From Comcast SportsNetBOSTON (AP) -- John Farrell sat in the visitors' dugout at Fenway Park as talk intensified that he might be working in the other dugout next year.The Toronto manager looked up at two dozen reporters a month ago and told them that as Boston's pitching coach for four years under Terry Francona he learned an important lesson: think of the players first in making managerial decisions.If you do that, he said, "you probably are guided in the right direction to do the right thing."Since that session before the opener of the Blue Jays' three-game sweep of the Red Sox, Bobby Valentine has been fired as Boston's manager and Farrell has emerged as the leading candidate to take over. But he has a year left on his contract and the Red Sox would have to discuss compensation with the Blue Jays to make him available.Valentine didn't always make the players his top priority before he was fired on Thursday after going 69-93 in his only season, Boston's worst record in nearly 50 years.He said in April that Kevin Youkilis wasn't as physically or emotionally into the game as he had been, kept Jon Lester in a game long enough to allow 11 runs and said as the miserable season kept getting worse that the Red Sox had "the weakest roster we've ever had in September in the history of baseball."Valentine's predecessor, Francona, rarely criticized players in public. Management likely is looking for the same from Valentine's successor.That's not the only difference in this year's managerial search from last year's, when Valentine wasn't hired until Dec. 1. That was 64 days after Boston's last game and 62 after Francona was let go."I'd prefer to have it done in less time," general manager Ben Cherington said of the current search, but it's more important to get the right person.The Red Sox likely will look for a person with different attributes this time than they did during last year's search, especially with a younger roster after the team traded high-priced, underperforming veterans Josh Beckett, Adrian Gonzalez and Carl Crawford to the Los Angeles Dodgers in August."The team is in a different point than it was last year when we hired Bobby," Cherington said. "The roster was fairly mature and we felt, mistakenly in retrospect, but we felt at the time, that we had a chance to win and the team was ready to win and we're now at a different point."But he refuted the suggestion that the Red Sox aren't ready to win next season."To be elite again we needed to make more than cosmetic changes," Cherington said. "So now we're very early in the process of doing that and we're going to work our tails off to put the best team we can out there in 2013 and build the next great Red Sox team. We don't know exactly when that will come to fruition."Others who could be candidates for the job are Cleveland interim manager Sandy Alomar Jr., Detroit third-base coach Gene Lamont and Toronto first-base coach Torey Lovullo, a former manager of the Red Sox Triple-A team at Pawtucket. All were interviewed by the Red Sox last year before Valentine was hired.Boston bench coach Tim Bogar and Baltimore third-base coach DeMarlo Hale, Francona's former bench coach, also could be considered.The Red Sox wanted to talk with Farrell last year but were rebuffed. The Blue Jays may be more willing after his second losing season in his two years in Toronto.Farrell was Boston's pitching coach from 2007, when the Red Sox won the World Series, to 2010 and helped Jon Lester and Clay Buchholz develop into productive pitchers. He's also familiar with many veterans and minor leaguers in the Red Sox system.And, as Cleveland's director of player development from November 2001 to the end of the 2006 season, he worked with current Boston assistant general manager Mike Hazen, who held scouting and player development positions with the Indians from 2001 to 2005.Farrell also worked with many current members of Red Sox management."Not only are they professional colleagues, on some level they became personal friends and we had success," he said on Sept. 7 as he sat in the third-base dugout. "We shared a lot of challenges along the way."That familiarity would make him a much safer choice than Valentine. Cherington preferred Dale Sveum, who ended up as manager of the Chicago Cubs.Red Sox president Larry Lucchino, a strong backer of Valentine when he was hired, said on Thursday, "as well as you may know someone casually or through the interview process, you get to know them better when you have a full season together. So, of course, (there were) some surprises, positive and negative surprises."The Red Sox would like fewer surprises and more stability from their next manager."I don't think there's a certain resume or background" necessary, Cherington said. "These jobs bring all sorts of challenges. There's a person who's right for the Red Sox job in 2013 who isn't right for another team's job or who might not have been right for our job last year or the year before."Farrell may be the right person this time, if the Blue Jays let him go to a team with a larger and more demanding group of fans and media contingent."Having worked in Boston," he said a month ago, "there's a tremendous fan base that is very passionate. The expectations are always very high, but, as a competitor, that's what you aspire to do."
The words of John Wall has resurrected the talk of Paul George playing for the Wizards in 2017-18, but nothing has changed to improve the prospects of that happening.
1) George is under contract for $19.5 million with the Indiana Pacers before he enters a player option for 2018-19 that he’ll surely exercise to become an unrestricted free agent. The Wizards have to make Indiana an offer that it’ll accept but with understanding there no promises beyond that one year of George’s services.
2) Let’s say the Wizards put forth enough in a salary match such as Marcin Gortat’s $12.8 million for this season, Tomas Satoransky ($3 million) and first-round picks, which would come with a projected cap hold to make a deal work, would the Pacers want it? This isn’t the same as Blake Griffin opting out of his deal with the Clippers to become a free agent. A team can deal directly with him in the open market (and no, the Wizards can’t afford him). With George, the Pacers are the third party and can pull the plug on anything.
3) Any deal that involves Bradley Beal, who is under contract for four more years, is a no-go. Can’t have a Big 3 without him coming off his best season as a pro. And it would probably include Otto Porter being put into the deal for George. Porter, of course, doesn’t have any incentive to do a sign-and-trade because he gets significantly less in such a deal under the new CBA rules. He’d either have to really want to do the Wizards a solid or really love the prospect of being in Indianapolis.
4) Assume that George were to end up here and wanted to stay despite all of those hurdles. The money alone makes it a salary cap nightmare with Beal’s $25.4 million, Wall’s $19.1 million and Ian Mahinmi’s $15.9 million on the books when George would command a max of his own in the summer of 2018. To keep George around beyond (and he has even made it clear to Wall he wants to be in L.A.) would require financial gymnastics that aren't plausible.
5) Having George linger all season long in Indiana knowing he’s on his way out can be toxic. It’s better for the Pacers and the player that they move and not allow this situation to drag out. Otherwise, every time George has a bad game or the team underperforms they’ll face questions. Teammates and coaches will be bombarded with a season full of inquiries about the topic. It’ll be a lost year instead of one where they hit the reset. There’s no point of delaying the inevitable. Of course, the Pacers have taken this long knowing it was in the offing and haven’t moved on George. Or they're simply waiting for the Boston Celitcs to put together a package. With their assets and plethora of picks, the Celtics can afford to take a gamble on George for a year.
As CSNmidatlantic.com reported a few weeks ago, Wall wants to see where the franchise heading before he signs an extension as early as this summer. While a player the caliber of George would wow him now, what would the Wizards look like in two years without George, Porter and a few first-round picks?
It's officially rumor season in the NBA.
That time of year where every NBA fan — at some point — thinks about what it would take to get whatever superstar engulfed in trade talks to play for their team.
It doesn't matter how serious the conversations are, or how realistic the logistics need to be.
Admit it, at some point you've pictured Paul George changing uniforms like this:
As CSN's J. Michael explained, Paul George to D.C. is not a likely scenario, but it sure looks good, doesn't it?
So let's take this a step further, and lay out actual reasons the Wizards should be a serious consideration for Paul George.
1. Playing with John Wall makes players better
In an era full of shoot-first point guards, there's a premium on the traditional point guard in the NBA. Luckily, the Wizards have one.
Wall was second in the NBA in assists per game, at 10.7 during the regular season. He also doesn't need a ton of shots either, taking only 18.4 per game, and hitting over 45 percent of them.
Efficiency is a major plus in the NBA.
To put that in perspective, Russell Westbrook — the newly minted MVP — who ranked just behind Wall in assists, still took over 24 shots per game.
Wall is efficient and unselfish. He thrives on making sure everyone is a part of the offense.
The Wizards ranked sixth in the NBA in assists. The Cavaliers, who are desperately trying to land George in a trade, ranked 13th with a ball-dominant point guard (yes they have LeBron, but Kyrie Irving needs his shots to be happy, Wall doesn't).
RELATED VIDEO: WALL BELIEVES PAUL GEORGE IS MISSING PIECE TO WIZARDS' BIG 3
2. Scott Brooks and his system
The Wizards have an offense George would thrive in. They can score (5th in ppg) and move fast to get there (11th in pace).
If you like the ball in your hands, with opportunities to put up big numbers comfortably, Scott Brooks has what George is looking for.
That's what Kevin Durant wanted too, and look how that turned out.
3. The Wizards have the rare combination of youth and experience
Every team wants to get younger, but with youth usually, comes inexperience.
Not in the Wizards case though.
They were tied for the ninth youngest team in the NBA in 2016-17, with an average age at under 26 years old.
Their young building blocks in Wall and Bradley Beal already have 65 combined postseason games under their belts.
The Lakers, in a complete rebuild right now, had the same average age as the Wizards, and their young core has — wait for it — ZERO games of experience in the playoffs. How long does that take to change? How long does George want to wait and babysit?
On the other hand, the Cavs and Clippers have plenty playoff experience but are the oldest teams in the NBA.
What's the future in Cleveland and Los Angeles going to look like in two years?
RELATED: "HE WOULD BE A GREAT PIECE FOR US"
4. The Wizards future is more defined
That brings us to another important part of the Wizards.
Beal is locked up until 2021. Wall is here until at least 2019, and would likely want to stick around much longer with a third star on this team.
Those are the names that matter for George, and you know where they stand with the organization.
LeBron can opt out after next season, Irving has quietly been shopped, and there's more than enough questions about long-term stability in Cleveland.
The Lakers have cap space coming yes, but the Wizards already have two stars on the roster with a proven track record.
It's not a "what if" scenario for George in Washington, D.C.
In Los Angeles, it's "what if" Lonzo Ball can be a great point guard, or "what if" Brandon Ingram reaches his potential.
How long are you willing to wait to compete if you're Paul George and you're looking to win now?
5. Altering D.C. sports history would make Paul George a legend
NBA stars aren't as dependent on big markets to help build their brand like they used to be, but it still doesn't hurt.
D.C. is the eighth biggest media market in the country, and desperate for a champion.
Cleveland is important to the NBA because of LeBron. When he leaves, a smoldering crater will be left behind.
Los Angeles is Hollywood first, but basketball second. It's what hurt the Lakers in their recent recruiting pitches to stars like LaMarcus Aldridge and Kevin Durant.
Imagine the legend George would be in this city if he were to help lead the Wizards to a title?
You're not getting murals on a wall outside of Ben's Chili Bowl for winning one title with the Lakers. You still have to catch up to Magic, Kareem, and Kobe to even be remembered once you retire out there.
If you win a ring here though, you elevate your legacy to a whole new stratosphere.
Look at the Warriors first title. Steph Curry, Klay Thompson, and Draymond Green will be the three names always associated with turning them around from basement dwellers to NBA Champions.
Forget super teams and Kevin Durant, their career headlines were written when they changed the Warriors image in 2015.
LeBron James's biggest career accomplishment will be bringing a ring (maybe more) to Cleveland. He ended the "since 1964" drought.
If Paul George wants to truly be looked at as an all-time great, bringing an NBA title to Washington would be what pops off the page of his resume.
Not grooming a bunch of kids in L.A. to win something they've already seen 16 times.
Isn't that what players care about now anyway, how they're remembered?
So in the end, Paul George can either play in the shadows somewhere else, or create a whole new spotlight on himself here in DC.
It just depends on what his priorities really are.