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

Saturday, October 20, 2012

Source—Boston Red Sox, Toronto Blue Jays negotiating on John Farrell - ESPN Boston

Late Friday night, a baseball official familiar with the discussions told The Associated Press that the Red Sox have asked the Blue Jays for permission to talk with Farrell about the opening in Boston.

Jim Furtado Posted: October 20, 2012 at 11:30 AM | 49 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: blue jays, red sox, rumors

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. Paul D(uda) Posted: October 20, 2012 at 11:32 AM (#4277376)

This is such good news if you're a Toronto fan.
   2. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: October 20, 2012 at 11:45 AM (#4277386)
This is such good news if you're a Toronto fan.

Yeah, getting anything for a perfectly fungible manager seems like a win. If it's even a B prospect, it's a big win.
   3. valuearbitrageur Posted: October 20, 2012 at 11:51 AM (#4277389)
Cherington had to wait for Luccino to come back from vacation to do what they've already been planning to do for months?
   4. Paul D(uda) Posted: October 20, 2012 at 12:54 PM (#4277427)
Yeah, getting anything for a perfectly fungible manager seems like a win. If it's even a B prospect, it's a big win.

That, plus sticking Boston with a bad manager, and this will force Toronto to hire a new manager one year early.
   5. Koot Posted: October 20, 2012 at 01:04 PM (#4277432)
I'm just picturing this as the start of a series of awful moves by the Red Sox.
   6. Good cripple hitter Posted: October 20, 2012 at 01:05 PM (#4277435)
I'm not going to get excited about this until Farrell is in Boston, wearing a Red Sox jersey, with a signed contract. The Jays recent history suggests that someone will report on Monday that Farrell has signed a three year deal to be the Sox manager, then on Tuesday the Sox will hire... I dunno, Sandy Alomar.

In the "You've got to be kidding me" department from yesterday's Toronto Sun:

Farrell wanted to release backup infielder Omar Vizquel in July, but the GM did not want to cut loose a future Hall of Famer, according to someone familiar with Jays management.


I take back anything bad I said or wrote about Farrell related to Omar Vizquel. I would really love to interview AA about the Vizquel signing, it's fascinating in a (minor) car crash sort of way.
   7. Matthew E Posted: October 20, 2012 at 01:06 PM (#4277438)
I still don't like it. Farrell is nothing in particular, but I think it reinforces an undesirable perception of the Blue Jays: that they aren't a real baseball team, not like the beloved Red Sox are, and if the Jays have something that the Red Sox want, then the Red Sox should have it. Intellectually I can appreciate that Anthopoulos can turn this situation into some kind of small on-field advantage, but I think it looks terrible in a way that's going to follow this team around.

   8. ...and Toronto selects: Troy Tulowitzki Posted: October 20, 2012 at 01:37 PM (#4277463)
I'm just picturing this as the start of a series of awful moves by the Red Sox.

Or a continuation.
   9. DA Baracus Posted: October 20, 2012 at 01:50 PM (#4277473)
I still don't like it. Farrell is nothing in particular, but I think it reinforces an undesirable perception of the Blue Jays: that they aren't a real baseball team, not like the beloved Red Sox are, and if the Jays have something that the Red Sox want, then the Red Sox should have it.


I see it as the Red Sox are overvaluing Farrell and the Jays are taking advantage of that, as well they should. It's similar to the Rays giving up Randy Winn for Lou Pinella.
   10. Randomly Fluctuating Defensive Metric Posted: October 20, 2012 at 02:01 PM (#4277483)
If I'm the Jays I demand Tazawa. And if the Red Sox comply, they are even more lost than I thought.
   11. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: October 20, 2012 at 02:04 PM (#4277489)
I still don't like it. Farrell is nothing in particular, but I think it reinforces an undesirable perception of the Blue Jays: that they aren't a real baseball team, not like the beloved Red Sox are, and if the Jays have something that the Red Sox want, then the Red Sox should have it. Intellectually I can appreciate that Anthopoulos can turn this situation into some kind of small on-field advantage, but I think it looks terrible in a way that's going to follow this team around.
[Edit: keep it simple] The Sox are negotiating to trade actual baseball talent for a manager the Jays would likely otherwise just fire. If a team looks bad, it's not the Jays.
   12. valuearbitrageur Posted: October 20, 2012 at 03:42 PM (#4277530)
I still don't like it. Farrell is nothing in particular, but I think it reinforces an undesirable perception of the Blue Jays: that they aren't a real baseball team, not like the beloved Red Sox are, and if the Jays have something that the Red Sox want, then the Red Sox should have it


So you don't think the Jays should make any trades? cause it diminishes them giving up something another team values?
   13. Matthew E Posted: October 20, 2012 at 04:09 PM (#4277545)
9: That's fine. But that's not how it's going to play among the media and fans.

11: The Jays aren't going to fire Farrell. They like him.

12: I hadn't considered that comparison. There's a bit of truth to it, but the patterns of how and how often players move from one team to another and how and how often managers do are sufficiently different that I'm comfortable saying that this Farrell thing doesn't look good but it's still okay for the Jays to make trades.
   14. Boileryard Posted: October 20, 2012 at 06:32 PM (#4277632)
But that's not how it's going to play among the media and fans.

I don't think people will completely ignore the context of the situation. Farrell came over from the Red Sox, he hasn't exactly demonstrated that he's a top manager, and the Blue Jays just finished a miserable season under him. When you combine those things with the reports that he and Anthopoulos aren't on the same page, I'm hesitant to say that most people will attribute Farrell's departure to the undesirability of the Blue Jays. While some will certainly try to draw that connection, it should be pretty obvious that there's a lot more to the story.
   15. RJ in TO Posted: October 20, 2012 at 07:01 PM (#4277639)
Have fun, Boston.
   16. morineko Posted: October 20, 2012 at 08:06 PM (#4277669)
I've heard of player-managers; is there such a thing as a pitching coach-manager? because that's the only way I can see this working out.
   17. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: October 20, 2012 at 10:42 PM (#4277752)
Would be kinda funny if Farrell was traded for Chris Carpenter (the one traded for Theo).
   18. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: October 20, 2012 at 10:44 PM (#4277753)
Is there reason to be concerned about this "trend?" Managers and other personnel changing teams while under contract? Maybe "trend" is too strong a word but I think this is the fourth move in the last calendar year isn't it? Epstein, Guillen, Hoyer and now Farrell (assuming it happens). It seems to me that there is a chance for some pretty serious abuses here and that tampering is all too easy now.

Maybe it's just because the team I root for has been involved in a couple of these things I'm noticing something that isn't an issue but if the Yankees or Red Sox or Angels can start poaching desired talent that is under contract that is a negative for the game. It's one thing to land free agents or acquire players who are no longer desired by their current club but when teams can just swoop in and snag a manager, coach or potentially at some point a player who the team wants seemingly without any leverage for the team losing the "talent" that is a troubling thing I think.

Maybe I'm seeing something that doesn't exist but I'm troubled that Farrell could basically tell the Jays "yeah, I'm done" and the contract becomes useless. In this case Toronto fans seem fine but what happens when the Yankees fire Girardi and pursue Maddon so something similar?
   19. The District Attorney Posted: October 20, 2012 at 11:30 PM (#4277767)
Is there reason to be concerned about this "trend?" Managers and other personnel changing teams while under contract?
I know what you mean, but the thing is that if someone genuinely wants to be somewhere else very badly, you probably don't want them around anymore. Maybe teams are becoming a little more psychologically understanding-slash-less dictatorial and are acknowledging this.

Anyway,
Alex Speier @alexspeier
Source: #redsox agree to hire Farrell through 2015. Compensation will be announced in next couple days, but deal w/Farrell done.
   20. Paul d mobile Posted: October 20, 2012 at 11:47 PM (#4277775)
Avila?
   21. base ball chick Posted: October 21, 2012 at 12:13 AM (#4277786)
i really REALLY do not understand why the redsox are so obsessed with john farrell
and it sure doesn't seem like "poaching" to me

the blue jays do actually have the right to tell the redsox to get lost, have them hire someone else, fire farrell april 1
   22. The District Attorney Posted: October 21, 2012 at 12:20 AM (#4277787)
Alex Speier @alexspeier

Updated: Red Sox hire John Farrell as manager, send Mike Aviles to the Blue Jays
Jon Morosi @jonmorosi
Source: In John Farrell trade, it appears one player will go in *each* direction. So #RedSox will get a player from #BlueJays too.
   23.     Hey Gurl Posted: October 21, 2012 at 12:23 AM (#4277788)
TSN:

The compensation that the Jays will receive from the Red Sox to allow Farrell to leave is not known at this time, but Foxsports.com is reporting that Toronto will get an infielder from the Red Sox major league roster in 2012.


I don't really disagree with Matthew, it leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth, BUT:

1) Farrell isn't managing the Jays anymore
2) The Jays get compensation
3) The Sox are stuck with Farrell for awhile; if they gave up something to get him they can't fire him after the season like Valentine.

So that's pretty good.
   24. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: October 21, 2012 at 12:25 AM (#4277791)
I'm guessing Mike Aviles? Jose Iglesias seems kinda redundant with Hechevaria in Toronto.
   25. McCoy Posted: October 21, 2012 at 12:26 AM (#4277793)
Maybe "trend" is too strong a word but I think this is the fourth move in the last calendar year isn't it?

I think the real trend is the ownership shakeup that has happened over the last 5 years and that is what is causing all of the moves.
   26.     Hey Gurl Posted: October 21, 2012 at 12:30 AM (#4277798)
I'm guessing Mike Aviles? Jose Iglesias seems kinda redundant with Hechevaria in Toronto.


If the Jays sent a player with Farrell to get Mike Aviles...

But, yeah. It almost has to be I guess. Farrell+Escobar for Aviles?

EDIT: WEEI is confirming that it's Aviles. So strike #2 off my list. If AA wanted to keep Farrell I have no idea why he'd make that deal.
   27. The District Attorney Posted: October 21, 2012 at 12:39 AM (#4277803)
Speier:
Major League Baseball rules require that a trade involving one player moving to a team involve either cash or a player going to the other party to the trade.
So I suppose it doesn't necessarily mean much that Boston is "getting a player"; it's possible that it could be a 50th rounder who hit .100, since they must receive some kind of player (or cash) for the deal to legally happen.

If the player the Red Sox receive does turn out to be a formality, Rany Jazayerli has a point that's tough to argue:
Not that Mike Aviles is a star, but the Red Sox gave up more to get John Farrell than they got for Theo Epstein. They're doing it wrong.
All that said, it's worth noting that Toronto reporter Bob Elliott tweeted:
Don't be surprised if 1B Adam Lind also heads to Fenway
   28. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: October 21, 2012 at 12:40 AM (#4277804)
You've got to give it to the Red Sox, in terms of Aviles:

1) They bought low. They traded for Aviles in exchange for Yamaico Navarro. Navarro hit .160 in 56 PAs in 2012 for the Pirates.
2) They then traded Scutaro for a decent relief pitcher (Mortensen), saved $6 million, and then correctly realized that Aviles would be as good as Scutaro.
3) As Aviles was due to make at least $3 million in 2013, and was probably now overrated (because he hit some HRs), they sold high on him.

I think the Red Sox had little interest in keeping Aviles around in 2013, and see Iglesias and Ciriaco as covering whatever roles Aviles could've played in 2013.

If that's what it takes to get the guy they want managing the team, then it's really nothing surrendered...
   29. ...and Toronto selects: Troy Tulowitzki Posted: October 21, 2012 at 12:46 AM (#4277808)
But, yeah. It almost has to be I guess. Farrell+Escobar for Aviles?

And why would that have been?
   30. Snowboy Posted: October 21, 2012 at 12:48 AM (#4277809)
For the giggles, and to give Farrell a kick in the ash on his way out the door, AA should sign Vizquel to a 3 year deal and make the Red Sox take him. 3@$1M, nothing extravagant.

Otherwise...could the Jays dump Sergio Santos here?
   31. Good cripple hitter Posted: October 21, 2012 at 12:49 AM (#4277810)
EDIT: WEEI is confirming that it's Aviles. So strike #2 off my list. If AA wanted to keep Farrell I have no idea why he'd make that deal.


Relatively low-cost solution to the problem that gets created when Yunel Escobar gets run out of town and traded for a hard-throwing AA reliever?

I'm glad that Farrell's gone, and I suppose it's better to get something than just fire him now or in May, but I'd be much happier with the Jays getting a random lottery ticket than Mike Aviles.

Then again, since I wrote that Lind got added to the deal, so I guess it's best to wait and see how it plays out.
   32.     Hey Gurl Posted: October 21, 2012 at 12:53 AM (#4277815)

And why would that have been?


Been what?

Apparently it's Farrell+Lind for Aviles. Ok.
   33. SoSH U at work Posted: October 21, 2012 at 01:03 AM (#4277820)
the blue jays do actually have the right to tell the redsox to get lost, have them hire someone else, fire farrell april 1


They've got that right, but that would be a pretty shitty way of running your ballclub. There's obviously no reason for them to make things easier for a rival club, but I hope they'd see the value in treating their employees better than that.

   34.     Hey Gurl Posted: October 21, 2012 at 01:17 AM (#4277824)
There are mixed reports of Butterfield following Farrell to Boston. If so, this goes from an intriguing premise to disappointing to ugh.
   35. Good cripple hitter Posted: October 21, 2012 at 01:23 AM (#4277825)
There are mixed reports of Butterfield following Farrell to Boston. If so, this goes from an intriguing premise to disappointing to ugh.


You can say that again. I would be really upset if the Jays basically traded Farrell and Butterfield for a infield stopgap and some money. Letting Butterfield go to a divisional rival without even getting promoted would be an awful way to start the offseason.
   36. Boileryard Posted: October 21, 2012 at 01:23 AM (#4277827)
They've got that right, but that would be a pretty shitty way of running your ballclub. There's obviously no reason for them to make things easier for a rival club, but I hope they'd see the value in treating their employees better than that.

If Anthopoulos still believed Farrell was the right guy for the job, I suspect the Red Sox would be continuing their search for a manager right now. I'm only speculating, but it's possible Farrell wanted out because he figured he might be out the door anyway if the Blue Jays got off to a slow start next season.
   37. SoSH U at work Posted: October 21, 2012 at 02:31 AM (#4277833)
If Anthopoulos still believed Farrell was the right guy for the job, I suspect the Red Sox would be continuing their search for a manager right now. I'm only speculating, but it's possible Farrell wanted out because he figured he might be out the door anyway if the Blue Jays got off to a slow start next season.


I agree with all of that, but that wasn't what I was saying to BBC.

If the Jays wanted to keep Farrell, then should have simply told the Sox to go #### themselves. If they didn't want Farrell, they should have let him talk to Boston, but extract whatever they can out of the Red Sox if Boston wanted to hire him away (which is what appears to be the case). BBC's hypothetical is the course of action they shouldn't take. If the Jays didn't want Farrell, then telling the Sox to go #### themselves, letting Boston hire someone else, and then firing Farrell would be a lousy way of doing business. Not because it wouldn't be fair to the Red Sox, but because that's a crappy way of treating your employees, and the kind of thing that doesn't serve you well in the long run.

   38.     Hey Gurl Posted: October 21, 2012 at 02:35 AM (#4277835)
I know what you're saying, SosH, but there has to be a way to get rid of Farrell without acquiescing to the demands of the ####### Red Sox.
   39. ...and Toronto selects: Troy Tulowitzki Posted: October 21, 2012 at 02:45 AM (#4277837)
Been what?

Why you would even guess Yunel was being traded here.


Letting Butterfield go to a divisional rival without even getting promoted would be an awful way to start the offseason.


That would suck, but Butterfield, like all the Jays coaches are not signed for '13 at this point, so he can go where ever he wants, and he is from New England. He's also been in TOR since 2002 fwiw. It would suck though, the real loss in any of this.
   40. SoSH U at work Posted: October 21, 2012 at 02:48 AM (#4277838)
I know what you're saying, SosH, but there has to be a way to get rid of Farrell without acquiescing to the demands of the ####### Red Sox.


The Red Sox can't make demands. They can ask. The Jays can say no.

If the Jays don't think Farrell will be an effective manager, then they should welcome a division rival hiring him away. If they think he is/will be one, they should keep him.

I just don't think spite is a terribly effective tool to use in the running of your business. And intentionally dicking over your employees (even the ones you no longer want), is going to do you more harm in the long run than allowing an unwanted employee to take a position with a rival company.

I understand the position of Jays fans, who view the Red Sox and the Yankees as the bullies of the AL East and see this request as just another example of that. But I'd counter that intentionally doing something that's not in your club's best interests (whether long or short term) because the Red Sox or Yankees are involved is actually more of an admission that you are the small fry, rather than an equal.

Look at it this way: if this was the Padres asking to speak to Farrell, would you approach the situation differently? If the answer is yes, then you're probably doing it wrong with regard to the Sox. You should remove the emotion and figure out how do you make this situation work best for the Blue Jays, Boston be damned.
   41.     Hey Gurl Posted: October 21, 2012 at 04:11 AM (#4277847)
Why you would even guess Yunel was being traded here.


Because he sucks? And plays the same position? And by all accounts is a massive douchenozzle?
   42. Matthew E Posted: October 21, 2012 at 09:34 AM (#4277871)
Two of those things are not true.
   43. Lassus Posted: October 21, 2012 at 10:14 AM (#4277881)
3) The Sox are stuck with Farrell for awhile; if they gave up something to get him they can't fire him after the season like Valentine.

Wait, really? If this is true I can't imagine any team doing it. Is that really the case?
   44. SoSH U at work Posted: October 21, 2012 at 10:22 AM (#4277886)
Wait, really? If this is true I can't imagine any team doing it. Is that really the case?


I assume Shock was speaking in the practical sense, that you're not going to shitcan some guy that you gave up talent for. There's nothing that would require the Red Sox to employ Farrell for a set amount of time.
   45. Lassus Posted: October 21, 2012 at 10:35 AM (#4277892)
I assume Shock was speaking in the practical sense, that you're not going to shitcan some guy that you gave up talent for. There's nothing that would require the Red Sox to employ Farrell for a set amount of time.

Thanks, I just assumed there was some arcane transaction rule I didn't know anything about. It sounded a little confidently worded.
   46. formerly dp Posted: October 21, 2012 at 10:45 AM (#4277895)
From Toronto perspective, this does seem a little like them just giving in to Boston's desire to pilfer their manager. I can see how it would be bad optics from a PR standpoint. But if they had decided they didn't really care about having Farrell at the helm, getting something potentially useful for him is a win, in an on-field way.

From a fan's perspective, these sorts of deals make the game more interesting-- because they force clubs to assess the value of a manager in some relationship to the value of a player. There are all sorts of metrics available for evaluating player performance, with some sort of consensus on which ones have validity. Managers, not so much, and certainly not for lack of trying. And the trades are so infrequent that it's really difficult to determine the market value of a manager, especially since someone like Farrell only has value to the Red Sox and the Blue Jays.

I really thought Toronto was well-set with Escobar and Rasmus, but they have both been pretty terrible. It's pretty amazing that Rajai Davis outplayed Rasmus last year.
   47. ...and Toronto selects: Troy Tulowitzki Posted: October 21, 2012 at 12:25 PM (#4277985)
Because he sucks?

Haha, sure thing pal. He "sucked" in '12. Beyond that, you're wildly exaggerating.

It's pretty amazing that Rajai Davis outplayed Rasmus last year.

Not to nit pick, but this isn't true either.
   48.     Hey Gurl Posted: October 21, 2012 at 02:20 PM (#4278058)
Haha, sure thing pal. He "sucked" in '12. Beyond that, you're wildly exaggerating.


He sucked in 2012. He sucked in 2010. The odds are good he is going to suck next year.
   49. ...and Toronto selects: Troy Tulowitzki Posted: October 21, 2012 at 04:45 PM (#4278161)
He sucked in 2012. He sucked in 2010. The odds are good he is going to suck next year.

One never knows. Even in '10 he was 12th in WAR for MLB shortstops. Out of 6 pro seasons he's had 4 really good years.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Brian
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3738 - 7:57am, Oct 25)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogRoyals get four AL Gold Glove finalists, but not Lorenzo Cain | The Kansas City Star
(15 - 7:54am, Oct 25)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogCurt Schilling not hiding his scars - ESPN Boston
(23 - 7:32am, Oct 25)
Last: Merton Muffley

NewsblogJohn McGrath: The Giants have become the Yankees — obnoxious | The News Tribune
(13 - 7:15am, Oct 25)
Last: ursus arctos

NewsblogBuster Olney on Twitter: "Sources: Manager Joe Maddon has exercised an opt-out clause in his contract and is leaving the Tampa Bay Rays immediately."
(81 - 2:03am, Oct 25)
Last: Dan

Newsblog9 reasons Hunter Pence is the most interesting man in the World (Series) | For The Win
(16 - 1:35am, Oct 25)
Last: base ball chick

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(916 - 1:29am, Oct 25)
Last: J. Sosa

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 3 OMNICHATTER
(515 - 1:26am, Oct 25)
Last: Pat Rapper's Delight

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(385 - 1:05am, Oct 25)
Last: tshipman

NewsblogHow top World Series players ranked as prospects. | SportsonEarth.com : Jim Callis Article
(21 - 12:04am, Oct 25)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogDid Adam Dunn Ruin Baseball? – The Hardball Times
(73 - 11:22pm, Oct 24)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogBeaneball | Gold Gloves and Coco Crisp's Terrible 2014 Defense
(2 - 7:47pm, Oct 24)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(871 - 7:22pm, Oct 24)
Last: Jim Wisinski

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(67 - 6:38pm, Oct 24)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogThe ‘Little Things’ – The Hardball Times
(2 - 6:34pm, Oct 24)
Last: RMc is a fine piece of cheese

Page rendered in 0.5172 seconds
54 querie(s) executed