The Boston Globe reports that the Red Sox are keen on trying to acquire John Farrell, the current Toronto Blue Jay manager, to take over Bobby Valentine's position in 2013. Farrell is under contract with the Blue Jays for the 2013 season, so a trade is the only way for Boston to get their new skipper. Apparently, before hiring Valentine, the Red Sox sought to get Farrell from Toronto. Farrell was the former Red Sox pitching coach, and may have mutual interest in returning to Boston.
But major league baseball frowns upon "trades" involving managers. The Ozzie Guillen to Miami "trade" had to involve players.
The Globe writer speculates that the Blue Jays would want someone like pitcher Rubby De La Rosa in return. De La Rosa was just acquired from the Dodgers. In 2011, he appeared in 13 games, went 4-5 3.71 ERA in 60.1 IP with a 1.401 WHIP. An arm injury has sidelined him, but he is still considered a top pitching prospect.
The question is whether a manager's talent equates to team wins. The old baseball adage is that a good manager can "win" one or two games a season, a great manager maybe three or four. But how can a manager "win" a game when he is not a player on the field?
The major league manager's role is simple: fill out a daily line up card and "manage" the game from the bench by a) positioning fielders, b) giving signs to batters, c) telling runners to steal bases, d) and replacing pitchers and hitters during the game to get the best match-ups. But a manager is only as good as his talent.
A manager may have more influence on his team by leadership skills, motivational skills and teaching skills than the slight differences in line up card adjustments or giving in-game direction like bunting or hit-and-run calls with a runner on first base. It is believed that a manager's influence on his team is giving his players the best opportunity to succeed, managing the pitching staff, and keeping his reserves fresh and into the games.
On the other side, a bad manager can directly influence wins and losses on the field. Keeping a starter in the game when he is clearly out of gas, leading to more hits and runs by your opponent, is an avoidable disaster. Playing players out of their natural position, leading to errors, base runners or "four" out innings, is another avoidable disaster. Overusing your bullpen so they have tired arms is another managerial offense. Fans can see when their manager "has blown the game."
From an objective standpoint, does a manager's ability truly contribute to wins? Baseball Prospectus looked at this question and acknowledged that strategic blunders can influence a team's win-loss record, but such an effect is hard to trace over a long season of 162 games. For every decision a manager makes, the outcome is decided by his player's performance and the opponent's adjustment to the situation. In other words, managerial decisions are made in a vacuum, in the down time of the game. The results of the decisions play out on the field, which is solely based on the talent of the players.
Baseball Prospectus concluded that over a season, and from season to season, over-achieving or under-achieving teams had little impact from a managerial prospective. The conclusion: a manager has little consistent impact on whether a team over or under achieves its projected talent level in team wins and losses.
The Valentine situation in Boston is a different animal. It is a disruption. The players came out not liking the manager. The manager came out criticizing veteran players. Team performance suffered, but that may also have been a carry over from the 2011 swan song disaster. As many commentators say, when everything is said and done, it is up to the players in any sport to perform. The accountability must start on the results on the field of play. Everything else sounds more like excuses than reasons for failure.
So when we look at the proposed Farrell for De La Rosa trade, it is clear that a good manager cannot guarantee an extra one or two wins for his team. On the other hand, De La Rosa earned 4 wins in his last season, which is a tangible result on the field. It would be a bonus to the Blue Jays to acquire a player who can add 4 or more wins to the team.
Management also seems to think newer managers are fungible commodities. The Cubs new front office went through a whole series of interviews and tests of candidates, but in the end wound up with "one of their guys" in Dale Sveum, who worked with Epstein in Boston. The managerial ranks are members of a closed fraternity, because teams continually recycle fired managers from season to season. Some Cub fans believe that Sveum is nothing more than Mike Quade, version 2.0.
