Considering a New Celtics’ Season

The NBA is back. The Celtics won their final pre-season game, and an ugly one at that, last night.

As I consider the upcoming season I have no idea what will happen. I was convinced last season they would end up with a lottery pick. A few changes around the trade deadline squashed my dream.

This season the changes aren’t about the rookies. I expect little to nothing out of the three rookies. They may spend plenty of time in Maine like Young did last season. They are largely for the future, or bench guys. Jordan Mickey may turn into an elite defender, or the second coming of Fab Melo. Rozier and Hunter will be good defenders on the perimeter.

The big questions surround the returning players, and new acquired players.

AveryBradley has gotten the memo about settling for the long 2 and stepping back to the 3. He’s apparently been watching Stephan Curry and doing the little dribble side-step to create space for his shot. This should help him take the next step, if he applies in during the season.

Marcus Smart has discovered that changing speeds is more effective than going full-speed ahead all the time. This may help him become a good point guard instead of just an elite perimeter defender.

Sullinger is rightfully still in the dog house. He has to prove he can play, night in and night out. This is why they now have Lee and Johnson. We will note that they were at their best with him sitting on the bench in a suit. It isn’t looking good for him right now.

Amir Johnson was not a name that impressed me. But he is a guy that may make the team better. He’s not a star, but does enough offensively to open shots for the smaller guys. And he can pass. Combined with Lee, they may actually have an inside game this year which will be a big improvement over last year.

Kelly Olynyk is the Celtics’ version of Kyle Arrington. It is all about confidence. When he has it- great. When he doesn’t- oy vey. This means a very talented guy who is inconsistent and therefore perpetually frustrating.

Sadly, the best part about the Celtics is Brad Stephens. He has done some great things with this team so far. He will continue to push spacing and passing. This has generally looked good in the pre-season, but that is the pre-season.

His other big challenge is managing Isaiah Thomas. Very talented scorer who wanted to start but was able to consider the good of the team over his own desires. Will he be the Randy Moss of 2007, or 2009? Will he continue to be about team and contribute that spark and scoring off the bend like Vinnie Microwave Johnson and Andrew Toney, or will he put self ahead of team and become a monstrous headache like Bad Randy?

Too many question marks with this team to really know how it will turn out. The good news is that they don’t need to get a lottery pick. They should get one courtesy of the Nets.

 

Read Full Post »

Considering My Radio Debut

One of our sister congregations, Rincon Mountain PCA, has a local radio show that airs on Sunday mornings. I usually catch part of Equipped to Engage on my way into the office.

The other day the Sr. Pastor asked if I was able to fill in for him, so to speak, while he’s on vacation. The day of the taping is Tuesday, and CavWife goes to BSF in the morning. When I asked her about it she said “we’ll make it happen.”

When the CavGirls learned about this before bed one night they were filled with glee. I’m not sure why. But it was fun to watch.

Ben is yucking it up like the Wookie

On Wednesday we (Phil was there to help, but Luke, Ben and I did most of the work) had our pre-production meeting. We spent about two hours preparing for the show. The show, 23 minutes long, is about the life of Joseph. And our goal was to point us to Christ thru Joseph so we had our work cut out for us.

We spent some time white boarding the story, and discussing the main points of Joseph’s life. We started working on the discussion outline with Googledocs.  Soon we thought we had enough material for the show. Or more than enough.

As a result, we did a walk through to see how we really were time-wise. I would say it was “semi-scripted”. There are a few sections that one person is supposed to handle, but the rest is informally shared.

We were close enough on time to know we just had to cut a little bit. It was when we were done that Ben said “when we have something we want to say, we do this” as he raised an index finger. “Oh, I saw you do that once at the end.” Takes time to get the flow of the thing.

They all know what they are doing, and I’m the “new guy”. They have their own system worked out and I just don’t want to mess it up. I don’t want to dominate, nor be invisible. That is a fine balance to discover.

Now we wait until Tuesday for another dry run and then head to the studio to record the show.

Fast-forward to Tuesday Morning, 3:30

I’m awakened by CavWife fumbling around to get her medicine because she forgot to take it out before she went to bed. Normally no big deal, but it got my brain started. So began 90 minutes of rolling back and forth in bed. I should have gotten up and read, but didn’t.

The view from my seat

Normally a little insomnia is not a big deal. But I’ve been fighting a cold. So … when I got up around 7:30 I was froggy voiced. Not exactly what you want the day you are recording a radio show.

I cooked our usual Tuesday morning breakfast and left just after 9 am so I was at Rincon Mountain at 10. I had a good view of the clouds coming over the mountains, surprised they weren’t dumping more rain on us.

After arriving at Rincon, Luke, Ben and I ran through the show once more. We changed a few things, and dumped some material. We were running pretty good for time. It was off to the studio.

I road with Ben since Luke had an appointment afterward. We talked about my book. While sitting in the lobby we talked about Luke’s former life as an accountant. Let’s just say …. he’s much happier.

A Star is Not Born

The recording itself was uneventful, aside from my voice going completely south for the first few minutes. Finally my throat stayed clear, and the engineer assured me she would get most of it out of the mix. Things went pretty well. During the break we talked about verbal ticks that need to be removed from recordings. The tech said I “have a good voice for story-telling.”

The most interesting part of the process is what you never hear. It is the silent battle in your heart between pride and humility. You want to say the funniest line, or the significant thought. You also want to honor the other guys and give them space to “look good”. You hope someone hears your great sounding voice (except for the stupid cold) and insightful opinions and offer you your own show. All this stuff and more is swirling around. No one wants to be Pete Rose, always butting in and coming off looking or sounding like a self-important buffoon, even if they obviously dress better than Pete.

I’m thankful for the opportunity to sit in. Hopefully I’ll be invited back some time, like when my book comes out. I had fun, and hopefully I did contribute something positive.

For those in Tucson, it airs this Sunday morning at 7 on 104.1 FM. I’ll try to put a link up when I can.

Update: Due to a station error, the show was not aired as scheduled. It will be aired on Nov. 8th.

Here is the podcast of the episode.

Read Full Post »

Considering Guns and Gospel, Part 2

As I noted in part 1, I started this because a number of Christians seem to be responding to the recent shootings with questioning the 2nd Amendment and the place of guns among Christians.

In part 1 I focused on the inappropriate uses and purposes of guns in light of Scripture. This time I want to focus on the appropriate uses of guns in light of Scripture.

The gospel of Jesus presupposes the fallen character of the world and sinfulness of humanity. That has not changed since the Flood (see Genesis 6 in which humanity was prone toward increasing violence). We see this in John 3, which in addition to teaching about the love of God which resulted in sending the Son to save His people also teaches us that “the world” already stands condemned and rejects the Light because it loves darkness to cover its evil deeds.

This means we live surrounded by evil people. This has many applications that require wisdom for godly men and women. Let’s look at a few things.

In Genesis we see that Abraham’s nephew Lot was captured when some kings put down a rebellion that included the city in which Lot lived, Sodom (see Genesis 14). Did Abram (his name had not been changed yet) say “This must be the will of God, I hope Lot does well in his new life.”? Did Abram go and ask kindly for the kings to let him go?

No, Abram gathered his servants, and friends, and went to rescue Lot from the kings. This required weapons. Weapons can be used to defend the defenseless and rescue those victimized by evil men. This was righteous Abram who believed God, and tithed to God from the plunder he gained. Abram was acting in faith, not in unbelief in so doing. Abram was not a magistrate (ruler), policeman, soldier etc.

In Judges we see a pattern of Apostasy, Battering, Confession and Deliverance in the life of Israel after entering the Promised Land. The problems were caused by everyone “doing what was right in their own eyes”. And yet God delivered them by raising up men (and a woman) to deliver them.

Ehud and Eglon

Enter Ehud, for instance. Portions of Israel were under the control of Moab. They paid tribute to the king of Moab. Ehud assassinated Eglon when he delivered the tribute. Weapons may be used to overthrow an oppressive ruler (which is why oppressive governments have historically prohibited citizens to own weapons). This was the justification used (in light of Calvin’s doctrine of the lower magistrate) in the American Revolution. It was not simply citizens, but the Continental Congress as the lesser magistrate had a right to rebel against a corrupt king. It required an armed populace to do so. This is why the 2nd Amendment was added, precisely because the founding father’s feared that one day the government they found could become oppressive. They were rooted in their Judeo-Christian heritage, expressed by the actions of Ehud and Calvin’s doctrine, in formulating it. Guns can be used to overthrow an unjust government, not simply by crazed independent militia, but by a lesser magistrate (state, county or city government) that has the right and responsibilities to protect its citizens from the unjust ruler. Those citizens would need to participate in that process since that magistrate has fewer citizens than the whole country.

This may be why David did not actively work to overthrow Saul. David was not a lower magistrate and had no right to overthrow Saul. He waited for God to fulfill His promise that David would be king. David and his men did defend themselves, which required weapons. Surely Saul was frustrated that David and his men had weapons.

Samson Defeating the Philistines

Later in Judges, we see Samson whom God used to provoke the Philistines and eventually bring judgment upon them. Samson did not lead an army, but was endowed with supernatural strength. On one occasion he used the jaw bone of an ass as a weapon to slay 1,000 men. That sounds like a mass shooting, but it was against wicked men. He had the right to defend himself against wicked men. And so do we. This would mean, I believe, that Christians can own guns for self-defense. This would be implied in Jesus’ instruction to his disciples in Luke 22 to buy a sword. This would be akin to Jesus telling his disciples today to buy a gun. There is no non-violent use of a sword. This is also behind the rationale of the 2nd Amendment which makes it consistent with Scripture.

In fact, in Exodus 22 we see that if someone enters your home by night he or she may be slain without guilt and consequence. By day as another matter. At night there is no one to help you. If caught during the day, the thief is required to pay restitution. By night, the use of a weapon would be permissible. People should be able to defend their families from intruders, particularly at night, with guns.

²  If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, ³ but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. Exodus 22

These are historical accounts from which I am drawing inferences. Some may question those inferences. To support my inferences, let’s talk about sanctification. The gospel includes the reality that we are being conformed to the likeness (morally) of Christ. He wants to make us more like He is. He is restoring His image in us.

²⁸ And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. ²⁹ For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. Romans 8

²⁰ But that is not the way you learned Christ!— ²¹ assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, ²² to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, ²³ and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, ²⁴ and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. Ephesians 4

⁶ On account of these the wrath of God is coming. ⁷ In these you too once walked, when you were living in them. ⁸ But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth. ⁹ Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices ¹⁰ and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator. Colossians 3

Sanctification, a work of God’s free grace, involves a putting off and a putting on. This is called mortification and vivification. We turn away from worldly attitudes and sin such as malice, rage, bitterness etc. which result in the sinful use of guns I mentioned in part 1.

We are also to put on godly mindsets, and actions. If we study the character of God we see that He is the defender of the defenseless. For instance, He cares for widows and orphans. He also delivers the oppressed and exploited. We are also are supposed to care for widows and orphans. In fact, we are often His means to care for them rather than dropping money from the sky. Similarly we are to deliver the oppressed and exploited. There are times when we can use the legal process to do so. But there are other times when we may need to act immediately.

For instance, imagine you are near a gun-free zone and hear gunshots. Yes, you should call 911. But until the police arrive the gunman may be able to shoot dozens of people. Should a godly person just shrug their shoulders (and pray), or could one act to defend those at the mercy of an evil person brandishing a weapon? It is not contrary to the gospel to use a weapon to stop such an evil person. Godliness is not to sit idly by while your wife is raped, or children threatened. The use of force, including guns, would be permitted. As we see in Scripture, God often defended His helpless people through the use of force (see the Exodus, the slaughter of the Assyrian army and more). It is not ungodly, but rather godly, to use force to protect those under your care, and innocent bystanders, from wicked people seeking to commit “death-sentence” sins like murder and rape. The exception I would mention is persecution- when people are trying to kill you for being a Christian. That opens another can of worms I will not address here.

So, I think we find that “turn the other cheek” is only part of the answer to the question of guns and the gospel. There are other biblical ideas we need to incorporate to get a fuller answer to the question. Christians are free to decide for themselves if they want to own a gun or not. If they do own a gun they are bound by the limitations we’ve discussed. It can not be used for sinful reasons, or to further our own sin. It can be used to defend yourself, and your loved ones, and the defenseless from evil doers. Guns can also be used in a legitimate revolution or to stop an oppressive and evil magistrate in certain situations.

As a result of a biblical theology and historical theology, I would say that the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is consistent with the rights of godly people in the Scriptures. It is, in no way, contrary to the gospel. It would be sinful uses of weapons that would be contrary to the gospel.

Just for fun read about the Harvard Study that shows are negative correlation between guns and violence.

Read Full Post »

Considering Guns and the Gospel

The recent tragedies, or perhaps seemingly endless series of gun tragedies, have caused many to re-consider their own view on guns. I ran across a statement that the Bible has no “theology of guns” and therefore we should be willing to view the 2nd Amendment as contrary to Scripture.

I think it bears some examination. Obviously guns aren’t in the Scriptures, but weapons certainly are. This country has a long history of gun ownership, and responsible gun ownership. These kinds of shootings, not associated with mob wars, are new.

Before we get to weapons themselves, let us consider some of the cultural shifts that may be at work in this horrible trend. The most fundamental is a shift away from a Judeo-Christian worldview. While American has never been a Christian nation, it has been dominated by the Judeo-Christian (monotheistic and moralistic) worldview as a form of civil religion. As the gospel has departed from the cultural consciousness we see the wrath of God revealed as we see in Romans 1. Often we focus on the sexual immorality, but there is also a great increase in violence as the culture, and its members begin to devalue life. We see this in abortion, domestic violence, school violence, gang life, euthanasia and more.  This leads to the breakdown of the family, and studies indicate that sons without fathers are far more likely to struggle in many ways, including a tendency toward violence.

²⁸ And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. ²⁹ They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, ³⁰ slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, ³¹ foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Romans 1

Cain and Abel

This only makes sense when we think of life after Eden. We see that the world in rebellion to God was full of violence beginning with Cain killing his brother Abel. Abel’s great “sin” against Cain? It was actually about God because God accepted Abel’s sacrifice but not Cain’s. Pride and envy gave birth to bitterness and then hatred which resulted in Cain picking up a rock to kill his brother.

Notice God’s response. Before he did it, God confronted Cain and called him to rule over sin before sin ruled over him. Cain was mastered by sin instead. God had a measure of mercy on Cain by not having him put to death. A mark was placed on him so others wouldn’t kill him either. (As we will see in part 2, this changes after the flood.) God did not blame the rock, institute rock-free zones or rock (or whatever he used) control. The issue was not rocks but the human heart.

This cycle of violence continued with Lamech. He is the forefather of the gang mentality we often see among our disillusioned, despairing youth even if they are not in gangs.

²³ Lamech said to his wives:

“Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;
    you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say:
I have killed a man for wounding me,
    a young man for striking me.
²⁴ If Cain’s revenge is sevenfold,
    then Lamech’s is seventy-sevenfold.”Genesis 4

We notice here a corruption of sex and marriage as well in that he spoke to his wives. A polygamist, he perverted justice. His wounding lead him to kill another man. He then boasted about it. His “punishment” exceeded the sin committed against him (giving Lamech the benefit of the doubt).

We see here, and in the OT law, that punishments are not to exceed the crime. The “eye for an eye” code puts limits on justice. We are not to kill people for insulting us, stealing from us (except in one instance I will mention in part 2) etc.

To make an epochal adjustment, we see that we should not use guns (or any other weapon or tool used as a weapon) to commit crimes, or to retaliate against those who harm us. The problem is not the tool we use, but rather the wicked design of the person who wields it.

In the NT we see this taught in a few places. Most famously in the Sermon on the Mount.

³⁸ “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ ³⁹ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. ⁴⁰ And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. ⁴¹ And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. ⁴² Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. Matthew 5

We see that Jesus refers to the law of talonic justice. For a personal insult (the slap) we are not to retaliate in like kind and especially not in an excessive manner (like shooting or stabbing them). The gospel helps us to forgive them instead of seeking retribution. We should rather be wronged than wrong the other person in response.

This doesn’t mean we don’t care about or want justice. It means we entrust justice into God’s hands instead of our own.

¹⁷ Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. ¹⁸ If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. ¹⁹ Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” Romans 12

We remember that God is just, and He has promised to make all things right. That may be in the death of His Son, or in judgment on the Last Day. But God will deal with it. It may also be through the state as Paul noted in Romans 13.

 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, ⁴ for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Romans 13

Death Wish 3

If you are a person prone to anger, or seeking retaliation, you should not own a weapon because you will be particularly tempted to use it for unjust and wicked purposes. It is not intended to be used to right the wrongs perpetrated against you.

Does this mean that a Christian shouldn’t own a weapon (unless he or she is in the military or law enforcement)? No.

We have this statement by Jesus as he prepares the send the disciples out. Previously they were to go with nothing. Now they were to bring particular items.

³⁶ He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. Luke 22

He wanted the disciples to buy a sword! Surely, therefore, it is not sinful to own and therefore use one. The issue is for what reason. We have seen the wrong reasons to use one: murder, retaliation and would include to rob others or otherwise sin against them.

Read Full Post »

Considering the Red Sox’ 2015 Season

Last again.

That is one way of looking at it. But not necessarily the best way.

Unfortunately they played too well at the end and no longer have a protected 1st pick (which last year netted them Andrew Benintendi, an outfielder with power who adjusted to the minors very quickly and was promoted). Hopefully they can get another building block for the future, unless they sign a free agent who got a qualifying offer.

Futility

2015 was really a tale of two seasons. The first season got them into last place and cost their pitching coach his job. The hitters struggled in the first month or so. Hanley was HOT in the first month (he and Dustin were the only ones), but then got hurt and pretty much stunk offensively the rest of his shortened year. While Betts, Bogaerts and Ortiz started to hit, Nava, Napoli, Panda etc. did not. Victorino was barely in there as he struggled with injuries again.

And there was the pitching which was horrendous. Short outings, big innings, overworked bullpen. Dumpster fire was it, Yoda would say. There was a reason the coach lost his job. The only bright spots were Clay and Koji.

The outfield defense was hit or miss. Betts did an excellent job. Hanley was horrendous- the worst left fielder they Red Sox have ever had. Epic kind of bad. This did not help the pitchers, at all. It also cost them a few games with costly errors.

Lots of people were wondering how long Farrell would have his job.

Then a few things changed.

1. They cleared space for young players to come up by trading Napoli, Nava and Victorino.
2. Turnover in the front office. Dombrowski was hired to head up baseball operations, Ben decided to leave too. This gave a fresh set of eyes and no loyalties to the situation
3. Farrell had surgery during which they discovered cancer which meant he was done for the season.
4. Hanley was essentially benched which allowed them to establish 3 guys in the line up just about every day.

A Feel-Good Second Half

This meant that JBJ and Castillo were able to establish some continuity which helped JBJ have a scorching hot August providing a glimmer of hope that he has turned that corner offensively. Castillo got his defense sorted out and hit better than in his yo-yo stints earlier in the year. Even more importantly, they got incredible defense in the outfield for the rest of the season.

Travis Shaw did his best Mike Napoli from earlier seasons impression hitting over .270 and launching 13 over the wall. Finally offense from the first baseman.

The rest of the offense also came together and Chili Davis kept his job. They were the 3rd best offense. Not quite what we’d hoped but after such a slow start they showed what we hope happens in the future. Xander, who also improved his defense, upped his average significantly to hit over .320. Now, he just needs to hit for power. Betts’ average continued to climb through the second half of the season and is becoming the player we thought he would. Swihart made steady improvement as well.

The pitching got better despite Clay’s latest injury. Porcello and Kelly had their “come to Jesus” moments and pitched significantly better after trips to the minor to fix “injuries”. FA returnee Rich Hill was amazing in 4 starts. Before a concussion ended his season Wright was doing very well with his knuckleball.

They were one of the better teams in the last 2+ months of the season, nearly getting out of the basement of the AL East.

The Damage

Fans want the big FA signings G-O-N-E. Panda ballooned up and struggled with conditioning and heat. Hitting under .250 didn’t help his cause. He wasn’t signed for the regular season, but first you have to make the playoffs so Panda power can happen. I don’t know if they can trade him at this point. But he needs to drop lots of weight, and keep it off.

They told Hanley to drop 15-20 pounds too. He needs to move a little quicker if he’s going to play first base. But is he a cancer in the clubhouse? He can hit but will it be worth it?

He Took the Money and Stayed

Arnie Beyler was the only coaching staff casualty when they did not renew his contract. There doesn’t seem to be a clear reason. He helped Mookie and Brock adjust to the outfield. He helped Castillo learn the wall in left. He seemed to be doing good work, overall. What he couldn’t do in 2014 was get Cespedes to prepare to play in right. That would be Cespedes fault for being inflexible. What he couldn’t do in 2015 was motivate Hanley to learn how to play left field. Once again the onus is on the player. It is hard for a coach making a few hundred thousand to make a millionaire do anything. It has to come from within.

Luvollo was encouraged to stay on as bench coach instead of looking for a manager position with another team following his successful time as interim in Farrell’s place. Perhaps he is their insurance policy should Farrell not recuperate, or the team falter out of the gate yet again.

Moving Forward

The Red Sox have a solid young core in Xander, Mookie and Blake to complement Ortiz and Pedroia. Swihart may pick up his first baseman’s mitt again just in case Christian Vasquez is ready to return. He is the better catcher and Blake’s bat is a welcome addition to the line up.

The Sox can probably afford to play JBJ in center even if August was the aberration. If he can hit .250 or better all should be good in light of the fact that he is probably the best defensive centerfielder in baseball. Therefore the outfield is set moving into 2016. Betts and Castillo should provide sufficient offense, particularly when compared to the debacle of 2014 in that regard.

The real question, offensively, is the corner positions: first and third. The questions are many. Can Panda actually lose weight? Can he stop his late night snacking? Can he return to switch hitting? All he has to give us is about .270 and solid defense. Is that too much to ask?

Who will play first, Ramirez or Shaw? If they don’t trade Hanley, they will probably keep Shaw on speed dial for when Hanley’s inevitable injury or injuries occur. But is Shaw for real or is this Will MIddlebrooks Part 2? Shaw can play both first and third so perhaps he stays in Boston as the utility infielder with Holt who can play everything but catcher.

The other great, big question is the pitching. It looks like the Sox will pick up Clay’s option. With him there is the inevitable injury. There is also the uncertain as to which Clay will show up: Cy Young contender if he stays healthy Clay or boy are we glad he got hurt because he was killing us Clay? Which Kelly and Porcello will show up? Will they get a top of the line starter (tough if they hang on to Panda and Hanley)? Dombrowski is a good talent evaluator and has shown a knack for trading guys you think may be tough to trade (Prince Fielder) and get guys who become great (Cabrera and Scherzer). It will be interesting to see what Dombrowski will do. But it is unlikely he brings back Rich Hill. I’d only do that on an incentive-laden contract. But Rich wants guaranteed money.

Will this be the first time Dombrowski builds a bullpen? Or will he let Hazen or Wren do that heavy lifting because a man’s got to know his limitations? They have a few good pieces in Tazawa (who was great until they overworked him due to a lousy rotation and Farrell’s habit of warming him up and not putting him in) and Koji. Both had short seasons and should be ready to play next year. Maybe Matt Barnes puts it together and finds a home there. Lots of questions here

This will be an offseason filled with questions. I have no answers, but will have to sit back like everyone else and see what happens.

Read Full Post »