sk7326

The kids played well largely ... and Farrell had strengths. He managed the pitching staff well and largely was okay tactically (very good in Game 3 for instance - less good other times)

Considering he has an opt-out after 2020, this might very well not be true.

Speier is the best of the guys who cover the team every day imo

No issue with Farrell being gone. Now, most of the managers are in the middle ... fairly low impact, fit dependent. Farrell was in that middle. Dombrowski's last hire was legitimately bad - so that bears watching.

The team's defense was a positive contributor to run prevention - I think there is time for him to figure this out ... and also if you want kids, you have to live with process. This is not done with a microwave. I think some of the JD types will slip through the cracks - teams did not give Edwin Encarnacion years last year ... I think that "type" will be an easier get than it looks. I think Votto and the Reds do like each other mutually. I don't think the stuff needed to deal for Stanton makes the trade worthwhile.

I think the areas where a manager can directly impact winning and losing are small (for instance: the missed challenge in Game 2 of the Yankees-Guardians series ... though it is possible Girardi was covering for his replay guy ... managing pitching staffs more generally). But that does not mean there aren't a lot of areas where they can indirectly impact winning - the way a good boss at work can help employees be better versions of themselves. There is benefit to a new voice sometimes.

The reservation one might have is the last manager Dombrowski hired was unusually terrible (Ausmus in Detroit) ... I largely agree with the fungibility of managers - but that doesn't mean there is NO difference ... and a downgrade from Farrell is certainly possible. He handled a pitching staff very well in a season where it was fairly challenging.

Varitek has not actually done the job at all - big gap in experience.

consecutive playoff berths with a bunch of good under age 28 players counts with a fairly adversity-filled season

So he can be a manager for a young powerhouse org.

lack of MLB managing doesn't bother me here ... he has managed and GM'd in winter ball, so the job is not foreign

An actual offseason pain free for him to get some of his swing back ... his was not the first season tanked by a hand injury

I think that Dombrowski promoted Benintendi and Devers from AA (essentially) while dealing Moncada says everything. I think something which became clear in retrospect was that Dombrowski looked at the gold mine in the Red Sox farm and quickly identified Devers and Benintendi as the absolute keepers.

He has not been great at providing games played.

only if I can stop giggling first

Small sample size - range factors were okay (again, small samples). The errors number doesn't mean much to me compared to him possibly being a potted plant. (which he isn't - he's clearly a pretty good athlete)

Hmmm ... one is 3 years younger, has a stronger history of being health, and is good-to-great at every single non-pitching baseball skill.

DD's been fine - he has moved aggressively and gotten some premium talent. Yeah he gave up a lot of kids - but he was empowered to, and he got premium talent for it. And he seems to have chosen to keep the right guys. Now will be the next level - making decisions on the kids here, and figuring out who can be dealt for more upgrades. The Bradley/Bogaerts decision in particular will be very interesting.

Why? He did not look like someone who needed to be moved.

I could see the Sox - not exactly shopping Bogaerts - but telling teams to make an offer. Now I am not sure how robust the market it is. I tend to chock up this year to injury ... nothing like a hand injury (regardless of what he says to people) to mess up your swing. It is not something which get better during the season. That said, if you save the brinks truck for Betts - then Bogaerts and Bradley are the swing guys here. Sox need another bat - but the trade market is probably where the best possibility is to get one ... and given that the Sox have used a lot of their best minor league pieces already, looking at one of their young guys has to be on the table. I am sure there will be chatter about trying to get Stanton - which I think for a bunch of reasons (payroll flexibility, cost in players, marginal value) is stupid. I could see kicking the tires on Andrew McCutchen - though again, you only get a year of him and I am not sure what sort of match there is with the Pirates given that. The free agent class looks horrid. That said, if last year's market is a barometer for the future - it could be a buyer's market for slow, power hitting non-defenders ... the sort of thing where a JD Martinez might be gettable for a surprisingly short hitch a la Encarnacion last year. Getting something like that makes sense. Same with Jay Bruce (less appetizing option) for a 1-year.

Also has done TV, which is very helpful given how important managing media is in this town.

Certainly possible. But I like guys who know the market - or similarly insane markets. I'd certainly pick this over exhuming Jim Leyland or John Boles etc etc

Farrell managed a terrific Game 3. The Red Sox were terrible in Games 1 and 2, although it was basically all about pitchers giving up homeruns - and not much Farrell could do there. Farrell basically had to get himself run yesterday - whatchagonnado. The Sox got greedy with Sale I think - it made sense to go to Kimbrel for 6 outs - or just to the set up guys in a bullpen which has been good all year. I can see both sides of keeping/not keeping Farrell. I can roll with Dombrowski's decision either way here ... although it is certainly possible to pick somebody worse.

All Star game rules today -

He hit the eject button on Fister yesterday ... Price probably not available to the rescue ... but yeah come on!