User Name

I'm fat and a lefty. Anyone wanna fight about it?

This lineup makes me happy.

You are literally making up the reasons, as opposed to what he actually said. And why would he keep subbing him for Young, if he can't hit a righty to save his mother's life? I can understand trying to defend the guy, but let's stick to what we actually know.

You are offering an entirely different explanation than the one Farrell himself offered. Farrell said Young needed the at bats, full stop.

First off, you can take the personal BS and shove it. You don't know me, I don't know you, I haven't disrespected you, don't disrespect me. I can dish it out bro, don't mess with me. I'm no whiner. I am stating an opinion I have substantiated several times, while also acknowledging Farrell's good points. Not everyone can handle the Boston pressure cooker. However, you can make your point without coming off as a prick. Second, it is an undeniable fact because it's not "just whiners" who are saying Farrell is not a very good in-game manager. People who have played baseball for a living and have forgotten more baseball than either of us will ever know, starting by Lou Merloni. Besides of the fact that there are several instances (leaving a dead-armed Koji to get destroyed by Toronto, one of the famous blown saves sprouted in his defense, where he set up Kimbrel to fail is one example). Another good example is Kelly's first start after he was stung by the ball in his leg. It was evident to the Spanish broadcasters he was done, but it was not evident to Farrell. Also, his teams, in general, run the bases like idiots, which has also been pointed out by fans of both Toronto and the Red Sox, as well as columnists and analysts. Anyways, the point is that several people think Farrell has always been a bad in-game manager, and that includes his Toronto tenure. You may think differently and defend your point, just don't be an ass about it.

Bruce Bochy. Great blend of old-school and analytics. Generally right with his in-game decisions. Can get the most out of his players, who tout him as a visionary and great motivator. Manages the media/clubhouse, and keeps his foot out of his mouth. He's all of the good things Maddon has, with better game management and less self-promotion.

You nicely summed up what was going to be my retort.

He said "Rarely" and if there's an exception to that rule, Barry Bonds was it.

Two words: Ozzie Guillen. Being diplomatic and saying "just platitudes" is an ability a lot of these guys don't have. That "highly overblown aspect" has made a lot of guys who can't keep their foot out of their mouths lose managerial gigs over the years.

Ah, this is the actual point that needs to be addressed. However, look at the new wave of managers: Guys like Ausmus, Matheny, Green, Servais. All ex-players lauded during their playing careers for their high intelligence and awareness, and in the case of the former two, genuinely smart guys who cut their teeth handling the media as leading players of contending teams.

The trend, however, is moving in the opposite direction. That's where the phrase "in 2016" comes to work. Besides, as I mention above, there are four main phases to managing an MLB team: On-field, corporate, leading the roster, and media relations. Someone who is objectively stupid and ill-prepared cannot adequately handle most of the aspects of the job.

Filling up a lineup card and switching pitchers around is not rocket science. Managing the egos of 25 millionaires (a significant portion of whom are pampered brats), corporate interests, and a cutthroat media establishment is not for those with low intelligence.

Robin Ventura.

I think he's understating the manager's job. Many people do, in my opinion.

I like this idea.

Personally, I like Travis better than the other Travis (in first name). In my opinion though, if someone's getting packaged for a premium pitcher, he and Swihart are options #1 and #2.

But as I stated above, the fact that the Sox had to overpay pretty hard to keep another team from vulture-diving and taking him away speaks volumes as to his standing in the industry.

ESPN panders to liberals. What Schilling said was douchey, but it's just his opinion. I'd be at peace with the firing if they weren't total hypocrites.

It wasn't significant sample size (there we go with the sample thing, but it's appropriate), but clearly there's something there.

Not necessarily. DD is no stranger to dealing prospects, but he's also a shrewd trader, and the Sox have other trade chips. For my money, the two guys most likely to be traded mid-season are Swihart and Travis.

Farrell is not a good in-game tactician. That is an undeniable fact. His teams run the bases like idiots and his BP management is head-scratching. That said, the ability to manage the big egos in the Boston pressure cooker is invaluable. Farrell has that ability. The problem is that we may be running and inferior manager out every night with a better option staring up at him from the bench coach position. The fact that the Sox had to greatly overpay Lovullo to keep him from being stolen away by another team speaks volumes to his standing in the industry.

A bad manager can cost his team a significant amount of games. Leaving a starter in too long, leaving a reliever in too long, sub-optimal lineup construction. The impact a crappy manager has on his team is way more significant than the impact a good manager that doesn't get in his own way.

It was a satirical thread. Look at the poll options.

That's silly.

Devers' bat will be blocked by no one. The Red Sox should trade no member of their big 3 (Moncada, Benintendi, Devers) unless absolutely overwhelmed by an offer. Kopech won't net the Sox a packet of gum with his behavioral issues.