Blog Entry

Jays amend policy to prevent Farrell to Red Sox

Posted on: October 25, 2011 1:15 pm
Edited on: October 25, 2011 3:32 pm
 
FarrellBy Evan Brunell

In light of recent rumors that could have had Toronto manager John Farrell moving to a similar position with the Red Sox, the Blue Jays have altered their policy dealing with organizational change, the team said in a statement courtesy MLB.com.

"Due to the distraction caused by media speculation regarding our employee permission policy, the Toronto Blue Jays have amended their policy and will not grant permission for lateral moves," GM Alex Anthopoulous and president Paul Beeston said in a joint statement.

Previously, Toronto had no restrictions on anyone interviewing for another job in an organization, including lateral moves. Now, Toronto will not allow lateral moves, which cuts off Farrell's ability to become Sox skipper. Unless, as Angels broadcaster Victor Rojas jokes, the Red Sox name him "president of clubhouse operations," a joke as to how ex-Red Sox GM Theo Epstein became president of baseball operations in Chicago, instead of simply president.

Anthopolous later told Sportsnet.ca that the change wasn't made to combat the Red Sox specifically, but was also used to address future rumors on Farrell -- if not himself.

"Because of the way the policy was set up, we'll always be open to rumors and speculation and, ultimately, it has become a distraction for the club," he said. "In terms of fear to lose someone to a lateral move, there isn't a fear because again, I point back to what the policy is going forward. There's no fear at all because we have a policy in place."

Beeston told Anthopoulous that the previous policy, which allowed anyone to interview for any job at any time, "wasn't working," so a new policy was drawn up. It will allow the club to refer to the policy moving forward and not get into specifics, as well as avoid e-mails, which he said inundated the club over the last couple days following a Boston Globe report that Farrell might be hired as the new Sox manager.

Farrell addressed reports of moving to the Red Sox on Monday, saying he was "focused right now on preparing for what is best for the Blue Jays in 2012."

For more baseball news, rumors and analysis, follow @EyeonBaseball on Twitter or subscribe to the RSS feed.
Comments

Since: Sep 1, 2006
Posted on: October 28, 2011 4:05 pm
 

Jays amend policy to prevent Farrell to Red Sox

The Jays cannot make retroactive changes to employment conditions because if things could be rectified to complete satisfaction on the part of all parties involved then the employee should also sue for any backwages that were lost due to management's action or inaction that resulted in the loss of earnings for said employee.
----------------------

They owe Farrell nothing. He signed a contract and what you call employment conditions are in fact merely a Blue Jays policy - like casual Fridays. If a company changed their policy to remove casual Fridays that does not mean every employee now gets a raise because casual fridays are gone. And that is not even a good example because Farrell is not a full-time employee but a contracted employee. The Jays policy is simply catching up with the times.

As for the Jays fielding a winning team, that is what they are working towards. They don't have all these young players, boatloads of draft picks and a current low payroll for no reason. The Jays ownership is the richest in baseball. But you don't get rich giving pitchers like Lackey $82mil for 5 years. The Jays have shown they will reward their players when they perform and havesigned Bautista to a long term dealand Romero to a long term deal. Unlike Tampa the Jays can resign the players they develop and it won't be long before their payroll is in the low $100mil range. When that happens I wonder if Red Sox fans will still be happy the Jays are fielding a winning team? 



Since: Apr 15, 2008
Posted on: October 28, 2011 2:45 pm
 

Jays amend policy to prevent Farrell to Red Sox

You can't be serious with this... In baseball, you can certainly buy championships. Just because  teams like the Phillies and Yankees were upset, doesn't mean they didn't win the most games in the league and put themselves in position to win it all. We all know that in the playoffs it's a crapshoot, but the teams that beat them weren't exactly small market by any standards. The Rays remain the exception, not the rule. Really dumb to point to teams who lost IN THE PLAYOFFS and say "well you can't buy championships." Free Agency is unfortunately the way Baseball functions now. Besides, the Phillies Core of Rollins, Utley, Howard, Hamels, Madson, etc. were drafted. It was a combination that built their team. Only one team wins it all every year, and let's not act like the Cardinals or Rangers are small market teams. 

Yes, I am serious with this.

The Phillies haven't had much luck have they? The Red Sox? The Yankees? The Dodgers? The Mets? The Mariners? Just a few of the teams off the top of my head that have spent big to attempt to win..didn't work very well did it? I'm not talking about 2011, I'm talking about overall. Who cares who won the most games in the regular season? That's only part of the process. I don't think there goal is to win there division, then lose in the playoffs. The point is to win championships... In the real business world if a business spent the kind of money these teams do, with no positive results..the entire managment would be fired.  

 You mean the long term, team friendly deals like the one they gave Vernon Wells?
Do you know how to read? obviously you do, but you skip parts of what someone says? 

 Players must realize by now you can go play in these big markets and get paid for it, and not even have to perform. Your being paid so much money that no other team is going to take you on, unless your a dummie like the Angels. (Vernon Wells) 

And you do realize it was the old GM that made that deal? and the new one had to clean up his mess? Get the hell outta here, and come back when you know a thing or two.

 The Jays cannot make retroactive changes to employment conditions because if things could be rectified to complete satisfaction on the part of all parties involved then the employee should also sue for any backwages that were lost due to management's action or inaction that resulted in the loss of earnings for said employee.....in other words....if John Farrell was going to earn more money as the Red Sox manager then the Jays cannot keep him from getting the job. At the time of the hire Farrell was under the assumption that if a better job (more money or better chance of winning) came along that he would be free to pursue it. The Jays have prevented Farrell from earning more money and working under better condtions so at the very least the Blue Jays need to give Farrell a new salary that would commensurate what he would have received as the Red Sox manager. Oh and it would also be nice if the Jays fielded a winning team. I heard that Ken Macha is one of the candidates mentioned for the Boston job. Is that really such a good idea? I have nothing against Macha...I just want a manager who wins more and actually knows how to manage games and people...after all...that's why they call them a manager instead of a worker. 

Man, the hell with making a few extra hundred thousand dollars. You would have to be stupid to already be employed for a stable team, to going to the Days Of Our Lives situation the Red Sox are in. That team is a complete mess. How do you know he wanted to manage the Red Sox? If he loved the Red Sox so much, he would of stayed with the team in the first place. They didn't want to promote the man, so he moved on to greener pastures. 

It would be nice if the Jays fielded a winning team? You do realize Boston spent 160 million? and the Jays spent 60 million? Guess what Bostons extra 100 million in salary got them in games? 9 DAMN WINS!!!!! 

No respective manager with a brain in there head should want to touch the joke of a team the Red Sox are.  



Since: Dec 15, 2010
Posted on: October 27, 2011 12:37 pm
 

Jays amend policy to prevent Farrell to Red Sox

Aw, too bad Boston, yall need a bartendender anyway.



Since: Jun 2, 2010
Posted on: October 26, 2011 7:49 pm
 

Jays amend policy to prevent Farrell to Red Sox

You mean the long term, team friendly deals like the one they gave Vernon Wells?



Since: Aug 7, 2008
Posted on: October 26, 2011 10:10 am
 

Jays amend policy to prevent Farrell to Red Sox

The Jays cannot make retroactive changes to employment conditions because if things could be rectified to complete satisfaction on the part of all parties involved then the employee should also sue for any backwages that were lost due to management's action or inaction that resulted in the loss of earnings for said employee.....in other words....if John Farrell was going to earn more money as the Red Sox manager then the Jays cannot keep him from getting the job. At the time of the hire Farrell was under the assumption that if a better job (more money or better chance of winning) came along that he would be free to pursue it. The Jays have prevented Farrell from earning more money and working under better condtions so at the very least the Blue Jays need to give Farrell a new salary that would commensurate what he would have received as the Red Sox manager. Oh and it would also be nice if the Jays fielded a winning team. I heard that Ken Macha is one of the candidates mentioned for the Boston job. Is that really such a good idea? I have nothing against Macha...I just want a manager who wins more and actually knows how to manage games and people...after all...that's why they call them a manager instead of a worker. 

 



Since: Aug 23, 2006
Posted on: October 26, 2011 10:08 am
 

Jays amend policy to prevent Farrell to Red Sox

The Phillies, Sox & Yankees should show all of us you can't buy your team, you can't buy championships. Good scouting, drafting wins out any day over 25 million dollar a year free agents just thirsty for a pay day. Players must realize by now you can go play in these big markets and get paid for it, and not even have to perform. Your being paid so much money that no other team is going to take you on, unless your a dummie like the Angels. (Vernon Wells)

You can't be serious with this... In baseball, you can certainly buy championships. Just because  teams like the Phillies and Yankees were upset, doesn't mean they didn't win the most games in the league and put themselves in position to win it all. We all know that in the playoffs it's a crapshoot, but the teams that beat them weren't exactly small market by any standards. The Rays remain the exception, not the rule. Really dumb to point to teams who lost IN THE PLAYOFFS and say "well you can't buy championships." Free Agency is unfortunately the way Baseball functions now. Besides, the Phillies Core of Rollins, Utley, Howard, Hamels, Madson, etc. were drafted. It was a combination that built their team. Only one team wins it all every year, and let's not act like the Cardinals or Rangers are small market teams.



Since: Apr 15, 2008
Posted on: October 25, 2011 7:17 pm
 

Jays amend policy to prevent Farrell to Red Sox

I doubt there going to push the payroll to 300 million. 

Hahaha, you want to bet on that?

Lol..wouldn't bet my life on it.

The Phillies, Sox & Yankees should show all of us you can't buy your team, you can't buy championships. Good scouting, drafting wins out any day over 25 million dollar a year free agents just thirsty for a pay day. Players must realize by now you can go play in these big markets and get paid for it, and not even have to perform. Your being paid so much money that no other team is going to take you on, unless your a dummie like the Angels. (Vernon Wells) 



Since: Apr 15, 2008
Posted on: October 25, 2011 7:15 pm
 

Jays amend policy to prevent Farrell to Red Sox

Why would you lend any credibility to Farrell's statement? For all I know, it's 100% true, but even if he was ready to jump ship the moment he sat down with the Red Sox, saying he was "focused right now on...the Blue Jays" is what any non-idiot in his position would say. 

And the Jays are not CURRENTLY in a better position going forward than the Red Sox (if by forward you mean next year or 2013). AA needs to make some moves to do that and we'll see what he does this off-season.
Then he would ask to be let go, or he would resign. What team would keep a coach around who doesn't want to be there? We saw a few coaches get the can this year for demanding extensions. 

They are in a better position. There going into the off season with a payroll around 40 million I believe., while the Sox are saddled with terrible contracts. Last time I checked good ol Fenway was a small park...what are they going to raise ticket prices 100% and push the payroll to 300 million? There rotation resembles swiss cheese, there is no leadership to the team. A better position going forward doesn't mean a championship next season, it means the future. Unlike Boston or The Yankees, The Jays sign guys to long term, team friendly deals... I didn't see the two time Hank Aaron award winning Jose Bautista getting paid 25 million per over 7 seasons like that bum Crawford. With the 2nd wildcard team possibly coming into play as soon as next year, and as late as 2013.Look out folks. Your looking at a team who has consistenly been in 80 win territory, sign a good closer, another starter maybe...and they could push that into 90 win territory. 

No pressure on the Jays, there is a ton on the choke sox.  



Since: Jul 11, 2010
Posted on: October 25, 2011 7:13 pm
 

Jays amend policy to prevent Farrell to Red Sox

I doubt there going to push the payroll to 300 million. 

Hahaha, you want to bet on that?



Since: Nov 14, 2008
Posted on: October 25, 2011 6:39 pm
 

Jays amend policy to prevent Farrell to Red Sox

Why would you lend any credibility to Farrell's statement? For all I know, it's 100% true, but even if he was ready to jump ship the moment he sat down with the Red Sox, saying he was "focused right now on...the Blue Jays" is what any non-idiot in his position would say. 

And the Jays are not CURRENTLY in a better position going forward than the Red Sox (if by forward you mean next year or 2013). AA needs to make some moves to do that and we'll see what he does this off-season.


 


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com