Kimmi

I would not.

That all very well could be true. But that is not all or even mostly due to Hanley's option vesting or not. That has to do with the win now window that Dombrowski created to begin with.

The original plan when signing Moreland was to form a platoon between him and Hanley. IMO, Moreland will get his playing time. It's not only about how Hanley is hitting, but about how Moreland is hitting as well. The option vesting next year is not a concern for me. Let the players' performance dictate the amount of playing time. If that results in Hanley's option vesting, I'm good with that. If that results in his option not vesting, I'm good with that as well. What I would have a problem with is if Hanley is significantly outperforming Moreland and they sit Hanley specifically to keep the option from vesting.

Hanley's option for next year is not what is going to open or close the window after next year. However, since we do have a window, we certainly want to maximize our chances this year with the players that we already have.

I am all about maximizing the payroll. However, Hanley is already on the team with a vesting option, which results in a different situation than signing a free agent or picking up a club option. I get that Hanley's $20 mil is likely to be an overpay for 2019. But if he is raking, I'm not sitting him so that the option doesn't vest. It's also about playing your best players to give the team the best chance of making the playoffs.

The good news is that I can watch the Yankees game tonight. At least until/unless the Yankees start winning. I really hate when the Sox and the Yankees both have off days.

Haha. "Good one".

Yup. Shame on him.

Not necessarily.

No, more often than not good teams win the close games by random factors, as do bad teams. They don't 'find a way' to win close games.

Agreed. Dombrowski has so much more information and resources available to him than we could ever hope for. He's on top of it.

Well, as you know, I am not as impressed with Dombrowski as others are. But even with that being the case, I know that Dombrowski is a smart baseball man and I know that he is constantly looking for ways to improve the team.

Yes, there is a difference. But my mantra is to get to the playoffs, then anything can happen. The wild card game is part of the playoffs, despite what some people consider it to be. Besides, I think the Sox have a very good shot at the division. Not smooth sailing, but a very good shot.

IMO, if Hanley's option vests, that can only mean good things for the Red Sox this season.

Very small sample size indeed. I'm encouraged by what I've seen, but it's certainly too early to determine that he will produce all season. That said, I think he will have a very good season if he stays healthy.

The notion that good teams find a way to win close games is a falsity. Good teams will tend to win a slightly larger % of close games than bad teams, just because they are a good team, but not close to the same winning % that they have in blow out games or overall. The reason is that randomness trumps skill in those close games. I can give you example after example of the best teams in baseball having a .500 or below W-L record in one run games, or vice versa.

I have defended Farrell, and would have been fine had he not been fired. That said, we seem to keep hearing more and more about how the players were unhappy playing for Farrell last year. It was probably time for a new face.

Once again, why the need for a personal shot? Not going to waste my time defending myself against false statements.

The talent of truly good teams will be evident in their records in 'blowout' games or games that are determined by more than 3-4 runs. The closer the score, the more randomness trumps skill. That's not just me blowing smoke either. That's a fact.

I have no problems with questioning a manager's decisions. I, myself, have stated that I think Cora left Kelly in the game too long. I will also give the manager credit when I think he made a good move. Correct move or not, the players still need to execute. The actual decision of the manager is not what impacts the game greatly. It's the execution, or lack thereof, by the players that impacts the outcome of the game.

Actually, I don't think he rests on his laurels at all. I think he and his FO team are continuously looking for ways to improve the team. My post was more for the posters who have given me the impression that they think we're good to go and Dombrowski can rest on his laurels as far as starting pitching is concerned.

Some interesting hitting stats regarding the Sox' aggressive approach, courtesy of Evan Drelich: As the 5-1 Sox begin their first homestand, they’re swinging at 30.1 percent of first pitches they see, 10th most per STATS. In 2017, they were last, at 21.1 percent — and it wasn’t particularly close. Next up was the Guardians, at 24.9 percent. Overall, the Sox have offered at 48.1 percent of pitches per FanGraphs, up from 43.9 percent in 2017. Only the Dodgers — who employed Sox hitting coach Tim Hyers as the assistant hitting coach — swung at fewer last year. The Sox’ swing percentage this year is sixth. Of course, the whole idea is centered on pitch selection: swing when you get a pitch you can handle. And then handle it. As the Sox have pursued pitches earlier in the count, they do not seem to have encouraged wild hacks. Their swing-and-miss rate remains the third-lowest in the majors, just as it was in 2017. Indeed, the pitches they're targeting seem to be much better. In 2017, the Sox swung at 62.3 percent of strikes. Take a guess: it was the lowest anywhere. And now, they’re at 72 percent, second most — practically tying them for the league lead. And when the Sox swing at pitches inside the zone, they're making more contact on those pitches than anyone. They were strong in that area in 2017, in fourth place, but they're the leader right now. The Sox batters have been able to be more aggressive, without losing any of their plate discipline. That's a great (though very early) sign. It hasn't translated into scoring runs yet, but my opinion is that it will. I do not have any concerns about the offense.

No one is complaining about our 6-1 record, except for those saying we should be 7-0. LOL But it would be very remiss of me not to mention that we have only won (or lost) one of those games decisively, the 7-3 win over the Marlins. The rest of the games could have gone either way. We are 5-1 in those games with a +4 run differential. That's hard to do. We've been a tad lucky. Not that I'm complaining.

It actually does, figuratively speaking. LOL

Maybe he will be our closer next year when Kimbrel leaves!