Fantasy Baseball Today - Bonus ⚾️ Talk: Ken Rosenthal talks latest MLB rumors plus Hall of Fame Ballots! (1/13 Fantasy Baseball Podcast)

Episode Date: January 13, 2021

Danny Vietti and Will Middlebrooks are back to talk Hall of Fame ballots and the latest MLB rumors. What are Will's thoughts on the Hall of Fame (3:08). Should Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens be allowed in? ... What do the guys think about the steroid era in general (7:00)? ... Should defensive wizards Scott Rolen and Omar Vizquel get in (10:30)? ... Should Curt Schilling's character concerns change people's opinions of the players he was on the field (14:58)? ... Is Andruw Jones a Hall of Famer (20:08)? ... Ken Rosenthal joins the show (30:22)! What's the latest going on around the league? ... What are the differences betweens big market teams and small markets (34:00)? ... Is the DH coming back to the National League (39:00)? ... Do Bonds and Clemens belong in the Hall of Fame (40:48)? ... How does a baseball writer weigh career longevity vs. peak when it comes to the Hall of Fame (47:00)? ... Lastly, Ken provides us with an update on DJ LeMahieu (51:10). ... Email us at [e-mail]. Subscribe to our YouTube channel: youtube.com/FantasyBaseballToday 'Fantasy Baseball Today' is available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, Google Podcasts, Castbox and wherever else you listen to podcasts.  Follow our FBT team on Twitter: @FBTPod, @AdamAizer, @CTowersCBS, @CBSScottWhite, @Roto_Frank Join our Facebook group at https://www.facebook.com/groups/fantasybaseballtoday For more fantasy baseball coverage from CBS Sports, visit https://www.cbssports.com/fantasy/baseball/ To hear more from the CBS Sports Podcast Network, visit https://www.cbssports.com/podcasts/ You can listen to Fantasy Baseball Today on your smart speakers! Simply say "Alexa, play the latest episode of the Fantasy Baseball Today podcast" or "Hey Google, play the latest episode of the Fantasy Baseball Today podcast." To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome to the fantasy baseball today podcast from CBS Sports. I drive, center field, this is magnificent. Got a fantasy question? Email fantasy baseball at CBSI.com. Get ready to win your league. Well, fantasy becomes reality. Now here's Frank, Scott, Chris, and Adam.

Party people. What is good? to the fantasy baseball today podcast. Wednesday, December, excuse me, it is January 12. I'm stuck in 2020. Excuse me. It is January 12th. Said no one over. Today to everybody. The stove is hot. My co-host, Will Middell Brooks, myself, Danny Vietti. Will the World Series champ? The stove is hot, my friend. It is steaming. Heck yeah, man. I'm fired up. It was so slow through December. and normally December gets here and we start seeing some moves. There were very little, there's very little action in December until the end of the month.

And now we're getting going. And I mean, there's only, I mean, the league came out and said, be prepared for regular start time, 162 games. Well, we're getting down to the nitty gritty. It's time to start filling those rosters, especially with these free agents that are still out there. Exactly. We have about 30 days, maybe a little bit more, until spring training is expected to start. And we still don't know where Trevor Bauer is going to go.

We still don't know where George Springer is going to go. J.T. Real Muto. These are big-time guys. We don't know what team they're going to be playing on in 2021. So these next couple weeks could make things really, really interesting. So, of course, Lindor to the Mets, Liam Hendricks signed with the White Sox. So things are starting to heat up. We are going to go a little bit of a different direction on today's show, though,

because Frank and the boys, they hit the free agent, conversations already. ready and they did an excellent job doing it. We're going to hit Hall of Fame. And we're going to have Ken Rosenthal joining us on today's show. And we'll talk a little bit of free agency with Ken, too, because he's the goat when it comes to reporting. You know, he's the man. You have to ask him the question.

So you just, you have to. Yeah. He knows everybody, before anybody knows anything. Exactly. He has the insights. We're going to ask that he share his insight. So Ken Rosenthal, of course, reporter with MLB, MLB Network, Fox Sports. If you don't know, Ken Rosenthal, why are you,

watching this show. So he's going to be joining us, give us a little bit insight on both free agency and Hall of Fame. So this is what we're doing today. We're talking about Hall of Fame because the Hall of Fame ballot is going to be coming up and released here in a couple weeks. And so I want to get your take first on this. Well, there have been blank ballots out there. There have been some that only vote for PED users. There have been some that leave off all PED users. It's so subjective. And I've looked at the criteria for the Hall of Fame there isn't really much, there isn't much criteria. There is really no benchmark or standard.

It's really subjective. It's very opinionated. What are your thoughts on the Hall of Fame? And who do you have at least on your first ballot? Yeah, I mean, this is the whole blank ballot conversation was tough for me. Tough because that person earned the right to turn in a blank ballot. And he felt that no one was, good enough to get in.

I mean, as simple as that. I just don't, out of that list of players, I don't understand how you can't find one, even one player that you think is worthy of being in the Hall of Fame. That's tough for me because, but I'm also a guy who thinks, and this is going to cause controversy, there's tons of people who don't, won't like this opinion,

but I think Barry Bond's a Hall of Famer. I think Roger Clemens is a Hall of Famer. You look at the numbers. I mean, we all know what Barry did. We all know he had a 4-44 on-base percentage for his career. He had a season with 609. Six out of 10 times he was on base in a season. That's absurd.

He has more intentional walks in the entire Tampa Bay Race franchise. Still, to this day. To this day. It's absurd. I was just looking at his numbers and trying to break him down and seven MVP's, 14 all-stars, eight-gold gloves. So, I mean, he was a defender as well. He stole bags.

let's look at 1999 through 2004. This is five seasons. All right. He created 55 war. Some guys don't get 55 war in 20 years. He had 55 war in five seasons. 328 average, 292 homers, 672 RBIs,

and 945 walks in five seasons. I don't mean this slam on you, But do those not eclipse your career totals? That's not even close, dude. He eclips me in like, he, no, he eclips me in a season. That's how great he was. That's not a diss on Will. Will was a really good player.

Barry Bonds. I have my moments. I don't, I wouldn't say I was a good player at Mo. I had my moments. I was, I was too hurt. We've been through this. I was broken down. But let's not bring my name into this conversation because I don't fit here.

all right. Nobody does. Here's the issue. Exactly. Thank you. Nobody fits in. All right. And now this is where people are going to say,

oh, don't justify it. The era he played in was the steroid era. 86 to what, 2000, I don't know, four, five.

What was his last season? I don't remember. He played in the peak of the steroid era. So did Roger Clemens. All right. Now, here's where I justify it, which I probably shouldn't, but I'm going to. There were a ton of players. Now, there were a ton of players that didn't take steroids, but there were, it was normalized.

All right. It was normalized taking steroids. We have guys with D ball in their locker. I have steroids in their locker, like they're multivitamins. All right? He's competing against players at that level. Now, did he need it? Probably not.

Probably not, but we'll never know. Now, if he played in this era now in 2020, 2015, whenever in this era, would he be the same player? That's the argument. How do you know? There's no crystal ball. You can't make that up. The training regimens are different. The way players take care of their bodies are different.

The way teams run the physical side of things is just completely different. And testing on top of that, you'll never get away with having any foreign substance running through your veins. It's impossible. We've seen the couple of guys that try to do it and they get banged. They're done. All right. Let me ask you, well,

you mentioned when you were playing, there were guys that had certain substances in their lockers. You came a little bit after the steroid era, but how rare how frequent was it that players were not necessarily steroids, not necessarily performance enhancing drugs? How frequent was it for players to use some type of substance to increase performance when you were playing. You don't have to name names.

Very rare. Very rare. I hardly ever saw it. Did I ever see things? Of course I did. Very select few handful of guys. Here's a thing. You don't get to the major leagues

without doing everything in your power to better yourself. Now, there's a moral compass there. There's a line that you have to draw as an individual. me, people have asked me, why did you never take HGH or take steroids or whatever and try to get away with it and say maybe it helps you for two or three years stay healthy or play through injury or be stronger and whatever, have more endurance? Because I can't lay my head on the pillow knowing all the work I put in my entire life to get to that point and make the big leagues, make it to the pinnacle to sport. and then

and then once I'm there decide okay now I need to cheat to stay here I just I couldn't have done it did you ever have anybody just me did you ever have anybody

strongly suggest you use enhancers no no I never had anyone tried to influence me or push me a certain way no if guys did it or if there were things going on, it was very private and it was never talked about. It's an individual decision.

100%. And that makes everything I just said, the testament I just gave about myself, goes completely against what I just said about Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, but it also is a different era of baseball. I think we can agree on that. So you're about you have Clemens and bonds. I think Clemens and Bonds, yes. They just,

knowing how many other people were taking stuff in that era and knowing that no one else's stats are even remotely close to these two guys or are they just taking a special kind that no one else was taking no they were just that much better okay do you have manny on there mani ramirez um he's borderline for me um i do think this is a great area we're getting into because right there's the slippery slope part of it where you could say, well, if you let bonds and you have to let everybody in. But I don't, I'm not under that belief. I'm personally a guy that thinks there isn't really a certain benchmark.

I think it's very individual, just like the Hall of Fame is. And so I take each case individually. I'm not saying, well, if bonds is in, so is Sosa. So is Manny. I have Manny in mine because I think he was a better player. I don't have Sam Moseosa in mind because I think Manny Ramirez was a better player. I think what puts me all over the edge or makes me keep manning on the edge was he was a very good offensive player,

but he was just an offensive player in my opinion. He was a circus on defense. I'm glad you brought this up, though. I really am because that brings me into the discussion on both Scott Rowland and Omar Visckel. Okay, two great, Hall of Fame caliber defensive players. At the dish, they were good. They're not great.

Roland was much better than Visco. Correct. But here's my case. Okay, if you're going to put somebody in the Hall of Fame for being primarily a D.H, which David Ortiz will be a Hall of Famer, Jim Tomey DH for a long time. Yep.

You're going to, if you're going to put those guys in, why can't you put in a defensive guy? I'm more of a skill. Was it 12 gold gloves? I think he had. And with the D.H.2, Edgar Martinez got in. He was a D.H.

and he had a good career. but he had 350 home runs. Very good, but it's definitely not out of this world with something we haven't seen before. So Omar Veskel has a ninth most defensive war of all time. And we're going to keep him, and there's other factors that go into this because now there's the domestic violence issue

that's going on with Omar Veskela. And that changes things. But I'm just throwing this out there because when you just look at his on-field performance in the defensive prowess that he brought to the table, I don't think you can keep a guy out. This is for Scott Roland too. I don't think you can keep a guy out

because he wasn't necessarily great with the bat, but maybe he was great in the field. Omar Veskel, another reason that his defensive war is high and that kept accumulating because he played for 24 seasons. That gets into the longevity discussion. It does. And that is important because I've been there and I know how hard it is to play a one full season.

And that's a very active position. and shortstop. Arguably, short stop and center field or catcher, three most important positions on the field. He's a captain of the infield. He's any position in the middle of the field is very important. They did that for 24 years. That's important to me.

And I think, and this is where it's like very subjective. Does the domestic violence thing bother me? Of course it does. But then someone can come back at me and say, well, why don't PEDs? And I explained why I thought PEDs didn't bother me as much because of the era. Domestic violence is an issue in any era.

And it's actually more, you know, recent. So, and then you want to look at Scott Roland. He was like the next great third baseman after Brooks Robinson defensively, defensively. And then he was kind of set the tone for the next wave of guys that we're seeing now. he had just over 2,000 hits. He never finished in top 10 in MVP voting more than once. Top 10, not top three, not, you know, top 10. He was still a very good player,

but he also played in an era where there were a lot of homers and there was a lot of slug because it was the tail end of that. I mean, it was the tail end of the steroid era. And there were all guys hitting 60 home runs like it was 30 home runs. So I think that hurt him. The era he played in, I think if he played now down the road, he would be a shoe in for a Hall of Fame. But the era he was in, I think, hurt him offensively

because there's nothing about steroids. There's nothing, anything like that that ever come out about him. So as far as we know, he never took anything, and maybe that hurt him in that era. With all that said, I think he is a Hall of Famer. I think it's, it's, borderline to me because the offensive numbers aren't, they don't glow, they don't stand out. But he was a complete baseball player for a long time and very good at that. And like I said,

during an era where he was competing against guys who had help. So that being said, I think he's a hallframer. That brings me into this question, though. Do very good players get in or do great players get in the hall? You know, it... Because again, we're getting into longevity versus... I think he was a great player. I think Scott Rollins is a great player. It's borderline, though.

It's on the... I'm on the fence with him. I am. I agree. That's a very tough one. One other guy that we can talk about who is great, and I don't think he can really argue this, it's Kurt Schilling. But you mentioned his off-the-field issues.

He's compared Muslims to Nazis and... Yeah, the whole hate speech thing isn't going to sit well with anybody. No, and even most recently. He's a great pitcher. There's no argument on that. I mean, he was, the number, the numbers are there, the big games

performances are there. But what is on our mind now? What is present now in the voter's minds? Should it matter? To a certain extent, yes. Should it, should it taint what he did on the field?

to a certain extent, yes. I mean, the performance was there. Like I said, the performance is there for him to be a Hall of Famer. And his votes were like 70%, right? Like, they were close. They're getting close to that 75. He's close. But I, in the era, I said error a lot today, but the era we're in right now with social media and things like that.

I think a lot of people don't vote for him because of what he's doing with his platform. So this is my thing with Chris Schilling. I completely agree with you. The things that come out of that man's mouth, out of pocket, uncalled for, inappropriate, whatever you want to call it. I don't agree with a lot of his beliefs. I don't agree with a lot of his values. However, when we're talking about Kurt Schilling, what has he done physically to impair the character or the integrity of the world?

And what I mean by that is he made certain comments about the political, you know, nonviolent, violent protests at the Capitol that happened last week. It was, you can make the case that was an act of terrorism. He didn't commit those acts, but he commented on it. And again, I don't believe or share the same beliefs that this guy should, that this guy has. However, he has not acted upon his statements. He has not gone out and committed violent acts. He has not gone out and he's never really broken the law. And so when I look at Kurt Schilling, I may not like the person that he is.

I might not share the same beliefs or the same politics as this man has. But if you throw him back into 1920s or the 1930s before social media ever existed, we would never know what Kurt Schilling's thoughts were on politics. We're talking eras again. We're talking. Yeah, because we wouldn't know any of this. Social media has been a game changer. Is Babe Ruth the greatest person that we've ever seen,

value-wise, character-wise? I don't know. There's a lot of stories that, you know, but stories are just, I mean, it's just story time. Like, we don't know. There's no direct quotes or tweets that we can dig up from Babe Ruth, you know. The era is of social media platform for these guys can make a lot of guys and it can break even more. So be careful.

Be careful because unfortunately, what you type on your iPhone or Android or whatever you're tweeting with, can come back to haunt you in Hall of Fame voting. And I don't even like my own take. So that was my, so my take is that I'm voting Kurt Schilling in. Why don't you like it? I try to hold myself to a higher standard. And I'm not saying that to be uppity up or,

you know, the guy that you should morally better. But I try and be better than that. But when I look at Schilling, until he commits an act of violence or commits an act, It's dangerous in the things he says, but I don't think it's to the level where I would leave. You think he's just blowing smoke? That's what you're saying.

He's all bark. I'm sorry. He's all bark, no bite. Okay. Regardless, it's going to change people's perception of him and affect their votes at the end of the day. So it doesn't matter. It doesn't really matter. Does he have the baseball performance to get in?

Yes, he does. I didn't put him on my ballot. I put Bonds, Clemens, Manny, question. mark and then Omar Visckel question mark. Obviously, it's my ballot. I can put question marks. You don't have Andrew. I put bonds and Clemens in, though.

They have this year and next year left, and then that's it. Their eligibility is up in 2022. So I don't think they're going to get in, but I would vote them in. Yeah, they're holding pat. They haven't really eclips that 60% mark that you need to get to 75%. I think bonds like, yeah, like 60 was the highest. got. Yeah, they're both kind of hovering. And they're not really

gaining at all over the past couple years. But you didn't have Andrew Jones. And let me throw, this isn't even a digger. I didn't really have to dig for this stat at all. The only players in Major League Baseball history with 400 or more home runs and 10 or more

gold gloves. Mike Schmidt, Ken Griffey Jr., Willie Mays, and Andrew Jones. And of course, those three that I mentioned are Hall of Famers. Andrew Jones has not shown that he's going to be a Hall of Famer. He's been hovering anywhere from like 20%, 30%. I have him on my ballot.

Why is Andrew Jones not on yours? He was another guy. I had a question mark, and then we started talking about something else. That's a great question. Now that we're talking about this, and we're talking about longevity and peak, and I didn't know that. The statute you just told me, I didn't know that. Mike Schmidt, Ken Griffey Jr., Willie Mays.

Those are three of the greatest players that we've ever seen. And then you're throwing Andrew Jones into that category. That is elite company. Yeah, that's a good question. I don't have an answer, honestly. For some reason, I'm just so, I guess I get stuck on the fact the whole Bonds-Clemmons conversation that I lose sight of how great these other players were,

which obviously I'm not a voter. So great point. I think other voters do too. Yeah. I mean, I get you get caught up in that because like I said, I didn't even know that about it. I knew how good. I know how great of a player was. He was, you know, arguably one of the best center fielder's ever. Yeah. Yeah. You put it that way. I mean, I didn't do my homework on him, I guess. I should have known that. But you put it that way with that group of guys. It's like, shouldn't he get in them? How many years has he had on the ballot, you know? He's still. got a few. I'm going to ask, I think he's only used a few of his years. Yeah, I'm going to ask Ken why Andrew's not in. And I'm sure he's going to give us the right answer. I don't know if Andrew's on Ken's ballot or not. But I want to ask him because I think Andrew Jones, when I look at the Hall fame, I want great players. Andrew Jones, he might not have done it for 15, 20. Like, if we're talking about long, he had a great. He was a better player at his peak than Dare Cheater ever was. And, my opinion. 100%. But Derek Jeter did it for 20 plus seasons. He's a multiple time world. So as as a voter, it's like, are you looking for the guy that played 20 years, 15 to 20, 20 plus years? Or are you looking for the guy that did something really cool for like five or six years? You know? So it's, that five or six years or five to 10 years that they do something really cool or really stand out and their numbers are like out of this world,

how does that compare to the other guys? Let's look at the best years of any other player you want to compare to that you think you would vote in and you take their best five years of their career and now compare that peak. Now do you have an argument? Okay, well, maybe his peak was better, but this guy, the whole longevity versus peak is like,

we can talk about it all day about every player. And it's super interesting. I guess it just comes down to the voter and what they think. Okay, going back to the steroid conversation, and do you think, because you were derailed by injuries much of your career, do you think you would have maybe not been a Hall of Famer, but do you think you could have had a chance at being a perennial all-star if you had taken performance enhancing drugs?

Jeez, bro, coming at me heavy. You were already, and you don't give yourself enough credit because you're way too humble to give yourself credit on your career, but when you look at your numbers and the impact you had on that 2013 Boston Red Sock team, you were a good player. My first two years, I was a good player. And then you started getting injured. Yes.

And then you started getting injured. Yeah. I don't know. I don't know. I can't say I never thought about or didn't think about taking steroids or trying to find a way to get past a drug test. every player probably has the thought of how can I somehow get better? Like I work my ass off.

I for months and months and months, it's really 24-7, 365, you're working to get better. You're either playing a game or working to get better or rehab from injury or better yourself for the next season or you're in the season still continually working to get better. And then for a guy like me, who you said, injuries really crush me. I'd be lying if I told you the thought didn't go through my head of,

man, there's got to be something out there to help me heal faster, stay healthy, maybe not going to DL for two weeks. It was a DL then, not the IO, and it was for two weeks. Because if I go on the injured list for two weeks,

somebody else is going to come up. If they play well, like I'm on a rookie contract right now, they'll just ship me out. I have options. So there's all these things to go through your head as a player. Like, I don't want to lose. And I'm in the market.

I was in Boston. They had money. They could go get whoever they wanted if they were too worried about me being hurt. And they did eventually. I'm not. I'm mooky. Well, that's for another day.

Well, they went on and got Pablo, which that came out to Pablo Sanemal, which that came back to Biden. But to answer your question, yes, I would have been a better player because I would have been on the field. I would have been Now there were a lot of freak injuries I have with broken bone

and stuff like that Those aren't covered in HGH or whatever you want to take But how you to be able to go on the field And have the confidence to know I feel as best as I possibly can Every single day because of whatever is running through your veins Whatever helps you you know Just feel good every day Yeah of course that's appetizing as a player who dealt with injuries

And then it had to come back from a ton of injuries play her and of course I thought about that. Let me throw one more idea at you and then we can, you know, bring Ken on the show because, again, he's going to have a lot more angles that we're maybe not thinking of. So I have Clemens and Bonds and Manny on my ballot. And however, I don't think there's anything wrong with putting an asterisk next to their name on their little plaque.

Not little. I shouldn't say little. I shouldn't be little of the Hall of Fame. But on their plaque in the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, or having a section in Cooperstown. I've never been to Cooperstown. For whatever reason, I've never been. But having a section dedicated to the steroid era, I don't think bonds or Clemens would care if they had an asterisk. I don't think they would care if they were in a certain section away from everyone else.

They just want the credit. What? You don't think they would care? I think it might bother them a little bit, but I think it's a whole lot better. not being in. It's like an honorable mention. No, it's not. No, it's not.

They're still in the hall. You think have a separate room for these guys. Are you kidding me? Or just putting an asterisk next to their name. I don't know. So do you have a domestic violence room too? Yeah. That's no.

See, that's where I draw the line. I'm just asking like, okay, well, are you going to have separate departments of like this guy was a this guy cheated, this guy gambled. Like, do you separate, do you have different departments? You're either in or you're not. That's a Val, it's a Hall of Fame. I don't think they need to break it down. I get your angle.

I do. I do. Because it's like, yes, you want them in the Hall of Fame is what you're saying. But you understand the argument of why they're not. That's what you're getting at. Yeah. That's a valid question. I will say that's where I draw the line.

It goes back to my Kurt Schilling take. When you're committing dangerous acts, that's my line. So domestic violence is a dangerous act. PEDs, you're damaging yourself, but you're not really damaging other people. You might, in a sense, damage other people, but... Well, like affecting other people's jobs.

Correct. Correct. But when you start damaging, inflicting harm, physical harm on other people, that's where I drop the line. I draw the line there too. You're right. I was just making a point of...

No, that's fair. I'm not saying I want another room for those players, but I just don't, you're the inner, you're not. I don't think there's an asterisk. I don't think there's another section of the Hall of Fame for them. I just think based off, and I said this, based off the era they played in who they were competing against, they should be in because they separated themselves

from even all of those players in that era. Yeah. I tend to agree with you. I just, I try to make it more complicated than it needs to be, maybe. Well, it's fun to talk about that way, right? It is. It is. Nonetheless, let's get Ken Rosenthal.

He's going to be coming up on the Fantasy Baseball Today podcast coming up next. Welcome back to the Fantasy Baseball Today podcast. Blessing us with his presence, the busy man he is, the goat of reporters. Ken Rosenthal join us. Thanks so much for joining us, Ken. I don't know that I call it a blessing, but thank you very much. Well, there's a lot going on. So you really are blessing us because obviously last night or two nights ago,

Liam Hendricks to the White Sox, Lindoror, of course, to the Met. So there's a little bit more activity happening on the hot stove. What are we seeing lately? Is there any more updates maybe on George Springer, Trevor Bauer, some of these big dominoes? Any updates on these guys? Not much.

Obviously, they're all still out there. The big four, Springer, Bauer, Real Muto, and the Mayhew. And it's possible one will sign soon, one or more will sign soon. And it's possible this drags out a little bit more. until teams have more clarity on what the season is going to look like. And it's interesting in one sense, guys, that usually getting delayed if you're a great player is not necessarily a good sign.

But in this case, for the better players, not the majority, because the majority of the middle class free agents are going to be in trouble because of supply and demand. But if you're Trevor Bauer, for example, and teams know in February or even March that their financial picture might be better than they thought it was going to be because the vaccine has created the possibility for fans. You might be better off at that, in this situation, waiting. It's usually not that way, but in this particular, unusual, crazy circumstance, it might work to some players benefit.

The benefit would go to the players at the top of the class. And if there's anybody who knows that, it's Trevor Bauer. Let's be honest. he's so calculated and every move he and his team makes is it ends up being the correct move lately because he is a very intelligent guy. And I mean, staying on the topic of a free agency, the Mets, the Padres, the White Sox, the fun they're bringing to the offseason after was pretty quiet up until, you know, the last couple of weeks, who are you most excited about in 2021?

Who of those teams? All three, actually, because they're all going to be quite interesting. The Padres with Darvish and Snell, assuming Lament is healthy, which we don't really know. That would be a heck of a team. We saw how exciting they could be last season. And the Mets with Linder, how can you not be looking forward to that? And I like the McCann edition too. And of course, Trevor May.

And then the White Sox, who are the one American League team that has stepped forward and done some things. Lance Lynn, Eaton, and now Hendricks. So I always will look forward to seeing teams come together with their new players. Every spring training, I think it's a cool thing about baseball that we have this movement and that the teams take different shapes. So yes, those three in particular are looking to be quite exciting. Let me ask you this because Will and I were kind of batting this round the other day. I'm under the belief that there are no such thing as small market teams.

there is such thing as cheap owners. That's my personal opinion, will disagree with me. New York is a big market. Chicago is a big market. San Diego is not a massive market in comparison to the other cities. However, they've been able to give you Darvish. They're obviously reportedly working on an extension with Fernando Tatis. They're spending money and they're somehow finding ways to afford these players.

What are your thoughts on big markets, small markets and what they're able to do in for agency? Some teams are definitely more challenge than others. There's no question about that. And you look at Tampa Bay and Miami, Cleveland is another example. They can't do the same things that other franchises do. Now, the Padres are interesting because they're not a large market. And yet they're doing some things very aggressively. And what they feel is that it's going to pay off.

It's going to pay off in season tickets and daily ticket sales and sponsorships. And that's the old theory. Well, if you get a better product, you make more money, right? So I wouldn't go as far as to say what you're saying, Danny, that there are no small markets and that's just cheap owners because there are some teams that are really challenged. At the same time, team has benefited from revenue sharing. Teams benefit from central baseball money, which is the national television contracts, et cetera. They have expenses, no doubt. And those expenses are perhaps more.

significant than we understand. But if this was such a bad business, you wouldn't see people lining up to get into it. John Sherman bought the Royals for a billion. Steve Cohen bought the Mets for $2.75 billion. Now, MLB people will tell you that it's not a great business on an annual basis that teams break even. But of course, the value is in the resale. And again, if it was such a loser, you wouldn't see teams or you wouldn't see owners, potential owners, looking to get in. So speaking of, you said Steve Cohen and him buying the Mets, how do you feel about his social media presence? How does the media feel about that? Do they like it? Do they love it? Do they hate it? What's your thoughts? Well, I think we always like when people are honest and

transparency, right? That's what kind of we always ask for. So to see what he's done on Twitter is really interesting considering his whole background as a Wall Street guy and he was quite private in that aspect of his life. He had some trouble in that aspect of his life. But it is refreshing. It's cool to see. And it's not just the stuff when he says, well, Lindor Press Conference at 11. It's more of the interactions with fans. Yes. The talk about the black jerseys. I think after the Lindor trade, he tweeted, well, now we've got to do something about the black jerseys. It's just something. and the fans want those back. So it has been quite different and, yes, quite refreshing.

For the game where the game is trending and people getting bored with baseball, this is a breath of fresh air for the fans because everything is so secretive, whether it's IL stance, injuries, moves, everything is behind closed doors and hidden. And he's the first guy to really come out and say, hey, this is what we're doing. And I think fans are going. I appreciate you saying that. It's so true because the secrecy sometimes is taken to the point of absurdity. Yes.

And I sometimes think, am I covering major league baseball or am I covering the CIA? And I'm not covering the CIA, okay? I'm covering a sport that people enjoy. It's an entertainment vehicle. Listen, I'm not saying that some decisions can't be or should not be made behind closed doors. For instance, the Lindor trade talks. It always benefits teams. to keep these things quiet because if it gets out, public perception gets involved.

The players who are rumored to be traded might get upset. There are reasons to keep it under wraps, and I get it. But at the same time, it's taken through extremes by people in the game and it ticks me off. How difficult is it for you? Another guy that has a presence on social media is Trevor Bauer. He's called out multiple times. He's called out reporters for false information. may it be false, may it be true.

How difficult is he making your job? I don't know that he makes it difficult, but he's a tricky one to deal with because you might report something that you've heard and it might be perfectly valid to report and he might challenge it. Now, he might be right and challenging and he might be wrongly challenging it,

but believe it or not, Will, fans are going to take the player's side over our side almost every time. So it's not something you really want to get involved with. I'm always careful with reporting about offers and things like that because it's so fluid and we don't always get the full picture. But I would say, yes, the fact that he is out there challenging people, it gives you pause, put it that way. And listen, we may get to the point where I've got something and I'm going with it and he might go crazy, whatever. But so be it.

All right. Well, let's change the gears just a little bit. Not free agency, not Bauer. They still haven't announced if there's going to be a DH yet. We saw Swarber go to Washington, and we know he's not really a serviceable left filter. Let's be honest. He can hit, and I think being a DH will serve him while being able to put that extra focus and take the anxiety of playing defense out of his game.

Do you think there'll be a DH? Yes. And this is all just part of the negotiation. between MLB and the union. And the problem from what I understand is that it's not just involving the D.H. There are other elements, other rules, other aspects like the expanded playoffs, that MLB wants to be part of this package that they will negotiate. And because of the uncertainty due to COVID and fans in the park and all that,

it's taking some time. It probably would take some time anyway, given the history with these two sides. And their frequent inability to get things done in proper fashion. So I do expect ultimately there will be a D.H in the National League in 2021 and beyond as part of the next CBA, but it's just taken a while. So another great reason for having Ken on the show is obviously Hall of Fame balloting is being released. The announcement should come relatively soon, right, Ken? Yes, the 26th. 26th, thank you.

So that's another great reason why we have Ken on is because he can kind of fill us in. on some aspects that we don't always see when it comes to this Hall of Fame balloting because there were people upset when they've seen some blank ballots out there, some people voting for nobody. They were upset because maybe some steroid users were voted in or maybe they were voted out. There's a lot of different directions you can go with these Hall of Fame ballots. Let's start it off right from the start. The question everybody wants to know or the answer everybody wants to know, Barry Bond's Roger Clemens, are they going to have a shot this year or are they done?

Have they seen their chances not only diminished, but erase? I don't expect that they're going to make it. And the reason I say that is there increases over the last eight years. I believe they've been on the ballot. They were good for a while and they tracked well, but lately they've been small. So when you do a trajectory and you see, okay, is he going to jump to that necessarily 75%, I would say the chances now are slim that think both have yes. two years left on about this year and one more after this year. And to get the necessary votes,

it doesn't seem to be possible just based on the way the voting has gone. So I don't expect them to make it. And the ballot, as you guys know, is extremely personal and extremely controversial with people having their opinions, which is great. But not at all. I wrote about this recently. it's become something I used to love doing it's become something I don't love doing anymore. I'm actually reconsidering whether to do it at all because it's just too difficult with the character issues many of these guys face, not just PEDs,

but domestic abuse. Schilling's case, hate speech, if you want to call it that. So it's a complicated topic to say the least. That brings us to my next question is with Schilling, with Omar Viscope. and the off-the-field issues, at what point does it affect your vote? And not necessarily yours individually, but any voter, at what point does it take the focus off of what they did between the white lines?

And now you're more focused on off-the-field issues because that's what's present and in front of you at the time. It's not so much timing, Will, it's more what is a voter willing to tolerate in a player? Now, I actually voted for all these guys, as I have in the past. and I almost instantly regretted it. And you might say, well, why didn't you just think of those regrets before you cast the ballot? Well, I was thinking of them, but after I cast about it, I felt even worse about it. And that is the problem that I had.

And people say, well, you shouldn't consider character at all. Well, for one thing, the hall instructs us to consider character integrity, sportsmanship. Now, some people don't take that very seriously. And it is a subjective thing. Character to one person is not character to another. But the same time, all right, is there a line? I would say there's a line. Let's say a player is just hypothetically, charged with murder, convicted of murder, and then he becomes eligible for the Hall of Fame.

We're electing that guy? We're going to be comfortable seeing him on the podium? I don't think so. So that's an obvious line, but there are other grayer lines. Domestic abuse would certainly be one. Schilling's conduct would certainly be one. And that's what every voter must decide for himself or herself, how they want to handle that. My problem with it is I'm not feeling great about being that kind of judge, being, in essence, morality police.

Even though it's proper, if that is the approach we take, then we might have a very small hall of fame. And I don't know that that is the proper thing either. So it's really confusing right now. And I'm sort of at a loss with the whole thing. and that's why I'm reconsidering whether to do it. Now, Danny has one thing about a blank ballot, and I want to make this clear because people get down on blank ballots, but a black ballot is perfectly fine.

Think about it. If you vote for six players, well, you're not voting for four, okay? Or you're not filling your final spots with four others. You're effectively refraining from voting for those players. Well, someone who submits a blank ballot is refraining from voting for anyone. That is his or her right, and it's a choice you, make and you might have perfectly valid reasons for that choice. So the ballot shaming that goes on, it ticks me off no end because a voter, they wait 10 years to get that vote. And once they have it,

get the right to do whatever they want with it. At what point do you think we ever see at some point where there will be any ex-players with votes? Do you think maybe guys that have, there's some type of qualifier, whether it's your gold card or, whatever it may be. Do you think there will ever be the players getting a vote or is there too much worry about bias? I don't think that's the reason. I actually think the reason players will never get a vote is because we as the BBWA, the Baseball Writers Association of America are very protective of this. This is our thing. It's been our thing. And we don't open it to broadcasters. We've opened it up to certain digital sites in recent years. But that took a lot of fight. So that is the reason. It's kind of a turf thing.

And we don't want to give up that turf. I think that's how a lot of players feel too, though. Maybe that they feel like, well, this is our sport. And we play this for so many, you know what I mean? No, no doubt. I 100% see both sides of this argument. And I respect both sides of the argument. But if I'm going to ask anyone, I would want to ask you that question, is this, why don't

players have a say? I could see why players would feel that way. It's just the history of this thing is that it's the BBWA that votes and players don't vote. So while players are on some of the veterans committee, these former players, they're not part of this first process. And if you're asking whether I think we'll open that process up to others, no. I don't think that's happening because it is, for better or worse, our slice of the universe here, And I just don't see the BVWA parting with that. Okay.

Good or no. Let me ask you this, and we'll wrap things up pretty quickly here. But what's more important to you when you're looking at your ballot, longevity or peak? Great question, Danny. And it's funny, there's not a consistent answer I would give. Both are important. I am someone who generally applies a first standard of, 10-year dominance. That's what I want. A guy has 10-year dominance. To me, that's when the

conversation begins. Now, certain players do not have 10 years, but they accomplish something maybe in seven years that is so extraordinary you consider them anyway. Other players, and Vescal would be an example, take away the domestic abuse, which you can't, but just for the sake of the baseball discussion. He played 24 years. Now, he might not have been dominant, but he was shortstop for nearly a quarter of a century, compiled 2,800 hits plus brilliant defender in the eyes of many, though the metrics don't necessarily agree with that completely. It's not dominance per se, but my gosh, it's impressive. So it really depends. And I try to be open-minded about all of these things. There are some players who had great peaks. Yon Santana is one,

who some people think we should have given a longer look to. And I don't disagree with that, but I do want as a voter at some point that longer track record, at least 10 years, because I just think that is what I see in a Hall of Famer. I'm glad you mentioned that 10-year benchmark, because I'm just going to straight up ask you, why is Andrew Jones not getting more consideration for the Hall of Fame? He had the 10 years, just 10 years for the most part. Exactly. And I didn't vote for him initially, only.

only because the ballot was so crowded and I couldn't squeeze him on. And I didn't love him as an offensive player. I didn't see him as a great hitter. I know he's got 400 plus home runs and I know he had 51 one year, but he was not a great hitter. That said, it's the best center field I've ever seen. And granted, I didn't see Willie Mays in his prime, but the person who is the best at his position defensively, especially that position of premium up the middle position, that person to me belongs in the Hall of Fame.

and I don't believe that if Andrew Jones makes it, this hall would be lowered in any way. It would be elevated. And frankly, we've done a poor job with centerfielders. Kenny Lofton deserve more consideration. Jim Edmonds deserves much more consideration in my view. Bernie Williams is a guy that people say, hey, where is Bernie Williams?

And Andrew was better than all, really, at least as a defender. So it's an interesting question. and I agree he should be in. Then what about Scott Rowland? Because defensively, he was amazing, but the offensively numbers maybe don't stand out as much. You know, 281 hitter, what, 2,800 hits? No, not even, no, no, no, just over 2,000 hits.

Just over 2,000 hits. Right. And certainly, I guess that hurts him in the eyes of some. I vote for him too. I voted for him, I believe, the first year he was eligible. Well, your old position is underrepresented in the hall. there are not enough third baseman. Why this happens, I don't really know.

It's not that there haven't been great third baseman. We've got about a half dozen of them right now at least. But Roland was kind of Aronado before Aronado, Mani Machado before Mani Machado. And certainly as an offensive player contributed a great deal too. To me, he's not even a question. That's an easy one for me. Okay. That's awesome.

That's good to hear because a lot of people have a lot of people want to be. base it just on offensive numbers. Well, that's wrong. And that's what stands out. But there's just two sides of the game and playing third base is tough. And I think another reason that's unrepresented is because a lot of those guys are big guys. They end up turning into DH. They end up turning into first baseman and maybe don't spend their whole career at third base, maybe. I don't know. That's just the thought.

That could be part of it too. Yeah. No question. Before we let you go, I'd be remiss not to ask you about the DJ Lemayhew situation. There are reports that they're far away. And DJ is not liking how patient the Yankees are being. They're reportedly about $25 million away still in contract discussions. Any update on DJ? Nothing that I really feel confident saying is happening. And yeah, I saw other reports about how he's getting frustrated.

If you pay any attention to these kinds of things, this is how it goes, right? These kinds of reports come out. Sometimes I've written some of them. And it's all BS until the end. Yes, he would like the Yankees to step up sooner, but it's not as if he's going to say, you know what, I've had it with waiting for the Yankees. I'm done.

No, he wants to go to the Yankees. We all know he wants to go to the Yankees. And at some point, yes, push might come to shove, but I just don't believe that, okay, because the Yankees have not stepped up yet, that's it. He's done and he doesn't want to go back there anymore. It's just a matter of trying to get,

them to the table in a better way. I don't know why they haven't been more aggressive with this. It makes no sense to me. But my guess is he still ends up back in New York. Well, thank you so much for joining us, Ken. Fox Sports and we'll be Network, of course, and of course the Hall of Fame voter, which is crucial for this show that we're having here on the Fantasy Baseball Today podcast. Thanks so much for joining us, Ken. Thank you, Danny. Take care, man. We'll take it easy. Thanks, Kenny. I love to having Ken on the show because he brings angles, I mentioned us already, but he brings angles that we don't really see.

He brings a different scope because you're a player. He's a writer. You mentioned that maybe players should get a vote. And he said, look, this is our thing. And I really do get both sides. But you kind of share those same sentiments, right? Yeah, I'm kind of torn on it because, yeah, the conversation came up when, like,

there were a lot of ex-players chiming in when the whole blank ballot and all that came out. I talked to a few guys here and there about it. And obviously guys are like, of course, we should have a vote. And like Kenny said, this is our thing. This is our piece of the pie. Well, the player's argument is always going to be, it's our sport. What do you mean?

It's our sport. So I do see both sides of it. And I do understand where Kenny's going, the angle he's taken that the player shouldn't have a vote. I think at some point there should be some type of qualification, whether, you know what? We talked about this the other day, and I was saying, you know, maybe you have your gold card,

which is eight years and then some other qualifications. What if you were just a Hall of Famer? What about some, what if the Hall of Fame players active, like living Hall of Famers had a vote? Yeah, that's not a bad idea. Yeah. It doesn't, maybe you have to be a Hall of Famer to have a vote.

Yeah. I like it. I like that. I don't, at the same time, like I said, I fully understand where Kenny's coming from. And that's their thing. And I can respect that because those guys work endless hours very hard. And they're very good at what they do. So I understand that.

I do think eventually I would like to see if Hall of Fame players had to say so. So Kenny, like the Heisman, like the Heisman. the Heism, Heisman award winners get to vote. Yeah. So, Kenny mentioned maybe he doesn't want to vote anymore. Let me ask you this. Regardless of your resume and your experience, whether you think you're suited to vote,

would you want a vote yes or no? No. Me personally, no. It's too controversial, man. The world we live in today, call me soft, whatever you want to call me. I just don't want to deal with it. Because it's all subjective.

It's all your personal opinion of a player. And it's just, it brings a lot upon you, especially as an ex-player. I feel like the players will be scrutinized even more with their picks than the writers, just because there's going to be like, oh, well, you worked out with that guy for two off-season. Let's say I vote for Tori Hunter. You know, I spend a couple off-season working out with him. If someone knows that, they're going to say, oh, well, you're just boys with them. You know, and then you run into that issue, which the whole bias conversation with players

voting for players they're friends with, but players are, writers are very close with ex-players as well. Let's be honest. This is a fraternity of, yes, the players, but also everyone within the game. So there's relationships everywhere. So the bias conversation is out the window in my mind. This was a good banter, Brooks. Yeah, I really enjoyed this one.

This was awesome. Ken was, we just, we have good guests. And they make our show great. And we're just here to nod our head as they give us amazing line. So this was a really good one. Kenny's great. Yeah, and we're going to have another great guest. I'm not going to tease who it is yet.

We're going to have another great guest on next week, and we're going to talk underrated players heading into 2021. You kicking it with me? Am I kicking it with you? I'll be here. Look, we're a team here, Dan. All right. I called you, Dan.

Either we go or we don't, or there's not like a one-man thing. You're not doing this without me. All right. You just want me to tell you that I love you and you keep, you keep, he calls me every day. He said, do you love me? And I refuse to say, you know I love it. That's all right.

It's early in our relationship. We'll see you next Wednesday. Middle Middlebrooks, Danny Vietti, Fantasy Baseball Today podcast.