Hello fellow Red Sox Fan. Please take a moment to Click here and register You will be able to enjoy the many features that our Red Sox Nation Fan community has to offer. Please note that we do not take kindly to trolls,or spammers!
How important is it for our Next manager? - Blogs - Red Sox Nation Fans
Donation Goal 
Donate Now Goal amount for this month: 50 USD, Received: 50 USD (100%)
If you like our forum and would like to give something in return, you can make a donation. Your donation will be used to pay for hosting service, domain, and maintenance costs, As well as Items for Member Raffles.

View RSS Feed

Fenway

How important is it for our Next manager?

Rate this Entry
13 Comments
by
Fenway
, 11-24-2011 at 10:04 PM (765 Views)
How important is the Boston Red Sox managers role? Is it important enough that we should give up one of our current top 3 starters in the rotation? Well according to The Toronto Blue Jays John Farrell is worth just that to the Toronto Blue Jays. Just when we thought that the Sox were taking their sweet time picking our next manager because ownership had the thoughts that Valentine was the answer it is being reported that the Sox have had continuing talks with the Blue Jays in regards to acquiring John Farrell. Who of the top 3 starters would it take? Clay Buchholz is the answer my friends. It is also being reported that the Sox stopped talks after the Blue Jays told them who it would take.

I do not believe though that the talks have stopped because now the Red Sox are also being linked to C.J. Wilson? If we lost Buchholz and gained Wilson are we really taking a huge hit? Sure Buchholz is young but he is also coming back from a serious back injury where the Sox have no guarantees to how he will recover from it? Wilson however has been a force during the regular season and right now that is what the Sox in my opinion need to build for the regular season. With Farrell at the helm who's to say he can't right the current sinking Sox Ship? He in my opinion has done an awesome job with the Jays in his first season as manager. I can not tell you how many times while I was watching the Sox play the Jays I had wished Francona played small ball as much as Farrell did. As much as I love the the heart and soul of Buchholz I have to be honest and say I love the heart and soul of Farrell a lot more. Add Wilson into the rotation and all is forgotten in my opinion. What say you Red Sox Nation?

The Red Sox asked the Blue Jays about Toronto manager (and former Sox pitching coach) John Farrell. According to David Waldstein of the New York Times (Twitter link), the Jays asked for Clay Buchholz in return. As Rosenthal wrote, "the Sox never considered it likely that the Jays would engage in serious discussions about Farrell, and the conversations failed to progress," which isn't at all surprising if Buchholz was the asking price

Submit "How important is it for our Next manager?" to Digg Submit "How important is it for our Next manager?" to del.icio.us Submit "How important is it for our Next manager?" to StumbleUpon Submit "How important is it for our Next manager?" to Google

Categories
My Blogs

Comments

  1. skipjack47's Avatar
    I posted in chat that if it is small ball that we want, Bobby V. would fit the bill, since he has always been a proponent of small-ball. ( I much prefer Farrell, though. ) I do think the Red Sox are built for small-ball, and small-ball is exciting baseball. That said, I do not think it is in the DNA of the organization, though. I cannot remember the Red Sox ever being a small-ball team. I would like to see it played at all levels of the organization, to the point that it becomes part of the culture of the organization from Lowell to Pawtuckett to the Red Sox themselves. It will take more than a manager to pull that off, however.
  2. From0to3to4to3's Avatar
    I wouldn't give up Buchholz for Farrell.

    Farrell is signed with the Jays through 2013, two more seasons. Have the talks with him, find out if he wants to come back and manage the Sox in 2014.

    Then sign your Bloody Valentine or your whomever to a 2-year with a club option for a third year...which would be hard to do. So you sign him for the typical 3-year deal, then cut him loose after two and pay him off you really really still have that man-crush on Farrell.

    The Red Sox have Buchholz at a good pay rate through 2014, he's expensive in 2015, then they have two expensive club options for 2015 and 2016. Assuming a solid recovery and a return to his fine form, he could average 16 wins a year. Last year only three pitchers in the American League won more than 16 games.
  3. SwedeRS's Avatar
    Ooooof Buchie for Farrell?!??!!? Heeeeell no.. And do that to bring in C.J., heeeeeeeeeeell no..
  4. Fenway's Avatar
    I understand what you all are saying but keep in mind that Valentine has not managed in MLB for over 9 years times have changed in MLB a lot has changed actually since Valentine managed. Although it seems more likely that the Sox make Valentine their manager it just does not make sense to me.......But then again that is just my opinion. Rumors now are Red Sox are Interested in Gio Gonzale from the A's? It's going to take a lot to trade for Gio Gonzalez I would have to think considering his age and how good he is.
  5. From0to3to4to3's Avatar
    The A's got something like 5 or 6 players in return when they traded Haren to the Diamondbacks. with that precedent, yup, the original asking price for Gonzalez will be high. You are correct, they have leverage with Gonzalez. He's young, he's inexpensive, and the A's don't need to get rid of him.

    I'm not buying Valentine. If he comes to Boston, he comes. We'll deal with it. I do think that his attitude will actually have upside to begin with, but unless he's become wiser with age, he'll eventually blow up. He's very much a Type A personality. He needs to be loved. You question his authority, he'll turn on you. Or the press. Or a player. Valentine could be a fine skipper when the ship is sailing through calm seas. In a storm with the ship in distress, he'll throw you overboard.

    I've eaten at his restaurant a couple of times and talked ball, politics, whatever. He's very personable, he loves to be recognized, he's very very hands-on. But he comes across to me as very needy, that that's what bothers me. That's the burr under the saddle.

    Mechanically, I think he'd manage the Red Sox well. It's within the mix of personalities that trouble could brew. With guys with strong personalities, like Youk, or the entire front office, he could have difficulty there. Guys that may need a tender touch or encouragement (Crawford? DiceK?), he could excel with them.

    In many ways Valentine is the anti-Francona.

    For a manager, I appreciate guys like Jim Leyland, a "baseball guy". Valentine, while knowing baseball, is a "pretty boy". He still knows baseball...but he probably carries a comb in his uniform pants pocket.
  6. coachl78's Avatar
    Im not sold on Look at Me Bobby V! Farrell on the other hand would be a great choice, not at the expense of Bucholtz though Sorry!
  7. minus438's Avatar
    I, for one, don't understand at all this "we want compensation for losing our manager...or General Manager." That's just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard in MLB. Why stop there? How much further is this nonsense going to go? I can just see it now: "OK....we'll let you have our manager, but you have to give us your cleanup hitter AND your Head Groundskeeper, 3 janitors, 2 ushers and one of your concessions people." Come on, now! This is stupid. Compensation should only be player for player, or executive for executive and/or contract and cash, but NOT executive for player. Stupid! Remember: the Sox lost a guy named "Ruth" in order to finance a Broadway Show (No, No, Nanette) for in' out loud! Just my opinion.
  8. Fenway's Avatar
    I guess I am confused how many of you were willing to Let Beckett be traded for an upgrade to the team. By the way Beckett far better than Bucholtz. But none the less All signs are still pointing to Valentine unfortunately. Before anyone replies with Beckett is a pain in the Red Sox asses because he drank and was out of shape bare in mind Bucholtz drank along with the group as well while he was suppose to be rehabbing his back.
  9. skipjack47's Avatar
    I don't like Valentine, but I don't think the world will end if he becomes the next skipper. I don't think it is worth either Bucholtz or Beckett to get someone other than Valentine.
  10. bloodysox's Avatar
    If we get Valentine, it's not such a bad idea that we CAN play "smallball'. Tito did not like smallball because he didn't want to give away an out "for any reason". I think all major league teams should be able to execute the fundamentals. However, a number of times in recent seasons the 'Sox looked like donkeys trying to execute a hit-and-run, a squeeze a plain old sacrifice bunt. Don't get me started with possibly the worst base running in the league. Bobby V knows and stresses fundamentals and THAT does not change no matter how long he has been away from MLB.
    Updated 11-26-2011 at 01:00 AM by bloodysox
  11. bloodysox's Avatar
    Ferrell, a very good pitching coach definitely struggled to try and keep the 'Jays in contention with one of the best-hitting teams in MLB. Sox should definitely not give up a front-line pitcher or top picks to help the Jays contend. Stupid.
  12. skipjack47's Avatar
    bloodysox: I agree with both of your points. I think the reason the Red Sox did not do well with small-ball tactics is because it is not something they practice, at any level. None of the Red Sox minor league teams play small-ball.
  13. JoeC's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by minus438
    I, for one, don't understand at all this "we want compensation for losing our manager...or General Manager." That's just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard in MLB. Why stop there? How much further is this nonsense going to go? I can just see it now: "OK....we'll let you have our manager, but you have to give us your cleanup hitter AND your Head Groundskeeper, 3 janitors, 2 ushers and one of your concessions people." Come on, now! This is stupid. Compensation should only be player for player, or executive for executive and/or contract and cash, but NOT executive for player. Stupid! Remember: the Sox lost a guy named "Ruth" in order to finance a Broadway Show (No, No, Nanette) for in' out loud! Just my opinion.
    Excellant point you made there Minus. As in all bussiness there has to be concessions made and deals to be had, so people pay in one form or another. We will never ever FORGET the trade of the Bambino thats for sure....... " no, no nanette" ? give me a break. Frazee is probably wondering how much he made in the reciepts. LMAO