Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
In what way did Farrell force this?
The next time he hires a guy to manage the Blue Jays, he’s got to hire someone who sincerely wants to be here, and is not using the organization as a stepping stone.
To Harveys point I'm not looking for "loyalty" but I do think honoring a contract should be expected.
I really think Major League Baseball should do something about this.
It seems like he was prepared to honor his contract in the event that they decided to keep him around, wasn't he?
I really think Major League Baseball should do something about this. Exactly what I don't know but I think it's a bad precedent to allow people under contract to force a move to another team.
I'm not looking for "loyalty" but I do think honoring a contract should be expected.
This is patently false. They need Toronto's permission. All AA (or Beeston) had to do was say "Go Pound Sand" and the Sox would have no recourse. They would have hired Ausmus and life would go on.
it wouldn't surprise me at all if he's a complete and total disaster there.
This is a good synopsis of the Farrell saga, and worth a read for any Boston fan: Richard Griffin on Farrell
Were the Red Sox being disloyal when they canned Bobby V? Contracts get broken all the time, and the party that does the breaking typically has to pony up--be it the remaining salary owed or a light-hitting middle infielder.
Richard Griffin on Farrell
What happens if Bautista walks in to AA's office and says he wants to join Farrell in Boston and he's not going to suit up for Toronto if that doesn't happen?
Honestly, he's the worst manager I've seen in Toronto.
A quality article by Richard Griffin? What is the world coming to? :)
A quality article by Richard Griffin? What is the world coming to?
@ Jose: I guess I don't understand the BFD here. It seems like it worked out well for both sides. Is some of this still lingering from the Clemens/Wells fiasco?
Having read the griffin piece, I'm left wondering, did Farrell sandbag the season, or did the Sox hire someone who can't manage a team?
Farrell's winning percentage as a manager is much higher than Tito's was when he was hired in Boston. Means little but still.
As time goes on I have become convinced that FIT is by far the most important aspect of a managerial hire. Tito struggled in Philly but was the perfect hire in Boston. I think Farrell fits very well in Boston: he has the respect of the players, will work well with the FO and has extensive experience working in the city already. Not to say he couldn't have fit better in Toronto, but all those things are positives for me.
I think that sets a bad precedent.
Anthopoulos had never announced Farrell's contract was a three-year deal, but late in the season when the Sox rumours began, it was the manager that answered a direct question with a direct answer. Yes, he had one more year on his contract. Again, Anthopoulos was not pleased.
The Jays have to play the long game-- while they could have held Farrell hostage in Toronto, treating high-level professionals with respect is something that ultimately will work out in your favor when attempting to attract top-level talent to your organization in the future.
They can't ask for more than token compensation from the Yankees, even if they really want to keep Sandberg.
If they turn down a compensation offer from the Yankees to keep Sandberg, Sandberg will be unhappy that they didn't let him pursue the job...
I agree with this, but I also think part of that long game is letting the more prestigious organizations know that they can't just poach talent that is under contract to you. Apparently, the Red Sox didn't want Aviles anyway, so the Jays aren't getting more than token compensation for Farrell.
The one precedent that seems to have been set over the last few years that people here are ignoring is that several managers have been ineffective as lame ducks on the last year of their contracts, so any manager with 1 year left on a contract is at this point effectively at the end of his contract. Teams are either extending managers when they have a year left on their contract or they're hiring a new manager.
Isn't Jim Leyland currently on a year to year deal? It sure hasn't seemed to hurt his ability to manage.
Last year, when they wanted Farrell they kept him.
Did someone else want Farrell last year?
Isn't Jim Leyland currently on a year to year deal?
The Pirates kicked the tires on him two years ago as well, when they hired Hurdle.
Really? I guess I wasn't aware of that. What happened?
Toronto asked for Buchholz.
Well, good for them. That changes my mind a bit about what happened in the curent negotiations.
I don't know if Francona would have stayed with the A's or if it was actually clear then he was going to be a good manager, but Macha sucked.
I also think part of that long game is letting the more prestigious organizations know that they can't just poach talent that is under contract to you.
I find the track records of pitching coaches as managers, in general, and John Farrell as manager, in specific, to be wholly uninspiring.
Well, good for them.
At the time, it was their way of telling the Red Sox to #### off.
i have been some form of management for long time and the only loyalty an employee owes is to himself and those he cares about at home
you work to live you don't live to work
john farrell manages john farrell's career. blue jays management sensibly recognized that their manager didn't have himself fixated on the job he had so why keep him around
you need trust in business but loyalty has you keeping you around deadweight when you need to move on. loyalty can get your business in the tank.
loyalty is for chumps.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (10 members)
Page rendered in 0.7140 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed