Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 2434: Hold Your Dark Horses

Episode Date: January 31, 2026

Ben Lindbergh and Meg Rowley banter about the oddly timed end of Derek Falvey’s rein as POBOth for the Twins, Jacob Wilson’s extension and the promising but lopsided A’s, pillow contracts vs. trampoline contracts, which teams have had the most frustrating offseasons, dark-horse-candidate teams for 2026, and listener responses to their previous discussion of a Fellowship of the Ring baseball team. Audio intro: Daniel Leckie, “Effectively Wild Theme” Audio outro: Ted O., “Effectively Wild Theme” Link to The Athletic on Falvey Link to Favley Zoom meeting detail Link to FG payrolls page Link to MLBTR on Wilson Link to 2025 team batting WAR Link to 2025 team pitching WAR Link to team WAR projections Link to sowing/reaping meme Link to team offseason spending Link to FG offseason tracker Link to Rooker on aliens Link to Robertson retirement news Link to Crizer on opt-outs Link to EW wiki on trampolines Link to BP on inactive teams Link to Sheehan on inactive teams Link to The Athletic on trying tiers Link to projected team WAR Link to “dark horse” wiki Link to MLBTR on Evans Link to Mount Doom scene Link to Pasquantino news  Sponsor Us on Patreon  Give a Gift Subscription  Email Us: [e-mail]  Effectively Wild Subreddit  Effectively Wild Wiki  Apple Podcasts Feed   Spotify Feed  YouTube Playlist  Facebook Group  Bluesky Account  Twitter Account  Get Our Merch! var SERVER_DATA = Object.assign(SERVER_DATA || {}); Source

It's effectively wild, so stick around. Hello and welcome to episode 2434 of Effectively Wild. The Fangraphs Baseball podcast brought you by our Patreon supporters. I'm a rally of Fangraff, and I am joined by Ben Lindberg of the Ringer. Ben, how are you? From Pobos to no-bos, Derek Falvey, out as both president of baseball operations and president of business operations at the time. So we knew that you chewed.

Too much. You bid off too much. You can't do both of those jobs. It's an affront against front offices. And chewing. Yeah, that too. It's, it's, it's, it's, uh, you're just, you're daring to be smited. Smitten. Smited. I don't know. But if you, you take on those two jobs, I don't actually know what happened here. It doesn't seem like anyone does as we are. Yeah, it doesn't seem like it. No. More will come out, probably. But it's odd timing. for sure to have him out, what, like 10 days before pitchers and catchers report. They've had a whole offseason to part ways if they were going to part ways. And I know there's been a lot of upheaval with the twins and new minority owners and the, we are going to sell and no, we're not going to sell. And then there's a new control person.

There's a new poll ad in charge. So perhaps like meet the new bus. same as the old boss. I guess not the same, but still, same family, probably too close for comfort for twins fans. So maybe it had to do with all of that. Maybe there's history with him and Tom Pallad, or maybe he got frustrated with another kind of inactive offseason for the twins.

They're pitching this as a mutual parting of ways. But it's always hard to read between the lines on that to see whether it was, you know, It was mutual, but it was maybe more one person than the other. It's rarely just like, you know, the mutual option. It's rarely a 50-50 thing in a mutual situation. You're right to say that we don't really quite know what went on here. The timing is odd. I guess if you think you're going to do it, it's stranger still to let him persist in the role. and maybe it just took a while to arrive at the conclusion that the fit wasn't good anymore, but it would have been stranger, I suppose, if they had removed him from having baseball responsibilities in them. But Ben, like, no, but stay on and run the biz, won't you please?

Yeah. Wouldn't have been strange if they had just stripped him back to baseball only because there's kind of standards, but I don't know. Maybe he was stretched trying to do both of those jobs, and it had some. impact. It's really hard to assess the twins' whole situation over the past few years or to blame the front office for what just seems like ownership, just not really wanting to invest in this team. And then they went through the whole trade deadline sell-off and breaking down the bullpen and everything last year. And that was something that was probably to some extent

payroll mandated. And they just, they haven't had a whole lot of resources to work with there. Yeah, it's a, it's an odd, they're in an odd spot, just I think, organizationally right now, you know, you always are a little hesitant to speculate because there does tend to be reporting that emerges about these things and gives some amount of clarity to what went on and why the decision was what it was, when it was and what have you. But yeah, weird, a weird one. And since you're a multi-sport no-or now, you might also know, Ben, that the, the Minnesota Vikings also got rid of their G. Yes, I saw that. And in fact, Falvi was informed of that firing in the middle of his Zoom exit interview with the media. That's so weird. He was quite surprised that that had happened at the same time, which I guess it's a little late to be doing that in the NFL too. But it's especially late or early. I don't even know which in MLB. Yeah. Usually you see this sort of thing happening at the end of a season, at the start of an off season. And then everyone. has time to move on and explore other opportunities and bring someone in. So that's why you wonder, like, did some particular incident precipitate this? Because as Aaron Gleman noted, he was the lead speaker at the Twins' annual media luncheon a week ago.

So it doesn't seem as if they were sort of pushing him out in any obvious public way. So it seems like people are kind of flummoxed by it. Strange times. Yeah. Yeah, weird times. So Tom Pollad himself will be taking over in the interim as the president of business operations until they find a more permanent solution. Notably good businessman. I guess, yeah.

In good hands. And the GM, Jeremy Zell, will be promoted to lead the baseball operations side. I guess still GM, but like a real GM, what a GM used to mean. So anyway, it was less than a year that Falvi was Poe Both because he was promoted to the second slot last year on March 3rd. So didn't even quite make it 11 months just thumbing his nose in the eye of all that is right and proper in Major League Baseball and Sports trying to be the business guy and the baseball guy, Poe Both. I wonder whether we'll ever see it again. It's like a player manager or something. It's like it's over.

Maybe Falvi's the last po-both we'll ever see. Who knows? Perhaps. Yeah. Don't be a po-both and don't draft J.J. McCarthy. I think these are things we're learning. Yeah. I was going to say something about the twins payroll,

but you look at the other teams in that division. It's just like they're comparatively speaking pretty big spenders. It's like the twins are at 108 million, according to roster resource right now. the guardians are at 82 million. The White Sox are at 74. So the tigers are at 161. They're tops in the division, but they're 15th in baseball. So it's just AL centraling all over the place. Royals, 146. They're in the middle of the twins and the tigers. AAL centraling all over the place. That's quite some phrasing that you have committed to there, friend. We could say a division that lacks a particular kind of ambition, you know. Yeah, yeah.

I want to circle back to that a little later on this episode. I went with no-both just off the dome, just on off the top of my head. I hadn't prepared. Sure. I don't know whether just like no-bo. No-bo-bo. Your instincts were good because it has a nice symmetry with po-both, which is, I think, what we landed on. So I think your instincts steered you straight on that one.

Yeah, I guess unemployed. is another way to describe it. I'm sure he'll be able to... Kind of a rude way to describe it. I mean, accurate, but pointed perhaps. Well, it was mutual, as we know. So, you know, it was his doing as much as anyone else's, as far as we know at this moment.

But, yeah, there's always going to be some sort of reveal. And then you never know with the reveals. Is it the team that's trying to cast dispersions on the, you know, just like reveal airsome dirty laundry on the way out? Or is it the executive who's trying to portray things in a positive light for them so that they can catch on somewhere else? So it's always tough to discern the truth. Sure. Yeah.

Even with all the changes in leadership over there, the fact that this happened now at the very end of January. It's odd to say the least. Good. Yeah. So that Levine had already moved on. And now Derek Falvey has, after I think, a full decade just about. He was with the twins since 2016. So, yeah, a lot of changes over there.

And if they did leave because they wanted to go somewhere with a little less uncertainty, I know that Levine was just hired by the Brewers earlier this month as a special advisor. One of those kind of, it's almost like a pillow contract for a baseball executive, you know. You become like the assistant to the whatever someone. Yeah. Yeah. And then you can kind of, you know, bide your time, keep your name around. And then maybe someone comes along looking for a GM or a pobo and you have, you know, you kept your finger in. You've been in the game.

So. Yeah. Okay. We'll see where they end up next and where for the twins. Finger in the pie? Finger in the. Yeah, that's probably. The pulse.

Well, there's on the pulse. But in the pie? You wouldn't want to put it in the pie. Well, not if other people are going to be eating. Right, if you're going to eat the entire pie, which look, no judgment. These are trying times. Yeah. But a finger on the pulse.

Yeah. Toe in. You keep a toe in. You keep a toe in. But don't put those in pies either. I mean, yeah, it's, I guess you usually, you have fingers in every pie. It's like you're, you're touching all the pies. Because a finger in one pie, maybe that's acceptable.

But, yeah, it's the idiom, I think, is more about having. your finger in multiple pies, which is, it's greedy, you know. Yeah. It's too many pies. You're just wanting to be involved in everything. So, okay. We had an extension announcement shortly before we started recording. The A's have extended Jacob Wilson, shortstop.

Yeah. They're just putting together quite a collection of position players over there. Our buddy Brent Rooker and Lawrence Butler and Tyler Sauterstrom. And now Jacob. Wilson and of course Nick Kurtz they haven't had to extend yet because he was just a rookie this past year this is a seven year 70 million contract for Wilson so they've just they've locked up a lot of that core and wherever they're playing in a few years we have a pretty good sense of who at least will be playing for them and that's the real strength of this team and that's

something that makes them watchable and pretty exciting on the field but pitching is also important. I think if I could choose, one, if I could choose to build around position players or pitchers, I would choose position players. Sure. I would go the Cubs before the World Championship route of just... This is the Cubs theory of the case, yeah. Yeah. And obviously that core didn't turn into a dynasty, didn't stay together as long as people thought and hoped that it would. But it worked, mission accomplished. They won their World Series. And they're just, there is a a little less uncertainty if you can build around hitters just because pitchers, you know, there's so many injuries and you can't count on them long term.

And so if you had to choose one or the other, probably build around the bats and then supplement with the pitchers. But ideally, a little bit of both, you know, would be nice. So is there help there or on the way in that organization where you could kind of forecast a bit more balance. And, you know, it's not easy for them to recruit pitchers either in that ballpark. And they managed to sign Luis Severino. And then he seemed to have regrets about that. So even though they paid him a hefty amount to be happy about it. So I don't know. Is there any internal help on the way there pitching-wise? Morales is interesting, right? And they have gauge jump. Who's the top

one on our guy for us last year? I'm not sure where he's going to. going to line up in terms of this year's top 100. But he threw, you know, a starter, a big league starter's complement of innings last year to some success. He was a 2024 draft guy. So I don't, can he make the jump? I don't know, Ben. And of course, you know, they drafted Jamie Arnold and they have got her holland. So, and Mason Barnett. And so I think that they, you know, they have tried to to make some moves to forcibly conscript pitching because I do think that, you know, there will be some difficulty for them recruiting, particularly given the experience Severino has. Now, I imagine that they think about the extensions and the looming ballpark

change. Not that that's going to be like a super pitcher-friendly environment, but, you know, it'll be an obviously big league environment. So that'll help, right? And some of the maturation for these, for the young pitchers they have internally is sort of all sitting together. And I think, you know, if they anticipate there being a boost to their attendance and sort of the excitement when they move to Vegas, which just sound farther along than we maybe sometimes give it credit for from a construction perspective, it'll be very nice for them to get there and be like, well, we have cost certainty around a lot of the position player pieces here, right? You know, one of the things that pre-free agency extensions do is get you a discount and for a team like the athletics, one that is

probably meaningful, but also one of the things that they do is give you cost certainty. So if you think that, you know, Jacob Wilson is an important part of your core, if you think that Sodorstrom is an important part of your core, if you know that you have other, you know, vassertr, you know, valuable contributors like Kurtz, who are going to be around for a long time anyway, you can get to, hopefully, a new ballpark and say, well, this is a more attractive destination. And we know exactly what we're going to have to pay our starting lineup. So we can go spend some money on the free agency market. Hopefully some of these young pitching prospects hit. Well, they don't have to hit any more famously, but you know what I mean? They are successful. You know, if they continue to add in the draft,

It gives them more options. Maybe someone like Arnold's sort of ready for primetime by then. But also, in theory, you could go say to the market, hey, you don't have to play in Sacramento, though. You get to play in a shiny new ballpark in Vegas. Don't you love Vegas? Now, that's the way that a normal team would operate. Is that the way that the athletics will operate from a payroll perspective? I mean, assumes facts not in evidence, perhaps.

But I think that that would be the idea. Let's get this group on an understandable, sort of predictable schedule in terms of their payroll. And then when we're ready to move to the desert in a couple of years, hopefully, you know, good starting pitching comes with us. And again, some of these young guys are in, you know, they've seen big league time already. So it's a question of can they take a step forward? And, you know, as Dan noted when he ran his sort of first run of the Zips standings now that all the projections are done on a team by team basis, there is playoff potential for the A's in a number of the simulations. It happens more often and to greater effect if the pitching takes a step forward.

So there is a path dependency there, but it's not out of the realm of possibility because this is an intriguing position player group. This is an increasingly good group. You know, last year I was like singing their praises and people were like, man, you're crazy. You know, and said that. They said other things. about me. They mostly pretend to the Dodgers. But I think that like being able to have that be like

your contrarian pick, you know, when you're trying to have at least one or two zags when you're making your predictions, that's going to be hard to do. I think that the A's will be sort of a fashionable dark horse candidate, which isn't to say that like they're all the way there. But it's like, if you could kind of squint and see it, you know. Yeah. Yeah, this might come up later too. But yeah, there aren't that many dark horses, teams that have not been good that you can kind of talk yourself into making the playoffs this year. And they would be one of them, even if it's a little improbable because of the pitching. But here's what I'm talking about when I say that they're lopsided. So last year, they were 13th in position player war. Yeah. Smack dab in the middle of

the Astros and the Padres. So very respectable. Yeah. Playoff caliber position players. that's one team that made the playoffs and one team that was very, very close to making the playoffs and had ton of injuries along the way. So that was okay. But then the pitching, they were 27th. That's lost good. Only the Rockies, Angels, and Nationals had less valuable pitchers than the A's. That's not a great trio. It's good to be better than that trio, but they were barely better than that trio and worse than everyone else.

And that has not changed this winter because I'm looking at the team depth charts now, which incorporate Zips and Steamer, presumably. And this is just war, but war-wise, they project to be the 12th most valuable collection of position players. And they are between the Diamondbacks and Padres, two teams that certainly have playoff aspirations. They are above the Phillies. They're above the tigers. They're above the Brewers. They're above the Red Sox. My God.

And the Rangers and the Guardians. So they're very much playoff caliber when it comes to how the bat stack up. But the pitching, the news is no better. They have the fourth worst projection pitching-wise better than only. The Rockies, the Nationals, the Cardinals, and no, that's it. Because I said fourth worst. I was like, wait, how's that going to math out? Yeah.

So again, those are teams. It's such a dichotomy because if I sort by bat on this page, then the A's are grouped with all these potential playoff teams. And if I sort by pit, there's no pit on the field. There are no pitchers on the field for the A's. If I sort by pit, then they are with the projected seller dwellers and teams that have no hope. So it's quite a disparity. It's interesting, too, because, like, they do have, they moved. pitching at the deadline to go get to re. So, like, they, they are interested in some amount of

consolidation here, right? Like, it suggests that there might be room for them if they so choose to, like, do, like, consolidation trades and try to bring in pitching that way. You know, it sort of depends on how close and how important they think those guys are going to be for them ultimately. But I don't think you like move mason miller to go get leo de vries to then like flip him again that seems like an unlikely thing so it's just it'll be interesting to see kind of what direction they go here um but i do think that they have some options you know like they they are still constrained by their own unwillingness to spend money and i think you know they made their own bed as it pertains to having to play in sacramento so i'm not trying to like be overly sympathetic to this

here, but I do think that that is a legitimate impediment to their ability to sign, like, quality-free agents. Like, how long does Framberval does have to be unsigned before even a big contract from, I still always want to say Oakland, you know, I really do. I still always want to default to that where I'm like, I've said A's a lot. I've said athletics a lot. Let's pick a third thing. No.

I'm sure a lot of ace fans or former ace fans also want to say Oakland. It feels like I'm Robin and I'm not trying to. But, you know, I do think that they have like this legitimate constraint that is making it difficult for them to bob and weave in that space. Even if, you know, ownership woke up tomorrow and we're like, actually, I'd like to give you 50 million more dollars to spend. I don't know that they would necessarily be able to without a really dramatic overpay, attract pitching. But they have more options now. They do. Yeah.

And St. DeFries isn't even part of the projection. that I just cited that optimistic positive. Yeah, there is on the depth chart, on the Fancraft's depth chart, he is projected to get 35 plate appearances right now. I guess that's just a hedge, you know, maybe he debuts, maybe he comes up, gets a cup of coffee or something. So only point one war of that projection is attributable to Leo DeBries. So that's how many guys they have without even counting one of the top prospects in the game who's got up to AA. So he raked there in 21 games. Yeah, he's a young 19.

He did get an invitation to Big League Camp. So we'll see. We'll see him in spring. He's not, yeah, super distant. But when he comes, then you add him to, and if you have the other Max Muncie, like, if he could hit it all, if Denzel Clark could hit it all, it's just a lot of really interesting players there. Remember when Zach Gelloff came up and was amazing for like 300-point appearances? Yeah. And he hurt and also just wasn't good in 2024 and wasn't good last year when he was playing.

But yeah, I imagine if he had continued to be as good as he looked in that first extremely nice 69 games in 2023. But it turns out don't even need Zach Gell off to be good maybe because they have all these other guys. Anyway, it's an enviable collection of hitting talents. So if they could just balance it out a little bit. And of course, there's always the option to trade. And you could balance things out that way, but then you're robin, poor Peter, to pay Paul. And if you could keep that group of hitters together, but also develop some pitchers or signed some, even better. So I will be watching their career with great interest, I guess.

We shall see where they go. Okay. I will be engaged with professional baseball. Yeah. Okay. We talked the other day. I remember I don't know what the context was, but we were. We were talking about pillow contracts and whether the sort of contracts that we've seen lately qualify as pillows, because I rejected that suggestion. I was uncomfortable with the idea that it's a pillow unless it's a one-year deal. And so Zach Kreiser over at the bandwagon, he wrote about the history of this type of contract structure that we seem to be seeing more and more these days. And he drew the distinction between.

pillow and what he is coining, he's labeling it, a trampoline contract. So it's a, because it's sort of a springboard, I guess. I mean, it's, now, Jeff Sullivan, if he were here, he would say, be a trampoline contract. Be very careful. Yeah, that's. Stay away. Definitely, yeah, like, you don't want to get anywhere near a trampoline.

In this case, the trampoline is actually pretty good for these players because it gives them some security and safety, unlike an actual trampoline. which is just a death machine, or they can then use it to sort of propel themselves back into the market. I guess that's what Zach is getting at that they can bounce back immediately and test the market again

because they have an opt-out after a year or two. So I like the pillow versus trampoline distinction. Maybe we can adopt that. I think when I brought this up the other day, I cited the Adrian Beltray contract with the Red Sox as the classic pillow, the Ur-Pillow contract, and the one that I think Orris even kind of coined the term for that one. But what Zach reminded me about in the bandwagon here, I did not recall that although that was a one-year deal, it was a one-year deal with a player option, which had different salaries based on playing time incentives.

And so, as Zach writes, for all intents and purposes, it was a two-year deal with an opt-out, a trampoline deal. So he's actually reframing my understanding of what I thought was just the classic prototypical pillow contract. He's saying it was masquerading as a pillow contract. It was a trampoline all along. So maybe it's just the different terminology. Maybe if that deal were signed today, it wouldn't be a one-year deal with a player option. It would be a two-year deal with an opt-out or something. And then we know what happened next and it led to history and the Hall of Fame and his great second.

act with the Rangers or whatever act he was on. But he was trying to pin down the first of these. And according to his research, the first kind of classic trampoline deal example he could come up with was J.D. Drew, who ahead of the 2005 season, signed a five-year deal with the Dodgers. But it included an opt-out after year two, which he then exercised.

And he went to the Red Sox. And J.D. Drew was a Scott Boris client, as was Beltray. So it's really, when we talk about Boris, we talk about his puns all the time. But the thing that just still charms me about Boris's punning and hackneyed as it is, just he is such a power broker in baseball. And so the fact that that's what he does with his platform, I mean, that's not all he does with his platform, but that he uses his platform, parlayes that into. just this really kind of cringe-worthy stand-up routine a couple times every off-season. It just delights me because he is such a mover and a shaker. And this is another illustration of that, that he really has put his stamp on free agency and on the way that contracts are structured. And, you know, there's a whole history of him finding loopholes and exploiting them. And he's just, he's very clever.

He's pretty good, pretty good at the whole agenting thing, I think. It's safe to say, not a small sample when we're talking about Scott Boris. So this was him, I guess, kind of innovating in contract structure. And that's more than 20 years ago that Drew signed that deal. But as Zach documented, it has become increasingly common in the past several years. And he identified the winter of 2018 to 19 as something that may have sparked this increase in opt-outs, because that was the winter when Machado and Harper were free agents forever, and Craig Kimbril and Dallas Keichael sat out the first half of the season or so

because of the qualifying offer. And that was when the Dodgers tried to sign Bryce Harper on a Kyle Tucker-esque deal and didn't succeed at that time. But then after that, there was Nick Castellanos who had a trampoline contract with the Reds and then the Trevor Bauer deal with the Dodgers, and then the following offseason, a bunch of guys, seven of the top 25 free agents, as ranked by MLB trade rumors, had trampolines.

Carlos Correa, who had an unusual situation, of course, but Javier Baez, Marcus Schroman. Should a stay away from trampolines, Carlos? I know. With that ankle, yeah. And then it was Sean Mania did a couple after that. And then, of course, Bellinger and Blake Snell and Matt Chapman. and last winter, eight of the MLB trade rumors top 25 went for trampoline deals as classified them,

including Bregman and Alonzo. So this is happening more and more. And here's some interesting math that Zach did. He sort of stat blasted the trampoline contract and found that in a way, maybe it's much ado about nothing. Not much ado about nothing, but adieu. this, it kind of just, it equalizes like it comes out in the wash more or less. So here's what he found. He says, I averaged the expectations in reality of the 25 trampoline deals we've seen

resolve themselves since 2020, looking at the MLB trade rumors projections for the contract size, that is, the actual contract signed, and the contract that followed if an opt-out was used or leveraged for an extension. So the initial projected average deal. for these guys was 4.8 years and 104.9 million. And then the initial deals they actually got three years, so almost two years fewer than the projection, and 68 million, so almost 40 million less. And then the total money then was if you add in the resulting deal as well, whatever they signed when they trampolined back into the market, they ended up getting on the whole 4.3 years.

and 104.2 compared to the projection, which was 4.8 and 104.9. So almost exactly dead on. And then he looked at it in terms of the total expenditure resulting from those completed deals, which was $2.5 billion. And then the projected total expenditure on the initial deals from MBLV trade rumors, 2.5 billion. It's like $3 million apart in total. And that's not accounting for deferred money or inflation or whatever.

But it's basically exactly the same. So these guys who in many cases have had to settle or have decided to settle for the trampoline contract, if you account for what they get then and then what they get when they then reenter the market, it works out exactly the way that it was projected to. So in that sense, the math just kind of works out just as projected. I wonder if I don't want to like blow smoke at Scott Boris, but it suggests to me that he is more often than not correctly gauging who the beneficiaries of this shortened initial structure will be. Does that comport with your read of this data, right? Because it's like we looked at, you know, you look at someone like Bregman this year

or Pete Alonzo, who we had spent. spent like a year kind of feeling bad for that he hadn't taken that initial extension offer from the Mets, right? And you look at Matt Chapman, like all of these guys. And Snell, yeah. And Snell kind of end up making good in the end. Now, I imagine some amount of that is good luck on their part, right, that they stay healthy, that they don't have a year of underperformance or whatever but like if you're if you're a free agent i i don't know that like that shortened contract is necessarily feeling so so much like settling right because it's like you can look at the market and be like well i don't know belliger got his right like ultimately it worked out for bregman like

it ended up being fine for match at man i'm sure that you would prefer the the longer locked in amount but you know this is this is kind of gone okay for these guys and I do wonder if, you know, some of this is the ones, at least the ones who are Boris clients, kind of ultimately ending of getting kind of good advice, right, that they properly gauged that they would have an opportunity to reenter the market and then sort of make good in the way that they wanted to. I don't know. I find that interesting because it's like, I feel like we're always having this meta-conversation, not always, but often having this meta-conversation about, like, has Boris lost a step, right? Is the fast politics slower than,

it used to be. And I think kind of not really, you know, it's the, the puns are objectively worse, you know, that part not working out great for Scott. Sorry, Scott. Like, you need a writer's room badly. But these deals are kind of going okay. Now we'll see how the ones that got signed to this offseason end up comporting themselves. And if there's a desire to even opt out, because I think some of these deals like to have opt-outs built in, you know, it's like, it's like, it's like, like Clemens said about Bellinger, it's like, is this him having an opportunity to reenter the market or should we think about this as like a five-year deal with like a tiny escape hatch in case he like pops an MVP season or whatever. So I don't know. I'm just, I think it's, I think it's

interesting. Like we end up with the benefit of hindsight on this stuff and it's like, I don't know, it's got that's okay. I think so. There might be some cases where they were just sort of forced into it because that was what the market offered. And then sure, sure, after the fact, we planned this all along. We were brilliant, but yeah. Again, I think that they would prefer to have a longer deal, but, you know, it ends up be it okay, or maybe the better way to put it is like the guys who end up opting out are the ones where it worked out. The other guys just don't.

Yeah, it is a really marked difference, though, because you used to have opt-outs that would come in the middle of a long-term deal, and often they didn't really get exercised. Zach dates that to the A-Rod's deal, which did get exercised, but in many cases they didn't, and it was hard to know exactly how to value those. But yeah, now we have really sort of front-loaded the opt-outs in a way that feels distinct, even if it does date back at least to J.D. Drew, and someone will write in and tell us about some precedent everything that's happened before at some point, but maybe that's the modern-ish precedent. But a couple of things occurred to me.

One is when we were talking about that pass in line about how the next couple free agent classes look weak. And I was connecting that back to when I wrote something for BP more than a decade ago about how, oh, is free agency dying? Because everyone will sign extensions. And it's true that if you look at the guys who are going to reach free agency the normal way that the classes don't seem inspiring. But they could get stronger because some guys break out and really raise their stock in the internet. term, they could get weaker because some guys who are projected to be free agents won't end up being them because they will sign extensions themselves or they'll get hurt or something. But also, if we have this arrangement where guys are sort of serial free agents, just repeat free agents because

they keep testing the market and then coming right back. So maybe next year's class looks kind of weak, but then Bobichette could be back on it and Michael King could be back on it. And maybe Tatsuya I I has a good debut year and he's back on there. And then it'll be time for Bellinger and Tucker to come around again if they want. Or, you know, it's like Bregman and Alonzo just did that. So maybe we can't exactly write those guys off when you're looking ahead to future free agent classes. You really have to remember to scan all of the opt-outs because that could dramatically change things. And so, yeah, it could just be, it also, I guess it gives you some, some flexibility. So maybe your skill set in a particular market.

Maybe it's something that's affecting the market as a whole. If you were hitting the market after the lockout or the pandemic or whatever it is, and maybe that was just depressing spending. Or if it was just that there weren't a lot of teams with a need for you and your particular skill set or the position you played that time. So give it another role and see how you do the next time. Or maybe you think I could be even better, you know, If you're Kyle Tucker, Bobichette, you're pretty appealing as it is.

But you might think, yeah, but what if I don't get hurt later in the season? And I'm fully healthy and no one has to worry about my knee or anything else or whether I can hack it for a full season. And maybe if I remove that last little stain on my record of this one thing that might give teams pause, then I could test the market again. And if I don't, well, at least I got myself a few years here. So it's not like I have to be back on the market next year. I could buy my time. So it does give you a bunch of bites at the Apple, I suppose. And it seems like players are preferring that more than just the safety, the long-term security of knowing that you have a gig,

at least for certain players in certain positions in certain years. But more and more of them, I mean, we're up to like a third of prominent free agents now kind of come into the conclusion that that benefits them. Plus, as we mentioned, the qualifying offer benefit of not being subject to that the second time around. I do wonder, though, if part of the calculus, so like you want, you're in an interesting spot for the guys who had a qualifying offer and have an opt-out. And I do wonder if the guys who have an opt-out after one year next year, if the teams are sort of looking at that, like, they're probably going to not exercise that because they'll be worried about the lockout. Do you think that there's, like, I do wonder how that piece of it is factoring into the payroll calculus for clubs. I don't know. It's just, like, and that's specific perhaps to this market.

And I imagine this is a structure that's going to persist past this year, obviously. But I do wonder about that as a wrinkle. Or like the guys who have it after the second year who may or may or may, I mean, I guess they're going to know whether or not they played that year. That's the thing about time you can remember the stuff that happened before. But it is just like how that. opt-out decision plays next off-season is going to be fascinating because they'll have to make that choice before, as we've discussed, you'll have to make that choice before December 1st, which is when the agreement expires. So I don't know, Ben. Yeah. The other thing, I think Zach touched

on this too, but from a fan perspective, I think on the one hand, okay, so we know that teams like this because they get to avoid the back end. Hey, it's another another, another, meaning of back end that we can apply at the back end of the contract, where the player is old and declining, and you're sort of locked into that deal that you signed when they were young and in their prime. And for a long time, it was okay. Well, they'll front load the production and we'll make more than, we'll get more than our money's worth in the first few years. And then on the backside of that deal, then we'll sort of pay the piper. But if you can avoid that, it seems like teams are pretty happy to pay a premium in the short term, even in some cases

a super premium because they're over a competitive balance tax threshold, if they can then avoid paying that player until they're 39 or whatever it is. But from a fan perspective, I wonder whether there's a downside in that you can't quite get attached to a player. If you're a Mets fan, are you really going to form an affinity for a bond with, say, Bo Boshet. and is there any part of you that's conflicted? Because the better they do, well, that's good. You want to root for your players to do well because it helps your team do well. But the better they do, the more likely you are to lose them.

So there is kind of a conflict there where you know that if that deal's paying off, then they're going to leave you again, right? Or at least they're going to test the market. And so that was the thing. It's like, okay, if you sign Juan Soto for $1.00. 15 years. Yeah, there's probably some part of like the back of your mind. You're thinking, well, how long is he going to play the field? Can he even play the field now? You know, what's it going to be like when he's 40? But that's also kind of not your problem. It's not your money

as a fan. It's only your problem in the sense that it might preclude your team from doing something. And if you're his own by Steve Cohen, then that might not even apply. I was just, I was just going to say, like, if you're, if you're ranking, if you're ranking the potential concerns of the fan bases that have guys signed to these deals, I would put the Mets at the bottom just because your ability, whether it ends up being true or not, to talk yourself into the idea that, well, Uncle Steve will just give him a new offer. Pretty high, you know? Yeah, yeah. And it's so far down the road you can think, ah, that's a problem for the 2030s, you know?

Like we won't have to, let's just, we'll reap the rewards right. now we'll stress about the sewing leader yeah worry about the for for the 15 year guy worry about it later for the on an option guy don't worry you can what i'm saying is you can talk yourself into not having to worry at all because you can just be like hey uncle steve will just blow bow away you should all be embarrassed about the uncle steve stuff i want to continue to say that because it's important that we keep our eye on the price here you know yeah it's uh it's a little i don't know paternalistic or what's the avuncular, avunculistic, I don't know, anyway. Avunculistic.

I don't think avunculistic is a word, but now I want it to be one. But I don't want it to apply to C-Cone, so I'm in a bind. I feel like I spent all my Friday energy on Wednesday. I'm trying to locate it mid-episode and I'm working on it. I want you to know I also hear me sounding kind of down, and I don't feel down especially, so I'm going to try to be up for the rest of the way here. I reverse the sewing and the repping. You do the sewing first, and then the reaping comes. And maybe the reaping is bad if you sign someone to a 15-year deal. But yeah, it's not quite as much your problem. And also it's a problem for another day. But the opt-out coming after a year or two, that is sort of your problem as a fan because you know, well, I might lose this guy. And the better he plays, the more I will be happy we have him. But the likelier it is that we won't have him for very long. So you can't really count on anything, of course. in the game. Like, you know, anyone could get traded.

Anyone could get hurt. Things happen. But when someone is a free agent or has an opportunity to be a free agent and when the odds of them testing free agency increase with their performance, then, yeah, there's got to be a little bit of a conflicted feeling there. Whereas if you sign someone to a 10-year deal and they come out of the gate just crushing and raking, it's like, oh, and we have this guy for so long, you know? whereas it could just end up being a one-year deal

and you might miss them even more. So I don't know. I think that does sort of affect the fan experience because you look at all the moves that the Mets have made this offseason and it's a new look team as we covered last time, but it also might not be a look that lasts for that long because Freddie Peralta, Luis Roberts, Boba Chet,

like these guys are going to be back on the market sometime soon if they don't sign extensions or something. Yeah. Again, I think that they, if you're a Mets fan, and I don't think this is like cope or whatever, I think you can probably reasonably talk yourself into a couple of those guys being on the roster in 2027, assuming we play baseball, because not all of them will opt out. Some of them will just end up signing new contracts, and it'll, it'll be okay. You know, I think it's, like encouraging Mets fans to be optimistic.

It's dangerous, yeah. It's dangerous, but also, like, try some things. new, you know, and I also think that the Mets fans, they're really tired of hearing about it, you know, about the Metsing. And that's fine. You're in a different, you're in a different era. Let you define your own era. It could be a different, it could be different, you know. It's pretty to think so, at least. So the thing I wanted to ask you about is which, which teams inactivity has frustrated you most this offseason? Because we talked last time about how news has been slow lately.

And I've seen some other people remarking on that or producing pieces to that effect. Baseball prospectus did a piece the other day about six teams putting the off in offseason. And Josheon had an addition of his newsletter where he listed some of the teams that have not been busy. And the athletic did a tier of teams that are trying and not trying. So I guess it's only natural when we're lamenting the lack of. of moves lately. And granted, most of the moves have been made. So that's why they're not being made now. They were made previously. But there's still some moves to make that are not being made, and there are some teams that just kind of never got off the mat this winter. So, you know,

some of them, maybe it's a little less frustrating just because they're so bad and hopeless that it's just like a lost cause regardless. If they were to acquire someone, it wouldn't change their short-term fortunes in an appreciable way. But which teams maybe stand out to you, and we can talk about which one stand out to me, too, as just like, hmm, do something. Why didn't they do something? They seem to be in a position to have done something, and they didn't. I've been thinking about this question since that piece ran at BP. I thought that their collection was a well thought out one, although some of this, I think, has to do with what are your expectations relative to what they have done, right? So, like, I didn't expect the guardians

to do anything during the off season. You know, to say they've done nothing is wrong. They extended Jose Ramirez, and they've made some bullpen moves, but it's been a pretty quiet couple of months from them. But then again, I expected them to have a couple, quiet couple of months, right? I didn't really expect much of the reds because I so rarely do. I think that the tigers are pretty high on this list for me. I'll let you maybe talk about the marriage to the extent that you want to, and then I can circle back around to them because I'm of two minds about Seattle, and I'm trying to have one of those minds be from a place of objective analysis rather than just fanning.

And it is the side that is maybe less annoyed by their inactivity than I think some been. But the Tigers, to me, really stood out because you have the combination of stakes, and I would understand their stakes to be, hey, you only have one more guaranteed year of school bowl, and also the expectation of the last season's success, right, that you were able to get to the playoffs, even though, you know, things looked dicey. So you brushed up against, you brushed up against your own mortality, but then we're able to push through it. And also, you don't know for sure you're going to have scoble for that much longer because it seems like you're not going to spend big money. So I found their offseason to be a little puzzling because they're not a bad

team and they were obviously a playoff team, but I think they are a team that could stand to be upgraded in a couple of spots and they've opted not to do that. And I find that disappointing because, you know, how long are you going to be good? Well, for sure, maybe only one year or more. And that's not to say they haven't done nothing, but what they've done has been sort of underwhelming relative to what I would like them to do. I think they would probably say, hey, Meg, you dope, don't you remember we play in the AAL Central?

Haven't you just talked about the diminished expectations and the lack of ambition? And to that, I would say, sure, but think about how much. you could seem like you're being ambitious with just a little bit more. And I'm sorry, it does take a little bit more than like Kenley Jansen, you know, or Drew Anderson or, you know, they've made moves that I think are not bad from a, from like a, you know, reinforcing the bullpen perspective. But like have a have a little bit more ambition. Yeah, that's pretty much it. Yeah, they reinforce the bullpen. They resigned Kyle Finnegan.

Yeah, they rescind Glaber Torres, but yeah, it's not a lot. But then it's not a lot. And so I think I would put the Tigers high on that list. They have the combination of stakes and also opportunity, opportunity to be just a little bit more ambitious, having a tremendous benefit within the context of the Central. So I think Detroit is pretty high on my list. I don't know that I need to say all that much more about my frustration

with Baltimore's approach to their rotation. But I'll just reiterate that despite the movies they've made, I got to get one more, you guys. You still could use one more. He still could use a dude. Yeah, I said the other day just like sign Framber and be done with it. Right. MLB Trade Rumors did a poll, a survey of its readers. Who do you think will sign Framver?

And the Orioles were number one by a lot. It was like 30% of the respondents said Orioles and no one else was above 10% or something. From Burmur's market is strange perplexing. I don't know whether it has anything to do with the character concern stuff that we talked about last year with like the maybe intentional possibly cross-up of his catcher or what or whether it's just other stuff or there's always going to be someone who's like the last prominent free agent out there. But yeah, that just makes so much sense if the Orioles would just sign him, you know, Astros connections, former Astros connections, just go. get that done. And if things go wrong for you in the season, then no one will really fault you because you kind of did what everyone demanded that you do finally. So yeah, but I'm with you on the Tigers. And if anything could have illustrated for them that they do have more work to do,

it was the way last season ended. I mean, I know that they ultimately triumphed over the Guardians in the Wild Card series, but the fact that they were like second place in the Central, I mean, that they were overtaken by the Guardians. That could have been a wake-up call. Like, hey, yeah, you've got some good players here, but it's just not exactly a powerhouse. And you have Terek's scruple for maybe just one more a year. So make the most of that.

So, yeah, go get someone. So that has been a good one. I don't think there's any statute of limitations that expires on being frustrated with the Ohio teams. I'm with you on, well, what did you expect? So it's not surprising, but you could still be disappointed. Or if you're not disappointed, you could still disapprove. It's just especially if you're going to sign Ramirez and sort of semi-restructure the next few years of his deal, which was described as a way for maybe them to have a little more spending room,

well, then do that to spend. So I don't know, just get an outfielder for once, like sign a Harrison Bader or something. I mean, I know you have DeLotter coming in, but it's just, yeah, it's year after year after year. And so it's the opposite of surprising. It's completely predictable. But that just makes it all the more frustrating. And I know, you know, you hope that Bezana will come up and contribute and that his walk rate will survive the promotion. And they've got those young guys, I know.

but and yes, they're perennially close to contention or in the playoffs, and they do manage to just keep coming up with pitchers. So all credit to them in their developmental acumen in their front office for making it work one way or another. But it's the classic, as you say, playing on hard mode where just like one major signing every now and then would just really put you over the top potentially. And there are always so many obvious places for them to up. grade. You know, there's always some clear positional needs where if you just plugged in just like even an average player or something and not have to try to figure it out on the fly, like they just, they really were not a good hitting team at all last year. And you could

project some improvement from holdovers and rookies and everything, but just go get a bat. I just, it shouldn't be an impossible ask. So year in and year out, it's the same with them. And yeah, the Reds. The Reds just have, as usual, not given us much reason to talk about them this winter. So can you blame us for ignoring the Reds? What are we supposed to talk about with the Reds? They've done so, so little this winter. I'm looking at the handy-dandy off-season tracker at Roster Resource.

And, man, it is, you know, filter out the minor league contracts. And there's just J.J. Bladay. I'm like, it's Pierce Johnson. I mean, Rock Burke, come on. Just get me a little excited, you know? They just, they squeaked into the playoffs, just barely and didn't last long there. And that was nice that they made it back. But, yeah, have some ambitions here, you know, do something to convince Ellie that he might want to stick around,

aside from paying the man, which you will also have to do, but also. do something to reassure him that this is going to be a competitive team for the rest of his career. So, yeah, very, very deflating offseason for that franchise. You're not excited about being able to say, brock. Rock, Burke. Yeah. Brack, Burke. How do you feel about the Mariners' offseason, Ben?

Well, it started well. And then it was kind of over, I guess, almost before it began. So retaining Nailer, that was nice. Yeah. And trading for Ferrer. I think that was a good pickup. If you're not going to really have room for Harry Ford, I get that. And then Ref Snyder comes in.

And then I guess that was it. That was pretty much a wrap. So I'm more forgiving of that just because I do think the Mariners are good. Yeah. And so, yes, obviously a team in their position. where it's not as if you, you know, can move from not making the playoffs forever to taking the playoffs for granted, but they do seem like clearly the best team in that division. And they have, you know, I guess you could say they did some work during last year. And they brought in Naylor and then they kept him.

And that was a good fit for them. And you hope that they'll get better health and production out of the pitchers, which seems reasonable to expect. because that was the hope, that was the expectation coming into last year. And then they were maybe more of an offensive team than anticipated. So some bouncebacks, I guess there aren't that many places, even though they've lost some guys too, like Polanco left. And, you know, so I don't know, what's the greatest need right now when you look at this roster, which is, it's pretty strong, pretty well-rounded.

So I would never say, like, take your foot off the gas because you're the Mariners and you've never made a World Series. And you'd really like to do that at some point. So press your advantage while you have it and while the rest of the division is not too intimidating. But also, even though they sat out much of the winter, they do still stack up fairly well. So I guess I'm a little less up in arms about the Mariners because they have a lot of arms. They do. They are in a spot right now where they kind of are anticipating some combination of their top prospects making the opening day roster or like a load bearing Ben Williams in it third. And I don't know how great an idea that is.

Yeah. Great fielder. Yeah. Not sure that guy can hit a lick, but the glove is legitimately quite special. so he has big league utility, I think, but... Gino's still out there. Gino is still out there. And, you know, I think that what they would say is that, like, their top position player prospects are in a spot where, like, they can grab some sort of role, right?

Where if Cole Emerson has a good spring, might just be on the opening day roster, right? So... Literally the minute after I was talking about how many arms they have, Jeff Passon tweeted that Logan Evans had Tommy Johnson. on surgery. Oh, really? Yeah. That's too bad. One arm down.

One arm down. Yeah. You started with Logan and I was about to be like, you were being awful casual about the really bad news you're about to deliver to me unadulterated on Mike, but Evans instead of Gilbert is, sorry, Logan, Evans, a trade I will take. Ben, you just scared me so bad. I still feel like my level's low. Not my mic level, just like my level, but who.

I was like, that's. one way to get me get me going in the up oh poor Logan Evans that's too bad anyway if I'm going to accuse the centrals collectively of a lack of ambition I could say the same thing of the

a ALS which is like hey some of you need to perk up a little bit and if you're the Rangers you're like well make we traded for McKenzie Gore and I'm like sure but like you know you're projecting kind of mid right now the East has been so active and busy and then their teams you know, like, that I think have legitimately been trying to be busier than they've been

and just have been outbid or or bamboozles in some way by their own expectations. Like, I think the Phillies really wanted Bobuchette and get him. So there's that. The Dodgers could be busier. Yeah, I would put the pirates in this class because the bar is set so low for the pirates. that I guess this does look like an active off-season for them. Sure. But it hasn't really been that big an upgrade or that big an outlay.

And there was all the big talk or reporting at least about how they had money to spend and they're primed to spend and all this stuff. And they haven't ended up spending very much. It's like they have committed, I think, I'm sorting the spot track off-season spending and I'm scrolling down and I'm scrolling down and I'm scrolling down. And I finally got to the pirates there at about 37 million almost. It's, you know, it's Ryan O'Hern. And I know that they made some other moves and they made some trades and they did get Brandon Lau.

And it's just the batting bar is set so low for them too. That's just getting any kind of competent hitter is good, I guess. Yeah. Okay, they got Jake Mangum, they got Brandon Lau. These are all upgrades for the pirates, but it would have been nice if they had managed to sign some major impact bat. That would have been good. And I know everyone's super excited, of course, about Connor Griffin, Best Prospect in Baseball. The buzz about him is building and understandably so.

And he will help. But that just seems like all the more reason. Like you have Paul Skeens, the best young pitcher in baseball. You have the best prospect in baseball, Connor Griffin. You have this really promising homegrown rotation. You have hopefully Jared Jones coming back. You have Bubba who came up late last year. And so you can maybe expect a full year of Bubba Chandler.

And just there's so much to like there. and the pitching was pretty impressive already, and just like one major move for a bat, and yes, I know that they would have to persuade someone to sign there too, and maybe some players would be understandably reluctant about playing their long-term or even signing a trampoline contract there. But if they would do that, if Bob Nutting would not nut and would just pull out all the stops

and say, I'm going to pay through the nose to get whoever named top free agent who signed some deal with an opt-out or something. And maybe that would be better because if you're not signing a 10-year deal with the pirates and locking yourself into that, you could just kind of test the waters and give them a year or two and see if they actually make good on promises. And if you can get closer to contention and if they don't, then you're out of there. And not that much harm done. But yeah, imagine what they would look like if they had just landed. one of the big bats instead of settling for O'Hern and Lao and Mancom.

Yeah. Trying to see how they stack up in terms of lopsidedness, which is where we started this episode with the A's. But last year, let's see, the pirates in terms of pitching war in 2025 were fourth. Fourth best in baseball. So it's maybe even more extreme and lopsided. because, yeah, fourth-best pitching team by Fangraph's War and batting 28th, better than only the Rockies and the White Sox. Man, the Rockies, dude.

Well, yeah, they're going to be at the bottom of every possible leaderboard seemingly, but depending on which way you sort it. But, yeah, so their terms of projections for 2026, let's see how they stack up pitching-wise pirates. We got Red Sox, Dodgers, Phillies, Tigers, Braves, Mariners, Blue Jays, Reds, Pirates. So they are very much there. They're above the Yankees. And yet, if I sort now by batting war, let's see, how far. Okay, they are seventh from the bottom. Rockies, White Sox, Nationals, Angels, Reds, Marlins below them.

So, yeah, sort of similarly lopsided, maybe even more pitching. better pitching than the A's have hitting. What we need to do, clearly, is merge the A's and the Pirates. And then you would have a sort of super team. Making a super team. Yeah, you'd have the A's young position player core, and you'd have the Pirates pitching and profit. You'd have one of the best teams in baseball if you could just put the pirates and the A's together. And you'd also have an actual Major League payroll.

And a Major League ballpark. Yes, a nice one even. Yeah. Gosh, this is a great idea. One of the better ones, I mean, I say this having never been there, but one of the best ones to watch on TV. My Sim League team plays in PNC. Nice.

Yeah. I've made multiple visits and it lives up to the building. Really nice place. Nice city. But not a great collection of position players still. So, well, I've come up with the perfect solution. And this is how they solve the issue. They just smash the two rosters together in some sort of super collider.

And we end up with some pirates A's-like substance that is really good on both sides to the ball. Oh, you get a big mess. Yeah. But failing that, contracting one of these teams combining those two teams, just would it have killed them? It might have actually killed Bob Nudding to spend more money. put them in a super collider, it might kill them. That might kill. Yeah, that's true.

We can't do that to our friend, Brent Roker. No, he won't be able to come back on the podcast. The next time we have Brent on the show, we should tell him about how we propose putting him in a super collider and see how he responds. Because who knows, you know, he started with like weather Twitter. And he could end up down some, some like physics rabbit hole. And he might be like, honestly, I'll do it for science. Or he might say to his agent, don't.

book me on that show again. He's an intellectually curious sort. Yeah, I agree. Yeah. Next time we have him back, we got to talk about aliens because I was researching him further and he has weighed in on aliens and their existence. He has? Yeah, a subject that I'm interested in.

So we'll get his thoughts on that next time he's back. But yeah, because I was saying, like, how many legitimate dark horse candidates are there? And to be a dark horse candidate, you have to be good enough that it's not that big a surprise if it actually works. So you're not like the out of nowhere team. You're such a surprise team. I was say pedantically that like if everyone picked you to be a surprise team, then are you really a surprise team? Yeah, it's kind of like with the Jose Ramirez's most underrated player in baseball, but everyone thinks that. Is it still true in that case?

So how many teams actually fit that bill for you? Like weren't good, didn't make the playoffs. but you think they have a legitimate chance. I'd probably put the A's and the pirates in that category without even combining them in the Super Collider. But who else really? Even absent an experiment that no university would allow that, would not get through internal review. Oh, this is a good question. And I do think my definition around it is not yet as fully realized.

or particular as yours, but I think I feel about the term Dark Horse, the way that you maybe feel about breakouts, where we were being a little too loosey-goosey with Dark Horse as a way of describing clubs because we are often, I feel like I see it applied to teams that are like two wins away from the postseason

in the year before. I'm like, that's not a Dark Horse team. That's a, that's a, you'd be better, served describing them as an also ran than a dark horse, you know. What are my dark horse teams? Here for me is the team that I think is a dark horse and maybe I'm defying my own. No, I think I'm right. Here's our Friday energy.

I think the Marlins are my dark horse team for 2026. Yeah, I was going to mention them. But see, if you're going to mention it, then it's just too obvious. I wasn't going to mention them with conviction, though. Yeah. Oh, okay. As long as it's a weak dark horse. You know, it's like one of those ones that, like, needs more hay, you know?

It's almost an invisible horse. It's like just blending into. An invisible horse? That's not a, but then doesn't that. Well, we'll stipulate that anything could happen, that any team that, I mean, I don't think the Rockies could take the playoffs. I don't think that to call them a dark horse, they actually have to be like, you don't have to be like a dark colored horse.

No. Right. Yeah. No. It's just a figure of speech. Dark horse. hope it's nothing terrible. See, this is always the danger.

You're like, what does that mean? And then you're like, a guy with calipers came up with it. And you're like, no, not again. So many of you who Genesis. Gosh, darn it. Stop it. Put those away. They have no place in a civilized society.

Get out of here with them. Wikipedia says the term began as horse racing parlance for a racehorse that is unknown to gamblers and thus difficult to establish betting odds for. Okay. That seems fine. why it's dark in particular, but... Because you're in the dark. Yeah, I guess you're in the dark about it.

Right? Because you're in the dark about the horse. So the horse could be any color, you know? Yeah. It could be like the horses in Wizard of Oz. Remember, they change colors? Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

All right. We're getting into the Friday energy and I haven't even opened a beer. So I think that my pick would be the Marlins at this juncture because I feel like I can't go back to the A's well, you know? and they're not going to be a dark horse. It's like I said, like they're going to be too popular. They're going to be fashionable. They're going to be a fashion. Can you have a fashionable dark horse pick?

Are you then out of the realm of dark horse? Again, like how surprising do they need to be? How, when do they need to have fallen out of playoff contention the season before? And what, there's some sweet spot between the, the, the, falling out of postseason contention the season prior. and their like pre-season playoff odds. Like our extra extra our playoff odds are going to go live on Monday at Fangraphs. Everybody get ready to be grumpy about stuff because that's the way that we interact with this now, I guess.

But we'll be launching the odds on the playoff odds on Monday because Zips is ready. And so it's in, we have it. It's running. Go, go, go. Zip, Zips. But all of that to say. I think the Marlins are a good choice because people still make, some of this too is like, how much fun does the Internet make of you?

You know, you have to be made fun of at least some. I made fun of the Marlins a couple weeks ago. I was like, the East is a Sciop and also the Marlins are there. But I think the Marlins would be a dark horse choice. You do have, I think that to be like a credible dark horse, you have to be, you have to have one part of the roster that is like legitimately respectable, you know, like the Marlins, I think, will have respectable pitching. And they, they have like at least one good outfielder. And that's something, you know? Yeah, I guess it depends a little bit on the audience, too,

which is something people sometimes say about. This is the problem with breakouts. Yeah. Which I tend not to look at it as a breakout in terms of raising your national profile. I tend to Think of it more as performance. But if you do regard it as this player will go from being largely unknown to being a national name, a household name. Okay. But for a dark horse, I think it depends on the audience as well. Because we lead this episode talking about, oh, look at all these interesting position players, the A's have. And your average baseball.

Couldn't name a single one of them. Exactly. Right. They couldn't even name good friend of the show Brent Rucker. Probably not. Yes. Not good. He's been an all-star. Two-time all-star. Yeah. So I think it depends on just reading the room, really.

Like, for many people, the A's might be a dark horse because they haven't thought of them and they don't know who is on them and they haven't made the playoffs in a while. And it might be a surprise to your casual follower of the sport or someone who's not plugged in the way that, of course, all effectively wild listeners are. They're quite plugged in. Yeah, so it might be a surprise. Great names on the Marlins, man. There are a lot of really good names on the Marlins. Jacob Marcy is one of my... I feel like I should be saying it in a spooky way

every time I say Jacob Marcy's name. Yeah, that's a phone one too. So, yeah, the effectively wild audience. And by the way, we welcome the nubs as well. If you are new and just learning, then we are happy to hold your hands as well. We don't want to gatekeep. This is not exclusively for the sickos,

that we do tend to attract some sickos. Yeah, but we convert some casuals into sickos. So that's our purpose. That's the function we fulfill. So, yes, I think it is Dark Horse's audience dependent. But I think A's might be too obvious for us, but Marlins would not be, I think. Because Marlins are sweet spot. Yeah.

Now they were in contention late last year. They were. But not in a really serious way where anybody was buying them, I guess. So, yeah, I think they qualify. you could put the twins in that category. They've kind of perennially been in that lately where it's just like, well, they're not bad. Which I guess makes them a candidate

for the inactive frustrating offseason list as well for the third offseason running or whatever it is because, as usual, they haven't done a whole lot. And it seems like they're good enough. They have a high enough floor that if they could just try to raise that ceiling by doing some stuff,

then they could have faulted themselves into a more competitive position in that division. So you could put them on that list. I guess you could maybe count the royals. I don't know if they're far enough removed from their. Yeah, I don't think you can have a team that was as recently in the playoffs as the royals were as a dark horse. Also, they have one of the best players in baseball on their teams.

Yes, yes. That makes it a little harder. Yeah, his national profile, Bobby Witt Jr., is lower than it should be, probably, just because he has been overshadowed by Otani and Judge. But do you think that's because they're taller? Not exclusively, but partly. But yeah, like they're, I meant that more in terms of their offseason, which has been, and they've, you know, they've had some aggressive years lately. But this offseason has not been especially busy or active for them.

You know, they made the Isaac Collins trade. They're a couple minor moves, but yeah, not a lot of big additions there. And I've also mentioned my just frustration or just it's like the soporific offseason that the Giants have had. Just, you know, kind of okay pickups, but nothing that changes their outlook from the stubbornly 500 team that they have been for the past few years. So I might group them into that category. Not that I think they conceivably could have really like, we're taking down the Dodgers this year, but at least to make themselves a more realistic wildcard candidates. I think they could have done more maybe.

Oh, yeah. And yeah, I don't know if they count as Dark Horse either because they've been close-ish. Like, could you talk yourself into the raise? I don't, you know, I don't know that I could really. Obviously, it's just a meat grinder of a division. And so they're the one team that really hasn't gotten better, hasn't gone for it. they've made many moves, but putting them in particle accelerators.

Supergladders, yeah. Regrinders. Just smashing bodies together in all sorts of grisly ways. Yeah. So I don't know. Like, I guess it wouldn't shock me if they pulled some sort of raise.

They had some sort of raise trick up their sleeve and managed to be better than expected and projected. But, yeah, unless we count the twins, just because that franchise has just been kind of more abundant. lately. I think you can count them because they're in an interesting spot where like there is a, there is a fairly large gap between the popular perception of the team and the way that they are projected. Like, they don't project terribly. They project respectively. And they play in the central.

So, yeah, no. But I do think that like the, the understanding of them, in large part, because of how aggressively they moved guys at the deadline last year. So it's not like an unearned perception. You know, they are thought to be, I think, worse than, certainly worse than they're projected, they're projected to be, and I think worse than they are. Like, this is, you know, they have, if we're, if we're thinking about Dark Horse by the loose definition we're starting to build here, which is that you have to have one, at least one, like, legitimately respectable unit on your team.

Like, I think that that rotation is, like, they had some, they had some guys. They got some guys in that group. And I don't dislike that bullpen. I will never remember which Rogers it is. Did you see me post about this the other day? I, I'm never confident. I, I think that I double check that in pieces more than almost any, anything else. Also, how people spell minuscule.

They always get that wrong. Oh, yes. Yeah. Yeah. It's Taylor, Taylor the twin and Tyler's in Toronto. Well, they're both twins. Oh, well, yes. But the twin, who is also a team twin.

Yeah, but that's Taylor. That doesn't help me. That's, that is a useless way for me to remember. It's true. Or you say, Taylor the twins. They're both twins, Beth. Maybe you can remember Taylor, Toronto. No, Tyler Toronto.

No. No, no. No, we're going to get it right. I'm never. ever going to get it right i think they could oblige now obviously visually when you're watching them like get a tattoo on their face when you're watching them pitch they're quite distinctive so that helps once they take the mound you're like oh yeah yeah but but yeah you'd think just make it easy on everyone tyler and taylor just tell us have to whoever gets the short straw i guess but yeah just

tower and taylor have have different sounding names at least to make it easy on everyone if you're going to be similar looking. Right. Right. So part of my, part of my complaint is, is clearly with their parents. Yes. Because it's like you should have named them more different things. Their names need to be further apart on the name spectrum than Taylor and Tyler. That's, that's effectively the same name. You know what I mean? Like, that's basically the same name. It's a different name, but is it really not enough, not different enough. One of them should have been named like

Jason or, you know. Beelzebub or something. And then my secondary complaint is that one of them has not been like, this is confusing to people I need to get a face tattoo. What would it be? You get like a little kitten or something, you know, something sweet or like a dragon. You can't get a, you can't get a tattoo of a thing that has a, that is a team name. Because then what if you get traded?

And these guys are getting traded all the time. They're constantly being traded. Like, you look at the transaction tracker for, I'm looking at Taylor right now, because that's just the, we were talking about the twins. And so I opened Taylor's. I'm not going to remember when we're done talking, though, is the problem. Like, I can keep it. It's like, you know, it's like water through sand. It's only there for a moment.

And you're just like, wow, so many different teams. Look at all these different teams. He's been on so many. Yeah. My God. Yeah. They're itinerant twins. they should both get matching face tattoos,

which won't make it any easier for you. Just twin tattoos too. No, what needs to happen is the one, whichever of them ends this coming season with the least war, the lower war total, that guy has to get a face tattoo. Okay, that's pretty high stakes, yeah. I mean, look, I'm not, I don't want it to sound like I'm,

anti-face tattoo. I mean, I think it's a bold, it's a bold choice. Yes. Right. You have fewer options if it's a face tattoo, almost anywhere else on your body. If you want to keep that private, or if you think that there are like settings where maybe you don't want your tattoo displayed, but why? Because it's like, it's not embarrassing, unless it's an embarrassing tattoo. And then you might want to cover it. I'm just saying you have fewer options if you get a face tattoo to cover it up because often you're like, well, I got to have my face out there. I will also just mention Milwaukee because the brewers have spent the smallest amount on free agents of any team this offseason. The aforementioned Akil Badu about nothing.

Yeah. Their only major league free agent signed and he might not even be a big leaguer for them all the time. So, yeah, I give them a bit of a pass because they did just have the best record in baseball. And they did bring up a bunch of young guys and everything and they've been good. But they, you know, but I think, you know, if we. if we are to offer a piece of feedback to the organizations of Major League Baseball, with a couple of exceptions, granted, it's that, you know, you need to have like a, I'm going to do a swear and Shane's going to bleep it.

And I just, I want you to know that I think freaking in this context is an appreciable downgrade. There are times when I swear and I could use a different word. and we would be none the worst for wear. And I hear that feedback particularly from the parents among you. I do think that this is a downgrade, but I understand also that it is a big swear, and so we will bleep it. But I want you to hear it in its original version. Yeah, in your mind's ear. In your mind's ear, I want you to hear it because your kids can't hear your mind's ear, you know?

They can't hear it. I just think that more teams need to have a let's-fitting-go kind of mentality about the off-season. And I understand, like, they're looking at their own internal models. They're looking at their own internal models, which I'm sure have a greater degree of precision in any number of ways than public-facing models just because of the data that they have access to and what they're able to feed into those models. And so, you know, maybe I'm being unfair. Maybe some of these teams and their off-season's, they constitute the, the, let's-go go approach because they know things I don't or whatever. But I do think the more teams should have that approach. Now, I will be fair again and say, it's hard to have that mentality in a free agent market like this because it's light on let's-go guys, you know?

I mean, I'm sure each individual guy in his, once he takes the field, tries to have that mentality for himself. But in terms of real difference makers, they were lighter on the ground this year. And so, you know, I want to be sure that we're grading on an appropriate curve given what, you know, what options were available to guys. But to take it all the way back to the beginning of the episode, when you have dudes signing these contracts with opt-outs after a number of years, suggests to me that there was, you know, there could have been persuasion with more money and bigger deals, but that's not what we got. So, you know? David Robertson was retiring. Oh, do you need a moment?

No, but I'm sort of sad because I do like David Rappson. He was one of your guys. Big David Robertson appreciator. Yeah, really just one of the most effective, mostly non-closer reliever. I mean, you know, he had several years where he was a closer, but really, really excellent career. Really, he's up there in terms of career war among just, you know, primarily set up man guys. And, yeah, it was really quite effective almost up until the end. And I guess maybe like the last guy who sort of dated from my fan era because he came up with the Yankees at the tail end of my still, you know, really rooting for them in the way that I did as a kid. So I have some

fondness for him. And one of the first players I interviewed as well around that time when I was with Yankees magazine as an intern in the publications department for the Yankees. So yeah, happy trails. D. Rob, I will miss you. Had quite a ride. Okay. Yeah. All right. So I will just end here by reading a couple of the responses we got to our Lord of the Rings discussion. Yes. Got extensive responses to this, which was probably predictable. First of all, Mulder Batflip, Patreon supporter in our Discord group, pointed out that we could have said bag end of the bullpen. We're talking about back end and then we pivot to loader.

Wonderful. Yeah, I think he actually, he wrote that before he even got to the Lord of the Rings part of the podcast. And so even more appropriate. But that's one of those, you know, that's an episode title that got away. I wish I had gone in that direction. There were a number of people, I think, who pointed out that maybe Aragorn would have been a good choice in Center. You know, strider, right? He covers a lot of ground.

Sure. And that maybe Legolas could have been a good shortstop, given his incredible reactions and coordination and everything. A number of people pointed out because I suggested that maybe an ent, maybe treebeard would be an asset on the mound just with the downhill plane. and height and everything, but pitch clock violations, obvious, obvious issue. If you have to have an ent moot every time to decide which pitch you want to throw, like you're not going to get, you're not going to get any pitches off in 15 seconds. So that is, that's a big impediment, I think. Plus, I would imagine that ENS would reject pitchcom as a technology.

I think that they feel very uncomfortable with that. Yeah, they're kind of old school. Yeah. Yeah. And so we got one good response from some scholars wrote in and some citations from the books. And I know that the question specified that this was the movie versions of the characters. But I like this email from William who cited some good literature. So first, Gandalf, William makes the case that he should be on the mound because he throws heat literally.

and he's quoting here from chapter six of the Hobbit, he gathered the huge pine cones from the branches of his tree, then he set one alight with bright blue fire, and through it whizzing down among the circle of the wolves. It struck one on the back, and immediately his shaggy coat caught fire, and he was leaping to and fro, yelping horribly. Then another came in another, one in blue flames, one in red, one in green. They burst on the ground in the middle of the circle

and went off in colored sparks and smoke. A specially large one hit the chief wolf on the nose, and he leaped in the air 10 feet and then rushed around and around the circle, biting and snapping even at the other wolves in his anger and fright. So, yeah, he throws gas. He's like a flamethrower. Not only the accuracy on display there, but also the pyrotechnics, if that's even allowed. Yeah, not a bad one. And also, similarly, for Hobbits, they've got good arms and they've got good accuracy.

So this is from the prologue of fellowship, though slow to quarrel and for sport killing nothing. that lived, they were doughty at bay and at need could still handle arms. So, hobbits pitching potentially. And I think some people also suggested, you know, good two-way players. Like, we didn't really consider the batting order or that aspect of things. But obviously the size, you know, strike zone were into Eddie Goodell territory there, tough to throw strikes to those guys. So I think that's something to consider here.

also erigorn the strider point his range pretty legendary this is from two towers wide wonder came into eomer's eyes strider is too poor a name son of erathorn he said wingfoot i name you this deed of the three friends should be sung in many a hall forty leagues and five you have measured ere the fourth day has ended hardy is the race of a land deal so yeah he can cover a lot of ground and you know i guess canonically in the books like eragorn these guys are big you know because they're just like descendants of Numerer and Aragorn's like 6-6 and Boremer's big too. And Legolas too. Like, you know, we were going with movie versions, but these guys, they have some height. But Williams suggests maybe Boromir at first base because he's going to have some range, you know, big guy over there. He could have some reach. And, you know, I guess a lot of good things to consider here, really. And Bilbo was a great stone thrower too.

So it's really sort of a hobbit thing. So I think those are some pretty good points, even though we were explicitly considering the movie versions of these characters. There's real potential in the actual source material that we were not incorporating into our decisions here. Yes. And people were musing about, well, what if you can use the one ring? And by the way, I think offhand I made some remark because we were talking about the arms and Frodo and the ring and Mount Doom. Of course he did not throw the ring into Mount Doom.

I guess he had an assist, though, but you got to give Gollum some credit for that one. But yes, like if he's allowed to use the ring, like if he can go invisible, you've had people in the Patreon Discord group wondering about the allowability of that, is that legal? Would you allow an invisible player? No. I mean, it seems like the obvious answer to that is no. Yeah, I don't think you could. Now, if it were, again, like the mutant.

situation that we were talking about, then that's one thing. But we got a Patreon email from Matthew who said, would you allow a player who's invisible? I guess everyone would be confused about the strike zone for such a player. Yeah, that's a problem. It might be an effective pitcher, Matthew says, although maybe not if the batter can catch the spin of the ball significantly earlier, potentially even before the ball is released. Would be great at pickoff outs. They could use pitchcom to call for a pickoff play and no one else would even know until

the pitcher turns toward the base. but any kind of call I mean like tag plays force plays like you can't see them at all and if you did replay review they wouldn't appear on the tape and so you couldn't confirm that they were ever safe

and yeah the strike zone would be a huge issue as well so if it's something inherent to you if it is a mutant game then maybe you have to make some accommodation but if it's just that you have been seduced by the call of the ring and you're putting it on yourself then that's

That is cheating, which we also talked about last time. Okay, I have a question. When mutants are able to go invisible, does it affect their clothes or do they have to get naked to be invisible? Because if they have to be naked to be invisible, well, I think you have a reasonable accommodation. They just have to wear their uniform. Yes. If the uniform doesn't disappear, you still can't see the appendages. It would help for some things, right?

Yeah. But you could be right. In the movie, at least, Frodo's clothes disappear too. Right, yeah. The ring covers the clothing. Yeah. It makes you invisible invisible, invisible. Yeah.

And it does it in the book, too. Right. He's just invisible. He doesn't get naked in the cave with golf. Yeah. He just puts the ring on. Yeah, although, yeah, Gall's not wearing very much himself. Yeah, but I think that's a, I mean, choice is maybe too strong.

to describe the but he has a little in he's got a little loincloth he's got the shred of the Hobbit he used to be in there you know there's still some good in him so or some concern about seeing the downstairs on

on film yeah yeah I just saw 28 years later at the bone temple so I've had plenty of full frontal exposure lately but I have heard enough about what happens in that movie to be like, I appreciate that people say this is good, but not for Meg.

No, thank you for too much. I loved it, actually. It's my favorite movie in the franchise, yeah. I've heard it's very good, but I've heard that there are parts of it that are real rough. Well, you're spared. I did a whole other podcast about that on the Ring of Verse Feed coming out this weekend so people can get my thoughts on it there. And the only other thing, I guess, is that people wrote in a lot about the outfielder

who has the dome or repels the ball, and people. had other questions about that. We didn't consider whether this would also apply at the plate, but that was not specified in the question, and that's pretty important, I would say. So, yeah, because if the ability to repel the ball extends to the plate, then this guy is really overpowered probably. We got an email from Patreon supporter Daniel,

who says that player would be highly valuable, has a DH who could on base a thousand lead to wild pitches and help base runners advance. If the force field is big enough and or the dugout close enough to home plate, their whole team could on base a thousand. Yeah. If the pitcher cannot get the ball over the plate because it's protected by the force fields, then that would be kind of a game-breaking bug, I think. So we'd have to do something about that.

Yeah. But that was also not in evidence. I think that would have been specified in the question. and we were just considering the defensive ramifications. I think that was the important thing. Yeah, I think that's right. Okay. Well, thank you for all the feedback, all the many responses.

People clearly enjoyed that conversation. I mean, it's a good fun time, man. Yeah, no, it was great. All right, that will do it for today and for this week. Thanks as always for listening. By the way, one week ago when we had Vinie Pasquantino on, I asked him about his upcoming arbitration case. Well, it never came. He and the royals agreed to a deal, so they don't have to go to a hearing.

This was his first time eligible for arbitration. He asked for $4.5 million. The royals offered four, and they avoided the whole hearing by just agreeing on a two-year deal worth more than $11 million, with some incentives that could take it up to $16 million. So now he doesn't have to sit in that room and hear how bad he is. So Vinny's getting paid, and if you'd like to help us get paid, well, good news. You can do that directly by supporting the podcast on Patreon. Just go to to Patreon.com slash Effectively Wild and sign up to pled some monthly or yearly amount to help keep the podcast going, help us stay ad-free and get yourself access to some perks. As have the following five listeners, Jack Elliott Higgins, Josh Green, W&M, Martin Faden, Simon

Gilbert, and Alex Vollmer. Thanks to all of you. Patreon perks include access to the Effectively Wild Discord group for patrons only, monthly bonus episodes, one of which we will be recording this weekend. Sign up now, and you can get it hot off the podcast presses. Plus, playoff live streams, personalized messages, prioritized email answers, shoutouts at the end of episodes, potential podcast appearances, discounts on merch and ad-free fan graphs memberships, and so much more. Check out all the offerings at patreon.com slash effectively wild. If you are Patreon supporter, you can message us to the Patreon site. If not, you can contact us via email.

Send your questions, your comments, your intro and outro themes to podcast at fancrafts.com. You can join our Facebook group at facebook.com slash group slash effectively wild. You can rate, review, and subscribe to Effectively Wild on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube music, and other podcast platforms. You can find the Effectively Wild subreddit at R-Sash Effectively Wild. And you can check the show notes in the podcast posted fan graphs or in the episode description of 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. hosted by Ben Lindbergh and Megh About show, Hey, Otney McTrow