My annual breakout player picks column is up for Insiders.
You can preorder my upcoming book, Smart Baseball, on amazon, or from other sites via the Harper-Collins page for the book. The book now has two positive reviews out, one from Kirkus Reviews and one from Publishers Weekly.
Also, please sign up for my more-or-less weekly email newsletter.
Keith Law: Bring on the new Messiah. Klawchat.
ssimo02: Is a September call-up (by necessity, on the 40-man at the time) who starts the subsequent season on the disabled list assigned to the MLB or the MiLB disabled list?
Keith Law: It depends on when he got hurt, and whether he was still in big-league camp. After a certain date (March 15th?) such a player hurt in big league camp would have to start on the major league DL. I think. It’s been a while since I ran into this.
Niklas: We don’t have a lot of baseball talent from Sweden so I’m kind of grasping at straws here. Is there a greater than 0% chance that half-Swede Antoine Duplantis (whose younger brother Armand competes for Sweden and just broke the world junior record in pole vault) of LSU gets drafted and makes it to the majors in the future?
Keith Law: I don’t know anything about him, but I found the question fascinating so I’m posting it anyway.
Josh: Is the White Sox’s Charlotte affiliate the most interesting team in AAA?
Keith Law: That’s a low bar to clear. Triple-A rosters are usually awful.
Clay: Been disappointed for the last couple years that the Twins drafted Jay over Benintendi, even if he becomes the next Andrew Miller, this is bad. Why was the plugged pulled so early?
Keith Law: I think the new Twins brass had already decided Jay was a reliever, or was unlikely enough to work out as a starter, so they moved him. I don’t agree with it, although there was clearly reliever risk with him going forward.
Chris: You and I finished The Underground Railroad at around the same time, and based on your review had similar feelings about it. It was terrifying and relevant and worthy of its accolades. But I’ve since read at least two reviews, the one most prominent from The New Republic, taking it to task for its fantastical elements, calling it escapist and trivial and minimalizing its relevance to today’s social and political scene. This is garbage right? How can this take be anything but a gross misreading of the text? I have an MFA in fiction and teach writing at a university. Normally I’d discuss this with colleagues, but we’re on spring break. I’d love to hear your thoughts on it.
Keith Law: I haven’t seen that review, but that sounds rather contrarian to me, and if anything misunderstands the value in its fantastical elements (e.g., the titular Railroad is an actual, physical railroad, operating in subterranean tunnels). It gives new interest to a setting and story that’s been covered quite heavily in American fiction. It allows Whitehead to move the main character quickly to new states. It avoids the need for long passages about the hardships of flight, which, while historically accurate, don’t tell the story Whitehead wanted to tell. It’s not like this is some Paul Theroux travelogue of an escaped slave enjoying a leisurely train ride through the antebellum south.
Ben (MN): Top Chef announced the next season will be in Denver. Any potential challenge or restaurant visit you’d be excited to see in Colorado?
Keith Law: If this season doesn’t have a “cooking with weed” challenge I’ll be very disappointed, especially because Stoned Padma would be epic.
Exexposfan: Yesterday you said you knew codeified racism from working in baseball for many years from the Kinsler tweet. Assuming that comes from witnessing several events can you elaborate on an example? Not that I doubt you but I am curious and want to know such an event that goes on behind closed doors. If you can’t name names that’s fine.
Keith Law: I won’t give specifics that might affect people working or playing in the game, but I can point to two examples at a general level. One was the use of the phrase “winning player” or “not a winning player,” applied along almost exact racial lines. I think I only heard a white player called “not a winning player” once, because he was on the DL, as opposed to at least ten players of color called that. The other is one you’ve all heard before: “Athletic.” Black players are presumed to be athletic, and, in my opinion, are unfairly dinged when they aren’t. White players who are athletic are given excessive credit for it, because the presumption is that they’re less so – and that they’re smarter or more instinctive. Sorry I can’t be more specific.
WarEagle: Thoughts on Alex Faedo, Brady singer and Schwartz at Florida? Has Faedo’s stock been down due to the rough start? I also took your recommendation a couple weeks ago and saw that Keegan Thompson is someone. Also saw the other two talented pitchers Davis Daniel and Casey mize who sat at 95 according to the stadium last weekend at the Florida series so also wanted to know about them too
Keith Law: I think Faedo’s stock is down just slightly, in part because people are concerned his knees are still affecting him. Schwarz appears to have no position and hasn’t hit the same since his freshman year. Singer is a future reliever for me with a great arm. Thompson is a back-end starter prospect. Daniel was on my top 100 last June but declined to sign; he, Mize, and Singer are all underclassmen and not draft eligible this year.
Garrett: Daniel Norris’ fastball jumped 1.2 MPH last year and his slider velocity increased from 83 MPH to 88 MPH. Those velocities have continued this spring. You’ve discussed in the past the importance of velocity in relation to Norris’ ceiling. As of today, what do you think his ceiling is?
Keith Law: Potential #1 starter for me. You asked on Twitter if he was “close” to my breakouts list; there’s no close or not close on a binary list like that, but I will say Norris was too good in the majors last year for me to project a breakout. I would expect him to just continue to do as well over a full season – 150-160 innings, ERA in the low 3s. That would probably make him a good buy for fantasy players.
CB: I’m no Rangers fan, but I can’t help but note that Adrian Beltre has 90.2 bWAR, and has not had a less than 5 bWAR season since 2009. When he retires, don’t you think he’ll have overtaken Mike Schmidt as the best 3B of all time?
Keith Law: He will probably do so in fact, but not in reputation. First ballot HoFer, though.
Paul: Keith – great list today; lots of guys I’d like to see do well. Curious if you considered Mike Foltynewicz? I know you’ve been a fan. He’s trended the right way in K-rate, BB-rate, and GB% every year; lots of HRs though. What sort of expectations do you have for him this season? Thanks!
Keith Law: Command remains the big question mark and I had no real basis for saying his command will be much better this year. I do still believe he’s best suited to starting.
Joe: Jonathan Schoop didn’t clear a 300 OBP last year. Did he really break out?
Keith Law: I’m not going to argue the semantics of who ‘broke out.’ It’s a nebulous term to begin with.
Paul: I have been intrigued by the demise of the Oakland’s As, and nobody is really writing about it. They use to be the darlings of the sabermetrician community, but all the moves they have made in the last few years don’t make much sense and the roster really sucks. What is going on over there? Is the front office to be blamed? thanks
Keith Law: I think they’re chasing different inefficiencies, but ones that are less obvious to us on the outside. And they’ve made some moves I don’t understand.
TC: Is Brendan McKay a guy who can go top 3 in the draft? If so, as a hitter or pitcher?
Keith Law: Yes. I think if the draft were held today, which fortunately it isn’t because I’m not ready, the top 3 would be McKay, Greene, and Wright in some order. I know one team up top that likes McKay more as a hitter, but the consensus is still very much that he’s a LH starter. The 15 K outing didn’t hurt.
Derek: Thoughts on Koda Glover? Spring results have been impressive but have come against middling competition. Does he have top 10 reliever potential?
Keith Law: I think he does and I think he’ll end up leading the team in saves.
Mac: Keston Hiura is clearly the best hitter in college baseball but does his elbow injury make him too risky to pick in the top half of the 1st round?
Keith Law: Clearly? I’ll dispute that. I think he’s a back of the first round guy. And I know more than one scout who’ll argue that McKay is a better hitter than Hiura.
Evan (Canada): Hello, can you tell us what you’ve seen/heard about Tim Mayza from Toronto organization? Thank you.
Keith Law: Seen him. Big stuff, below average command, reliever ceiling.
JR: Just wanted to say you’re the only reason I pay for my insider sub. If you go, I go (and I still may), but thank you for your content.
Keith Law: You’re welcome. I’m flattered you find my work worth the cost.
Andy: We have a USA baseball player saying that he hopes kids watch the US players because of the way they play the game, unlike those kids from the DR or PR. We have a GM saying he wants gritty, working class players.
In a couple weeks we’ll get hand wringing about how minorities aren’t choosing baseball, instead liking a sport in which a guy nicknamed Swaggy P, who dated a “rapper”, makes crotch gyrations after a game winning shot.
Keith Law: I had to look up who Swaggy P was, which shouldn’t surprise anyone here since you all know I don’t watch basketball. But yeah, Kinsler’s comments were out of line. Another player celebrating isn’t affecting your life or your game, and regardless of his intent, it came off as blatant dog-whistling.
Andy: Any word on Brady Aiken’s velo?
Keith Law: Upper 80s. Not good.
David: Does Yankees P Jordan Montgomery have a chance to be an effective starter?
Keith Law: I do not think he’s a ML starter.
Michael: Why is there so much talk about how Tebow can’t hit? Shouldn’t we be talking more about how he can’t throw?
Keith Law: Or we could talk about how he can’t field, which means he’s going to hurt someone if he plays too much leftfield this spring.
Darren: The AL seems to be loaded with candidates for the ROY, but I’m not seeing much competition for D. Swanson. Who are some of the top candidates you expect to get enough at bats to qualify for the NL ROY?
Keith Law: I had it as Swanson, Reyes, Bell coming into the spring, and now with Reyes out I think those two are the leaders.
Philip : At this moment how would you rank McKay, Bukauskas, Wright, Faedo, Romero
Keith Law: McKay, Wright, and Faedo all project as sure starters if healthy. Bukauskas might have the best 3-pitch mix of all of them, but he’s a 6′ RHP with no plane and no use of his lower half in his delivery. I would have to rate him lowest because I think he’s probably a reliever.
Ted: Thoughts on the Tim Anderson extension?
Keith Law: Seems fine to me.
Eddy: Percent chance that Mitch White is a top 100 prospect at this time next year?
Keith Law: Pretty high if he stays healthy and pitches all year like what I saw last week. Whoa boy.
JQP: If a reader sees you at a ballgame, do you get annoyed if they approach you because you are working and they are interrupting? When would be the best time to approach you during a game?
Keith Law: Between innings, before the game, after (if you catch me … sometimes I leave skid marks), all fine. While the game is in progress is just less than ideal, because I need to focus on what’s on the field. But overall I’m very happy to meet any of you at the park.
Josh: Finally getting to try Terraforming Mars this weekend. Do you know of any new games you’ll be reviewing soon? Or once the season starts is your time too full?
Keith Law: I have at least six here that I need to play and review, but spring travel has wiped out my free time for this.
John: You made the point in your last klawchat that “‘you’re in america, speak english’ people should go jump off a tall building”. I’m wondering how consistent you are with that belief. Do you think that no matter where one lives, it is the responsibility of the locals to adapt to the foreigner’s language? I’m an American living in Peru. The vast majority of people here don’t speak any English. Should I insist they learn English to suit my needs? Or in an attempt to better integrate myself into their culture, should I continue learning Spanish so that I can better understand them and make them more comfortable?
Keith Law: Congratulations on completely missing the point.
Miz: Do you see Adolis Garcia playing at the big league level this year? What should we expect out of him as a prospect?
Keith Law: I’m hoping to see him this upcoming week. I’d rather not offer an opinion now that I have to revise in a few days.
Chuck C: I know Spring Training doesn’t matter and SSS, but have you seen or heard anything that has changed your opinion on a particular prospect or two since your rankings?
Keith Law: Only what I’ve written about so far, like Mitch White.
Tony: The Dodgers have reportedly focused on “rebuilding” Willie Calhoun’s defense, including a diet/exercise regime losing him 16 pounds a “crash course” on defensive fundamentals. Does that investment by the Dodgers give you any optimism that Calhoun could stick at 2B? And, more generally, are defensive skills/talents more easy to improve than offensive skills/talents? Off-hand, it seems to me that I hear of more minor league guys who blossom at the major league level with the glove rather than the bat. Just anecdotal or something to that?
Keith Law: Zero. You can’t just give a guy new feet. Or make a non-athlete an athlete.
John Wick: As a fan, how should I approach reports of prospects with increased velocity in spring training? Take Max Povse. Word is he’s up a few ticks? Should I trust a beat writer’s take or the spring training gun? And, if I should, what’s the likelihod that the velo bump sticks?
Keith Law: I’m very skeptical of media reports on velocity, because I don’t know where they’re coming from. Stadium gun? One scout? Front office? Someone trying to juice a guy? Players do show up with more velocity, sometimes, and other times they’re just throwing harder because they’re working 1-2 innings at a time, or are airing it out because they’re in big league camp and trying to make an impression.
Adam: If teams are already pitching around Seth Beer, could that effect his development in terms of being able to make adjustments?
Keith Law: I guess the counterargument is that the pitching he’s facing might not be good enough to force those adjustments. I think the 3-year rule is hurting him; he’d probably go 1-1 if he came out right now into this good draft class that’s muddled at the very top.
Adam: What are the chances Jordon Adell leaps to the top of position player draft boards by June?
Keith Law: Under 5%. More likely that he’s drafted on the mound.
Josh: Not sure you know the answer to this, but do you know why The Netherlands team featured players from Curacao but Puerto Rico had a separate team from the US? I guess the obvious answer has to do with the talent available, but was not sure if there was another reason.
Keith Law: Puerto Rico has its own IOC entry – separate committee, separate teams, etc. – and they can easily fill a WBC roster. The Netherlands team is almost exclusively players from Aruba and Curacao, and if you split them, you wouldn’t have a Dutch team at all.
Jason: One of your ESPN colleagues suggested a trade of Longoria for a package led by Ozzie Albies. Does even a straight-up deal for those two make sense for Atlanta?
Keith Law: No, that’s ridiculous.
Chris: With more teams moving to crazy 13 person pitching rotations, do you think a positive benefit could be that teams may work to develop players who can handle multiple defensive positions? I am thinking about players like Austin Barnes or Josh Morgan, guys who don’t quite profile as starters at premium positions or perhaps have demonstrable platoon splits, but could fill a backup role at two premium positions. Or, is it just too difficult of a developmental process?
Keith Law: I think the 13-man staff is an abomination. I agree with you on positional flexibility, although I think Morgan has a chance to be a good everyday guy as a catcher.
Tom: Any thoughts on Bill Simmons tweet calling out Jonah Keri for stealing his idea of ranking players by trade value?
Keith Law: I 100% believe that was in jest. It certainly brought Jonah’s column a lot of attention, all positive.
Jay: Keith, If pressed to build around 1 of these players to build a franchise, who would you select and why? (Maitan, Vladdy Jr, Leody Taveras, Moniak)
Keith Law: Just go back to my top 100, which included all four players. I wouldn’t give a different answer here.
Minty: Whether you agree with it or not, do you think that the Sox are positioning to call Moncada up in May after they save a year of service time?
Keith Law: No, I don’t think so.
Roman : Keith, always love your take on well, everything. Anyhow, what do you think the Cubs will do with Ian Happ?
Keith Law: I think he may end up trade bait, but that depends on how Baez looks as the regular 2b. Happ can play 2b well enough for me to be an everyday guy there for somebody.
JJ: Is Yadi Molina a future HOFer, of is he the catching equivalent of Omar Vizquel?
Keith Law: Probably not a HoFer for me, will certainly get the same media/fan treatment as Vizquel, but has a better subjective case (game-calling, pitcher handling) than Vizquel does.
Mark: What would you major in if you were to go to college all over again?
Keith Law: Applied math. And then I’d take language courses for all my electives. I had access to such amazing educational resources in college and feel like I didn’t take enough advantage of them.
Chip : Was hoping to see Jose Ramirez on the breakout list. Was he under consideration? Would he have been as an everyday 2B as opposed to playing somewhat out of position at 3b?
Keith Law: He wasn’t “under consideration.” He hit .312/.363/.462 last year; what’s the argument that he’s going to get better this year? If anything I’d say he broke out in 2016.
Rob: I saw video of Luis Castillo pitching. You had him rated #99 on your prospect list. Nasty, nasty stuff with what appears to be good control/command. Looks like a great find for the Reds. Oddly, his name does not appear on many other prospect lists. What do you think his ceiling/floor is? Thank you.
Keith Law: Ceiling mid-rotation starter. Most likely dominant two-pitch reliever. Floor good setup guy. All depends on health, and in his case the lack of a breaking ball.
Chip : Francona continues to mention Yandy Diaz’s shortcomings at 3B. Back in 2015, EL Managers voted him as the league’s best defensive 3B. Has he grown out of the position? The Indians rolled with chisenhall at 3b for several years so the bar can’t be that high.
Keith Law: I don’t think he’s that bad at 3b and neither do opposing scouts.
Rob: Kendall still ranked #1 on your draft board??? What do you think of this Austin Beck climbing up boards? Top five guy?
Keith Law: Beck is a very toolsy prep OF, not a top five guy, more than enough questions about feel to hit and about his makeup (I have no idea what, but three scouts from different teams all independently mentioned that to me). He’s probably ahead of Adell at this point. As for #1, it’s not Kendall, but I won’t do a formal ranking until mid-April, I think.
Marshall MN: Should Twins fans expect a bounce back season from Sano, or was 2016 an accurate representation of his reality? I had hopes of him being a better hitter than what he showed last year, not a guy who hits .230 with an OBP of .319.
Keith Law: Yes, I think there’s more in that bat, in average and in OBP.
David: Thoughts on Greg Bird?
Keith Law: 30 HR potential, but a DH.
joe: Did you get a chance to se Shed Long? I always like prospects with unique profiles. I wonder if he can hit enough to be a regular 2B.
Keith Law: I did not, but I don’t think anyone views him as a potential regular.
Jon: Do you think Daulton Jefferies has the stuff to move quickly and become a #3 starter if his health holds up?
Keith Law: The health question is enormous with him. He’s a slight guy who’s had real arm trouble. He’s healthy this spring and throwing well, but I would have a hard time projecting him as a mid-rotation starter right now given the last 12 months.
Drew: When will you be doing your column on breakout players? Thanks.
Keith Law: It went up this morning.
chauncey: This is much better and easier to read?
Keith Law: That’s my hope too. And the folks at Jotcast have been great about working with me on formatting.
Denis: Any thoughts on Bellinger this spring? It looks like he has been struggling.
Keith Law: Ignore. Spring training stats are useless.
Jeff: Braves fans are pushing the idea that Christian Pache is the next Acuno type player to breakout for the Braves. What kind of ceiling do you think he has?
Keith Law: That’s not crazy. Could end up a lot like Inciarte.
Mike: How far may Jeren Kendall fall in June’s draft after his slow start to his season ?
Keith Law: He’s hitting .297/.363/.560, leading Vandy in HR with 5, and while his strikeout rate is a little high it’s down from last year at 23.3%. That’s not a slow start.
Pete: So Trump/Russia……biggest political scandal or overblown?
Keith Law: I think it’s the former, but my knowledge of American political scandals is pretty limited.
Monkie_J: Probably asked and answered countless times, but what’s the best way to buy the book? As in, does one way get you an extra nickle over another?
Keith Law: Just buy it however you want. Yes, there are slight differences in what I get and I appreciate you asking – I think at least at the start I get more for an e-book than a hardcover – but really, it’s all good. If you buy it in any format, I’m happy.
Brian Snitker: What is the eta on Ronald Acuna? He looked awfully impressive in the Braves camp. Could he be ready by 2018?
Keith Law: That’s aggressive; he’s a stud but has about a half a year of AB above short-season.
Cam: Why could the whitesox not win with the core they had? Lack of depth?
Keith Law: Lack of OBP, lack of depth.
Marshall MN: Have you started to gear up for college baseball scouting, or still a bit too early to do so?
Keith Law: I’m going to see some HS/JC kids while in Florida, then see some premium college guys in April. My schedule just worked out differently this year, and I do have a little bit smaller travel budget too.
TK: You’ve probably already touched on this in the past and I missed it, but on a scale of 1-10, how dumb would it be for the 11th-inning extra-baserunner rules in the WBC to transfer to MLB? 15? 20? Infinity? I get not wanting to overexert pitchers in spring exhibitions, but I hate it for regular season games.
Keith Law: I despise these rules. It makes the games look like Little League. Just let the WBC teams carry more pitchers. I’d rather see a WBC game decided by the last man on a staff, someone who’s just there to be the long guy in the event of extras, than by that silly rule.
Archie: I read an article on how guys like Martinez and Donaldson are focusing on swinging up on the ball to get it in the air more, rather than the traditional “swinging down on the ball” and hitting it on the ground. Isn’t the ideal swing one where the hands and bat travel slightly downward from load to the hitting zone, then swing up through the same plane as the ball from contact to follow through? Doesn’t everyone who puts a good swing on the ball already “swing up”?
Keith Law: Yes, I agree with you, that’s the ideal swing, and most guys already swing that way. Hitters who swing down at the ball rarely if ever succeed. Matt Antonelli always did that. Lou Marson did that. There are few if any good big leaguers who swing down.
Drew: Your take on Kinsler’s comments were entirely off-base and over the top. I don’t doubt that racism still exists in the game; I also know that Kinsler wasn’t being racist. If you looked at the context, it was pretty clear that he was commenting on the differences, not criticizing an entire race or ethnicity. Normally I appreciate your insight–informed, considered–but in your effort to eradicate an opinion you don’t agree with, you can be extremely unfair and judgmental.
Keith Law: Allow to be more judgmental, then. Kinsler’s comments may not have come from a racist intent, but they drew a clear line between one race or ethnicity and another. It’s a case of differential impact; whether Kinsler actually thought about that is irrelevant. He should just shut up and worry about his own behavior, not about whether another team celebrates too much.
Marshall MN: Klaw, the same sort of racial based generalities are used in almost all sports. In soccer, teams from Africa are almost always described in specifically athletic terms (raw speed, agility, jumpers, etc) while teams from Europe are technical, skilled, etc. I cannot believe how frequently seemingly intelligent people fall back to the same stereotypes. Look at how African American QBs are still talked about even today.
Keith Law: I remember the days when the NFL conventional wisdom was that you couldn’t win with a black QB. Those beliefs tend to be self-reinforcing.
Ian: In relation to your note on how guys who see a massive spike in velo over a short period of time (i.e. Strasburg and Zumaya) are prone to blowing out their elbows….what usually leads to that spike? Is it better training, natural physical development, mechanical changes? All of the above?
Keith Law: I don’t know if there’s any common thread. My hypothesis, again totally untested and unverifiable, is that the newfound velocity puts more stress on the elbow ligaments than they are able to handle.
Rob: Have you seen Sal Romano this spring? Do you still think he’s a reliever going forward or can he be more? Obviously a small sample size but he is having a great spring.
Keith Law: Still think that’s a reliever’s delivery. High slot, tough to repeat, tough on the shoulder, not conducive to a good CH.
Philip : If Brendan McKay has a number 3 ceiling wouldn’t you rather try the upside of Bukauskas and Faedo
Keith Law: If McKay is only a #3 starter in the big leagues, but gets there fast and holds that value for six years, what is that worth in the free agent market? $90 million? I’m okay with it, especially since the other two guys you mentioned have real risks of their own.
Jay: Do you buy Eric Thames as a “fantasy sleeper” this year? He seems to be a popular late-round guy, according to the fantasy gurus.
Keith Law: Late round, sure, I guess. I’m not particularly sanguine about him, but isn’t there a point in your draft where he’s worth the flier?
Jackson: Paul Dejong of the cards a potential regular or utility?
Keith Law: If he can really play short, regular. But maybe that makes him a 500 AB multi-position guy, too.
Scott: Thanks for motivating me to finally pick up my copy of Yiddish Policeman’s Union that’s been sitting on the shelf for a year. My question is about the volatility in velocity of young pitchers and how it is shaping baseball. As an elevator of talent, how do you know when the decrease in velocity with top prospects like Jon Gray, Lucas Giolito and Archie Bradley is permanent? When a team sells low like the Nats did on Giolito is it because they don’t think it’s coming back?
Keith Law: I think when teams sell low it’s more that they have lost faith in their evaluations. They thought the player was X, now he looks like he’s less than that – because his stuff is down, his body hasn’t developed, his makeup is worse than they knew, or something else – so let’s move him now before his value is totally gone.
Ben: I know you don’t care much for the WBC, but did last night’s game move the meter at all for you? (i.e., Stroman’s dominance)
Keith Law: Nope. I was in bed around 11. I have a daughter in school, so I’m up at 7 am. I’m not staying up till 1 am to watch an exhibition game.
JJ: I don’t mind if Tebow wants to play minor league ball. It doesn’t bother me if the Mets want to play a non-prospect ahead of another no-chance guy on their single A team. But the media coverage, led by your employer, of this non-story drives me up a wall.
Keith Law: I agree with you, including ESPN’s coverage of his spring. It was unwarranted. And, by the way, we don’t know that he’s blocking a no-chance guy yet, do we?
Alex : Do you think Luis Robert will be cleared for the current intl signing period? Who do you think gets him?
Keith Law: No idea. I don’t even ask MLB about these guys until they’re cleared.
Ben: I know it’s early, but will you be at either the PG or UA games this summer?
Keith Law: UA for sure – maybe doing some kind of signing in Chicago? – PG unknown. Just a tough trip for me from the east coast for one day.
Another Michael: Would you vote for Gorsuch if you were a senator? Would you filibuster?
Keith Law: I would filibuster, in large part because he’s not Merrick Garland.
Eric : Jose Peraza lost some prospect shine the past two years, but it looks like it’s coming back. Do you think he’ll be able to hold his own in the 1-2 spots of the Reds lineup?
Keith Law: I’d rather see him hit 8th. Has never shown any propensity to walk, and doesn’t have the power to hit 2nd.
JJ: “Baseball Tonight” question. How does it work for the panelists on a nightly basis? Do you guys just sit in a room together with ten TVs airing all the games at once? Or are you assigned a couple of games to watch, and another panelists gets assigned another pair of games, etc.?
Keith Law: We’re all in the clubhouse with a bunch of games on the TVs and we just kind of talk about whatever we see.
John: Good job of avoiding the point then and instead just being evasive and rude.
Keith Law: I have no use for people who try to play “gotcha” games with questions like that. You want a serious discussion, then ask a serious question. Don’t compare a solitary expat trying to integrate into a monolingual country with entire communities establishing themselves in a country that has for its entire history been one of successive waves of immigrant communities, typically bringing their own languages, cultures, cuisines, and religions with them.
Mike : You still listening to Bell Biv Devoe?
Keith Law: Now you know.
Keith Law: That’s all for this week. Thank you as always for all of your questions, and for the feedback on the new software. It looks like it’s a keeper. I will almost certainly not chat next week unless I’m rained out somewhere, but chats will resume in April. Thanks again.
I completely understand and see the merits in your position on Gorsuch and the filibuster, but I did want to ask how you’d respond to the counterarguments (which I’m sure you’ve thought about) that (a) Gorsuch is the brightest and, more importantly, sanest nominee you’re going to get from Trump, (b) tactically if the Democrats might want to keep the filibuster and avoid the risk of having Republicans get rid of it since Gorsuch for Scalia doesn’t change the balance but the next opening, assuming it happens in the next four years, might drastically change it, and (c) this insanity with judicial nominations, for which both sides share responsibility, has got to end sometime and somewhere, even if what happened to Garland was wrong.
Thanks for your time, and all your work – your chats are one of the highlights of my week at my distressingly boring job.
Gorsuch might be sane and bright, but he seems to be fairly far to the right, an extremely strict constructionist who could obstruct progress for decades. I also don’t think (c) should be a factor here; it’s not the Democrats’ job to play grownups, and doing so has actually hurt them in the past.
But mostly I think that the Dems haven’t obstructed enough. The current Administration’s legitimacy is in question, and I agree with Rep. Ted Lieu’s calls for a moratorium on any Trump proposals until the Russia question is sufficiently answered.
I think point (c) is extremely important. Both sides should be ashamed of themselves. Garland should have been confirmed easily, just as Gorsuch should be now. These are our courts at stake; there’s no better time to be a grownup.
The problem is we need both sides to act like grownups. If one isn’t, however, the other is at a significant disadvantage if it takes the high road. That may be a flaw in the system, but I think it’s an accurate view.
Michael, what do the Democrats have to be ashamed of here, exactly? They have played by their rules (I agree with Keith – this is to their detriment), and then the other party burns everything to the ground. False equivalency between the two is a huge problem in “centrist” commentary.
They are trying to obstruct a nominee who is extremely qualified and whose integrity cannot be questioned. That is the test each senator, in my opinion, should use when deciding whether to confirm.
They also appealed to emotion with cases such as the frozen trucker.
Both sides have failed–I am not sure if one side deserves more blame or not.
Remember, Democrats started the modern politicization of the Court with Bork (Scalia, for instance, got confirmed, 98-0 (!) in 1986). That was a disgrace. But Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden got what they wanted. Without that move, there would be no gay marriage or affirmative action or a bunch of other things.
This issue bothers me because citizens in this country depend on courts, and right now the federal judiciary cannot function properly because of D.C.’s incompetence.
Oh yeah, rejecting the guy who carried out the Saturday Night Massacre was such an egrigious act of politicalization. No non-partisan reasons for not wanting that guy on the bench. Your disingenuity is astounding.
Uh, that clearly was not the reason Bork got rejected. I’ll ignore the insults.
In Kennedy’s famous speech opposing Bork, he said, ” President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans.”
While Watergate was not the only issue with Bork, it is plainly incorrect that the Saturday Night Massacre had nothing to do with it.
Note also that Bork’s replacement (Kennedy) was approved 97-0, and following that, David Souter was approved 90-9. So, your proposed narrative doesn’t really square with the facts.
I never said it had nothing to do with it. But it was a small, small factor, if at all. It’s silly to point to that reason. It was clearly his judicial philosophy.
You conveniently skipped over Thomas. Was that intentional or oversight?
As for Kennedy and Souter, neither was all that conservative at the time and both proved to be relatively good justices for Democrats. Republicans similarly would have been just fine with Garland instead of Sotomayor or Kagan.
I’m sorry. Souter was before Thomas. But you conveniently ended with Souter when there was an equally contentious confirmation to Bork right after.
Oh, yay, another candidatie with substantial non-partisan baggage being presented as evidence of politicization. Disingenuity isn’t an insult for you, it’s simply a statement of fact.
You keep moving the signposts.
You said, “that clearly was not the reason Bork got rejected.” I pointed out that it clearly was part of the reason, and you said, “I never said it had nothing to do with it.” But, you did say that. That’s what “not the reason” means.
You also proposed that Bork’s nomination was a turning point, where the Democrats somehow irrevocably politicized the process forevermore. It is true that Bork was contentious, and it is also true that Douglas Ginsburg had to withdraw from consideration (though that was largely due to Republican opposition to his drug use). But then there were two further Republican nominees–the ones I pointed out–that sailed through. In short, the evidence does not support your assertion that Bork represented some sort of turning point. What it DOES support is that there were problems unique to him that derailed his nomination, and that the hyper-politicization of SCOTUS nominees came sometime thereafter.
I’ll do you the courtesy of overlooking your snotty suggestion that I am “conveniently” manipulating the evidence to suit my purposes.
“They are trying to obstruct a nominee who is extremely qualified and whose integrity cannot be questioned. That is the test each senator, in my opinion, should use when deciding whether to confirm.”
Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas could have failed your own personalized test in the eyes of reasonable observers, so what was the big issue with Democratic opposition to their nominations?
I stand by my assertion that it was not the reason, but I don’t mind editing it to say that if it was a reason, it was a very, very small one.
I also never said that “Democrats somehow irrevocably politicized the process forevermore.” So if you’re going to call out fallacies, call out your own.
Why didn’t you mention Thomas? It was really convenient not to mention him.
Also, how could the Democrats not confirm Kennedy when they already borked Bork? That’s a poor data point, sorry.
When did the hyper-politicization start then? Roberts and Alito both had plenty of no votes.
Kevin, Bork’s integrity wasn’t really questioned. It gets back to my original retort: the Saturday Night Massacre just wasn’t a big part of his confirmation at all. Watch the hearings.
Also, the Anita Hill stuff was a staged circus. Was there any real evidence outside of her testimony?
Also, the Anita Hill stuff was a staged circus. Was there any real evidence outside of her testimony?
You say that as if her testimony was worthless.
Also, Lillian McEwen later corroborated some of Hill’s claims. It’s pretty clear that Thomas engaged in conduct that should have disqualified him from the post.
I’m about done responding to you, since you just keep changing your argument, while also accusing me of manipulating my evidence. I’m going to try one last time.
You said:
“Democrats started the modern politicization of the Court with Bork.”
Here is a list of the nominees since Bork:
1987: Ginsburg (withdrawn)
1987: Kennedy (confirmed, 97-0)
1990: Souter (confirmed, 90-9)
1992: Thomas (confirmed, 52-48)
1993: Ginsburg (confirmed, 96-3)
1994: Breyer (confirmed, 87-9)
2005: Roberts (confirmed, 78-22)
2005: Miers (withdrawn)
2005: Alito (confirmed, 58-42)
2009: Sotomayor (confirmed, 68-31)
2010: Kagan (confirmed, 63-37)
2016: Garland (no hearing)
2017: Gorsuch (pending)
It’s not so easy as picking out a single justice and saying “There it is! That’s when it happened!” It’s been a slow march from the standard you describe, to the hyper-politicization of today. However, it is the case that only one party essentially invented a new standard to avoid so much as giving the other party’s nominee a hearing.
And I did not exclude Thomas because it was “convenient,” I did so because he’s not germane to the point. Again, check your own words–you pointed to Bork as the starting point for the politicization of the court. The two justices confirmed immediately after him undermine that argument, whether or not you personally accept those data points.
In the end, I realize you’ve reached your conclusions about (a) Bork, (b) Anita Hill, (c) the Democrats, (d) a host of other things. So I know I’m really just tilting at windmills here.
In my mind “the reason” means “the primary reason.” I am willing to admit that was probably the wrong wording and for that, I am sorry. I don’t see where else I keep changing my argument…
I don’t think there’s any substantial evidence that Bork was rejected because of his involvement in Watergate. Do you agree with that? It was primarily because of his judicial philosophy, namely textualism and originalism.
There simply isn’t a lot of data to make a definitive determination one way or the other on the politicization of the Court. SCOTUS nominations are rare after all. I believe it *started* with Bork. That doesn’t mean every nomination afterwards was contentious, but certainly there have been a lot since and there were far fewer before.
I truly believe that despite recent events Democrats have done a better job manipulating the Court than Republicans and the results bear that out.
I’m disappointed that you ended with a shot about me being rigid in my beliefs. It’s not true and to disengage that way is rather immature. I’d like to think the point of commenting here is to learn something and engage in respectful discourse. I don’t think it’s an echo chamber in here, but it does seem like people sometimes would rather point out cheap fallacies and make unnecessarily sarcastic comments (myself included) rather than consider the other side and be polite.
I’m a biologist and not a constitutional scholar, but IMO Robert Bork held some views that really should be disqualifying. Examples include his support for Jim Crow era poll taxes and segregation, and his opinion that equal protection does not apply to women.
That largely depends on whether you think a nominee’s judicial philosophy is disqualifying. I don’t. I would have voted for Sotomayor, for instance, even though I disagree with how she interprets the Constitution. Elections matter; if you don’t like a nominee, win presidential elections.
That largely depends on whether you think a nominee’s judicial philosophy is disqualifying.
Is there no point where a judicial philosophy is disqualifying? For example, what if a nominee argued that the 1st amendment did not protect the rights of non-Christians? Is this not part of determining whether a nominee is competent?
Elections matter; if you don’t like a nominee, win presidential elections.
One could use the same argument for senatorial elections. If you want a controversial candidate, win a super majority. To speak to a broader point–what is the proper role of the senate confirmation process? This is an important part of the separation of powers, so shouldn’t it be more than a rubber stamp?
“I truly believe that despite recent events Democrats have done a better job manipulating the Court than Republicans and the results bear that out.”
Define “manipulating”?
It seems to me that Obama is the lone modern President who had a seat come open during his Presidency that was (or is very likely to be filled) by a nominee from a President of the opposing party. To the extent we want to look at Dem noms vs GOP noms, this is the only contemporary example in which a seat that should have gone to a Dem nom went to a GOP nom.
The Senate should absolutely see if a nominee is qualified. To take your example, there should not be a judge in this country who does not think the 1st Amendment applies to non-Christians. But I’m using judicial philosophy to mean how one interprets the Constiution and statues. As long as he/she applies that philosophy consistently, I think the Senate should confirm.
I don’t think I’m calling for a rubber stamp. One can debate the proper way to interpret the Constitution till the cows come home. I think the president deserves some deference on that as long as the nominee is competent. The Senate’s job is to determine if he’s competent.
*statutes
Kazzy,
Bork’s seat went to Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinions in the gay marriage cases and recent affirmative action cases. That was a win for Democrats given Bork never would have voted like Kennedy in those types of cases.
GHWB nominated Souter, who quickly moved to the liberal wing of the Court, and was eventually replaced by Sotomayor. Bush apparently picked Souter as a compromise candidate after the Bork fiasco. That was a big win for Democrats.
Clinton and Obama nominated 4 steadfastly liberal judges with little opposition from Republicans. Those were wins for Democrats.
GWB nominated Roberts, who upheld Obamacare. Not really a win for Democrats overall, but that was a pleasant surprise.
Take all that and balance it against Roberts, Alito, and Gorsuch, and I would say Democrats have had the upper hand. Some of that is Republicans picking bad nominees and Democrats picking good ones, and some of it is a result of the Bork nomination.
I think the president deserves some deference on that as long as the nominee is competent.
That’s fair, but I do feel that constitutional philosophies that are far outside of the mainstream do reflect poorly on competency. A foolish consistency does imply competency. My argument is that Bork’s judicial philosophy in regards to segregation, voting rights, poll taxes, equal protection, etc. showed poor competency. A line has to be drawn somewhere after my (ridiculous) 1st amendment example, but reasonable people can find that Bork did not clear that threshold.
Sigh. does *not imply…
I think that’s fair. I like originalism because it gives more power to the people, which is what a democracy is all about. That was Bork’s main point: let legislatures pass laws and amend the Constitution, not judges.
To take one example, there’s a pretty strong argument that the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause doesn’t apply to women. It was passed after the Civil War to address the rights of freed slaves. A later amendment was needed to give women the right to vote, and the ERA Amendment was proposed. That’s how democracies should work imo. Once we as a society realize there is an injustice, we pass laws to address them. An oligarchy of unelected judges reading rights into the Constitution diminishes democracy for all of us.
Michael H,
You’re playing games. If Republican nominees sided with “the liberal wing” that doesn’t mean the Democrats manipulated the court; it means a majority of judges — regardless of who nominated them — agreed on a particular legal issue. Are you saying Bork definitely would have decided differently than those who ended up on the court? He would have rejected gay marriage? How can you make that determination? Because of his politics? Well, if his politics would have informed his ruling, he’d have been a poor pick.
Again, only one recent President was denied an opportunity to fill a seat that opened during his term and saw it (very likely) filled by a President of a different party.
“Once we as a society realize there is an injustice, we pass laws to address them.”
So whether an injustice has occurred and if/how/when to address it is something that should be left to more-or-less majority rule?
I think there was pressure on Bush to pick someone (Souter) who had very little of a paper trail after the Bork nomination.
As to your second post, that is exactly how democracies work. Every right in the Constitution has been passed by the majority through their representatives. Minority rights are given by the majority in a democracy.
I forgot the part about Bork. I am pretty confident he would never have voted for gay marriage or a bunch of other rights. It has nothing to do with politics, or it shouldn’t. His judicial philosophy, evident up to his death in his writings, doesn’t allow for reading those things into the Constitution.
Minority rights are given by the majority in a democracy.
This is where we part ways philosophically. The guiding principles of the US government are firmly grounded in Lockean Natural Rights, which holds that certain human rights are universal and not subject to the whims of the majority. The role of the government (or the majority) is not to bestow such rights–since they are inherent to all mankind–but to protect them. “Activist” judges have storied history of protecting these rights when the majority has failed–from Brown vs. the Board of Education to Loving vs. Virginia. I would argue this is consistent with the original ideals this country was founded on.
The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is just one of many tools that protect minority rights from the whims of the majority.
“An oligarchy of unelected judges reading rights into the Constitution diminishes democracy for all of us.”
No, it does not. If the job of the judiciary was to simply affirm the actions of the legislature and the executive, then there would be no need for a judicial branch. Given that you’re such a fan of originalism, you might take note that the framers of the Constitution gave judges lifetime tenure, so as to insulate them from being beholden to popular opinion. They knew that sometimes judges need to speak for (and defend) the minority.
And I would also suggest that a minority/majority dichotomy is a bit facile in a world where the White House is occupied by a candidate who got soundly beaten in the popular vote, and the lower chamber of Congress is profoundly shaped by gerrymandering.
ASS, All that is good for a philosophy or history class, but I don’t think it really applies practically. Certainly the Founding Fathers were influenced by the Enlightenment, but the Constitution was ratified by 9 states and the amendment process requires a majority of both houses (whose members are elected by the majority) and 3/4 of the state legislatures (whose members are elected by the majority). The process of giving rights to minorities requires the majority.
Sansho, how did the 14th Amendment get passed? Who ratified it? The answer is the majority.
CB, Those are complete misrepresentations of my argument. Obvious strawmen. I definitely never said the judiciary should simply affirm the legislature and executive. If Congress passed a law making it illegal to be be Jewish, a judge should say that’s unconstitutional. I also never said judges should give in to political opinion, so the lifetime tenure point was irrelevant. As was the point about Trump not winning the popular vote. He won by the rules of the game.
In three of my four posts, I have directly quoted YOUR words. And yet, you consistently respond by claiming that I am misrepresenting your argument, and accusing me of being dishonest in my reasoning or my use of evidence.
I am, therefore, officially done responding to you. For all your pretensions of wanting an honest discussion, you clearly don’t actually want that, and have clearly made up your mind on the issues under consideration.
MH,
It is rather clear you have preconceived conclusions and will simply fit and/or ignore data and facts as necessey to support them. This isn’t a conversation.
CB, That’s not true at all. I’m sorry you feel that way. Show me the direct quotes because I don’t see them on those 2 strawmen you made in my last post.
Kazzy, Also sorry you feel that way. If you disagree with anything I wrote, you can point it out. But you’re just taking your ball and going home. Which is fine.
Both of you don’t like what I’m saying.
I’ll shut up because you’re both missing the point. CB, it’s rich that you call people out for fallacies though when you committed 2 in your second-to-last post.
“Sansho, how did the 14th Amendment get passed? Who ratified it? The answer is the majority.”
I know (although, in the case of the southern states, it was ratified with the threat of no Congressional representation had they refused). But once it’s in, all that’s left is interpretation and implementation, which happens (or should happen) outside the will of the majority. Obviously, political will in lawmaking depends greatly on the state of popular opinion, but once a Constitutional challenge is undertaken, such considerations take a back seat.
As someone not actively participating in this discussion, let’s end this conversation here. I think it’s gone as far as it can. Thanks.
Michael H,
Please define the term “manipulate” as used in this sentence: “I truly believe that despite recent events Democrats have done a better job manipulating the Court than Republicans and the results bear that out.”
addoeh must be trapped here or something.
That 2nd reply to John was so epic – LAYING DOWN THE LAW KEITH!
If you come at the king…
All I ask is that people stay civil. Disagree with me all you like. But people who play that “gotcha” game, trying to find some inconsistency in my arguments, are really not welcome here. It is prima facie evidence of malicious intent.
Any evidence of the Trump/Russia connection yet? I feel like there’s TONS of stuff to attack this dude on, and he will likely get himself impeached somehow, but taking the CIA/other spooks at their word definitely isn’t the route to go. Just look at the history of what our intelligence agencies do, and also at the credibility of the people pushing this whole red scare stuff…I mean even war criminal Bush is getting trotted out there to try and shape opinion/influence public perception about this.
What if I just borrow your book out of the library? I’m probably buying it, but I always wondered if multiple check outs for a book from libraries helped authors.
I suppose if it spurred a library to buy another copy, maybe? But I doubt it.
Padma is rumored to be quite the weed aficionado. My wife and I always thought that she and Charlize Theron seemed pretty stoned when the actress was on a few seasons back. I bet we’ve seen Stoned Padma before.
Was about to reply the same
I came to see if the weekly Stick to Baseball had been posted, and I noticed this post had 52 comments. I assumed some political discussion had gone off the rails.
Point to me. Unfortunately.