No-Names On Parade. This is the theme of the Red Sox managerial search in November 2011.
Why are the Sox going low-profile in the search for their next skipper?
And why did Texas pitching coach Mike Maddux say no to an interview, citing family reasons (Maddux’s family lives in Dallas-Fort Worth), then go to Chicago to interview with the Cubs?
Maybe the Globe’s Nick Cafardo gave us the answer last Sunday when he wrote about the Red Sox’ insistence on an “organizational approach’’ for their next manager.
Nick explained that the Sox reject the old-school notion of “one voice,’’ and prefer managers “who take a lot of input from the front office.’’
“That’s simplifying it,’’ said Red Sox general manager Ben Cherington, the man in charge of the search. “There’s a lot of in-between. Most managers who are perceived as autonomous have been doing it a long time. They’ve had a ton of success. Typically, they are either unavailable or retired. They are not always as available as guys who may be at a different point in their career.
“When you hire someone who is less experienced or has less tenure, you work with and help and support them in different areas.’’
We know the Sox emphasized the “organizational approach’’ in the eight years that Terry Francona managed the team. Francona had a computer on his desk, and Theo Epstein’s minions were in and out of his office all the time.
But only in the days after Francona was fired did we get a grasp of the extent of the interference from above. If you saw Philip Seymour Hoffman’s depiction of an emasculated Art Howe in “Moneyball,’’ you know what I’m talking about.
This is why you won’t hear about them trying to bring Tony La Russa out of retirement. This is why Bobby Valentine and Joe Torre are out of the question. There will never be another Dick Williams type in the Sox dugout. The Sox want a “player’s manager.’’ Some would also say they want a guy who’ll take lineups from Bill James, Tom Trippett, and Carmine the computer.
Cherington disputes the latter notion.