How many times did we hear Remy saying “there seemed to be a missed sign there” or see a pitcher get overly fixated on a base runner who was as likely to steal as the Pope?

The Pope's butler on the other hand...

So who will the Sox hire? Beats the heck out of me. My gut is either Farrell or Torey Lovullo if the compensation for Farrell proves too costly.

I feel like going back to the well for a guy from the Tito Era would be a mistake. The club needs to move on. Lovullo seems like a good candidate. I'd also throw Dave Martinez and Brad Ausmus out there.

Point 2 is what I really don't get. Is BV such an arrogant ####### that his years in NY and on ESPN, for ####'s sake,taught him nothing about dealing with the media?

If the Sox could hire anyone, including people who are managing other teams, who would we want them to hire? I'd say Joe Maddon would be at the top of my list.

So I'd want the Sox to hire a "Joe Maddon type". Whatever that is, exactly.

So I'd want the Sox to hire a "Joe Maddon type". Whatever that is, exactly.

A weird wuss?

I don't think Maddon would work. I think he's got a bit of Valentine in him, not in a bad way necessarily but I think some of his little comments would blow up more in a big market. Looking at the successful Boston managers/coaches of recent vintage all of them; Tito, Belichick, Doc, Julien, are pretty much no-nonsense guys. Different personalities all but "wacky" wouldn't be the word I would use to describe any of them. Maddon I think is a bit more like Jimy Williams or Pete Carroll. Both of them had some successes but I think their differentness worked against them.

Please take Farrell.

Please take Farrell.

I'm starting to think you aren't a Farrell fan. I mean, you hide it well but it's kind of coming through in some of your posts.

I'm starting to think you aren't a Farrell fan. I mean, you hide it well but it's kind of coming through in some of your posts.

Honestly, I don't understand why so many people in the Boston media seem to want him. He makes all sorts of stupid small-ball mistakes. He isn't very good with the bullpen, and kept running out terrible options long after it was obvious to everyone else that these guys were done. The hitting generally regressed under him, or didn't develop. The pitching all was either hurt, or sucked. And the clubhouse ended this year complaining about the lack of leadership.

If you guys do still want him, you're welcome to him. I'll even be willing to kick in some cash, to cover the cost of shipping.

It's really hard to judge managers between teams. Phillies fans in 2000 would have been dying to foist Terry Francona on to the Sox. I assume the interest in Farrell derives in significant part from his continuing good relationships with the front office and a number of established players.

I have little to say about the manager search. Everything sucked this year, so whatever new things they do will probably be an upgrade.

He's a big dude, that's going to be a serious shipping charge. Plus customs fees.

I didn't see enough of him in Toronto to really evaluate him. They seemed to play a fair amount of small ball but there are worse strategies than telling a guy like Davis or Gose to run and keep running. One thing that struck me about the Jays is they seemed to play hard throughout the year (somewhat like last year's Orioles). They weren't very good of course but that seems a positive.

It's a bit concerning that no one in Toronto is screaming to hold him back. Chad Finn (local writer in Boston) made a good point in a chat yesterday though that Francona's tenure in Philly proved to be a positive for getting him some valuable experience. Tito of course had a few years between Philly and Boston to let those lessons sink in and come together for him which Farrell would not.

I don't think Maddon would work. I think he's got a bit of Valentine in him, not in a bad way necessarily but I think some of his little comments would blow up more in a big market. Looking at the successful Boston managers/coaches of recent vintage all of them; Tito, Belichick, Doc, Julien, are pretty much no-nonsense guys. Different personalities all but "wacky" wouldn't be the word I would use to describe any of them. Maddon I think is a bit more like Jimy Williams or Pete Carroll. Both of them had some successes but I think their differentness worked against them.

Agreed. The Sox should stay away from anyone who could be described as smug. Which sort of scares me off Farrell, seems like he could be another 'smartest man in the room' type. Basically the Sox need a media meat-bag that is somewhat intelligent and the players can respect. Torre and Francona were great at deflecting media criticism off of players, someone like them would work.

I would hire a three-headed manager:

1. An old school baseball guy to manage the clubhouse.
2. A pure statgeek to make out the lineup and make in-game tactical decisions.
3. A pitching coach type to advise the statgeek as to rest and when a pitcher shows tiredness, etc.

1 and 3 can be the same guy, actually. And 2 would have final say over all decisions.

But I think it's time for a revolution.

Honestly, I don't understand why so many people in the Boston media seem to want him.

I think it's because many in the Boston media are not all that bright and suffer from an extreme lack of imagination. They only want to talk about candidates who's name can be recognized by even the most casual fans, hence players with no experience as managers (like Mueller and Tek) are getting talked about rather than someone like Dave Martinez, because they'd actually have to educate their reader/ viewership as to who they are.Farrell was in Boston when the team won, he reminds people of better times and doesn't require them to do much work.

College of Coaches! Varitek can be #s 1 & 3. No, keep Varitek #3 and have Dave Roberts be #1, everybody loves him. Sign Greinke as a FA and he can be Ray's AND the rotation's #2 (see what I did there?).

Actually, on another note, Bill Belichick strikes me as a terrific idea (and I hate the Pats). What kind of compensation would that require? Or are there any more Harbaughs lying around that we could grab?

and 3 can be the same guy, actually. And 2 would have final say over all decisions.

I don't think this will work. Why would anyone listen to Guy #1/3--that is, let him "manage the clubhouse"--when they know #2 is actually running things?

I think the bigger problem with Ray's plan is that the goals of #1&3 are often at odds with #2. There are times when the right in-game tactical decisions could have larger repercussions for clubhouse chemistry as well as player development.

I think Ray has a point but I think he has it backwards. It seems to me that the bench coach should be the numbers guy, a human binder if you will, telling the manager what the right thing statistically/tactically is to do. At that point the manager makes the call if it's in the best long term interest of the club to make the move. And of course sometimes the best long term interest of the club is to win today's game.

Please take Farrell.

It's funny how much things have changed in Toronto. Last year, a lot of people here claimed Anthopoulos was the Executive of the Year, and other teams could only have John Farrell over their dead bodies.

It seems to me that the bench coach should be the numbers guy

When the Jays first gave Cito Gaston the manager's job, his job was to manage the room. The bench coach's job was to handle the in game stuff. Worked pretty well for them.

When the Jays first gave Cito Gaston the manager's job, his job was to manage the room. The bench coach's job was to handle the in game stuff. Worked pretty well for them.

That can work *if* the manager you hire doesn't have an ego problem and trust his gut too much. And it has to be clear that the final authority is with the manager, so that he can really manage the room. He needs to be seen to be in charge, but if he's dealing with people, he also needs to be able to bench a good player for a day to deal with an attitude issue, put the "wrong" guy into a key situation to boost his confidence, etc. He needs to be able to throw away about a game a year's worth of "best" strategic plays to get the best performance out of his players.

I like Jason Varitek, if there's any discontent, he can just punch the players in question wearing two WS rings.

Edit: Apparently there are Mike Lowell rumours. That would be a cool decision, because pretty much the team could win 40 games all year and he'd still get a free pass from the fans.

I think you've gotta add injury management to this list. I almost wish the Red Sox would hire an orthopedist as manager. They can figure out all the best strategies in the world and make all the players best friends, but if the Red Sox can't figure out how to keep their expensive investments off the DL or stupidly playing through injury, then they're going nowhere. If there's a glaring organization-wide failure in communication between the manager and FO or whatever in the Red Sox system, it's mediated through this issue.

It would be refreshing for the Sox to hire a minority as manager. It would be the first, right?

I find manager talk often to be very boring. There's so much we simply don't know and way too many instances of seemingly uninspired retreads or odd hires turning out very successfully. If ZiPS tried to do managers, ZiPS would quit. Most of the time I can't bring myself to do anything other than wait and see.

That said, given how awful Bobby V was and the upper level management problems that came to light, I do find myself much more interested this go-round. Not only at the choice, but what is said about authority and the nature of the manager/management relationship, the vetting process that was used, evidence of disagreement at the upper levels (via leaks), etc.

What's coming out of Toronto about Farrell are not good signs, particularly the players calling out a lack of leadership. The small ball/bullpen stuff can be fixed or at least mitigated (look at Tito), and a manager can provide value without being a tactical coach that can improve your mechanics. But a bad clubhouse on a team that entered the year with moderate expectations is not a good sign when motivating players and avoiding a toxic environment are at the top of the list of qualities the new manager should have.

What about Brad Mills?

Knowing very little about how any of them would manage, I'd probably want to go after Dave Martinez or Sandy Alomar Jr. Get someone young, with no ties to the organization. They both have coaching experience, but without the poor managerial record of a Mills or Farrell. And because of their age and being constantly in the game, they should relate to the players. The media would probably also give more time to an unknown to adjust while Varitek or a former Red Sox player would be expected to turn around the franchise right away.

I'm a big Mills fan. I don't think it's a coincidence that his leaving in 2009 started a period of less than optimal communication. Having said that I like the idea of a Martinez or a Lovullo a lot. I think a clean change would mke the most sense.

At the same time I felt the same way when the Pats hired Belichick. I felt they needed to get away from the Parcells era rather than hiring a retread. It's possible I was wrong on that one.

[23] stated, I am much more interested in hearing about what prospects we'll have to give up to get Justin Upton and Josh Johnson, if the Rays will trade James Shields within the division, the delayed compensation for Theo in a free Matt Garza, and if Chase Headley will become available. I think the Sox will be much more active in the trade market than the FA market, so I'm spending most of my wishful thinking there.

Young with no ties fits my top choice of Ryne Sandberg. He has experience, and the HOF adds instant credibility all round.

Ryno is 53, he's not that young. I suspect he would be a good choice though.

Ryno is 53, he's not that young.

Hey, now -- I turned 53 three weeks ago. Are you saying I'm not young?

*weeps softly*

Getting older beats the alternative.

So both WEEI and Boston.com had pieces guesstimating the compensation that would be necessary for John Farrell. The rough estimate in both cases was Drake Britton and someone else (boston.com suggested Keury de la Cruz). While both guys are far from sure things I am less than excited about giving up that quality of prospect. The more I think about it, the less I like the idea of giving up anything for Farrell. Just hire Lovullo or Martinez or Lamont or whoever (depending on the direction they want to go) and move on.

I've been surprised at the number of times I've seen the name of Brad Ausmus mentioned in the media as a potential candidate. Other than a reason for bbc to change allegiances, I don't get why he'd be considered. I don't know if he was always considered to have good coaching potential, or if he would be adept at handling both the clubhouse and the media.

I will say this: I don't want Varitek as manager. Tek is more of the lead-by-example type, which can work very well when players have a long time to learn the lessons those examples can provide. But it's horrible for solving short-term problems, personality issues, etc. One of the things Francona brought to the table was an ability to accept and blend different personalities and different approaches to success; the lead-by-example types generally are indicating there's one right way to do things, and expect you to follow. He was there in September '11, as captain; what did his leadership accomplish then?

I second the note that Brad Mills' departure was where things started falling apart, much like Don Zimmer's departure from the Yankees after 2003. I think, then, the key thing is to make sure the manager has a bench coach who works well with him. I don't know that it makes Mills a viable candidate as manager, because the guy who works the best with him is now with the Indians, and I'm doubtful Mills has had the opportunity to develop that kind of working relationship with anyone else.

Ausmus was similar to Tek as a guy who always got mentioned as a future manager. Whether he's the right guy here...I don't know what he's done since he retired. Varitek hasn't even spent a year coaching yet and while I don't need managerial experience I think a couple of years in a dugout in a non-playing capacity is probably useful.

Ausmus was similar to Tek as a guy who always got mentioned as a future manager. Whether he's the right guy here...I don't know what he's done since he retired.

He's been working in the Padres' front office and managing the Israeli WBC team on the side.

According to Rob Bradford the Sox are going to start interviewing candidates on Friday. No mention of names though Olney is saying they will not simply wait on Farrell. That sounds like a negotiating position more than anything else. I think we'll get a sense of how serious they are about exploring non-Farrell options when we see the names they interview. I think if they bring in a guy like Martinez or Lovullo then they are probably serious.

According to Rob Bradford the Sox are going to start interviewing candidates on Friday. No mention of names though Olney is saying they will not simply wait on Farrell. That sounds like a negotiating position more than anything else. I think we'll get a sense of how serious they are about exploring non-Farrell options when we see the names they interview. I think if they bring in a guy like Martinez or Lovullo then they are probably serious.

Cherrington has already said the late hiring of Valentine hurt them. I would assume the FO learned from that and will change how and when they hire the manager. Doesn't sound like posturing to me.

Latest news from Boston.com;

Wallach to be interviewed
Ausmus to be interviewed
Farrell: "Nothing has been communicated directly to me. If the Red Sox have contracted Alex, I'm unaware of that. Where it stands is what I said: [I'm] manager of the Blue Jays."
Demarlo Hale - not contacted yet

Matt Clement of Alexendria - also not contacted yet but I think he's a dark horse candidate.

Cherrington has already said the late hiring of Valentine hurt them. I would assume the FO learned from that and will change how and when they hire the manager. Doesn't sound like posturing to me.

I agree. Wallach and Ausmus are serious candidates, and I don't think they'd jerk those guys around. It wouldn't surprise me if there was a new manager by the end of October.

ESPN reporting tonight the teams are negotiating on Farrell.

Farrell is not someone I'd hire, let alone negotiate for him.

I hope the Sox are not offering anything more than "significant compensation."

Supposedly last year they wanted Bard or Buchholz, which is/was absurd. The cost damn well better be far less than that. They must assume Farrell's hiring would have some sort of knock on effect on the pitching...

The cost damn well better be far less than that.

Like this years Bard? :-)

Farrell is not someone I'd hire, let alone negotiate for him.

After his two years in Toronto, I strongly agree. So you guys have fun with him.

The comparison for Farrell will of course be Francona. Both flopped in their first managerial role and the expectation/hope will be that Farrell will follow in Tito's footsteps and succeed the second time around. However, Francona had a 3 year gap between Philly and Boston. He spent some time in various coaching roles during that hiatus and had time to process what mistakes he made in Philadelphia and change his behavior/thought process. Farrell will not be afforded that opportunity if the Sox hire him.

The first five times I tried to read that post I read the first sentence as "The compensation for..." and I could not make any sense out of it whatsoever.

What I think people forget is that throughout the latter half of Tito's tenure, Farrell was universally recognized as his eventual successor. The huge push to bring him on as 2013 manager isn't exactly coming out of nowhere. There's a lot of history behind the idea.

Yeah, it's clearly not a new idea but it seems to me that the general assumption (not saying just at ST) is that Farrell will have learned from any mistakes made during his Toronto tenure. I think that lack of time to gain perspective is something to be considered. He may still be the right man for the job but the "Francona failed in Philly then succeeded in Boston=Farrell failed in Toronto then will succeed in Boston" is not quite a perfect equivalency.

The first five times I tried to read that post I read the first sentence as "The compensation for..." and I could not make any sense out of it whatsoever.

When I first wrote it I wrote "The comp for..." and then realized how confusing that would have been.