Well, again, as much as I hate to vote Boston, I see The Guy With Two Rings in His Current Position and ... Everybody Else. Heading into the season, anyway, is there an argument for anyone but the old Expo prospect Francona?

Since the positive effect a manager has on a team is questionable-at-best, I'm using the metric of willingness and ability to physically brutalize members of his own team. Voted Gibbons, but I'm willing to reconsider if Trembley kicks the snot out of Danny Cabrera.

Wow

I had totally forgot Girardi was managing the Yankees...that Torre fiasco seems ages ago

I voted Francona but truthfully I'm not high on any of these guys.

I like Francona - he went with Okajima a rookie as his main setup guy despite having other serviceable relievers like Timlin around. But I can't help but place the success of these Boston clubs on the wealth of talent that Epstein has gathered. I think he deserves more credit.

But I think the mere fact that Papelbon is not starting in the rtation, I will not vote for Francona.
Papelbon, Beckett, Schilling, Dice-K and your pic from Buccholz, Wakefield...and there's more...I can't think of others right now.

So I went with Girardi who had a fantastic year with the Marlins a couple of years ago.

Well this was a pretty good test of the strength of the homer vote.

Gibbons is neck and neck with Tampa's Maddon, both narrowly eclipsing Tremblay.

Paplebon sucked in the rotation.

But I think the mere fact that Papelbon is not starting in the rtation, I will not vote for Francona.

Papelbon might be that rare case of a pitcher who is actually more valuable as a reliever, throwing very high leverage, albeit minimal, innings.

Just doing some back of the napkin calculations, say Paplebon, as a starter, could give you 180 IP of 3.75 ERA. Assuming that an average SP is around 4.75, that would mean he'd be 20 runs better than average. If he gave you 60 innings as a closer, with a leverage index of 1.5, that would be like 90 innings. And if gave you an ERA of 2.00 where the average reliever is around 4.00, that would mean he'd be 20 runs better than average.

Some might argue that he'd outperform the 180/3.75 I suggested and that might be fair. He has now twice outperformed the 60/2.00 closer benchmark that I used in my example.

If it's my team, I'd keep him in the bullpen (and his three poor quality starts from 2005 would have no bearing on that decision).

Red Sox fan is busting a gut over this poll.  I guess it's proof that a manager is almost completely irrelevant.

a manager is mostly irrelevant. However, some managers(Gibbons) feel the need to show their relevancy.
I personally like Gibby alot. He's got a great personality; he's very open and approachable during his weekly segments on the Score.
BUT what I absolutely detest is his over-managing when it comes to relievers.
He got too clingy to the Downs-Janssen-Accardo setup, which he used almost exclusively last season when we had leads late in the game. Yes, it is very important to have a bridge to the closer(perhaps far more important than a top notch closer) but he totally ignored guys like Frasor and Wolfe(although he came around with Wolfe late in the season).
There were times when you could see the frustration in Downs' face for coming in for just one batter. These guys have to warm up their arms pretty good just to come in and to have thrown just 6 pitches and your night is done is ridiculous!
There was a late inning game in which Accardo blew the save and when the relievers were most important, we had none of our best(Downs, Janssen) available because he wasted them both in the 8th.
I think his inability to handle the pitching staff is his worst attribute as a manager(that an not pinch-hitting enough but don't get me started on that!)