Dusty Baker would be a great fit for Boston if the Red Sox front office continue their tradition of not owning up to their own failures and seek to pin blame on Francona for the team falling to bits.

In fact, he's be a great fit regardless.

Remember, the Red Sox have never had a minority manager.  The Red Sox and Yankees are the only American League teams never to have had a minority manager; a record that frankly is a disgrace to both teams.  At least the Yankees don't have a persistent history of plain and overt discrimination within their front office.  I've been shocked for years that the Henry/Lucchino/Epstein cabal haven't seen fit to move at least an inch or two away from the frankly racist hiring history of the Red Sox - I always just assumed that once the Yawkey cancer that afflicted the team for so long was excised, that the Sox would begin to take seriously the idea of putting minorities in positions of responsibility.  Hasn't happened yet, but who knows.

The five MLB franchises that have never had a minority as manager, by the way, are (give or take a team or two) the five most prestigious franchises in MLB.  Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Braves, and Cardinals.  If there was ever an example of how MLB's pressure on its franchises has helped the cause of minorities in baseball's management structure, this is it, because the five teams lest impervious to pressure have had no blacks and no Hispanics, EVER, in their top field and front office jobs.

I should hope that Epstein hires the best man for the job and does not feel obligated to give a job to a minority simply because the team has never had a minority manager. If a minority manager happens to be the best candidate, then you hire him. If it's a white man, it shouldn't make a difference.

It is very, very different when you are dealing with an organization that has a well-founded tradition of NOT hiring the best man for the job, and insisting on a racial qualification (or disqualification) in order to be considered for the top jobs.  I think the Red Sox should be held accountable for this crap, especially since no one ever does.  If Francona is fired and Epstein steps up to the microphone and announces that Joel Skinner or Buddy Bell or Bob Brenly is the next Red Sox manager, I think the first ten questions should be about why the Red Sox have never had a minority manager.

MLB have shown, time and again, that you HAVE to hold the teams' feet to the fire on this stuff.  The Red Sox have a responsibility to baseball not to be a lingering embarrassment.

If there was ever an example of how MLB's pressure on its franchises has helped the cause of minorities in baseball's management structure, this is it, because the five teams lest impervious to pressure have had no blacks and no Hispanics, EVER, in their top field and front office jobs.

Or, at the times when those teams were looking for a manager or a GM, the best candidate simply happened to be someone who wasn't black or Hispanic. Wait, what the hell am I saying? You're probably right, they must all be a bunch of racists who need to be pressured by MLB into hiring minorities...

It is very, very different when you are dealing with an organization that has a well-founded tradition of NOT hiring the best man for the job, and insisting on a racial qualification (or disqualification) in order to be considered for the top jobs. 

So Theo Epstein should hire a minority manager because people decades ago didn't?

Wouldn't he be continuing the heritage of not hiring the best man for the job if he did so? Why should two wrongs make a right?

Also, what does it say to minorities when an organization hires a fellow minority not based on the content of their character, but on the colour of their skin? I am partially a minority, and I would find it offensive if a leader of our culture was chosen for a job simply because the organization felt it made things right. It's artificial and insulting.

To add to that, it would be far greater an honour for a leader of my culture to work hard, gain experience and make himself the best man for the job. That's something minorities can cling to and be proud of.

I don't believe Theo Epstein is rascist. As long as a minority makes himself the best man for the job, Epstein will do what is right ethically and for the greater good of his team.

Maybe it's because I grew up in a different era from you guys, but I remember the slogging that baseball went through to get teams to take minority candidates seriously.  If it's a non-issue for you, I'd venture to guess that you're not aware of the history that's gone into it.

Again, I didn't say the Red Sox or anyone else had to hire a minority to be their field manager.  I think the Red Sox owe it to baseball and their fans to show, though, that they take the idea seriously.  If the Red Sox took your attitude to it I think there would be legitimate outrage.  You can't just brush it under the rug because it offends your notion of fair play to be conscious of race.

 I think the Red Sox owe it to baseball and their fans to show, though, that they take the idea seriously. 

But why wouldn't they take it seriously? I totally understand the events in history that would make one bring up this issue, but Theo Epstein has to be given a certain amount of credibility. They clearly don't have some sort of secret policy. DeMarlo Hale is their third base coach because he's worked hard his whole life, possibly more, but has earned his job. His job should not be a reward because he's black. What he should be, is credited as a leader in his industry, overcoming adversity to be something minorities could only dream of 50 years ago.

If the Red Sox took your attitude to it I think there would be legitimate outrage. 

If Theo Epstein wrote a public letter to the media, saying that although past events have left a black mark on this organization, he was choosing the best man to steer Red Sox Nation regardless of race, I doubt there woudl be little outrage.

Just to be clear: I'm not advocating ignoring past events and pretending to start off with a clean slate--I'm not. History should be remembered and reparations should be made appropriately. I am however advocating that minorities should still have to prove themselves the best to be given the title of the best. It's the job of the Red Sox to ensure that these people are given the opportunity to prove themselves the best. 

What plagued baseball was that minorities hadn't even been given the opportunity to show everyone what they could do.

Could be, or perhaps you overstate the matter. 

I can't deny the history of racism that pervaded the Red Sox organization years ago, but that doesn't mean that the same racism remains and is prevalent today.  Fact is, I honestly can't say one way or the other given that I don't live in Boston and don't know what practices they had (and have) in place.  However, as I understand the MLB hiring policy, it merely requires consideration of minorities for front office/managerial positions but doesn't impose obligations regarding the actual hiring for these positions.  I'm OK with that and so long as the Red Sox, or any other organization, follow that I can't critique them.

Well, you'll notice I didn't shout racism.  The Red Sox have a history of it, of course, but I wouldn't say the current gang are racists just because they haven't hired a minority manager recently.  Of course, the Red Sox front office has done little or nothing to counteract the historically accurate perception that the Sox are a racist organization.  I think that's a bad idea; bad for the Red Sox and bad for baseball.

I can say that teams should hire minority candidates sometimes, without maintaining that they're racists if they're don't.  However, I do think they should do some things, some times, to counteract the perception that the Sox are still the creature of Cracker Tom Yawkey.

Uhhhh, just wanted to inform you all that the Epstien hiring WAS the minority hiring that they required "to counteract the historically accurate perception that the Sox are a racist organization".

They hired a 28 year old jewish kid. Not exactly the love of a "Cracker Tom Yawkey".

The Red Sox are free to hire whomever they want now.

Nobody's commented on this, and honestly I just noticed when updating the story with the Girardi information ... the ex-FLA skipper is the first of the four fired so far who was not a minority manager.

Pretty soon, someone is gonna raise a ruckus, though to be fair, Girardi is the only one whose team put up a season that wouldn't be labeled "disappointing" by many.

There would actually only be seven possible "new" matchups among these eight contenders:

Padres vs. Twins, Athletics, Yankees (Tigers in 1984)

Mets vs. Twins, Athletics, Tigers (Yankees in 2000)

Dodgers vs. Tigers (Yankees in 1955 et seq, Twins in 1965, A's in 1974 et seq)

Cardinals vs. nobody (A's in 1930 et seq, Yankees in 1942 et seq, Tigers in 1968, Twins in 1987)

And the Mets played the A's in 1973

And I should do more fact-checking before making my posts.

Five possible new matchups, then. Is that the fewest possible new matchups in playoff history?

Yes, Jordan.  I think the closest otherwise was 2003 with six...

Marlins vs. Yankees, Red Sox, Twins, A's

Twins vs. Cubs

Red Sox vs. Braves