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.

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 issue then becomes, let's say the Jays hire Ryne Sandberg, who turns out to be a good manager. So the Yankees want him when he's still under contract to Toronto, and Sandberg wants to go to New York. What can the Jays do? 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, as they did with John Farrell. Sandberg would know that the precedent is that if you want a better job than the one in Toronto, you're entitled to go get it.

It just smacks of turning Toronto into a farm team for the more powerful clubs - not for players, but for management personnel. That strikes me as a bad position to be in.

They can't ask for more than token compensation from the Yankees, even if they really want to keep Sandberg.

Why not?

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...

So what?

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.

In principle, yes, but I don't think this is what the Jays did. Last year, when they wanted Farrell they kept him. This year, they no longer wanted him so they got something for him (I think for perception they would have been better with even a C prospect, but maybe they really wanted Aviles). If Farrell was the guy they wanted managing their team, the Jays would have kept him.

Um, why was this a secret?

Good question. For whatever reason, AA keeps all this stuff incredibly close to his chest.

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.

For the record, I absolutely hate this new standard. A lot of mediocre coaches (particularly in collegiate sports) have be re-upped only to be dismissed not long after, because there's apparently just no way anyone can work effectively in the last year of a contract.

Isn't Jim Leyland currently on a year to year deal? It sure hasn't seemed to hurt his ability to manage.

Watching the Blue Jays play a lot this year, I'm surprised Farrell survived the season and even more surprised that someone else would want him. I saw lots of sloppy play, repeated mistakes, and outright dumb decisions. I wondered if it was really Bob Geren in disguise.

I saw lots of sloppy play, repeated mistakes, and outright dumb decisions. I wondered if it was really Bob Geren in disguise.

This is a big part of why I'm looking forward to him managing the Red Sox.

Isn't Jim Leyland currently on a year to year deal? It sure hasn't seemed to hurt his ability to manage.

Also Dusty Baker. He won the division on the last year of his contract, then re-upped after their playoff exit. If you can't manage a team with only one year left on your contract, then the real problem might just be that you can't manage a team.

Last year, when they wanted Farrell they kept him.

Did someone else want Farrell last year?

Did someone else want Farrell last year?

The Red Sox.

Really? I guess I wasn't aware of that. What happened?

Isn't Jim Leyland currently on a year to year deal?

Yes, and if the Tigers hadn't pulled out a playoff appearance at the last minute, he probably would've been fired.

Did someone else want Farrell last year?

The Pirates kicked the tires on him two years ago as well, when they hired Hurdle.

The Pirates kicked the tires on him two years ago as well, when they hired Hurdle.

Pretty sure the Pirates actually tried to get him when he was with the Sox and the Sox refused. I don't remember the circumstances.

Really? I guess I wasn't aware of that. What happened?

Toronto asked for Buchholz.

Toronto asked for Buchholz.

Well, good for them. That changes my mind a bit about what happened in the curent negotiations.

Well, good for them.

At the time, it was their way of telling the Red Sox to #### off.

You can blame the media for the last-year deal thing. They incessantly ##### and complain about it and its a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Leyland and Baker are more established and avoided most of the media's badgering. Or maybe they avoid it since they're a little prickly.

Buffoonery: John Farrell’s disloyalty to Blue Jays shines through


FTFY

Well, good for them. That changes my mind a bit about what happened in the curent negotiations.

If only they had subscribed to the Mr. Burns school of diplomacy: "The negotiations have failed! Shoot him!"

It still eats at me a little that the A's had Francona as a bench coach but chose to keep the incompetent Ken Macha and eventually let Tito go to Boston. 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 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.

The guy managed the only A's team to win a playoff series in the last 20 years and this the appreciation he gets.

My biggest qualm/question with this (as a totally disinterested NL-loving party) is the idea that being the manager of a club in Major League Baseball like Toronto is just a "stepping stone" to the big clubs (Boston, New York, et al.)

This just seems really weird on its face. Any time there's an open managing spot, we never talk about current major league managers as being available for the job - it's always the minor league managers and the bench coaches who haven't had a shot, or former managers-cum-analysts itching to get back in the clubhouse.

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.

This is a collective action problem, right? If all of the "less prestigious" organizations got together and decided they would all stick together on this, then hey, that'd work great (not that they would be allowed to do so, of course).

But if the 2013 Toronto Blue Jays are thinking solely about the 2013 Toronto Blue Jays, well, what are they supposed to do? They could try to "make a point" by keeping Farrell, but it's only worth doing that if other teams then do the same, so that "manager-poaching" dies out. Far more likely, all they get out of it is a manager whom they don't much want to keep around anyway, and who doesn't want them much anymore either. That's not to say at all that Farrell wouldn't be a professional and try his best in Toronto. There's still a big difference between someone "trying his best" and someone who actually wants to be there. (Indeed, perhaps the Jays shouldn't have hired Farrell in the first place knowing that he'd jump to Boston if he ever got the chance. Although I'm sure they asked him about it and he said he wouldn't.)

You can and should put rules in place to increase the parity of the sport on the field, but I don't think there's any way you can legislate away the psychology that someone might want to work somewhere else more than he wants to work for you.

71: Well, this is the thing. The implication is that, compared to Boston and New York, Toronto is a minor-league club. It is this implication that is ticking off Jays fans. Especially since it seemed like this whole thing was pushed on the Jays' management by some combination of the Red Sox front office, Boston media, and Farrell himself, until they had no realistic choice but to trade Farrell and at least try to get something out of it.

I find the track records of pitching coaches as managers, in general, and John Farrell as manager, in specific, to be wholly uninspiring.

Bob Ryan was on Toronto radio yesterday saying this exact thing. Said he didn't think how the Blue Jays played this year reflected well on Farrell and he would have preferred the Red Sox select Ausmus.

Well, good for them.

At the time, it was their way of telling the Red Sox to #### off.

Last year and this September Farrell told Anthopoulos and Beeston he would like to go to Boston.

The slimy thing about this whole episode was the Jays amending the policy to prohibit someone leaving for a lateral position. If you're going to have such a policy, fine, but it seems pretty slimy to suddenly create it and apply it to people already in your organization. The fact that the Jays didn't have such a policy may have been a positive in Farrell's decision to sign with the Jays in the first place.

I'd say the Jays were the ones who were disloyal. They changed the rules on Farrell after Farrell arrived.

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.

All of this explains why I have zero problem with homeowners walking away from their underwater homes.