Last week was our Trade Deadline special, so guess what we talk about this week? Yup, a whole bunch of trades that went down, as well as a discussion about covering the deals. Then we talk to former Dodgers general manager Dan Evans about his career and transitioning into the world of player representation, followed by the return of the producer and director of the fantastic film Cold Weather, to go with a listener contest where you can win a copy of the newly released DVD of the film. As always, we hope you enjoy.

Note: We do alert you to the presence of the occasional adult language and subject matter. Don't say we didn't warn you.

Up And In Episode 60: "The Point Is What I Was Right About"

Download Here (132 MB; 2:24:59) 
Join Our Facebook Group
RSS Feed
ITunes Feed – If you subscribe via ITunes, please rate and review!

Contact Information

Skype Voicemail: kingclipon

Table Of Contents

0:00 Let's Do This

3:08 Jason's favorite part of the show

3:48 Fan mail from flounders

38:24 Man, there sure were a lot of trades

1:04:14 What it's like to cover a trade deadline

1:10:11 Let's talk about left field prospects

1:17:12 Special Guest: Dan Evans (@danevans108), baseball agent and former GM of the Los Angeles Dodgers

1:39:16 Pop Culture Moment: Brendan McFadden (@brendanmcfadden) (producer) and Aaron Katz (director) of Cold Weather

2:08:26 Musical Guest: Transmontane

2:09:29 What Are You Drinking?

2:15:28 Cooking with The Professor: Call for recipes redux

2:17:54 The week ahead and goodbyes

Music is by Transmontane from the album Lo Specchio Circolare all right reserved, courtesy of Sick Room Records.

Thank you for reading

This is a free article. If you enjoyed it, consider subscribing to Baseball Prospectus. Subscriptions support ongoing public baseball research and analysis in an increasingly proprietary environment.

Subscribe now
You need to be logged in to comment. Login or Subscribe
Great stuff as always.

I would assume the main reason you didn't want to make that call to the other club was to keep your objectivity in your job. Once you start other team's bidding (pardon the phrase), you get into a really gray area workwise.
Also, here is a link to the audio of a general managers panel discussion at the recent SABR convention in Long Beach. Evans is one of the participants, as well as Fred Claire and Jed Hoyer. It was enlightening.
There is a problem with Kevin's general "We" rule--I call it the "Eduardo Villacis paradox." Briefly, Eduardo Villacis was brought up by Allard Baird of the Royals for a spot start at Yankees Stadium. Not in and of itself a novel situation, except Villegas 1) was not a prospect in any way, shape or form; 2) was brought up directly from AA; 3) had to be added to the 40-man roster for the spot start; 4) did not even have a uniform with his name on it; 5) was essentially unknown to every other Royals player on the team; 6) was immediately banished back to the minors and never appeared again.

Under the Goldstein rule, Villacis is in the Venn Diagram of "We."

Now, let's consider a child. This child's first memory is the green Astroturf of Kauffman stadium. Every night he fell asleep listening to Denny Matthews with his ear glued to his Mickey Mouse radio. He sobbed with Patek when Chambliss hit his home run. In other words, his youth is inextricably intertwined with his hometown, which is intertwined with the baseball team that plays there.

Under the Goldstein rule, that child is outside the Venn Diagram of "We."

I don't think this is a defensible position--the paradox is hos is it possible that Villacis as a matter of identity has a stronger claim than the kid?

My position as this--people shouldn't be given a hard time if they make a claim of shared identity for a sports team that played 1) in their hometown and 2) for which their connection extends to their early childhood.

This isn't a case of some frat guy moving to Boston from Indiana for college and two years later talking about "we" between him and the Red Sox. The "we" between a person and a childhood hometown team is as legitimate as any other identity claim related to one's hometown.
Well stated, passionately argued, and flat-out wrong.

In pro sports, unless you are contributing somehow to the effort, or are drawing a paycheck, "we" excludes "you." The question of how this works in college athletics is a bit thornier -- are you "we" once you've graduated? -- but it's cut-and-dried in the pro game.
First time I've listened to one, and I'm only getting to hear about half, but, in response to trying to figure out the Taiwanese player from the Dodgers' system, would it be Chin-Feng Chen?
It was.