glory

Cohen dumping on Morosi for blatantly making up news/rumors for clicks (which he has done forever) is amazing.

If the Jays can't sign LeMathieu, then I think I'd rather have Bryant (assuming he comes as cheap as people seem to think) than any of the alternatives. I'd rather not move Bichette off short unless it was for a superstar (Lindor), so I don't particularly care for the SS market this winter (Semien, Didi, Simmons, etc). Moving Biggio to 3B and getting a 2B probably doesn't improve the IF defense as a whole all that much. Bryant in a lot of the ways is the perfect answer. It's not like plugging Shaw in there for a year. Bryant could put up a 4-5 WAR and it wouldn't be all that surprising. He can play 3B for a year, with real superstar upside if he bounces back, and the team can give him the QO and reassess 3B after the season. Really just depends on what it would take to get him.

Hiraldo being two years away from Rule 5 eligibility gives the Jays less incentive to trade him, not more. They have time with him, and a lot can happen in two years, including trading him for someone else with 2-3 years of control instead of 1. A more realistic trade candidate due to Rule 5 eligibility might be Moreno since Kirk already beat him to the 40 man and Jansen still has 4 years of control. I wouldn't move him for Bryant, but he's probably a candidate to get moved.

Cano has 2/48 left on his contract after this season. Since he's losing all of the $24m in 2021, I can't see him retiring and missing out on the $48m he has left. He's clearly lost his HOF chances, though. If he didn't lose it after the first suspension, then he has definitely lost it now.

If Bryant is a legit non tender candidate for the Cubs (I don't think he is), then trading for him makes a lot of sense. I'm sure the Cubs can get some value in a trade for him, so a non tender doesn't make much sense, but hard to say with the Covid environment whether a ~$20m rental 3B is going to be in high demand. If the Jays are seriously after Lindor, then I wonder if they'd have interest in Baez. Not a fan of Baez's BB/K rate, but he's clearly a legit SS and likely more extendable than Lindor is.

The play-in tournament during a normal season is a ridiculous idea. There is no incentive to getting the 8th seed in the NBA. It's not a crapshoot. It's basically a guaranteed sweep or best case maybe a gentleman's sweep, especially in a non bubble environment where homecourt advantage exists again. It made sense to do it this season due to the pandemic, but can't believe they are continuing it.

Curious what Yu by himself would cost if he's made available. He's been a beast the last season and a half (5.4 WAR, 2.54 FIP, 12.04 K/9, and 1.20 BB/9 in his last 25 starts dating back to last season). It might be wishful thinking as he does have 3 years left on his deal, and if the Cubs rebuild/retool, they might look to move the impending FA's rather than him (or simply try for one more year in a s***** division), but if they are open to moving him, then he'd be my top target. Depends what direction they plan to go in.

If the Cubs are possibly retooling/rebuilding, what about Darvish at 3/59? Had a great second half in 2019, and then followed it up with an even better 2020 by beating up on the same scrubs that Bauer beat up on. It would be his age 34-36 seasons, so who knows how long he holds up, but he looks a lot better than the non-Bauer FA options.

The Cubs have a bunch of interesting players on the last year of their deals (Bryant, Baez, Rizzo). Plus there is Darvish with 3/59 left on his deal. Will be interesting to see what Hoyer does.

Not sure what type of return the Rangers would get for one year of Lynn. I wouldn't give up a top prospect for him either, but I'm assuming due to lack of team control it wouldn't require one. Depends on what type of return they are looking for. I think a trade for someone like Lynn is more realistic than a one year deal for some of the names mentioned, primarily because of what you said. The Jays are not a team that pitchers who want to rebuild value will go to, for a multitude of reasons. Ray is just someone who happened to enjoy his time here so that gave the team the leg up on him. I don't think other FA's in similar spots would feel the same way.

I wouldn't mind one of the high upside targets (Kluber, Paxton), assuming they'd be willing to take a pillow contract with the Jays (not an easy bargaining position), but preferably the Jays would also add someone who is a more reliable top/mid rotation option. The only pitcher who I can think of that mixes reliability/performance and might be available in this market is Lance Lynn. Find a way to trade for him and then sign Paxton or Kluber (or someone in that category), and the rotation would suddenly look pretty decent with real depth behind them.

Morton apparently wants to stay in Florida, so unless that changes, I don't think the Jays have a shot. Obviously if he's willing to go to the highest bidder regardless of location, then a one year deal for him would be the ideal fit. This does seem like the type of market where if the Jays are going to go big on someone, it would be better to do it on a position player (Springer or DJ specifically). Other than Bauer, I'm lukewarm on the free SP's. Almost all of them come with risk and varying degrees of upside, and I don't think there is one besides Bauer I'd go more than 1-2 years on and feel confident about it (mostly due to health, ex. Paxton, Kluber, Archer).

After Bauer and Tanaka (and Morton who definitely won't sign with the Jays), the SP market as a whole is filled with pitchers coming off injury/down years (Kluber, Paxton, Odorizzi, Quintana, Archer, etc). Ray is included in that group as well and the Jays signed him. Upside is there on all of them but health/performance is going to be hard to predict. I've said before I think they end up with 2 more SP's before the off season is over, but I have no clue which direction they'll end up going in. The trade market might end up being a better option.

Syndergaard is a free agent after 2021. Time to right the wrong from 2013.

The Marlins roster on the big league level and minor leagues are very heavily Latino/Hispanic. I don't think it matters from a PR/optics standpoint that Ng is Asian instead of Latino. As long as she is good at her job, and builds a winner, that's all fans will really care about. I think Jeter is more concerned about building a loyal fan base in a predominately Latino area, and that's where identifiable players will be important. Ng and front office people in general will always be in the background.

Ryan Tepera apparently got a MVP vote. Well deserved.

Gausman has also accepted the QO. Not surprising.

One issue with MLB marketing is that the sport itself is very regional. So Aaron Judge will be a big star in NY, but no where else. That is going to limit his endorsement potential on a national level. When MLB was more of a national sport, it was easier for someone like Griffey to play in Seattle and still be one of the biggest sports stars of the decade. Hell, Nike is still coming out with Griffey shoes in 2021. Now it is going to be harder for any baseball player to have that sort of reach. It doesn't help that MLB was very, very late to the party when it came to social media, so they likely lost a lot of potential fans in the last decade. They are just now being flexible and allowing content creators (Jomboy and others) to promote the sport on YouTube and Twitter without fear of being banned. The entire league needs a makeover in terms of how they promote their stars and the sport itself, and I don't think it's too late to fix it. They just have to take it seriously and not put all the onus on the players to promote themselves.

The QO was perfect for Stroman. It is a big raise from what he got in arb for 2020 (even though he never got to touch most of it due to sitting out), and he didn't even throw a single regular season pitch. Now he gets $18.9 million in 2021 to build up his value for next year on a team that figures to at least be good, if not a playoff team depending on who they add. Someone like Odorizzi last year got screwed by the QO since he was coming off one of his best seasons, but Stroman didn't even pitch. This is one of the rare cases where the QO benefits the player more than anyone else. Even with his massive ego, he had to accept it in this market.

This is why I think the Players Alliance is going to make a significant difference for the sport in the next 5-10 years. You have a group exclusively of current and former big leaguers (Granderson, CC, Maybin, etc) who range from Gen Z to millennial to 40's, that are much more familiar with the plight of black families and how to reach black kids than the corporate types who probably have a great deal of power in MLB sponsored programs. If MLB stays away from the Players Alliance and lets them do their own thing, it has far more potential for real results.

In other news, Stroman has accepted the QO from the Mets.

The RBI program started 30 years ago and the percentage of black MLB players has gone from 17% to 8% during that span. Don't get me wrong, the RBI program is a good thing, and I believe MLB has started to do more recently to increase participation, but there is a reason why former and current black players formed the Players Alliance. More could be done in those communities. Giving underprivileged kids who can't afford to play the sport (a lot of them being black due to obvious factors) an opportunity to not only play it but also develop with proper coaching, will potentially create a pipeline of future baseball players who otherwise would have never even considered the sport due to their financial situation. Worst case, most of those kids decide to do something else, but still get a passion for the sport that they never had before they started playing it. As I said, forget about PR or optics, look at it from a pure business standpoint. Investing more in those areas has far greater marketing upside than practically any other demo they are reaching right now. I don't think there needs to be a quota for the amount of black players in the league. The issue is more so giving kids who can't afford to play the game a chance to play it, and also to increase the black audience watching the sport. You do both of those things to make the sport more popular/money, not to placate anybody or reach a quota. Of course, MLB is really bad at marketing its players of any race, so that brings up another issue that needs to be corrected.

MLB has to do a better job of not only getting more African American athletes, but appealing to African Americans period. It's not about equality or fairness, it's about growing the popularity of the sport. Pop culture and "black culture" are intertwined in 2020. If you lose the black audience, then you'll probably lose young people in general. One part of that is representation. I believe 20 years ago the % of black players was 15%. Another part of that is accessibility. It's more expensive to play baseball than other sports, so you're losing inner city kids who can't afford to play the sport, and/or don't have the fields/training to become better as they get older. There are absolutely benefits for MLB to have more black players and none of those benefits include equality/optics. Get back to 15% and I think there will be a noticeable difference in the perception of the sport. Double down on the inner cities across the country. Invest in it. They will get a return on that investment over time. Another major problem is marketing, and that's unrelated to race since MLB couldn't make Trout or Harper bigger mainstream stars. That's a separate issue.

He was hired because Jerry Reinsdorf felt his biggest regret as an owner was firing TLR 34 years ago. That was legitimately the reason he was hired from what the media is saying.