Red Sox banking on John Farrell becoming a better manager in Boston

38 Comments

There’s simply no way the Red Sox could have looked at John Farrell’s work in Toronto and came away with the idea that he was a great manager. The Blue Jays were a horrible baserunning team, they had Omar Vizquel questioning their clubhouse leadership and their win total decreased in both of his years at the helm.

It was Farrell’s success with pitchers in Boston that played a huge role in getting him the Blue Jays gig. Yet Farrell could do nothing to aid Ricky Romero and Brett Cecil as they regressed. The only Toronto starter to break through under his tutelage was Brandon Morrow and then only for 21 starts.

And yet the Red Sox wanted Farrell back. Badly enough to surrender compensation to Toronto to get him, though the price (infielder Mike Aviles and perhaps taking on first baseman Adam Lind’s salary) wasn’t as high as many speculated.

Three guesses as to why they chose him:

1. There’s simply no one better equipped to help Jon Lester, Clay Buchholz and Daniel Bard overcome their struggles. All three had their best seasons in 2010 immediately before Farrell departed. And while the collapses for all three came this year, it’s worth noting that all took steps backwards in 2011 first.

2. Farrell already has the respect of the clubhouse. And unlike the team’s 2012 bench coach Tim Bogar and former bench coach DeMarlo Hale, he doesn’t carry the stink of the 2011 collapse around with him, since he left after the 2010 season.

3. The Red Sox are probably assuming that improvement will come with experience. Terry Francona was a dreadful manager, far worse than Farrell, when he was in Philadelphia. I thought Bob Melvin was brutal in Seattle. Look at him now in Oakland.

As I made clear a couple of weeks ago, I’m not particularly impressed with the choice. Brad Ausmus, Dave Martinez and Sandy Alomar Jr. are candidates to become the next great manager, and the Red Sox bypassed them all in favor of a guy whose first gig ended in failure. That said, if Farrell can get better results from Lester and Buchholz and maybe even get Bard turned around, it’ll more than make up for whatever in-game strategy mistakes he makes.

Meanwhile, on the cold, cold Hot Stove . . .

Getty Images
10 Comments

It’s Hot Stove Season baby! You know what that means! Yep: time to watch some teams sign a few relievers to minor league deals and then wait everyone out until February while talking about the need to maintain financial flexibility! FEEL THE BURN.

In more specific news:

We’ve talked a lot about Betts this winter already, and that seems like madness. Bryant’s career with the Cubs began with business-side acrimony, it’s still simmering, and there is no sense that either side is amenable to a long-term deal before he hits free agency. The Indians have been signaling for some time that they have no interest in keeping Lindor long term.

It’s quite the thing when three teams who are supposed to be contending are, instead, looking to deal recent MVP award winners and candidates who are 27 and 26 years old, but these are the times in which we are living.

  • Joe Sheehan wrote an excellent column for Baseball America last week analyzing the attendance drop MLB experienced in 2019. Which is just the latest in a series of attendance drops. As Joe notes there is a very, very strong connection between teams (a) signaling to fans during the offseason that they are not interested in signing or retaining players or otherwise being competitive; and (b) teams suffering attendance losses.

As I wrote last offseason, there is an increasing disconnect between attendance and other proxies of broad fan interest and revenue. Which is to say that, as long as teams continue to get fat on long-term TV deals, side businesses like real estate development, and soaking a smaller and wealthier segment of the fan base with higher and higher prices, they really have no reason to care if several thousand common or casual fans become alienated by their teams’ lack of desire to compete.

Sullivan doesn’t offer ideas about how that can happen, but over the past couple of seasons we’ve seen a number of proposals, some broad, some specific, about how MLB can turn its free agency/trading period into frantic, 1-3 day scrambles-to-sign like we see in both the NBA and NFL. I’m sympathetic to that desire — it’s exciting! — but any attempt to do that in Major League Baseball, at least as things are currently set up, would be a disaster for the players.

In the NBA and NFL you have salary caps and floors and, in the NBA, you have max contracts. As a result, teams both have a set amount of money to spend and an incentive to spend that money. We can quibble with whether those incentives are the best ones or if they benefit the players as much as other systems might, but there’s at least something inherent in their systems which inspires teams to sign free agents.

In Major League Baseball, there is no such incentive. May teams want to keep payrolls as low as possible under the guise of rebuilding or tanking and there is no effective mechanism to keep them from doing so. Even nominal contenders — see the Cubs, Indians and Red sox in item 1 above — spend more time thinking about how to cut payroll rather than add talent. This is bolstered by the stuff in item 2 above in which attendance and even winning has less of an impact on the bottom line than it ever has.

So, why scramble to sign players by a set deadline? Under most of the scenarios I see floated — like the laughably horrible one MLB reportedly suggested to the MLBPA — teams would just wait out free agents until deadline day, give them crappy take-it-or-leave-it offers and then leave them all scrambling to sign one-year deals or to sit the season out.

For such a thing to happen — or for teams to want to keep their bright young stars or for the league to want to maintain fan interest and keep attendance from continuing to slide — there must be incentives put in place to make them want to sign and retain players. To make them want to win. To make them want to excite the fan base.

At present, such incentives are not there. And, as such, we are faced with yet another winter with a cold, cold stove.