time for torches and pitchforks?
Sad. Sounds like Yankees level entitlement.

Dismissing opinions with the "sounds like a Yankees fan" insult is really tired.

Farrell has overused Tazawa when he's clearly worn out and has misused Uehara. He has shown little sign of being an astute handler of pitchers in-game. Buchholz seems to have regressed on his watch. It took him pretty much all year to learn how to handle replay. The dumpster fire in the OF was laughable, but that's largely Ben's fault. He left in Joe Kelly after Kelly thought he'd injured his shoulder, then removed him for precautionary reasons a handful of pitches later. The team was bunting too much at the start of the year, giving away outs they could ill afford to sacrifice. Those are a handful of my reasons for disliking Farrell.

I hope he proves to be a good manager, but the only things he's shown me thus far are that he is very good at handling a team when everyone outperforms their career norms and is excellent at not being Bobby Valentine.

 

[Traut]

Less than a year a team given low hopes of anything won the world series.
And now after a bad season while developing 3 starting rookies at CF, ss and c no less and a similar number of starting pitchers and with one of the best farms in the game developing behind all this and it's time for torches and pitchforks?

Sad. Sounds like Yankees level entitlement.

It's not. Farrell bears some of the responsibility here. Re-read the second guesser threads, the game threads, and head into chat on a given night.

One of the frustrating things about this season isn't that the Red Sox have been terrible it's that so many of their losses seem to come down to one play not going their way - like Xander going to second instead of first last week against the Angels. Some of that is roster construction, some of it rookies, and some of it coaching.

While the margins have been thin, Farrell has made moves that have decreased the teams odds for success.

Not that I'm sure it matters all that much because at best this team as constituted heading into the season is a .500 club.

If Valentine was an F in 2012, Farrell has earned a solid D in 2014.

 

[OttoC]

I said a while back that managing was easy for Farrell last year because the offense was clicking but you could see signs, if you looked closely, that he didn't always handle the pitching well. I think he had a penchant for going with the reliever with the hot hand leading to periods of overuse and I also felt he had a tendency to leaves pitchers in when it was obvious (at least to me) that they were tiring. The lack of baseball fundamentals, like throwing to home when there was absolutely no chance of getting the runner and thus permitting other runners to advance on that throw or trying to stretch an extra base, did not have the importance to the outcome of the came then as much as it does this year. He's a good manager for a winning club because the players like him but he has not had a lot of success. This is his fourth year of managing in the majors and with the exception of last year's Red Sox club, the best he has done is one .500 season and two losing seasons (two 4ths and currently a 5th-place standing in the AL East).
 
I do think some blame has to be placed on the coaching staff, major and minor leagues. The Red Sox base coaches don't always make the best choices and there seems to be a lack of solid grounding in fundamentals for players on the way up. As a slight aside tot htis, I think that Bogaerts this year has had some problems of knowing when he should take charge on a play. It's the manager's job to correct these types of things when the occur at the major league level and he probably should be getting on the front office about the lack of fundamental knowledge of playing the game by players who are brought up.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Orioles 1997 to 2012; Royals no playoffs since 1985, Pirates 2o year drought prior to last year, Padres forever since 1998, Blue Jays nothing since early 1990s, etc.

 
Can you identify the "bridge year" that turned into a "bridge decade" in each of these cases?
 
I mean, if all you're saying is that it's possible for teams to go from being good to being bad and then stay bad for a long time, I think we all knew that--but I have no frickin' idea what it has to do with the specific strategic gambit I think most of us mean around here when we talk about a bridge year. Because it's also possible, as we all know, for a team to go from being good to being bad and then get good again pretty quickly.

 

[dcmissle]

Orioles 15 years of suck flowed from the owner taking the reins; it's that simple. Angelos thought he knew better than Pat Gillick, and then threw Davey Johnson out after siding with Robby Alomar.

Typical amateur hour. See also Dan Snyder.

 

[glennhoffmania]

Orioles 15 years of suck flowed from the owner taking the reins; it's that simple. Angelos thought he knew better than Pat Gillick, and then threw Davey Johnson out after siding with Robby Alomar.

Typical amateur hour. See also Dan Snyder.

 
You guys need to stop feeding him, and maybe this nonsense will slowly fade away.
 
But you bring up an interesting point that's been bugging me since the Lester stuff.  If Angelos fucked up by thinking he knew more about baseball ops than his baseball ops people, why does there seem to be this idea out there that Henry doesn't like signing pitchers over 30 and that isn't the same thing?  If Ben and company want to sign Lester but Henry is vetoing, is this not concerning?

 

[Plympton91]

 
You guys need to stop feeding him, and maybe this nonsense will slowly fade away.
 
But you bring up an interesting point that's been bugging me since the Lester stuff.  If Angelos fucked up by thinking he knew more about baseball ops than his baseball ops people, why does there seem to be this idea out there that Henry doesn't like signing pitchers over 30 and that isn't the same thing?  If Ben and company want to sign Lester but Henry is vetoing, is this not concerning?

It's hillaryous that you claim I'm trolling and then make exactly the point I'd decided not to make because I though people would say I was trolling.

 

[LogansDad]

Less than a year a team given low hopes of anything won the world series.
And now after a bad season while developing 3 starting rookies at CF, ss and c no less and a similar number of starting pitchers and with one of the best farms in the game developing behind all this and it's time for torches and pitchforks?

Sad. Sounds like Yankees level entitlement.

What development?
 
If anything, X is worse now than he was at the start of the season, and JBJ had to be sent down to AAA because he has been hitting so poorly that being one of the best center fielders in the game wasn't enough to overcome it.  Brock Holt caught lightning in a bottle, but has since the middle of July has been serviceable at best.  Vazquez is another guy who started off hot, but pitchers have adjusted and he has had a .523 OPS since the beginning of August.  Middlebrooks continues to be terrible, though I am not sure there is anything that anybody can do about that at this point, so I won't hold it against Farrell as much.
 
On the pitching side: Workman is likely being misused.  Webster has been so-so in limited action, but more consistent than RDLR who has been anywhere from lights out to awful.  Buchholz is a disaster, and just about everyone in the bullpen has regressed in some way.  This isn't just about game management.
 
Can all of these guys improve?  Absolutely.  Have they done it so far under Farrell's watch?  No.  There has been zero development of the young players at the core of this team, which, if I remember correctly, is what Farrell was brought in for.
 
I agree that his seat shouldn't be hot just yet, but this team, with this payroll, needs to show a drastic improvement very early next season for it to not start heating up a little bit.

 

[Toe Nash]

There are a few things going on here:
 
-Farrell is not an ideal in-game tactician; at least from the sabermetric standpoint (and perhaps others). He has made moves based on emotion (Gomes v Nava in the world series), he probably bunts more than you'd like, and as we've seen he can overuse relievers or use other players curiously (If Uehara doesn't rebound, pitching him 4 times in 5 days and 5 in 7 could end up a terrible move, especially since he could have been dealt were it not for the hope of extending / QOing him). But, he has shown last year that he is a good leader of men, and he seems to be in tune with the FO as far as the overall plan (and newer ideas like shifting), both of which outweigh him bunting too much or not using a perfectly ideal lineup or whatever. If he's not reaching the team, he should be in trouble, but I don't see any evidence of this.
 
-That said, there has been a lot of underperformance by players this year and seemingly very little improvement from young players that were counted on (and guys like Buchholz). This is a major problem for a team who is theoretically rebuilding or at least retooling. But, blame for this probably lands not on just Farrell but on the other members of the coaching staff, and if we are to believe what we've read about how the team operates, blame should fall everywhere up and down the organization. So I'm not sure that JF specifically should be on the hot seat without knowing specifically who is responsible for what (which is likely impossible for anyone outside the org).
 
As noted, managers often take the blame for underperformance everywhere, fair or not, so if they struggle again next year I agree he could be in trouble. But it's a tough question to examine from here.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

I would have a better idea of how to evaluate Farrell if I knew whether the lack of progress by the rookies was a failure of talent evaluation or because they tuned out Farrell.

For example, there is a book on JBJ; it's apparently not difficult to figure out; but still the Red Sox ran him out there day after day. Was that a GM call or was it because JBJ wouldn't listen or did people really think that if he saw a certain sequence of pitches, he'd eventually figure it out?

I agree that if the Sox are terrible again next year, Farrell probably doesn't survive it.

 

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

This is as subjective as it gets, but do people think the players on the field are still "playing hard"?

I can deal with watching a team that's an underdog due to lack of experience and maybe talent. But if that team is also going through the motions, that's just brutal baseball.

I watched most of yesterday, and I thought they played pretty hard even after Workman's meltdown. I was glad Ross was fired up. Mookie put on an amazing at bat before the double. You just don't come back from four runs down against the Seattle staff.

But I haven't watched much of this losing streak for a variety of reason.

Are we looking at a month of spring training coming up?

 

[SeoulSoxFan]

Less than a year a team given low hopes of anything won the world series.
And now after a bad season while developing 3 starting rookies at CF, ss and c no less and a similar number of starting pitchers and with one of the best farms in the game developing behind all this and it's time for torches and pitchforks?

Sad. Sounds like Yankees level entitlement.

LS has summarized my feelings on point. It is sad to get this much consideration on this topic at this juncture.

 

[bankshot1]

IMO 2014 was an organizational screw-up mixed with some early season bad luck with injuries, from which they never recovered. I don't blame Farrell for the decision that X, JBJ, WMB and AJP were the way to go in '14. Nor do I blame him for early season injuries to Victorino and Napoli that seemed to drain the Sox offense.  The FO pulled the plug on the season about 5 weeks ago. Farrell's job is to keep order among some unmotivated players, and see to it that no long-term damage is done. His seat will get hotter next year, as Cherington presumably reloads via FA signings or the 4-for-1 mega trade(s) that many of us envision..

 

[Harry Hooper]

Don't forget: Punto will be back for 2015, so Farrell will have no excuses.