Looks like Tim Wallach is up first. The Sox were interested in him last year but I'm not sold that he's any more than window dressing.

I said in another thread yesterday that if the Sox didn't start interviewing serious candidates right away that it was probably a sign that they were going to wait out Farrell. I may be wrong but Wallach feels like just that type of not really that strong a candidate candidate that has me somewhat doubtful. I could be spectacularly wrong of course.

Ozzie! Ozzie!

Looks like Tim Wallach is up first. The Sox were interested in him last year but I'm not sold that he's any more than window dressing.

Pandering to the diversity freaks. Yeah, he's part Canadian, but can he do the job a full Canadian would?

I said in another thread yesterday that if the Sox didn't start interviewing serious candidates right away that it was probably a sign that they were going to wait out Farrell. I may be wrong but Wallach feels like just that type of not really that strong a candidate candidate that has me somewhat doubtful. I could be spectacularly wrong of course.

I remember thinking that Terry Francona seemed like a candidate of that sort. So I don't really know what I'm talking about, is my point.

Yeah, but Tito was the "price" for Schilling. I have no doubt that part of the famous Thanksgiving dinner in Arizona was a promise to give Francona more than just a shot at the job.

Carl Everett.

Actually, I can see it being Nomar.

You ####### can have Farrell, but I'm not willing to give up more than one prospect.

You ####### can have Farrell, but I'm not willing to give up more than one prospect.

Dude if I'm you I keep quiet. The Sox seem prepared to give up a prospect for Farrell. Sit back and let the Sox continue their 12 month run of incompetence.

Seeing Drake Britton's name bandied about has not pleased me. I'll admit that he's not some super prospect but lefties who throw in the mid to high 90s, don't #### around with them man.

Dude, if I'm me, I just want Farrell out of town as soon as possible, so we can see if this team will be any better with a non-idiot at the helm.

How is Lovullo viewed up there? He is a guy I'm interested in for absolutely valid reason. Is he tainted by association with Farrell or is he well regarded?

How is Lovullo viewed up there? He is a guy I'm interested in for absolutely valid reason. Is he tainted by association with Farrell or is he well regarded?

He's the first base coach, so he's largely invisible. I couldn't tell you anything good or bad that he's done, or what sort of inputs he has to Farrell.

Luccino isnt interfering in baseball ops, yet they cant START a managerial search without him?

Thought Brad Mills was supposed to be the obvious choice, though I don't follow the Red Sox that closely.

No real surprise but Brad Ausmus is on the list.

Thought Brad Mills was supposed to be the obvious choice, though I don't follow the Red Sox that closely.

John Farrell is the guy getting the pub in the press. I think a few of us here would like to see Mills but Farrell I think is at the top of the Sox' list right now.

Luccino isnt interfering in baseball ops, yet they cant START a managerial search without him?

Everyone I'm trying to hire is interviewing with me, my boss, and a few of my peers. The ultimate decision is mine.

Yes, if I like someone and my boss is strongly opposed, I won't hire; but that's the same as if any of my peers are strongly opposed. I respect their opinions. Likewise, if my boss is strongly in favor and I'm opposed, I won't hire.

I know we've had a thread on hiring/interviewing recently, but a substantial part of interviewing is identification of risks. You want a variety of perspectives for interviews, so you can better identify risks, but you also want the same interviewers for each candidate for consistency of feedback.

Once risks are identified, how you weight them might vary from person to person, but the weights used by the person responsible for hiring are what matter. If I'm Ben Cherington, I want to know what Lucchino thinks of a candidate. I might give his opinion negative weight, indicating that I should do the opposite of what he thinks. But I still want to know what he thinks.

Why pay big bucks for a manager in the first place? Just go with the College of Coaches.

How about an all expense paid trip to Australia for Larry?

That's just unfair on Australia.

After a season with a bloviating ex-broadcaster who can't get along with his colleagues, Boston's choice is clear: Ken Harrelson needs to become the Red Sox manager.

If I'm Ben Cherington, I want to know what Lucchino thinks of a candidate. I might give his opinion negative weight, indicating that I should do the opposite of what he thinks. But I still want to know what he thinks.

You aren't hiring at the Red Sox managerial level. They don't require same day interviews and can afford to bring candidates back in for second rounds.

Cherington and baseball operations should start by identifying and interviewing a broad range of candidates. Then, and only then, should their top choices meet with Larry and anyone else who isn't in baseball operations.

That's why my emphasis was on the START to the search. Forcing baseball operations to sit on their hands without being able to even start talking to candidates obviously means Cherington is GM in title only.

Larry Luccino is the Red Sox GM, and Ben is his junior assistant.

Cherington and baseball operations should start by identifying and interviewing a broad range of candidates. Then, and only then, should their top choices meet with Larry and anyone else who isn't in baseball operations.

So your recommendation, rather than have a process where Larry is a voice in the process, is to set it up so that before a candidate can be hired he must first return for a final interview with Larry? That gives Lucchino more power, not less, and does it in a more obvious way than what you're calling them out for.

Well, baseball mogul has told me Drake Britton will be a huge star, and since it seems to have been right about ####### pete ####### kozma you might as well get excited.

So your recommendation, rather than have a process where Larry is a voice in the process, is to set it up so that before a candidate can be hired he must first return for a final interview with Larry? That gives Lucchino more power, not less, and does it in a more obvious way than what you're calling them out for.

That's crazy talk. First of all, it clearly gives him less power, he can't shoehorn his own candidate in like he did with Bobby V, he can only offer his two cents on the GMs favorites.

And what power does interviewing last give him? If he had veto power, it doesnt make it more powerful to exercise it last, just more annoying. Again if he had the power to exclude and add candidates throughout the search,, that's power, and thats him running the show.

And Luccino shouldn't even have veto power. Only John Henry should.

That's crazy talk. First of all, it clearly gives him less power, he can't shoehorn his own candidate in like he did with Bobby V, he can only offer his two cents on the GMs favorites.

But this is precisely what happened last year. Basically CHerington picked a bunch of guys, interviewed them, then when Lucchino/Henry was asked for their opinion did Lamont et al get shoved aside and Valentine was brought in.

And what power does interviewing last give him? If he had veto power, it doesnt make it more powerful to exercise it last, just more annoying.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. Your original comment is based on your perception of the process from what was reported. Your perception is that the front office is sitting on their hands doing nothing until Lucchino returned. If it had been reported instead that the Red Sox had begun their search and had interviewed candidates, but that no decision would be made on any of them until they had come in for a final round of interviews specifically with Lucchino, what would you have concluded about Lucchino's role in the process? I think the latter case would make it appear explicit that the final decision is his, whereas in the actual reporting it's appears explicit that he's involved in the process.

Using 5-card draw as a metaphor... I'm thinking of the actual reporting as Lucchino being a player at the table, and the hypothetical case (of decisions awaiting final interview with him) as Lucchino getting to decide how many cards he wants (in 5-card draw) after everyone shows their hands. The latter case has more power over the end result.

Larry Lucchino has been highly involved in Red Sox decision making for much of his tenure as team president. Back in 2003, when the Red Sox were working out a deal with the Diamondbacks and trying to woo Curt Schilling to waive his no-trade, every story had Lucchino involved in the process. He was there for the managerial interviews that led to the Francona hire. The 2003-2005 teams were built by Theo Epstein, but Larry Lucchino was there in the room for all the major calls.

Post Gorilla-suit, Theo negotiated with ownership to get Lucchino out of there. He and Henry still had oversight, still had to sign off on calls, but he was less involved in the day to day or baseball ops. Theo ran the show, in a less complicated way, from the 2006 offseason on. This resulted in the excellent rebuilt club of 2007-2009 (a brilliant job of general managership that is sometimes overlooked), but also is the disasterpiece theater of 2010-2012.

Now Lucchino has returned to his more powerful, more involved pre-gorilla position in the management structure.

It's not a given, I'm saying, that having Larry Lucchino highly involved in baseball decisions is a bad thing. I do think he's more involved that vi seems to be implying (though perhaps he's not implying that, I can't quite tell), but I don't think that the problem for the Red Sox is simply Lucchino's involvement. It's that last offseason, Lucchino seemed to be involved in a wholly dysfunctional front office, where lots of bad decisions got made and major decisions (especially the manager search) were not handled through the proper channels. I think the problem is real, but it's more complicated than simply "Lucchino in the room == bad things".