[MUSIC] >> Fan Morning Show here, Gunnar and Daniele along with you on America's birthday. So again, just like you're gonna open your socials today. It's just gonna be like bald eagles, fireworks, Joey Chestnut or not, Joey Chen. >> No, no, like you're still gonna- >> No, no, no, no, look, I know he's not gonna do the Nathan's hot dog eating contest. But it's like, you're not gonna tell me I'm gonna open my Twitter today. And I'm not just gonna see people being like, remember what a miracle was a real country tweeting out a picture of Joey Chestnut. Like, you're telling me one guy is not gonna tweet that today? >> No. >> You're gonna see routinely you're right. >> 100 guys are gonna tweet that right now. They're like, that's a good tweet Gunnar. >> Great observation. >> Yeah, it would be, I think, I will say I'd be hard pressed to think of someone on planet Earth less likely to tweet that than Leon Drey's title. I think, just like the idea of him being excited about something, that's why I wanted to see the Oilers win the cup, because I don't know what else would actually- >> You might smile. >> Not if, like, unless Spector or Mathson asked him a question about it, he's like, hey, Leon, you seem pretty happy. And then he- >> Don't talk to me about it, you- >> Yeah. >> But other than- >> I'm not happy I have to speak to you. >> Still not. >> There'd still be some way to be aggrieved, which is why, God, I just, there's something about it, I just love these, just angry, pissy all the time. Don't tell him that. Again, he ain't listening, so I can tell him the Leafs. So we now, I think it's safe to say we have full-blown clarity on what has happened with the Leafs off season. Not just in terms of who's here, who's not here, who's gone, but who they kicked tires on, how those pitches went. And there were two kind of interesting things that I think have come out of this, is the fact that a lot of guys said thanks, but no thanks. That is a very interesting part, but I want to lead with this part of it, that apparently in a lot of the free agent meetings, and especially to, I'm thinking of somebody like Jeff Skinner, Austin Matthews name, of course, was mentioned, William Newlander's name, I imagine, would have been mentioned, but apparently in these meetings, Mitch Marner's name was mentioned. Now, I don't say that as like, he's persona non grata, that you can't talk about this guy. Of course you can, but that was how they got Tavares here. We all know, God, I still would love to see that video. They'll never let it see the light of day, but him, Lord knows what he was doing on the ice, grating, dangling, whatever he was doing. That was part of the pitch. Like, Hey, you want this? We all certainly love it. You would love to get 47 tapens in your first year as a Leaf, wouldn't you? Yes, you would. Okay. That was part of the pitch. How telling is it that Marner was apparently part of the pitch to Jeff Skinner's of the world of like, Hey, do you want to play with this guy? And did they ever, is that proof positive that they never had an intention of trading him? Or is that proof positive that his camp dug in the heels and said, we are waving for anything? I think what was your first read on it? It might be more of the latter. I don't know that it's incredibly revelatory in terms of allowing us to glean what the thought process was. I think part of this, in a large part is their hands are kind of tied for sure, because any decision pertaining to the player moving elsewhere is contingent on his complicit behavior in this, like his desire to also be part of this process. He's got the leverage and the Leafs don't. And so that is always going to be part of any discussion and was part of any discussion regarding Mitch Marner. I do think though, Gunnar, if we're being pragmatic, I feel like from the most being realistic, being as prudent as possible, I do think the most appropriate decision, and I've always felt this way, is to keep him on the roster. I've always been firm in that because, you know, we're not talking about, and I say this respectfully, we're not even talking about, I'm trying to think of a guy off the top of my, like even a, even a, like a Sam Ryan, like, like Mitch Marner is better than Sam Reinhardt, Mitch Marner is arguably a better player than Matthew Kachuk, like those guys, and everybody will say, well, you see, but like Brad Tree living, he wasn't scared to trade Matthew Kachuk and making sure, fine, fair, of course, and he, he was willing to make that difficult decision, like clearly in hindsight, it didn't work out the greatest for the Calgary Flames, but also we're talking about, and with respect to Mitch, a better player, a different caliber of player. And it's hard to make a trade that is going to put you in a position where you feel as good about the talent that you're bringing in, whether it's through the trade itself, or by proxy using that money elsewhere, to feel good enough about the talent in relation to the caliber of player that Mitch Marner is and what you're losing. So the, I think the fact that they've chosen, it seems to probably go and run it back again with him on the roster, call me crazy, I am because, you know, this is the definition of insanity, doing it over and over again, but I do think it's probably the smartest thing to do. I don't see a way in which they get better or it's a no-brainer that they would be better by trading that player. That's how I read. So I'm not surprised that his name was thrown around and talks with potential free agents about how this might fit with the core guys, because, you know, realistically, I think the odds of him getting traded were probably more minimal than what the general public, what the media, everybody here, loves to make it out to be like, let's point at Mitch and it seems, he's the reason why, he's the reason why they lost and they continue to lose and underperform. He's the reason this time around, so let's ship him out of town. Unlike Jake Gardner, unlike Nazm cadre, guess what? He's a different breed and a different caliber of player. It makes it even that much more challenging, even if you wanted to move him, to actually move him. You know, I'm not quite as full bore there in terms of you couldn't or but I certainly see the argument. I think the other thing that has to go into account with this is that, you know, and I'm not going to pretend I know the exact rules of engagement for lack of a better term on this stuff. But if you go out there telling every agent, like, again, let's just pick Agent X, whoever Jeff Skinner's agent happens to be, let's hope for the basis of this conversation. It's not Darren Ferris. It certainly makes things interesting. But let's say Jeff Skinner, you're talking to his agent, you're like, oh, we're trading Marner. Well, when he's talking to other teams, like, that's going to impact the value he has across the league. If it is seen that, oh, yeah, he's gone or we're trying to do everything we can to get him out of here or don't even talk about him as part of the equation, because he's not going to be. I just think one, that's not pragmatic because they don't hold the cards for it. And two, you would not want that. Like, even if you were hell bent on trading him and you were going to do everything you could in your power to get to him and make him wave as no move, whatever that means. Jesus, I'm a sinister, whatever that means. Okay? Like, let's say that was going to happen. You still wouldn't be broadcasting it to everyone in the world. You say, yeah, we're open to the idea. You better come correct if you want out because otherwise every GM in the world is going, well, you want to, you want to first to my B level prospect for him? No. No. That's not what you want. Plenty, plenty to get into with this. I want to mention here, we're going to talk to Kipper later on the show. There's something he had in his piece about the idea of rhino Riley trying to convince the preds to trade for Mitch Marner. I mean, that was a trade. A lot of people were cooking up in general, just the idea of they've never had a player like that. Oh, all of a sudden, 40, well, Stephen Stamkos, and I'm not going to say he's exactly the same, but I don't think we can say they've never had an offensive player of his ilk. It's like, you know, Stephen Stamkos going to walk into the Hall of Fame is quite an offensive player. So it's a little different now. But what do you think the perception would have been if it was rhino Riley that was seen to be the one that was the Pied Piper to Nashville for Marner? Because I cannot remember a player, not the perception of what he is as a player. Because we all look at rhino Riley, like, Hey, I filled out one of my team candidates. And I was certainly looking at him for that 14th forward spot. Okay. So we still think that way about him as a player, but as a, a guy who could handle it or who wants the smoke of a tough market, no one's opinion or no one has had a bigger 180 in this market than him recently on that. What would that have done? And I guess the, the, the answer would be he doesn't care. He's gone. But what would that have done to Marner's perception in the market? If it was seen as like, O'Reilly was the Pied Piper to get him out of here. Yeah. If, if, if rhino Riley was the guy brokering the steel and, and big, the middleman, you have to conduit to getting Mitch Marner from Toronto to Nashville, I actually don't think I think it would be, it would have, the, the perception would be drastically worse for Ryan O'Reilly than it would have been for Mitch Marner to be, to be frank, because I think Mitch Marner, naturally, if you're trying to identify potential destinations, that would make sense and you'd feel comfortable and you have some continuity with players on the roster. You look at, naturally you say, all right, Ryan O'Reilly's there, Lucian's there, good veterans. You know what? Why not? Yeah. Okay. That seems like a doable spot. And I don't mind. And it's a city that is very much loves their team. Good fan base, but they're also, it's not the, the, the, the, you know, it's, it's not the, um, well, man, what's, yeah, it's, it's, it's not the fishbowl that Toronto is when it comes to media coverage. So all those factors kind of paid a pretty promising and favorable picture for what Nashville as a destination could have been for Mitch Marner. So I don't know that even us sitting here and you lay out all the factors, we'd probably hold his feet to the fire and say, ah, you don't want it. Certainly that would be those comments would be made. But I think actually what it would do for Rhino Riley is it would put him into the, into the doldrums of being one of the most hated, hated, despised athletes that ever wore a Maple Leafs uniform, because he arrives here and it's, as you said, crazy how the perception changed so quickly. Just quickly, Danielle, on that, I remember I was, I was doing least nation pre and postal gourd at the time when that deal was made. And I was there in the building when he played his first home game as a leaf. I watched him skate out wearing his number 90, got the goosebumps thinking about it right now. We were so ready for that to be the thing that unlocked whatever it was in this course. So yeah, no, like that was, there was, I am trying to think of a player, because there have been players who came back, right? Like I remember it was like a kid when Doug Gilmore, Wendell Clark would come back into the foot. Like I remember that. And, but they were already beloved and it's like, all right, we're just picking right back up where we left off, Rhino Riley felt like he'd been part of the furniture for 15 years, the second he passed the jersey on, like it was remarkable the way people felt about him when he arrived. And it felt, it felt like the perfect storm, like his family still resides here in southern Ontario. Like he's a kid that is obviously from the GTA. And it felt like it had been a long time coming for him to be in that position. And you certainly, I remember, rightfully so, there was plenty of excitement and optimism about what that move couldn't tell for the Maple Leafs in terms of changing their trajectory. It felt like he might have been the missing piece. And then we come to learn not that he didn't perform, you know, decently during his time in a Maple Leafs sweater. He was fine. He was passable. He had the injury. So he missed some time in the playoffs. He was okay. Foot speed was an issue. Obviously it looked like he lacked a step in terms of him and Tavares. Oh boy, when you have those two guys on your roster, it's tough when you're going against some bigger, younger, tougher, more physical and faster competition. But mind you, the perception changed drastically when July when he signs with Nashville doesn't give a thought to coming back to Toronto and then we learn, yeah, he just, he felt like he didn't want any business of being in this marketplace. So if you have that as our foundation of what we currently think of the player, now we can add the secondary layer of he tried to coerce and persuade Barry Trott. To bend over backwards to try and get Mitch Marner, it would, it would bury him in terms of what the public perception of him here is as a player. It all depends on the trade goes, right? If the tree, if tree made out again, like I keep going back to the deal he made for Kachok. And if he would have just traded Kachok for Wieger and the first rounder, like if Hubert was an insane thing to say and we would have raked him over the coals at the time, but if it just would have been that and then he takes Huberto's money and goes out and like I'm just going to pick a guy like Tyler Tifoli was on the flame, he goes and signs him with that money, you feel infinitely better about that trade. And I think there would have been a world where again, I think we all in the moment, you know, there, there's definitely a segment of the fan base going get this guy out of here, get this guy out of here. But if the trade were to be one that worked out for the Leafs, even if it worked out for the Predators, I do think that'd be a like, hey, Ryan O'Reilly, like it was a long, it was a long fortuitous road to get here. Look at where we finally arrived where Preds are in a better spot, Leafs are in a better spot, but obviously not going to happen now, Stammers, they're taking up that chunk of the cap. >> No, that's an interesting point. Because I think, yeah, in any part of this discussion when it comes to evaluating a marner trade or hypothetically, if he was going elsewhere, what you would get back, what you're getting in return is obviously a big piece of this in terms of, you know, how we and everybody in this market would feel, even if that was Nashville, and we knew that Ryan O'Reilly had a hand in it. If it's a great trade that works favorably for the Leafs, it would change our opinion and we would feel, probably feel it would soften the blow and we would feel better about what they got back. And it also ties into this, there was a question that actually posed pose in our check sign gunner. No name attached to this one from Anonymous, but it was, I think, an important point. Do you think Bradtree living is a little hesitant to make a blockbuster given the Kachuk deal backfired badly so poorly for Calgary? I think it is an interesting question that at least bears some consideration and thought because, you know, he's always been regarded as this very aggressive, almost possessing a gun slinger mentality as a GM, not afraid to make difficult decisions. And now he's in a position where everybody's saying, make the difficult decision, but it hasn't happened yet. Yeah. So I wonder if history has a part in all of that. Here's why here's why he says it and here's the difference and we all would be very wise to remember this. Math Kachuk wanted out and said here's a list of teams I would gladly go to until somebody tells me differently, I am going to operate under the assumption that Mitch Marner does not want anything to do with playing for any other franchise. Prove me wrong. Wave that. Don't move. Prove me wrong until that happens. I am up the bully and I think that's the biggest roadblock to this trade. Like, I don't think it has anything to do with tri-living's mentality. I don't think he would have got the Leafs GM job if he was now a completely different version of himself. I certainly hope he learned from that trade and hey, if you trade one of these guys, let's make a better one than what happened with Calgary. But I don't think you bring in a guy, you know, much like if Mitch Marner doesn't work out here, the team that brings him in isn't going to turn him into a dump and chase for checking winger. They're going to go tell him to be Mitch Marner and hey, can you have learned a lesson in any of the six or seven first round playoff losses you've had? Could you? And that's what we're going to say about tree and all this. So that's the thing I keep coming back to is, and I've been guilty of bringing it up. I think the difference there is that Kachuk said I want out. I would love to leave here. Here's teams. Go talk to them. Go call them. Get what you can for me and I'll work with them until we hear otherwise. You have to believe it's a complete opposite with the Marner situation. No, that's, I think that's, it's valid. It's important to mention that point because, you know, Brad tree living was proactive. Certainly he, they got burned that same off season by Johnny Goudreau felt terrible about getting burned by him when they, their intention all along was to hopefully retain him. Keep him there long term didn't work out. So then he decides, you know what, I'm not going to get burned twice. I'm going to be proactive. I'm going to go and initiate this discussion with the next most important player on our team. That being a young Matthew Kachuk. Are you staying? Are you not? Do you have any intention of at least entertaining it? Answer was no. Okay. Let's get it done. This actually started, and I mentioned this in text to you yesterday. Yeah. You know, I, I caught it. I just want to sit on the track. Go for it. If you're going to go with the, the thing that I, the lesson that I actually think tree will have taken out of the Kachuk situation. And I think all GMs took out of that situation. It has nothing to do with the trade. It's how he ended up in that situation in the first place. Matthew Kachuk was an RFA that had a qualifying offer that would have given him a one year deal that was nine and a half or $10 million or something in that ballpark that then would have walked him to UFA when he said, I want to leave. That's what he learned from that situation. I guarantee you, Matthew and I, if you go have 140 points this season, he's not putting himself in that position where at the end of this, there's a one year, $10 million qualifying offer that yes, NHL players want their certainty, but the guy in this market who, who's going to wear the C at one day and 34, he's showing NHL players are certainly a little more happier than they used to be to say, now, I think the shorter term and ring the bell one more time. That's the lesson. We keep going back to what did he learn from Kachuk? What did he learn? Okay, he learned don't trade for a guy and give him money just because you have him. That's definitely the lesson. The actual lesson out of all of this is not with Mitch Marner, who's going to be on his third contract. And it's on the Matthew Nides or if Easton Cowan hits or if Fraser Minton or any of those guys, that's where the lesson comes with out of this. It is not about the trade that does or doesn't happen. It's about the three year deal that put him in that qualifying offer hell. That was the actual problem. No, no, I like that. I think you encapsulated very well. All of this, I think ties into, and as I said, something I mentioned in text yesterday, which was, it sort of even loosely ties into what we kind of already hit on. But I did hear JD and Sam briefly discussed this yesterday. They got down the rabbit hole because, you know, they naturally always go down different rabbit holes. And it was the idea that the Leafs are scared or they're reluctant to make their throat decisions. I don't think that that's the case, man. I really don't. Like the idea that because they didn't trade Mitch Marner, that is reflective of them not being in a position where they feel comfortable enough to make hard decisions or that Tampa letting stand coast walk. God, that is ruthless. They should be applauded for it or Marsha so, and Vegas letting him walk. No, man. Like, here's, here's something else. The truth truth be told, those guys, Julian Breeze won, Kelly McCriman, McCriman, in Vegas, they've won cups. They can't, they have legs to stand on if they make those cut throat ruthless decisions. Here in Toronto, a little bit different. And also, I think if push came to shove and there was a conversation of, like, hey, Mitch, would you want to do this? And his answer is, okay, sure, I will entertain it. I bet they would have gone very far down that road and tried to find the best deal possible. And if there was a deal to be made, they would have made it. I just think the idea that they're gun shy or reticent to make cut throat difficult decisions and be that type of ruthless for an office, I don't think that's fair to place on their shoulders. But what the difference is, is that it is one thing to make a cut throat decision. And that is what those guys have done, say, bye bye, waving goodbye to franchise icons, cons, myth winners, all that. Those are cut throat decisions. I think the problem that presents itself to the Leafs right now is every, with the exception of just announcing public ooh, without talking to him, that John Tavares is no longer the captain of the Leafs. What is the cut throat decision they can make? Which Marner has a full no move clause now. The cut throat decision they could make is Bradshaw living to hold a press conference and say we did have an intention of trading Mitch Marner this offseason and the player does not want to wave as no move. That is kicking up a completely different firestorm than, quite frankly, Breezewa is and McCriman is. It goes back to where are guys the most cut throat in the easiest places to do it, where there is no pushback, where the fans, the people in Vegas found out they had a hockey team five years ago, okay, because that's when they got it. Okay, the people in Tampa, they have to be reminded every September that hockey exists. And that's not to say that you can't do the incredibly hard thing, but it is completely different and it's why I will always go back to it's just harder here and you throw in the state tax of it all and it's not getting any easier. But that's the difference, I think, is that the Leafs have, they have in this past had times where they could have done cut throat things and they have not. So that's a fair thing to point out. For right now, the decisions that they have to make, again, stripping tomorrow as of the sea feels like the only thing that is 1000% in their control. They can, they can leak things to the media. They could tell us that Mitch Marner doesn't want to wave as no move. I think we all kind of know that seeing as how there's been no conversation about it. So I think that's the difference here is that is that you're seeing there has been a lack of cut throatness and a desire to keep the band together and keep everybody happy for sure, but right now they don't have the ability to just pull the lever and say, I want to do this, this thing. I think that's been the biggest difference there. One last thing I'd want to sneak in here and talk to Morossi on the other side here is that it kind of goes back to, I was thinking a lot about Babs opening presser at the beginning of all this because we've done a complete 180 to we're going to make it safe. Players are going to want to come back here. And now it doesn't feel safe to go back to the rhino Riley of it all. I think players are obviously to be a leaf is an incredible thing and it's not saying no one wants to come here. Chris Tan have just did it, right? So it's not to say that. But it certainly there was a sweet spot there for a while where it felt safe, but things were still kind of quiet, everything was on the upswing, we're completely out of that. The idea of it being safe and it's never going to be easy to come home here. And that's the part that I think is kind of interesting is we started off as you want to make this safe and now it does seem and I don't think there's a lack of merit to it that the road to prosperity as far as the team goes is maybe not being so safe. It's just such a, it's such a crazy 180 that we found ourselves back to. You know, we're, I mean, you mentioned Babs. Think about even the cycle of coaching that they've gone through and how they've kind of reverted back to more of that. I mean, my thing on that is that if they wanted to, if they wanted to hire Keith, they should have not made him go after Babs because Sheldon Keith is way closer to Mike Babcock than the guy playing just a beaver songs of practice that he wasn't some point in time here in Toronto. Like, honestly, just like, yeah, I tell them Keith, I guarantee it's going to be a different guy. All right. Plenty more on the leaves. And we will talk to Kipper after eight o'clock, but coming up next, got to talk to our man, John Marosi, he was at the sphere in Vegas. How was that? And also, Vlady Jr. And also our starter, is there a world where that kind of kicks up some contract talks with the Blue Jays to talk to Marosi about that and more we continue fan morning show with Gunnar and Danielle Leon sports net five nine of the fan unrivaled insight, analysis and opinions on all things Blue Jays, Blair and Barker, be sure to subscribe and download the show on Apple Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts. Fan morning show continues here, Gunnar and Danielle, here with you for the next hour and a half and then Danielle is sticking around for the rest of the week, me and you. Oh, I guess just one more day, one more day. Weird week for me. I don't know why. Actually, I was about to be like, well, we did a show on Monday. You did? Yeah. Yeah, I know. But as you said, when it's July 1st and then it's hockey, the rest of the way, you switch your brain off. I clicked. I like you could hear it happen. I was actually right. The last thing we heard on the mic was my brain flicking off of paying attention to anything that day and just jumping in a pool was what happened. But wouldn't be 4th of July, if we didn't talk to at least one Americans, we had to call on our pal, John Marosi, happy birthday America, John Marosi. How are you today? Brent and Danielle, I really appreciate the opportunity. Thank you for the well wishes on the United States birthday here. I'm coming to you from Chicago, Illinois, which is, in my opinion, one of the best places to celebrate the 4th of July. You got day baseball at Rigglyfield. We actually had a ballgame last night on MLB network. So I brought my family with me. They had the option of either joining dad at work last night or staying downtown and watching the fireworks and enjoying the merriment of Chicago. I will give you one guess as to which one they could. It wasn't work with dad. I'm pretty sure it wasn't. I said, girls, you can come to work with dad. No. I don't think so, dad. I think we're going to, I think we're going to go watch some fireworks and play it, play outside. Go around. They went to the slime museum yesterday, which I didn't even know was the thing. Yeah. So they went to the, I guess the Chicago Museum of Slime and really had a great time. So I can't wait to get the full report from them here today. You threaded the needle perfectly on that one from fatherdom. It's like you offered to do more child rearing of like, hey, come to work with me. And then you got out of going to something called the slime museum, but you didn't prevent them from going. This is the, this is just perfectly threading the needle as a father going and checking all the boxes. Hey, avoiding the thing you don't want to do is perfect. Every now and then we look into a really good day and whether it was designed or just simply good fortune. I appreciate that very much. The last thing I'll say about the slime museum was it was funny. I showed up lunch and we did have at least lunch together yesterday before I went to Ringley and they went to the slime museum and my youngest, Lulu, looks at me with all my baseball game clothes, my suit on, she said, dad, are you really going to get slimed in that? Dad, dad's going to work. Okay. So after, after this, I've got to go to the ballpark now. I love going to the ballpark, but that's, that's where I'm going, kiddo. So it's funny. Oh, that's. This is just shades of my, my Canada today, my kid sticking his tongue out to me as I'm on my way out the door to work is him and my wife stay home. So yeah, I know all too well that feeling morosey. It's the best. That's great. John baseball stuff, John baseball stuff. Okay. Yes. Yeah. No, no, you know, because Italy's out. So I know. Well, well, well, you know what, I mean, I haven't had an opportunity publicly commiserate with anybody, but I think I was going to save that for the end so we could just kind of sneak it in. Because I wanted to make sure we could kind of, yeah, we needed to reflect and have a moment of like, it's almost a cathartic experience in terms of venting our frustration, but what happened there. But I think let's start with the baseball. And with this blue J's team in particular, one guy I did want to focus on and we actually saw him, uh, get reinserted at the top of the lineup yesterday for the first time since the middle of May, that being George Springer. And he's been in a pretty good groove at the plate recently, John. He looks like a different hitter. I think most crucially, you're starting to see him hit velocity again and hit it to the pull side and do damage. Um, and I'm thinking about Springer, the player and the asset. I was curious to get your perspective on, do you think there's enough runway here that George Springer can rehabilitate his trade value to the point where maybe he becomes an interesting piece that some contending team out there would ever entertain or have interest in pursuing with the blue J's? That's a good question. I would be surprised though, if that, if that were to happen this month, I think time is just too short and the first two plus months were too alarming for that to happen in my judgment. And just from the standpoint of how much money is also left on, on the contract, I think that, that part is, is difficult. I mean, he's still signed through 2026. Now, the one thing I would say is if the J's wanted to get really creative, and again, this would, I would not expect this to happen. But the only circumstance in which I think it might have a glimmer of possibility would be if you paired up Springer with someone who you really don't want to trade, better Rios, for example, and put them in the same trade and basically attach Springer's contract to Jose. And basically that was the way in which you were able to reallocate your payroll, get a little bit younger. But again, I just don't expect that to happen. I think that if, and I don't expect this to happen either, if you got of going down the road of a Barrio's trade, in my estimation, you'd be doing that because you believe that you could get a maximum return of great young players back. And that the motivation there would not be to save money, which is what, I think, part of this motivation would be, but rather just to maximize the best possible return of players that you can. There's no way that if you attach Springer's contract to Barrio's that you would be getting anything close to what the full value is for Jose, and I think that's if we're just going down this rhetorical exercise, I just don't see the value equaling enough for it to make sense for the Jade and a potential trade partner. Okay. This kind of circles back to one another guy that I've had a lot of, I've just had a lot of thoughts about the prospect of maybe considering trade opportunities for this player, that being Kevin Gosman. I don't know that attaching George Springer to a Kevin Gosman deal would be enough incentive for a team to take on that George Springer contract in the remaining years and whatever you're going to get in terms of the version of the player he is currently. But I think Gosman's an interesting discussion point here because it feels like if there's ever a point where you might be able to trade him and get some fairly good value for him, it might be now because he's still at a stage where he's regarded as a frontline starter. He's the agent curve is there, it's real, and we've seen a bit of a mixed bag from him this year. I feel like at the very least, John, in my estimation, should the J's not entertain the prospect of seeing what's out there for Kevin Gosman at this particular point in time, given that there's still a little bit of term left on his contract and there's value there. I just feel like I have less certainty that if they were to revisit this conversation a year from now, the value might be comparable to what it is currently. I think that's a very good point. I do believe that if you look at Gosman's future contract, he's owed 23 million next year and the following year, which is probably pretty close to what he'd get in free agency if he entered the open market this winter. I don't think that he would get up around the $30 million range and to your point, even though his ERA is a little high this year, the underlying numbers are better and I don't think that his value would totally crater on the open market either. So from my perspective, I do think he's someone that you, if you are going to be a seller and I think the J should be sellers, if you are going to be a seller, I would more likely be open mind listening and bossmen than listening on barriers. But the thing that I come back to here is we need to know, I think, a little bit more and it's impossible that they're probably not going to put all their cards on the table and tell us everything that they're doing right now. But this sort of fits into the conversation of what the J's believe they're doing here and what they intend 2025s and it's like, because if you're planning on, if you believe that with some modifications, however difficult this might be to believe, that if you believe that with some modifications this winter, that you could finish ahead of either Baltimore or New York next year. I don't personally believe that's the case, but if the J's believed it, then you'd probably keep gossip because if you're already going to lose Kikuchi in free agency, Manoa clearly is a wild card going forward from a standpoint of however he recovers from surgery. You need guys to give you quality innings and at this point, if you're already minus Kikuchi, where do you really go from there in terms of filling out the rest of the rotation? Now, if you're really of the mind of, you know what, time to go for a rebuild, we need to make some different decisions here, then I think you definitely put them out there because there are enough teams, the Dodgers being among them who need some rotation help. And I think that his underlying numbers are encouraging enough that there are probably teams out there who say, well, with our analytical group and our pitching coach and maybe different atmosphere, different ballpark to pitch in, then we can get a better version out of him than what the J's have gotten this year, even though I think Pete Walker has done a pretty admirable job with the staff that he's had to work with this season, it's just, there's a lot of the eventual truth serum here will emerge in terms of what the J's actually do the deadline versus what they've said that they're intending to do because if you really believe that you can beat the Yankees or the Orioles next year, then you probably keep Boston and you keep Boston and you keep a lot of the players around including Vlad and Bo, but if you don't, then you should be one of the most aggressive, if not the most aggressive sellers in all of Major League Baseball in the next three weeks, and we're about to find out which option they choose. Yeah, I wholeheartedly agree with that. I mean, I've been, I mean, we've been asking you questions about a sell-off since April. It's been rude, but we've been doing it. So you know where you certainly know where you certainly know where I stand on that in terms of the, in terms of Vlad specifically, so it does seem like if you just had to pick one of the two that would be extended, it'd be easier. It's just easier for, I think for all parties involved to kind of see a Vlad extension with the Blue J's than one with Bo. Can they go scorched earth rebuild of trading Gossman and trading burrito or trading burrios or trade ambassador, guys like that, and give Vlad a whole bucket of money and a 10-year contract or whatever that big extension would look like, can those things exist in the same time in space, or do you think one kind of signifies the end of the other, vice versa? I think that you could potentially do both, and I know that that may sound a little odd, but look at one of the teams that's been running ahead of Toronto this season in the Austin Red Sox. They basically did that with Devers when you really look at it. Totally. There have been major investors in free agency in recent years. They did give Devers his franchise contract, and then they've been very, very savvy in what they've done otherwise in terms of quite limited spending. Now, maybe it wasn't their design that they were also going to lose right around the same time. They're going to lose Bogart to the free agency. I think that there was some sand pressure, especially after Mookie left and was traded. That was obviously on the front office's inability to find a way to sign Mookie long-term. So they had to do something, I think, to help the fans realize they were still planning on keeping some of their homegrown talent in-house, and honestly, it's not that different of a situation that the Jay's finder's in right now in terms of where they're at. Now, the Red Sox have done an admirable job of getting themselves into being a contending team with some younger players and some athleticism and a really scrappy, aggressive mentality that we've seen. I don't think that there's a gerundaran in the Blue Jay system right now that's going to hop up there and become an everyday player and give them a lot of quality production right now. But I do think, to your question, yes, I think that there's a possibility that Laddie becomes the centerpiece of your team and that you trade a lot of the other guys to get a younger and better version of what we've seen the last several months, and that you hope you become a bit more like the Red Sox, because I think just trying to go star for star and compete with the Yankees with more veteran guys doesn't seem to be working at the moment. And I think that a pivot will come at some point. The thing I'll say about the trade deadline and why we love it so much and talk about it so much, it really is one of the two major opportunities for you to do some work. And if you don't do anything at this deadline or at least don't do any of consequence, then your next chance to do it is in the off season when there are a lot of other factors at play. Word of free agents want to sign what's the trade market like, which players are going to come over from NPV as posted players, which makes it a complicated thing. The trade deadline, if you're going to decide that you're a seller, the Jay's step forward and say we're selling, you would immediately become one of the main actors in the industry for the next month and you'd bring back some significant young talent back at a time where one of the biggest differences I would say from where they were conceptualized initially is you can't really count on Manoa anymore from a house standpoint. So if you can't count on him and if Kukuchi's going to be a free agent, where's your location that you're going to be able to put up there one through five to compete against the Yankees and the Orioles next year and the Guardians for other American league play-out birds. So I think, to me, the landscape of the game demands that they sell and if they don't sell in my judgment, at least sell some of the guys. It's a missed opportunity. I'm not going to have to sell everybody, but tell the guys who are priced to move and have interest and you'll be a better, healthier organization in the long-term as a result. All right, John, before we let you go, let me ask about the Italians. We parked it a little bit. Let's get into it. I need your thoughts. I'm going to, we need, I need somebody that I can commiserate with because, you know, I was a little bit, I came in here and I was expecting Gunner to kind of nudge me a little bit, but he didn't. So I appreciate him for that when I stepped in here on Tuesday morning. Don't invite me. Don't invite me. But man, John, that was, oh my goodness, that round of 16 fixture against Switzerland, that might have been in my lifetime, at least, the worst performance I've ever seen from the Italian national team. It was really, really difficult, disappointing to watch. What, like, floor is yours, John. What was the biggest thing that stood out? What is your biggest cause for concern after seeing how they performed in this tournament? Lack of creativity in the tax, lack of creativity, lack of finishing skill. And we talked about it before, Daniele, about who's going to score the goals. Well, the answer was not enough people. And, yeah, right, exactly, in a couple of people with nobody. For me, so, obviously, here I am speaking from the States on the 4th of July. My next concern is the Italy qualified for the World Cup in the U.S. and what a moment that's going to be for soccer around the world. And they need to do serious work with the forward group. Now, the youth level, yes, they've done well. But will those players, will those strikers, arrive in time for the World Cup qualifying? And I would say that, probably not. And so, unfortunately, we need more from Raspidores, Camaca, Retaí, Zachanyu, one great goal, obviously, to get Italy through. But I just have not seen enough quality in the attack to really feel good. But I think that the midfield was adequate, the defense outside of one after a vicious own goal against Spain was quite good. We've got the best keeper in the world. But last I checked, to win a tournament, you got to score goals. And that remains an issue. The point I'll make, and again, the U.S. as you know, the U.S. crash out of the Copa America. Canada didn't, by the way, as you were. Yeah, even though we didn't score goals, John, the Canadian still advanced. They scored one goal. Because we're gritty. That's why. Well, you've got, you have a better manager than the U.S. has at the moment. I'll just make that point. But so, if you look at the goal scoring, the sort of like the red flag that we should have noticed was that the leading American-born goal scorer in Serie A, Pulisic, had the same number of goals as the leading Italian-born goal scorer in Serie A, that being Smaka. So, if, now, I'm a proud American, I'm also a proud Italian. But I would generally say that there should be more Italian goal scorers of quality in Serie A than Americans in Serie A, just as a general point. And that obviously did not happen. So we missed Verrati a little bit. There should have been a Sandro Tenali, obviously, for any reason, he's not involved either. But yes, I just, a lot of concerns that I'm not sure are going to be rectified at a time in the world that convenes here in the U.S. for in 2026. Yeah, we'll just park the Sandro Tenali stuff specifically, because we have our gambling segment coming up in literally one millisecond. So, we're just going to throw that all the way over there. And I honestly, John, you nailed it, because that's exactly what I was saying about the Italian national team, too. All those guys' names, I was yelling them at Danieli. Marosi, we always love getting you on. Good job avoiding the slime, which is a museum, and good job celebrating America's birthday today. Thank you, John. Again, like just, that's what I'm always saying, whenever I'm speaking Italian, I got this one for you. Cementa Torre, just like that one, when they are at Bali walnuts, when he goes daily in this brand, on something like that one. Okay. That was interesting what he says about the J's, obviously big kind of fork in the road moment. We've been down this road before. I thought the point about Vlady, and could you extend him, was more interesting, but the other thing I'm curious to watch is, who acts first? And I understand it's going to take two sides to tango, but does a seller start a fire sale first? Or doh, let's just use the team we always use for this. Do the Dodgers get aggressive and say, we're going to go get whoever, whoever our A+ targets are. Let's just go get them before anybody can mess with our parents. I don't know if you caught this little nugget yesterday, so Mookie Betz is sort of working his way back. He's going to be still out of the lineup for the next few weeks. But then Dodgers drop this little nugget, that when he returns, they want him to play second base. They don't want him to play short anymore. Now, Miguel Rojas is filled in admirably at short, but I feel like Gunner, that's their way of telling us, hey, we're going to be aggressive. And we want a specific position to be filled with a big time acquisition at this deadline. I would watch for them because I think I thought that was something interesting that was put out into the ether yesterday by the L.A. Dodgers. Yeah, that's certainly not nothing. It's definitely something to keep tabs on. I also think it's probably best for course of action for all parties involved. I love Mookie Betz, but I've certainly seen enough of him a shortstop in my life. I'd rather see him on a bowling alley, quite frankly, and that's not a slighted him. He's very good at bowling. He's terrific. Yeah, he's excellent. Oh, I know. Just good at everything. One of those guys. Yeah, we all know people like him. Time now for the wake and rate presented by Sports Interaction, your homegrown Sportsbook 19 plus bet responsibly, J's and strobes from Canada on the 4th of July. A Texas team not playing at home on the 4th of July. Thumbing there. No, it was majorly baseball. Good for you with the schedule Astros, Midas 120 on the Moneyline total as it's been. All series long, eight and a half, minus 105. If you want the over minus 115, if you like, the under and the J's are plus a hundred as underdogs there. You got to lean on this one, Daniel. I'm going to say under. Okay. Well, but grudgingly under because the bullpen has been bleeding, hemorrhaging runs. And in fact, yesterday, Gunnar, I said over and I was afraid because it was too too in the seventh turn up. And the bullpen showed up. Exactly. So I'm going to say the under though, because it is for Amber Valdez. I believe it's busted today for the blue J's. And as such, given the pitching matchup, I feel like today might be a little bit more tempered in terms of the offense. All right. I hit it yesterday. We're going to go right back to the well Astros minus one and a half. You had a plus 140. You're not Alvarez. Just do that again. You'll be, you'll be laughing there. That was the wake and break presented by sports interaction. Your home growing sports book, 19 plus bet responsibly. All right. Coming up next, we've referenced his column already today. Always love getting a sneak peek at that. A lot of interesting nuggets from Kipper will get into that. The captaincy talk that he started as well. One hour left in the fan morning show with gunning in Daniele on sports net five nine
