WEBVTT - Leading Off September 6th, 2024 (Ep. 897) 0:00:05.559 --> 0:00:08.719 What's going on? Everybody? Welcome into Leading Off the Fantasy 0:00:08.760 --> 0:00:12.000 Pros Baseball Podcast. We are presented by Bet three six 0:00:12.160 --> 0:00:14.200 five Bet five bucks get one hundred and fifty and 0:00:14.240 --> 0:00:16.720 bonus bets when you use that promo code Leading Off 0:00:16.920 --> 0:00:19.560 only with our friends over at BET three six five. 0:00:20.239 --> 0:00:23.200 Welcome back everybody. It is the Joe and Bubba Show 0:00:23.200 --> 0:00:26.079 here once again on Leading Off. Joel Rico taking the 0:00:26.079 --> 0:00:28.440 spot behind the mic here with Casey Bubba. You can 0:00:28.440 --> 0:00:31.120 find over on Twitter at b d En Trick Bubba. 0:00:31.520 --> 0:00:33.280 I have the graphic switched around and I was in 0:00:33.320 --> 0:00:35.279 your square, you were in my square. So we're off 0:00:35.280 --> 0:00:37.360 to a roaring start here. How you doing today, my friend? 0:00:37.640 --> 0:00:40.360 I'm doing great. We could share squares. It's okay. We're 0:00:40.400 --> 0:00:43.120 all just one big, happy family around here. So doing great. 0:00:43.120 --> 0:00:46.080 It's Friday. We're trickling tours, you know, three weeks after this, 0:00:46.280 --> 0:00:49.600 so baseball's going but we're loving it as usual. 0:00:50.640 --> 0:00:52.879 Yeah, we're really getting down to the nitty gritty. You 0:00:52.880 --> 0:00:55.640 got a fun outline today with some playoff prep. I 0:00:55.640 --> 0:00:57.400 got a couple of two star pitchers for next week. 0:00:57.440 --> 0:00:59.000 We're going to discuss a couple of hot bats. We're 0:00:59.040 --> 0:01:02.000 also gonna talk about potentially picking up for the stretch run. 0:01:02.240 --> 0:01:04.200 But we're gonna get started off with some headlines today 0:01:04.240 --> 0:01:07.000 and this one is right up Bubba's Ali being in 0:01:07.040 --> 0:01:10.480 the Bay Area. Being a Giants fan, Matt Chapman agreed 0:01:10.520 --> 0:01:11.280 to an extension. 0:01:11.400 --> 0:01:12.520 Kind of an odd timing. 0:01:12.560 --> 0:01:14.640 You don't usually see them come around this time of year, 0:01:14.640 --> 0:01:17.319 but six years, one hundred and fifty one million dollars 0:01:17.319 --> 0:01:20.479 for Matt Chapman. What is your thought process on this 0:01:20.680 --> 0:01:23.760 as a fantasy manager going forward and also as a 0:01:23.800 --> 0:01:25.560 Giants fan, do you like to move for the team. 0:01:26.000 --> 0:01:28.800 Yeah, as a fantasy manager, still a pretty solid you know, 0:01:29.360 --> 0:01:32.480 probably a top twelve, top fifteen, third basement depending on 0:01:32.520 --> 0:01:34.160 how you feel about him. I think he's done very 0:01:34.200 --> 0:01:35.920 well this year. He's not flashy, but he's gonna have 0:01:35.920 --> 0:01:39.200 twenty plus homers again, been very serviceable. As a fan, 0:01:39.440 --> 0:01:42.679 absolutely love it. I am ecstatic for multiple reasons because 0:01:42.680 --> 0:01:45.080 every offseason it's the Giants are linked to this player 0:01:45.120 --> 0:01:47.560 linked linked LinkedIn. They don't sign anybody to get that 0:01:47.600 --> 0:01:49.800 out of the way right now, big fan, big fan 0:01:49.840 --> 0:01:53.040 of that whole situation. Secondly, twenty five million year for 0:01:53.040 --> 0:01:55.120 the next six years, in about three or four years. 0:01:55.120 --> 0:01:57.320 Twenty five meals is not gonna sound like anything that's 0:01:57.400 --> 0:01:59.600 gonna be cheap the way things are going, so pretty 0:01:59.600 --> 0:02:02.240 pumped on that as well. And he just gives great 0:02:02.280 --> 0:02:04.400 defense when we already have pitchers like Logan Web and 0:02:04.640 --> 0:02:08.160 company coming through there. He's a great leader. There's a 0:02:08.160 --> 0:02:10.560 lot of factors about Chapman that he's again not flashy 0:02:10.600 --> 0:02:14.480 for fantasy. He's serviceable, very serviceable for fantasy, but when 0:02:14.520 --> 0:02:16.560 it comes to on the field and just the player 0:02:16.560 --> 0:02:19.720 that he is. As a Giants fan, absolutely pumped about this. 0:02:20.960 --> 0:02:21.760 Yeah, the defense. 0:02:22.120 --> 0:02:23.720 Watching him the last couple of years in Toronto, he 0:02:23.720 --> 0:02:25.760 was obviously a great defender. I think he won maybe 0:02:25.840 --> 0:02:28.640 one Gold Glove in Toronto, but the metrics weren't quite 0:02:28.639 --> 0:02:30.640 what they had been earlier on in his career. They've 0:02:30.639 --> 0:02:33.919 really bounced back this season. Fifteen defensive run saved, seven 0:02:33.919 --> 0:02:36.640 outs above average. The defense is great, the offense has 0:02:36.639 --> 0:02:38.680 been there, and from a fantasy point of view, he's 0:02:38.760 --> 0:02:41.480 thirteen stolen bases for Matt Chapman, who came into the 0:02:41.520 --> 0:02:44.680 season with eleven career stolen bases, so that's obviously been 0:02:44.680 --> 0:02:45.280 a huge part of. 0:02:45.280 --> 0:02:47.359 It as well. I like the move as well. I 0:02:47.400 --> 0:02:50.200 think this is a really solid real life and fantasy move. 0:02:50.240 --> 0:02:52.120 I'd like to see the Giants continue to add pieces 0:02:52.120 --> 0:02:54.280 in the way that they tend to, you know, they 0:02:54.320 --> 0:02:56.080 open up the pocketbooks a little bit, so I think 0:02:56.080 --> 0:02:57.840 there's a chance they could add a couple more pieces 0:02:57.840 --> 0:03:00.040 here and make this offense even a little bit. That 0:03:00.120 --> 0:03:02.080 are heading into next year, but a great move for 0:03:02.240 --> 0:03:06.400 the Giants. Parker Meadows hit a grand slam last night, 0:03:06.560 --> 0:03:09.120 go ahead grand slam off of Robert Suarez. Since his 0:03:09.240 --> 0:03:11.880 return over the last month, since August third, when he 0:03:11.919 --> 0:03:14.240 came back, he's slashing three oh one three point thirty 0:03:14.240 --> 0:03:17.840 three five twenty four with three homers and five stolen bases. 0:03:18.080 --> 0:03:20.160 Leading off a lot of the time in Detroit. What 0:03:20.200 --> 0:03:21.960 are your thoughts on Parker Meadows? Is he somebody that 0:03:22.000 --> 0:03:24.399 you're interested in down the stretch and also heading into 0:03:24.440 --> 0:03:24.839 next year? 0:03:25.520 --> 0:03:28.280 Yeah, I absolutely love it that. It's good to see 0:03:28.320 --> 0:03:31.320 him getting it going, you know, high high expectations entering 0:03:31.400 --> 0:03:34.160 draft season and then it obviously didn't work out. Goes 0:03:34.200 --> 0:03:36.000 a triple A, works on a few things, comes back, 0:03:36.080 --> 0:03:39.040 looks good before the hammy injury. Now he's returning and 0:03:39.120 --> 0:03:41.360 doing it all over again leading off, giving him a 0:03:41.360 --> 0:03:43.680 little bit of power, tons of speed, hitting for average. 0:03:43.840 --> 0:03:46.840 I'm very intrigued to come next season. Like, in reality, 0:03:47.040 --> 0:03:49.400 this might be the ceiling for Parker metals, but why 0:03:49.440 --> 0:03:51.520 couldn't he be this year's the next year's Jared Duran. 0:03:51.840 --> 0:03:53.960 Why couldn't he be that guy? Like that's like maybe 0:03:54.000 --> 0:03:56.080 a high ceiling, but that's the ceiling you could like 0:03:56.080 --> 0:03:57.920 shoot for in a draft, and you're probably gonna get 0:03:58.000 --> 0:04:01.360 him ten fifteen rounds after Jared Randam. Unless he less 0:04:01.360 --> 0:04:04.640 Parker continues to finish like this, then Helium will take over. 0:04:04.720 --> 0:04:07.760 So to your initial question, very excited with what we're seeing, 0:04:08.200 --> 0:04:09.920 Very interested in him for twenty twenty five. 0:04:11.160 --> 0:04:12.960 I mean, I like the comp I really do. 0:04:13.040 --> 0:04:15.320 He's got the power, he's got the speed, the ability 0:04:15.400 --> 0:04:18.039 to hit for a high average. I think the power 0:04:18.160 --> 0:04:20.520 might even be a little bit better than what Duran 0:04:20.600 --> 0:04:25.200 brings to the table overall, So could definitely be something 0:04:25.200 --> 0:04:27.680 that comes to fruition. I really like the Tigers offense, 0:04:27.760 --> 0:04:29.560 you know, I was talking about it last night with Vlad. 0:04:30.160 --> 0:04:31.920 I just think that they have a chance to do 0:04:31.960 --> 0:04:34.719 what Kansas City kind of did this year and take 0:04:34.760 --> 0:04:37.160 that next step forward in kind of a weaker division, 0:04:37.200 --> 0:04:40.080 a lot of offensive pieces taking another step. Maybe Jackson 0:04:40.160 --> 0:04:42.560 Job comes up and looks like what we're hoping for. 0:04:42.640 --> 0:04:44.960 So I think Detroit could be a really sneaky team 0:04:44.960 --> 0:04:46.920 next year in Meadows. Could definitely be one of those 0:04:46.920 --> 0:04:49.920 pieces that contributes over there, really really good stuff. Since 0:04:49.960 --> 0:04:53.240 he's come back off the IL, a pitching duel went 0:04:53.279 --> 0:04:55.400 down in Atlanta last night. One of the sides of 0:04:55.440 --> 0:04:59.159 that pitching duel not too surprising. Rinaldo Lopez six innings, 0:04:59.160 --> 0:05:02.600 five hits, too, n runs, eleven strikeouts. He's been excellent 0:05:02.720 --> 0:05:05.760 throughout the entire season. Probably gonna get some cy Young votes. 0:05:06.320 --> 0:05:09.880 The other side of this equation blew me away. I 0:05:09.880 --> 0:05:11.800 think he was the highest scoring player of the day 0:05:11.800 --> 0:05:14.120 in points leagues. If you had a DFS lineup and 0:05:14.160 --> 0:05:16.480 you put Austin Gomber in it, you got some kahonas, 0:05:16.560 --> 0:05:19.560 but you got paid off eight innings of one run ball, 0:05:19.839 --> 0:05:23.279 six strikeouts, and he picked up a win. There's nothing 0:05:23.360 --> 0:05:25.400 to read into this, right, Like, there's no way you 0:05:25.440 --> 0:05:28.080 can trust him at all, because I can't. Right, there's 0:05:28.120 --> 0:05:29.240 a phrase named after him. 0:05:29.240 --> 0:05:31.280 You got gombered. You can't trust him. 0:05:31.240 --> 0:05:35.640 Right, yeah. I The easy answer is I stumbled trying 0:05:35.680 --> 0:05:38.960 to say this properly, is yes, you cannot trust him, 0:05:39.200 --> 0:05:42.279 but I will throw a caveat out there. Four of 0:05:42.320 --> 0:05:44.719 his last five starts, three in runs are less like 0:05:44.760 --> 0:05:46.919 He's not striking dudes out, but neither is Corbyn Burns 0:05:46.920 --> 0:05:50.080 everybody like. Actually, Gomber has more strikeouts than Corbyn Burns 0:05:50.279 --> 0:05:52.760 over his last five starts, but its three in runs 0:05:52.760 --> 0:05:55.120 are less than four out of five starts for Austin Gomber. 0:05:55.440 --> 0:05:58.080 So yes, I'm not saying run to pick up Austin Gomber. 0:05:58.120 --> 0:06:01.120 But at the same time, I'm not saying it's an automatic. No, 0:06:01.240 --> 0:06:03.719 it's very challenging. I get it. It's stressful and this 0:06:03.800 --> 0:06:05.239 time of year we do a lot of dumb things. 0:06:05.240 --> 0:06:07.520 But if you look at Gomber, he gets at Detroit 0:06:07.560 --> 0:06:09.240 next week. I know, I agree with you. I like 0:06:09.279 --> 0:06:13.200 the Detroit team, but that could be interesting. He gets Arizona, 0:06:13.279 --> 0:06:16.200 stay far away from that, and then his last couple 0:06:16.200 --> 0:06:18.360 of starts he gets Saint Louis. So he's got three 0:06:18.360 --> 0:06:20.920 more starts. It looks like coming his way, Detroit might 0:06:20.960 --> 0:06:23.920 be the best of the three. So in the grand scheme, 0:06:24.120 --> 0:06:26.560 probably not worth anything. In fantasy. But at the same time, 0:06:26.839 --> 0:06:28.719 I wanted to give him a little hat tip. He's 0:06:28.720 --> 0:06:30.839 been better, I think than most of us expect, because, 0:06:31.080 --> 0:06:33.120 like we're all guilty of saying, yep, that's Austin Gomber, 0:06:33.200 --> 0:06:34.120 stay far away from that. 0:06:36.240 --> 0:06:38.880 I mean, hell, if I'm using him against Detroit, it's 0:06:38.960 --> 0:06:41.480 probably because I really need the volume. It's a deep 0:06:41.560 --> 0:06:44.719 league without many replacements. But he's been kind of interesting. 0:06:44.760 --> 0:06:48.240 Austin Gomber and Patrick Corbyn getting you fantasy championships. 0:06:47.680 --> 0:06:50.440 Down course really good. It's crazy. 0:06:51.040 --> 0:06:53.440 Cork Finn's been fantastic. He's like a top twenty player 0:06:53.760 --> 0:06:56.800 over the last two weeks. Somebody picked him up and 0:06:56.800 --> 0:06:59.599 and just got an absolute gold out of it. The 0:06:59.640 --> 0:07:00.440 other side, how did that start? 0:07:00.480 --> 0:07:00.600 Though? 0:07:00.640 --> 0:07:04.080 Ronaldo Lopez, he has really surprised me this season. I 0:07:04.160 --> 0:07:06.200 was worried about the innings. You know, he hadn't thrown 0:07:06.200 --> 0:07:08.240 more than one hundred innings going back five years. But 0:07:08.560 --> 0:07:11.800 he's a two to four ERA, one fifteen whip, eighteen 0:07:11.840 --> 0:07:15.040 percent strike up minus walk rate, a very successful conversion 0:07:15.040 --> 0:07:16.840 back into a starter. Does this mean we can trust 0:07:16.880 --> 0:07:18.760 him going forward? Are you going to be interested in 0:07:18.800 --> 0:07:20.000 drafting Rayleo next year? 0:07:20.760 --> 0:07:23.080 This is one of the handful of guys. I was 0:07:23.120 --> 0:07:25.320 talking with Ryan bloomfild on Bubble on the Bloom I 0:07:25.320 --> 0:07:28.560 think it was Tuesday Show and going this offseason is 0:07:28.600 --> 0:07:30.680 going to be fun to look into these guys with 0:07:31.400 --> 0:07:35.520 massive increases in innings, Lopez, even Chris phil his teammate. 0:07:36.520 --> 0:07:38.840 There's a handful of we know who was like Todd Tanner, Hawck, 0:07:38.840 --> 0:07:42.120 all these guys and seeing how do we evaluate this, 0:07:42.200 --> 0:07:44.200 because that's always the age old question. It's one thing 0:07:44.240 --> 0:07:46.040 is how many extra innings do they get each year? 0:07:46.400 --> 0:07:48.080 What about the guys take the big jumps, like Hazus 0:07:48.120 --> 0:07:49.760 Cauzardo took a big jump and now look at him 0:07:49.800 --> 0:07:51.480 this year. Is that because of the big jump in 0:07:51.480 --> 0:07:53.920 innings or is that just because hazus Azzardo's injury prom 0:07:54.040 --> 0:07:56.360 million dollar question Now if you want to pretend nown 0:07:56.400 --> 0:07:57.880 to that exists and you just want to look at 0:07:57.880 --> 0:08:01.000 a bubble of how good Renaldo's been the year and 0:08:01.080 --> 0:08:03.080 do you trust him going forward? I do. And the 0:08:03.120 --> 0:08:05.720 one reason I do is he was drafted by the 0:08:05.720 --> 0:08:08.280 White Sox to be a top tier starting pitcher. He 0:08:08.440 --> 0:08:11.720 was a very good starting pitcher prospect. It didn't work 0:08:11.720 --> 0:08:14.880 out with Chicago shocker. Stop me if you've heard that before. 0:08:15.320 --> 0:08:17.360 Goes to a team, works out of the bullpen, becomes 0:08:17.440 --> 0:08:19.200 very good again, goes to a team that knows how 0:08:19.200 --> 0:08:21.960 to utilize starting pitching, and we're starting to see it again. 0:08:22.320 --> 0:08:23.880 So I like Raylow He's going to be with the 0:08:23.880 --> 0:08:26.280 Braves again. You might have to pay a bunch for him. 0:08:26.280 --> 0:08:28.200 Like the questions would you rather have like chilling Bach 0:08:28.280 --> 0:08:30.920 or did you either have Rinaldo? That's a fun one, 0:08:31.240 --> 0:08:35.440 But yeah, Raylo, I do trust I will be slightly 0:08:35.440 --> 0:08:36.160 concerned with the ending. 0:08:36.240 --> 0:08:39.760 So man swelling Bach, I feel like I'd probably go 0:08:39.800 --> 0:08:41.320 with him. But it's interesting. 0:08:41.320 --> 0:08:43.520 I mean, ray Loo is you know, I say, he's 0:08:43.520 --> 0:08:45.079 probably gonna get some cy Young votes. He's going to 0:08:45.160 --> 0:08:47.960 get some cy Young boats. Swelling Bach has just been 0:08:48.000 --> 0:08:49.760 so good as a lake. It's an interesting question. I'm 0:08:49.760 --> 0:08:51.000 sure it'll be something that we talk about in the 0:08:51.040 --> 0:08:53.679 off season, especially with Atlanta probably going to be a 0:08:53.720 --> 0:08:56.360 lot better next year than this year. They've just dealt 0:08:56.360 --> 0:08:59.920 with a worst case scenario of injuries. Acunia Strider, Harris 0:09:00.240 --> 0:09:02.360 Riley had it down year, Olsen had a down year. 0:09:02.960 --> 0:09:04.839 I feel like we can project a better season from them. 0:09:04.840 --> 0:09:08.000 Heading into next year, somebody who's had a great season, 0:09:08.000 --> 0:09:09.439 then we might even be able to project even a 0:09:09.440 --> 0:09:11.280 little bit better next year. I'll expand on that in 0:09:11.280 --> 0:09:13.280 a second. Is Brent Rooker a couple of home runs 0:09:13.360 --> 0:09:16.360 yesterday thirty fourth and thirty fifth of the season a 0:09:16.520 --> 0:09:20.720 one to seventy WRC plus puts them only behind Judge 0:09:20.760 --> 0:09:23.920 Soto and Bobby Witch Junior this season. I feel like 0:09:23.960 --> 0:09:27.920 the babbitb is a little bit unsustainable. But going forward, 0:09:28.040 --> 0:09:30.040 they're not going to be playing in the Coliseum, They're 0:09:30.040 --> 0:09:32.480 going to be playing in Sacramento, in a PCL park. 0:09:33.520 --> 0:09:35.600 There's a chance he hits fifty next year playing in 0:09:35.640 --> 0:09:37.640 that park. I think Brent Rooker the batting average might 0:09:37.640 --> 0:09:40.120 come down, but everything else is looking pretty good heading 0:09:40.120 --> 0:09:42.040 into Sacramento. I think in twenty twenty five. 0:09:42.400 --> 0:09:44.400 One hundred percent agree. And this is what I've talked 0:09:44.400 --> 0:09:47.040 about a lot because I grew up close by this stadium. 0:09:47.120 --> 0:09:49.320 I was in high school when the stadium was built 0:09:49.440 --> 0:09:51.920 and the Rivercats opened it. So I've been to mini 0:09:51.960 --> 0:09:55.880 games in this ballpark, and it flies in the summer 0:09:55.880 --> 0:09:59.319 because it's a consistently over one hundred degree temperatures, it's 0:09:59.320 --> 0:10:02.079 a dry heat and the ball will just fly out 0:10:02.080 --> 0:10:04.960 of that place. So unless they get like a crazy 0:10:05.000 --> 0:10:08.760 humitt Or situation going on there, that's that's possible. I 0:10:08.800 --> 0:10:10.320 agree he could be in for a big year. Do 0:10:10.360 --> 0:10:13.520 you trust it in drafts? That's tough. But it's back 0:10:13.559 --> 0:10:15.360 to back really really solid years, so at least we 0:10:15.400 --> 0:10:17.040 have to give him some critics. I think a lot 0:10:17.040 --> 0:10:19.200 of people this year thought you can't draft for Rooker, 0:10:19.240 --> 0:10:20.880 You're coming off a career year, all these things. Well, 0:10:20.880 --> 0:10:22.160 he's done in two years in a row. Now, now 0:10:22.480 --> 0:10:25.120 we've got to respect it. Plus the increased environment, I 0:10:25.160 --> 0:10:27.760 agree Rooker could be in for quite the fun season 0:10:27.760 --> 0:10:30.360 in twenty twenty five. So good Bladet and Butler and 0:10:30.400 --> 0:10:32.440 the rest of the team's hitting extremely well. It's going 0:10:32.520 --> 0:10:35.320 to be fun seeing how that cookie crumbles and drafts. 0:10:36.080 --> 0:10:38.600 With Lawrence Butler, I've gone from a place of thinking 0:10:38.679 --> 0:10:40.960 he was gonna be a huge fade for me next year. 0:10:41.080 --> 0:10:43.400 But the strikeouts have kept coming down, the swinging strike 0:10:43.480 --> 0:10:48.040 has come down. He's stealing projecting out into that ballpark 0:10:48.080 --> 0:10:48.600 next year. 0:10:49.200 --> 0:10:50.640 He's turned from a fade. 0:10:50.440 --> 0:10:52.360 Into somebody that's probably gonna be a target as long 0:10:52.400 --> 0:10:54.000 as the price doesn't get out of hand, and there's 0:10:54.000 --> 0:10:55.959 a chance the price for Lawrence Butler gets very out 0:10:55.960 --> 0:10:57.800 of hand. But I think that he's somebody that I'm 0:10:57.840 --> 0:11:00.440 going to be pretty interested in heading into next season. 0:11:00.640 --> 0:11:02.839 Somebody where I don't really know what to make of 0:11:02.920 --> 0:11:06.120 them is TODJ. Bradley, who I was a huge, huge 0:11:06.160 --> 0:11:08.320 fan of. One of my bigger hits of the season 0:11:08.360 --> 0:11:10.160 was probably a by low call on him when he 0:11:10.160 --> 0:11:12.960 was really struggling. He looked like the say young winner 0:11:13.000 --> 0:11:15.000 for a month or so there and then over this 0:11:15.120 --> 0:11:17.040 last month he is a nine to twenty ERA with 0:11:17.080 --> 0:11:20.080 a one to seventy eight whip eight nine twenty ERA 0:11:20.200 --> 0:11:22.079 from Todge Bradley for the season. Now it's a four 0:11:22.120 --> 0:11:25.280 to forty ERA won twenty one whip yesterday kind of 0:11:25.280 --> 0:11:27.080 a mixed bag. He did strike out ten, but he 0:11:27.120 --> 0:11:29.600 allowed four and runs. I don't think I trust him 0:11:29.600 --> 0:11:31.440 against the Phillies next week. I think at this point 0:11:31.559 --> 0:11:34.240 I'm fairly comfortable dropping him, which I never thought i'd 0:11:34.240 --> 0:11:35.280 say about Todge Bradley. 0:11:35.320 --> 0:11:37.960 But it's been a pretty dark road for a while now. 0:11:38.880 --> 0:11:40.960 Yeah, I don't disagree with you. You mentioned the last seven 0:11:40.960 --> 0:11:44.680 starts near nine era over those last seven starts. It's 0:11:44.679 --> 0:11:46.720 a four to three one Sierra, so it's half the era, 0:11:46.840 --> 0:11:50.040 but it's still not ideal obviously, so I'm with you. 0:11:50.200 --> 0:11:52.240 It's tough. The strikeouts are great to see because he 0:11:52.240 --> 0:11:55.800 hasn't even getten that he's been so blown up of late. 0:11:55.840 --> 0:11:58.640 You mentioned the Philly start, We don't want anything to 0:11:58.679 --> 0:12:01.600 do with that. And then after that it's at Cleveland, 0:12:01.640 --> 0:12:04.719 who's struggled of late but still good, Toronto's picking it up, 0:12:04.960 --> 0:12:08.040 and then Boston that's a rough finish. So yeah, you 0:12:08.600 --> 0:12:10.360 can probably move on from TODs Bradley and hope he 0:12:10.400 --> 0:12:11.960 fixes things for twenty twenty five. 0:12:12.679 --> 0:12:15.640 It's unfortunate, but we've probably we've probably knocked enough off 0:12:15.640 --> 0:12:19.040 the price, whether it's draft rounds or auction values, that 0:12:19.440 --> 0:12:21.240 he might be pretty appealing now. And he was gonna 0:12:21.240 --> 0:12:22.760 be appealing to me, probably one way or the other. 0:12:22.800 --> 0:12:25.080 I just like the skills. I really buy into him. 0:12:25.280 --> 0:12:27.080 There is gonna be a bit of a home run problem, 0:12:27.120 --> 0:12:28.679 which could get in the way of things, but I 0:12:28.720 --> 0:12:30.240 think the price is going to be cheap enough where 0:12:30.880 --> 0:12:32.920 I'll probably invest, especially if we see a couple more 0:12:32.920 --> 0:12:34.679 of these starts the era. I mean, he had a 0:12:34.720 --> 0:12:36.640 two and a half ERA just like a month ago. 0:12:37.040 --> 0:12:40.199 It really just unraveled. This season just came apart for him. 0:12:40.240 --> 0:12:43.000 Somebody who's had a very solid season hasn't had a 0:12:43.080 --> 0:12:46.400 large sample size, but Cody Bradford another really good outing yesterday, 0:12:46.800 --> 0:12:49.079 six innings of one run ball against the Angels. He's 0:12:49.120 --> 0:12:51.560 been back for seven starts, He's got at least six 0:12:51.600 --> 0:12:53.440 innings in five of them and has not allowed more 0:12:53.440 --> 0:12:55.800 than three yearn runs in any of them. So how 0:12:55.840 --> 0:12:58.000 interested are we in Cody Bradford down the stretch. I 0:12:58.040 --> 0:12:59.800 feel like he's going to be somebody that I'm pretty 0:12:59.800 --> 0:13:03.120 interested in for next season. Not the most robust supporting metrics, 0:13:03.120 --> 0:13:05.600 but the results have been very good, good command. What's 0:13:05.600 --> 0:13:07.479 your interest level in Cody Bradford, Bubba. 0:13:08.000 --> 0:13:11.120 I'm very interested. The dude has been great. You know, 0:13:11.280 --> 0:13:13.360 even with to Grom coming back, it looks like Bradford 0:13:13.400 --> 0:13:16.520 will stick in the rotation. Garabito should be gonzo. But 0:13:16.559 --> 0:13:19.320 then Schurzer comes back and we'll see if Bradford sticks 0:13:19.360 --> 0:13:21.760 there or how that that goes. Maybe they go six 0:13:21.800 --> 0:13:24.160 man rotation with two kind of old injured guys. But 0:13:24.559 --> 0:13:26.840 I am very interested in Bradford. He's been outstanding. I 0:13:26.880 --> 0:13:28.640 wasn't even supposed to be in the rotation type guy, 0:13:28.679 --> 0:13:32.199 but he's flourished. Does get Arizona, which is tricky. Toronto, 0:13:32.240 --> 0:13:35.120 like he's already said, is pretty good, and but then 0:13:35.160 --> 0:13:38.080 he finishes against Oakland, so there is there is some 0:13:38.120 --> 0:13:39.120 good expectations there. 0:13:39.200 --> 0:13:42.400 I do like Cody Bradford. To your initial question, I'm 0:13:42.440 --> 0:13:44.280 a fan. I think I'm going to be pretty interested 0:13:44.800 --> 0:13:46.760 down the stretch. I'll probably pick him up in a 0:13:46.760 --> 0:13:48.480 couple of leagues here. I think there's probably some deeper 0:13:48.559 --> 0:13:51.120 leagues where he's still available, and I'll try and get 0:13:51.120 --> 0:13:52.520 onto the end of this hot streak here and see 0:13:52.520 --> 0:13:55.080 if I can get another start or two out of him. 0:13:55.360 --> 0:13:57.560 Let's switch to a little bit of playoff prep here. 0:13:57.800 --> 0:14:01.400 I've highlighted four two star pitchers who are kind of 0:14:01.440 --> 0:14:03.320 a little bit on the fence in terms of whether 0:14:03.360 --> 0:14:05.240 or not you'd start them or not. Going to get 0:14:05.240 --> 0:14:09.360 Bubba's take, starting with Cutter Crawford, who really just plummeted 0:14:09.360 --> 0:14:11.080 for a while there. He looks awful, but he has 0:14:11.160 --> 0:14:13.160 turned things around over the last couple of weeks. The 0:14:13.200 --> 0:14:15.920 only thing is a couple of tricky outings for him 0:14:16.000 --> 0:14:19.440 versus Baltimore and at the Yankees. You're putting Cutter Crawford 0:14:19.440 --> 0:14:20.960 in the lineups next week, Bubba. 0:14:21.400 --> 0:14:23.880 I will be not putting Cutter Crawford in my lineups 0:14:23.880 --> 0:14:26.400 next week, too, risk adverse to that at this point 0:14:26.440 --> 0:14:28.960 in time. Trying to predict ratios before the blow ups 0:14:28.960 --> 0:14:33.480 happen and Baltimore New York is not the recipe for happiness. 0:14:33.560 --> 0:14:36.440 I think, Yeah, I think I agree. If it's a 0:14:36.480 --> 0:14:38.760 deep league you need volume, then I'd probably do it. 0:14:38.800 --> 0:14:41.400 But in most cases it just hasn't been great. For 0:14:41.440 --> 0:14:43.560 Cutter Crawford. It started off so well, but he really 0:14:43.560 --> 0:14:45.400 fell apart in the middle of the season. And while 0:14:45.400 --> 0:14:47.320 he's gotten a little bit better recently, I just need 0:14:47.360 --> 0:14:50.360 to be starting guys that I'm fairly certain about this 0:14:50.400 --> 0:14:50.880 time of year. 0:14:50.880 --> 0:14:51.640 For the most part, a. 0:14:51.600 --> 0:14:54.760 Lot of these fringy guys, I'm not super interested in 0:14:55.200 --> 0:14:59.320 JP Sears at Houston at White Sox. The White Sox 0:14:59.400 --> 0:15:01.280 is obviously very peeling, but you got to also eat 0:15:01.280 --> 0:15:02.120 that Houston one. 0:15:02.400 --> 0:15:04.160 It's been kind of a mixed bag for seeriars. 0:15:04.240 --> 0:15:06.480 Some really good starts recently mixed in with some rather 0:15:06.560 --> 0:15:07.120 poor ones. 0:15:07.400 --> 0:15:08.320 You got any interest. 0:15:08.120 --> 0:15:10.760 Here I'm doing it. I've been using the series a lot. 0:15:10.840 --> 0:15:13.080 He should have dominated Seattle, he didn't. Prior to that 0:15:13.120 --> 0:15:15.560 some pretty good, so I'll take my chances. We just 0:15:15.560 --> 0:15:17.680 saw the Red shutdown Houston and Great America for a 0:15:17.680 --> 0:15:20.120 couple of days. Cross my fingers. Series could like at 0:15:20.200 --> 0:15:22.840 least at least just go like six and three. That's fine. 0:15:23.240 --> 0:15:25.320 Give me a quality start, give me the White Sox 0:15:25.400 --> 0:15:27.480 starts what I really want. So yes, I'm going JP series. 0:15:28.920 --> 0:15:32.360 Let's go to Valente Blosso at Pittsburgh at Washington. 0:15:32.360 --> 0:15:33.400 He's been a lot better. 0:15:33.200 --> 0:15:34.960 Than you might expect if you just look at the 0:15:35.000 --> 0:15:37.920 numbers for the season two really favorable matchups. 0:15:38.440 --> 0:15:39.840 What are your thoughts on Blazo there? 0:15:40.520 --> 0:15:42.880 Yeah, in deeper formats, I'm cool with it. I still 0:15:43.040 --> 0:15:45.880 don't trust what we're seeing from Belazzo, but it has 0:15:45.960 --> 0:15:48.920 been good so great matchups. Can't can't hate on that. 0:15:48.960 --> 0:15:52.360 So if you want to go there, I totally understand it. 0:15:52.360 --> 0:15:55.240 It's tricky, right, Like you want to start the best possible, Guys. 0:15:55.240 --> 0:15:56.760 I think a lot of people go through this time 0:15:56.800 --> 0:15:58.560 of year, like do you go for the talent or 0:15:58.600 --> 0:15:59.600 you go for the matchups? 0:15:59.640 --> 0:16:01.240 If you had to prioritize is just one. 0:16:01.280 --> 0:16:03.880 Generally speaking, are you starting the skilled player in the 0:16:03.880 --> 0:16:06.320 trickier matchups or the worst player in the better matchups 0:16:06.320 --> 0:16:08.040 in the vacuum matchups? 0:16:08.120 --> 0:16:10.160 Give me matchups alldly long this time of year because 0:16:10.200 --> 0:16:12.640 some of these teams have tossed in the towel, so 0:16:12.720 --> 0:16:14.800 you want every matchup possible. 0:16:16.280 --> 0:16:17.040 Let's do one more. 0:16:17.040 --> 0:16:20.560 Two star pitcher Mackenzie Gore, who another roller coaster of 0:16:20.560 --> 0:16:22.120 a season, but things have looked quite a. 0:16:22.040 --> 0:16:23.720 Bit better over the last little while. 0:16:23.960 --> 0:16:27.120 At are, excuse me, versus Atlanta and then versus Miami 0:16:27.160 --> 0:16:29.120 a trickier one and then a bit of an easier one. 0:16:29.320 --> 0:16:30.600 What say you on, McKenzie Gore? 0:16:30.640 --> 0:16:33.160 Bubba Gore has looked much better in the last three 0:16:33.240 --> 0:16:35.760 or four starts. Walks are down, strikeouts are still up. 0:16:35.960 --> 0:16:37.880 I'm gonna start them. I'm gonna start them. Though then 0:16:37.960 --> 0:16:40.880 the Braves offense is not as scary as people thought 0:16:40.880 --> 0:16:43.320 it would be, and that Miami one sets up pretty nicely, 0:16:43.320 --> 0:16:44.320 So I'll start mckinzior. 0:16:45.640 --> 0:16:46.600 I think I will as well. 0:16:47.280 --> 0:16:49.600 Atlanta makes me nervous, but not quite as nervous as 0:16:49.640 --> 0:16:51.280