Hey MMO Community, it’s been awhile. We’ve reached early February, which means a few things. It means we’ve reached the point in the season where my excitement for Knicks Basketball turns into disgust and depression.
On the bright side, it also means we’ve reached the point where I start getting geared up for some baseball. More specifically, it means we’ve reached the point where Keith Law, a lead baseball analyst for ESPN.com and one of the top player evaluation experts in the industry, has released his MLB Top 100 Prospect Rankings as well as his team-by-team rankings and positional rankings.
For the past two years, Keith’s been kind enough to give me and MMO an exclusive interview to discuss his rankings and evaluations with us as it pertains to the Mets, and he was generous enough to do so again this year. Keith gave me about 30 minutes of his time despite us only being scheduled for 15, and he didn’t even ask me to promote his book (although I threw a question in there at the end out of genuine interest).
I want to give a big shoutout to Keith, and invite you to check out what we discussed, including: Amed Rosario, Dom Smith and other key Mets prospects, the MLB aces and guys like Robert Gsellman and Seth Lugo, Matt Harvey’s future, the outfield logjam and Michael Conforto in particular, the infield and some surprising thoughts on Asdrubal Cabrera, the situation behind the plate with Travis d’Arnaud, and, of course, an outlook for the fast-approaching 2017 season. Without further ado…
Tommy Rothman, MetsMerized Online: Hey Keith, thanks so much for doing this again this year. So first of all, you just released your top 100 rankings, and your team-by-team rankings, and positional lists. Obviously guys like Amed Rosario (#3) and Dominic Smith (#29) have been there before, and nobody was surprised to see them. But there are some other guys on the list who are newer to the farm system, including guys we just drafted, so I want to talk about them as well.
I guess we’ll start with Rosario and Smith. Rosario, I know you’ve been high on him for years, and the rest of the prospect-scouting world is kind of catching up to that a bit, he was also 5th on the MLB.com list. And then Smith, I think you actually had in the exact same slot as last year. Regarding Rosario, is this ranking a reflection that you’re higher on him than you were, or just that he’s closer to being ready?
Keith Law, ESPN: He’s closer to being ready. He’s continued to meet and exceed expectations for his age. Also with young shortstops, with a guy like that, I want to be sure the body’s gonna stay there too. Sometimes they just get bigger than you expect, and I’m not worried about that with him. I mean, he’s gonna be a big shortstop, there’s a lot of big shortstops, but he’s certainly not too big at this point. And he’s always had the physical skills, the raw tools to be a good defensive shortstop. But I feel a lot better about that now than I did a year ago.
Tommy: And then with Smith, I know for awhile the knock on him was that he did everything right, he had a great swing, but he didn’t hit home runs. But this year the power started to pop up. So what goes into his ranking staying the same? Is that a reflection that he’s gotten a year older and not necessarily advanced enough, or…
Keith: I mean there’s no negative to it, certainly. He stayed the same, I think a few guys passed him, maybe some guys who had explosive seasons. But there’s nothing different about him, there was nothing wrong with his year. He got to a neutral ballpark [as opposed to the Mets’ very pitcher-friendly Single A environments] and started to drive the ball more, and I think he’s capable of that.
I remember I saw him in high school, I said, “There’s 70 raw in there” [on the 20-80 grading scale scouts use to rate a player’s tools], and I still believe he’s gonna get to that. But some of this is approach-related too, in that I do think he’s learning still when to go the other way— because he obviously loves to do that— and when to pull the ball, looking for certain pitches, certain locations, in certain counts. It’s the maturation of a hitter, and he came in very young, remember he was 17 when he was drafted.
So I have no concerns, I still think he’s going to be the player that I’ve forecasted him to be since he was drafted. And by having him where he is… I don’t rank 1st base prospects typically very high, I would say him staying in that same range is… he’s still on target. He did what I expected him to do getting out of those two A-ball parks, which I think not only wrecked his power, but if you look at what he did in Savannah, all he did was hit the ball to left field, like “Well I can’t hit them out, I may as well hit singles the other way to left.” Okay, that’s great, you don’t have to do that anymore.
Tommy: Following up on Smith, he’s probably a couple years away, but Lucas Duda‘s contract is expiring this year, and unless the Mets are going to move Michael Conforto or Lucas Duda or David Wright to first, they might have a vacancy at first if they don’t bring back Duda. So do you think if he has a good year they’re going to push up Smith’s timeline and try to have him be the 1st baseman in 2018?
Keith: I think he gets to the Big Leagues this year anyway, so I don’t think it’s changing anything. Obviously if he goes to Triple-A and goes bananas, that might speed things up a bit and we see him in the Big Leagues in June. Conversely if he goes to Triple-A and he sucks—- I really don’t think he’s going to, but it’s possible, and that might change things too. Let’s say he goes to Triple-A and makes the same kind of small improvements we saw him make last year.
Some of what happened last year was him just getting into a better hitting environment, and we got a better picture of the hitter he really is, so let’s say he goes to Triple-A and is a little better. A little more power, still high OBP, still good defense, let’s say he gets up to 20 home runs, or is on pace for 20 home runs, and they say “Alright, we’ll call him up in August,” and try to give him some regular playing-time to ease him in so he can be the 1st baseman next year. I don’t think anybody really wants anymore to… you know when a guy is going to be your everyday player, you don’t want to have Opening Day be his debut in most cases. So I could certainly understand them saying, “Let’s make sure we give this guy a cup of coffee, he’s gonna be on the 40-man anyway,” that all makes sense to me.
Tommy: And then so with the pitchers, Thomas Szapucki [#60] and Justin Dunn [#84], those are guys where unlike Gsellman, we haven’t seen them in the Majors and they’re more recent to the fans’ attention— and Anthony Kay, but obviously he’s going to be moved back with the Tommy John surgery—- so with those three guys, obviously they’re not in the same tier of prospects as Mets fans might be used to, between Matt Harvey, Zack Wheeler, Noah Syndergaard and Steven Matz, but what are you expecting them to offer the Mets? Because last year, the knock was that the Mets had all this elite pitching but didn’t have much depth prospect-wise for pitchers, and it seems like that’s improved…
Keith: Right, I think it’s improved dramatically. I thought the draft was good, I mean Kay getting hurt… UConn blew him out, I have no problem saying that, because I was saying it all Spring, and then sure enough he got hurt. But he’ll be back at some point, Szapucki took a huge step forward last year. I love Dunn, I probably love him even more now after some pro guys got to look at him— obviously he didn’t pitch a whole lot— but just to come back and say, “Hey, this guy’s an unbelievable athlete, how the heck did they get this guy at the 19th pick?” I mean it was… people were feeling like it was tremendous value where they got him.
And Gsellman too, I gotta point out, I was always saying, “He’s a 5th starter, he’s throwing 90-91, he can sink it a little bit, he throws strikes… he’s a Big Leaguer, not very exciting.” But that guy shows up to the Big Leagues, and he’s bumping 95, 96. I even checked with the Mets, they were like “He didn’t throw that hard before.” I was like “Good, at least I didn’t whiff,” I hate that thought, that he comes up throwing 95 and I’m dismissing him. No, he really wasn’t! Just all of a sudden, he found a grade and a half of velocity, and now it’s 95, 96 and he can still sink it and get ground balls and throw a lot of strikes, and when your arm speeds up often your off-speed stuff gets a bit better too. He’s… it’s funny, I can’t think of a comparable in terms of career trajectory like that.
But it’s really fun, I think it’s really exciting, a guy who was totally an afterthought, for me and probably for a lot of people outside the Mets organization, who thought “Gsellman? Yeah, take him in a trade, he’s fine, just a guy,” you know, now he’s known. I don’t even know if they would trade him. I think they’ll use him, I think he’ll probably get his 30 starts in over the course of the season if he stays healthy, and obviously if he shows up throwing 95 in March.
Tommy: Yeah, the guy he reminds me most of in terms of trajectory, is actually the guy he looks like, deGrom—
Tommy: —where you’re like, “OK, he’s an OK player,” and then he gets to the Big Leagues and he’s getting everybody out.
Keith: I remember seeing deGrom’s first Big League start, and I’m sitting there in Bristol in the green room watching the fastball move, and I’m like, “Sh*t!” I mean I had notes from Mets people and nobody told me he could do that, they told me he threw hard and that he had a real breaking ball, and that he was hyper-athletic, I mean everything they said was right, but this guy’s throwing two-seamers at 93 that are going to break bats, that’s a hell of a lot more exciting than I thought he was.
Tommy: And now for Seth Lugo, he was kind of disappointing as a reliever, but when they put him in the starting rotation, he really took off and was important down the stretch. And I know, I’ve read a lot of articles about how his curveball—
Keith: Isn’t it great?
Tommy: —is pretty legendary, but yeah, he’s getting kind of overlooked in the discussion, between Wheeler and Gsellman, for who’s going to be the fifth starter. But there’s Lugo, he could be the fifth starter, he could go to the pen… what are your thoughts on him?
Keith: Well, I wanna talk specifically about that curveball issue. We think that’s good, right? The high spin rate sounds good, it looks good. I have said, and obviously this is part of— I have a book coming out, called Smart Baseball, and I talk about Statcast quite a bit towards the end, because it’s kind of the next big thing— we are still learning what much of this means. And is the fact that he has this extremely high spin rate curveball [the highest ever]… does that make it more effective?
And it looks fine now, obviously, and he’s not… he’s not data, he’s a pitcher, right? You have him already, you may as well roll him out there and see what it’s like. I am not willing to say, “This guy’s got an unbelievable spin rate on his curveball, therefore it’s going to be good.”
If I were the Mets, I would say… first they have to get him throwing it more, part of the problem is he just didn’t throw it that often. And then find a role that allows him maybe to maximize it if it turns out it is that effective. That might still be a bullpen role. That’s probably what he is, but with the caveat that he just hasn’t thrown that curveball that much. Even in the minors, that was just not an emphasis pitch for him. Now maybe he goes to Triple-AAA, starts for awhile, throws 20 breaking balls a game, and it changes the entire pitcher that he is, I mean that would be comparable to Gsellman throwing 95 all of a sudden, and then you sort of have to erase everything you had on him before.
Tommy: So obviously with Thor and deGrom, and then Matz who had that horrible start against the Marlins but was then pitching like an All-Star for a couple months, with each passing year you kind of know you’re going to get great pitching from them. But with Harvey he was concerning last year before the injury [Thoracic Outlet Syndrome] because he was pitching poorly. I know for me it was less concerning after the injury, because it would have been more of an issue if he was pitching horribly with no explanation. But I know TOS is not like Tommy John where it seems like, you go get it, you take a year off, you get back. Here there’s not much of a track record, so I guess… what do you think the Harvey situation is shaping up to be like?
Keith: I don’t know. I really don’t know, because I don’t think we have a ton of comparisons, and obviously we haven’t seen him come back and see what he looks like, does all the old stuff return, is he still able to pitch pain-free, at the same velocity that he was beforehand, I don’t know. I mean, if I were a Mets fan, not that I need to sow concern among Mets fans, you seem to be good at doing that all by yourselves, but you know, I would look at that rotation and say, that’s not the most durable group right now.
And Thor has been durable, but obviously he had the little elbow— what did he call it— inflammation. And Matz is just fragile, he’s great when he’s healthy, but he’s [dealt with ailments] quite a bit over the years, so look, this guy is good when he’s healthy, but his track record of durability is basically non-existent. So if you can set yourselves up to bank on him for 18 starts, and then you’re covered for the rest, and obviously if he gives you more that’s great… that’s fine. But don’t go into the season thinking you’re getting 30 starts out of Steven Matz, because he’s never done it before.
The flip-side is, now with the emergence of Gsellman, the return of Wheeler, maybe you’ve got 7 starters you can mix and match to keep guys healthy, or just to plan ahead, because someone’s gonna break down, someone’s gonna get hurt, now we at least have the inventory here to soak up those innings and not just be handing them to Triple-A cannon-fodder guys.
Tommy: Right, I always tell people when they ask “what are you going to do with the 7 starters,” I say that that’s probably gonna resolve itself unfortunately, you’re not gonna have all 7 healthy all at the same time…
Keith: Right. This was the… when they traded Michael Fulmer, I said “Look, Fulmer’s a really good prospect, you’re getting 2 months of Yoenis Cespedes,” not knowing Cespedes was going to go all Babe Ruth the next couple weeks, right? But Mets fans kept saying, “We have enough pitching, there’s never gonna be room for him in the rotation.” Well, really? You know, come back at me bro! I’m not hearing from you lately.
You would have plenty of room for Michael Fulmer in your rotation. You can’t have enough of those guys. Doesn’t mean you don’t trade them, you absolutely do, there will come a point where you learn something about them where you say “Alright, well why don’t we give this guy up,” or you certainly say, “We are going to use this pitching depth to upgrade the roster somewhere else,” but accept that there will always come an opportunity where that guy would have pitched for you. There will come a day where the Red Sox will look back and say, “Look, we should have kept Michael Kopech” [instead of trading him for All-Star Chris Sale]. If he stays healthy, they’re gonna look at him the way you guys look at Fulmer right now.
Tommy: And similarly in terms of a logjam in the outfield, obviously if Cespedes, Jay Bruce, Curtis Granderson, Michael Conforto and Juan Lagares all stay healthy and you have to bench one of them, that’s a good problem to have… I mean the way I look at it, Cespedes is obviously going to play every day, and Bruce and Granderson, they’re not going to sit on the bench, I mean their weaknesses against lefties, Conforto shares, so the way I look at it, I expect it to be Cespedes, Granderson and Bruce, every day, Lagares as a fourth outfielder. And I almost think, if Conforto isn’t going to be playing every day, it might be better to have Nimmo, who kind of is a fourth outfielder, to be that bench outfielder and hopefully have Conforto raking in Triple-AAA and… but yeah, what do you think they will do, and what do you think they should do?
Keith: I think they will do the wrong thing. Collins will do the wrong thing. And I think the front office is doing the wrong thing. Why Terry Collins is being given final say over playing Conforto I have no idea. I think you play Cespedes and Conforto in the outfield every day, and you plan around those two guys. Everything else has to flow from them.
Cespedes obviously, that’s not an issue. But Conforto has to play every day! For me that’s step one. I mean, you know he rakes against right-handers— at least when he’s healthy he does— and it’s not that he doesn’t hit lefties, he hit lefties in college, he hit lefties OK in the Minors, they just never gave him a chance in the Big Leagues. And he’s never going to learn if you don’t play him. So, you make sure those two guys are getting your everyday at-bats, and you move forward from there.
I agree with what you said on Nimmo, he’d be fine on the bench as a fourth outfielder, he can fill in a bit in center, he can certainly play right, you just don’t want him to face a good lefty. You don’t want him to face many lefties at all, really. That’s the one thing you’d be concerned about, with him as your fourth, but it’s not like they have many options anyway who would be able to fit that, play multiple positions… and you know Lagares can play all three, he’s not going to hit as much. I think with Nimmo, there’s more bat, he’s probably better suited to that job.
Tommy: Well with Conforto, you were always high on him and he was incredible at the start of the year until May… but he only hit .242 against righties last year, and only hit .104 against lefties, so I guess… obviously if he had kept that early production up, no one’s having this discussion about when does he play, where does he play, but because he struggled it does seem like more of a question-mark to play him every day so… what do you think went into that slump, and are you not concerned by it?
Keith: Well he was also hurt at some point after that too, so I’m not sure, I’ll put it this way, I have a feeling, if he’s just getting— oh, the other thing I heard from people in the organization too, they felt the fact that Conforto was not being given opportunities to face lefties really negatively affected his swing, particularly his stance, they felt he wasn’t keeping his front hip closed as well as he should be, I think this is sort of a turn-the-page opportunity, to get him back out there, let him play every day starting in Spring Training, you know… he’s getting 2 at-bats per game at the beginning but he’s facing righties, he’s facing lefties, he’s swinging consistent, he’s fully healthy, and this is all forgotten. But this is one of the better hitting prospects they’ve produced in a while, and if they screw this up, it is to their tremendous detriment as an organization.
Tommy: One other guy whose stock probably fell last year is Travis d’Arnaud. He’s not getting younger, so every year it probably gets a bit more frustrating for Mets fans, but he still does have talent and his good moments… I don’t think you’d still call him a prospect, but how do you evaluate him as a young player at this point?
Keith: Right. Yeah, I mean, look… my issue with him… one year I think I had him ranked in the top 10 overall, I said this is an offensive catcher, he’s good enough in that he can catch and throw, he’s gonna have power and he’s gonna hit, might not have a great on-base percentage, but a catcher with that kind of offensive production is an All-Star. But he hasn’t been healthy since. And now if you look back, kind of all the way back to when he was first drafted by the Phillies, it’s just been one injury after another. He’s had back issues, finger broken, a knee issue, a concussion, I think more than one concussion, I just don’t know if I could ever count on him to stay healthy as a catcher, and I just don’t know if there’s enough offensive production there anywhere else he’s likely to play, which is probably a corner outfield spot, which is the last thing they need at this point.
Tommy: One thing I think we were all stunned by, because we knew he was at least OK with catching and throwing, was last year his throwing took a huge step back. Did that come out of nowhere for you as well?
Keith: Yeah, it was awful, yeah. I was shocked. I certainly didn’t see that coming. If you told me he’s gonna have trouble throwing or trouble receiving, I’d have said “eh, receiving, it’s probably not a strength.” I thought there was no reason he couldn’t get better at it. But I was absolutely shocked at how bad he was at throwing last year. And it made me wonder, “Oh, is he hurt again? Something’s bothering him, and that’s what’s affecting his throwing, the accuracy…” I don’t know, the guy’s just always hurt.
Tommy: So one place where they are seemingly set— the infield is obviously pretty strong. I know Asdrubal Cabrera, who you weren’t as high on, raised his stock. Reyes raised his stock, Walker had a big year although the back injury is a concern, and you’re not counting on Wright health-wise but he’s still there, and Duda hits when he’s healthy, so they probably have more infielders than they can start at one time. And again, that always resolves itself because of the injuries. But how do you evaluate their Major League infield?
Keith: I think Cabrera, still, I think it was a terrible signing, he’s an awful defensive shortstop, it still shocks me that they’re willing to tolerate him out there. I understand good positioning can cover some of that, you’re just giving up outs by playing him out there. And I understand Rosario’s coming, I’m sure they’re hoping that he’s going to take that job sooner than later, it just doesn’t excuse that contract. The thing I’m interested to see is, Gavin Cecchini‘s had throwing problems that got worse last year not better, and I think that’s moved him off shortstop, probably permanently, and so, can he be OK at 2nd base? He’s still erratic, it’s a mental thing, like a yips-type situation, not an arm strength situation, because he used to be fine.
I think all along the plan was going to be for him to take over at short or at second, maybe this year. Obviously Walker coming back, accepting the qualifying offer, changes that, but it’s probably not the worst thing for Cecchini to let him go back to Triple-AAA for awhile and just try to get some consistency. It’s a shorter throw, it’s an easier throw, maybe that takes care of the problem. I hope so, because I think he can really hit, he’s a great kid, but that’s the one thing to watch for with the infield situation this year, is that maybe he ends up taking over for Walker at some point, especially if Walker doesn’t perform, if he comes back and he’s not healthy. He was great last year, good last year, but maybe he comes back and the back issue’s still there, and gives them cause to consider making a change.
Tommy: I’m surprised you say Cabrera… I remember that was your problem when we spoke last year, his defense, but from the eye-test first of all, he seemed definitely solid out there this year. And with the stats, on FanGraphs they had him positive defensively and Baseball Reference had him like exactly as a net zero… do you really still think he’s awful defensively? I mean…
Keith: Oh yeah, oh yeah, absolutely. He’s awful defensively. He’s barely mobile there. And I mean, look, you talk to Mitchel Lichtman [creator of the UZR stat], you talk to the BIS guys [Baseball Info Solutions], they tell you not to look too much into a single year of those stats. And the Mets do position well. They’ve been a very analytics-forward franchise for awhile now, and they’ve probably just had him in better spots. It’s not like the guy… the guy was never a good defensive shortstop, he has not been a good defensive shortstop since he was in the Seattle system, and what was that, nine years ago now? And it’s not like he got better at some point, and certainly at his age there would be no rational reason to expect him to become a capable defensive shortstop, when he’s been below-average for so many years.
Tommy: I guess it just seems like he’s a good defender because he makes all the plays when he gets to it, he has good hands and everything, a good arm. Anyway, where do you see the Mets in terms of further moves this summer, in terms of aggression and ability to add to the roster. They weren’t aggressive with guys outside the roster, and didn’t do much at the deadline aside from the Bruce trade. Obviously the deadline was also their low point record-wise, when it made the least sense to go for a deep playoff run, but yeah, where do you see them this year in terms of being buyers?
Keith: Well it seems like they don’t have a ton of financial flexibility remaining at this point [after their other moves]. If you’re asking from the competitive standpoint, it seems like the Nationals are a bit better on paper, I think they really certainly are better on paper, but I don’t think the difference between the two is big enough that the I would say the Mets are in a bad situation. They’re a little bit behind, but it’s a situation where they could close the gap by playing the right guys. If Conforto’s gonna get 600 plate appearances and not 300, that makes a huge difference in what I would project for their runs scored output this year. I think there’s… yeah, there’s a talent gap, but it’s not insurmountable, especially if the Mets just do the best they can with deploying the assets who are already inside the organization.
Tommy: So what’s your Mets prediction in terms of the division, where they are… your overall outlook for them this year?
Keith: I probably have them in second place. I’ll take a deeper look in March, I just came out of the prospect stuff, so I haven’t done any kind of deep dive on anything like projected standings for this year. But they’re clearly better than three of the clubs in their division. Do I think they’re better than the Nationals right now? Probably not. You know, I think they’ve got some issues of their own making, and obviously the Nationals have decided they’re all in at this point.
The Nationals certainly only have one big roster deficiency I can see and that’s a closer, which is probably the least important thing, and something they might be able to fix on the fly, whereas the Mets maybe have a few more issues, but I could also paint a scenario for you where the Mets get a little healthy, a little luck, play the right guys, and end up neck-and-neck with the Nationals. I don’t think there’s that big a gap between the teams.
Tommy: I meant to ask about the Nationals’ trade for Adam Eaton… Knowing what I do about the prospects, from your rankings and such, it seemed like a huge overpay. Did it seem like an overpay to you and the prospect experts out there? Were you surprised?
Keith: It was, I think that they sold low on Giolito in particular. I think they just decided for whatever reason they just weren’t going to get the same production out of him… I mean, a year ago this guy was the best pitching prospect in baseball, he’s still close to it. I think he’s gonna be great in Chicago, I think they’ll end up regretting that deal as a whole and he’ll be a major reason for it.
That said I think they’ll get value in Eaton, his contract’s obviously unbelievable, so they were trading for that, in addition to trading for the player. He makes them a better team right now, I think they’re better now with Eaton as an everyday outfielder than they were with Giolito in their rotation, because Giolito’s still developing, and Eaton is ready. We know what Eaton is, even if he’s only a 3 or 4-win player the next few years, he makes the Nationals better and you can more than justify the deal.
Tommy: I think that’s all I have for the Mets. One question for you, when does your book come out?
Keith: April 25th.
Tommy: And what is it about? I know the title is Smart Baseball, but more specifically?
Keith: It’s a book for the readers who have asked me over the years, what’s a book I can read myself, or pick up and give to my friend, my dad, to learn about the basics of sabermetrics. If you’re saying… “Keith, you say pitcher wins are useless, RBIs are useless, on-base percentage is good, and I agree, but I don’t understand all of this stuff,” … this is the book for that.
I talk about why the old stats don’t work, what some of the newer but still pretty basic stats are you can use as a fan, especially with how players are valued, and also talk about things like Statcast as I mentioned earlier, because I think that’s really gonna change the conversation over the next 5 to 10 years, but also potentially increase the gap between what we know, as fans and the media, and what the teams know internally about player values.
Tommy: So it’s bridging the gap between “Baseball for dummies” and “Baseball for complete nerds.”
Keith: Yeah, I was aiming for something very specific. This is not a math book, I didn’t want that, I didn’t think people wanted that. I thought people would want something that was… you know, I’m explaining things in very rational terms, but hopefully lively enough to still be readable, and still convince you, if you’re one of those people who says, “Trevor Hoffman had 600 saves, so he’s a Hall of Famer,” you should walk away and say, “Eh, that’s not a good argument.” You might still want him to be a Hall of Famer, that’s fine, but you’re gonna have to come up with a better argument.
Tommy: Alright, that’s all I have for today. Thanks again for doing this!
Keith: Of course, no problem. Take care!
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Again, I want to give a huge shoutout to Keith, and to you as well if you have taken the time to read through this bulky interview. Hopefully this has you even more geared up for the Mets to get back on the diamond. Stay tuned for some follow-up content such as “Main takeaways” and “Things we’ve learned.” Keith certainly didn’t hold back, and I didn’t necessarily agree with him on everything— I’m sure you’ll all have your own opinions as well, so leave your thoughts below!