Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

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

As an old movie buff pal used to say…“What Ever Happened to Baby Farrell?”

Convince me that this isn’t a kick in the teeth: Farrell informed his bosses at the end of each year in Toronto that he wanted to go somewhere else — but if that can’t be arranged, of course, he wants to keep his gig with the Blue Jays.

Disloyal? You think so? How about arrogant? Farrell talked about his conversation with Anthopoulos about the possibility of going to Boston a few weeks ago, and how AA apparently understood where he was coming from.

“Alex was very candid,” said Farrell. “And his analogy was that, you know what, he’s a guy from Montreal, and if Montreal Expos were still in play, and that opportunity opened up, it would be similar to that situation. So he understood it, and I thank him for that.”

Holy crap, apparently nobody wants be in Toronto!

Next, we’ll find out that Beeston wants move back to Welland!

...I don’t know about you, but Farrell’s words on Tuesday left a sour taste in my mouth.

Anthopoulos should be pissed (and I’d bet privately he is). AA has made some nice moves as a young GM, but there’s a valuable lesson in all of 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.

It says here that you’re not getting everything out of your manager if his heart is somewhere else. Farrell used the Jays as a stepping stone, and he stepped all over them.

Repoz Posted: October 24, 2012 at 05:35 AM | 76 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. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: October 24, 2012 at 07:04 AM (#4281291)
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. Just as I find the NFL's "non-guaranteed contract" thing completely ridiculous I think managers, players and everyone else should be expected to honor their end of the contract.
   2. Steve Treder Posted: October 24, 2012 at 07:18 AM (#4281293)
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.

In what way did Farrell force this?
   3. Rants Mulliniks Posted: October 24, 2012 at 07:21 AM (#4281294)
I don't think Farrell forced anything, but I don't have much respect for him, or Anthopoulous.
   4. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: October 24, 2012 at 08:07 AM (#4281304)
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.
   5. ecwcat Posted: October 24, 2012 at 08:17 AM (#4281310)
I still don't get why Farrell is such a great commodity, or why some Boston fans are ecstatic about it.

Still don't know why the Sox are a better team in 2013 than the Jays, or even in 2014.

Don't know how it leaked that the Sox wanted Farrell during the season, but it was unprofessional. The guy pretty much quit on his team.

Like Bobby V, he seeks fame and recognition by controlling the reigns, but that city will eat you alive.
   6. Spahn Insane Posted: October 24, 2012 at 08:21 AM (#4281313)
Wait, weren't the Jay fans pretty eager to get rid of him? (Mind you, I know nothing about Farrell other than what I get from scanning the BBTF headlines...)
   7. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: October 24, 2012 at 08:23 AM (#4281314)
In what way did Farrell force this?


Yeah, "force" may have been the wrong word but I'm still uncomfortable with this. To Harveys point I'm not looking for "loyalty" but I do think honoring a contract should be expected.
   8. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 24, 2012 at 08:39 AM (#4281321)
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.


That's going to be a bit hard to do, and I say that as a Jays fan.
   9. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: October 24, 2012 at 09:06 AM (#4281335)
To Harveys point I'm not looking for "loyalty" but I do think honoring a contract should be expected.


It seems like he was prepared to honor his contract in the event that they decided to keep him around, wasn't he?
   10. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 24, 2012 at 09:10 AM (#4281339)
I really think Major League Baseball should do something about this.


Clearly the Jays should be contracted.
   11. Smiling Joe Hesketh Posted: October 24, 2012 at 09:11 AM (#4281340)
Don't know how it leaked that the Sox wanted Farrell during the season, but it was unprofessional. The guy pretty much quit on his team.

Please provide evidence.
   12. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 24, 2012 at 09:11 AM (#4281341)
It seems like he was prepared to honor his contract in the event that they decided to keep him around, wasn't he?


But clearly, because his _heart wasn't in it_, he'd be secretly throwing all of the games against Boston.
   13. Smiling Joe Hesketh Posted: October 24, 2012 at 09:12 AM (#4281342)
It seems like he was prepared to honor his contract in the event that they decided to keep him around, wasn't he?

Yes. If the Jays forbade him from talking to the Sox, or decided not to engage the Sox in terms of compensation, then I'm sure Farrell would have been spending his utmost energies to manage the Jays next year. There's zero evidence that he was acting unprofessionally. Even if he told the Jays, "Boston is my dram job," if they decided to keep him in Toronto I'm positive he'd get over it and try his damndest to win there.

He's got a long post-playing baseball career to examine and has never done anything of the sort.
   14. FrankM Posted: October 24, 2012 at 09:15 AM (#4281345)
If the Blue Jays thought that Farrell was an excellent manager, they would have signed him to an extension a while ago (maybe they tried to, but I doubt it). There were rumours that the GM wasn't happy with certain things (like too many mental errors going unaddressed). What I think is that they were going to start the 2013 season with him, and see how things went for the first couple of months. The chance to let him go to Boston and actually get a halfway useful player back was probably something the team was OK with. I think the business of "letting him go to his dream job" is largely spin.

#6 - yes, many fans were eager to get rid of him. Now the same people are upset at how it happened. There's a lot of hypersensitivity and looking for reasons to feel offended at play.
   15. RJ in TO Posted: October 24, 2012 at 09:46 AM (#4281360)
Wait, weren't the Jay fans pretty eager to get rid of him?

I was thrilled to hear he was leaving. I'm also thrilled with how it happened, since now Boston will be saddled with this guy.
   16. Smiling Joe Hesketh Posted: October 24, 2012 at 09:57 AM (#4281366)
How could we be more saddled than we were last year?

Anyone would have been an improvement over Valentine. Well, maybe not Pol Pot, but everyone else.
   17. Tom Nawrocki Posted: October 24, 2012 at 10:04 AM (#4281372)


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 was hoping the Blue Jays would hold out for more than just token compensation for Farrell. The Boston manager's job is pretty much always going to be more attractive than the Toronto manager's job, which means that any time the Red Sox want the Jays' manager, they can just take him. That's not right. Even if the Jays had no more use for Farrell, they should have demanded Felix Doubront or something for him, just to let the Red Sox know they can't just poach their manager any time they want.

Then once the Red Sox had been forced to hire Jim Tracy or Ozzie Guillen, the Jays could have fired Farrell any way, just out of spite.
   18. Smiling Joe Hesketh Posted: October 24, 2012 at 10:09 AM (#4281379)
which means that any time the Red Sox want the Jays' manager, they can just take him.

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.
   19. FrankM Posted: October 24, 2012 at 10:12 AM (#4281381)
#17 - that was suggested by a local radio guy. I don't think that's a good way to treat people, though

#18 - exactly, which is what leads me to believe thy weren't all that unhappy about letting him go

   20. Scott Ross Posted: October 24, 2012 at 10:13 AM (#4281383)
I'm not looking for "loyalty" but I do think honoring a contract should be expected.


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.
   21. SoSH U at work Posted: October 24, 2012 at 10:17 AM (#4281386)
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.


As a Sox fan, I would have preferred this AA to the one who said, "If you got any old baseballs lying around that you're willing to ship north, you can have him."

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

   22. Rants Mulliniks Posted: October 24, 2012 at 10:17 AM (#4281387)
This is a good synopsis of the Farrell saga, and worth a read for any Boston fan: Richard Griffin on Farrell
   23. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 24, 2012 at 10:18 AM (#4281388)
All you folks muct love the Twins, with their refusal to fire managers and the huge loyalty shown by pretty much everyone involved. I think #20 is my thought. I think "loyalty is for chumps" is too strong, but loyalty can't be your first priority in my opinion.
   24. Rants Mulliniks Posted: October 24, 2012 at 10:22 AM (#4281391)
Oh, and the Jays recently claimed Bobby Wilson off waivers from the Angels. Maybe he'll be the backup for Mathis next year.
   25. RJ in TO Posted: October 24, 2012 at 10:26 AM (#4281396)
How could we be more saddled than we were last year?

You'll find out soon. Farrell was terrible in Toronto. Bad with understanding platoon splits. Bad situational use (and overuse) of the running game. Lost the clubhouse. Saw a huge number of hitters and pitchers regress under his watch. Saw almost all the young players brought up from the minors fail. Kept using Adam Lind against lefties. Kept using Dotel against lefties. Kept using Cordero at all.

Honestly, he's the worst manager I've seen in Toronto. We've had guys before who were less than perfect, but Farrell honestly seemed to lack a strength.

Maybe things will be different in Boston for him, since he supposedly has a good relationship with a bunch of their current players, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if he's a complete and total disaster there.
   26. Smiling Joe Hesketh Posted: October 24, 2012 at 10:29 AM (#4281398)
Maybe things will be different in Boston for him, since he supposedly has a good relationship with a bunch of their current players, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if he's a complete and total disaster there.

We'll see. He addressed some of those things you mentioned at his presser; said he should have changed closers sooner, overused the running game, etc. Means little until the rubber meets the road, but at least he's a guy who's acknowledged his mistakes.

Really, if he can get Lester and Buchholz straightened out (and both of those guys respect the hell out of him) and the clubhouse's respect, then he'll probably be fine here.
   27. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: October 24, 2012 at 10:31 AM (#4281401)
it wouldn't surprise me at all if he's a complete and total disaster there.


A complete and total disaster would represent a massive upgrade from Bobby Valentine.

Kidding aside Farrell comes in with a massive advantage; the support of EVERYONE. Fans, media, front office, players, no one is being remotely negative. You can argue that people were not fair to Bobby V. but if nothing else, the fact that every ####### game won't be a referendum on the manager should help. After the press conference yesterday they did a little Q&A with NESN (the Sox' network) and Jerry Remy was looking at Farrell with the same longing a 15 year old girl looks at the quarterback on the high school football team. If Remy had disappeared from the shot and all we heard was an unzipping sound I would not have been surprised.


This is a good synopsis of the Farrell saga, and worth a read for any Boston fan: Richard Griffin on Farrell


That was a very good piece. I've been looking for such a thing given the venom from some Jay fans regarding Farrell. There certainly is ample amount to be concerned about in there.
   28. Smiling Joe Hesketh Posted: October 24, 2012 at 10:31 AM (#4281402)
I find the track records of pitching coaches as managers, in general, and John Farrell as manager, in specific, to be wholly uninspiring.

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.
   29. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: October 24, 2012 at 10:34 AM (#4281405)
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.


Well the contract wasn't broken, Valentine is still getting paid. If you aren't troubled by this I don't know how to explain it. 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? That's an extreme example of course but I can't help but be bothered by what seems to be a bit of a trend.

The tampering rules need to be strengthened. The Red Sox almost certainly tampered with Farrell in some way as did the Cubs with Theo a year ago. This bothers me.
   30. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: October 24, 2012 at 10:38 AM (#4281408)
tampering is a load of bs

these are employees, not indentured servants. if someone calls they can pick up the phone and listen. and they can tell whomever they are not interested

i am all for exploiting the masses but only as long as the masses have a chance to better themselves if they so choose
   31. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: October 24, 2012 at 10:45 AM (#4281413)
Who is being exploited? If someone signs a contract with me I am obligated to pay them and treat them fairly but at the same time I should expect them to be committed to my organization for the length of the contract. No one is talking about bringing back the reserve clause, but I think the Blue Jays have every right to expect that John Farrell's focus through the end of the 2013 season was going to be on the Toronto Blue Jays. If Farrell wanted to have the freedom to get out he should have signed a one year deal every year.
   32. Mike Emeigh Posted: October 24, 2012 at 10:57 AM (#4281423)
Richard Griffin on Farrell


A quality article by Richard Griffin? What is the world coming to? :)

-- MWE
   33. RJ in TO Posted: October 24, 2012 at 11:04 AM (#4281432)
The Red Sox almost certainly tampered with Farrell in some way as did the Cubs with Theo a year ago. This bothers me.

Considering this tampering led to the Jays being able to unload the useless Farrell while getting a potentially useful player in return, I'm okay with it.
   34. TDF, situational idiot Posted: October 24, 2012 at 11:06 AM (#4281433)
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?
Then Bautista isn't paid. If he plays but the team feels he isn't giving his all (and can convince the arbitrator in the eventual case), they can suspend him without pay.
   35. Matthew E Posted: October 24, 2012 at 11:10 AM (#4281435)
Honestly, he's the worst manager I've seen in Toronto.
No, he's not. Somehow Buck Martinez has slipped your mind.
   36. RJ in TO Posted: October 24, 2012 at 11:11 AM (#4281437)
No, he's not. Somehow Buck Martinez has slipped your mind.

Buck was bad. I still think Farrell is worse.
   37. Paul D(uda) Posted: October 24, 2012 at 11:12 AM (#4281438)
Richard Griffin mentions that Farrell spent a lot of time talking to all the Boston reporters during the last Boston series of the season, with the implication being that either Farrell or the reporters was planting the seed for him to leave.

Farrell is going to get Vince Carter level boos the first time the Sox are in Toronto.
   38. formerly dp Posted: October 24, 2012 at 11:18 AM (#4281446)
@ 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?

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.

A quality article by Richard Griffin? What is the world coming to? :)


I stopped clicking on links with his name attached to them years ago. What have I missed?
   39. Mayor Blomberg Posted: October 24, 2012 at 11:28 AM (#4281452)
FTR, I want very much to be in Toronto. If only U of T would hire in my field. Or even York,or Ryerson, if offer a lit major.

ETA: I'd still remain a NYY fan tho.
   40. Matthew E Posted: October 24, 2012 at 11:30 AM (#4281456)
A quality article by Richard Griffin? What is the world coming to?
I always make sure to give Griffin credit for this: he is capable of writing good stuff. He's fine when he writes about the Expos. He's good when he's, like, down in spring training interviewing people and writing about them. It's when he returns to crouching in his hovel to do his analysis and commentary that you have to stay away from him.
   41. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: October 24, 2012 at 11:34 AM (#4281459)
@ 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?


Yes, this worked well for everyone involved because the Blue Jays apparently didn't really want Farrell anymore. Where it becomes a BFD is if the Sox had snatched up a Joe Maddon for example. I mean, let's say the Yankees fire Girardi after the WS and a "source within the Yankee organization" reveals they'd be willing to give Maddon a 4 year/$20 million contract. Suddenly the Rays are up against it trying to retain a guy that is seeing dollar signs and opportunities (assuming you think the Yankee job is better than the Tampa job).

Maybe I'm being overly concerned. If so, that's fine. I just think we've had four guys under contract move teams in 12 months (Epstein, Guillen, Hoyer, Farrell) and I think that sets a bad precedent. Frankly as a Red Sox fan I'm thrilled with this. I like Farrell quite a bit and Aviles was probably not coming back anyway so the Sox really haven't lost much. Like I said, I just worry about the precedent being established over the past year.
   42. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: October 24, 2012 at 11:37 AM (#4281463)
It sounds like Farrell was professional and upfront about everything. The Jays received compensation and upgraded their roster in return.

Why are people b1tching? Oh, I forgot. People like to #####.
   43. Mayor Blomberg Posted: October 24, 2012 at 11:38 AM (#4281465)
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?
   44. Matthew E Posted: October 24, 2012 at 11:42 AM (#4281469)
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?
I'm going with "no" and "probably not as bad as that".
   45. Flynn Posted: October 24, 2012 at 11:44 AM (#4281473)
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.


What bothers me just a little bit about Tito vs Farrell is Tito spent some time out of baseball and as a bench coach, so he had time and the humbling experience of being demoted to make him think about his mistakes.

Farrell, in all likelihood, sees this as a promotion, so I don't know if he'll be as reflective. It's nice he acknowledged some mistakes already but I wonder whether it will stick.
   46. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: October 24, 2012 at 11:54 AM (#4281476)
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?


What Farrell did is much more analogous to Bautista walking into AA's office and requesting (rather than demanding) a trade - something that he is, of course, perfectly entitled to do, as long as he's willing to play out his deal in Toronto if AA can't/won't put something together. Which Farrell apparently was. So why all the drama?
   47. TDF, situational idiot Posted: October 24, 2012 at 12:00 PM (#4281480)
I think that sets a bad precedent.
Managers have been traded before. Heck, in '60, the Tigers and Indians traded managers to each other.
   48. TDF, situational idiot Posted: October 24, 2012 at 12:11 PM (#4281488)
From the Griffin article:
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.
Um, why was this a secret?
   49. Dan Posted: October 24, 2012 at 12:23 PM (#4281500)
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.

The Blue Jays either needed to commit to 3 or 4 more years of Farrell or they were going to be changing managers anyway. Clearly they weren't thrilled with his performance, so getting out from paying him for a year that he wouldn't have been managing the Jays in addition to getting Aviles back makes sense for both teams.
   50. JJ1986 Posted: October 24, 2012 at 12:26 PM (#4281505)
I think "tampering" can be a problem if it occurs before the manager could possibly switch teams. If Jose Bautista asks for a trade in July or December that's one thing, but no player would ask for one in September or October. If Farrell has been planning to go to the Red Sox in October 2013 for awhile then that's not fair to his current club.
   51. Tom Nawrocki Posted: October 24, 2012 at 12:37 PM (#4281515)
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.
   52. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: October 24, 2012 at 12:39 PM (#4281518)
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?
   53. JJ1986 Posted: October 24, 2012 at 12:41 PM (#4281522)
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.
   54. Paul D(uda) Posted: October 24, 2012 at 12:57 PM (#4281530)
Um, why was this a secret?

Good question. For whatever reason, AA keeps all this stuff incredibly close to his chest.
   55. spycake Posted: October 24, 2012 at 01:02 PM (#4281538)
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.
   56. RJ in TO Posted: October 24, 2012 at 01:07 PM (#4281544)
Isn't Jim Leyland currently on a year to year deal? It sure hasn't seemed to hurt his ability to manage.
   57. Charlie O Posted: October 24, 2012 at 01:09 PM (#4281549)
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.
   58. RJ in TO Posted: October 24, 2012 at 01:12 PM (#4281557)
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.
   59. AROM Posted: October 24, 2012 at 01:13 PM (#4281560)
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.
   60. Tom Nawrocki Posted: October 24, 2012 at 01:16 PM (#4281563)
Last year, when they wanted Farrell they kept him.


Did someone else want Farrell last year?
   61. Nasty Nate Posted: October 24, 2012 at 01:18 PM (#4281564)
Did someone else want Farrell last year?


The Red Sox.
   62. Tom Nawrocki Posted: October 24, 2012 at 01:22 PM (#4281573)
Really? I guess I wasn't aware of that. What happened?
   63. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: October 24, 2012 at 01:26 PM (#4281583)
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.
   64. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: October 24, 2012 at 01:29 PM (#4281588)
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.
   65. Tom Nawrocki Posted: October 24, 2012 at 01:38 PM (#4281596)
Toronto asked for Buchholz.


Well, good for them. That changes my mind a bit about what happened in the curent negotiations.
   66. RJ in TO Posted: October 24, 2012 at 01:54 PM (#4281604)
Well, good for them.

At the time, it was their way of telling the Red Sox to #### off.
   67. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: October 24, 2012 at 01:59 PM (#4281605)
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.
   68. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: October 24, 2012 at 02:04 PM (#4281607)
Buffoonery: John Farrell’s disloyalty to Blue Jays shines through


FTFY
   69. Athletic Supporter can feel the slow rot Posted: October 24, 2012 at 02:19 PM (#4281633)
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.
   70. AROM Posted: October 24, 2012 at 02:41 PM (#4281666)
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.
   71. kthejoker Posted: October 24, 2012 at 02:58 PM (#4281692)
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.


   72. The District Attorney Posted: October 24, 2012 at 03:13 PM (#4281720)
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.
   73. Matthew E Posted: October 24, 2012 at 03:16 PM (#4281724)
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.
   74. ...and Toronto selects: Troy Tulowitzki Posted: October 24, 2012 at 04:18 PM (#4281829)
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.
   75. Toby Posted: October 25, 2012 at 12:02 PM (#4282968)
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.
   76. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: October 25, 2012 at 01:29 PM (#4283066)
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.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BarrysLazyBoy
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 2 OMNICHATTER
(29 - 7:20pm, Oct 22)
Last: zonk

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3136 - 7:15pm, Oct 22)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogHow Wall Street Strangled the Life out of Sabermetrics | VICE Sports
(4 - 7:14pm, Oct 22)
Last: Belfry Bob

NewsblogSielski: A friend fights for ex-Phillie Dick Allen's Hall of Fame induction
(172 - 7:11pm, Oct 22)
Last: alilisd

NewsblogRoyals are not the future of baseball | FOX Sports
(28 - 7:11pm, Oct 22)
Last: Belfry Bob

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(39 - 7:10pm, Oct 22)
Last: bobm

NewsblogStatcast: Posey out at the plate
(9 - 7:05pm, Oct 22)
Last: Merton Muffley

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(873 - 7:02pm, Oct 22)
Last: Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site

NewsblogHunter Pence responds to Royals fan signs with monster Game 1 | MLB.com
(53 - 6:57pm, Oct 22)
Last: JAHV

NewsblogJerome Williams re-signs with Phils
(6 - 6:36pm, Oct 22)
Last: Brian White

NewsblogJay set for surgery — and for CF in 2015 : Sports
(1 - 6:32pm, Oct 22)
Last: Sleepy supports unauthorized rambling

NewsblogHitting coaches blamed for lack of offense - Sports - The Boston Globe
(18 - 5:40pm, Oct 22)
Last: Bhaakon

NewsblogBaseball's hardest throwing bullpen - Beyond the Box Score
(11 - 5:31pm, Oct 22)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(339 - 5:16pm, Oct 22)
Last: Merton Muffley

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-22-2014
(13 - 4:49pm, Oct 22)
Last: Walt Davis

Page rendered in 0.6788 seconds
52 querie(s) executed