Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 2242: The 10th Annual Free Agent Contract Over/Under Draft

Episode Date: November 9, 2024

Ben Lindbergh and Meg Rowley banter about a listener proposal to artificially designate (and trade) a two-way player, then (19:28) conduct the 10th annual free agent contract over/under draft, plus closing banter (1:09:45) about the new Sacramento team’s city designation, a Philly front-office shuffle, and POBO priority. Audio intro: Philip Bergman, “Effectively Wild Theme” Audio outro: Ian […]

Did Richard Love Lady ever strike a Taylor T. Godin? Who had more war, Jason Kendall or Russell Martin? What if Shohia Tani's dog was also a good lawyer? What would you do if Mike Trump just showed up in your foyer? Or is it foyer? Find out on Effectively Wild. Find out on Effectively Wild. Find out on Effectively Wild today.

Hello and welcome to episode 2242 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 Lindbergh of The Ringer. Ben Livbergh? Ben? Ben? Hey Ben, how are you Ben? Hi.

How you doing Ben? Ben Lindbergh. Lindbergh. That's it. You nailed it. Yeah, there you go. Yeah. You'd be surprised by how many people get that wrong in my daily life. Really?

Yeah. I got a lot of Lindenburg. Lindenburg? Yeah. They just add an extra syllable in there. Lindenburg. Yeah. Surprising number and variety of mispronunciations.

Mispronunciations? I guess I just mispronounced pronunciation of my name, which, you know, there is a famous person, a former famous person with that surname, no relation, fortunately. I mean, technically there are a couple of famous people, both the guy and the baby, you know? That baby, that's a famous baby, Ben. Yes, it is a combination of one famous person with that name or two, but not a common name, not a name you encounter often.

And so I would not know whether that would make people more or less likely to pronounce it correctly, but they often screw it up. I know you know how to say it. I do. It was just a one-time fluke there for me, but you asked how I'm doing. I'm doing as well as I can as are we all. And we are here to do a draft. It's an annual start of the off season ritual that we conduct here at

Effectively Wild, we're doing the free agent contracts under overdraft. I never quite know how to hyphenate that when I'm doing the title for the episode. I always do over under, over under. Yeah, over under, but then do I have to have hyphens? No, but hyphens with the free agent contract because that's modifying the draft, right? You know what? Be free of hyphens. Free yourself. I'll free myself, yes. I would do a slash. I would do free agent over slash under draft.

Free agent contract over slash under draft. No hyphens. Definitely slashes with the over under. It's the free agent contract that always gives me pause. Not over under. In fact, we often end up going under more than we go over. So that will probably be the case again this year. So I talked to Ben Clemens last time about the fan graphs, top 50.

And this time as usual, we will be picking on the MLB train rumors, top 50. So much picking on as it is. I feel like they're the free agent contract predictions of records just because they go back basically like two decades at this point. I think they've been doing it 19 years, maybe, maybe 20 even. It's really a very long track record. And so we've been doing this draft for a long time.

And so we stick with that one and probably their methodology has changed and the people co-producing that lists have changed, but we have not changed the list that we use as the basis for this exercise. I do have one hypothetical here as a bit of banter. And this was something that was proposed in our Facebook group. So it's not emailed to us. Always nice when people send an email to podcast at bandgraphs.com if they want us to talk about something, but this spurred an interesting discussion from listener,

Facebook group member, probably shouldn't assume that a Facebook group member is a listener, Alex who says, here's a dumb hypothetical and it may be dumb, but it's also quite compelling. Suppose the White Sox put a relief pitcher at DH for 20 games next year. He won't swing the bat, so they'll lose most of the games he plays in, but that's unimportant.

Once he qualifies as a two-way player, the White Sox can trade him to a playoff bound team for some prospects. That team would then be allowed to carry an extra pitcher on their playoff roster because this reliever wouldn't count toward the 13 pitcher limit. Would any teams go for this trade? How much extra value does a mediocre bullpen guy have

if he doesn't count toward the 13 pitcher limit? So we're essentially coming up with a fake two-way player here. He's not fake in the sense that he is actually playing both ways. He's a pitcher who is hitting, who's in the lineup, but he's not qualified to do that. It's just a team that is terrible, that is going to lose a lot of games regardless. It doesn't have to be a particularly poor pitcher-hitter, but there aren't really any

good ones, Otani aside. So this guy, he doesn't have to be a non-swinger. He doesn't have to be an automatic out. If he wanted to be just a, if he wanted to go up there and bunt or, or try for a hit, he could, he'd still be bad, I assume. But the point is that you are just trying to get him to qualify for the two-way player classification. And then presumably that would carry over to the team that trades for him. And it's, I don't know if you'd quite call it a loophole exactly.

It's intentionally sabotaging yourself in the short term to try to improve your trade return, but it is an illegitimate two-way player in the sense that this is not someone who is actually qualified to be a big league batter and pitcher, but has fulfilled the qualifications for that classification. Well, first of all, I think if the guy is legitimately a very good reliever, I don't know that being able to slot him in without accounting against your pitcher minimum is really that big of an inducement. Let me put it this way. You have this limit, right? The number of

teams that really have a guy, another guy where they're like, we gotta get him on there. We gotta get him on that postseason roster. I don't know that there are that many of those. Also, what are you doing to this poor person? This is like, I mean, like even if they buy in, it feels like a bad thing to put, put a guy through plus what if in swinging he gets hurt? Well, he could just not swing. We've seen some pitchers go up there and not swing when they're hurt or they don't want to get hurt. True.

But look, I know that this would probably technically satisfy the rule, but I also think that it would be so brazenly obvious what they were up to that the commissioner's office would call them and be like, hey, knock that off though. Don't be doing that though. You're flagrantly violating the rule. You're flying in the face of it. You're thumbing your nose at it. Thumbing your nose? That's an odd expression. I'm doing the best I can. CB We've discussed that one before, but I think so at this point. LS Was it me who was like, that's weird? I don't remember anything, Ben. I got nothing for you. CB It's a monkeys with typewriter situation with us here after 2240 plus episodes. We have

inevitably touched on everything. I actually recently read a scientific study that said that the monkeys with typewriter things, they never actually would produce the works of Shakespeare or even one work of Shakespeare or really even a single sentence of Shakespeare. It just would take so many monkeys so long to do that. And even if you had the entire world's population of Shakespeare, it just would take so many monkeys so long to do that. And even if you had the entire world's population of monkeys, even if you went to the heat death of the universe, they wouldn't produce the collected works of William Shakespeare. And really, we've been overestimating the abilities of the monkeys typing. They're just, they're not going to produce something coherent, even if you

give them a ton of time and a ton of monkeys. So that's my little finding reporting. Not with that attitude, they won't. Yeah, no, I guess that's true. Don't be downers about the monkeys and their capacity. I'll link to the study if you're interested in this recent research. Yeah, you say that and then one of us one day is going to find the Statue of Liberty on the beach and be like, how did we get there? And it's going to find the Statue of Liberty on the beach and be like, how did we get there? It's going to be like, well, Ben didn't have any faith in the monkeys. And they were like, I'm going to show you Ben Lindenberg.

CB That is probably how the monkeys would pronounce my name if they could. So what was I saying? Right. The two-way player classification. So the rules, you have to have met both of these conditions in either the current or previous MLB season. You have to have pitched at least 20 major league innings, so that's a cinch for the actual reliever. Sure. And then you have to have played at least 20 major league games as a position player or designated hitter with at least three played appearances in each game.

I suppose it's not that many games. It's not that many. Now you can't completely hide him. It's not, you can't like stick him in as a pinch runner or pinch hit for him after one plate. It has to be 20 games, three plate appearances, like legitimately in the lineup. You could stash them at the bottom of the lineup, but it's still going to be bad. But if you're the white socks or someone else who's hopeless in the current season, maybe it couldn't get that much worse. So you just kind of grin and bear it or grimace and bear it.

That would be something the Mets do. But you, at the end of it, you come out of it with a freshly minted reliever. But that is often the problem with these hypotheticals in practice is that reason will assert itself. You hope someone will step in and say, no, this cannot stand. It's a, an embarrassment to baseball. It's the best interest of baseball clause. We know what you're doing here. And you gotta cut it out. And maybe, I don't know if you can amend the rule in the middle of the season,

or you just apply some other type of pressure. Obviously, it would not play well PR-wise, unless your fan base is so beaten down, so hopeless, that the prospect of slightly enhanced trade value is enough to tank essentially. Because this is a bridge farther than most baseball teams are willing to go. There are a lot of bad baseball teams, but they're bad. Maybe by design in the initial stages, you're not trying so hard to win.

But when it comes to actually fielding the best team you can put together, given the players on your roster and then those players trying, teams typically will not tank blatantly in baseball in that realm. You're not going to see players intentionally trying to lose games in an obvious way. You're not going to see good players just being benched in a really egregious, obvious manner. Yes, there's a lot of load management that goes on these days, but it's not going to quite rise to the level of NBA benchings prior to their recent measures intending to minimize that.

So you don't really see teams cross this bright line boundary. Yes, there are bad teams with not a lot of talent on the roster, but they do deploy the talent that they have. So this would be a particularly transgressive method, I think of trying to get a little value in the long run at the expense of your short-term prospects. Yeah, I think that it would, it think that it would really offend a great many people and more than to your point the sort of typical tanking this is and that's that we see because it is so clearly

geared toward a transaction that I think it would really rankle and people would say, no, we must intervene and stop this. We must make it stop. I think there would be a good amount of opprobrium for this sort of thing. People would recoil and they go, get away from me. You're disgusting. It wouldn't play well in the clubhouse either. It would play terribly in the clubhouse. Can you imagine? And again, this poor guy, I mean, I know that it's 20 games and it's a long season, but imagine saying to someone, hey, we know you suck at this and we want you to go do that at least three times a game for 20 games. And they're going to boo you when you do it, you know, because

you're going to become the face of this strategy, even though you're not the one who's architecting it, even though you just want to be wearing your little backpack, going out to the bullpen and being out there with your bullpen guys. No, you have to go be embarrassed in front of other people, risk injury in a part of your job that you've been told you don't have to do anymore. Good luck to you, son. That's terrible. I bet that you knew you would file a grievance. I don't know what it would be for or if they would win, but I bet that they would do at least like a ceremonial grievance because this sucks. It would suck, Ben. CB Yeah. Yes, you would have Charlton Heston falling to his knees and screaming, you maniacs, you

blew it up. Right, exactly. Exactly. And look, we don't want to get Charlton Heston involved, you know? Well, one, isn't he dead? He is. So that would be messy. And also, you know, he was a fictional character in that movie, but still don't want to get

him involved. No, thank you. No, no. But if you did it. but if you did it. But if you did it. If you proceeded, despite all the opprobrium and you held up to the pressure from the commissioner's office and your fans and the media and your own players,

would the trade value be enhanced? Probably a bit, but not much more than that. Because how many, like this is why I think that teams should trim their rosters. They should be forced to lower the active roster limit even more, and they don't want to do that, and they didn't want to even limit it to 13. But even as it is, they cycle so many guys through, and there's the constant AAA shuffle, and they're always just calling up someone fresh and sending someone down and options left and right.

And how many good relievers do you have at any particular time? When you get to the playoffs. Now, if it's a short series, for instance, do you really need more than the current raster limit allows? Cause you don't have to carry that many starters. If it's a best of seven, maybe, but again, you're only going to have so many people in the circle of trust who you actually want to use in those games. And then yeah, you, you have your mop up man and your garbage time guys that you

carry to sort of spare people, but your leverage guys, but, but there are pitchers who are carried on rosters who never actually appear even now, right? So I don't think the need is that acute. I also just am skeptical that, to your point, maybe you pay up a little bit, but it's one reliever. Let's pretend for a moment, who do you think the best free agent reliever on this free agent market is?

Tanner Scott? Probably? It's probably Tanner Scott. Okay. So imagine Tanner Scott is not, you give Tanner Scott another year after this, a team control. You put them on the white socks and you say, okay, Tanner, guess what? We want to trade you at the deadline. You're going to have to, I'm going to do a swear, suck at the plate trade you at the deadline. You're gonna have to, I'm gonna do a swear,

suck at the plate 20 times before the deadline, right? Cause you gotta do this before the trade deadline. You're gonna stay healthy. And then you say to whatever team, you can have Tanner Scott and he has two way eligibility and another year of team control after this. The things that you're paying for, quote unquote, as the acquiring team are the fact that it's Dan or Scott

and that maybe you have team control. I just don't think you pay up that much for the increased roster flexibility. And if you do, it like maybe nets you a slightly better prospect, but it's not gonna get you a whole nother guy. Like that roster flexibility is not a whole nother guy's worth of value to a team. I think that we have this image in our mind of teams like, say, the Dodgers, or the Guardians

are pretty good at developing bullpen arms. They have all these guys, they have this great bullpen. How many of those guys did they end up using in October? It ended up being a pretty small number because the difference between having like a good regular season bullpen and having guys who you trust in leverage spots in the postseason, those are not always and very rarely are often

an overlapping population, right? You prune, you prune. Yes, you do. There were a few guys that they used regularly during the regular season, and they did not use at least in some rounds of the playoffs, or maybe they replaced someone who got hurt. So yeah, if you had a bonus roster spot, maybe you would stick one of those guys. The last cut would make the cut instead, but it's just not that big a deal really. And it's not like you're leaving out

someone who's going to be pitching in important spots. Right. Because those guys are just on the roster already. Yeah. You're talking about low leverage guys you're leaving off. So it's just a marginal upgrade probably. Marcus Stroman is still waiting to be summoned into the postseason. Wait, Marcus Stroman just never pitches in the postseason. You know, it's like, what are you Margot Truman just never pitched in the postseason. You're the Dodgers and you're paying up extra in trade so that you can have the guy behind Landon Mack, be on your roster? No, no, Ben, you're not doing that. No, no. 0 points for creativity though. It made me think I hadn't really considered that you could just brute force someone into being a two-way player. Because I appreciate it being us. It did make me think. I mean, maybe the galaxy brained way to approach this is no, like stop thinking about it in

terms of like pitchers. Maybe it gives you an extra bench bat, right? Like maybe that way. But I still think the answer doesn't change very much because I don't know. I just don't think it does. Don't think it does, Ben. Benji Yeah, teams, they just aren't really configured to have good benches anymore because they don't as a matter of course. There's no room at the inn really. And so unless you were doing this constantly and you just were always playing with the 27 person roster essentially, then I don't know that, again, like it's not like teams have this great dedicated pinch hitter

that's being left off the bench in the postseason. A lot of teams just don't really have that guy anymore. It's just kind of, no, almost archaic, sadly. So good thought exercise. I like it. Thanks for making us think and giving us something to banter about. Been a bit of a slow news week, at least after the initial news rush. So we have this draft to do.

We have a draft to do. I guess we have to decide whether we're doing it exactly the way that we have historically done it, because that became a point of contention last off season. Where- Oh, because of Otani. Yeah, so here's how it works. We start with the MLB trade rumors, contract prediction, and we say whether we think they will get more than that or less than that, the over or the under.

And in terms of, historically the way we've done it is in terms of total contract value. We are not assessing average annual value and we are, correct me if I'm wrong, Ben, but in the past we have not, we've considered like the guaranteed money, not any escalators, no escalators, et cetera. That's correct. Yeah, no options, no escalators, et cetera. Okay. Just the base guaranteed salary over the life of the contract. And we then talked about whether we wanted to amend that midstream last year, because Otani just screwed everything up with his unique contract. And we were talking about, do we want to go with the present day value?

Is that more in the spirit of this exercise? But then again, you could play that game with every contract. Every contract has some sort of a present day value that differs from the actual surface level contract value because differing lengths and even if there's not deferred money or other atypical clauses, you could still sort of depreciate it, but we haven't done that and it's mostly served us well. So we just go with over under and then the difference if we, if we pick it right, if we get it directionally right, we say over and it is in fact over or under and it's under,

then we get a bonus. We get a $10 million bonus, just a fake money to play with that is added to our score. But we also get the difference between the predicted total and the actual total. So just to give one example, I'm just looking at the Effectively Wild Wiki here. My first pick was Cody Bellinger,

who was predicted to get $264 million. So many millions of dollars. That didn't happen as I recall. And it seemed pretty clear at the time that that was not gonna happen. So I took the under on that, and he actually got $80 million, which is quite a different number.

It's a lot less. Considerably lower than 264. So I got the difference credited to my tally, which is 184 million plus the bonus of 10 million, which was a $194 million boost to my fake ledger here. And there were a lot of giant under performances last off season. So I had Bellinger and Jordan Montgomery and Matt Chapman. I just collected a lot of Boris guys on my squad. You also had Blake Snell. However, you had Shohei Otani and you took the

under on the predicted value of 528 million and you were right in a sense in the present day value way, but wrong in that the actual number was 700. And so that was quite a ding to your fortunes, but it ended up being kind of competitive and entertaining anyway, despite that. So I think you would have lost even if we had changed the definition as it turned out, but we stuck with the, you didn't advocate for changing. I did not advocate. I just, yeah, I want to be clear. I accepted the results of the election.

Yes. I'm doing however I am. I don't know. How are we? We're doing, you know what we're doing? We're holding people close and embracing community, Ben. That's all we got today. We'll have more to do later with greater specificity, but today we're doing this draft. We're loving our friends. We're creating bonds of community.

That's today's project. It's going to keep going for a while. It was a peaceful transfer of fake free agent money and we ended up with a uncontested result. And I guess we're sticking with that then. Are we just going to bank on, well, there's only one Otani and he's not a free agent this off season? So I mean, look, I think that the answer to that is whatever you want to do because there is only one Otani.

Now there is a Juan Soto. Will Juan Soto be interested in a similar kind of deal? I think actually the answer to that is probably no, because as dynamic as Juan Soto is, I don't think that the like extra streams of income beyond playing baseball picture is the same for him as it was for Otani. So, you know, you can weather profound deferrals if you're making 60 million a year in endorsement money. I think there will only be one Otani. Maybe we'll be wrong, but I think it's a simpler exercise for everyone to track and kind of get their arms around if we stay with our existing methodology.

So that's what I would advocate. Yeah. That seemed like what most of our listeners were in favor of, the ones we heard from, and it's just more easily comprehensible. Yes. Yeah. It's simpler, easier to follow along, easier to score. So we're in favor of things being easier.

So that's what we're going to go with. All right. So we'll see if someone screws with us again this winter, but we're, we're sticking with what we want here. So, yeah, Ben, I wouldn't say we're lazy, but I would say that before coffee, I'm a little bit dumb. So, you know, I don't want to have to do math to know. I mean, it's hilarious to suggest that I would do math in a, like in a tick by tick kind of way to know. I mean, it's hilarious to suggest that I would do math in a tick by tick kind of way to know if I had one because we do these drafts and I think about them a lot beforehand and then I totally forget whatever I said. Pete Larkin Fortunately, we have helpers who keep track

of what we say for some reason, which we appreciate. So Chris Handel, I'm sure will be on top of this and Raymond Chen and everyone else who documents our nonsense here. All right. Well, I have never been less prepared for a draft than I am right now, I gotta say. Did you have other stuff on your mind this week? Well, there was that. And I also had a previous podcast right before this one.

I'm not going to make any excuses. I'm not trying to lower expectations here. Yeah. But before you proceed to do that in a gentle way, which is what I meant, how did your colostropia go, Ben? Went great. How's your butt doing? It was the highlight of my election day, actually, and unfortunately.

I can't imagine that that is true. Yeah. and unfortunately. I imagine that that is true. Yeah, the anesthesia wore off sadly and then I regained consciousness and it was all downhill from there. But yeah, clean bill of health, everything went great. Good deal, glad to hear it. Okay, so you aren't making excuses for yourself, but you are not perfect.

But I am sort of, I guess, in the way that when baseball players, as I criticize them for saying, we had a lot of injuries, but we're not making excuses, I guess I'm sort of pre-excusing my performance here. But really, I don't know that there's that great a correlation between our level of preparation and our performance in these drafts, because we've been all over the spectrum when it comes to consulting with scouts and sources and making spreadsheets and running numbers versus winging it completely. And I can't say that I've discerned like a real edge

to putting in the work. So I'm just gonna go with my gut here. I'm just gonna rely on my experience, but I'm gonna give you the first pick. I guess you probably would get it anyway rely on my experience, but I'm going to give you the first pick. Oh. I guess you probably would get it anyway because you lost last year. I did lose last year. Not that I would have re-reminded you of that, but also because I'm just not prepared for

my first pick. So you go first and I'll figure out what I'm going to do here. But I think there will be some unders picked in this draft as often seems to be the case. And to be clear, like we want players to make money. Yeah, we're not rooting for that. No, we're always like a little like, you know, we don't want to be in the business of hoping that players make less money than they're projected to make here, but it's all fun and

games. What we pick here doesn't affect their earning power. So we're playing along. There are no stakes to this really whatsoever. It's just for fun. And also kudos to the MLB Trade Rumors staff for putting this thing out there. As I always say, it's easier to have a completed list and find fault with it to try to like single out individual predictions that don't really pass the sniff test for you, then it is to generate those predictions in the first place. So we would be way off on many of our predictions. Oh, yeah. Just a little easier when someone supplies a list to you and you can kind of cherry pick the ones that maybe don't quite seem right

to you. Not that we will necessarily be right about them being wrong. So, all right. Okay. You draft. With my first pick and I hate to pick on him, but, um, I am taking the under on the projection of Blake Snell at five years and $160 million. Yeah. of Blake Snell at five years and $160 million. Yeah, I was gonna go there eventually too.

And I guess drafting Snell has served you well and you took him last year. He had a $200 million prediction last winter. You took the under, he got 62. So now the projection is a little less lofty, but not low enough. You're still taking the under on Blake. And to be clear, I think that he will do fine.

I might, when it's all said and done, potentially agree with them from an average annual value perspective, but I struggle to see him getting five years. That's definitely informing part of this. If they had the same AAV and it was on a four-year deal, I would probably think it was closer to what he's actually going to net, but 5168 just feels a little rich to me. So taking the under on Snell. Sorry, Blake. Okay.

Well, I don't know that there are opportunities here that are as obvious as last year's were to us at the time, because I ended up with a net tally of 536 million with my draftees last year. I don't think that's happening this season, because I don't see estimates that look as off to me. And maybe that's just because it's kind of a thin market. So there just aren't as many exorbitant estimates to begin with. There's Wansoto and then there's a very big step down from Wansoto, which was, I guess, kind of the case last year with Otani, but less so. So it's just a less stacked free agent class.

And so even if we are directionally right, I think we'll probably end up with lower totals in the end. Wonsoto is projected for 13 years and 600 million. And I'm always tempted to go with someone at the top of the list, cause you just have more potential. You could miss by more or they could miss by more and you could gain more. But I also sort of think he's going to make this amount of money. So I guess like,

if I had to take under or over on 600, I guess I would take under, but I don't feel super strongly about it. I've kind of been thinking 600-ish is probably around the right range. It might still be like a positive expected value pick to take him because the potential gain there, I guess, is greater just because the number is so big. But I'm not going to go there yet, at least. I think I'm going to take, man, this is tough. Perhaps I should have prepared for this draft a little bit better, but I guess I'll go with Jack Flaherty at five years and 115, which is again.

Are you going under? Oh, yes, I am. I'm going under on that. And look, I mean, he proved himself to some extent this past season. He certainly rehabilitated himself, had a far better platform year than it looked like he might have coming into that season. And he's still fairly young. Like I, again, this is my top pick here and I don't feel that great about it. He's, he's 29. That's like a lot of conviction.

Yeah. No, I don't have a huge amount of conviction here, but you know, like the track record, it's one season when he was good. And then the two previous ones, I guess the one previous one, he was bad. The one before that, he was mostly not pitching and he was not previous one he was bad. The one before that he was mostly not pitching and he was not great when he was pitching. And then he did kind of turn things around last year, but also like there were some concerns by the end of the season too, and some sort of disaster starts in October. So it wasn't like you felt confident exactly.

So I don't know, like I could see him still maybe going for a shorter term deal instead of trying to maximize the length and maybe do another, not pillow exactly, but sort of soft landing, prove it and, you know, get a one year deal two-year deal or something and try to really rehabilitate himself and show he has a clean bill of health and everything, and then go back out on the market as a 30-year-old or something. But yeah, I just, I don't know if I quite see this combination of length and AAV happening, but I can conceive of it. It is certainly not preposterous.

Okay, wow. Where do I want to go? But I can conceive of it. It is certainly not preposterous. Okay. Wow. Where do I want to go? I got a lot of stuff on my board yet, Ben. Um, realizing I still have a bunch on my board. Well I hope so, because we're picking eight players a piece. Flared.

I know. We picked so many. I'll just offer that as a like, note. Um, I was like, eight really? Yeah, that's what we've done. I think it's good to have a larger sample. It's something we can return to more often that way. We get kind of a clearer reading on our sense of the market.

Yeah, that's all fair. That's fine. I'm going to take the under. I'm taking another under. I'm taking the under on Alex Bregman at seven years and $182 million. Yep. Yep. I strongly considered that too. Yeah. And, and again, I think that some of this is just a, a length of contract issue, maybe more than an,

an AAV issue. But you know, Bregman is entering his age 31 season and you know, he's still a really great defender. He just won his first gold glove, Ben. And the stats bear out that he was a good defender last year. This isn't just like a gold glove mirage. And there have been years where he has been a really fantastic hitter, but there's also the piece of it where his play discipline seemed to suffer this year. His batted ball data has only ever been fine. He's really good at the pole thing and

that plays really well in Houston, where he can tuck home runs into the Crawford boxes. But also, if you're not walking a lot, if your play discipline is suffering, then it's like, okay, maybe you are a little more one-dimensional at the play. I think he probably just ends up back in Houston, which could be the thing that undermines my decision, because lest we forget, this Astros team, at least as we've seen in the last couple of off-seasons, comes with the influence of ownership. And they, you know, he might decide, I just want to keep my guy and I'll give him whatever he wants. Cause like they gave that deal to Josh Hader, not yet their guy, but

you know, gave that deal to Josh Hader and that was a lot of money for a reliever, even a really good one. So who knows, maybe we'll do that again. But I'm at this juncture, still taking the under on Bregman and seven years on $182 million. It's not like there aren't other places where him pulling the ball like he does wouldn't be beneficial, but like, you know, that, that setup is really sweet for him in Houston. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think that's a smart pick and one that I regret not making. I was considering that. We'll see. Yeah. And I was looking at Bregman for one thing, he's a little younger than I thought.

It just, it seems like he's- Did you think he was like 34? Well, maybe not 34, but like 32 at least, something like that where he's not even 31 yet and I guess it's, he came up pretty young and also the Astros have been good for his entire tenure there. And so he's been just very front and center from the start. And he was pretty good from the start also. He really hit the ground running.

And so he established himself at a pretty early age. So he's younger than I thought. And it does seem like his days of being an elite hitter are probably behind him. Like 2018, 2019, no, it was not the peak science dealing year when he was at his best offensively. But no, but it was at the juice. It was peak juiced ball. Yeah, that is true. And so the one, the 160 WRC plus Bregman, I'm not sure we're going to see that guy again, but he has held on to some value.

Like he's had slow starts. He's had trouble with fastballs at times. He's looked a little overmatched and then he's kind of come roaring back as the Astros did as a team and his numbers end up being good. Usually he's like four or five win player even now. So yeah, I could, I could see, yes, maybe an Astros reunion is the most obvious way that something like this estimate actually comes to pass. I don't know whether there's any sign stealing stain stigma attached to him. I kind of

doubt it. For fans, there might be at least until he signs and plays well. And then usually all is forgiven. He obviously was one of the foremost faces of the science dealings handle. And just because he was the heel of that team and kind of embrace that persona, not that he never expressed some remorse for the science dealing, but he was, he's just one of those players who like, if he's not on your team, he kind of pisses you off sometimes, right? Like a AJ Pruszynski sort almost. And sometimes that increases, deepens your attachment to that type of player when he's your guy, but he's no one's guy right now.

So I don't know that anyone would hold off on it. It's not like other sign stealing Astros have paid some apparent price for, for their transgressions. Okay. Where am I going to go next? I think I'm going to go with jerks and profile in the under. I think, I think I am. And again, it's, it's not a ridiculous estimate, but three years, 45 million.

Now he was that kind of player this year, but he hasn't been that kind of player before and he tailed off a little bit, right? It's not like he cratered or anything, but he was better earlier in the year. And it just kind of came out of nowhere. He will be 32 around when pitchers and catchers report. And it'd be great to think that he just completely put it together and he's just going to have this late career peak. He's going to Adrian Beltray it and he's going to be the player he was projected

to be as the top prospect in baseball. It just took a long time to get to that point, but I don't know that I can see that happening because it would be just quite a come up from where he was a year ago, where he signed as a free agent for what, a million bucks in February after spring training had started. So it's just, if anyone could do it and if anything could do it, it would be a season like the one he just had, but that's a lot for someone who is the age that he is with the experience that he has to change that valuation after

getting a year older. I just, I'm not sure that I see that happening. I think that that's fair. He is another candidate for a reunion with his most recent team. Like, I would imagine he ends up being in San Diego. He seems to like being there. Obviously, Preller is like quite attached to him. So that would be sort of my guess if I had to make one. I feel bad taking all of these unders, but some of my overs are like, I think that they're going to end up being for less money. Yeah. I have some, some bargain basement.

Yeah. So I got to be strategic here. Yeah. Okay. I'm going to. Yeah. I'm gonna, yeah. Ugh. Oh.

We should just do a super cut of Meg mid draft sounds and just publish an entire episode or make some sort of song board or something. Yeah, maybe that'll get the guy who canceled his Patreon because of all my grimace talk back on board. Didn't like it, Ben. Thought I overdid it on grimace, but you know what? So did the Mets.

Okay. I'm going to take the under on... Wait, did I write this down wrong? Sorry. Sorry. No, leave it in, Shane. You have to leave in my complete panic. See?

You made the mistake of preparing and now you're sucking yourself out. I did prepare. I have a whole spreadsheet. I didn't talk to anyone about it. The only time I do sourcing on a draft and not every time, mind you- Minor League for Agent draft. Yeah, it's the Minor League for Agent draft. But I don't do sourcing for this because that's silly.

I'm going to take the under on Pete Alonzo at five years and 125 million. So you are forecasting a bear market for good sake. I am. No, no. I have some overs. I have some overs. Well, I mean for him specifically. Oh yeah, for him.

Oh, bear market. This is a Boris callback. I didn't come up with that one. I see what you did there. As an aside, Scott, you got to read the room on your puns, man. We're all reeling over here. What are you doing? I actually welcome that.

I need the Boris puns. I saw gladiator two's screening. This is what I need for comfort food in the short term. Okay, well, so here's the thing about Pete Alonzo. He does have plenty to recommend him. I wanna be wrong about this because, you know, Pete Alonzo is like the perfect example of a guy whose free agency is just kind of mistimed for the peak of his powers, right?

He came up late, he didn't have his first full season in the majors until he was 24. And so he had a number of years where like for as much fun as we have made of him for being so serious about the home run derby, like there were years where he made more from winning the derby than he made in salary, right? So I want to be wrong because I feel badly that his, you know, his free agency was timed in such a way that the team signing him is going to catch a lot of his decline and he's at first baseman and so there's that. like, granted, he made $20 million this year, so things got better once he got into arbitration. But $125 is gonna be a little too high because like, yeah, he's still a power bat and obviously

his October was great, but this was a more up and down year. And he just strikes me as the kind of guy where when his decline really hits, it's going to go from good okay to borderline unplayable, maybe pretty fast. And I think that the potential risk for that downside is going to be priced into his market. And so I could see him making $100 million, particularly if the Mets don't end up signing Soto or want to make a real statement about like what they view as their best team going forward and Pete's their guy and you know, they know they're going to buy a couple of down years at the back end of the deal, but whatever he's our dude.

We want to have continuity. It's great. Like maybe that's the direction it goes, but I don't see that even that goodwill exceeding like a hundred million. So I'm taking the under on Pete and I'm so sorry, sir. You know, like I want you to make more, but I don't suspect you will. So yeah, I think Pete Alonzo would probably look at this as an under already, this estimate, this is probably under what he wants and perhaps what he expects depending on how Scott Boris has prepped him for this

winter. When I saw this number, I thought this was sort of pre-lowered enough that it didn't seem way out of line for me. It feels like 25 to 30 million out of line for me. Maybe, maybe. Yeah. And if he stays with the Mets and what's the difference of 25 to 30 million to Steve Cohen? So who knows? Right.

But yeah, it felt within the realm of- Sure. Realistic to me. Sure. So I didn't go for it, but you may well be right. I'm going to go with an over here. I'll break the pattern. Yeah. I am going to take with an over here. I'll break the pattern. Yeah. I am going to take the

over on Glebertorus. He's predicted to make two years and 36 million. It's just not a big number. He didn't get a qualifying offer from the Yankees, which maybe suggests that they think this is reasonable, that he's not going to get more than this sort of offer. It still kind of baffles me. I talked about this with other Ben, like even if he got two years and 36, he'd think he might have deserved a qualifying offer. If I guess he didn't have that sort of AAV out there for him, I understand that, but he's young enough that I would think he could certainly beat that long-term.

And so I remain kind of confounded unless the Yankees just did not under any circumstances want Gleiber Torres for even a year at that amount of money. STAFF1 Can I offer a potentially alarmist take that I don't want to upset our Yankee fan listeners, but that I wonder if we will look back on? I wonder if them not extending a QO to Gleiber is indicative of potentially profound payroll retrenchment on their part coming up. I wonder if we will look back and view this as the canary in the coal mine on Soto going somewhere else, them not being competitive in that market.

I hope that doesn't happen. I don't know that it will, but I wonder, Ben, it made me wonder, you know, kind of like how a while ago I was like, oh my God, is like Cody Bellinger, a non tender candidate. And then I was a brain genius. Remember that? That one time I was smart. Well, I'm sure you haven't alarmed anyone with this idle musing of yours here. It's fine. Yeah.

But he doesn't turn 28 until December. And again, maybe he would just want to take a short-term deal and he won't beat this and he'll think he can do better down the road. But it just, it doesn't seem like a lot of money to me. As up and down as he's been, he's not a superstar or anything, but he's still something of a productive player at a prime age. So I think he could beat this if he tries to. LS. Oh, I hate taking so many unders.

I guess does this also reflect some slight pessimism about the market in general? Just we're being bombarded with news by the day about bankruptcy and baleys or fan duel or diamond or whatever the heck it's called and teams re-upping knowing that they're going to get less revenue or if they don't re-up then maybe they'll be backstopped by MLB but they'll also have to take a percentage decline there. So whether that actually ties teams hands or not it seems like a built-in rationale or excuse for some of them that they could use if they don't spend. So are you predicting a bear market, not just for Piatalanto, but for everyone here? Or what do you think that's... Because I do think we tend to be under, I guess, just we take more unders probably because it's easier to have big divergences in that direction probably in this sort of draft, but maybe it also reflects

what we think about this market and this free agent class. I mean, here's the thing about this free agent class, sort of generally my thoughts on it. I think there's a lot of really exciting talent at the top of the class. And I think that even with that exciting talent, that some of these are just, I think that there is enough, both real uncertainty around say the cable stuff and enough wiggle room for feigned uncertainty for there to be a little bobbin and weaving. Now, I think that the best guys at the top of this class are still going to get paid, but like I've just said that I think Alex the best guys at the top of this class are still gonna get paid, but like I've just said that I think Alex Bregman

at seven years and 182 is too rich. So they're gonna get paid. Are they gonna get paid with this much? I'm a little skeptical of that outside of Soto, who I think is just gonna like clean up. Yeah, someone like that is quasi recession proof, almost, if you're that good, that elite. I wonder if the timing of some of these deals will be different this year than it would be in other years because of uncertainty about the state of the US economy after January

20th. I wonder if there will be incentive for some of these guys to sign sooner for that reason. I just wonder, you know? CB 1 Maybe. Then again, I guess the market has been up on the news. So maybe not. KS See how the market reacts to tariffs. Anyway, so here we are. Look, did I promise it would stop on Tuesday? I didn't I made no such promise to anyone anyone so But here we are making some picks and so I will make a pick and I'm gonna make an optimistic pick actually Ben I'm gonna make an optimistic pick in the face of a weird market and profound uncertainty about the future And I'm gonna do something

It's actually fairly stupid because my interaction with the Otani thing from last year shouldn't have any bearing on how I view contracts this year, but I'm going to take the over on Soto. I'm doing it. All right. 13 years, 600 million. No, no. Give me a little bit more. Give me a little bit more.

I think this is a dumb pick. I want to make that clear. I think it's actually like an obviously stupid pick, but it's one I'm still going to make because, you know, why not? We should have a little fun. Let's have a little, let's have a little Soto treat, you know? Yeah. There's some downside risk here, but I like it. You're going for it. This is an aggressive move. Yeah. And I could certainly see him getting more years than 13. I think that's possible, but would he get more than 46 AAV with more than 13 years? He's really good.

LS WELCH He's really good and he's so young. Whatever that guy in the comments on our top 50 says, he's very young and quite talented. CBT. JAN LINDEN All right, where am I going to go next? I probably should have used that time productively while you were mowing that over to really cement my next pick, but did I? No, I did not. You did not? All right. I'm going to go two overs in a row.

What the heck? This is not really an area where I'm going to make much bank probably, but I'm going to go over on Kirby Yates at one year and 14 million because Kirby Yates, he was one of the best relievers in baseball this year, was he not? And I know that he is old. He's 37. He's going to be 38 around opening day next year.

But if David Robertson can do it, his teammates, then why can't Kirby keep doing it? He's, uh, he's done it before. This wasn't a fluke. Of course he missed all of 2021 with an injury, but prior to that he was an elite reliever. He's been an elite reliever since then. The strikeout stuff is still there. He was a deserved all-star. So I'm

going to say either someone gives him more for a single year or he gets a multi-year contract. I think even though he's older, I think he could command a two-year deal if he held out for one. And if he does, then I can't imagine him getting as few as $14 million. I think that that's, I think that that's right. And in that same spirit, I'm taking the over on one year and 12 million for Hassan Kim. That feels, I know that there's concern about the surgery and like the shoulder stuff. And I know that he doesn't hit for power, but like he was wildly productive for the Padres and he is a very good defensive shortstop. And I think he will get, I think he'll get more than that, both in terms of a year's end average annual value.

I'm taking the over on Kim. I was quite shocked by that one. That was actually maybe the most shocking one to me, but I waited because I don't think that it's going to net me very much, but I'm taking the over on that. Yeah. Yeah. That is actually a really good pick that I wish I had made. Let me make sure that I have it right. Because as people who perused this list will know, there are, so there's Ha Sung Kim who

played for the Padres for the last four years. And then there's, I don't know if I'm going to say this right, there's the other Kim who might be coming over from KBO, from the KBO, from the heroes. And they have him projected to get three years and 24. And then they have Ha Sung, let me just make sure I got this right. You know what? Yeah, no, you did. I think I got it. I think I got it wrong. I think I was looking at the wrong Kim. Yeah. And I thought three years 24 for Ha Sung Kim. Okay. I could see that. Yeah. Ha Sung one year 12 million. Yeah. This is where my lack of prep is coming back to bite me because I probably would have distinguished me.

I would have had the correct Kim and I think that's an easy over. I think this is a steal for you. Yeah, I think that's an easy over, right? Yeah, yeah. Excellent pick. I have to go and find out. Okay. How did this even fall this far in this draft, I guess, because of Kim confusion?

I definitely thought that it would not, I don't think it's going to be like 60 million over this or something. So I was saving some of my smaller ones for later, but I don't know. You didn't prep. What are you going to say? You didn't prepare. That hasn't stopped me preparing has not stopped me from making kind of crazy picks here. Maybe, maybe.

The soda one. That might undermine my entire draft, maybe, maybe the soda one. That might undermine my entire draft, Ben, but I wanted to do it, so I did. Yeah, I think the real drawback is my level of confidence when I haven't prepped is lower. I feel flustered, even though I know that prepping probably won't help me that much, just I don't feel like I've marshaled all the facts.

They're not at my fingertips, but I think you got your one year, 12 million over. I'm going to take one too. There are actually a few one year, $12 million predictions on this list. I'm taking the over on Shane Bieber at one year and 12 million because there's some possibility that he'll get a multi-year deal, right? He'll want one of those make good, you know, some team kind of takes a flyer on 2025 and hopes to reap the rewards in 2026. And he had his TJ in April.

So it's not as if he is out for the entire season or something. He's throwing weighted balls. He could be back certainly by summer. That's not unrealistic. You never know. Teams take their time with TJs these days if it's standard traditional TJ. And granted, he had not been at his peak Bieber best prior to the injury, but then how much of that was

because of the wear and tear that led to the surgery, who knows. So I think given that he will not turn 30 until he is about to return roughly from the surgery, he might get that two-year deal that we've seen for lots of TJ returners. Of course, he might not want to sign one of those. He might think, I'm going to come back next season. I will reestablish my value down the stretch. I don't want to give away the upside of what I could potentially make and deliver value-wise in 2026. So I could be wrong, but I'm going with this. Bieber over.

You know, in that same spirit, I'm going to take the over on Walker Bueller at one year and 15 million. Okay. I'm taking the over on that. I think that I understand he looked quite bad for much of the season, but I think he did enough in the playoffs, both in terms of just looking better on average and also showing some versatility in sort of how he game planned, how the Dodgers game planned with him, that he will, I think he will do better, I think he'll do better than that.

I'm taking the over on Bueller at one year and 15. Okay. Do you think he will get a multi-year deal or do you think he will want to do the pillow contract and show that he's back? I think he'll want to do the pillow contract, but I still think he'll do better than 15 million. I don't know how sensible that is. Maybe he does like two years and 24,

you know? I could see that happening too. You know? Yeah. Yeah. If it's just a one year, given that he was like really one of the worst regular starters in baseball this past season, you'd really have to buy into that late October resurgence. Maybe I think he's getting like two years and like 24. Yeah. Yeah. I could see that. That's well within the realm of possibility.

I don't know. We're going to find out. We will. Okay. We will soon find out what my next pick is too. I look forward to finding out with all, with the rest of you when it happens. Okay. I am going to take the under, I've taken a couple overs in a row. I'm feeling good about that. I feel like I've earned another under here. So I guess I will take

under on Severino. Okay. So Severino, three years, 51 mil. I don't know. The Mets, they did well with their just budget pickup of Severino. He was big for them, but will teams trust him to stay healthy for that many years? It's not that many years, but it's that many years for Luis Severino, right? He's not that many years, but it's, it's, it's that many years for Luis Ceprino, right? He's not old or anything. He's going to be 31 in February, but it's less about age than it is just about durability with him. And also like durability was sort of his strong suit this past season.

He wasn't that good on an inning per inning basis. It's just that he threw 182 innings. He made 31 starts. He was a stalwart in this Mets rotation, but he basically had like a league average adjusted ERA, 4.2 FIP. It wasn't fantastic. Like his, his strikeout stuff that he had when he was getting Cy Young votes as a young pitcher with the Yankees, that wasn't

there so much anymore. So it was sort of a strange, surprising reinvention of Luis Severino into almost an innings eater. So are you really going to buy into Luis Severino as an innings eater? And if not, then are you thinking the upside is still there? There's just enough uncertainty on both of those scores that it justifies an under from me. Not like vastly under, but, but under. Sometimes it's just about being on the right side, getting that $10 million bonus. Yeah. Sometimes all you need is $10 million. I would take $10 million. That sounds nice. Okay. Well, I think he'll do better than $10 million, but I'm going to take the under.

I feel bad about this because he's one of my very favorite players in this whole free agent class and I think he's great and I want him to make money, but I am taking the under on Willie Adamis at six years and 160 million. Pete Okay. All right. Lauren All right. Lauren I don't think it's going to be like, I just think that, I think it's one year too many, you know? I think it's just one year too many. I think that he ends up with like a five-year deal. And I know that next year is his age 29 season, but I also think that when you look at, I agree with Ben Clemens' analysis, like when you look at the teams, the contending teams

that are going to have incentive to spend, a lot of them already have a shortstop that they're committed to. And it's not like the Brewers are going to bring him back, right? So it seems unlikely they will anyway. So I think that like, he probably ends up with a five year guy. And then again, like, I don't know that the AAV is necessarily super off, but I just think it's one year too many. So I'm taking the under, but I do feel badly about it because I really, I really love watching Willie Adamis play. I think he, I would, for instance, I would love it if Willie Adamis were a Seattle Mariner and then they can

just figure out the infield configuration however they feel they need to. Put JP at that second, you know, it's fine. But I don't think they're going to spend any money. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I think Adamas, yeah, if I had to take the under or the over on 160, I guess I'd go under. Feels about right. Feels like kind of a push to me, but I think I'd go in that direction too. And again, sometimes it's just about being on the right side, even if it's not by a lot. Right.

Well, in the spirit of that, I guess I'll take the under on Corbin Burns at 200 million, which again, feels right about the range to me. That just, it doesn't feel wildly off or anything. Yeah. But I think if I had to take over under, I think I'd probably go under. And I think there's at least some slight chance that we end up with some sort of

Snell situation with him. I think there are just enough red flags. There aren't as many red flags. In some respects, there are even redder, bigger flags. They're waving even more forcefully because on an imprinting basis, like, you know, and the stuff and the strikeout rate and all of that, there are causes for concern there. So I think there's like a slight chance. I don't think it's a big chance.

I think he'll probably end up getting a long-term deal by pitcher standards at least, but there's at least a little chance that it just doesn't happen and teams have reservations or I don't know, Sasaki gets posted or something and, and teams who might've gone for burns pivot to Sasaki instead. And then we end up in a late signing situation again. I would guess that he will want to avoid that given how that went a year ago and that probably Scott Boris will too. But despite Scott Boris's wordplay, I don't believe that he is a Corbin copy of what he was in previous seasons. And so I think there might be enough teams that are out that either don't go over 200

or he ends up having to settle for something shorter term and maybe hire AAV. I feel like the market has gotten smarter here. I feel like MLB TR, kudos to them, I think they have improved or at least come closer into line with us because I'm just, I'm not seeing the huge market opportunities that I have sensed in previous drafts. It's like a bunch of sharps have taken over now. Do I really want to end on an under? That's such a downer. Ben, what do I do?

Okay, I'm taking an under, but I'm like, it's a cheat because I, it's a cheat because I think he'll accept the qualifying offer. So I'm not really saying, but I'm like, it's a cheat because I, it's a cheat because I think he'll accept the qualifying offer. So I'm not really saying, but I mean, I am saying something about his contract because of- That's been a good strategy and if that's worked out, yeah, that's, it's good. If you, if we draft early enough to do that, then you might as well. I think I'm taking the under on Christian Walker three years and 60 million because I think he'll take the qualifying offer to stay in Arizona. Okay.

Yeah, that's a good gambit. It's worth the risk because that's a big pickup for you if it happens. I think there's like a disconnect in that market. I think that people should want to give Christian Walker a three year, $60 million deal. I think Christian Walker's like really good. He is an excellent defensive first baseman. I think that his bat goes underappreciated, but also, you know, he had the injury this year and when he came back, he did not look right for much of his return. And I think that when you combine that

with his age, it'll sort of depress his value. And that because he has the qualifying offer teams aren't going to necessarily want to give up a pick to sign him. And so I think that he will just accept the qualifying offer. And then I wouldn't be surprised if on the back of having done that, he and the Diamondbacks work something out. And like he signs a deal that maybe replaces part of what he replaces this year. I don't know. Like I bet they'll get something done, but I think he'll be a Diamondback. I hope he is because I like watching him play baseball and then he'd be close. So you're telling me I've picked seven players already. This is my last draftee. How about

that? That's true. already. This is my last drafty. How about that? Wow. This is tough. I guess probably one of the keys to being a successful bettor, not that I would know as someone who doesn't bet either successfully or unsuccessfully, is knowing when there's not a great opportunity on the board and exercising restraint. You don't want to come into a betting opportunity saying in advance, I'm going to put my money down on X number of opportunities. You don't want to come into a betting opportunity saying in advance, I'm going to put my money down on X number of opportunities. You want to evaluate the opportunities that are out there for you. And so if this were a real betting exercise with actual stakes, I'd probably say,

I'm good. I don't have any others where I disagree significantly enough that I think there's much made up money to be made, but we are bound by our needs to pick eight players a piece. So I'm going to do that. I'm taking the under on Jeff Hoffman. Ah, good choice. I think that's a good choice. Thanks. You're welcome.

Jeff Hoffman, four years, 44 million. And because I'm just flying by the seat of my pants person today, I'm just going by my gut. I saw Jeff Hoffman next to that number, 44 million. And I said, nah, I don't see that happening. So that's the extent of my analysis. That was just an instinctive reaction. I don't see that happening now that I look at the Fangrass Top 50 and other Ben's estimate and the

crowdsourced estimate, they are also lower than that significantly. So yeah, I wish you well, Jeff Hoffman, but that's maybe a little rich for my blood. Yeah, I think that's fair. All right. We've done it. I, I think that's fair. All right. We've done it. I don't know that we've done it well.

I don't feel confident, but we have completed our assignment. Another free agent contracts over under draft in the books and suing on the effectively wild Wiki and on our competitions and drafts spreadsheet, which I will link to on the show page. So when those are updated, you can all follow along. And of course, we will return to this as the offseason proceeds and we will update you when we have final numbers. Hopefully we won't have to wait as long to have the final tally as we did a year ago where we're stretching into spring training and

still couldn't quite close the book on this draft, even if it was a formality to by that point. Be nice if at least the big free agents, they got their business done. They signed sooner than happened last year. I think that would be nice. It would be nice. I worry it will be in response to fears about the state of the American economy, but it would be. Hey, what's a fan graphs doing about the abbreviation for the athletics? Are you just a kind of complying with the, there's no team name? Yeah.

Yeah. There's no city, no geographic tag. Well, so here's the thing. There are like two questions that arise from these sorts of changes, right? There's the, what is the league going to do from like a data perspective, which makes itself felt more in the three-letter team abbreviation than anywhere else. My understanding, don't quote me on this, but maybe do, is that we will comply with whatever the preferred stuff is on a going forward basis for those. Cause like from a data perspective, it's kind of necessary that we do that. In terms of like what I'm going to ask for

people in copy, I might allow a little more freelancing when it comes to that stuff. Because that's, I think, more an editorial decision than anything else. I don't think that we have to constantly belabor the point here because I think our general staff feeling on what happened in Oakland is pretty well established. But I think that it's a place where I would be open to some, but not an excessive amount of snark as the, as the case may be. But in more like cut and dry scenarios, we will probably just refer to them as the athletics or the A's.

Yeah. The team sent out guidelines and just made me kind of snippy. You know, they're like, when referring to the team name use only athletics. You may, you may use A's on second reference. Oh, I may. Oh, thank you. How generous of you that I may use A's. I could use A's on first reference if I wanted to. Actually, probably the ringer copy desk would, would want me to change that too.

But, but, uh, I don't have to take your word for it. I don't have to abide by what John Fisher says I should refer to this team as. And so, yeah, I think, look, they're playing in Sacramento. You can't reinvent the wheel when it comes to how we identify teams. And the way that we've done that historically in baseball for years and years is to say where they play and then say what the name of the team is. That's kind of convention. So yeah, you can uproot your franchise and leave your fan base high and dry,

and you can go use Sacramento as a stopping point, you hope to greener fields, but you cannot dictate that we may not say that you are playing in Sacramento cause you are, but, but yeah, like, you know, in official capacities, uh, in, in most copy, fine. You can call them what they want to be called, which, uh, when it comes to names, just in general, we try to call people what they want to be called, but I'm less inclined to acquiesce to John Fisher's demands here. So the new designation is ATH, A-T-H, that's what they are. And the new logo is A's, but green and that's that.

And yeah, I think if we kind of casually refer to them as the Sacramento A's, that's fine by me. I think that in casual conversation, that's fine. We're not going to, again, like, I think the context of it matters. I think if one is offering commentary on the future of that franchise and one wants to be a little bit snarky, that that's acceptable because it's a snarky kind of situation. I think that if you're writing a trade react, that like a more cut and dry approach is the appropriate one, because the focus of the piece isn't on the malfeasance of the franchise. I mean, like in the context of a trade reaction, I suppose it could be, but do you get what I'm

saying? Like it's not, you know, the context I think matters a great deal. It's not the place to editorialize necessarily about that. Right. I had a professor in grad school who talked about it in terms of shaving off the sideburns in one's work, because I guess he found sideburns uniquely distracting on faces. And so the question that one should ask oneself as a writer is, if I indulge this little bit of editorializing, is it going to distract from the greater point that I am trying to make in the piece? And if the answer to that is yes, I mean, you might still

want to do it, but I think that that's the calculus that you want to be engaged in, right? Is it going to turn the comments on a piece about subject Z into a bunch of commentary about M? And if the answer to that is yes, then maybe it's good to cut it so that you can be focused on the Z's in your life, you know? Yeah. And one last thing that I wanted a ruling on, I forget whether we have settled this already, but the Phillies- Probably that I don't remember. Back to the monkeys and microphones again. Not that I'm calling us monkeys necessarily. We're primates like the rest of us. But the Phillies have a bit of a front office shuffle happening here where they have promoted

Preston Mattingly to general manager. He was the assistant GM or a assistant GM, an assistant GM, and they have bumped up or will bump up. I guess this is a promotion. Sam Folds, vice president and general manager, who is in the midst of obtaining his MBA from Wharton. He is graduating next spring. And when he does, he will then obtain the title of president of business operations. So we're shifting over from baseball ops to business ops. To business ops, sure. Yeah.

And so I, I forget whether we said, cause we might, we don't typically have cause to refer to the president of business ops all that much, but, but given Sam Fold's background as a player and field person and also high ranking baseball ops executive, I imagine he might still have some input in that area. So if you have a president of baseball operations, as the Phillies do in Dave Dabrowski, and you have a president of business operations and the Phillies will not be the only team to have that arrangement, but are they both Pobos or only the president of baseball operations gets Pobo status and

then the president of business operations is just president of business operations? Or is he like, is there a different abbreviation that we could use for business operations as opposed to, no, it's still POBO, right? But we don't want- I know. I would reserve POBO exclusively for the person in charge of baseball stuff. And I would simply not abbreviate the president of business operations.

That's my feeling on it, I think. Because it's so confusing then, Penn, you know? And we've established Pobo as being about the baseball stuff, and so I think you have to keep it as being about the baseball stuff, because otherwise it's just simply, it's too much, you know? You drive yourself batty, and you don't want to introduce confusion. So I think you just say, tough Sam, no more baseball in your title, but you have an MBA now, so you have your own little bit of business that

you can tack on to the end of stuff. Yeah, that's what I would do. Okay. I think you're right. I'll abide by that ruling. Yeah. I was trying to like, could we do something with the you in business so that we could have like a po, po-bu-o, but no. What? Excuse me. Po-bu? Po-bu? No.

No. You got to reserve that. You got to save it for some- That's just president of business, I guess. That doesn't really work. Yeah. Yeah. You're not the president of business.

No, that's- Po-bu? What was the other one that you were doing? Po-Boo-Oh. That sounds like a venereal disease. Po-Boo-Oh. That sounds like a venereal disease. I think that you just got to stick with Po-Bo and the Po-Bros, you know?

Yeah. Okay. It's like a high lender situation. There can be only one. Yes, there can be only one. Yes, there can be only one. Well, my friends, that will indeed do it for today and for this week. Thanks as always for listening.

You can support Effectively Wild on Patreon by going to patreon.com slash effectively wild. The following five listeners have already signed up and pledged some monthly or yearly amount to help keep the podcast going, help us stay ad free and get themselves access to some perks. Asher, Susan Shamgar, Matt McNulty, Christopher Welter, and Zachary Guines, 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, autographed books, personalized messages, potential podcast appearances, discounts on merch and ad-free fan grass 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, never fear. You can contact us via email, send your questions, comments, intro and outro themes to podcast at fangraphs.com. You can rate, review and subscribe to Effectively Wild on iTunes and Spotify 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 show page at FanGraphs or the episode description in your podcast app for links to the stories and stats we cited today. Thanks to Shane McKeon for his editing and production assistance. We hope you have a wonderful weekend and we will be back to talk to you next week. the end stats. Yeah, yeah! Don't hear about picture wins or about gambling odds. All they want to hear about are my child athletic halls and the texture of the hair on the arm going out of one's ass. Gross, gross! Give me, give me, give me, give me affectively wild. Give

me, give me, give me, give me affectively wild. Give me, give me, give me, give me affectively wild. This is affectively wild.