Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 1812: The Metaverse of Madness

Episode Date: February 18, 2022

Ben Lindbergh and Meg Rowley banter about Ben’s embarrassing use of a definite article, the latest non-developments in the MLB-MLBPA CBA discussions, the career and retirement of Ryan Zimmerman, a rejected extension offer to the new Nationals franchise player, Juan Soto, a digital recreation of Truist Park and what “the metaverse” means, the outcome of […]

🎵 🎵 Hello and welcome to episode 1812 of Effectively Wild, a Fangraphs baseball podcast brought to you by our Patreon supporters. I'm Meg Rowley of Fangraphs, and I'm joined as always by ben limberg of the ringer ben how are you well i'm afraid i have to issue an apology to our listeners it's a serious matter that i just have to own up to and you know how we have an official podcast position or certainly my position about saying the MLB as opposed to just MLB without the article because, of course, it's already Major League Baseball. You don't need to say the Major League Baseball. We understand why people do because they're used to saying the NBA and the NFL and the NHL, et cetera. And we know that everyone understands what you mean. And this is just our or my inner prescriptivist coming out, and yet we have railed against it in the past. And so I have to own up to a failure of my own. This was pointed out by listener Raymond Chen Shoemaker, whom I selected in the minor league

free agent draft and who subsequently seemingly signed or is close to signing with the Yomiuri Giants. And when I said that, I said Matt Shoemaker had reportedly signed with the Yomiuri Giants of the NPB. Oh, no, Ben. I went back and listened. I actually said it. I just had to fall on my sword here.

Of course, NPB, Nippon Professional Baseball, don't have to say the the for that either. So I have been hoisted, I suppose, on my petard. I have made the mistake that I have lambasted and I'll accept any penalty that the audience thinks is appropriate.

If I have to resign, if I have to step down for a while, you know, step back, maybe just let this blow over, whatever it takes, I want to be accountable for my mistake. Well, you can't do that because then i have to host the podcast alone again but i think that it is important in in moments when we are fussy about things to acknowledge when we have aired you know i had to do it with the great twilight minor league baseball kerfuffle of 2021 and i think that it is appropriate that you acknowledge your mistake having checked the transcript but yes it is you know we we are subject to the the whims of our own ear i wonder if the fact that you say the kbo is what right what maybe did you in here because there is there is a precedent within baseball for there being a

professional league where you do say that, even though, as you noted, you take great exception to it in the MLB context. So maybe that is part of it. But yeah, Ben. But should we even say the KBO? It's Korea Baseball Organization. Maybe we don't even need to say it there. My only defense is just a lack of familiarity, I suppose, or I'm not saying these things as often, which is probably why so many people say the MLB because they're not quite accustomed to it either. I suppose I should just be more more understanding but just had to highlight my hypocrisy here we're imperfect people what can i say yeah sometimes we err and all we can hope to do is acknowledge those mistakes and uh you know avoid them in the future so yep all right well

that is my promise to you the listeners i will attempt to be more conscientious, and if I come up short again, then I will acknowledge that here. Yeah. So it has been a non-eventful few days in some ways and an eventful few days in other ways. Not good ways for the most part. We're going to try to get to some emails and maybe some lighthearted topics a little later. to get to some emails and maybe some lighthearted topics a little later but there was another labor meeting between mlb and the mlbpa i can say the mlbpa that is okay but there was not a lot of progress made seemingly the players association restructured one point which is basically the pre-arbitration players or arbitration eligible players right and previously they had wanted a lot more super twos essentially players who would be

super twos would be eligible for a bonus pool a hundred percent of them and they have walked that back a bit to only 80 percent of them but have also slightly raised the bonus pool in their proposal yeah so not a huge change nor was one really expected given the lack of significant changes in mlb's offer right and so at this point doesn't seem like the two sides are making much progress when it comes to finding common ground. Certainly no movement on the competitive balance tax, which seems to be the main impediment and sticking point here. taking weeks or months between exchanging proposals in some cases, but it doesn't look like it has been productive thus far. I saw it characterized as unproductive from MLB sources via the usual reporters. Evandrelik said MLB found today's meeting to be unproductive. The league has said it won't move at all on time to arbitration, expanding super twos.

And he continued, overall, my takeaway from today is like most every day so far, talks are not moving fast. Opening day, as said before, is in clear peril. And I think it was revealed maybe by Jeff Passan that the date that the league had set as kind of the cutoff for actually starting the season on time. And who knows if this is really a hard deadline or not, but seemingly is February 28th, which is 11 days from when we are recording this. Yeah, I guess how we assess these sorts of proposals sort of depends on like what we think that their ultimate purpose is. I think that if we want to characterize the Players Association of having offered a little something without negotiating against itself too much, I guess that this is a way to have done that because it does give a little on the question of two-year pre-arb players. So I would imagine

that if you compare the $15 million that they have added to the bonus pool compared to the value of even 80% of players entering arbitration earlier, that that still probably balances out largely in the league's favor. Because I think for a lot of players, the jump from the first year of arbitration to the second tends to come with a pretty meaningful raise. Obviously, it varies on the player and the production and sort of the case they're able to make for themselves in arbitration. But I suspect, and this is probably something that as soon as we're done recording, I'm going to say, hey, Ben Clemens, you're on vacation for two days, but when you come back, will you do some math for me? That it is more than $15 million that you are potentially saving because if all

of those players are arbitration eligible after two years i would think that the jump from that first award to the second is comfortably north of 15 million for the people listening i've tried to record that sentence like 14 times and i'm still not convinced that i actually articulated my point particularly well so my apologies but i'm but I'm not doing it again. Last time with Craig, right? I mean, it's hard enough to say what is being exchanged here. I mean, it's really difficult to sum up some of these concepts where you're kind of haggling over this many million or that many million. And it's this many years of arbitration eligibility or non-eligibility.

I mean, it is not scintillating stuff, even for people who cover baseball and are more familiar than the average fan with these concepts. And so not only do we have a lockout where we don't get the usual injection of interesting baseball news, but the baseball news that we do get tends to be either somewhat depressing or just mind-numbingly boring. It still has to be discussed and there has to be some sort of agreement reached, but just not a ton of fun to talk about. Yeah. I mean, I think that if you paint it in broad and grandiose terms about the future of the

game and the well-being of the players and fairness and labor and being an american like you can find your way to a compelling narrative there but the nitty-gritty to to do it and the actual understanding of what these proposals mean for the future of the game and the people who play it is it's those are it's hard won treasure ben yep so there's just not much movement yet. And maybe the frequency of the meetings will pick up as we get closer and closer to this date that MLB has set. And we'll see if there is suddenly some sort of break here where either one side comes off its demands or they actually managed to compromise in some way. But clock is ticking and there's not a ton of time left to get something done here. And I don't know, I wouldn't be totally shocked just to wake up one day and hear, oh, one side really moved in a significant way because they finally realized we're on the precipice here. We're on the precipice here, but I also wouldn't be shocked if it continues to drag on because they still seem to be pretty far apart on some issues, which again are not necessarily existential or structural, but still seem pretty important to both parties and particularly the competitive balance tax where it just doesn't seem like MLB is interested in budging even slightly. And the players certainly have a strong case for holding the line on their side. So we will see, I suppose. Yeah, we will see. But let's see. It's February 17th. What do you think opening day will be? What a rude question. Yeah, so rude. Boy, I don't know.

I really, I mean. Can I phrase it a different way? Sure. It's no less rude, but it's like. Will it be after March 31st? Well, I think the answer to that is almost certainly yes. What do you think the earliest possible opening day would be realistically? Oh, man.

realistically. Oh, man. I mean, there's still a sliver of hope inside me that says that the crisis will be averted somehow. But more realistically, maybe we miss April at this point. Yeah, I think I would be shocked if we're back before May 1st. At this point, I'd be shocked. All right. Well, some other things we can discuss in the meantime there was a notable retirement that we should probably acknowledge ryan zimmerman has finally called it a career and just just a really good career yeah that people will kind of call it hollow very good or whatever but just a career that anyone could feel really good about. Just inextricable from that franchise. Known as Mr. National. There aren't that many players who are still known these days as Mr. Insert franchise name.

So many memories. Just really solid. I guess he ends up around 40 war or something. And just a lot of good years. And won a championship and was there from the beginning of that team playing in DC and had some huge moments. And I was there for one of them because the walk-off homer he hit in the opening game at Nationals Park on March 30th, 2008, on opening day, I was working there

because I was in college in DC and I had an internship in media relations for the Nationals for, I don't know, a few months down there. And so I was working that game and not a Nationals fan or anything, but an extremely exciting moment to be present at the opening of a ballpark

and for it to end in that fashion with the franchise player walking it off. That was wonderful. And of course, he had many other huge hits and memorable moments for that team. major league debut in his draft year so yeah he was a big prospect he was the fourth overall pick in 2005 and he was up later that year in time to play 20 games for the nationals during the regular season and bat 397 with a 988 ops in his age 20 season which what do you think about it is incredibly impressive and no one really does that anymore. Hitters, at least, don't do that. I think Connor Glaspie did that in 2008. And maybe I'm forgetting someone, but I don't know if any other hitter has made his debut in his draft year recently.

That's just tough. Like pitchers will occasionally do it, and you can sort of see why, because they don't necessarily need as much seasoning. If they have great stuff, the aging curve for pitchers tends to be a bit different and they peak earlier and you don't want to waste their arm on minor league hitters. And if they have great stuff, then in theory they can get guys out with that stuff at any level, whereas hitters may need more time to see hundreds and thousands of pitches and refine their plate discipline. And so it's tough to just leapfrog a lot of levels. It's like notable if you make it even to like AA or the Arizona Fall League the year that you were drafted. So to go all the way and to totally hit the ground running. I mean, not only did he have that hot debut that year, but then he was rookie of the year,

runner up the following year, didn't really have a big sophomore slump. And then eventually just, you know, made a couple all-star teams and got some down-ballot MVP votes in a few years and didn't really lead the league in anything. Not a lot of black ink except for games played one year and double plays another year. except for games played one year and double plays another year. But I think it's pretty admirable that later in his career, he pretty seamlessly transitioned into a part-time role. Even though he was Mr. National and he had once been the best player on the team, he embraced the reduced playing time as far as I can recall,

and he was pretty productive in a part-time role. Some players' egos don't allow that, especially if they're in the same place where they were once a star. Just a really solid career. just no knocks on him meant a lot to a franchise and to a city and what more can you ask than that yeah i think that you don't have to be the best player in the league or even you know perennial all-star for your career to be very meaningful to a franchise and the people who root for it and i don't say that to diminish the the quality of player he was because he was a very good player but yeah i think really an end of an era for the nationals and i don't know that there are i don't know those those kinds of retirements i think are pretty rare actually where you're like

wow this has really marked an entire era of a franchise. So I hope he gets to enjoy retirement. And I'm glad that he got to have some really notable and exciting moments toward the end of his career, especially the championship. It's just very cool. Yeah. I will also always remember him for the year that he skipped spring training, which might be relevant this year because we don't know how much spring training there will be. But I think it was 2018. He didn't skip entirely. He showed up, but he just didn't play games. He was just like on the practice field and, you know, getting his wind sprints in or whatever,

but didn't play in games. And I think he started that season very slow, but he ended up okay, you know, 114 OPS plus in his age 33 year. And it was just like he'd been a bit banged up and he was getting on in years and had had some injuries and he just figured I'll take it easy. And the Nets went along with that plan. And yeah, I don't know whether you could say it worked because he did start slow and didn't hit so well in the first half and was like abysmal in March and April. He had a 623 OPS heading into May when he finally turned it on. But I don't know whether that was related to that or not.

But it was an interesting experiment. Just something that sticks in my mind. Yeah, definitely. but it was an interesting experiment, just something that sticks in my mind. Yeah, definitely. Speaking of the Nationals and franchise players, there was some news on that front this week as well, right? Because there was a report of an offer to Juan Soto that predated the lockout but just came out now, and he confirmed that there was an offer,

although I don't think he confirmed the specific terms, but what was reported was 13 years, $350 million, and he turned that down. And of course, whenever you get a case like this, there will be some contingent that will say players are spoiled. They make too much. How could you turn down $350 million? We get it, but but he is if not the best player in baseball and the most valuable player in baseball certainly in the top handful

and he knows his worth and his worth is a lot so i don't think this is like a ridiculous offer i don't think it's like an affront or anything, but I can see why he said no, because given where he is in his career, like a year or two ago, yeah, maybe he jumps at this sort of offer. But now, given his track record, given that he's off to one of the best starts of any player ever, certainly offensively, I think he could get more. So, you know, if it's an opening offer, it's not so far from the ballpark that you can't envision getting something done here. But I think if you kind of run the numbers, he is in the right probably to hold out for

more. I asked Dan Simborski what zips his projection system would pay Juan Soto. You're about to give away content that's running at the site tomorrow, Ben. Oh, am I? Yeah, that's okay. Well, this probably won't be up long before that, so that's okay. But he told me that for 13 years, Zips would offer $483 million instead of $350. So, you know, not so far apart that perhaps they couldn't compromise. And I suppose he could if he wanted to

hold out for more years than that, right? Because he's so young. What is he, just turning 23 or just turning 23? He just turned 23. He turned 23 last October. And Bryce Harper was a few years older than that when he got his 13-year deal. So if Soto wanted to wanted to say give me 15 or

16 years then he probably could for a slight discount in average annual value but yeah i mean he could get a 500 million dollar deal probably if he really wanted to hold out for that yeah and like what a thing to be able to say what a thing to be able to say and like have your reaction to it be yeah that sounds right right can you can you imagine such a thing ben can you imagine that being your reaction to anything to be like yeah i'm worth like half a billion dollars you know i you know i could be professionally had far cheaper than that because you know i don't do something that no one else can do which you know even among baseball players once it was pretty darn close you do things no one else could do they're just

maybe not quite as high yeah but you know marketplace yeah but making sure that it's that all the many rays get tagged in the prospect list. That's not worth half a billion dollars. It's worth something, but it's not worth that. Oh, Lord. Yeah, I think that he's just one of the most thrilling young players in our game. And I think that you're right. I think that this is less than he both should and ultimately will make. I don't think that it smacks of insult or even unseriousness. It's not like in a Cunha kind of contract. I mean, he accepted that, but it's not that kind

of deal. And if you want to be cynical, you could say, well, maybe the Nats missed their opportunity to get him to sign that kind of deal because who knows, maybe a couple of years ago, he might have been more receptive to it or who knows, maybe they tried it, he wasn't. I don't know. But he has kind of passed the point because he is already into arbitration. He's a super two, right? And he made eight and a half million in his first round of arbitration and he is due for a raise. And he'll get four turns at arbitration. And so at that point, you know, it's not 350 million, but it's still multiple millions to the point that you don't have to feel the pressure to sign that kind of deal to get an immediate return.

which is that once these guys get into arbitration, they really are in a position where they are insulated to a very meaningful degree from the need for these kinds of offers because they're clearly, he's not going to make anywhere near this amount of money in ARB, but he's going to make good money in ARB. And then he's going to hit the market in 2025 and still be just so young, Ben. He'll still just be so young.

So I think he is in a place where he is able to be choosy. And I imagine that he is very well aware of sort of what his leverage is in a negotiation like this. I mean, Trade Rumors has his arbitration salary for this year estimated at $16.2 million. As a 23-year-old, in his age 23 season, he is reportedly estimated to be due for, well, he is estimated to be due for that much. And trade rumors tends to get this stuff pretty great.

So I imagine he will make a very handsome amount of money once he either decides to sign an extension with the Nationals or actually does hit the market in 2025. And I don't know, it'll be interesting to see kind of how he navigates this because I don't think he's going to have to worry about making really, really, really good money wherever he goes, either by signing an extension with them or by testing free agency when the time comes. I will be interested to see what his desire to stay in D.C. is, you know. Right. Yeah. I think some people may have interpreted this as, oh, he doesn't want to stay in D.C. or with the Nationals. And I guess that could be a part of it. I don't know that this means that, though. No. Right. I don't I don't think it does. And

definitely they're not good right now and he is head and shoulders better than anyone else on that roster and i don't know what the long-term future is because they're rebuilding but not doing a tank build exactly they're trying to get good again more quickly and when they made their moves at the deadline last year they tried to acquire players who were major league ready. So they're trying to turn it around more quickly. And there are other talented young position players on that roster. There's also a lot of uncertainty with the pitching staff, starting with Steven Strasburg. And there's not a ton of talent in the system either, seemingly. ton of talent in the system either, seemingly. So I don't know. I mean, when you're talking about a 13-year deal, who knows, right? You could get good and get bad and get good again in that timeframe. But I don't know whether the fact that the Nationals are currently not great was weighing on his mind here or not. It could just be that the terms weren't quite up to snuff.

Right. And like you said, this is likely to be an opening salvo on the part of the Nationals. And who knows where they'd be in the course of those negotiations if we weren't in the middle of a lockout. Like it could be that they, I mean, it doesn't mean that a deal is getting done. They could be to the point where he's like, no, sorry, try again later. Or it could be to the point where they're announcing, you know, one of the most meaningful extensions in the history of baseball.

So a lot of outcomes, a lot of real range of, you know, sights and sounds that could be between here and there. Yeah. One other story from the NL East is about Digital Truist Park. This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen, Ben. It is the dumbest thing I've ever seen, at least since the last thing about the metaverse that I've seen. There's a lot of competition out there.

I hate it here. This is the first MLB ballpark that is recreated in digital form. The press release says the Braves are the first Major League Baseball team to enter the metaverse. Press release says the Braves are the first Major League Baseball team to enter the metaverse. And the various stories about that are just full of tech speak. Word salad means nothing nonsense. I'll just give you a little sampling here.

It's exciting to create a new way for our fans to connect with our team and their favorite ballpark, said Derek Schiller, Atlanta Braves president and CEO. The digital version of Truist Park will offer limitless opportunities to create unique fan engagements in the metaverse and we are proud to be the first team to offer this immersive experience. We look forward to building enhancements along the way which will continue to showcase the innovation of the Braves brand in the digital

world. There are a bunch of buzzwords after that and then this new untapped environment will become a new way for Braves fans to engage with the club and consume content and the organization can create use cases for ubiquitous consumption through seamless and blended physical and digital environments I don't know if those were even the worst parts but that's just a sampling for you here's another quote from show where the goal is to create a really impressive immersive fan experience for a subset of fans that really are clamoring for

this right now how big is that subset you have people out there that are avid braves fans and also happen to understand what the metaverse is do they could they let everyone else know and this is the least believable part of the entire announcement what this type of digital experience might be like so now to be able to provide that to them it's extremely exciting is going to open up a world of possibilities blah blah blah so there's this enormous subset of fans of atlanta that really understand what the metaverse is and are clamoring for their ballpark to be replicated there this is just such bunk not more so necessarily than almost every other employment of these concepts but i'm just

bombarded and inundated in these stories because i cover video games and tech to some extent so i'm just constantly receiving press releases about crypto and NFT and metaverse, and one is less comprehensible than the last. And look, in theory, I'd be on board with an interesting version of the metaverse. I mean, the concept of a metaverse, whether it's Second Life or even more archaic examples, they go back decades too. So none of this is new conceptually and really all that new in practice. And I went through a phase where I had a snow crash quote as part of my Facebook profile. I was in my early 20s probably. Ben, what is Snow Crash? It's a Neil Stevenson sci-fi book that is kind of credited with popularizing the idea of the metaverse or at least having kind of a convincing one, sort of in a Ready Player One way. But in

Snow Crash, first of all, the real real world the meat space is terrible and so you wouldn't want to be there and maybe we're getting there i'm sorry do they call it the meat space like like chicken is meat or do they mean meat like i've met a friend no as in we are bodies that are walking yes exactly you know i i'm out on anything that employs the phrase meat space. I don't think that's for me. That is understandable. But it's like a hellscape sort of. It's like your typical dystopian cyberpunk sort of setting.

And so you can understand why someone would want to be in the metaverse. And maybe our real life is getting there, but it's not quite there yet. And also it's like totally immersive. And once we get to the point where we have like VR with motion tracking and it's like incredibly convincing and everything. Sure. I'd sign up for that. I have PSVR. I've enjoyed it.

It's a cool proof of concept. I have PSVR. I've enjoyed it. It's a cool proof of concept. But I think in order to have a compelling metaverse, it has to be a place where you is actually offering you an experience you can't get anywhere else. And I guess you could say that Digital Truist Park is giving you an experience you can't get anywhere else because there is no baseball right now. So it's a little on the nose that during a lockout in lieu of games, we just get this empty ballpark where you can wander around virtually but why would anyone want to do that i don't know can you like do a cheat code and then put a hot tub where one doesn't belong can you get infinite money and then and then alter truest park can you redecorate

truest park to take all the chop references out because like yeah that's the question you know like i might be interested in that i just you know i don't think that everything about baseball needs to be accessible to someone who is like roughly 50 years old right i think you want things that appeal to a whole range of people we've talked about that a lot on the show i'd like them to pick a different thing to appeal to young people like who is this for who who among who amongst the good people of the greater atlanta area is is is hoping for this like who are the i don't a subset a large subset of people who understand what the metaverse is here I read it. Here's the thing, though, because they reference in the release that there are a whole range of fan engagement opportunities. And you know what is telling to me about the release?

They don't name one. They don't actually say, here's the first one we're doing. It's just like wander around the empty. There are a few vague bullet points at the bottom here. So create and customize avatars. Okay, I'm salivating already. Explore exclusive areas

of Truist Park and the Battery Atlanta including the Braves Clubhouse, Monument Garden and more. I mean, alright. I guess you can't go in the clubhouse in the real Truist Park so you can wander through an empty one virtually. Enjoy exclusive content, performances and meet and greets,

whatever that means. So it is like Second Life. Sort of. Meet and interact with other Braves fans from around the world. Experience Braves history through interactive features. Celebrate the Braves 2021 World Series win. Play games. Find Easter eggs.

Win prizes and more. I don't know. I mean, I guess if you can't get to the real Truist Park, I could see wandering around once to get the lay of the land. It's like, as friend of the show Bradford William Davis quipped, the Braves would rather build their stadium in the metaverse than a black neighborhood. Yeah. I just don't see the appeal. I'm all for, as you said, catering to a different audience. And there can maybe be some fun Fortnite style things where maybe you have a concert there that's accessible to people without spending some exorbitant amount or being able to access the place. in the market for let's wonder around a semi-photorealistic recreation of a ballpark i just with other avatars just not really high on my list now i'm now i'm picturing you're walking around digital truest park right you've customized your avatar and you're walking around and then zooming by you is the acuna from field Vision that doesn't look like him at all. And you're just like, bye.

Yeah, this is dumb. We shouldn't do this stuff. I mean, it's not that we shouldn't do it. It's just that like, why do it? You know, there's so many things we could do. There are so few actual hours in the day. This took work, right? Like some developers, plural,

had to sit around and like figure this out and spend time on it and you know when they're like moms ask them what they did with their week at the end of the week when they call their moms are gonna say this and their mom's gonna pretend to know what they're talking about but not and you're gonna say developer that's because you know my mom she's in her 50s or 60s she doesn't know what that means that's not why she doesn't care. You should sit with that. Sit with it and think about what you've done. Yeah.

Make a metaverse I would want to visit. I don't know that the technology is quite there yet, but someday in my lifetime, I imagine there will be a metaverse that appeals to me. Just not yet. But who knows? Maybe give it a few more months of lockout, and maybe I will be lining up to visit Digital Truist Park just to get some sort of fix. And look, I know that not everyone can be there physically, but if what you're interested

in is a tour, all of the ballparks give you tours. They'll give you a tour of Truist. They won't. I don't think they take you through the clubhouse when they do those. But the reason you want to see the clubhouse is because you want to see the players there. You don't care about an empty clubhouse. You think you do,

but then you're going to go in there and you're going to be like, oh yeah, lockers. Huh. Funny. Just to everyone who is sending me these press releases, I am once again asking you to just demonstrate one appealing application of this. Aside from with NFTs specifically, the environmental ramifications and just the general scamminess of it, I have yet to really hear one suggestion of why this will make my

video games better and what it will enable me to do that I can't currently do. And if you can't answer that question, then I just don't know why I should care or why I should spend any money on these things. My favorite thing about all of the press releases I get about NFTs and MLB is that they all say you get this exclusive, like enter to win this exclusive NFT. And then you read like what you get and there's the nft and then there are all of these literal physical and real world experiences that go with the nft and i'm like so you don't actually think the nft is cool which is why you're giving people two free tickets to sit behind i was like that's not you know what it's not a non-fungible token, sirs. You're just doing a ticket giveaway that comes with a QR code.

What are we doing? I hate it here. Yeah. Well, speaking of hating it here, another little bit of news that we wanted to touch on. There was a verdict shortly before we started recording in the Eric Kay trial. So this has been going on all week. It has been pretty big baseball news in the absence of the regular course of baseball news. And a jury in Fort Worth has found the former Angels communications director, Eric Kay, guilty of distributing fentanyl that resulted in the death of Tyler Skaggs, the former Angels pitcher.

He was also convicted on a charge of conspiracy with intent to distribute controlled substances. And TJ Quinn of ESPN and Sam Blum of The Athletic and others have been reporting on the trial from on the scene. And I don't know that I have a whole lot to add from a legal perspective here, but it's just a sad story all around. And it's made some headlines, partly because other major leaguers have been testifying, including Matt Harvey, and they have acknowledged either using or distributing various drugs of abuse, including opioids. And so I think there has been some concern about how prevalent is this in major league clubhouses. Not that it's particularly surprising to me that it would be an issue in major league clubhouses because it's an

issue everywhere, right? Or at least in this clubhouse. And when you have athletes who have disposable income and also have a lot of aches and pains that they may be incentivized to repress and maybe also have more ready access to ways to get these things if they are so inclined, it just doesn't shock me in any way. And you just have to hope that teams or that the league are providing the help that they need and hopefully in more of a therapeutic form than a punitive form so that future Skaggs cases can be avoided. Yeah. using steroids or whatever i mean players are people in the world and so they are gonna do the things that people do and this is just there's there's no happy outcome to this i i guess maybe skaggs's family gets some sort of closure that there is a verdict in the case but obviously it doesn't bring him back so it's just kind of a depressing story all around that you hope can maybe help avert future occurrences of this kind of thing.

Yeah. And the testimony of Matt Harvey inspired Terry Collins to share a bunch of very personal information that I think that you hit it just right. What we are hoping for in instances like this is therapeutic intervention to make people well and to give them the help and support that they need to deal with not only whatever sort of underlying medical issues, whether they're physical or mental, are sort of driving their use of substances and also the use of those substances themselves. And obviously, like using opioids and cocaine is different. Like I don't mean to equate all of these things together, but I think that you are far more likely to be able to achieve those ends to have

meaningful therapeutic interventions and provide real support that helps people if they can trust that their personal information will be kept personal. I don't think that Terry Collins engaged in a HIPAA violation or anything like that, but I think that part of that intervention is going to be predicated on trust. And I know that Harvey was called to testify and he gave testimony in open court and some aspects of his story and sort of experience with these things are obviously part of the public record now and they are certainly newsworthy. But not all of the stuff that Terry Collins talked about was part of his testimony. In fact, a lot of it wasn't.

And so I think that it goes to show that we collectively have to think carefully about how we talk about this stuff publicly. And as media members, I think that we should ask questions about what purpose does it serve to report this? Are we doing it because we think that there is a public interest being served here? Are we doing it because it's salacious and it's going to generate clicks? And if that's the reason, especially when it comes to issues like this, that's not enough, in my opinion. I think that's irresponsible and it doesn't serve the next generation of player well, because if you know that these kinds of things are going to be out there for public consumption, why would you go to the team who you might be skeptical of

to begin with? Because your relationship with them is collaborative, but at times this is going to potentially impact your playing time. So you might already have sort of reservations about engaging with them honestly. And then something like this happens and it's like, why would you bother? And that's not going to serve anybody. So everybody just like take a beat and think, do I have to run this? Because the answer is not always yes. Sometimes you can eat it.

Just spike an interview. It happens. It's fine. Yep. Agreed. We've done a lot of complaining in this episode. I don't mean to, but we've had complaint-worthy topics. So what are you going to do?

Unfortunately, when there's an absence of positive baseball news or normal baseball news, even just hot stove stuff that we like to speculate, it kind of clears the floor for everything else. And right now, everything else tends to be this trial or Trevor Bauer or the labor negotiations, just not stuff that's particularly fun to talk about. So all the more reason to hope that actual baseball and games start sometime soon. It is instructive,ive i hope for everyone that like yes in in the absence of baseball baseball sure sucks so yeah who knew the players are pretty important here to our enjoyment of the game itself should we touch briefly on the the reports that

mlb wants to contract the minors further well Well, let me rephrase that. Oh, jeez. Wants to limit the number of players in the minors. They did not actually propose the elimination of teams. I should be clear about that. Great. Yes. Although that might be the endgame. Yeah. Yeah, well, we're already committed to just kind of going through all

of the news this week, even though none of it is particularly fun. So, sure. Why not? We should say that not long after Jeff Passan reported this, that it was clear that the union plans to oppose this proposal. So on Valentine's Day of all the days, Passan reported that Major League Baseball is seeking to substantially reduce the size of the domestic reserve list, which is the sort of roster limits that teams can carry in their affiliated system. Right now, that number is at 180, so you're going to have 180 players. And the league has reportedly proposed keeping that number at 180 for 2022, but allowing the commissioner's office to reduce the maximum number of players

to as few as 150 over the rest of the collective bargaining agreement and i know there was some conversation in the the facebook group about sort of how how cohesive do we as you know people who engage with the game view the owner's interests to be because they are 30 different clubs and some of them operate very differently from one another in terms of their priorities and i think that this is a really sort of easy example for me of how while they are they operate differently there does seem to be in the in the last several rounds of labor negotiations whether we're talking about this cba or the negotiations to bring back baseball in 2020, that we are sort of managing to the guardians in a lot of circumstances, because not all teams want to have big affiliated systems, right?

Some teams probably want to go down to 150. And if they want to try, I say that they should be able to do that. But I also think that if the Dodgers want 250 dudes who they pay appropriately, and that is a caveat that I think we need to attach to all of these things. But if they have 250 dudes who they want to pay a living wage to to play baseball to see if one of them is, you know, who is thought to be a marginal player is actually very good or developable into a useful big leaguer, then I think that they should have the ability to do that too. And I think that we are seeing in a lot of different aspects of the

game sort of this move to manage the margins super, super tightly in a way that reflects a cheapness that I don't think we want to become standard across all 30 clubs. It's very concerning to me, especially in a moment, and I'm going to let you talk about player dev, where it's like player dev's never been better than it is right now. Like, aren't you incentivized in this moment to have more guys than fewer because your organization has never been better positioned to sort of help realize the potential of those players who are themselves the best athletes we've ever seen play the sport. Like this just seems totally ass backwards to me. Yeah. There are ways in which new technology maybe gives you a

better sense of a player's present performance or potential more quickly than might have happened in the past. Or you could argue that perhaps certain technology that's available off the field enables training and improvement that does not involve games. You know, if you can go to a bullpen and use your RepSoto and your Edgertronic, et cetera, to refine your grip, then maybe you can make more progress off the field than you would have made in who knows how many games in the past. So there is that strain of thinking that, hey, we have these tools available that can help players make the most of their abilities more quickly or in a different context. On the other hand, there is also, I think,

a greater appreciation of the power of player development as a potential difference maker, and I guess to use that term in inefficiency. Even though we have these high-tech tools at our disposal, we don't know anything. And lots of players can come out of nowhere and can make overnight changes that we didn't know they had the potential to make. And therefore, if we cut everyone who doesn't look amazing immediately, then you are ruling out the potential for so-and-so to add a pitch or change a swing and go to the right training facility and show up as a new player who is suddenly much better. And some percentage of players will just have to do something else and call it a career who otherwise might have made it eventually. And I think teams are investing more in coaches, certainly, at the major league level and throughout the minors, really. I mean, they're devoting more resources to player development. And this seems to be something that started with the Astros and maybe some other teams that I guess thought kind of paradoxically, like, we have an edge in player development.

in player development and the best way for us to exploit or maintain that edge is actually to downsize because we can get a better sense of our players' potential quickly compared to other teams. And so the smaller the minors are, the more efficient we can be and the greater the edge. But I think that is probably mostly an ownership perspective or maybe a very high level executive perspective and not a coaching perspective or a rank and file front office person perspective or certainly a player perspective. I think a lot of people in baseball are all for having more talent to choose from. And yeah, certainly most players won't make it and will eventually have to move on to something else. And you could quibble with, well, what is the ideal number? I mean, in the past, minor league systems have been bigger, they've been smaller. So what they

have been in recent years is not necessarily what they've always been or what they always have to be. necessarily what they've always been or what they always have to be. So these things can be in flux to some extent, but still, it just seems short-sighted to downsize if the real rationale is just we're going to save some pittance, some small amount of money in the green scheme of things and also offer less access to baseball, potentially, People who just want to go see minor league games, people who might not make it in the majors, but could eventually enrich the pipeline somehow by becoming coaches or who knows what else because of the expertise that they acquire as pro players. It just doesn't seem like it should be a high priority with all the other issues that the sport is facing.

Let's just have less baseball and fewer minor leaguers and fewer teams. It just doesn't seem like it should be toward the top of the list. Yeah. I think when you talk to player dev people, they will acknowledge that the margin for error, the error bars that we have on these things lend themselves to bigger systems, not smaller ones. Because if you're going to keep reducing the size of the player pool like this you're doing one of two things either you're comfortable outsourcing some amount of this stuff to independent baseball and just waiting for one of these guys to pop up somewhere else and then you scoop him up and bring him into affiliated ball which i think some teams

are both comfortable with and have shown an acumen for right like you know the brewers do this stuff all the time they just pluck dudes out of indie ball and are like this is a big leaguer now isn't that cool or you have to be really really really sure you know who's good because otherwise you're going to end up releasing players who could be contributors and i don't think that either of us think that like every player in the affiliated minor leagues right now is going to be a big leaguer or an all-star, but I don't think that we think we know exactly which ones are going to be. People surprise you all the time and in, in both directions. So it just seems like it is creating very, very thin margins for error at it, at the cost of not saving very much money like it's just you know and even if those guys don't make it to the big leagues like the future big leaguers

have to play against somebody so i don't know it's just joe said this when we had him on like baseball's just never been better than it is right now in terms of the quality of the players and i've said that a bunch before and i think it's true like we are living in a golden age in terms of the quality of the players. And I've said that a bunch before, and I think it's true. We are living in a golden age in terms of the quality of athlete we are seeing decide to play baseball, and that we are instead getting so wound up around these questions of reducing the most meager of expenses at the margins. It's just like it's impossible not to read that as a huge missed opportunity to engage with the sport as it is and get people

really excited like it is so it should be so easy to do that because they're so good they're so good you know that's a good thing we can say about baseball like baseball players still really good you know yeah controversial Yeah. Controversial. And not just in the metaverse, please. Oh my God. I'm sorry. I'm going back to it for a second. Who is it for?

Find me one, one, one Atlanta fan who really gets it. Who is, like, it's not even that there, I am skeptical that there are a lot,

although I am, I'm skeptical that there is one. Yep. All right. One last thing I wanted to mention, and this is not a listener email, but it should have been, and I'm insulted that it wasn't. But this actually came up with our friends on Hang Up and Listen a few weeks ago, and I've been meaning to mention it. in a few weeks ago, and I've been meaning to mention it, but they put a prompt out for their listeners, I believe inspired by Amina Khyme's tweet that was about soliciting suggestions for ways to make sports better, some kind of off-the-wall, off-the-beaten-path proposals,

and ultimately they ended up choosing one that is hockey-related. It was like a way of settling games in overtime. Instead of taking players off the ice, it would be adding pucks to the ice. So the multi-puck idea where you'd have two or three or four pucks on the ice at any one time and things would get wild until the game is resolved. That was the winner. But one of the finalists that was suggested is a baseball idea called the scramble. So let me run this by you. And it was suggested is a baseball idea called the scramble so let me run this by you and it was suggested by a hang up and listen listener named cory diamond and i will just read from the episode transcript here that stephan fatz has said at the time this is a baseball rules change

cory says that he was kind of bored when a batter hits a harmless fly ball to end the inning. So I guess that's the problem he is trying to solve here. You get a can of corn. Everyone's just trotting off the field for the third out. There's no suspense or excitement. But what if the batting team could score a run after the third out is made? I give you the scramble. If a runner is on the base, a base is occupied when the last out is made. I give you the scramble. If a runner is on the base,

a base is occupied when the last out is made, he can still attempt to score a run, but all of the defensive players need to be off the playing field before the runner crosses the plate in order to count as being off the field. So basically, the runner who's still on base, he has to score, he has to cross home plate before all of the defensive players are off the field. They need to cross

the foul line between home and third or home and first, whichever on the side of the field that their dugout is on. So it's like tagging up, kind of, but you have to cross home before all of the defenders cross the foul line on the side of the field that their dugout is on. So this sounds strange probably, but there is a lot of strategy involved because it would be tough to do. Like if you have a runner on third, then how are you going to get your right or left fielder, let's say, over the foul line on the opposite side of the field before that runner crosses home plate? And what if the ball is hit to that fielder? Or what if that fielder would normally be backing up? So you'd have to decide, do you immediately start running if you're a defensive player? If there's like a fly ball

in the gap, it's between center and right, do you think the center fielder is going to get it and if so do you just immediately sprint for the foul line or do you back up the center fielder as you traditionally would or do you position your fielders differently do you if you know that you need to get someone over the left field line you know do you switch your outfielders so you have the slowest guy in the corner that is closer to the foul line? A lot of strategic implications here. An earlier version of the scramble allowed the outfielders to leave the field by scaling the fence. But then Corey, the listener, quickly realized that that would be ridiculous, unlike the actual idea he settled on here. So you'd have to decide what your if you have to get a running start so that you can

beat the guy on third base who's running for home to the foul line on the opposite side of the field just a lot to consider here but it would be frantic and kind of fun i don't know whether it's a good idea or whether the problem is bad enough that this needs a solution necessarily but i kind of like the visual of everyone just dashing every which way instead of just slowly trotting off the field and tossing a ball to a fan instead everyone would just be in motion immediately i want to see them try to climb the outfield walls Yeah, there might be safety issues there I don't know, and some walls are too high to scale And you've got fans right there So you'd have to configure your ballpark in order to do it

But I kind of like the idea of the shift basically But for the scramble So that you have to take into account not just the batted ball distribution and the likelihood of being in the right position to make that out, but then also your ability to actually cross the foul line in time. Wow. And then it also inspires potentially strategy on the part of the scoring team, right? Because let's say you have a situation that this might apply to late in game. Do you pinch run? Right.

Yeah. You know, if you have like a very slow runner at second, because you could do it at second, right? It's not just from third. Yeah. I think you could do it from any base. Because you could do it at second, right? It's not just from third. Yeah, I think you could do it from any base. So let's say you have a really slow runner at second base or even at first base.

And then you also have the vroom vroom guy. You have vroom vroom. Vroom vroom is on your bench. Do you substitute for the slow runner with vroom vroom in potential anticipation of being able to do this, is the calculus different than it would be just because you might end up with a ball in the gap and you want Vroom Vroom to run anyway? Is the run expectancy there meaningfully different? I don't know. It would be total chaos. Oh, yeah.

If you're the better at the plate, then do you try to direct the ball? Are you more likely to try to hit a fly ball because it's sort of a sack fly situation? Right. Even though not really because two outs, but you could still potentially score someone. So do you try to hit the ball in the air and maybe try to direct it to one field or the other, which is tough to do. I don't think that most batters actually have the ability to direct the ball very reliably or routinely in today's game, but it would be a consideration. And then is it a consideration for the pitcher as well? Are you more motivated to try to get ground balls, let's say, because you

don't want to give the runner on third time to score potentially. And then what is the burden on the umpires too, who not only have to watch where the ball is, but then also have to somehow keep their eye on every fielder to see when they cross the line. And it would be very difficult because how could you watch, know the right fielder or the left fielder and see whether they're crossing the line before or after the runner who is sprinting from third is crossing home plate that would be pretty impossible you'd need eyes in the back of your head so i think you'd need you'd need a crew in the press box probably right you'd need like or back in new york i think that i think you couldn't call that on the

field reliably you'd end up going to reap like you'd have to go to replay pretty often i would think yeah or tracker and um you know right yeah hawkeye stat cast type solution that is tracking the body positions relative to where the foul line is so maybe yeah maybe you could have an automated solution there where you have like some sort of squid game scenario where everyone has to make it there or else the big scary doll detects that they didn't something like that i don't know i know you haven't seen we want to make baseball as much like squid game as we possibly can so i think that you're onto something there it's like yeah yeah when i think of baseball i think of mercilessly mowing down people in debt.

You know? Yep. We were going to answer emails, but we've already recorded for an hour or so. Yes, we have. Anyway, I don't know that the inning ending fly ball is close to the top of the list of problems that we have to solve either. But I like

the visual of the scramble and some of the strategic implications here when it comes to outfield alignments and positioning and batted ball distributions and stuff. There's a lot of strategy that could go into this. So I like it in that sense. And I like the idea of the mad dash instead of just the leisurely amble off the field. What if they did it as an extra innings rule? Yeah, right. I like it more than the zombie runner, I think. I want to get rid of the zombie runner and the monkey's paw. Right.

Yeah. Well, I had collected some emails, but oh, well. Give me one email. Let's end on one email. Pick one. who says, I was thinking about this the other day and would like your thoughts. In this scenario, an eccentric billionaire who follows baseball but does not own a team is rubbed wrong by a player for some reason or another. Let's say they don't like the cut of Carlos Correa's jib. There are people who don't like the cut of Carlos Correa's jib. They never want to see him play again. They've decided the best way to do this is to sign Mr. Correa to a contract

that would pay him a guaranteed amount to never play baseball again. How much do you think they would have to offer a star level player to never play baseball again? If we assume that Correa will get a larger contract than, say, Corey Seeger, 10-325, do we think that 10-400 would get it done? Do you think the billionaire would have to include perks in the contract? Annual trips to exotic locales for him and his family the plus sides of this is that i imagine a player would not have to pay an agent to negotiate this contract so more money in his pocket no chance of a life changing injury more time with family you might still need an agent to negotiate your lifetime going away deal but yeah i don't know that we've answered this specific question.

I know that hundreds of episodes ago, we discussed a scenario of how much would you need to pay like a Cy Young award-winning pitcher to go pay in NPB or KBO at the peak of his powers, let's say, when he might not be motivated to do that. Otherwise, this is an even bigger lift here because you're not just saying that you can't play in this league. You're saying that you have to retire right away, presumably, right? You're not allowed to go play indie ball or go play international ball. You just

have to call it a career, I assume. So if those are the stakes here, you just have to go away and stop doing the thing that you have heretofore devoted your life to, then you're going to have to pay for that privilege. these were the terms, like the league and the union might not let you do this contract. I think that they would intervene and say, you can't do this contract because it's not great for the sport to like pay talented players not to play. So I think that you'd meet resistance from both ends on this one if you were obvious about it. I imagine that, well, I don't know. I think that there are players who are very good at baseball who don't really love the sport all that much. Like they don't dislike it, but like they have a work a day kind of job relationship to it, even though it is, you know, it's very hard and it obviously not a you know wake up and be a baseball nut and all you want to do is engage with the game like i think that there are guys who don't have that relationship to the sport or there are guys who start out having that relationship to the sport and then their life circumstances change and maybe they're like i really love baseball but you know i wouldn't

hate to see my family more than i do so i think that there are guys for whom this number might be lower than you might expect. I think the quality of the player probably has something to do with it because I do think the idea of sort of awards and potential post-career accolades like the Hall of Fame is very meaningful to a lot of players. And so to buy someone out of this, that potentiality depending on when in their career it is and i would imagine that it would have to be probably like mid-career right because you have to be in the sport long enough to bug someone so bad presumably yeah but you know if you if it's a player who is further along in their career you probably don't have to pay them as much because maybe they don't expect to net huge lucrative contracts anyhow.

Right. Yeah. But like Carlos Correa, I think you'd probably have to do at least $150 million better than the deal he's going to sign this offseason, which I expect to be quite lucrative despite our circumstances right now. I think it has to be at least $150 million more. Yeah. Just as there are players who would probably walk away for less than one would expect,

there are probably also players who wouldn't walk away for any number, right? Yeah. Especially if they're like Carlos Correa and they've already made a decent amount of money in their careers. They could retire today if they wanted to, right? I mean, you know, Carlos Correa can retire right now with his, what, $27 million in career earnings. Like, he'll probably be okay. So, you know, the fact that he is not doing that suggests that, well, yeah, maybe he's doing it because he wants to make hundreds of millions more, but also maybe he enjoys baseball. There are a lot of players who enjoy baseball and would not want to stop playing baseball before they have to. And it's not just the money. So there's no amount that you could pay them.

It's non-negotiable, I would think, because many of them are probably already pretty wealthy. If it's a player who's prominent enough that you really want to pay them to go away, then probably they have made a decent amount of money already. And also, there would be a bit of blowback to this probably, right? Like you would be, just as players are sometimes reviled for turning down a lot of money in contract offers, I bet a player would also be reviled in some quarters for accepting a lot of money to stop playing baseball, right? Because a lot of people would say, oh, this is a dream. It's your adult getting to play a kid's game in pajamas, and you should just do it for the love of the game,

and it's disgraceful that you could be paid off not to play. And so for the rest of your life, you would be the guy who accepted a payout to give up his vocation, right? And so that would come with a cost too. And you'd have to factor that into the price or maybe there would be no price that would cover that. So I think that's part of the problem. Of course, most people would walk away from their respective careers, I think, if they were paid a certain number, right? if they were paid a certain number, right?

You know, I think that most people, if presented with a big enough check to retire or at least to do something different, would say, yes, please, here is my number, right? But I think if a baseball player did that, people would not necessarily all be understanding about that. And there's a status that comes with being a big leaguer. So even if the actual playing of the games is not indispensable for you and even if you'd be happy not to have to travel or be away from

your family or whatever like you get to be famous and emulated and a celebrity and people care what you do and what you say and that kind of thing can probably be pretty intoxicating too. So again, you're going to have to factor it into the price. And so if you were to say to most people, what amount would I have to pay you not to work? It would probably be less than their present salary, right? Like if I said to you, I'll pay you to go away. And it depends. I mean, if you're someone who likes their job, even if it's not as remunerative as being a big league

player, you might have a high number. But for a lot of people, they work because they need the paycheck. And if you give them a paycheck and also a lot of leisure time, then they would accept that, And also a lot of leisure time, then they would accept that, especially if they're not bound to do nothing. You know, if they can do something else with their lives, then you could potentially make even more. So a lot of people would probably walk away for less than they are making to work because they would prefer not to work. So with a baseball player, I don't know whether that's the case, though. Like, on the one hand, they have to do a lot less labor and they don't have to take batting practice and bullpen sessions and travel around and answer reporters' questions and all of the hassles that come with the job. And so you'd think, well, they would be willing to accept less than they are paid to do all those things. However, with that job in particular, and given how much time and effort players have put into getting to that point, I don't know whether that would be the

case. So you might have to actually pay a premium and pay them more to do nothing. Right. Yeah. And I think that when you're talking about a player, I'm going to test a theory on you. You tell me if you think this is too wacky. I almost wonder if Carlos Correa's willingness to participate in the banging scheme suggests that he doesn't have a number at which he wouldn't play baseball. Because if you're that highly competitive that you are willing to break the rules in pursuit of an edge like that, then I really wonder. You're not walking away from money, I don't think. Yeah, you're right.

If you already have a great team and it's not great enough and you want it to be better and you're already a star and you're not content with that and you're still looking for an edge, yeah, maybe so. But maybe he's more competitive than the typical player. I don't know. But I think the typical player, you would probably still have to pay a bit of a premium. So i don't know but i think the typical player you would probably still have to pay a bit of a premium so i don't know i'm gonna say you'd have to pay what percentage

overage on what they could stand to make as it is uh i don't know 20 or something there's just there's a lot of cost associated with being notorious in this way. Now, if you could do this in secret, which as you said, you might have to in order to get away with it. So if there's no stigma. Cause what other explanation could you offer?

Yeah. Well, I don't know if you just say you have some sort of injury issue or whatever that prevents you from playing. I mean, again, if you couldn't document that, that would be tough to get away with too. Or you could just say, I'm retiring, right? Like I'm done. Like I think you would probably get less blowback for just saying, I'm moving on to a new phase of my life and this was not fulfilling for me. And, you know, there are other interests that I want to explore. Probably people would be more understanding of that than I love baseball, but they paid me a lot of money not to play.

Yeah. I, yeah, I just don't know. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know. Cause like you're, you're missing, you're missing out on like endorsement deals and like you said, the prestige and I don't know, because you're missing out on endorsement deals and, like you said, the prestige. And I don't know. I think 20% might be low.

Maybe. Yeah. And I guess it depends on what tier of player youoto and everything, if you're already set for life more or less, then you have less incentive to do this. And so in theory, the premium would be even higher or just there would be no number because the marginal value of the next hundred million or whatever just isn't worth it to you. just isn't worth it to you, right? So the more you've made already and the more you can stand to make, the more you would demand or the more likely you'd be

just not to acquiesce to this under any circumstances because the difference between 300 million and 600 million is immaterial to you. Yeah, maybe. I don't know. I think that we would be surprised both by the number on the low end for a lot of guys and also how many would just have to pay players not to play. Not that owners are eager to fork over any amount to have players not play.

I think they're happy to not have them play for no dollars, which is currently the tact that they are pursuing. But I guess this sort of thing is in the air. I guess this sort of thing is in the air when we have no baseball and no visible players. Then we end up talking about empty ghost ballparks and players retiring prematurely. Yeah. Oh, gosh. We do have a fun draft planned for next time. We do. So that's something to look forward to.

Oh, boy. We need baseball back. All right. Well, thanks to everyone for the questions, and I've got some good ones saved we need baseball back. All right. Well, thanks to everyone for the questions and I've got some good ones saved for a future episode. All right, that will do it for today. And by the way, I don't think we mentioned this earlier, but we should note that there has been a new opioid policy put in place since Skaggs' death. MLB and the MLBPA announced in 2019 that players would, as of that time, begin to be

tested for opioids, and that the only players subject to discipline would be those who failed to cooperate with the initial evaluation or prescribed treatment plan. There are also mandatory educational programs for teams and players on the dangers of opioid use, so those changes seem necessary. I don't know whether they are sufficient, but there has been progress in that area since the tragic death of Skaggs. You can support Effectively Wild on Patreon by going to patreon.com slash effectivelywild.

The following five listeners have already signed up and pledged some monthly or yearly amount to help keep the podcast going and help us stay ad-free while also getting themselves access to some perks. Milan K, Marty Murphy, Andy Graham, Carl Miller, and Jeff Summers, thanks to all of you. Our Patreon supporters, of course, get access to exclusive monthly bonus episodes, as well as the Effectively Wild Discord group for patrons, which is now nearly 500 strong. There are over 10,000 members

of our Facebook group, which you can join at facebook.com slash group slash Effectively Wild. You can rate, review, and subscribe to Effectively Wild on iTunes and Spotify and other podcast platforms. Please keep your questions and comments coming for me and Meg via email at podcast at fangrass.com or via

the Patreon messaging system if you are a supporter. Thanks to Dylan Higgins for his editing assistance and his production assistance as well. You can follow Effectively Wild on Twitter at EWpod. You can browse the Effectively Wild subreddit at r slash Effectively Wild. And we will be back with one more episode before the end of this week. Talk to you soon. © BF-WATCH TV 2021