he gone.

Few questions: Do you think those who are unvaccinated, given more time, would get vaccinated? aka - do you believe it's about opportunity? If yes, how much more time should be given to have those people get a vaccine? If no, what is the purpose? Aren't we trying to get towards herd immunity? There's several ways to reach that, one of which is people voluntarily taking a vaccine. The other is through contracting the virus and vaccines. Do you believe variants are obsolete in a scenario of high percentages of the vaccine? My personal take: You're only going to have a certain percentage of the population going out to take a vaccine. You can lead a horse to water, but when the CDC employees are only 60% vaccinated at this point? Do you really think you'll get more participation than that across the entire spectrum of the US when the CDC can't even get above 60%? So at a certain point you say okay, we did our best, we gave an opportunity for those who wanted to take advantage. Those who don't we have more than ample hospital capacity, a plan of how to keep deaths low, and we need to open up and get life back to normal so we don't continue the irreversible economic issues that will ultimately come from this. Those people may contract, but it's just another avenue to herd immunity. In regards to variants - get used to it. Every strand will have variants and we live in a global world. Unless somehow you're reaching herd immunity across the globe (you're not) then it all makes it way around the globe. I mean, that's how covid started in the first place. If you have any borders open (you do, and you will) then eventually someone from India goes to the UK and someone from the UK to US. Or someone from China to Japan, Japan to Europe, Europe to Canada, etc. etc. etc. You're not stopping variants. This is life. We will have flu like shots to attack the top variants. Basically to say -- open up. We can't treat the world as no child left behind. Everybody who wants a shot can go to CVS within 48 hours. It's accessible to everybody who is interested and those who haven't got it yet, aren't likely to get it.

I'd take him as a manager, but based on the fact Pujols wasn't okay with less playing time ... don't think that's an option. Outside of that we'd be the laughing stock of MLB with a signing like this. How would it even happen? One less pitcher? You can't send Collins down and then put Yermin as backup Catcher.. i mean you can ... but yuck. And if you did that and Albert wants PT, then what? you're benching Yermin for Pujols? Imagine that.... The only other way would be to send down Yermin and keep Collins at the backup Catcher. You can't have Collins, Abreu, Yermin, Vaughn, Grandal and Pujols - that'd be the worst roster construction ever. I think just by sheer log jam I am comfortable that the Sox wouldn't be able to pull this off without looking like clowns... so for that reason I'm not realistically worried. It does worry me though that we even have to think about this seriously because it shows how incompetent of an organization we have.

someone call alejandro de aza and brett lillibridge stat. this outfield is falling apart!

Goodwin is a body, but at least we got a body in 24 hours. I'm sure Hahn has already had calls in on a lot of these guys going back to the Eloy injury. So at least there's a heads up on a list. Not all LF will necessarily transfer to the CF list, but I'm sure he's already had initial discussions on a number of targets. Polanco, or someone on the Cubs would make the most sense to me.

Those are some YUCK names from Frank. Here's the thing: 1) this is the overreaction szn for the board and all fans. This happens with every injury or signing, or slump, etc. 2) Adam Eaton will get injured. Probably will miss at least 30 games from here on out - that's not a crazy statement. 3) Because of bullet point #2, unfortunately you need to go out and make a trade, and likely give up a bigger piece than you'd like for your future. If you want to stay afloat this year and want to truly go for it all, you need a stop-gap for the next 4 months, and possibly more if Eloy or Robert have setbacks. You simply cannot have an outfield of Vaughn, Engel, and Leury for any extended period of time with Nick Williams or Billy Hamilton as your 4OF. Especially considering you have a guy like Madrigal elsewhere in the lineup 4) Madrigal - this hurts him as much as anybody. I have defended him as much as anybody, and no, it's not going to change his game. It just hurts the team. You can afford to have a slap hitter like him when Eloy and Robert have the pop to drive him in. You can't have Billy Hamilton, Leury and Nick as your bottom 7-8-9 guys. Not much you can do, just saying his inefficiencies are going to shine bright now. 5) If you can live with Engel in CF and guarantee his health, then I am actually okay with him as your main CF replacement. That said, names I'd want to consider (not much different than the names I said after Eloy) --- Nick Markakis - another old OF, but FA. He can fill in RF, LF. Not Puig - his weird masturbation allegation is a big no from me. Don't need to justify winning with creeps. Old man Cespedes - not really. I'm not sure how he fits in - can't really stick him in RF. or LF. or CF. So best you can do is bring him in as your 4OF over Billy or Nick Williams or something, but not really sure how you'd have an OF with a Vaughn and Cespedes ever .... that'd be a disaster defensively. Young man Cespedes - maybe? Or Adolfo. or Gonzalez. or Rutherford. None deserve it, but maybe one does okay? What's there to lose? Dependent on what hte market price is out there maybe you run through a few of these guys 2 weeks at a time and see if one hits. Kris Bryant - I think he really does fit ... just wonder what his price is & do we believe he continues his hot hitting. He'd be insurance for all of the OF and 3B. He really does make sense. I don't want to have to give up a Kelley for him, but if you truly think you have a chance to win this year, this is the all-in move. Polanco - maybe a change of scenery helps. He's still putting out exit velocities that aren't terrible, speed is down. but i'd guess he's relatively low cost so we dont have to mortgage any future and he's had success in the past. Makes a ton of sense. Other names: Sam Hilliard, David Peralta, Joc Pederson, Jake Marisnick, Delino Deshields Jr, Kevin Kiermaier Personal Ranking: Bryant (dependent on price), Joc Pederson, Kiermaier, Polanco

Because we're discussing Jake Lamb, Leury and Billy Hamilton as other options.

Are we talking a fantasy baseball trade? Come on man.

managers matter only on the fringes ... being 109 years old though puts him on the fringes. He'd never accept it because of his ego but he shouldve been brought back in some other capacity if JR was looking to bring him in. It is what it is though. this team has other problems other than managing

I don't know what to tell you. Apparently you're getting overly worked up a pretty vanilla statement. There are tiers across baseball ... some are murkier than others, and some positions deeper than others. If you were given your choice of a 3B for the Sox championship window how would you rank them? And what were you expectations of Moncada after the Sale trade and when he was a top prospect of MLB? But go ahead and get upset over a pretty simple statement on a message board. I'd have Bregman, Rendon, Jose Ramirez, as my top 3. My next 3 would be a combo Arenado, Devers, Machado. After that? I'd probably have the group of Chapman, Moncada, Bohm, McNeil, etc. Vladdy would slot somewhere in there depending on if there's belief he's a 3B. So that's what the hell I'm talking about. He's good. He's not even top tier at his position, let alone top tier of baseball which was many people's expectations coming over from the trade. And yes, Matt Chapman is a guy. A guy who will have 3-4 All-Star seasons , a nice career, but is not a superstar. Moncada will be the same. He may have a top 10 finish at MVP -- you know who else has done that ?Carlos Quentin. A guy. Sorry to upset you ... Moncada is just a guy. an above average role player that can have a few good seasons. He's not a perennial all-star, Abreu, face of the franchise guy. he's just a guy.

Not WAR related at all. I mean, he's really just a guy. Moncada is a nice piece. But he's not going to be a MVP candidate type of guy. He's in the category with the Yasmani Grandal's of the world. He's more Matt Chapman than he is Bregman or Rendon. That's all. NOt that controversial - just saying he's an above average player, but not this top, top echelon prospect people were hoping for.

I've been saying that for about a year and half now. Moncada is Joe Crede. Which is fine. You don't need 9 superstars to win a WS. however, he's not going to be a superstar. He's a nice bat around 6/7 in the lineup. He can get hot and carry a team for a bit, but at the end of the day he's an above average player who may have a couple all-star seasons. Also makes you think why do we have a 12 page thread on a guy in Madrigal that just puts bat to ball consistently.

Capital gains tax proposal should be fun ... With all the excess spending, taxation, liquidity, stimulus, civil unrest, leverage, etc. etc I have a feeling that these next 10-20 years are going to be a wildly chaotic time. In general that should lead to tons of opportunity if you know where to find it, but have a feeling it's going to be a very bumpy ride leading to ultimately a very different looking economy, global landscape, etc.

I'll go ahead and make a prediction ... we'll change our minds 100 more times before we get to the end of the season. goals of this team should be to maintain and spread innings so that the upside arms of Rodon, Kopech, Crochet and others are still ready to fire in the most important innings of the season (September and hopefully beyond). I also think we'll see us add another arm via trade to the mix. The playoffs (if we get there) will be a rag tag of innings from all guys on deck. But yes, this isn't MLB The Show. #1 and #5 starters are the same. If you're healthy and throwing it's just once every five days. By playoffs it's even less important. You're playing specific matchups even more.

Juan Pierre, a guy who relied on legs at the end of his career v. Madrigal 40 games into his are not very comparable. I'll continue to drive the Madrigal bandwagon along with the Carlos Rodon bandwagon as I have for the past few years. These are guys that are important to this team & have their roles. The world has gone mad with Statcast. In a world where OBP, BA, contact metrics, etc. are all at multi-decade lows it's refreshing to see the other side. It's at bats like Moncada, Grandal, or Vaughn have that are super important throughout not just a game, but a season. The 14 pitch at-bat by Bobby Dalbec won't show up in the box score or in articles, but that was an important plate appearance. At bats like Madrigal have putting the ball in play and advancing runners or getting on base and re-adjusting the defense alignment, putting the pitcher out of the stretch, etc. is important not only in game, but over a full season. Robert's and Eloy's launch angles and exit velocity are just as important too. It takes a mix of all sorts of guys to make a championship team. You see some of these teams, Cubs maybe being the best example lately - a team over the past few years that have a bunch of statcast guys who singularly are good, but as a collective struggle because they don't have a good mix. All or nothing baseball is a fad. The pendulum swung from the Hawks and the TWTW to full Billy Baseball and statcast. The reality, like most things in life is that the middle grey area is the best. The Sox have that this year with a mix of the Eaton/Madrigal types. The guys who see pitches per plate appearance in Grandal/Moncada/Vaughn and the statcast superheros Abreu/Eloy/Robert.

It's a buncha herd mentality. It's not by chance that almost every single major league team has the exact same requirements while most states have very different data sets, population density, etc. etc. In a very American way I bet you see increases right around Memorial Day. I'd guess 40-50% right around then. Either way, you still can't explain to me with a straight face the reasoning or methodology to all of the seating arrangements. I watch the Boston game and there are sections that are completely open, not a person in them. Centerfield had nobody. But right/center had fans scattered throughout. Tell me how that makes any sense. if you're that concerned wouldnt you want to spread those 20% out at max distance? Texas is averaging 27,000 a game ... the 7 day rolling average in DFW area is lower than it was 21 days ago. It's outside. Not controversial post here, but we can easily fit 20-25,000 fans in at these games utilizing the whole ball park and still be very safe, even to those who are conservative.

what a great thread. .327 career batting average out of the 9th spot is controversial. I miss the days of Yolmer Sanchez, Brett Lawrie, Chris Getz, Brett Lillibridge, etc. I'm going to start a thread for Dallas Keuchel now. Is he really a suitable #3 pitcher in our rotation?

Don't disagree there at all. There's way too much liquidity in the markets. Eventually it all will even itself out and many will get burned. Investing isn't easy - especially if trying to pick out individual stocks, spacs, cryptos, etc. etc. etc. Right now we are definitely amidst a very, very frothy environment that will have correction. The best method is likely to just place in funds & let it sit for long term. You lose out on the upside, but protect from the downside.

I didn't know we were judging on a dozen or so games in 2021 only. I guess we should be benching Abreu too.

The value in nick is never going to be all the things that are measured in a statcast era. His value is turning over the lineup and getting on base for anderson and 2/3/4 batters. his value is putting the ball in play and moving over runners. his value is being on base and having a pitcher out of the stretch. about shifting the defenses opening up areas of the field that may not be otherwise. people spend their whole lives focusing on statcast, but they forget an anderson double when leury is batting 9th is just a double and when madrigal is in the game that's a run scorer. Im not worried about his defense or base running either. he'll be fine. 2B is not a worry now or for the next 5-8 years.

Timelines. Everybody is too obsessed with the day in and day out returns. Zoom out. SPAC's go up and Chamath is a genius. SPAC's go down and Chamath is dumb. It's neither. SPAC's, especially the ones he's focused on are going to be inherently more risky. He's taking companies in earlier stages of their life cycle public. So the upside to SPAC's is you're part of the seeding rounds in a way, instead of the value of hte company being continuously driven up over years before it goes public, through SPAC's (or at least the ones Chamath is doing) you're sharing on some of the upside of being involved earlier on. But like anything with higher upside, the risk is higher, so the downside is also higher. Take MP Materials for example. That's not a short term buy. Rare earth metal demand isn't going to spike and give returns immediately because it has Chamath tied to it. The long term value is that most rare earth metals are controlled by China or Africa, via China again. China has basically played their hand very well on this angle. A company like MP is going to be a very important company for EV manufacturing along with other infrastructure. It's a supply/demand issue and will play out over many years. Same with SoFI, longer term play. Desktop Metal - again, another long term play. Time horizons need to be looked at when evaluating investments. Some of these will hit, some will fail. But saying Chamath's SPAC's are a bust because of a stock market price is misleading. Now SPAC's in general? I mean everybody has to do their own research. The SPAC market is way too hot and was way too hot. That was not a result of anything other than cheap capital driven by money printing. It was a perfect time for companies to raise capital and go public. Why not? If you have enough uneducated fools chasing every SPAC you'd be dumb not to. It's like when AMC raised money with a share offering. Would be dumb not to take advantage of a meme stock uprising. In regards to Bitcoin flash crash ... I don't really want to go down that rabbit hole again on this thread. Bitcoin is now trading exactly what it was one week ago. Last i checked that isn't a crash. Doge? it's a meme crpyto that's inherently inflationary based on supply. 10 individuals own 40%+ of the supply. it's very akin to the meme stocks and will end poorly. i actually don't doubt it will hit $1-4 in 2021, but at a certain point it will crash based on fundamentals.

There's a lot to unpack there ... but what I'll say is technology is breaking down walls. Breaking down walls to the old guard, breaking down walls to intermediaries, breaking down walls to wealth of knowledge and money. I'm not even sure what Ryan's Toy Review is, but assumption is it's kids reviewing toys. In the old days that goes through broadcast TV, the kid makes $100k an episode, takes home a nice few million dollar pay check, portion goes to his agent, a union, a manager, etc. etc. Now? YouTube gets their cut, but not as big of a cut. Instead of that ad money going into network execs hands, and all the way down an inefficient line of managers and producers, etc. the kids and their families are directly benefitting. Same with Crypto - sure there's a lot of speculation behind it. But as someone who has put in countless hours researching in the space I can tell you the end goal here isn't funny money. It's rewriting the financial system. All the coins and or exchanges you mention are kind of all over the map in their intents and processes, so it's hard to try and respond to each, but Bitcoin and crypto have the ability to reach the unbanked across the globe and introduce billions to an international monetary system that was previously reserved for the upper quartile of the world. Just as the internet is and has been a global awakening, so can and will be digital currencies. There's a lot of trash in there, but there's also cases like DeFi which are eliminating the needs for giant bank intermediaries, or at least providing options. Just as YouTube offers the elimination (most part) of corporate overhang and allows people to directly get out their message, so does crypto. Think about it nowadays, what does a bank offer you? I know for the most part it's piece of mind. because it's not interest (or not very much). This isn't 1859 or 1956 when banks hold much money. They are a cyber company that exchanges digital numbers between layers. This isn't Wells Fargo with their horse and buggie and safes and guns protecting your dollars. FDIC is the real value there. Outside of that walk into a bank and ask for $25,000 cash. You can't. Banks are an intermediary making money off holding your cash and giving you nothing in return. DeFi offers a way for you to eliminate that. Blockchain offers a way out. But just as the internet in 1995, the system isn't perfect or even close to perfect yet. It's going to take decades for the use cases that are just starting to bubble up to find their way. There will be big gains, big losses, big crashes and big waves. Crypto gets piled on by the general public because the concept is so large and so diverse and just in the infancy of its existence that people just naturally dismiss it. It's a bigger idea than most can wrap their heads around and will change the entire global system. Also the energy angle is one of the tired angles of bitcoin. its FUD. Also just think about how much energy is wasted chasing an inflationary world. Think about how many goods need to be produced to continue the never ending rat race of consumption. Fix the money supply, you fix a lot of the world and a lot of the waste. https://www.coindesk.com/frustrating-maddening-all-consuming-bitcoin-energy-debate

hahah i was going to say.. it's not like human nature has changed. The amount of self-absorbed ego maniacs remain the same. The platform has just changed. in the same light generations blaming other generations and pointing out their differences as flaws won't change either. Boomers to millennials and millennials to boomers. it's a tale as old as time.

My problem is not much with the government telling us to wear masks, it's the path they take to get there. I think masks are a simple solution that shouldn't be controversial. I just want consistency, clear messaging, and no moving of the goal posts to benefit some, while keeping others shut down. My problem with the general handling of covid is how do you turn it off? how long until you need a passport to go to a sox game? i think they'll follow suit of yankees/mets. And people have free will to eat what they will - god knows Americans do. I personally think it's disgusting how people eat, but their freedom to do so. We subsidize the shit out of so much in America and misspend so much money. Imagine just some of that money went into food deserts as you say, or subsidizing fruits, vegetables, etc. Or subsidize and teach people to start their own local businesses centered around health iniatives.

The problem is the glossing over of some instances and focusing on others. Not talking about you specifically. Just overall. I flew on a plane last month and it was packed. Every single seat taken. So much so American was offering $200 to change your flight. That has been going on for how long now? But that is largely ignored by media. Texas has been open for 3 weeks and that part is ignored. Then we latch on (not you, society, media, people who want their narrative to win, etc.) (also i get im probably on the other side of this in the equal and opposite way so i am just as guilty) to events like Opening Day at Texas and say that will be the spreader event. it's almost like people are cheering for this to continue. We've got to the point that the most vulnerable are protected. The rest of society has the choice to resume life or not resume life to a pretty good chance of certainty. There will be variants. This is not going away. And maybe I'm a bad person ... but like everything in the world, there are consequences for actions. At this point it's just life IMO. you're going to lose some people, but we've reached the tipping point on the scales where i think we move forward. It's not a surprise that the US was hit harder... we are a fat nation. Europe was hit harder... not as fat, but still fat ... https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/04/health/obesity-covid-death-rate-intl/index.html -- TEN TIMES HIGHER! TEN TIMES! If we spent even 5% of the money we spent on Covid pushing an obesity narrative we'd be way better off. 68% of American's are overweight! 7 out of 10!!! How many ads and commercials have you seen where they say a mask cuts transmission and improves your chance of living by 98% or whatever the number is .... now i know being fit doesn't stop transmission, but what if they pushed it saying 90% stronger chance you survive? I dunno, i'm a weirdo. I think we're missing the boat here ... we're so focused on this issue that we miss like the top 20 other issues that make our society continuously sick. Thanks for coming to my TED talk haha. I get too worked up about this subject lol - i think it's better to go back to getting worked up about the sox only hah. I'm not anti-safety, and respect all of your opinions and keeping it safe too, just worried about how this all ends (unpayable debts pushed on future generations, inflation, still a sick society, permanent job loss, etc. etc.) The report found that every country where less than 40% of the population was overweight had a low Covid-19 death rate of no more than 10 people per 100,000. Vietnam had one of the world's lowest Covid-19 death rates, with 0.04 deaths occurring per 100,000 people. The country's overweight population comes in at 18.3%. Other countries on the low death rate list with similar patterns include Japan, Thailand and South Korea. But in countries where more than 50% of the population was overweight, the Covid-19 death rate was much higher -- more than 100 per 100,000.

It's such a delicate question... so many social consequences and "freedom" thoughts. Argument for keep wearing masks: its easy. its simple. its generally effective. it helps keep others safe. it's probably another 60 days. (kind of) Argument against: it's likely mostly a lie that those who are vaccinated need to wear a mask (back to my first point about how they lied at the outset). the more you lie to the people, especially on such a complex subject, the less trust there is in the government which is already low to begin with. Hell, some of this pushback is already correlated with their first lie NOT to wear a mask at the outset last year. The second point, and this one is probably the point that hits closest home for my opinion ... where does it stop? Fauci says maybe 2022 now ... vaccine passports to go to a Yankees game. how close are we to something like that in IL? at what point do you draw the line with total compliance in government? To me it feels like the goalposts continue to move. it was control the spread, keep hospital numbers down, keep beds open, limit deaths... well, we've accomplished that. how do you turn on/off the switch to normal? Texas did it and gets roasted, yet look at their numbers. at a certain point the band-aid needs to be ripped off and we're getting very close. If you don't do it soon you're just living this weird sci-fi type of existence. i feel like i'm in chapter 3 of a 15 chapter book and it's starting to get weird. For me, and maybe this is too pie in the sky simplicity ... but I'd be honest with the public if i ran a state. i'd say we're going to get shots in arms and starting May 15 it will be the choice of businesses and people if they'd like to continue wearing masks and how they operate their day to day life. It gives a hard stop, but also gives 30+ days to get shots in arms and raise vaccine numbers and herd immunity. It gives businesses a month to come up wtih their own plans. The crazy thing is how bumbled this whole operation was from the beginning. The success rate on one shot 80% It's something like 90-95% or something if you wait two weeks for the second shot. If you wait like 2-3 months between shot one and two, then it jumps to like 99% (these numbers are going to be a bit off, just for simple math) Instead of giving out these shots in two's with a few week waiting period it would've been mathematically smarter to give out DOUBLE the amount of shots to individuals increasing the herd immunity rate. Instead of having 56 million people with a vaccine, we'd have 112mm with a vaccine. I mean it was that simple to completely slow and kill the curve. but i wouldn't expect common sense when it comes to government. How ONE state couldn't come up with that plan amazes me.