shysocks

Couldn't continue to support the Sox as long as the ownership that moved them was still in charge. Probably couldn't continue to follow baseball either, as it would be too disheartening.

QUOTE (danman31 @ Feb 6, 2016 -> 12:47 AM) I only got to play for a couple hours, if that, but I really liked the Madison Square Garden mission. If those are what the story missions are going to be like, sign me up. The open world is really pretty and I like the premise, even if it is entirely absurd. The one major gripe I have is the bullet sponge enemies. The elite enemies or whatever they're calling them are just dudes walking around with a winter coat and a snow cap and they take a full round of bullets without staggering. I wish it was more like The Last of Us multiplayer where it hurt to get shot a couple times and you had to make a med kit and take time to apply it to heal. That would make their dark zone area much more interesting. No one would want to get into a fire fight with another player because it would be so easy to die. Now if you get into a fire fight it could go on for several minutes or one of you could easily just bail in the middle. Clearly they're going for an RPG feel, but it is true that enemies (and players) felt very spongey. I'm chalking it up to beta limitations for now; hopefully the full game gives us more ways to keep firefights interesting. The Dark Zone definitely needs some balance tweaks as well. There should be more disincentives for going rogue - take away more XP & money for death, maybe make them use separate extraction choppers from everyone else. To your point about long fights, one of the cheap tricks I took advantage of was that you lose rogue status after you die. So if I'm in a group of 4, we're all rogues, and I die, I can just respawn, trot back to the fight, blindside the enemy (who has forgotten about me by now), and rejoin my team. If you're within a certain distance of rogue teammates, you should be instantly flagged rogue.

Anybody try The Division beta last weekend? I gave several hours to the Xbox One version and I think it has a lot of potential. Because of the way players can flip from friendly to hostile on a dime, the different ways to play PvP were extensive, and that was with 75% of the skill tree and many of the other depth elements completely disabled for the beta. Seems like a fun loot shooter that I'm liable to sink a lot of time into. Best part - often when you kill an NPC, his friend yells, "They got Alex!" That's the only name they ever say. Seems like at least 20% of the enemies in this game are named Alex. It was delightful. I wonder if they just limited chatter options in the beta, but I hope the Alex meme lives on in the full game.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Feb 4, 2016 -> 04:03 PM) This is certain to ignite some good discussion.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/lets-define-an-ace/ Fangraphs has a post allowing users to vote on whether 20 different pitchers are "aces" or not. This is certain to ignite some good discussion. Personally I was as reactionary as I could be: see name, vote with first instinct. I thought it would be interesting to talk about it here because not only do we often dispute whether Jose Quintana qualifies for the title, but he is one of the 20 in the poll, and the results surprised me quite a bit. At this point we're all familiar with the concept that Q is wildly underrated. But why do 95% (!!!) of voters not consider him an ace, while 86% voted yes for Gerrit Cole? What does Sonny Gray, for instance, have that Q lacks? The fact that he doesn't share a locker room with Chris Sale? Not posting this to complain that Q doesn't get respect, but because I think the results will be very interesting.

You could also just let LaRoche or Ethier hit against the proper lefties. It's not illegal.

Bench would be Sands/Garcia (take your pick), Catcher, Sanchez, Shuck. v L: 2 Navarro 3 Abreu 4 Lawrie 5 Frazier 6 Saladino 7 Cabrera 8 Eaton 9 Shuck D Sands/Garcia v R: 2 Avila 3 Abreu 4 Lawrie 5 Frazier 6 Saladino 7 Cabrera 8 Eaton 9 Ethier D LaRoche Use Sanchez as necessary. Shuck is fine against lefties. This would work just fine.

QUOTE (shipps @ Feb 2, 2016 -> 10:20 AM) With Ethier turning 34 its like the perfect age for steep decline in production right? How many guys have their better years of their career post 33? Other than the PED users of the past. I seriously dont know. Maybe there are guys who have great numbers after 34+. I will say that against righties last year, it is uncanny how closely he matched his career splits. That is evidence that he is fighting off age for now. But unfortunately you really never know. It is a major factor in keeping the cost of a trade down.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 2, 2016 -> 09:37 AM) Yeah the Dodgers would rather eat money and get a better player if you look at their spending habits. You and others who've pointed this out are probably right, but the Dodgers also have to worry about a lot of outfielders who need playing time and Ethier's pending 10-and-5 status. They might not get to deal on their terms.

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Feb 2, 2016 -> 09:18 AM) Whatever happened to the "we are going to add younger, more cost controlled players to the roster" plan? How does an Andre Ethier square up with that vision? Frazier and Lawrie are younger and cost controlled. Ethier doesn't square up, but he does fill a glaring need. From my first post in this thread: If we supposedly had the money to chase Gordon and Cespedes but were concerned about the length of their deals, well here's a pretty friggin' good alternative.

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Feb 1, 2016 -> 09:54 PM) So hypothetically we were to actually trade for Ethier, how realistic is it for him to get 1,100 AB's in 2 years if we don't let him hit against lefties? That vesting option is scary, it would suck being in a stretch playoff run in '17 and having to worry about that $17.5M option vesting with too many AB's As others have said, 1100 PA's seem unlikely as long as we're minimizing his work against lefties. On the other hand, if you're telling today me that in two years Ethier will be a key figure in a Sox playoff run but his option might vest, I'm okay with that scenario. QUOTE (Knackattack @ Feb 1, 2016 -> 10:56 PM) I'd offer Putnam and LaRoche for Ethier and 0 money. You take a little hit salary-wise, but you put Avi in left and Ethier in right and the outfield D looks way better. Ethier sits against LHP and you find a righty DH/OF candidate for the bench. Hadn't thought about throwing in a major league piece with LaRoche, but Putnam is the type of intriguing guy who might make it work. Good to have in the Sox bullpen, but still relatively expendable and the Dodgers could use MLB relievers right now. Dumping LaRoche's money might give us some room for another acquisition, whereas I was assuming if we just took all of Ethier's deal that would close out the offseason. The Dodgers just don't have a place for LaRoche though, that's the hangup.

Soler is making a pittance for the next five years and has put up positive WAR in his career. He is not Avi Garcia and you could not remotely trade them straight up.

The thing is Ethier is basically a platoon player making $18M a year. It's the more useful side of the plate, but I do not think he'd get a deal like that on the open market. And again, if we're willing to take the whole contract, the price in prospects should theoretically be negligible. Call it the Alex Rios / Leury Garcia corollary.

Holy s***. Dutch Police Training Eagles to Take Down Drones

QUOTE (Jose Paniagua @ Feb 1, 2016 -> 11:08 AM) he unleashes tomahawk abandon on righties Yup. That's what he's really, really good at it. Glad it's being, ahem, "explored."

Quality starts are dumb. Quality starts are also a fine way to show whether or not a guy was "worthless in 80% of his starts."

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Jan 28, 2016 -> 05:57 PM) Well the Sox wouldn't sit Dunn against lefties, wouldn't sit Laroche until the very end. So I wouldn't count on that. Eaton's not a particularly adept CF, so I don't see a problem with moving him around. This is the kind of player the Sox should trade for Danks; or better, included in a throw in in return for all of the prospects for Frazier. Bottom line, you can't give up any young player above a C prospect for Ethier. As a contender, this team is and would be thin as a reed. Re: platooning, Sox management's inability to understand handedness splits is overblown here, but even if you don't trust them to do the right thing with Ethier, the Dodgers didn't protect him against lefties in 2013 and still got a 3 WAR season out of him. Re: Eaton, I definitely understand the opposing viewpoint here, but I have a general distaste when people suggest moving guys all around the diamond so we can acquire whoever. It's not always that simple. You are right that Eaton is not an adept CF, but two years ago he was at least a capable one, and since we might have a capable center fielder, I'd rather let him play center field. Much of my premise here is that Ethier will be super cheap to acquire. I don't think Danks would entice the Dodgers enough, and - here's something I've sadly found myself saying a lot in the last couple years - if we're trying to win, Danks is more valuable in our reed-thin rotation than as a trade chip.

QUOTE (Dunt @ Jan 28, 2016 -> 03:47 PM) If Avi is the starting RF again next season and he struggles, the front office should be cleaned the f*** out. That is not the horse I'd want to hitch my wagon to if I was Hahn. Perfectly stated.

#BSOHL

I feel bad for whoever has to run the Sox twitter. "Hey, Brooks... yeah, Avi is making season ticket calls. Please don't make me hit send on this."

https://twitter.com/whitesox/status/692800623406772224 o_o

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 28, 2016 -> 12:08 PM) BTW I did not know you mispelled it, I just threw it on at the end. I really did like your post. The thing that kills me is at a high level trading Trayce Thompson to the Dodgers and then getting back Ethier just really seems like the operations of a not savvy front office. Ha, that is true. Moving from Gillaspie/Beckham to Frazier as your Opening Day third baseman would be part of that process too, and that helps take the sting away.

QUOTE (knightni @ Jan 28, 2016 -> 12:41 PM) How about a non-Twitter based photo? This has the hat at the top of the page and the uniform somewhere in the body. Also includes a hilarious USA Today poll. http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/01/mlb-spring...dodgers-brewers

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 28, 2016 -> 11:35 AM) Hey OP, that was a great post. I don't really want to go with either...or ETHIER Thanks. His name is hard to type. =(