Farrell, the reason we won

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from jader. Show jader's posts

    Farrell, the reason we won

    This guy knows baseball talent, inside and out and is THE reason we won last year. Word is he told Cherrington, he would not play Salty in '14, hence the trade. Benching him in WS games 4 and 5 was the bellweather. He loves Drew, love Napoli, Victorino and other 'blur collar' players.

     

    We're lucky to have him and some astute talent evaluation got him here at the cost of a player.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from kimsaysthis. Show kimsaysthis's posts

    Re: Farrell, the reason we won

    Farrell should have won MOY. He was robbed. I don't know any other manager that took a last place team to first a year later -- especially in his first year as manager.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beantowne. Show Beantowne's posts

    Re: Farrell, the reason we won

    In response to jader's comment:

    This guy knows baseball talent, inside and out and is THE reason we won last year. Word is he told Cherrington, he would not play Salty in '14, hence the trade. Benching him in WS games 4 and 5 was the bellweather. He loves Drew, love Napoli, Victorino and other 'blur collar' players.

     

    We're lucky to have him and some astute talent evaluation got him here at the cost of a player.



    Salty wasn't traded he left as a free agent...Signed with the Marlins. My guess is the Sox never intended to resign him, nor do I think he wanted to return after being benched in the World Series. 

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from charliedarling. Show charliedarling's posts

    Re: Farrell, the reason we won

    Regardless of Saltalamacchia's past playing time situation, Farrell did a great job of getting his full roster to play together all year long.  And, this fact after the terrible year with Valentine was instrumental in turning the Red Sox around.

    If there were internal "issues" on the Sox last year, no one outside of the clubhouse heard of them which in turn let all the players focus much more on playing the game than having to defend themselves and their teammates to the press every single day.

    I watch all the games and cannot say that I always fully agree with some of Farrell's moves, but I certainly respect him as a manager where the proof was in the pudding last year.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ice-Cream. Show Ice-Cream's posts

    Re: Farrell, the reason we won

    Thank you Toronto for letting Farrell leave your organization before the end of his contract. Laughing

     

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from jete02fan. Show jete02fan's posts

    Re: Farrell, the reason we won

    In response to kimsaysthis' comment:

    Farrell should have won MOY. He was robbed. I don't know any other manager that took a last place team to first a year later -- especially in his first year as manager.

    probably not, i guess Gil Hodges comes the closest, took the 68' Mets from next to last to the title in 69'


     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beantowne. Show Beantowne's posts

    Re: Farrell, the reason we won

    In response to crowtrobot's comment:

    In response to Beantowne's comment:

    In response to jader's comment:

    This guy knows baseball talent, inside and out and is THE reason we won last year. Word is he told Cherrington, he would not play Salty in '14, hence the trade. Benching him in WS games 4 and 5 was the bellweather. He loves Drew, love Napoli, Victorino and other 'blur collar' players.

     

    We're lucky to have him and some astute talent evaluation got him here at the cost of a player.



    Salty wasn't traded he left as a free agent...Signed with the Marlins. My guess is the Sox never intended to resign him, nor do I think he wanted to return after being benched in the World Series. 

     




    WIN/WIN



    That's one way of looking at it. I have never been a big fan of Saltalamaccia too streaky at the plate and average at best behind the plate.

    Pierzinski was a good pickup, he and Ross are both vets that will do a solid job, so short term I think we've upgraded the position. About the only thing we lost was maybe half dozen long balls. behind the plate we have two guys that know how to call a game and are above average defensive catchers...

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Soxdog67. Show Soxdog67's posts

    Re: Farrell, the reason we won

    In response to jete02fan's comment:

    In response to kimsaysthis' comment:

    Farrell should have won MOY. He was robbed. I don't know any other manager that took a last place team to first a year later -- especially in his first year as manager.

    probably not, i guess Gil Hodges comes the closest, took the 68' Mets from next to last to the title in 69'




    Actually, he's not the first Red Sox manager to do it...worst to first was done by no other than Dick Williams with the Kardiac Kids of that Impossible Dream team of 1967.

    Now we're talking worst to first, regular season right?? Sadly the '67 guys went down in game 7 of the WS to a little known pitcher named Bob Gibson!

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Farrell, the reason we won

    In response to Soxdog67's comment:

    In response to jete02fan's comment:

    In response to kimsaysthis' comment:

    Farrell should have won MOY. He was robbed. I don't know any other manager that took a last place team to first a year later -- especially in his first year as manager.

    probably not, i guess Gil Hodges comes the closest, took the 68' Mets from next to last to the title in 69'




    Actually, he's not the first Red Sox manager to do it...worst to first was done by no other than Dick Williams with the Kardiac Kids of that Impossible Dream team of 1967.

    Now we're talking worst to first, regular season right?? Sadly the '67 guys went down in game 7 of the WS to a little known pitcher named Bob Gibson!

     



    Of course, the Sox weren't quite worst in 1966. They finished ninth out of 10 teams, just ahead of the Yankees.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Soxdog67. Show Soxdog67's posts

    Re: Farrell, the reason we won

    In response to royf19's comment:

    In response to Soxdog67's comment:

    In response to jete02fan's comment:

    In response to kimsaysthis' comment:

    Farrell should have won MOY. He was robbed. I don't know any other manager that took a last place team to first a year later -- especially in his first year as manager.

    probably not, i guess Gil Hodges comes the closest, took the 68' Mets from next to last to the title in 69'




    Actually, he's not the first Red Sox manager to do it...worst to first was done by no other than Dick Williams with the Kardiac Kids of that Impossible Dream team of 1967.

    Now we're talking worst to first, regular season right?? Sadly the '67 guys went down in game 7 of the WS to a little known pitcher named Bob Gibson!

     



    Of course, the Sox weren't quite worst in 1966. They finished ninth out of 10 teams, just ahead of the Yankees.




    Darn it roy., I love selling the '67 Sox...I should have confirmed that before posting...but it sounded good while I was typing it.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Farrell, the reason we won

    In response to Soxdog67's comment:

    In response to royf19's comment:

    In response to Soxdog67's comment:

    In response to jete02fan's comment:

    In response to kimsaysthis' comment:

    Farrell should have won MOY. He was robbed. I don't know any other manager that took a last place team to first a year later -- especially in his first year as manager.

    probably not, i guess Gil Hodges comes the closest, took the 68' Mets from next to last to the title in 69'




    Actually, he's not the first Red Sox manager to do it...worst to first was done by no other than Dick Williams with the Kardiac Kids of that Impossible Dream team of 1967.

    Now we're talking worst to first, regular season right?? Sadly the '67 guys went down in game 7 of the WS to a little known pitcher named Bob Gibson!

     



    Of course, the Sox weren't quite worst in 1966. They finished ninth out of 10 teams, just ahead of the Yankees.




    Darn it roy., I love selling the '67 Sox...I should have confirmed that before posting...but it sounded good while I was typing it.



    Dang pesky facts -- always get in a way of a good story.Innocent

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: Farrell, the reason we won

    My question is why Farrell didn't play Nava much in the post season?

    This was after Nava had a great season and Gomes plays left field like a t-baller...every ball hit to him is an adventure waiting to happen.   And, Nava's numbers against right-handers were far better.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from kimsaysthis. Show kimsaysthis's posts

    Re: Farrell, the reason we won

    In response to jete02fan's comment:

    In response to kimsaysthis' comment:

    Farrell should have won MOY. He was robbed. I don't know any other manager that took a last place team to first a year later -- especially in his first year as manager.

    probably not, i guess Gil Hodges comes the closest, took the 68' Mets from next to last to the title in 69'




    It's just so incredibly rare because it's so hard to do. And with all the drama that was going on with this team the years before that, it's even more amazing. He should have won. IMO

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from kimsaysthis. Show kimsaysthis's posts

    Re: Farrell, the reason we won

    In response to charliedarling's comment:

    Regardless of Saltalamacchia's past playing time situation, Farrell did a great job of getting his full roster to play together all year long.  And, this fact after the terrible year with Valentine was instrumental in turning the Red Sox around.

    If there were internal "issues" on the Sox last year, no one outside of the clubhouse heard of them which in turn let all the players focus much more on playing the game than having to defend themselves and their teammates to the press every single day.

    I watch all the games and cannot say that I always fully agree with some of Farrell's moves, but I certainly respect him as a manager where the proof was in the pudding last year.



    Amen to that! That, in and of itself, was a major factor in our success IMO, and he was responsible for that.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from jader. Show jader's posts

    Re: Farrell, the reason we won

    In response to ampoule's comment:

    My question is why Farrell didn't play Nava much in the post season?

    This was after Nava had a great season and Gomes plays left field like a t-baller...every ball hit to him is an adventure waiting to happen.   And, Nava's numbers against right-handers were far better.




     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from jader. Show jader's posts

    Re: Farrell, the reason we won

    Nava had 'pretty' numbers in '13 but he was the worst clutch performer at bat. Farrell knew this since he's a great talent evaluator. Look for Nava to get a lot more bench time this year.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Farrell, the reason we won

    In response to royf19's comment:

    Of course, the Sox weren't quite worst in 1966. They finished ninth out of 10 teams, just ahead of the Yankees.



    Right, OTOH the 2012 Sox were 12th out of 14 teams in the league - only worst in their division.

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Farrell, the reason we won

    In response to ampoule's comment:

    My question is why Farrell didn't play Nava much in the post season?

    This was after Nava had a great season and Gomes plays left field like a t-baller...every ball hit to him is an adventure waiting to happen.   And, Nava's numbers against right-handers were far better.



    Farrell obviously had a bit more confidence in Gomes in the playoffs.  I think it was mainly because he thought Gomes was a much bigger home run threat, and with such low-scoring games, home runs were crucial.

    Gomes validated that thought with his huge, crucial home run in Game 4 of the WS.

    Personally I can't understand why Farrell should come in for any second-guessing when we won the division and the World Series.  Whatever he did worked IMO. 

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Farrell, the reason we won

    In response to jader's comment:

    Nava had 'pretty' numbers in '13 but he was the worst clutch performer at bat. Farrell knew this since he's a great talent evaluator. Look for Nava to get a lot more bench time this year.



    That doesn't seem fair to Nava.  An .831 OPS is a good number, not just a pretty number.  There were times last year when Nava was a big part of our offence.  He was frequently getting on base multiple times in a game.

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share