BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Blue Jays wanted Buchholz for John Farrell

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, November 25, 2011

Blue Jays wanted Buchholz for John Farrell

CLAY?!...I’d alert Sons of Anarchy before Sons of Sam Horn!

According to a tweet from David Waldstein from the New York Times, the Blue Jays asked for Clay Buchholz as compensation if the Red Sox were going to hire away John Farrell to become their manager. FoxSports.com originally reported that the Red Sox had identified Farrell as a potential candidate for their managerial opening, but, as Ken Rosenthal wrote, “never considered it likely the Jays would engage in serious discussions about Farrell, and the conversations failed to progress.”

The Red Sox are still currently considering three candidates—Bobby Valentine, Gene Lamont and Torey Lovullo—for their open manager job.

Repoz Posted: November 25, 2011 at 03:57 AM | 42 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: blue jays, red sox

Reader Comments and Retorts

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.

1. Textbook Editor Posted: November 25, 2011 at 04:56 AM (#4000760)

Well, if it is true, asking for Buchholz is basically another way of saying "No, you can't talk to him," since no sane team on this planet would give a pitcher like Buchholz as compensation for a manager. I suspect the Blue Jays knew what the answer would be, but on the off-chance Cherington turned out to be insane, they thought they'd try this move.

2. ...and Toronto selects: Troy Tulowitzki Posted: November 25, 2011 at 05:01 AM (#4000761)

I thought it would have been fun to ask for Garza.

3. bookbook Posted: November 25, 2011 at 05:18 AM (#4000764)

This insanity has to stop. If a non-player wants to leave for another opportunity, employment contracts should not be an insurmountable barrier (at least in the free world).

4. KronicFatigue Posted: November 25, 2011 at 05:22 AM (#4000765)

I think it's a fair balance to forcing the employer to repay the remaining part of the contract should THEY decide to pursue another opportunity.

5. Darren

Posted: November 25, 2011 at 05:58 AM (#4000770)

Why only non players? They have contracts like players do.

I think this its a completely reasonable request for a division foe. What's interesting its that they spelled out they wanted in advance. What a novel idea.

6. Ray (RDP)

Posted: November 25, 2011 at 06:18 AM (#4000773)

This insanity has to stop. If a non-player wants to leave for another opportunity, employment contracts should not be an insurmountable barrier (at least in the free world).

The contract was - freely - negotiated. Farrell had the right to turn the Blue Jays' offer down. Instead, he thought it was good for him, and so he accepted it. And should honor it. If he wants out, that's not "insurmountable" - but the Blue Jays don't have to let him out for nothing, either.

What's the point of a contract, from the employer's standpoint, if the minute the employee finds that something better has come along, he bolts? What's the point if the contract only means anything to one side? Would Farrell expect to be paid under the terms of the contract if the Blue Jays fired him?

7. Ray (RDP)

Posted: November 25, 2011 at 06:18 AM (#4000774)

8. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 25, 2011 at 06:25 AM (#4000775)

What's the point if the contract only means anything to one side?

Dunno. Let's ask the NFL. :)

Also, I'm glad to see AA ask for a steep price.

9. bookbook Posted: November 25, 2011 at 01:31 PM (#4000801)

okay, if you're a nonplayer, negotiate a buyout clause into any contract you sign. Do the Blue Jays want to have a disgruntled employee at the helm?

10. Brian

Posted: November 25, 2011 at 02:23 PM (#4000803)

Disgruntled my ass. The people in question are professional and should be counted on to do their best whether they would rather be elsewhere or not. If not, they will destroy their reputation and probably have difficulty finding a meaningful job again. Otherwise let them work on a non-cotract basis where the Jays would give Farrell 2 weeks pay per year of service and kick him to the curb when they want to.

11. Rusty Priske Posted: November 25, 2011 at 02:27 PM (#4000804)

If they Jays were stoppin ghim from accepting a promotion, I could understand why somneone would be upset.

To say that the Jays are not treating Farrell fairly implies that the Red Sox position is superior to the Jays position and I do not accept that. At all.

12. Fancy Pants is braggadocious about his Handle Posted: November 25, 2011 at 02:39 PM (#4000808)

If they Jays were stoppin ghim from accepting a promotion, I could understand why somneone would be upset.

To say that the Jays are not treating Farrell fairly implies that the Red Sox position is superior to the Jays position and I do not accept that. At all.

I'm a Sox fan, and I'm with you. I felt the same way, when Cubs fans were saying "You'll take a bag of baseballs for Theo, and like it! We are doing you a favor!".

13. ...and Toronto selects: Troy Tulowitzki Posted: November 25, 2011 at 02:53 PM (#4000812)

To say that the Jays are not treating Farrell fairly implies that the Red Sox position is superior to the Jays position and I do not accept that. At all.

Obviously, first and foremost who truly thinks this is whomever in the Red Sox front office that had the thought and asked Toronto to speak to Farrell.

14. Textbook Editor Posted: November 25, 2011 at 03:06 PM (#4000816)

I have no problem with the Jays asking for Buchholz, to clarify #1. I was just pointing out that in doing so, it functioned as a de facto "No, you can't have him" response. Which is also fine. Sometimes you ask for the moon and get it, so it's always worth trying.

The Red Sox are the idiots for not establishing the compensation before they allowed Theo to talk to the Cubs. It is possible that they didn't do it because they felt that there was no way Theo would go, but if that was the case they're also idiots.

15. ...and Toronto selects: Troy Tulowitzki Posted: November 25, 2011 at 03:17 PM (#4000820)

I was just pointing out that in doing so, it functioned as a de facto "No, you can't have him" response.

Bingo. If they're annoyed and/or just don't want to deal with a procession of nagging "can we?" can we?", just ask for Buchholz and effectively tell them: "Get over yourself, and p_ss off".

16. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 25, 2011 at 03:18 PM (#4000821)

The Red Sox are the idiots for not establishing the compensation before they allowed Theo to talk to the Cubs. It is possible that they didn't do it because they felt that there was no way Theo would go, but if that was the case they're also idiots.

Could be they really wanted him to go or thought it wasn't prudent to retain someone who wanted to leave, and didn't want to risk the compensation issue blocking the move.

17. OCD SS Posted: November 25, 2011 at 04:19 PM (#4000834)

Obviously, first and foremost who truly thinks this is whomever in the Red Sox front office that had the thought and asked Toronto to speak to Farrell.

Um, no.

Teams ask for permission to interview personnel under contract to another team all the time. For all the Sox know there may be internal reasons the Jays or AA would be willing to let Farrel out of his contract. Not to mention that the Jays did have a a team policy about not blocking said personnel from leaving (right up until the Sox called to formally request permission to talk to Farrel, at which point they changed it).

This is really only about one team doing something most teams do during a managerial search, and the other side effectively saying "no." Any issue of "respect" or assumption of status is your own problem that you're projecting onto what is an otherwise common practice in MLB.

18. ...and Toronto selects: Troy Tulowitzki Posted: November 25, 2011 at 04:45 PM (#4000844)

Come on. There are no problems with Farrell and Blue Jays, and if there were they'd let him look elsewhere. Farrell was with the Sox org for years, they let him interview for a job right across the street, he took it, now they're own house is a mess, and they're sh_tting where they eat, back bitting and vendetta'ing each other, and it's just ho-hum, when they come right back a year later and say: "Ah, ya gee, we goofed and we got a problem here, can we have him back."

19. Swedish Chef Posted: November 25, 2011 at 05:10 PM (#4000851)

I think it would be better to just say "No". Because of the following scenario:

1. The Red Sox accepts, gambling that Selig would be apoplectic about such a deal.
2. Selig complies and alters the deal "in the best interests of baseball", he substitutes an A-ball junkballer for Bucholz.
3. Everybody in Toronto is sorry about giving the snarky reply.

20. FrankM Posted: November 25, 2011 at 05:19 PM (#4000856)

#19 - why would Selig be apoplectic about such a deal? Is he a Red Sox fan?

21. Dan The Mediocre Posted: November 25, 2011 at 05:20 PM (#4000857)

#19 - why would Selig be apoplectic about such a deal? Is he a Red Sox fan?

He reportedly ruled out sending Major League players as compensation for Epstein.

22. ...and Toronto selects: Troy Tulowitzki Posted: November 25, 2011 at 05:23 PM (#4000860)

3. Everybody in Toronto is sorry about giving the snarky reply.

I get the feeling that, if any of this conversation between the clubs is true, Blue Jays fans are quite pleased with the response, and enjoy that their club said it considering.

23. TVerik Posted: November 25, 2011 at 05:25 PM (#4000862)

Farrell was with the Sox org for years, they let him interview for a job right across the street, he took it, now they're own house is a mess,

He did not take an equivalent job with the Jays originally. It was a step up, and I don't know if the Red Sox realistically had any ability to block his interview for that job.

24. FrankM Posted: November 25, 2011 at 05:29 PM (#4000863)

Major league players have been traded for field managers before. I don't know if there is a different standard for GM's.

25. ValueArbitrageur Posted: November 25, 2011 at 05:33 PM (#4000866)

I'm a Sox fan, and I'm with you. I felt the same way, when Cubs fans were saying "You'll take a bag of baseballs for Theo, and like it! We are doing you a favor!".

The difference of course is that Theo was leaving either way, and the Sox thought they could game the Cubs out of unreasonable compensation if they let them offer the job to Theo first, rather than negotiate compensation up front.

The Sox never wanted Theo coming back and running the team for his last year, they wanted to save the huge bonus and didn't want him privy to all their plans or obstructing Luccino.

He reportedly ruled out sending Major League players as compensation for Epstein.

Because the Sox miscalculated and thought the commissioner would let them negotiate absurd compensation for a GM they had already let leave, and couldn't take back.

26. ...and Toronto selects: Troy Tulowitzki Posted: November 25, 2011 at 05:41 PM (#4000870)

Okay sure. Now everyones on equal footing. Job switches only for latteral movement advancement, and Boston was told 'No, the guy just got here, and ya know, we sorta have a lot of time invested and things built around him. That and he's happy here'.

27. FrankM Posted: November 25, 2011 at 07:01 PM (#4000912)

As a Blue Jay fan, I would love to see the Red Sox try the strategy outlined in #19. Trade Buchholz for Farrell, and then appeal, hoping for Selig to reverse it. There's very little downside for Toronto. At worst, they'll have to find a new manager. Big deal. It's not like Farrell is the second coming of Joe McCarthy.

28. OCD SS Posted: November 25, 2011 at 07:17 PM (#4000918)

Come on. There are no problems with Farrell and Blue Jays, and if there were they'd let him look elsewhere. Farrell was with the Sox org for years, they let him interview for a job right across the street, he took it, now they're own house is a mess, and they're sh_tting where they eat, back bitting and vendetta'ing each other, and it's just ho-hum, when they come right back a year later and say: "Ah, ya gee, we goofed and we got a problem here, can we have him back."

And how would the Red Sox know unless they went through proper channels and asked his employer if they could interview him? That's what they did, and the Jays put out a ridiculous compensation demand that ended the conversation just as well as saying "no." I've got no real problem with that.

What is silly is for Jays fans to be offended that the Sox asked to interview him, as if just asking to interview him is somehow looking down on the Jays. Teams ask to talk to people about lateral position moves all the time. Looking at it any other way is just spinning it to suit your own fancy (and, I might add, isn't even supported by anything coming out of either team).

29. Good cripple hitter Posted: November 25, 2011 at 07:27 PM (#4000926)

Teams ask to talk to people about lateral position moves all the time. Looking at it any other way is just spinning it to suit your own fancy (and, I might add, isn't even supported by anything coming out of either team).

Do they? I can't remember hearing about it in a situation like this: the person who would make the lateral move is the team's manager, the manager's only been with the team for one year, the GM hasn't been fired, there's no whispers that the team is unhappy with the manager, or the manager's not happy with the team.

It's possible that teams ask to interview managers for lateral moves all the time and it's just not reported much, or I haven't read those kinds of rumors, but I can't really think of a comparable situation where a team asked to hire a manager who was pretty much brand new and liked by upper management.

I don't mind that the Sox asked to interview Farrell, or that the Jays tried to turn it into a Zambrano for Kazmir type deal, I just find it a bit weird, especially given that the teams are in the same division and the Jays hired Farrell away from Boston so recently.

30. ...and Toronto selects: Troy Tulowitzki Posted: November 25, 2011 at 07:43 PM (#4000930)

@ OCD SS

Well that's how you see it. There is no spin by me. It is interpreted by many that the TO response to BOS had meaning. In just the last hour from Craig Calcaterra:

"In asking for Buchholz, the Jays came about as close to a chuckling eff-you that one team can give another team in such situations."

And which Jays fan is offended? It's fun content.

31. Ray (RDP)

Posted: November 25, 2011 at 09:02 PM (#4000968)

okay, if you're a nonplayer, negotiate a buyout clause into any contract you sign. Do the Blue Jays want to have a disgruntled employee at the helm?

The Blue Jays "want" for the man that accepted their job offer to put a good faith effort forward. If Farrell can't do that, he's in the wrong profession.

He was free to try to negotiate whatever clause he wanted. Presumably, he decided it was better to (a) take the money, and (b) not plant a seed at the beginning that he would be eager to resign if something better came along.

32. ...and Toronto selects: Troy Tulowitzki Posted: November 25, 2011 at 09:32 PM (#4000977)

Considering Ricciardi left TO blowing in the breeze for a while back in '02, while he soaked up all adoration and attention he got about 'will he/won't he' run into Boston arms, i'm guessing they have zero desire to go back down the road again.

33. Sonic Youk Posted: November 25, 2011 at 10:07 PM (#4000984)

1. Complain about assumptions of superiority
2. Project giant inferiority complex.

34. ...and Toronto selects: Troy Tulowitzki Posted: November 25, 2011 at 10:29 PM (#4000988)

Aww, how clever and wordy. Congrats, cookie for you. Not hard to guess which side of things you normally are privileged to sit.

35. OCD SS Posted: November 26, 2011 at 02:14 AM (#4001058)

And which Jays fan is offended?

Apparently you.

It's fun content.

Not belabor the point, but I read the request pretty much the same way as CC, and I don't have a problem with it. But I certainly don't think it's somehow looking down at the Jays to make the request.

36. Vaux, A.B.D. Posted: November 26, 2011 at 03:31 AM (#4001090)

I think it's objectively pretty clear that at this point in history the Red Sox managing job is more attractive than the Blue Jays managing job, and would be considered tantamount to a promotion by the person moving from the latter to the former. That doesn't mean that it's inherently better, just that it's better right now, because the team has a better roster right now--a more attractive roster to manage--and because upper management expects and demands to contend, while in Toronto, upper management merely hopes to contend, so that the Red Sox managing job is one that comes with more implicit responsibility than the Blue Jays managing job.

That could all be different in three years, but that's the way it is now. Changing from being Blue Jays manager to being Red Sox manager in 2012 is not a lateral move, it's a promotion. It's not because of market size, or sense of entitlement; changing from being the Mets manager to being the Rays manager in 2012 would be a promotion, too.

37. Greg Pope Posted: November 26, 2011 at 03:42 AM (#4001093)

Why is it always assumed that the person in question here (Theo or Farrell) is going to be disgruntled? First of all we don't even know if Farrell wanted the job (which is different than Theo, of course). But just because someone interviews for a better* job, it doesn't mean they're unhappy in their current job.

*Most of the talk has been that the new job is more desired than the current one for whatever reason.

38. Greg (U)K Posted: November 26, 2011 at 04:42 AM (#4001125)

1. Complain about assumptions of superiority
2. Project giant inferiority complex.

We're Canadians. This is what we do.

39. ...and Toronto selects: Troy Tulowitzki Posted: November 26, 2011 at 03:20 PM (#4001200)

Apparently you

You've assumed that.

We're Canadians. This is what we do.

Entitlement. Perhaps that what certains others "do". Perhaps. Or rudeness. Some do that quite well as well.

Anyways, fun's over.

40. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: November 26, 2011 at 05:10 PM (#4001223)

In his prime Earl Weaver for Buchholz. Don't you do that deal if you're the Sox?

41. jonas Posted: November 26, 2011 at 11:35 PM (#4001357)

Changing from being Blue Jays manager to being Red Sox manager in 2012 is not a lateral move, it's a promotion. It's not because of market size, or sense of entitlement; changing from being the Mets manager to being the Rays manager in 2012 would be a promotion, too.

Interesting reasoning, and not a hint of self-serving. Curious though, why you forgot to add that 'obviously' changing from being the Red Sox manager, coach, or GM, to being the Yankees manager, coach or GM would also be a promotion by the same logic.

42. villageidiom Posted: November 27, 2011 at 12:28 AM (#4001380)

Curious though, why you forgot to add that 'obviously' changing from being the Red Sox manager, coach, or GM, to being the Yankees manager, coach or GM would also be a promotion by the same logic.

There are 435 two-team combinations he could have mentioned; he listed two. And you're curious why he didn't list one specific case of the remaining 433? Get the #### over yourself.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Friday, November 25, 2011

Blue Jays wanted Buchholz for John Farrell

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics