You must have Javascript enabled to view this content.

Post History

Never finished it.

I liked Conquest Destiny more.

 

My memory hasn't failed me too much, Albert came up in 2001 and Almonte was in 2001 Little league WS. And was 2 years older than his birth certificate.

I hadn't heard anyone say Pujols was older, I only suspected it after Almonte got busted, because Pujols never really hit like a rookie to me, even when he was only what 21.

Long term contracts to aging vets are never a good thing. My Reds did that with Griffey, who was already a sure fire HOFer. And they got a shell if that.

But the biggest difference here is these guys being talked about were already or near 30. Sure prime of career to start contract, but on the downswing.

Harper is only 26, in 5 years he will be 31, 33 by end of a 7 year deal. 

I would say odds are that he wont be that washed up player by the end of his contract like Pujols is. 

Granted you do never know, when it comes to when a player is at the peak or on the decline until they are in the decline. He could start declining early. And then that contract becomes an anchor.

IMO if you think he is worth that now, I dont think a 5 to 7 year deal is too long. Honestly not sure I'd be too worried about a 10 year deal. But if you dont have to, I would not.

Also IMO I don't think hes worth what he is asking, even if it were a shorter deal. 

Just my two cents.

Also one last thing on Puljos, when he came up it was right about the time Danny Almonte got busted for falsified birth certificate and it uncovered how a lot of Latin players were older than we thought. I always suspected that Pujols may have been a few years older than listed, which would account for his fast decline.

I think youd have to at very least be an NBA fan.

Even at the peak of my interest in the NBA(late 80's early 90's) NBA fell way behind MLB and NFL on my interest level. 

But more than now when it's not even on my radar.

Funny how he said "where are guys like Andruw Jones", which is correct because he said guys, but only listed one. Then said "where is guys" and listed multiple names.

Then again the OP did answer his own question before asking it. 

Directly from your list.

Content = 7/10. I liked immortals, but they ruined the amount of unique flashbacks and legends released. Someone check that there was about the same amount or flashbacks and legends last year, but if you take into account that many legends had multiple cards due to career arcs, there were less amount, which is odd since they added new legends. Some legends didnt even receive a Diamond card like last year (Tony Perez and Harmon Killebrew for example)

Graphics = 9/10. Game is still pretty as can be, it's not a perfect 10 yet.

Gameplay offline = 8.5/10. Even offline power seems to be only important stat, but plays a lot smoother, still a few issues with CPU logic, but extremely fun.

Gameplay online = 5/10. Earlier in the year I would have scored lower, but there was some progress made to help make it less unbearable. But overall I did not find online nearly as enjoyable this year for many reasons we all know.

Menus = 9/10. Never been a problem to me, still not.

Events = 5/10. We'll start with lineups not saving as #1 problem, and to make matters even worse most of the year there were ridiculously low caps that made every game the same, tank your SP and Bench to get best lineup. A few interesting and fun events, but I passed way more than not this year. Bad online play didn't help.

Programs = 8/10. I liked them, I didn't even mind the souvineers, since it gave me an easy method to stub making. I think the only complaint is if having so many multiple cards of those players costs us in more variety of flashbacks, then I dont like it. I'd trade my useless BO Diamond Larkin card for Diamond Tony Perez.

Players = 6/10. I'll throw into this category the "nerfing" of cards that were previously better, like the afore mentioned BO Larkin. 56 power vs LHP this year, 80 last year, in a year where power was only important attribute. How is a flasback bronze Chris Heisey a better card than a Diamond Barry Larkin?

Animations = 7/10. Better this year, but still agonizingly slow to react. 

Total is 7.27, but since menus are not important to me, I'll take that 9 out of the equation and call it an even

7/10

Yeah I never got Stan, kinda killed it for me, it stopped me from being able to complete every program. Not having Ryne or Kershaw was fine, since they were rewards not programs. But I was working on all programs, but once it was clear i wasn't getting Stan, I just quit playing.

I'd sucked it up and played more of the Stan Bobblehead events. I skipped a lot of them because they were 6 innings or had quick counts, and all had stupid OVR caps.

Yup, this was discussed a lot when preorders started. I wont be buying 19 until I hear more about it, but many preorder without a care about what they plan to do. What motivation is there to make changes when so many people buy blind.

Yeah not wrong at all. At least I have fun with them not spending real money, other than PS plus, which I wouldn't have if it wasn't for DD.

Yeah, I think there is too big of a gap between immortals and other Diamonds. But to me the biggest problem this year was the hitting engine only rewarded high power cards, that was by far the biggest problem for why everyone had the same lineup. 

If it was just immortals being OP, Jackie would have been everyone's 2B, and you'd see more Cal than Schmidt at SS.

That's not even talking about the amount of people who prefer Schwarber to any of the immortal catchers. 

Immortals were an easy scapegoat for multiple complaints. There is a lot wrong with 18 online and people want an easy target to blame.

70 votes now, slight advantage to people in favor of getting rid of them. Bit still pretty close to even.

I think it would have had to be overwhelming against in order for me to believe they would do away with them. So I suspect they are here to stay.

43 votes, results so far are split.

I think immortals get way too much flack on this board.

Excellent list, especially throwing Ricky Vaughn in there.

But you should probably exclude Steve Carleton and Tim Raines since they are both in the HOF.

Stop it, you are making too much sense.

There may have been more variety, but there was still a lot of complaining about facing the same teams all the time.

The OP makes a great point. Until immortals were released, how many people did you face who had Gallo in thier lineup?

Yeah, I am not a fan of either of them in CF,  Schebler is probably the likely choice, but he has less innings played in CF than Puig has.

Yeah, gotta go get the Larkin Bobblehead, I dont have one

106 games in CF between the two of them combined.

Not exactly a suitable replacement for Hamilton.

At least they both hit better.

Concepcion, Kluszewski, Rijo, Sabo, Dibble

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but most of thier resources go to Diamond Dynasty. 

With the changes made this year making less  red for microtransactions for RTTS, I'd suspect that they will leave it largely untouched for 19. They may fix a few bugs, but I wouldn't bet on it.

It's been a few years since I have had any optimism about the season. But it's not like they are the only team to improve. The players all have to stay healthy and at minimum play the back of thier baseball card, and have young guys progress to play better than they have. I still think they need to land a legit Ave. Keuchel, who I don't think they can afford or get Kluber, who they will likely have to over pay for. Oh and who's playing CF?

I understand the excitement, but nothing has started.

Reds fan since 1989

Yeah. I'd still be 4 short,  i figure not worth it any more.

 

Yeah, right now the souvineer availability is going to be your biggest hurdle. I'm 5 away, but I am a WC player, so that's 1 a month. Recent events aren't giving them out, so I just stopped playing.

The only legit argument about how the Kershaw and Sandberg cards were handled is that it was done in a way that excludes offline players, specifically people who do not pay for PS plus in order to be able to play online.

However so many immortals were tailored around offline players with stat grinding, I felt it was more than fair to do it the way they did.

I'm just glad it wasnt a Reds immortal, it would have taken me the entire month and hundreds of games, and I still may not have made WS to get it.