Jake

About Sprint Speed metrics: I think this method is basically fine but I think it will give you a number that is too low for players who are nursing injuries or don't regularly hustle. I don't know if that applies to Joc or not. Worth noting that Statcast's outfield defense metric (which considers only the player's ability to catch balls, not their arm) had Joc doing quite poorly this past year and 2017 but was a touch above average in 2016 (when he was still in CF if I recall correctly). Fun fact: Yoan had a 98 wRC+ against lefties in the second half, not far off from his performance against righties.

Wonder why the Sox didn't sign him.

I'm not eager to trade Alec Hansen, but it is categorically wrong to say he is at his lowest possible value right now. Someone who says this really believes in his potential upside to be a good MLBer. If he has another season like the last one, few will believe in that upside and his value will be much lower.

Sure, I just don't know what it would be that he knows now but can't tell us until very shortly in the future (or why he would have foreknowledge that some other reporter will be reporting new details)

Hard for me to understand what it means for the rumor to be "added to" short of either the deal occurring or some other move occurring that makes this one seem more sensible/clarifies the likely players involved.

Would you do Abreu for Pederson straight up? Would they?

If we bring in Pederson we just have to get rid of Palka. Davidson would be a better fit at that point if he isn't already.

The hat has to be this: Also, I made the spouse look into this and she says by playing with the saturation, etc. she's confident there's red on the logo of the hat.

There is what appears to be a flag on the side of the cap, much more similar to the Dominican Republic WBC hat.

I do like the "swell option" deal structure as a possible explanation for the competing claims on length and dollars. The only question is whether someone would knowingly misrepresent the offer to reporters or if perhaps the source is someone who isn't plugged in enough to understand how to convey the parameters of a proposal like that.

I don't know about anything anymore, but one interesting thing to consider in light of the comparison to JD Martinez is that this deal may be pretty complicated like Martinez's was. A lot of forking paths where the team has to decide to keep him at a high price or risk losing him.

I don't see any of the ingredients in Nugenix on the WADA banned substances list (which I assume is the basis of MLB's list)

Even if Lozano is sure the Sox are behind this and want to send them a message, he wouldn't want to make it too obvious because he doesn't want to make it seem like Manny won't sign with one of the very few teams known to be in on him.

To be clear, anyone involved with the White Sox or Phillies (the only two clubs/entities who I think would leak this) leaking contract details, real or imagined, is engaging in some real shady behavior. Collusion casts a long shadow in MLB and Lozano sees what looks like someone trying to artificially cap the market at a low number.

I should add that there is a cost because fans like continuity; I'd like for there to be a clever solution that allows teams to retain their star youngsters for a longer term while paying them handsomely.

I think the change that would most improve baseball is reducing the time teams control their young players. Right now the potential value of young players kicking ass is so high that most teams see no reason to build through free agency, which is usually cluttered with 30+ year olds who no longer have steroids to keep them going late into their 30s. By reducing the time that teams control their young players, those players are less valuable *and* there will be more young, promising free agents available. This should lead more teams to try to win every year rather than do drastic teardowns in an effort to stock their farm systems with as much young talent as possible no matter the cost to the MLB product.

It doesn't have to, no. I don't believe there is any maximum salary in football, for instance.

I don't see this Murray issue as especially emblematic of MLB labor issues. NFL prospects contribute right away and high picks get a pretty large amount of guaranteed money even if they flame out immediately. It is very rare, as we all know, for a MLB draftee to get to the majors sooner than a couple years post-draft (and many who do don't stay). MLB draft picks are so risky and have such delayed gratification that they just aren't worth that much to the selecting teams. High NFL draft picks have a very high expected output and it typically takes very little time to see return on the investment. If you're going to be a first round NFL pick, it's always going to be financially safer to go to the NFL. Once you get past the first two NFL rounds, the calculus can get trickier for high MLB picks. What has been lost on the MLB side is how hard it has become for players to get free agent contracts, which used to be the best talking point against the NFL system since they are fully guaranteed. But with steroids leaving the game and teams hyper-focused on cheap control of young players, only a lucky few get 3+ year free agent deals in their careers and before that, they are no better off than NFLers (besides a better average pay I would guess).

It wasn't until the new luxury tax that payroll became correlated with victories in MLB. This can be caused by more things than the luxury tax, but I think there's something to the idea that when there was no real ceiling on spending, the big spenders would inevitably end up handicapping themselves by overspending. Think about where the Yankees and Red Sox have been in the not so distant past with a ton of dead weight contracts. A harsher luxury tax imposes more discipline on their spending while having the perverse effect of making only the super-rich teams capable of handling the expenses that come with going over the threshold.

Lack of a salary cap is definitely not the problem in baseball right now. The harshness of the new luxury tax may even be a key problem in getting the best players paid well.

For reference, league average payroll last season was about $140 million

So there are two questions: 1. Is this accurate? 2. Given the answer to the above, who would leak this and why?

If he doesn't get something better than 7/175, we're on the verge of a strike in a couple years.

I decided to look a little more closely at the ingredients, etc. and I was somewhat surprised that the ingredients were decent, all things considered. I still don't think it works and would strongly advise Frank (if he cared what I thought) not to shill for them, at least in the way that he does. It also costs a fortune if the GNC price ($85/month) is anywhere close to the typical price people pay. There are several ingredients with decent scientific evidence as libido boosters, at least among those with low libido, and a little evidence for fertility enhancement among the infertile. The ingredient they mention in the commercials had one study showing a modest increase in testosterone, but two follow-ups by the same research group found no effect on testosterone levels. In all the trials of that ingredient, people who were given that ingredient did not get stronger, leaner, or get any other practical benefit that might come from more testosterone. One ingredient has some modest evidence for slight increases in testosterone but is at a much, much lower dose than what has been researched. One ingredient probably does have a small benefit, but again not to testosterone. Research is fairly conclusive against testosterone enhancement, but somewhat encouraging for slight increases in muscle mass and strength in certain subsets of men. That being said, you could just purchase that ingredient for much, much less; a quick search turned up that ingredient at the same dosage in isolation for $10/month. Conclusion: mostly BS supplement (if we judge it by the claims they make on TV) but may give an edge to people who are training hard and may give erections to those who want them.

To be clear: the product Frank is a spokesman for is not a "testosterone supplement" in the sense that it is not testosterone. The way these products are *supposed* to work is they stimulate one's body to produce more testosterone within its natural means. Such products typically have zero effect on testosterone, though they occasionally will have some libido-enhancing effects that make the user feel like the stuff must be working. This stuff is only harmful to your wallet and probably not helpful for anything. Of course, the manufacturer wants people to buy it on the premise that it's probably something like legal steroids. There may be a couple products in the industry that successfully increase natural testosterone production, but we're talking about a very small scale that wouldn't be remotely comparable to steroids. Selling people steroids with minimal instruction and no supporting drugs would indeed be a medical nightmare that could risk people's fertility and a lot of other problems. In summary: Big Frank isn't promoting anything that's going to physically harm anybody. There's a tiny chance it will do something helpful, but probably not. Big Frank is promoting something that is total BS and it is unseemly for someone in the Hall of Fame to be part of a company that rips people off like that. Given that the scam relies on people assuming the product is steroids or something like them, it is especially dumb of Big Frank to be promoting it given his previous anti-steroids stance and the fact that his size always made him a target of suspicion. Note: I worked in the supplement industry for several years and got well-acquainted with the ways things work and how products get developed. Most herbals are BS in general and one should be most suspicious of ones that advertise on TV.