So what’s up with the Red Sox managerial search?
I would like to think that the Sox learned their lesson last year when the search took almost as long as the eventual tenure of the man who got the job.
But I am worried. I am worried that Ben Cherington works more slowly than Adrian Gonzalez running from first to third.
Some guys are slower than molasses. Cherington is slower than Molina.
I am worried that the Sox are taking too long to work out a deal with Toronto.
Seriously. Why does this take so long? The Red Sox and Jays both knew they were not going to be in the playoffs. Larry Lucchino and Toronto boss Paul Beeston (Lucchino says they are best buddies) could have backchanneled this deal in September. Or they could have waited until the season ended TWO WEEKS AGO.
Either way, it should be settled by now.
What’s up with the glacial pace?
This is allegedly Cherington’s hire. Cherington wants Farrell. Farrell wants to come to Boston. Why can’t the Sox simply ask for permission to talk with Farrell, and work out a deal? Why can’t the Sox tell Toronto, “You guys have 48 hours to work out a deal with us, or we are moving on without John Farrell.”
It’s preposterous. It’s almost as nonsensical as last year when the Sox allowed Theo Epstein to go to the Cubs without working out compensation, then settled for bust-out pitcher Chris Carpenter months later. It was like watching somebody sell a house, let the buyer move into the house, then try to get the money.
The Farrell situation in Toronto is bad. He has made it clear to his bosses that he wants to come to Boston. He is not getting a contract extension from Toronto. He is getting crushed by media in both Toronto and Boston as a guy who has never won anything. And now he might end up staying in Toronto as a lame-duck, one-year guy who has already cut ties with his bosses. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Jays are already looking for their next manager.
While Farrell twists in the wind, the Sox are conducting a search of “other” candidates.
This is wrong. In Lucchino parlance, Farrell is the “varsity,” which makes Tim Wallach, Tony Pena, Brad Ausmus, and DeMarlo Hale the junior varsity. It’s not fair to any of them.
Wallach, Pena, Ausmus and Hale are all terrific baseball men. They are fine candidates. So why are they being paraded through Fenway while the Sox try to work out a deal for Farrell?
Thankfully, the Sox aren’t conducting the media dog-and-pony shows this time. Not sure I’m ready for Pete Mackanin and his ascot again.
This is really not that complicated. If Farrell is the guy, get him now. If you can’t get him, announce that he is not your guy or let the Blue Jays announce that they are holding him to his contract. THEN go back to the search of worthy candidates.
The Sox seem to be applauding themselves because they are ahead of last year’s ridiculous schedule, when Bobby Valentine was introduced in December.
This is not OK. The Cleveland Indians hired their new manager 11 days ago. Cleveland’s new manager is working 24/7 getting to know his new team and the organization. The world champion St. Louis Cardinals found a replacement for Tony La Russa about a half-hour after they won the 2011 World Series. Why are the Red Sox so slow?
I could get behind John Farrell. Or Tim Wallach. Or Brad Ausmus. Or Tony Pena. Or DeMarlo Hale. If Farrell is taken out of the mix, we can have fun debating the merits of the other four. But it’s a disservice to everybody to conduct these interviews without resolving the Farrell situation.
It looks like more of the same from the Red Sox: Too many voices. John. Tom. Larry. Ben. Wally the Green Monster. Or perhaps too much inattentiveness. There has been a lot of news out of Liverpool while the last-place Red Sox continue to operate without a manager. Chain of command remains an issue on Yawkey Way.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less