Maxbialystock

I see his knees (and age) as his only problems. I have repeatedly rewatched the so-called dirty slide that reinjured the knee and think it was clean as Pedroia did, thus no need to throw at Machado which, however, the Sox decided to do anyway. 2017 not a good year, but his WAR in 2016 was 2d best on the team. In 2015, 4th best in just 93 games. I am against no trade, but disagree he should be traded away for nothing just to get rid of him.

Brentz the 29 year old minor leaguer whom soxprospects doesn't like? Yes, that one--but he also hit 31 dingers in 120 games at Pawtucket this year. Given our few dingers this year, he deserves a look.

This to me is more credible than moonslav's list. To be perfectly honest, even though I was a solid Sox fan as early as 1949, I was mostly oblivious of the managers because I was literally unable to watch or listen to Red Sox games--except for the 1953 and 1954 seasons when I lived in western Massachusetts--until 2003 or 2004 when I could get them on satellite TV. But like almost every Sox fan, I know about the 86 year drought which John Henry ended. Tito did a good job, but he also had awfully good hitting anchored by Manny and Papi for both WS titles and good enough pitching. Ditto for Farrell in 2013 but without Manny.

This might not fit this thread, but I hesitate to start another. Has anyone else commented that the three coaches--Butterfield, Davis, and Willis--just let go by the Sox were immediately picked up by successful teams, the Guardians and the Cubs? Relatedly, was this DD or Cora's decision to let them go?

Couldn't watch it--school night--but agree with your thoughts anyway. Agree especially with "will actually feel bad for whichever team loses."

Thanks for the reminder. Somehow, both home team crowds seem very energized this year.

Make that 4 games, and I entirely agree. I'm sort of rooting for the Astros because they are AL, but like seeing the Dodgers back in the thick of things. I remember the WS in the 1950's when radio was huge and inning by inning results were made known in school during day games--specifically Johnny Podres in the 1955 WS. Plus I think "Dodgers" is one of the really good team names in all of pro sports even though they were first the Brooklyn Trolley Dodgers (and several other names before that). Still, the name reeks of American history. So too, sadly, the name of yankees, which the NYC team stole from New Englanders.

That's what I thought too.

Agree.

I read that revenues are down like 15%. Why won't that be a factor?

Meh. I also said that I had previously expressed--several times last year and this year--my then dislike of Farrell. That said, I did not hear the WEEI stuff and suspect that was as definitive as anything on why Farrell got fired. Somewhere else I read that DD had told someone that he was going to make a change regardless of how far the Sox went in the postseason. So both of those items suggest Farrell had lost the clubhouse or something like that, and I freely admit I was oblivious to that possibility.

I hear you, but would argue again two basic points: 1) those rectangles are misleading; the "bad" calls are rarely that bad and even more rarely that influential because good pitchers adjust; 2) umpires are an important part of the game and would be completely marginalized if they were taken out of calling balls and strikes.

Actually, I think Henry Kissinger said something like that: even paranoids have real enemies. And in my case I'm pretty sure I'm one of A700hitter's targets because I can get argumentative as well as longwinded. But moonslav? That's nuts. I'm sorry you don't post here more because I know from BDC days you are excellent.

I am certainly one of the apologists even though I too have expressed dismay on occasion. In the event, as I said elsewhere, I have always believed that no manager is indispensable. Some are better than others, no doubt, but all are expendable. But since you brought this up, I would add the following-- First, to remind, I am fine with Farrell being fired for whatever reason. Second, however, he did manage a team that won the AL East 3 times and the WS once in 5 years. Third, granted, he lost three straight to the Guardians last year and 3 of 4 to the Astros, but in both instances had starting pitchers who absolutely stunk--Price and Porcello in 2016 and Sale, Pomeranz, Fister, and Porcello this year. On top of that his ace reliever Kimbrel absolutely blew game 4 this year. Fourth, of the four teams--Cleveland, Houston, New York, and Boston--in the ALDS, the Red Sox had by far the lowest net runs scored--+117. The other three, in order, had +254, +196, and +198. Interestingly, two of the latter three are in the ALCS. And, if the Nationals beat the Cubs, they and the Dodgers will also constitute 2 of the top 3 in the NL in net runs scored (the 3d is Arizona). Fifth, the Sox had by far the best record in MLB this year in extra inning games, which are those games mostly likely to demand more of a manager. Sixth, however, I mean it when I say I have no quarrel with DD's decision. Yes, Ortiz was gone. Yes, Price spent a lot of time on the DL. Nevertheless, there was some real talent on this team and it is entirely possible Farrell did not get the most out of what he had. I don't think so, but don't mind saying I could be wrong. Seventh, on the other hand, espn, ever the rabble rousers, have a new article on the Sox: "With Farrell gone, Red Sox are all Dave Dombrowski's mess now." I personally think DD has done more good than harm and also think John Henry won't want to fire him. Still, Price needs to deliver on that hefty price tag, Porcello does too, Sale may need to be rested more than a typical ace would need to be, I still have my doubts about Pomeranz, the Sox may in fact need to hire a big bat, etc.

I didn't think that at the time because i was ignorant, but it would have made a lot more sense. But, you know, other GM's have goofed as badly as Cherington on Pablo--see Ellsbury and the NYY and Crawford with the Dodgers. Actually, Yankees fans have kind of warmed to Ellsbury this year despite that salary and having to DH.

Really? That lineup looks awfully good to me, but at what cost?

I started this thread and by and large have defended Farrell but have always believed upper management, including the owner, should have final say on the field manager. In this case, as with Francona, this was not exactly a firing but rather an unwillingness to give Farrell a new contract. Back in the day I also defended Francona regularly but in the end was fine with the decision to let him go. I honestly believe that, while some managers are better than others, almost no manager is indispensable. If DD and JH don't like what they see on the field or what they think they see in the clubhouse (or hear about), they are absolutely entitled to make a change.

This, I have to say one more time, is one of the reason why I think you are one great poster. We can agree to disagree on a whole bunch of stuff, but you have it all over me on assembling stats and numbers. In a NY Times review of Rick Atkinson's brilliant 3d book of his trilogy on the US Army in World War II--this volume is called Guns At Last Light--his narrative style was compared to a pointillist artist who uses many small facts and insights to create a larger tapestry that tells a compelling story. You do something like that when you produce these gems.

Moreland had 22 home runs this year. The most in MLB at 1b this year was 39. I think you need to work on your math a little. You know way more about trade possibilities than I will ever know, but you have convinced me (as have others) that a big deal next year would definitely put the Sox in luxury tax territory which I gather John Henry wants to avoid. So here is my view of things-- 1. Everyone had a down year this year except I think Vazquez. I think the hitting will improve next year if the same guys are back, including Devers--whether or not DD decides to hang onto Moreland. I definitely want to keep Beni in LF next year and think his homer production will increase even though 20 wasn't all that bad. 2. If Sale and Price are healthy, the rotation could be pretty good and better than this year. Again, no big acquisitions needed. Ditto the bullpen. 3. As it is/was, this team won its second straight AL East title and this time gave a better account of itself in the ALDS against an Astros team with much better hitting and, as it turned out, a better rotation. 4. The problem with my sanguine view of things is that the Yankees are looking very tough next year (and this year). Ditto the Astros and Guardians. Thus the pressure to do something productive in the offseason. Still, I would be fine with a stand pat approach even though, as you pointed out on page one, even that ain't cheap.

He did manage brilliantly. Your complaining he didn't fix a lineup that struggled all year long and ignoring the great job he did with the pitching when all four of his starters stunk and his presumed two best late relievers (Reed and Kimbrel) did too. Plus he's the guy who convinced Price he could contribute from the bullpen, and boy did he. He also brought Sale back at just the right time to darn near save our bacon in game 4 had it not been for Kimbrel's complete malfeasance.

Who gives a rat's ass? We lost that game 8-2 mostly because start Pom stank and the ERod and Reed also stank. And you are quarreling about the way Farrell arranged the deck chairs. My goodness gracious.

Verlander, the guy who gave up the 2 run dinger to Beni? I loved that move. If Kimbrel hadn't s*** in his pants, the Sox win the game thanks to Verlander.

Unfortunately, you do have a point. The Yankees were pretty tough this year with that youngish lineup and a rotation that was up and down.

The irony of me now defending Farrell is that just three days ago I was saying it would be understandable if DD fired him after winning the AL East but also lost the ALDS in three straight games. In fact, I even said you can't fire the players. As it is, Farrell managed brilliantly in this postseason when the hitting struggled in the first two games and the rotation was absolutely abysmal in all 4 games and, horror of horrors, his two closers, Kimbrel and Reed, turned out to be erratic. Farrell almost pulled off those 2 wins by using a former starter (soon to be one again next season) and a starter almost everyone on this board thought had given up the ghost after a so-so September. And he pretty much stuck with a lineup that in the last two games started to work if not all the time.

What the hell other era is there? The 86 years of frustration? John Henry no doubt has his faults, but he is demonstrably the best owner the Sox have ever had and he is certainly better than the Steinbrenner boys.