Effectively Wild Episode 2442: Season Preview Series: Tigers and Athletics

And I say it's fair game, you can't get dirty pants, and maybe if you're lucky you will, full call by the chance. You never know precisely where it's gonna go, by definition, Effectively Wild. Hello and welcome to episode 2442 of Effectively Wild, a Fangraphs baseball podcast brought to you by our Patreon supporters. I'm Meg Rowley of Fangraphs, and I am joined by Ben Lindberg of The Ringer. Ben, how are you? Well, tis the season for previewing the season, as all of our listeners know, and we will continue to do that on this episode. We will be talking about the Detroit Tigers with Cody Stavenhagen, and then we will be talking about the A's. I don't know what city name to use, but the A's. And Jason Burke will be here to talk to us about the, well, let's go with West Sacramento A's. But it's also the season when people who forgot about baseball for the past several months remember about baseball, and some of those people flock to the baseball subreddit, and they ask for podcast recommendations. And so there are always many, what podcast should I listen to? What are the good baseball podcast posts around this time of year? And the denizens of that subreddit are always quite eager to recommend Effectively Wild, which I'm grateful for. So thanks to all of you for putting in a good word. But I wanted to shout out one comment from one person who recommended Effectively Wild in response to this prompt. User AdorableBit22, who talked a little bit about why Effectively Wild is good. Thank you. But also said that in addition to the value you get as a Patreon supporter, also got me a free beer at a bar the other week. Oh. The bar back saw I was wearing a baseball shirt, and somehow Effectively Wild came up, and he was like, whoa, cool, and covered my date and my round. What? Vibes. Yeah. How about that? Yeah. What? There's a bartender out there, unidentified, unspecified bartender hero who is handing out free drinks to other Effectively Wild listeners. And if you are that bar back, drop us a line. Let us know. That's so nice. Also, will you keep doing that indefinitely? And can we offer that as an official Patreon perk? No. No. No, we don't want to commit to that. No, no. Free beers at some bar, maybe, if we mention Effectively Wild, is a possible perk of supporting the podcast. So how about that? How about that? I am delighted by that, that we could cause such a lovely little ripple of generosity in the world. You too. And to the bar back, hey, how nice of you. What a bar back? This goes by bar back, now bartender. Yes. I'm confused by that. But to whatever function you serve in the bar, I say your work is important and your generosity is noted. Please let us know if you are that good Samaritan. Yeah. And I'm always happy to hear about the in-person, in-meets-based encounters among listeners. Okay. Well, you ruined it, but that's fine. Because as much as I value our online-only communities, which are frequent as well and lead to a lot of friendships and good things, It's always nice when I hear stories about people encountering each other in the wild, in the effectively wild, and somehow it comes up and maybe they're wearing Fangraph's merch or effectively wild merch or whatever it is, and they recognize each other and they point and they congregate and suddenly there's an icebreaker. There's something to talk about. Maybe the thing they'll talk about is how horrible meat space is. It's possible. You don't mean it like, hey, nice to meet you. You mean like, hey, we are all of us made of meat, right? Yes. That's where our flesh is walking around. Yes, we can't hide behind our screens. You know, I hope that everyone will continue to listen to the pod after the introduction of Neat Space and that you will be inspired to give each other more drinks perhaps as a way of forgetting Neat Space. I'll never forget, and I hate that for me. You know, my life is a little bit worse every day for the rest of it now. Neat Space. Sorry. I didn't invent it, to be clear, but maybe I introduced it to you. Apologies. Is this a video game thing? Meat Space? It's sort of a... Is it a bodybuilder thing? You'd think, right? Yeah, it seems like it's in the on-gear community. Yeah, you might meet meatheads in Meat Space, but I don't know if it's specific. I think it's more of a cyber sort of thing. Oh, okay. Was it in the film Hackers? There's loot bags from Knights of the Old Republic. Anyway, we are burying the lead, which I suppose is that there is a new interim executive director of the NLBPA. Same as the old one, no? Yeah, well, more or less. I mean, yeah, the number two is now the number one. So it's the expected, unsurprising resolution to a somewhat unexpected, surprising saga. And Gersmeyer, who was and is the lead negotiator for the MLBPA and was the second in command, is now the first in command, not on a permanent basis. But obviously they want to project unity. That's something that a union does. And they wanted to stick with the guy they know and the guy who's been there for several years and has his finger on the pulse and was brought on to be the Bulldog negotiator. Obviously he's experienced. He goes back years to the NHL PA, where he worked with former MLB PA people and is seen as someone who's not going to give an inch and he's going to represent the player's interest. Obviously, his tenure has not been without some controversy because a couple of years ago there was reporting that some contingent tried to force him out. and he was brought on board by Tony Clark, though sort of, I guess, in response to perceived failures of either Clark or the union specifically when it came to negotiating the prior CBA. I think there was a sense that, hey, we need someone who's experienced at this and is really going to hold the line. And that's what you have him for. And they, I think, quite reasonably decided not to change on the eve of negotiations and have someone who's very familiar with all the parties involved and all the issues. And the knock on him, I suppose, is that maybe from a diplomacy perspective, he doesn't have the softest touch, which I guess is what you want in the room when he's going toe to toe with Rob Manfred and Manfred's minions. But also you do want a bit of glad handing, perhaps internally, and maybe he doesn't excel in that respect. But ultimately, people are going to like him if he gets them a good deal. And if he does, then perhaps he will find himself being named a permanent director. You have to be able to effectively communicate across a broad range of constituencies. And I think that, you know, we talked last time about some of the some of the benefits, which I think are real to having former players, former baseball people in positions of authority within the union. There's a natural credibility that arises there. Whether that credibility translates into negotiating acumen, I think, is a little different question. It's not that it's unimportant. And you need to be able to establish connection as a pathway to having trust. We have heard that there have been times where Meyer has been perceived to be maybe too closely aligned with Scott Boris or the concerns of players who would be able to benefit from Scott Boris as their agent. But, like, he's a skilled negotiator, and I think that there's a real benefit to having sort of a hard-nosed, lawyerly presence leading that team, which would have been true if Clark had managed to be less messy, because obviously Bruce was in that position to begin with. But the folks across the table from the union in these negotiations, they're not former big leaguers, right? Like they're not sending CeCe Sabathia into that room. I mentioned him because he, you know, has taken on some important roles with the league. You got a hard-nosed lawyer. It's not a mistake that Rob Manford came up as an employer-side labor lawyer, right? So I think that having the continuity is important. I think sort of the profile is important. And now his challenge is keeping cohesion within the union as a group. But I think the fact that the selection was unanimous and that the executive subcommittee is saying what it is saying about this process is a good sign. I don't know that my opinion of how many games we are likely to lose in 2027 has changed all that much. I think the perceived instability with Clark's departure ticked up that possibility marginally of there being not only games lost, but maybe a little bit more than we would have otherwise gotten. And I think that Meyer's presence doesn't really move the needle in an upward direction. And the fact that this transition has happened fairly smoothly and with unanimity, despite there being prior periods of contention within the union around this guy is a positive sign. The league hates him. So if I'm a player, I think that is a positive sign. You know, like the fact that they I don't think I'm speaking out of school. I mean, like, to be clear, Rob Manfred has never said in public, I hate this. Like, you know, he's he's he's not exactly a still diplomat himself, but he's at least savvy enough to not do that. But you can tell that they do not care for Bruce, which, you know, I don't know. That would bring me some some balm. That would be a source of salve. I know how to talk. Anyway, in some ways, this is like a return to a prior tradition where the person at the helm was like a labor lawyer rather than not. Right. And that doesn't always go great, I guess. There was plenty of criticism of the one CBA that Michael Weir negotiated before his death. But, yes, I think it makes some sense. Obviously, you want players to have a say. It's their union after all. But you do want someone with that expertise. and he would seem to provide it. And I don't know if the sentiment was actually unanimous. The vote was. And, you know, if there were some people who had some reservations, but it became clear that that was not going to carry the day, it probably does make sense to say, well, let's present a united front and say it's unanimous. And, of course, all the players, everyone who was asked said, we're as strong as ever. And, you know, what else are they going to say? I mean, that's what they should say, of course. And so are there still cracks in the foundation? Maybe. And we still haven't heard all the details of Tony Clark's misdeeds and what exactly prompted the internal investigation. Given what some of them are, I'm fine with it. Let me tell you, there was a heated internal debate at Fangraphs about, like, what language we should use to describe this inappropriate relationship. Right. Because we don't have specifics. That could mean a lot of things. Yeah. I mean, OK, so here's we did what we needed to do. Right. To be responsible, to be journalistic, to be to to engage in a little CYA. What the hell else could it mean, Ben? You know, like I'm just I'm just offering that alternative interpretations of inappropriate relationship are thin on the ground. You know, that's all I'm saying. I have to point something out about the athletic piece about this news of not of. Tony Clark's misdeeds, but of Bruce Meyer being raised. And I want to be clear that I'm not actually offering this as a criticism of Evan or Ken. It just made me laugh because of, let's see if you can spot it, known for being a staunch player advocate and for his sometimes combative demeanor. Yeah, he's a lawyer. I met those guys before. Listen, dinner table for me in high school, minefield, a battleground. It was waged every night. What do you mean? What do you mean? What do you mean? What does that mean? I was interrogated regularly. This is what happens when you are regularly exposed to lawyers. Sometimes combative, that suggests that he's like one of the sweetest lawyers there's ever been. Yeah, and you want him to be combative because it's a combative process, hopefully a verbally combative process, not a physically combative process. Yeah, to be clear, I'm not advocating the first deck, Rob Manfred, during the beef. I think that would be counterproductive to the task at hand. Probably so, yes. But I assume obviously the players know what the results of that internal investigation were, and I would imagine that more details will surface publicly at some point. And I say that only because Meyer was Clark's deputy for a period of years. And so that cloud that was cast over the union by the various federal investigations, you would think that the players must have some level of confidence that either they're not going to turn up anything or that if they do, it will be tied to Tony Clark, that it will not implicate Meyer personally, because that's the last thing that you would want to have happen, to have to make another change when you're even closer to bargaining or mired in the midst of bargaining. So they must have some reason to be confident that he's not going to be tainted by whatever went on or did not go on. So that's one little takeaway. But I think in terms of framing the issues for public consumption, which, again, may or may not matter that much, but perhaps might reflect how he's communicating these things to the players. I think that some of the quotes that I've seen from him do sum up the situation pretty well. And I'm sure that he was saying this to a gaggle, but I saw them reported by Megan Montemuro, who covers the Cubs, and the specific quotes I wanted to highlight were on the owner's push for a salary cap. This is something they've always wanted. It's not new. Our union historically has been against it because we believe it's quite simply not good for players. That position is not going to change. Well, that's simple, straightforward, and I think pretty historically accurate. A lockout is all but guaranteed. At the end of the CBA, the league has pretty much said that. Their strategy and bargaining has always been to put as much pressure on players as they can to try and create division and cracks in our membership. It's never worked. I don't think it ever will work. Again, pretty succinct, concise, and probably the message that you would want him to send. And then one other longer quote on the issue of spending gaps. He says, look, we can talk about competitive balance and go over the numbers and how it compares to other sports. Competitive balance in baseball is excellent and actually better than the other sports. I understand the Dodgers signed a bunch of good players. That's what every team should be trying to do. Not every team has the same resources, but every team in Major League Baseball has the ability to compete. And there are teams that are choosing not to who have the ability to do more, the wherewithal to do more. We're not at liberty, unfortunately, to disclose information we get about teams' profits, revenues. But again, there are teams that clearly can't afford to do more. Our system already provides massive amounts of revenue sharing for clubs, provides the luxury tax proceeds, which have been thankfully very large because more teams than ever are spending above the luxury tax. That money goes to small market teams, half of it. Half of it goes to the players. Central revenues, these teams have resources that in some cases are not being used to put the best product on the field. To us and to our players, the problem is not with teams that are trying to spend and trying to make their team better for the fans. It's for teams that are choosing not to. We made proposals in the last round of bargaining to change the revenue-sharing system to incentivize teams to compete and not reward teams who get that money who don't compete. The league said they weren't interested in even negotiating over it. This time we believe that there will be more willingness, hopefully, on the league side to negotiate over a system that actually does provide those incentives and actually increases the competitiveness of the league. But we don't see a problem with teams spending money on players. Obviously, there are elements of that you could quibble with, that the league would certainly frame differently. And that won't be persuasive to everyone who hears it, far from it. But I think that is a pretty smart framing, at least, of it from the player's perspective. I think it makes sense for them at least to make that case, whether fans are persuaded or not. I think it's defensible in a lot of respects. So it seems to me that just purely based on that, he has a pretty sound sense of how to make a compelling case and how to defend the player's position. Yeah, I think that's right. I think that articulating it in those terms, directly countering the notion that there is both a present lack of competitive balance, which I think by many metrics is not accurate, and he's right to point out, the heightened competitive balance in MLB relative to some of the other men's leagues, but also noting that the real problem is the clubs that are not spending within their means while acknowledging that they can't all be the Dodgers, right? I think that's the right tact. and, you know, I think articulating it in those terms so that you are meeting fans where they are is the best you can do. There is a certain segment of the fan population that is just going to be fundamentally non-persuadable on these questions, right? They are not engaging with roster construction intellectually. They are not engaging with this as a matter of labor fairness. to them, it's about their team being able to have the best guys. And if it means that those best guys make less money every year, they don't care. Now, I don't know that you need to lose sleep at night over whether a guy who's going to be a millionaire regardless is a little bit more of one or not. Of all the things to worry about in our present moment, I can appreciate the impulse to direct your efforts elsewhere. But I do think that having a coherent argument for why the real problem is not players getting paid but owners refusing to live up to their responsibility to put a competitive product on the field is more persuasive. I think that there is a huge segment of the fan population that I think has gotten, I'm going to say sophisticated and that sounds more judgmental than I than I really even mean it for for those fans who like just don't think about this stuff very much or don't care. But I think that there are a lot of fans who are more sophisticated on this question than they used to be and and are framing their understanding of these debates within sort of a broader class consciousness, for lack of a better term. Right. So I think that that changes the the complexion of the conversation. And then there's the broader question of like how much that really matters at the end of the day. But I do think that being able to present your case persuasively is just like a good thing to do so that fans understand sort of what the stakes of this are. And I think that it will, if nothing else, affect the way that fans engage with the league and its players. on the other side of whatever stoppage we end up getting. So I think there's value in that part of it, too. I don't know what went on between Tony Clark and his sister-in-law, to be clear. We just, you know, sometimes you want to make some jokes, and then you're like, this isn't editorially responsible, but they are good jokes. Then Balmé wrote them so you know they were funny. It's difficult to show that restraint, but sometimes that's your job. That's where you have to come in. We still got two separate corrupt New Jersey politicians mentioned in that piece in a way that I think was completely defensible. So we arrived at a good result. And, of course, what everyone wonders, in addition to what is the nature of the inappropriate relationship, is which sister-in-law, what do you mean by sister-in-law, which listener Nat wrote in to say it could mean your spouse's sister or it could mean your sibling's wife. This is a real ambiguity in the English language. and it really matters, or maybe it doesn't matter at all, but as of now, I don't think we know which it is. And I had a pretty myopic perspective on this. Yes, you do. My first take on this was, well, they're both bad. They seem similarly scandalous and taboo to me, but that was my only child speaking. Yep. And then you weighed in as a sibling haver. Yep, yep. And you pointed out that sibling's wife, way worse. Way worse. You're right, because then you've burned bridges on both sides of the family. It's bad no matter what, to be clear. You know, it's really not the best regardless. But my argument was your marriage is probably over in either circumstance. But if it is your sibling's wife, then you're in for it at family reunions. You have a, you know, there's a... You're even invited. Right. There's a rift now between you and your sibling in all probability. So I think the easiest way to avoid this is to just be less messy, Tony. Don't be so messy. Why are you? What are you? Ben, what are you? What is he doing? What are you doing, Tony? What are you doing? I don't know. Again, we still don't know. I don't know. And where do you want to? You're asking rhetorically. Rhetorically. I don't want to know the particulars. It isn't any of my business. The part of it, you know, and I think that the empowerment argued this persuasively, The part of it that is the collective business is like this woman was on payroll at the union. And you can't be doing that. You know, the nepotism piece of it isn't great. It does get kicked up a level when there is a inappropriate relationship between you and that person and they're on payroll. And to be clear, we do not know. And I don't need to know. Although I guess the sequencing piece of it is relevant to this part of the problem. So maybe this one detail I am curious about. But, you know, we don't know if the inappropriate relationship began prior to her being hired and then she was hired or if she was hired and then a relationship began. We don't know the sequence. And that does sort of change the complexion of it a little bit. Can't be doing that, Tony. No. Whatever it was, can't be doing that unspecified inappropriate thing. Whatever that is. which we don't know. Inappropriate transgression. It does seem like things people don't normally do with their sister-in-law. Right. I feel comfortable saying that. Yes. Yes. There are appropriate relationships to have with one sister-in-law, but this was not one of those. And they can be loving. Of course. To a point. Yes. In a sense. Right. I was going to say not that there's anything wrong with it, but, you know, there is something wrong with it. There's something wrong with it. That's what we're talking about. Yeah. And sometimes it's okay to judge, I guess. I mean, consenting adults, but who's consenting in this situation is the question. Well, they're both consenting, but they are. They are maybe, but who else? It's a ridiculous language, man. It's a tricky thing. It's a sticky wicket. To return to Meyer for a moment, I find the competitive balance conversation in baseball important, but kind of frustrating sometimes because no one quite agrees on what they mean by competitive balance or how to define that. Is it regular season records? Is it playoff appearances? Is it championships? And then how much of what we think of as competitive balance is just something inherent to the sport because there's so much randomness in baseball, particularly in the playoffs? Because obviously having a higher payroll does confer some advantage, does make you more likely to go to the playoffs, though it's far from a guarantee. And it's so apples to oranges when you're comparing baseball to other sports for any number of reasons, though I do generally think that the idea that there's a crisis of competitive balance in baseball is a bit overblown. I do think it's clever of Meyer to allude to the numbers that they have access to, even though they can't divulge them, if only because it's fighting fire with fire, because MLB and MLB owners constantly allude to their supposed biblical losses, and players can't really refute that, And players are at a disadvantage from a PR perspective because we are just intimately familiar with their finances and their salaries and their earnings in a way that we're not for their even wealthier owners and for the teams. And so even if you can't come out and say, no, this is disingenuous because and here you go, here are all the numbers, to at least allude to that might not be persuasive to anyone. But if other people and the people on the other side of the table are going to be doing that, then you might as well counter. And when it comes to framing these things, not to be Mr. Media Critic, because I am a member of the media, but I do take some objection to the way that Jeff Passan, for instance, framed a recent column. Obviously, I like Jeff. I quite respect his work. I find him a very engaging guy and would ask him about this myself if he were on the podcast, which I hope he will be again. But he wrote a post, and I'll just read a portion of it toward the top. Amid one of the lowest moments in more than half a century since its formation, the MLBPA can use Clark's stunning resignation to help save the 2027 season. And whoever ascends to the MLBPA's vacated executive director position, this was before the Meyer decision was made official, which the union expects to fill as early as Wednesday, will inherit an organization facing its greatest challenge in a generation. MLB owners are intent on securing a salary cap upon the expiration of the current collective bargaining agreement December 1st. Players are primed to fight it. Again, as Meyer said, that's sort of always the fight, but maybe the sides are more dug in or one side is than usual. Well, for the fight to be effective, though, they must acknowledge that the greatest priority, and this is the players, players are primed to fight it, is to ensure no games are missed following the league's expected lockout. And that is where the players themselves must hold their new leadership more accountable than they did their previous one. Okay. Yeah. I'm going to take issue with this also. Track to me. And if Jeff were here, he might have a good explanation for this. But you often see this, this idea that the burden is on the players to save the season. And it's the league that's locking the players out, presumably, that has already declared its intention to do so. And they don't have to do that. They didn't always used to do that. They do that because they think it will force the players and it will give the league extra leverage. But they could continue to maintain the status quo even after the CBA expires. That's happened in the past. That happens in all sorts of CBA negotiations. So it's really the league escalating and choosing to put that pressure on and endangering the season. And it's not really the player's priority, or it shouldn't be. It shouldn't be their number one priority. Obviously, they want to play baseball. They're baseball players. And they want the sport to be successful and healthy and rake in revenue so that they can rake in a percentage of it. but they can't sit down at the table thinking our number one priority is to save the season and it's on us to be the saviors of the season because the league has locked us out. They have to consider what's best for them. And sure, I think it would be best for all parties in a way if the season is not canceled, but they can't just cave on that from day one and say, well, the number one priority is that the season must be played. we must save the season because if the league does not strike that same stance, then you're automatically at a disadvantage. And why should the onus be more on the players than it is on the league? So that framing, which we've seen plenty of times in the past and probably we'll see plenty more times, I just never quite understand why we should say that the players are the ones who must save the season. Yeah, I think that sometimes it would be useful for writers to run a similar frame through sort of the hypothetical they're constructing, but like change the jobs, right? There is something special and romantic and amazing about baseball. And we spend so much time on this podcast talking about that stuff. But because it has an emotional pull, because it has cultural resonance, we, and I don't think you and I do this, and to be clear, I don't think that Jeff really does this very much either. So, like, I'll also put in my, like, this is not an anti-Jeff take disclaimer. Yeah, I don't see Jeff as an ownership shill or anything. I think he's often pretty even-handed. And even elsewhere in the piece, he acknowledges it's the league locking out the players. Yeah. So I don't want to go too hard at him in particular here, but like the pull that the particular job and the league has on our collective hearts and imaginations does a weird thing to our sense of who's obligated to fold here. And I think that there's a tacit admission in thinking that like it surely does the players top priority to save games that like ownership can't be relied upon to have that be their priority. Right. So I think that there's sort of an acknowledgement in there that I don't think is untrue. But if we were talking about, you know, Ford and the United Auto Workers, would we frame a CBA negotiation the same way? You know what I mean? Like, would we be like, well, surely their top priority has to be getting the the trucks off the assembly line? And no, like that isn't the way we would understand that. We would understand it as these are workers. That's a boss. They need to ensure, you know, safe working conditions, fair pay. So I think a weird little thing happens to people's brains when we're talking about, one, this emotional, super important cultural institution. And also, and this one, I understand people struggling with millionaires and not everyone who's in the union is a millionaire. And I think that like latching on to you're like trying to emotionally connect to the struggle a little bit better. We got an email to this effect from someone who I take as, you know, writing in good faith that, like, they're having a hard time kind of latching on to it because aren't these guys all just, like, potentially future billionaires if they invest their money well and things compound and the market does well? Not all the guys in the union are those guys. A lot of the guys in the union will never be those guys. They never be in a position to like exercise good financial planning and then be wildly wealthier than even their big contract allows right Like that not the vast majority of the membership I think that, like, maximizing earnings for the top guys has value. And I think it has. I think that the PA doing well has value beyond baseball for, like, sports labor and labor generally. but if they were auto workers, we wouldn't write about them the same way. I can appreciate why that argument might not sing for everyone. I want to acknowledge that, and I get it. I do. I also think that, like, if we could take a baseball bat to the way that American society is organized and the way labor is valued, that these guys probably don't make this much money and teachers probably make a lot more, but you don't have billionaires in that world either, you know? So maybe it's a tough honor one. But so it's just like we got to – you can't let the smell of the grass get in your brain. You can't have the smell of the grass brain warm when you're talking about this stuff. Yeah, and it could just be some careless framing or phrasing on deadline. Who knows? I'm sure it's his editor's fault. Well, the headlines, which I've also critiqued, might be. Yeah, it's just, I think, it's not as if I'm out here stumping for the season to be canceled because my number one priority is for the players to further enrich themselves. Oh, yeah. I hope the season can be saved, too. As a baseball fan, as someone whose own financial well-being is partly dependent on baseball being played, Major League Baseball specifically, I want there to be a season two. I hope that they reach an equitable agreement in time for a season to be saved. And I think the odds are still in favor of that happening. It's just that I'm not here calling upon the players to sacrifice themselves, fall on their swords, or blaming them if they don't, if that worst-case scenario comes to pass and we do lose some baseball. So we will continue to monitor this sort of thing. The actual number one priority that the players should be considering is banning teams calling pitches from the dugout, which unfortunately is spreading, as was documented by Zach Kreiser in the bandwagon. We talked about this. I ranted about it. I think you joined me in that mostly late last year when the Marlins started doing this. They've been doing it in minors, but then they debuted it in the big leagues. And now it seems to be spreading tentatively, partly because the Rockies have hired the Marlins' former pitching coach. He's maybe bringing that practice with them. And maybe the Rockies should just be allowed to do whatever they have to do. I guess if you're going to pick two teams to be like, no, it's fine. Like, whatever you got to do, man. I guess. Those are tools. You do have to have pitchers who are capable of throwing good pitches in order to make the calling of them. Or who knows? Maybe it matters more when you don't have good pitchers. But there's that. And then there's Tony Vitello, who is coming from college, of course, where teams commonly do call pitches. And so he is entertaining the idea of doing that. I'm sorry. This one I'm going to interrupt on. Crazy, crazy talk out of that guy. What is the value that your catcher brings? You know, I know that I know that the framing is superlative, right? I'm not here to say that there isn't, but like, I'm just saying let Patrick Bailey cook a little bit. You know what I mean? Like, he's not going to hit. So you may as well let him max out whatever else he's good at. Yes. What do we do? What do we do? So medium-term listeners or even medium-term listeners are probably familiar with my feelings on this sort of thing. Obviously not. I'm very mad at Tony. I'll go over as I get there. She's like, Tony, look, we're yelling at all the Tonys today. Every Tony is on notice. Stay in line. Yes. They're not great. I'm trying to. No, I think Tony Vitello is a fine. Anyway, sorry. We'll see. Yeah, it's been kind of a strange PR approach from him thus far, but I'm not jumping to conclusions based on the first few days of spring training. So I think people are probably familiar with the distinction I draw and where I draw the line, which is, I guess, the foul line more or less. And I'm pro preparation and data and numbers and information. I just am uncomfortable, to say the least, when we have coaches, front office folks even, sort of meddling in actual game action in-game. You can do whatever coaching and preparation you want before the game, on the sidelines, in the dugout, on the bench, but when that then crosses over, that makes me uncomfortable or detracts somewhat from my enjoyment. And we've gone over this before and we probably will again. And maybe I will write up my rant at some point because it always helps to write things down when you want to make a cogent argument. But this quote that Zach repurposed in his newsletter from Peter Bendix of the Marlins, Bendix said, it's something that we truly believe is going to help us win more baseball games. It's going to help our pitchers get better results. We think it's something that can be a real meaningful advantage for us. He's probably right. I think he's probably right about that. I think as long as this is allowed and your players are on board with it, it probably is smart. There probably is some edge to be derived here. And that's why I kind of want it to be disallowed, because I can only assume that it will spread and it will get normalized. And as it gets more pervasive in the minors, players will become more comfortable with it. It might be tough to quantify the advantage that you derive. But if you can make a compelling case that it's improving your team, then I would imagine that this will eventually sweep the league. And I'm trying to parse why this bothers me more in baseball than in football, where, of course, the plays are called from the sidelines. And mostly it's because I don't care about football as much as I care about baseball. Would you like me to talk about Devin Witherspoon again? Would you like me to do 10 minutes on Spoon? I can do that now. Ben, I can do it. I can do it. Some later date. I don't doubt your capacity. We're going to be late today. We're going to be a long enough episode. No, I was not worried about that. But I could go longer on this topic than I will today. But I think it bothers me more in baseball, obviously because of the novelty of it. In football, it's been the norm for decades, going back to Jim Kelly and beyond. He was kind of the last guy who is reputed to have regularly called his own plays as a quarterback. But I think there are some extenuating circumstances in football where it's just so much more complex. It's so much more fluid. The playbook is so complicated. There are so many more players on the field. Everything is moving. Everything is evolving. The other team is countering what you're doing. There are large, powerful men who are essentially trying to kill you like a few feet away. They're just trying to bulldoze and steamroll you, and you're trying to avoid having that happen. And all of this other stuff is happening in real time. And you can't even really see what's going on. I mean, no one on a football field can actually see everything that's happening. That's why the ones calling the plays are often up in the booth, although not always. Yeah, you have some eye in the sky who's at least providing input, and then that's being relayed. By the way, another slight downside of this is that they can't use pitch comm in the dugout as of now. I was just about to ask you, remind me how they're doing it, how the Merlins are doing it, because they can't use Pitchcom in the dugout. No, they're using hand signals, and it's funny because we're essentially maybe reinventing sign stealing. Yeah, what are we? Oh, God. Bring back the banking scheme. Now, that might be corrected, of course. They could allow a pitch calm in the dugout or they could have in college, you know, they have their electronic solutions to that perhaps temporary problem. But in football, I think they're mitigating circumstances because there's just so much going on. And I do understand the specialization somewhat. And, yes, you could say that a catcher's task has become more difficult, too. And you have so many more pitchers to keep track of. And the pitchers are nastier. And their pitching changes constantly. and there's so much more data to game plan around and everything. So you could say, yeah, specialize, take that off the catcher's plate, not literally, figuratively, and then hand that duty off to someone else. And that's why I think probably if you can crunch all those numbers and relay them in real time, that you actually will see some sort of benefit from that. But I continue to think that I want the players to perform and make a difference and for the player's performance and preparation to manifest on the field. And I don't know how you could even account for this. I mean, war-wise, right, it's not as if we've really done a great job of quantifying game calling as it is, but you're shifting. We haven't. Yeah, there have been attempts in the public sphere. No, I mean, like we in the public sphere haven't done that. Yeah, I'm sure teams have done much more. This suggests to me that teams are much, much further along in that process. Yeah, quite likely so. and I'm sure that they're aware of the deficiencies of some catchers in that respect. But coach him up. Replace him. You know? Exactly. Do what you've done with framing. Make him better at that. Right. It suggests to me, well, first of all, if I was Augustin Ramirez, I would be so insulted by all of this. It would be debilitating to my self-esteem if I was Ramirez. He's the Marlins catcher for people who are not familiar with this roster, which, you know what? But part of why I want it to remain the job of catchers is absolutely because that's just been their job, you know. And I think that that relationship between the catcher and the pitcher is incredibly cool. And I think that is often additive. I understand that we are not in a position to fully quantify the value of that ability. But I just refuse to believe that there aren't guys who are good at it, who aren't maybe really good at it. Teams talk about guys being really good at it, and I don't think they're, like, totally making that up. It just doesn't strike me as an area that, like, actually necessitates intervention. Or if it does, that it isn't coachable, that it isn't improvable. You know, and particularly as we move into an era where at the very least we have a challenge system and might end up someday having full ABS. I like if I'm the union, I would be all over trying to roll this back because you have to preserve areas of value for these guys. Now, maybe that's not a concern that the average fan cares about. And if you're the team and your argument is, well, we're going to win more baseball games, I guess I understand not being particularly sympathetic to it. But again, I just I don't believe that this is a problem. It might be a problem for the Marlins, but that to me says more about the Marlins and the Rockies than anything else. I'll say what I said the last time we talked about this, which is the fact that it's this team and now these teams that are excited about this makes me skeptical of the enterprise, which isn't to say that there aren't smart people working for the Marlins. And Bendix is obviously a smart guy, and I don't have anything against the pitching coach that the Rockies hired. But, like, isn't it a little telling to you that it's not like the Dodgers doing this? Maybe, although it could just be because it's easier to implement there because they don't have veterans. They don't have big stars. They're sort of desperate. There's not much of a media spotlight. I guess. Not many people paying attention and questioning this kind of thing so you can get away with it. maybe the Dodgers and other big market teams are envious, are thinking, I wish we could do this. Is this allowed in the rules? I'm sorry. If you're the Dodgers, I just refuse to believe that you couldn't go to Will Smith and say, hey, you know the way that we three-peat? If we take this off your plate. Really? Like, I understand that there's veteran pride and, like, he's one of your guys and he signed to this contract. And maybe part of the reason you like him, he's not a good framer anymore, So maybe part of the reason you like him is you think Will Smith is good at this, you know? Yeah, and I understand the temptation of, oh, this makes my job easier in the short term. I don't have to worry about which this is to call it. But you think long term. It's kind of like when we talked about umpires seemingly not being that bothered by the challenge system or even full ABS, and we were sort of surprised by that. And maybe in that case it's kind of inevitable. But I just don't want players to be reduced to executors of the will. of others because you hear so much that word execution. I didn't execute. And if that's all they are, that's still important. And I'm not going to swear off baseball. I'm still going to enjoy seeing people hit balls hard and run fast and make catches and all that stuff is still incredible and takes talent and everything. But I just don't love the idea that it's all reduced to stand here. Here's exactly where you stand. We're going to give you a card so that you know to stand over there, and then you can be positioned there perfectly, and then we will tell you exactly what to throw, and we will tell you when to challenge, and we will tell you we'll take all the decision-making off of your plate. I want players' will and their preparation and whether they can think tactically about these things to have some bearing on the in-game results. Because otherwise, it's just kind of who can crunch numbers better. And that is interesting to me, I suppose. But it's not what originally drew me to the game or what makes for an excellent spectator experience. So that's what it is, I suppose. And if there's some inconsistency in my position on this, I do understand that. I understand the objections, but it bothers me on a deep-rooted level. Yeah, I'm with you. And I appreciate that, like, it's a team and it's a collaborative effort. And clearly we think that folks who are not just the players can have a positive impact on an organization, right? Like, the version of this argument I would make right now. And like you, I don't know that I'm fully articulating or properly articulating what about it I find so offensive, other than, like, leave catchers alone. They're beautiful boys. Leave our beautiful boys alone. But I think part of it is that, like, to me, the most successful collaborations between, say, front office personnel, coaching staff, and players are just that. They're collaborations, right? It is a it is a it's teamwork. What pitches a catcher calls is absolutely informed by information that is provided to them by the front office, by, you know, Hawkeye. But they have to feel it out in the game. They have to field marshal it. It's more like a marriage than it is like giving orders. And I think that that's when you're you're really realizing like the spirit of the thing. And this, to me, feels like the front office feeling like a chess player and the players as mere pieces. And I think that that disrupts the dynamic that is the most meaningful in the sport. And that's separate and aside from, you know, all the other things I've said. But it just feels like a betrayal of, like, what that relationship can be and what that process can really look like. And I think that it has yielded some incredible results for players and front office folks. But it has to feel like teamwork. You know, it has to feel like collaboration. And this doesn't feel like that to me. It's not, I think, an accident that the environment in which we see this piloted is college, right, where, first of all, there is just like a genuine deficiency in skill for a lot of these guys. And look, there are a lot of good college catchers, but then there are ones who are not, Ben. You know, there are some of them who are not. Yeah, but they're amateurs. They're learning. If you teach them by telling them how to do it, then I'm kind of okay with it as long as they then graduate to doing it themselves. Because, hey, buddy, you're in the big leagues. Exactly. Exactly. There's pedagogic value to that process in the amateur ranks. And then you have to go do. Right. And one of the things that differentiates you as a guy who can go do versus the guys who are not going to get drafted or going to wash out is your ability to do this well. Or I think it should be. This is my most my most crotchety take aside from down with the in-game on-field player interviews. But that's sort of sort of the same thing. I want the players to be left alone to play their trade on the field. And and and look, Bendix and others, they're saying the right thing about, well, this is not ironclad and they have some leeway. And if they see something, they can adjust to it and they have free will. They can make the call ultimately. But how long will that persist? Because they won't ever develop the skills to call pitches by themselves and they just won't know how to do it. And eventually they'll be fine with it. And if they came up in a minor league system where that was the practice, then they probably won't even be up in arms about it. And I'm not saying dismiss all the coaches and fire the front offices. We need front offices. We need coaches. They should be coaching the players, but they can do so from the sidelines. And during breaks in the game, of which there are plenty, there are half inning breaks. You go back to the dugout. You can study whatever you want before the game begins, between innings. You can have meetings on the mound, another thing that I would do away with. But you can do it. And there are plenty of times when you can say, okay, here's how I should approach this guy. Here's what the numbers say. I will take that into account. And then I will apply that when I'm actually on the field. But once you're out there, you're on your own. You're off book, or at least I believe that you should be. And it's just, it's not football. It's not as complex. There's a catcher and there's a batter and there's an umpire and there's a count. And certainly there's analytical resources that can be brought to bear on the optimal pitch choices. I don't doubt the utility there, but I'm just saying that you can do this. A player can do this. I don't think they need to specialize to the degree that they are reduced solely to their physical performance as opposed to their smarts. It offends me. And look, if I have to trade the positioning cards to keep this, I'll do it. You know, easy trade for me. Easy trade. And the other thing is, well, what's the effect of all of this? The outfield defenders have gotten so good that it has led to fewer ball play becoming hits. And is that because of the positioning cards? I don't know, but it's probably because of the positioning to a large degree and the skills of the players. So you look at the downstream effects of this and are those good? Not necessarily, right? Do we need to give pitchers another advantage because they're wizards as it is, right? So I don't even think that it leads to a better, more spectator-friendly game, which has been the case with some other analytical advances as well. And that's something that I think you could consider from the league's perspective when you're deciding whether to step in and say, well, for the betterment of baseball, we should ban this practice. We should nip this in the bud. So that's my hope, though. I'm not holding out much of it. I have some other updates, but I'll table them for next time. The Phillies being Phillies, a couple more instances of that, and Red Sox, Jersey, apologies, and mishigas I want to tell you about. But that's a tease for next time, and this is a tease for our next segment. We're about to talk about the Tigers with Cody Savenhagen of The Athletic, followed by Jason Burke on the Ace. Little girl, if your grandma can help me, I'll buy some baseball cards before I get free. Today I waste my time, tracking all these bad lives. Here I found my kind, and I'll effectively run. Okay, let's talk some Tigers with Cody Stavenhagen, who covers the Tigers and some other teams, too, for The Athletic. He also podcasts about the Tigers on Tiger territory and, at least for today, on Effectively Wild. Welcome back, Cody. Yeah, thanks for having me, guys. I enjoyed doing this every spring. So the 2024 and 2025 Tigers seasons finished essentially the same way, as far as I can recall. 86-87 wins Won a wild card Went on to play Cleveland in the playoffs My recollection is a little hazy When it comes to the actual details But essentially the same season Right? Just rinse and repeat Something like that It ended in a very similar place ALDS game 5 both years With Terrick Scoobble on the mound But the Tigers certainly took wildly Different paths to get there In 2024 it was a poor start and then a frantic finish and in 2025 it was a tremendous first half and then a near disastrous collapse they blew a division lead they went to the wild card game on the road beat the guardians and lost to the mariners eventually in a 15 inning heartbreaker so a lot of ups and downs and twists and turns for the tigers over the past two seasons but you look up and this organization is in as good of a spot as it has been in in a long, long time. Yeah. So maybe some slight subtle differences there when it comes to the trajectory of the season. I guess it depends on whether it's about the journey or the destination. And maybe in baseball, it's more about the destination than the journey. But the journey is pretty important, too. And the Tigers definitely took two very different journeys to a sort of similar destination. So is there any carryover effect? I remember asking you last spring, I think, whether there would be any bullpen hangover from the pitching chaos approach. And I recall you saying, that's a good question. I should ask some people about that. I don't know whether you did, and I don't know whether that was the issue. But it's funny that I can remember specific questions that I asked you on the preview, but all of the important details about the Tiger season slipped my mind. No, I'm kidding. I do remember how those things laid out. I'm glad you mentioned that. I was thinking about that earlier today. Yeah, the bullpen was not nearly as good. I don't know if that's why. I regressed, and a lot of the key characters who were used so heavily in the Pigeon Chaos stretch in 2024 ended up on the IL for most or all of 2025. So was there some hangover for that? I mean, maybe so. Yeah, I did wonder about just an emotional hangover, or even just the confidence with which one goes into a season. Because if you end on a high note, as they did in 2024, and you're really riding high and you're fueling yourself, you could maybe be lulled into a false sense of security and think, yeah, we're that good. We were that team that was winning every day down the stretch. Whereas if you end like last year did and you blow a historically large lead, even though ultimately you end up beating Cleveland anyway after you face them right after that in the playoffs, I wonder whether that then lights a fire under you and makes you think, well, maybe we can't just sort of rest on our laurels. We should go sign Framber Paul Pesce. Yeah, I think the amazing thing about the Tigers offseason was media, fans, and maybe even some people in the organization itself went through most of the winter thinking the Tigers were not going to do anything drastic or dramatic. They were pretty clear they were okay with running back a similar core of position players and banking on internal development, they didn't add a single hitter on a major league deal. This is to a lineup that finished 11th in run scoring. I believe it had the third most at-bats from players under 25 years old, but also a lineup that struggled dramatically down the stretch. I think only three teams struck out at a higher rate than the Tigers did last year. And on the pitching side, I think the Tigers were confident they could improve over being 17th in ERA last season, but no one was really expecting any big moves. And then as the offseason neared its conclusion, suddenly Frambois Valdez, they were able to sign him on a three-year deal. They get arguably the best pitcher on the market. Now, they did lose Reese Olsen to a shoulder surgery, but they made up for that by signing none other than Justin Verlander, who will he be as good even as Olsen was? I don't know, but he's certainly an emotional touchstone for Tigers fans, And those two moves really changed the entire mood around spring training. It went from, yeah, this is a good team. We'll see if young players can take a step forward to, oh, this front office made some serious moves. They could have as good of a rotation as any in the American League. And any improvement from the offense is nearly a plus. I want to ask about some of the guys that you just named and some of those offensive players who are currently on the big league roster who I imagine they hope will take a step forward. but I actually want to start by talking about two of the guys in the minors who might be able to justify their relative lack of activity on the position player side. Kevin McGonigal and Max Clark ranked fifth and seventh on our recently released top 100, and both of them have ETAs that are quite soon. So what is your expectation for some of their top prospects in terms of when they might arrive in the majors, and how are they thinking about slotting those guys in? Yeah, we'll certainly see how this plays out. I think as we're recording this today, Kevin McGonigal, maybe the single biggest question of Tiger's spring training, does he have a legitimate shot to make the opening day roster? My answer to that right now is I'm not sure. The Tigers, A.J. Hinch, Scott Harris, they certainly have not shut it down, but they're also not hyping up this idea. So what does that mean and what is the plan at shortstop? That's where McGonagall is getting the most reps right now. It may not be his long-term home, but I think he has a chance to play there this year, and he's probably good enough to stick for a bit. They have Javier Baez. They have Zach McKinstry there. McKinstry plays a lot of different positions. Javier Baez, they would like him to roam around. I don't know if anyone ever knows exactly what they're going to get out of Javier. I think you'd feel a lot better about this team if Kevin McGonagall was able to seize a roster spot, But the caveat here, McGonigal has not yet played above AA. In reality, he's played less than 40 games above high A. It would be a little bit unlike the Tigers to have a player completely skip AAA, even a prospect as good as Kevin McGonigal. So that's a huge question mark. If he's not on the opening day roster, would they call him up when there's a need in May, June, July? Or would they try to maintain his rookie eligibility, factor in the prospect promotion incentive, of, and maybe we barely see Kevin McGonigal this year. I'm really not sure. I think any of those outcomes are at play. I think Max Clark, his roster case is probably not quite as heightened as McGonigal. I don't think we're going to see Max Clark on the opening day roster. The Tigers have enough. Right now, they have five or six guys who can play in the outfield, but if Parker Meadows struggles in center, does that question change? I don't know. Right now, I look at Max Clark probably more of an end-of-season type guy. Whereas McGonagall, he could play 162 games or he could play 28 games in the majors. I'm not sure which it's going to be, but both these guys are certainly important in some ways this year and certainly to the future of the franchise. Yeah, hard not to have visions of them being the new Trammell and Whitaker. I mean, not quite positionally speaking, unless Max Clark wants to take up second base. Left-handed second baseman, that'd be all right. Yeah, especially an odd fit, but, you know, in terms of longevity and playing together potentially for a long time. I do, before we return to the position players, want to ask you more rotation questions, because that was where much of the action was this winter. And we can talk about the guy who did not, in fact, or has not changed teams, though there was plenty of intrigue surrounding Tarek Skubel. So take us through that arbitration process, which led to a historic judgment in his favor. What do you think the Tigers' rationale was as far as where they filed? Do they have regrets? Has that damaged the relationship with Scoobal at all? Does that even matter? For all I know, maybe Scoobal's grateful to them for filing so low that the arbitrators ruled in his favor and gave them a nice hefty salary. and just looking ahead to the season to come, should we assume that he's a lock to stay in Detroit and play out this contract and then we'll see where the chips fall in for agency? Or do Tigers fans still have to fret that if they have a bad start to the season that he could be dangled? The arbitration case was certainly interesting and complicated. My sense is I think everyone's just glad it's over. kind of an all's well that ends well type thing. I think it was awkward, but at the end of the day, Tarek Skubal gets his $32 million. The Tigers paid him the $32 million. They paid Frambo Valdez. They are running into camp with a good roster, and they chose not to trade Tarek Skubal. The whole process was certainly interesting. They initially were willing to offer around $19.8 million, which would have surpassed David Price's record and set the record for largest arbitration raise. But when there wasn't much negotiation between Scott Boris and the Tigers, for some reason their official filing, they lowered that number to $19 million, which again lowered the midpoint that was used in arbitration that the panel was basing things on. So there was a lot that was going into it. I don't think it was a great look that the Tigers only offered $19 million. I also think they were influenced pretty heavily by Major League Baseball and the Labor Relations Department. It still was kind of a dramatic ruling for an arbitration panel to give Terrick Scoogle a $22 million raise. No other player had ever received more than a $9.6 million raise via the arbitration process. That was Jacob deGrom. Clearly, Scoogle, Scott Boris, they were trying to set a little bit of a precedent. They were trying to change the way star players particularly star pitchers are treated in arbitration No one had exceeded David Price 19 in 11 years in terms of pitchers So it was strange, but I'm not sure the relationship was overly damaged. The Tigers, from what I understand, did not go into the room and try to cut down a two-time Cy Young winner. They based their arguments on, well, David Price got this and Jacob DeGrom got this. Scott Boras pointed to Skubal's dominance over the past couple of years and the arbitration panel sided with him yeah and important to the whole vibe along with Framboer along with Justin Verlander the Tigers could have traded or maybe thought harder to trade Skubal this offseason if they weren't going to spend on hitting if they weren't interested in adding a lot to the roster in other areas there was a time where I was sitting there being like if they're not going to do anything maybe they should trade him. Get as much value as you possibly can for this guy. They didn't do that, and then that looks a lot better now that we know they did add to the roster. So Scoogle coming back was certainly a boost for everyone. He seems pretty energized in camp right now. I'm sure he was glad to see the team put some other pitching pieces around him. In terms of what the future holds, you know, we'll see. Yeah, I think certainly if the Tigers get off to an atrocious start or suffer a couple of costly injuries and they're out of it at the trade deadline, they would be fools not to look long and hard at trading Tarek Skubal. But if they are at all in the race in what doesn't profile to be a very strong division, I would expect Skubal to spend the rest of this year in Detroit as a Tiger. Knowing Scott Boras, I think he's going to take Skubal to free agency no matter what. the Tigers could offer him $1 billion, and I think that might just serve as a starting point for negotiations with other clubs. I guess never say never to the idea maybe he could end up back in Detroit when all is said and done, but I think he's going to test free agency, and I think there will certainly be a lot of teams, including big market teams, bidding on his services. I would imagine that part of the appeal of Romer Valdez is that in the event that they trade Scooble or that he leaves in free agency. You have another guy who on a lot of teams would be the number one starter ready to slot in there other than the obvious opportunity of his market sort of lingering longer than I think most people were expecting. How did this signing come together and what are their expectations for him? His market was strange because the talent is undeniable. There was the cross-up thing, but he's reunited with A.J. Hinch. So talk to us about the fit here. Yeah, I think if you look at the contract structure, it's probably not a coincidence. Valdez, it's a three-year deal. It has an opt-out after year two rather than an opt-out after year one. It's probably because the Tigers are going to, could lose Tarek Skubel, Jack Flaherty, Casey Mize, all to free agency. There would be a lot of question marks for the 2027 Tigers rotation. But by bumping that opt-out to after year two, even if you lose Skubel, you can feel pretty good. You have Frambois Valdez. You have a very talented Jackson Jobe who will be returning from injury. You will have Reese Olsen hopefully returning from injury. So I think they certainly wanted to secure him for the 2027 season at the very least. Frambois Valdez, despite maybe his reputation based on the cross-up thing or criticizing his own coaching staff or defensive positioning last season, has been nothing but durable and consistent for the past several years. This guy's been a four-war pitcher kind of year in and year out, at least over the past four seasons. So I think that's what the Tigers like. He's an extreme ground ball pitcher. He's been very consistent, throws a lot of innings. I think they feel like his performance is going to be pretty predictable, even if he's in his age 32, 33 season, even if he actually wasn't that good in his final 10 starts last year. They're paying him at an elite rate upward of $37 million per year. I'm sure they like that this is a shorter-term thing, though, not the seven years closing in on $200 million maybe he was initially projected to get. Obviously, there must have been concerns coming from the cross-up or coming from what is Valdez like from a makeup perspective or off the field. But one thing the Tigers are pretty good at is being opportunistic. I think when they discovered they could get Valdez on a more palatable short-term deal, They leaped at it. They had no problem paying him a higher AAV as someone who can help them chase a World Series this year and potentially be their ace a year from now. Still mulling over what percentage of that billion-dollar offer to Scoople would be deferred and for how long. But I'll think about that after we're done talking to you. So Verlander is back, and I don't know what Anibal Sanchez is up to these days or David Price. or, you know, get the gang back together. Max Scherzer's a free agent. He's out there. I guess the Mets tried that a couple seasons ago. Didn't go great for them, but might be different in Detroit. But this is not just a sentimental favorite, a farewell tour. Verlander was actually good, especially late last year. And so I assume that part of it is that this will be fun for fans and maybe for Verlander too, for him to have this homecoming. but they're also counting on him and expecting him to be a real contributor here, right? Yeah, I mean, I absolutely think they are. Now, he's going to sell a lot of merchandise, and the Tigers just dropped two alternate uniforms, so maybe all that will help fuel the billion-dollar offer. And $11 million of Verlander's $13 million is deferred, so maybe they had to find someone who was willing to take, who's already made enough money in their career to just push most of the $13 million into the future. So if they stick with that percentage, I guess it would be like $846 million deferred on the Scoobal offer. No, from a serious perspective, yeah, the Tigers are trying to win. This is not just a handout. This is not just a sentimental thing. Again, Verlander, what, a 2-6-0 ERA in his final 13 starts last season? Felt like he captured something when he was healthy. I think they think he can still contribute. I think his experience, his edge could be beneficial to a young team. I think there were points, you know, ever since Verlander left Detroit, people have speculated, will he come back? From what I understand, there wasn't a ton of interest from the Tigers in Verlander, even this time a year ago. But Verlander said he got to the tail end of last year and started thinking, what did he want to do with the rest of his career? He said he didn't want to just be a mercenary. He wanted to play somewhere that would hold some meaning. so that quickly meant either Detroit or Houston. And I think the Tigers were at a time in kind of their competitive cycle where it started to make a little more sense, where you're no longer kind of coddling a young clubhouse, where maybe you're ready to inject a more veteran presence. Verlander also pretty well-documented softened a little bit with his age. He's talked about trying to be a better teammate, be a better mentor. So I think a combination of factors ultimately spurred by Reese Olsen's shoulder injury made Verlander actually a really good fit for the Tigers and what they're trying to achieve this year. And he wasn't the only veteran pitcher they brought in. We can go to the bullpen now and talk about the fit for Kenley Jansen. How firm is he in that closer role? And then talk to us about the rest of this group, because a lot of it is returning faces, although they also brought in Drew Anderson, who's kicking back from the KBO. So assuming that Jansen sticks in the closer role, how does the rest of the bullpen kind of wind up ahead of him? Yeah, knowing A.J. Hinch, I'm not sure, you know, if closer is kind of a bad word around these parts. He has kind of intimated, hey, Jansen, the track record, the back of the baseball card, maybe he'll get first crack at ninth inning opportunities. But the Tigers have Kinley Jansen, they have Will Vest, they have Kyle Finnegan. That's three guys with closer experience. I think they'll mix and match a little bit based on usage, based on matchups. They are kind of three different pitchers where Will Vest is high-velocity, vert-fastball. Finnegan has a wipeout splitter. Timmy Jansen is heavy cutter. Jansen is maybe the one signing. We'll see how it goes. He's in his upper 30s now. From an ERA perspective, he was good last year. From an underlying metrics perspective, pretty concerning. Some of the data on Timmy Jansen last year. The Tigers think he can beat better. They like, you know, he can still miss some bats in the zone with the cutter. But will he hold on and get the bulk of save opportunities? Or will someone like Will Vest, who has been incredible the past couple of years, maybe be better suited to pitch most often in the ninth inning? I think that's an open question. I think the Tigers feel good about having three options and three experience options. We'll see what they get out of Jansen. They also have Tyler Holton, who's been very good as a lefty for them. Good against left-handers, but he's pitched in a wide variety of roles. There will be some other competition, a couple bullpen spots open. In the event their rotation is healthy throughout spring, I do think Drew Anderson will start in the bullpen. They gave him $7 million this year, initially intended for him to come to camp as a starter. But again, bullpen is probably going to be the best fit, maybe a little bit of a swingman role. Big question mark there, too. Drew Anderson was highly successful in the KBO last year. He was in Tiger's camp a couple of years ago, so there's some familiarity. He's throwing harder than before. He added a kick change in Korea that he had a lot of success with. They were willing to pay him $7 million, which isn't a ton, but it's also not nothing. So how will he be used? Certainly a question. Who can win those last couple bullpen rolls? But I do think Kingley Jansen will be important. I mean, is this a top five, top ten bullpen, or could it struggle as it did at times last season? And you certainly want to be right when you're paying a guy a lot of money in his 30s. Yeah, there's not a lot of width potential seemingly in that bullpen right now. Rick Porcello, he's still out there. He hasn't pitched in several years, but kind of incredible that he was the young guy in the 2014 rotation and previous ones. Several years younger than Verlander and Scherzer, and yet they have pitched several years beyond his career. They just keep going and going. but enough reminiscing about the legendary 2014 Tigers rotation. So they also bring back Jack Flaherty and Casey Mize, and they're a lot less load-bearing than they were prior to the Frambois and Verlander signings. So that's good, I guess. They were both pretty solid for the Tigers last year, but sort of stretched as a number two. And so to have them towards the middle or back of the rotation, that seems better for their skills. what if anything are they hoping for from those guys more of the same or more than more of the same yeah they are jack flared and casey mys are different pitchers but if you zoom out on them they share a lot in common in terms of uh very talented guys who have battled varying degrees of inconsistency throughout their careers again you feel plenty good with either of them as probably a three or a four starter, but if the Tigers want to really have an elite rotation, want to really have the best rotation in the American League, it'd be real nice if at least one of those guys could be kind of the best version of themselves for the bulk of the season. Casey Mize pitched at an all-star level. He made the all-star game in the first half. Always kind of seemed like he was outperforming a lot of the metrics, and then that quickly began to catch up with him in the second half. He's at his best when his splitter is working, when he is missing bats with the splitter. It's a pitch. It's the pitch that once got him drafted number one overall, a pitch that was better at times last year, but has never quite been that strikeout weapon that it was billed as since he's been in the major leagues. So it's worth noting this is kind of the first time Mises had a quote-unquote normal offseason. He hasn't been injured. He's not rehabbing anything. Last year he was going to driveline and going to maven and adding different versions of a slider. This year he's pretty much keeping things the same, trying to smooth out the edges. It'll be interesting to see if he can be a little better or a little more consistent because there were times last year where he looked really good. And a similar story for Jack Flaherty, who is still one of the game's better strikeout artists, has a really good slider, can do some different things, but just really struggled last year. I mean, he had some brutal starts, I think nine instances in where he didn't get into the fifth inning. That was a problem, but a little bit the opposite of Mize. His underlying stuff, at least some of it, was better than his surface results. He had, I think, a 4-6-4 ERA, but look at his FIP after the All-Star break. It was, I think, 2-9-2. It was better than Tarek Skubals. So does that mean anything? Does that not? I mean, hard to say, but there's a really good version of Jack Flaherty. We've seen it with him in a Tigers uniform before. It seemed like he was battling some things last year. Can he be at least a little more consistent? Can he be closer to the 2024 first-half version of Jack Flaherty? I think that could be the difference between the Tigers having a top-10 rotation and the Tigers having the best rotation in the entire American League. So the rotation is shored up, but I don't know what to make of some of these hitters because if you told me that the Tigers were going to get the first half version of all of their guys, I'd be like, wow, this team's going to win the World Series. If you told me they were getting the second half version of a lot of them, I would be more skeptical, which isn't to say that they were all bad in the second half. I'm sure that Spencer Torkelson is looking at his year and going, I did it. I'm here. I'm an above-average hitter no matter how you cut it. But there was a notable drop-off. is there anything in particular that you attribute that to other than just the vagaries of a long season and as they look at you know riley green and torkelson and mckinstry how are they trying to help those guys have a more consistent level of production this year yeah i think it's one of the great mysteries of last season like what happened how did everyone go ice cold at seemingly the exact same time. I was never able to answer that question. I don't know if anyone can answer that question. And the inverse of that was for most of the first half, everyone was red hot at the exact same time, including Zach McKinstry, including Javi Baez. Tigers had a couple of big surprises last season in the first half, and that probably shouldn't be forgotten because I don't know that they can bank on that happening again. But the good news is so many of these guys are young. Riley Green and Spencer Torkelson still young hitters even though they have some experience under their belt. Green in particular just analyzing his game kind of boggles my mind right 36 home runs 111 RBI he was really good he also set a franchise record for strikeouts he has the steepest swing in the game which helps create the power but his chase rate got way out of whack his whiff rate got way out of whack. His walk rate declined significantly last season. Pitch selection is going to be huge for Riley Green. It doesn't seem like he's going to significantly alter that swing path, but I'll be interested to see maybe if he changes more than he's let on once we get into game action. Torkelson, yeah, I think you're right. I think Torkelson's just, you know, kind of proud of the year he had last year, kind of coming back from the brink, but there's still some swing and miss. I think the Tigers would like to see him get on base a little bit more. I think it was an ESPN article this offseason that says something like Torkelson could have an 880 OPS or he could have a 680 OPS and neither would surprise me. And I very much agree with that. I don't know. Again, there's some young hitters, right? Some guys you can look at. Colt Keith, Parker Meadows will be healthy. Can you get natural improvements there? You would think if you had the third most at bats from hitters under 25, that your offense might be better when all these guys are a year older. But the Greens, the Torkelsons of the world, like they have some flawed hitters too. There is a tendency to chase and a tendency to swing and miss, can do all the bat path work you want in the offseason. How will that translate to the regular season? Even a young player like Dylan Dingler, who was tremendous last year, kind of exceeded what anyone expected him to do at the plate. He won a gold glove, and he's probably going to be a gold glove caliber defensive catcher for a long time. But can even he replicate or improve on his results last season at the plate? Because he set a really high bar for himself. So that's what, like, I don't know that this offense is going to be bad, but I do think there are question marks all around the diamond. The Tigers seem to think they can be even better, though, just based on, you know, the idea that people are going to develop smoothly, which rarely happens if it came for whatever that's worth. Yeah, you anticipated. I was going to ask about Dingler next. You can't quite call him young. He's 27. Sometimes catchers develop more slowly, but he wasn't a top 100 guy, and this was his first full season, and he did not fit that pattern of hot at the start of the season, cold later. He got better as the season went on, was gifted defensively, as you said. If you look at just while playing catcher, he was the third most valuable catcher in the majors last year after Cal Raleigh and Alejandro Kirk. So how surprised were people around the team that he was that good, which I guess is another way of rephrasing the question that you just asked yourself, which is, can he be that good again? Yeah, I don't know. I think the Tigers have been high on Dylan Dingler for a long time. I don't think anyone was surprised by what he did with his glove. I think there was a mild surprise in just how good and for the large part how consistent he was at the plate. I think the team has always viewed him as a guy who isn't just a glove first catcher, like a guy who can impact the game with his bat. But, you know, to hit 280, I don't know that anyone quite saw that coming. So we'll see, you know, can he continue to hit for average? But on the flip side of that, might there be more power in the bat? Dingler is a big, strong guy. He's going to play a lot this season. I'll be really interested to see if he can sustain. He hit 278. He hit 13 home runs last season. My prediction, he can hit for a little more power. He probably won't hit for near that average. Were the Tigers surprised that Gleyber Torres accepted his qualifying offer? He was one of four players to do so this offseason, which caused a little mini stir for some. Were they expecting him to want to come back on that contract, or were they surprised that he would be part of their infield again? I don't think they were stunned. I think Glaber was in kind of a weird position, that he had a good year but not a great year. He really tapered off in the second half as he was playing through a hernia. In a lot of ways, he was the team's most consistent hitter, at least until that injury got him. So I think they were happy to have him back, even if it's on a pricey one-year deal, because if he had left, they would have been searching for a right-handed bat with a good plate approach. They would have essentially been searching for another Glaber Torres or even a more expensive Glaber Torres if that meant an Alex Bregman or someone like that. It certainly changed, I think, the configuration of the team. It kind of took them out probably of the running for a Bregman or a Bo Bichette, but it gives them a little more flexibility just to have the one year of Glaber Torres. is $20 million, $20 plus million a lot. You could argue that, but this is also a guy who should easily be a 2 plus win second baseman. The big question with him is going to be how much did the hernia actually impact him? Because there were times last year where it looked like he aged five years in a month. Now, of course, we found out he was playing hurt, so that probably explains it. But he's never been a good defender. The defense seemed to regress, especially later in the year last year, the range. So, you know, is he going to take any step back there? I think that's the only concern. The other way to look at it, Glaber's been a really consistent hitter with his approach the past few years, and I think the Tigers are happy to have him back. Well, I already asked you about McGonagall and Clark. There were a couple of other Tigers who placed on our top 100. It's a relatively good system. Some of those guys are further away. I'm curious if there's any talent in the high minors that you would expect Tigers fans to see at some point this season, either because of underperformance or guys getting hurt and them having an opportunity to sort of fill in at the big league level. Yeah, I think there's certainly some other contributors who will probably start in AAA or maybe could even contend for a spotting camp. Max Anderson and Howie Lee are the names who come to mind, both right-handed infielders, both guys. the organization is really high on and maybe higher on than others in the industry are Anderson probably plays primarily third base he had a great fall league pretty gifted bat I don't think he's much of a defender so in a way a little bit similar to Colt Keith but probably not even that tier of hitting prospect but again if there's a role to be kind of a righty platoon specialist he's going to be a candidate for that as is Lee the guy the Tigers just kind of swear by he's posted really good exit philosophies and some other stuff in the minor leagues. It also seems like he struggles making contact in zone. I'm just watching him. His stride is either toward third base or kind of overextending himself. So I think there are some things to clean up with Howie Lee, but he is a pretty good defender at either second or third base. Those are kind of the two guys I have circled, really interested to see what they could do. And then even Trey Cruz, who is an older prospect, had a slow ascent through the system. He's a switch hitter. He plays shortstop. He plays center field. That profile in general, the versatility the Tigers love, could give him a shot to play at some point this season. So the Tigers have just cracked the top 10 in payrolls at Roster Resource. Do you think that that's about as high as they're willing to go? Would they be willing to add if things go well for them at the start of the season? And how are fans feeling about the younger Illich these days after some frustration that he was not following in his father's footsteps payroll-wise? Yeah, well, probably, you know, for years we've heard that Chris Illich is invested in winning, that he'll do whatever it takes to put competitive product on the field. And for most of his tenure as the team's CEO and chairman, those were just words. Now there is finally some real evidence behind that. The Tigers are running a top-ten payroll. They're running a franchise record payroll. So all the normal jokes I've made for years about Chris Illich can't really make anymore. Of course, once you start spending, people will only want you to spend more. And that is the question. It seems like now the Tigers are kind of running right up against the luxury tax. I'm surprised they were this high to begin with. I didn't think they were going to be, especially with uncertainty when it comes to TV revenue and the future of that, especially with paying Terrick Scoobal $32 million. And so I think you have to give some props to Chris Illich and the Tigers for finally spending in a more meaningful way. But I do wonder if they're about at their cap or even if they come up to the trade deadline, would they be willing to make a big move and exceed the luxury tax? I wouldn't be surprised if that becomes a huge question as we get into July. I've never thought the Tigers would run a luxury tax team under Chris Illich, but this conversation looks a lot different than it did even a month ago. Well, let's go with our closing question then, which is what would constitute success for this team this season? Can they have a year where they just kind of play at a consistent level throughout the entire season, just for everyone's psychological well-being? Yeah, I don't know that any major league team really plays that consistently throughout a year. That's what makes it so hard, but my mental well-being would be a lot better. It could be a little bit less of a roller coaster this year. The past two years have just been, man, they've been tough in ways good and bad. It's been a lot to absorb. So playing well more consistently would certainly help. I think the goal needs to start with win your division. The Tigers, for all they've achieved the past couple years, have not won what is arguably the weakest division in baseball. They made the playoffs in back-to-back years, but at any time in Major League history before the most recent expanded playoff, they would have been on the outside looking in. and we would view all of this a little bit differently. Now the standard is the postseason, but I think you need to win this division, get yourself out of the snake pit that can be the AL wildcard round, and try to have home field advantage. I think this is a good enough team, especially with the addition of Fram Brevaldez, making the World Series is kind of the goal. We all know the postseason can be a little bit random, so I think winning the AL Central should constitute success for the Tigers this season. All right. Well, they are largely running back the batters who finished last season on the team. They will hope that they hit more like they did at the start of last season and that that combined with a great rotation propels them to achieving the goal you just laid out, which they probably laid out for themselves as well. And you can find out whether they get there, well, by following them anyways, probably, but especially by reading Cody's writing for The Athletic and listening to him on Tiger territory. Thank you, Cody. Always a pleasure. Absolutely. Thank you. All right. It did occur to me after we bid goodbye to Cody that I could have asked about Jackson Jobe, who is working his way back from Tommy John surgery. But it sounds like he won't be a factor for a while this season, if at all. I had sort of psychologically written him off for 2026. He didn't have surgery until mid-June, and it was full Tommy John surgery. So given the typical timeline and his age and inexperience, it's unlikely that he'd be a big help. He is starting to throw, and they're holding out hope that he could come back in September. So I suppose there's a scenario where he could maybe come back and be a bullpen weapon for October. But who knows? That's all somewhat speculative. What is not speculative is that we're about to bring you one more segment. We'll take a quick break, and we'll be back with Jason Burke to talk about the A's. If baseball were different, how different would it be? And if this thought haunts the dreams, well stick around and see what Ben and Meg have to say. Philosophically and podentically, it's effectively wild. Effectively wild! Okay, let's preview the A's with Jason Burke, who is the managing editor at Inside the A's at Sports Illustrated. Welcome back, Jason. Thank you for having me back after, you know, whatever I did last year must have worked, I guess. I think it did, yes. So this is a vote of confidence in Jason Burke as a season previewer. And here's a little premise to this segment. So on Patreon, when people sign up, they can provide a reason why they signed up. They don't always, and they don't have to, but sometimes they do. And so one person signed up the other day who goes by Baby on Patreon, and this is what Baby wrote. Please include extremely favorable A's coverage this season. I am their final remaining fan. Oh, yeah, Baby, of course. Yeah, right. You probably know him or them because they're, I guess, your only reader. No, I'm sure that's not true. I'm sure you're aware of other A's fans who are still sticking it out, And this should not color the tone of your coverage. And I'm sure baby at his or her or their heart would not want us to compromise our journalistic integrity in order to please them. But there are some positives that we can talk about when it comes to the A's without actually cooking the books and putting our fingers on the scale here. So the A's played better as last season went on, the opposite of the Tigers whom we just previewed. And there was a period, and maybe this was the case the prior season, too, where you could kind of draw a line and say, well, after this point, the A's were actually a 500 team. They were pretty competitive. And if not for this part of the season, you could play that game with almost any team. If we just cut out the part where they were bad, they would have been good. That would be a foolproof solution to slumping in baseball, I suppose. But what are the positives that one could take away from the A's 2025 season, not all of whom are named Nick Kurtz? Well, I mean, starting Nick Kurtz was great. I mean, right behind him, you had Jacob Wilson. He finished second in the AL Rookie of the Year voting. He was solid. So much fun to watch, so much fun to talk to. He's going to be a star for this organization, Stein and Extension, and I'm sure we'll talk about that. Tyler Soderstrom, another guy that was also very, very good for this team. He had a new approach at the plate. He also signed an extension. So he was drafted as a catcher, went over to first base. Nick Kurtz gets called up. They're like, hey, you want to move over to left field? I was like, sure, sounds great. And then they became a goal-glove finalist. So that was a big standout for him as well. One guy that stood out on the mound, obviously there wasn't a lot of great stuff that happened on the mound, But Jacob Lopez looked good there for a few starts in July-August area. His strikeout rate is among the best. Like, Cy Young contenders have his strikeout rate. And I want to see if he can go a little bit deeper into games, lower that ERA a little bit. But he's the guy that I have my eye on if he's healthy heading into the season. Jacob Lopez is another guy that's going to be interesting. Yeah, they had a bunch of guys. Obviously, Denzel Clark, just making catch after catch after catch. played like 47 games, might be the best defender in baseball already. So he's great. So they have a lot to build on right now. Yeah, it's a really exciting core position players, and that's before we even get to Leo DeVries, which I'm sure we will at some point. But how do you think the team is selling these players on its vision for the future A's? Even though the future has been somewhat speculative in terms of where and when they'll play, they have convinced Wilson and Soderstrom and Rooker and Butler to sign on long term and want to be part of whatever and wherever the A's are building. So what do you think the message has been? I suppose with each extension you sign, the next domino probably falls a little more easily. I think after, you know, getting Rooker there as the veteran presence, then you got Butler, who's a younger guy who's upbeat and just a great guy to watch on TV. He's flashy. He's what you would imagine an ace player to be. After those two, the other two came a little bit easier. And, you know, who's going to turn down, you know, decent money? And the guys in the clubhouse have a great bond. Jacob Wilson was just saying earlier today that, you know, some of his best friends are in this clubhouse right now. So why would you want to play with your best friends for longer and make more money in the process? And then with Soderstrom and Wilson, when they signed their extensions earlier this offseason and they were taken to the site in Las Vegas And they both just seemed to be very inspired by being able to stand where home plate is going to be and take those promotional photos and all that stuff. I think that just getting to Vegas and seeing what, being shown what everybody's been talking about is part of the selling point there. Yeah, Rooker's one of our favorite podcast guests, so if he said, hey, stick around and play with me, then that might be pretty persuasive. I don't want to be a downer after all that. It was so nice. Remember what baby said. Wait, I was going to say, if you're a baby, you must be thrilled. I want to talk about Nick Kurtz, and I'm going to sound like I'm damning with fame praise, and that's ridiculous for a guy who had like a four-and-a-half win season and a 170 WRC+. I am curious sort of what your read on the sustainability of that performance is because I don't know a lot of guys with a 329 ISO or a 619 slug. The ones I do might have a Babbitt in the high 360s. I don't know anyone with a Babbitt in the high 360s either. I guess this is sort of a limited way of asking the question. But what if his performance strikes you as sustainable as he goes into the sophomore effort? And what developmental goals does he have to try to sustain an offensive level, even if it isn't quite what he showed last year, but one that can help to carry the team at the top of the lineup. Do it for baby. The goal is basically just to continue what he'd been doing, which is a tall task. That is what he wants to do to further illustrate your points. There are reasons where you're like, is he one of the three best hitters in baseball? Because it was only Aaron Judge, Shohei Otani, and Nick Kurtz of players with at least 450 plate appearances that had an OPS over 1,000. And not, I'm sorry, Meg, but not Cal Raleigh, who had all of the home runs. And so it's like one of those, like, is that who he is? Or is there more development in year two where pitchers are going to know who he is a little bit more? Because he burst onto the scene against Houston with that four homer game. He was really good there for that month. And then he trailed off a little bit in September. He hit like 221. He still had nine home runs and 16 RBIs. Like, he was still fine. But, you know, like some of the other stuff wasn't quite there. He struggles against lefties. I think that that's going to be the sign whether or not this is going to be sustainable, because I don't know if he can go out of his mind and hit like Aaron Judge against righties and then Anthony Volpe against lefties, if that's going to be, you know, who he is. But, yeah, I mean, hitting 197 with an 87 WRC plus against lefties, it isn't the best to be the next Aaron Judge or whatever. So that's going to have to come up a little bit. He's working on his defense, too, working on pop-ups. So he's got some things in there. But if you want to be optimistic, I mean, keep breaking against righties and then get a little bit better against the lefties, and there you go. He's going to be great. Yeah, sure. Why not? Ty Cobb had a 370-something Babbitt. You say Nick Kurtz can't have Ty Cobb's Babbitt? Former A? Why not? Since you brought up Denzel Clark, We marveled at his catches and also at the defensive stats they yielded, and also the disparity between his skill on both sides of the ball. So can he hit is the pressing question, because if he can't hit, then he will not be afforded the opportunity to catch as regularly as we'd like. That's going to be the question that I'm looking for this spring. Before he landed on the IL to end his season after those 47 games, he was starting to kind of turn it around for a couple of weeks there. How much of that was vabid, how much of that was just a little bit of luck, he was still striking out a decent amount. So that's going to be what we're looking for this spring, obviously. I mean, if he can hit a little bit. He doesn't necessarily even have to be a league average bat. He just needs to be okay. And with his defensive ability, he'll be a huge plus overall. The A's need guys that can catch the ball, throw the ball, and he can do all of that. So if he can do a little bit with the bat, he should be fine. I want to talk about Jeff McNeil, and maybe we can pair this with an update on Zach Geloff and where he's at in his recovery from surgery. What did they see in McNeil? You know, they made a trade for him this offseason to play second base. He has at times been an incredibly productive big leaker. He's definitely trailed off a bit in the last couple of seasons. So what did they see in him that made them excited to bring him in? And then where and when might Gelof fit into the picture for them? I think with McNeil, they were looking for somebody at either second or third. The opportunity came about for a second baseman of McNeil's caliber. They're paying down some of the salary, so that helps. The Mets are paying down some of the salary. They are paying like $10 million for this probably one year of his deal. The question surrounding him is going to be, is he going to be like he was last year in a resurgent 2025? Is he going to carry that over? Or is it going to be closer to a league average season for him like he had been the previous two years? He seemed to be optimistic when we got to speak to him right after the trade. He said that the only real difference between this past season and 2022 when he won the batting title was his BABIP was just a lot lower. So he's hoping that playing in Sacramento with a smaller ballpark, maybe some more balls fall in, and he gets a little bit lucky there. But I think overall the A's just saw that he's a veteran presence. They could use a veteran presence. He's a contact guy, and with some of the additions that the A's have made pairing with Jacob Wilson there, you've got some guys that can make contact and make the pitchers work, and I think that that's something that they're kind of working with with the offense this offseason with some of the guys that they've brought in, and we'll see if they keep doing that. But in terms of Zach Geloff, he had surgery after he dislocated his shoulder at the end of the season in Pittsburgh. He's a little, not behind, he's like on schedule, but he's not going to be quite ready for games just yet. Games start for the A's on Saturday, so he's going to miss at least a few games. He'll get in the mix there eventually, but honestly, he's ready faster than I thought he was going to be, so he'll be in the mix as soon as he hits. He's going to be working some outfield potentially, which will be interesting. I mean, that could be how they, if, you know, Denzel Clark doesn't hit, maybe he goes and plays center a little bit. He's not a great platoon partner for anybody because he hits the same side as everybody else and the same way as everybody else. So he's going to have to hit, basically. His defense is good. And, you know, we just saw Taylor Soderstrom become a gold-glove caliber defender in left field. So, hey, anybody can do it. That's not to disparage Tyler Soderstrom. That sounds mean. I'm sorry. Baby would be disappointed. I didn't know about Baby before we recorded this segment, and now I'm going to talk about Baby a lot. So maybe we could quickly go through some of the other additions because that won't take us very long. There wasn't a whole lot of activity other than the usual just profusion profusion of minor league contracts and NRIs. Are there any other additions that you care to talk about or highlight here? I mean, I can go through all four of them if you want. Mark Leiter, he's the veteran guy. It looked like he could be a closer candidate because that seems to be in flux right now. He had a .484 ERA last year, not the best, but he had a .374 expected ERA, so the contact, he limited contact, was basically what the A's are sold on right there, it looks like. He had a 77th percentile whiff rate, which is solid. You know, his barrel rate's good. His hard hit rate is good. So he limited hard contact is basically what they're hoping for going into Sacramento, where the ball did fly a little bit, or, you know, at least runs were produced. I don't know if there was necessarily a home run hitter's park, but the ball scooted on the outfield grass, let's say. that led to more runs. It was like playing at Coors. So hopefully a guy like Mark Leiter here can do a little bit better than he did last year. But how would that, if he pitches the same, should be fine. But playing in Sacramento adds another layer. Who knows how that's going to work out. But that's, that's the reasoning there, I would, I would guess. And then Scott Barlow, he has the most saves in his career out of anybody with the A's. So he's going to be in the mix for the ninth, it would look like. And he also, you know, limited hard contact. His problem last year was that he just walked everybody. He was in the first percentile on walks, so not great. Jeff McNeil, what's he going to do? We'll see. One thing that I'm going to be looking at is if there's going to be any impact just for carryover from him being, quote unquote, cast out from New York. And if that carries over to the A's clubhouse, then that could be not a great thing if he's He's supposed to be a veteran leader, but it's just one of those things. He should be fine. He seemed lovely when we met him. And then Andy Ibanez, he's a lefty masher for the career. He was more league average against lefties last year. That's how he's going to be used, presumably, as a third base option. He probably won't be the starting third baseman, but he's there just in case everything else falls apart. And then Aaron Savali, I guess there was five. Aaron Savali, he had a .485 ERA last year, a .410 expected ERA. They're kind of limited damage a little bit, you know, with exit velocities. But he has a history of throwing 100-plus innings, and hopefully that's all they need from him because they got prospects on the way. I guess we should talk about the pitching. We can. If we have to. It's very much like the Pirates preview where we talked about the pitching and then we thought, I guess we should talk about the hitting. And the A's don't have Connor Griffin. They do have DeBreeze. Let's talk about the pitching. Maybe we can start with a macro question, which is, you know, we've heard from members of the rotation, particularly Luis Severino, about sort of their displeasure with the way that the park plays. There are some other complaints about the facilities that were, you know, mixed in there. So it's not just the way the park plays. But what have they been trying to do internally to either assuage pitchers' concerns or equip them to better face batters in their home park? Because, and we should talk about Vegas and sort of the timeline for them actually playing there in a minute maybe. but surely they don't want another season with their own guys grousing about the conditions. So talk to us about sort of the state of that and how they're trying to counter that narrative internally, and then maybe we can talk about a couple of these guys individually. It seems as though they're going to be, I don't know where this is going to go. I have not seen the diagrams of it, but they're putting in what they are calling the Severino room in the A's dugout as a place to just unwind in between innings when he's not on the mound. And they're doing that for both sides, so that's nice. That seems to be the biggest thing that they're physically doing to help the pitchers. The rest of it seems to be Severino was talking yesterday, and he was saying there's no more time for excuses. We just got to go do it. And that seems to be kind of where the pitching staff is right now is, hey, we know what we're up against. We just need to figure out how to get better at this and just do it. And so that's the mentality right now is just go be better at this. And Jeffrey Springs, I talked to him at the end of last season, and he said that some of the veteran guys had a little bit of a harder time adjusting going from spring training to make, and then it's still feeling like spring training when they got to Sacramento because there's decks missing, and it's obviously a minor league field, so it's hard to be like, we're playing meaningful games right now. How do you trick your brain into getting there? And he got there eventually. Severino turned it around a little bit. It's not a huge sample size, but it was like four or five starts. He had a three ERA in his last, I think it was four home starts. So there was a little bit of, you know, encouragement there towards the end, but we'll see if it carries over and what kind of mentality. It seems like it's more of a mental hurdle than a physical one because they pitch fine on the road. So we'll see how much the perk factors play and how much, you know, all goes into that. You mentioned Lopez as a bright spot behind Severino. Aside from Lopez, you got Jeffrey Springs, you got Aaron Savali, you got Luis Morales. Who else is on that depth chart? And is there anyone baby should be excited about? Oh, baby. There's two guys that could be in the mix for the rotation, in my view. They'd probably say there's more, but the five that you mentioned is likely the starting rotation. But you also got JT Ginn, who could be interesting. He struggled at home as well, but he seemed to do okay. It could be another mental thing. I'm not sure on that one, but he had an interesting profile. I wouldn't be surprised if he made the rotation. The other guy could be Jack Perkins, who came up. He was in the bullpen initially just so they could get him up to the big leagues, and then a spot opened up in the rotation. But he went down with injury, missed most of the second half of the season. So those are the two guys. Perkins has the stuff. He has the makeup. He can do it. He could also be the A's closer on opening day. So he's kind of going one of two ways there. And I think that the A's would prefer to keep him in the rotation if possible. But if he gets beat out by, you know, Lopez and Morales and Orgin, one of those, you know, two of those three guys, then you could definitely see Perkins going over to the bullpen because I feel like they want him in the group there of arms that they have at their disposal. Just a matter of where he fits is going to be the question. Well, those are the pitchers. Back to the batters. Let me ask about a prospect pitcher. Yes, please do. Because remember, Meg, I said, do they have pitchers on the way at least? And you listed some names who might belong to real people. But Jason can confirm that for us. They're on the depth chart. I think maybe I'll highlight just one because our top 100 came out this week and I can't get anything else out of my brain. What do you think the odds are that A's fans get a look at Gage Jump this year? I'd say pretty high. As long as he's pitching okay and he doesn't get hurt, I'd say that they're going to give him a shot. I mean, we've seen how they moved along, Jacob Wilson and Nick Kurtz in the last couple of years here. They haven't done it with a pitcher yet, and he did have his first pro season last year, but it seems as though he's going to be starting in AAA. So with a good month, do they bring him up then? Do they wait a whole first half? But the expectation would be he's definitely up second half, in my view. We'll see how he's pitching, how he's working, how he adjusts and all that stuff. There is a little bit of a higher elevation over there in Las Vegas, So we'll see. But, yeah, I would expect him to be somewhere. I mean, Savali is good. He's a nice league average guy. But I feel like they got him so that they could just put Gage jump in when he's ready. And then you could trade Savali or do whatever you need to. Move him into a long relief roll or something. Or they could just keep him as a starter. They could. You know? Yeah. Yeah. You'd only have to jump one level. So who's on third is the question that I could have asked before when we were talking about batters. But I know that there is another Max Muncy. There is another Muncy. But is he good? And if not, then who might play there? Max Muncy can be good, yes. He has not shown it consistently at the big league level. Fun fact, they have the same birthday. Both of them are Max Muncy, so that's fun. Can you ask this Max Muncy to decide to put his middle initial in his official roster name? Or we could just go by his full first name, Maximum. Yes, we should definitely do that. Max Muncy, he's good. He has the highest ceiling of the three guys that are competing for third base. I would say he's probably the odds-on favorite. I don't know how much room there is. It's a free-person race. I don't know how much cushion he has between the other two guys, though. I'd say that if he's performing this spring, he gets the job. And then right below him, you got Daryl Hernase, who could also be the other favorite there. He took some big strides towards the end of last season, had some very good plate appearances. When I asked David Force and Mark Katze who stood out to them that, you know, wasn't the main two rookies that they had, they both said Darryl Hernays showed huge improvement from season to season. So they definitely noticed. And he's another guy that doesn't strike out a lot. He makes a lot of contact. The goal for him is going to be making better contact and, you know, turning singles into doubles and, you know, maybe not home runs, but, you know, just extra base hits are going to be his focus, I imagine, hitting those gaps. And so if he's doing that, then he's got a good glove. He's probably a better glove at shortstop. But you could see, you know, since he's a good shortstop, he could probably figure out third base eventually. And then you've got the natural third baseman, Brett Harris, who can't really hit, but he's got a really good glove. So you've got three guys that all have very different attributes that you could kind of see any of the three doing it. You've just got to see what they're all doing in spring. It's going to be basically who has the best glove coupled with the best offense, and that's going to be who they pick. I don't know if you're only getting one of those attributes, which one they would go with, but I'd say that if Muncie's performing, it's him. I worry that Shea L'Engelier's second half got somewhat obscured by Nick Kurtz's emergence. I was reminding myself of the sort of progression of his season, because I know he spent time on the injured list in June. His takeoff really came after he came back from that IL stint. So what did you see that was different for Langoliers in the second half versus the first? And sort of where do you imagine his performance is going to land between those two halves this year? Probably right on the average there, he was scalding hot. It was him and Kurtz were just on fire in the second half. And that's why they were hitting one-two in the lineup, because they're like, just get those guys as many play-to-brings as you can. I mean, honestly, I noticed something was a little bit different with him in spring training, because he only struck out once. And he was usually a fairly high strikeout guy. He'd been like a 27% guy. And I know spring training stats aren't huge, but it was something that I kept my eye on. And then he just kept not striking out a ton. And he dropped his strikeout rate by like 8% or something like that. So he was sub, I think it was right below 20%, which is solid for him. And then he kept his power. He kept everything else. He just started going the other way. And in the first month or so, those numbers weren't there, but the expected stats were saying, no, the breakout's coming, and then the breakout came once he came back from the IL, just because he kept doing what he had been doing. The stats kind of just caught up, it seemed like. But it was a new approach. He was going the other way. He was still turning on pitches that he knew he could turn on, and the rest is how that season shook out. Well, we do in fact have to address DeVries and not just to pander to baby, but because he's an excellent prospect. Number six on the Fangraphs Top 100, sandwiched between Kevin McGonigal and Max Clark, two prospects we just talked about. And DeVries is about two years younger than they are. And that says something. He made it to AA last year where he was about six years younger than the average player. And he more than held his own. He hit well. It was 21 games, but still. He's now 19. What's his timeline? And given that Wilson is now secured for several years, where might DeVries play when he is ready? As to where he's going to play, that is definitely a question that would get a, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. So it'd be all speculation on my end, and I'd say one of them's probably playing third. Well, that would answer my previous question. I mean, eventually. It'd be interesting. But, yeah, talking about an 18-year-old that got up to AA, that doesn't happen very often, at least in the Texas league where he was playing. And he was putting up numbers that were even better than Fernando Tatis Jr. at that level. And so he had a little bit more playing time than all of the contemporaries that had also played at the age of 18, but his numbers were incredible. Part of that is he got more experience and more playing time, but also the tools are there. and just watching him take swings in spring training, you're like, this guy's pretty good. So the timeline back in September at the end of the season when we did our little chat with the GM, he said that he expected, I mean, it could be AA, but with a solid spring, maybe he makes it up to AAA to begin the year, and that would be a push for sure by the A's. I don't know that that's necessarily where I expect him to start, but it seemed like it was on the table, and that just struck me as interesting. So we'll see how the spring goes, and maybe we see him in Sacramento before too long. Maybe DeVries is a baby. Because he's so young. He's not a baby. But he's a young man, you know. He's quite a young man. You know, for a long time, we on this podcast were skeptical that a move to Vegas would actually happen. And like the good Bayesians we are, we've had to allow new information to alter our perspective on that. What is the current timeline that the team is talking about for when they will be playing Major League Baseball in the city of Las Vegas? The team is still contending that they will be playing in 2028, opening day 2028. They will be there. They broke ground in June, which was impressive. They keep showing pictures of all of the progress that they've made. And they're going to be putting a roof on this thing in, I believe, June of this year is what they're saying. So it's one of those things where if they're coming out and saying, like, here's what to expect to see, then that's probably going to happen because you don't need to be telling us things like that unless you're pretty sure that they're going to happen. So I would say, you know, it's moving right along right now. The only point of contention that is out there would be their partner, Bally's, who is going to be running the hotel casino, you know, area around it. they might not be 100% all in on this thing, and funding from their side could make, if that's not there, could make things more expensive for John Fisher. I don't know that it's going to stop them, but it would make things more interesting, just from a viewing perspective at least. It feels like the ballpark is probably going to happen. There's so many powers. You've got baseball right behind them. You've got all the casinos in Vegas. It's going to happen, but it's just a matter of how, I guess, is going to be the interesting part. Yeah, the funding is what I wanted to ask about, because at first it seemed like the groundbreaking was a photo op and a PR opportunity, and they were just shifting dirt from here to there. But no, they are actually proceeding with the construction and building the thing. But there still seemed to be some doubt that the funding was secured, and it seemed like maybe Fisher was just hoping to figure it out as they went, and that the funding would materialize by the time it was needed. So has that funding gap been closed, or as far as we know, is he still scrambling? Publicly, it has not been closed. So unclear, but just last week they announced they're going to be releasing a number of season tickets on PSLs. So they're going to be selling the right to buy season tickets for like 5,500 seats for this ballpark that is two years away from being built. So that did seem to signal like, hey, we could use some extra money for something here just in case because the Raiders got, I believe, $549 million from their gigantic stadium. The DAs wouldn't get that much, presumably. But, you know, if they got a couple hundred million dollars more, then that would be not a drop in the bucket. That would be something that's like 10 percent of what they're expecting to pay for this thing. And, you know, it could be just, you know, just in case Bally's isn't able to do their infrastructure part or something. But that's something to keep an eye on just for how they spend that money, I would imagine. It seems like a way for them to get the casinos to buy some tickets and whatnot and make a PR move out of that, too. But in terms of funding, nothing's necessarily changed because nothing's really been out there. So we'll have to keep waiting and seeing. And they've obviously had one foot out the door since they got to Sacramento. And we talked about that, just, well, how will the fans respond to that? And we got some feedback from the fans. And it seemed like they were just with the decision not to use a city name or designation in the interim or really have anything to indicate that they're playing in Sacramento, that maybe that would alienate some people. And attendance was not the best. and they are perhaps trying to appease and placate and placate and placate with a new jersey for this season, an alternate Sacramento gold jersey. So I guess that's sort of a stop to the local fans. So tell us about your perception of outreach to that local, albeit temporary, community. And are they trying to make more of an effort to be a team that is proud to play in Sacramento while they are doing so? And then what else, if anything, are they doing to sort of cede the ground for the move to Vegas? I know they'll be playing there a couple times in 2026 and are doing other promotional things to try to build some interest. Over in Vegas, they opened up a ballpark experience thing. So you can go in and experience what the ballpark is going to look like. And it looks really cool, actually. There's a 3D model that you can walk around. and there's a thing where you can pick up a bat and tap it to home plate and then it plays a key moment for Mace history. It seems like a cool experience for people that are kind of new to the franchise and just getting their foot in the door in Vegas. I mean, they've said that that has been a big selling point and how they're kind of able to afford some of these extensions now. That's what they're saying, at least. As for Sacramento, they were out in the community a little bit more for this January trip. You know, they went to the ice skating rink and they did more things with the community. They still went to a Sacramento Kings game, but it was less, they were less cloistered, I guess. They were less put to the side over here where they're doing something in Sacramento, but not necessarily with the people of Sacramento. So that was a little bit of the outreach. I mean, they got the gold jerseys that they announced at the very end of the season, which was an interesting timing choice, I guess, for that one. They've also lowered ticket prices to like $8 for a number of games in the first couple of months. And last year, lawn seats were $100 in the first month. So they're just trying to get people in the door, which is something that they don't typically do, which has been frustrating for fans. It's like, get us in the door and then we will spend money. But they've been putting up the barricade at the door and then not getting any of the money. And now they're going to get some of it in just different ways. And so it's an interesting business move. And it should hopefully get them some more sellouts. Well, we have been talking about 2028 and beyond, but let's end with a question about 2026, though. I guess part of the answer might have some bearing on how things are shaping up for 2028. But what would constitute success for the A's this year? If they make the postseason, that is the successful season. That's what they're aiming for right now. I don't know if it's going to happen. There's a lot of this season could go two completely different ways. They could be an 85-86 win team. They could be a 72-win team because the pitching didn't come together. You know, they didn't figure out Sacramento. And then, you know, Nick Kurtz takes a slight step back, and they're not helped by BABIP for McNeil and Jacob Wilson. So there's, like, different ways that this could go. They have a good lineup, though. They should be fine. I imagine that they're going to make some moves during the course of the season. They've got some guys at the back end of the 40-man that, I mean, they've been letting guys go. DFA, once promising prospects. And that's the sign of a good team that they have the depth there that is majorly quality. And so I'm imagining that they're going to finish probably 81-81. But, hey, we'll see if they can make that push and make it to the postseason. All right. Well, I heard they should be fine. I heard 81-81. I heard potential playoff team. Does that do it for you, baby? Write in. Let us know whether that was sufficiently optimistic for you. It was sufficiently informative for me, as is Jason's coverage, which you can find at the Inside the A's site at SI. He is a prolific poster and very well-informed on the team. So thanks for sharing some of that information with us, Jason. Thanks for having me on, you guys. That'll do it for today. Blue Jays and Rays on deck. I guess the Blue Jays are on deck. The Rays are in the hole. But they'll both be on the next episode. Until then, you can support Effectively Wild on Patreon by going to patreon.com slash effectively wild and signing up to pledge some monthly or yearly amount to help keep the podcast going, help us stay ad-free, and get yourself access to some perks, as have the following five listeners. David Solomon, Michael Hausman, Chris McDonald, Misha Berkowitz, and Tritus. Thanks to all of you. Patreon perks include access to the Effectively Wild Discord group for patrons only, monthly bonus episodes, playoff live streams, prioritized email answers, personalized messages, shout-outs at the end of episodes, potential podcast appearances, discounts on merch and ad-free Fangraphs memberships, and so much more. Check out all the offerings at patreon.com slash effectivelywild. If you are a Patreon supporter, you can message us through the Patreon site. If not, you can contact us via email. Send your questions, comments, intro and outro themes to podcast atfangraphs.com. You can rate, review, and subscribe to Effectively Wild on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube Music and other podcast platforms. You can join our Facebook group at facebook.com slash group slash effectively wild. You can find the Effectively Wild subreddit at r slash effectively wild and you can check the podcast posted fan graphs or the episode description in your podcast app. Links to the stories and stats we cited today. Thanks to Shane McKeon for his editing and production assistance. We'll be back with that aforementioned final podcast of the week soon. Talk to you then. Thank you.