Cup of Coffee: November 3, 2025

Good morning!

Rogers Hornsby: People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring.

Rogers Hornsby's Therapist: Let's unpack that, Roger.

Rogers Hornsby: It's "Rogers"

Welcome to the offseason, folks.

The Daily Briefing

A note on the Dodgers' Dominance

The thought leaders in baseball media have telegraphed that they're going to make the Dodgers winning the World Series an issue in the MLB labor battle that will be unfolding over the next year. The idea being that the Dodgers are a super team, that super teams cannot exist without crazy economic inequality, and that the only way to fix this alleged problem is by imposing a salary cap or other sorts of punitive measures on teams that spend money on player payroll.

We obviously have a lot of time to unpack that over the next year – and I have obviously spent decades writing about that stuff – so I'm not planning on litigating these sorts of claims on the Monday morning after the season ends. But I would like to say that if anyone wants to cast the Dodgers as some sort of dominant evil empire taking advantage of an unfair system, they need to account for a few things in their analysis.

The first thing they need to account for is the fact that the Dodgers do not become a "super team" if two other extremely wealthy franchises – the Boston Red Sox and Atlanta Braves – had not cheaped out and cut bait on Mookie Betts and Freddie Freeman after the 2019 and 2021 seasons, respectively. Both of those teams could've easily held on to their future Hall of Famers but chose not to in order to save some money they never would've missed given how much those franchises make. Without those two the Dodgers don't win enough to make Shohei Ohtani a total lock to sign with them and if he doesn't, there's no guarantee that Yoshinubo Yamamoto and Roki Sasaki sign in Los Angeles either. This super team was built because a bunch of other potential super teams decided they'd rather count their money than compete, and if you fault the Dodgers for taking advantage of other teams' shortsightedness than I have to ask you what you think the point of baseball is.

The experts also need to account for the fact that there were about 18 small random things that, if they had gone differently, would've handed the Series to Toronto. In Game 7 alone:

• A couple of weird base running brain farts;
• A catcher barely tapping his toe on home plate following a relay throw from a 36 year old utility player that, I'm guessing, does not result in an out seven out of ten times;
• That same 36 year-old utility player hitting a truly improbable home run;
• A deeply slumping defensive replacement in center field bowling over his teammate to catch a ball that almost ended the Series right then and there; and
• A bat breaking on contact with one out and the bases-loaded in the bottom of the eleventh which would've almost certainly resulted in a hit absent the bat breaking but which, instead, resulted in a World Series-ending double play.

There were many other such moments in the Series that did not involve high-priced players or structural dominance which could've very, very easily turned it into a Blue Jays win. As it is, the World Champs are a 93-win team that more or less stopped hitting after the Wild Card series. They were outscored in the World Series 33 to 26 and could have very easily lost this thing except for the fact that they got a hell of a lot of lucky breaks. So no, they are not some unstoppable force, even if I anticipate that they will be characterized as such by those carrying water for baseball's owners.

There are a lot of things to talk about when it comes to baseball finances, competitiveness, and all of that stuff. But to the extent anyone suggests that what happened between the lines over the past ten days or so – or even in the past month – is proof of something other than the fact that baseball is nuts and that anything can happen, particularly in a short playoff series, they're blowing smoke.

Quote of the Day: Colin Sheridan of the Irish Examiner

I wouldn't have expected an Irish publication to have the best thing to say out of anyone in the wake of that insane Game Seven, but Colin Sheridan of the Irish Examiner hit the nail on the damn head:

And in that pause between pitch and contact - longer than logic, shorter than hope - we remembered why baseball existed long before we judged a sport's value by viral moments and betting apps. It is the romance of failure. The mortal beauty of trying and missing seven times out of 10 and still being considered great. It is the only sport where patience is a weapon, and panic the surest death. You cannot simply run out the clock in baseball; you must face it, pitch by terrifying pitch, until it finally releases you.

You gotta win four out of seven. And you gotta get at least 27 outs in each of those four. There are no shortcuts. It's a forced march in service of a seven-month long war of attrition.

And my god, I could go my whole life without coming up with the line, "Longer than logic, shorter than hope." What a banger.

Quote of the Day Part II

Where is the lie? Even neutral fans were agonizing every damn day of this World Series. I cannot imagine how devoted Blue Jays and Dodgers fans held it together over the course of those seven games.

Life Comes at You Fast

As I noted on Friday, this was how the Los Angeles Times covered the Dodgers following their loss in Game 5:

Here was the L.A. Times in the hours after their victory in Game 7:

Here's Ken Rosenthal on Friday . . .

Versus Ken Rosenthal early yesterday morning:

You know, I'm starting to suspect that sports commentary is an exercise in post-facto rationalization combined with an urge on the part of sportswriters to impose premature narratives in an effort to get ahead of their colleagues and competitors and to appear wise despite the fact that sports are inherently random and unpredictable! Crazy, I know, but it all adds up!

Gold Glove Winners announced

Major League Baseball always figures out the worst times to announce Gold Glove winners. They've done it on election nights before. This time they did it on the Sunday night after the World Series ended and football is on so no one is paying attention.

Eh, it ain't my award. Here are the winners, though:

NATIONAL LEAGUE

Catcher: Patrick Bailey, Giants
First base: Matt Olson, Atlanta
Second base: Nico Hoerner, Cubs
Third base: Ke’Bryan Hayes, Pirates/Reds
Shortstop: Masyn Winn, Cardinals
Left field: Ian Happ, Cubs
Center field: Pete Crow-Armstrong, Cubs
Right field: Fernando Tatis Jr., Padres
Utility: Javier Sanoja, Marlins
Pitcher: Logan Webb, Giants

AMERICAN LEAGUE

Catcher: Dillon Dingler, Tigers
First base: Ty France, Twins/Blue Jays
Second base: Marcus Semien, Rangers
Third base: Maikel Garcia, Royals
Shortstop: Bobby Witt Jr., Royals
Left field: Steven Kwan, Guardians
Center field: Ceddanne Rafaela, Red Sox,
Right field: Wilyer Abreu, Red Sox
Utility: Mauricio Dubon, Astros
Pitcher: Max Fried, Yankees

Angels hire Mike Maddux

The Los Angeles Angels announced on Friday that they have hired Mike Maddux to be their new pitching coach. He'll serve under first-year manager Kurt Suzuki.

Maddux, 64, has spent the last three years as the pitching coach of the Texas Rangers. It was his second stint with the club, having coached there from 2009 through 2015 as well. The team was in negotiations for him to stay on under new manager Skip Schumaker, but ESPN reports that the sides could not agree to terms.

The Rangers boasted the best ERA in the majors in 2025 under Maddux. The Angels do not have Nathan Eovaldi or Jacob deGrom, so good luck, Mike.

Other Stuff

How Trump is subverting Democracy

On Friday the New York Times editorial board published a pretty damn good point-by-point explainer about how Trump has and continues to subvert democracy. Here's a gift link to it.

There is not anything new in there for those of us who closely follow the news, but the straightforward, point-by-point manner in which it is laid out makes it an excellent summary of what has happened since he has taken office and how it has undermined the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and America's most basic and fundamental principles.

It's the sort of thing that people should be sharing with friends and family who are not perpetually online or who don't obsess on the news in the manner sickos like us do. It's the sort of thing that should be posted on people's Facebook feeds and Instagram stories and stuff.

Life Comes At You Fast: Part II

"Dilbert" cartoonist/unhinged right wing loon Scott Adams is apparently very sick with prostate cancer. Early yesterday morning he posted this on Twitter:

He did not feel that way two years ago:

Fuck cancer, always and for everyone. But also fuck anyone who doesn't give a rat's ass about the health or well-being of others and who does everything they can to support and elevate those who would actively harm the health and well-being of others until the very moment they are personally affected.

Guys like Adams possess a basic lack of human empathy. They don't care about anyone but themselves. Nothing is real to them and nothing matters to them until it happens to them. People like that are extraordinarily harmful to a functioning society.

Florida has gone full-psychopathic

Speaking of healthcare, the state of Florida is moving forward with a plan to end all childhood vaccine mandates, starting with hepatitis B, chickenpox, bacterial meningitis and pneumonia. After that the GOP-controlled legislature is vowing to repeal a 1977 law that imposes vaccine mandates for whooping cough, measles, polio, rubella, mumps, diphtheria, and tetanus.

It's difficult to overstate how unhinged it is that the federal government and multiple state governments have made it a priority to undo what is, arguably, the greatest achievement in the history of humanity. It is hard to get one's mind around how it a first-year-in-power priority of one of the two major political parties of the United States to guarantee a massive spike in wholly preventable death, illness, and misery which will primarily be visited upon children and the infirm. The fact that it's being done solely because a cult has formed around a demented, corrupt, and narcissistic white supremacist and he, in turn, has decided that the medical views of malignant ignoramuses should rule, makes it all the more tragic and absurd. It's downright criminal, really.

I believe that the fever will eventually break and that Trump's rule will end in ignominy. But given how our political system works and the incentives it creates for bad actors, it may take decades for us to recover from these horrifying self-inflicted wounds. If indeed we ever truly recover from them.

My publisher wants to sell my book to the A.I. companies

On Friday afternoon I received the following email from Arcadia Publishing, the company which now owns Belt Publishing, the imprint which published my 2022 book, Rethinking Fandom. The subject line was "Royalty Opportunity":

Dear Author,

Arcadia has been presented with an opportunity to provide content to a major technology company involved in AI development. The request is to use the content in your title(s) for AI training purposes. 

You would receive a total royalty of $355 for this one-time use. The royalty payment for this opportunity will be made after the next regular royalty cycle, and you can expect payment to arrive in the Spring of 2026.

To develop a responsible AI model, companies use vast amounts of content to tune answers to prompts in an attempt to increase the quality of the answers and to decrease the number of false responses.  

Arcadia has had lengthy discussions with the technology company involved, and after serious deliberation has determined there is good cause for moving forward. This firm is acting responsibly by offering compensation for the content, but these kinds of opportunities could be very limited in the future. Recently, courts have ruled that AI training is “fair use” of copyrighted content, for which tech firms need not compensate authors. If future cases result in similar rulings, it will be increasingly difficult to secure payment for content. Please see the FAQs for answers to common questions.

Arcadia values its relationship with its authors, and we are therefore offering you the opportunity to opt out in this specific instance. Should other similar opportunities arise where Arcadia has done the same serious vetting on the company and its contemplated usage, Arcadia will contact you again.

No action is needed to be included and receive payment. To view your included titles and have the opportunity to opt out, please click here and follow the instructions on the page by November 7. Please note that if you opt out you will receive no payment. ​​​​ 

In conclusion, Arcadia’s position is that in this instance we are dealing with a trusted partner, that the use of the content is responsible and has some aspects of improving the use of AI in general, and that the monetary amounts are a reasonable price for the use. 

Regards,
Arcadia Publishing

There is a LOT to unpack in that email.

The Money: "Arcadia has been presented with an opportunity to provide content to a major technology company involved in AI development" almost certainly means that Arcadia is, itself, getting paid for the use of their authors' work to train the tech company's AI models. They're offering me $355 for this "opportunity." I wonder how much Arcadia is getting? I feel like I should know that before I decide to give my book away to Sam Altman or whoever the hell.

The Money Part II: When you get right down to it, what my publisher is asking of me is for me to option my book, in much the same way it could be optioned to a movie or TV production studio (one of which could very well be that "major technology company"). My book was not a runaway best seller, but even books with modest sales get more than $355 for optioning them for open-ended adaptations like this. Hell, I got more money than that for agreeing to have the book translated into a couple of other languages, after which I still retained the rights to it.

One Time Use: Saying that this is "for one time use" is insulting. If, in 2002, I went on Kazaa and burned Korn's "Untouchables" to a CD-R, I would not have done so for "one-time use." I'd have it forever and I'd do whatever the hell I'd want with it. As it is, there is nothing in this email to suggest that whichever company gets my book can only use it one time, nor does Arcadia provide any other information or legal documentation setting forth my rights or the ability to verify "one-time" compliance. What Arcadia is describing is a "one-time download" after which my and the other authors' books would live in their model forever and ever, being used as plagiarism-fuel for millions of users for eternity;

Opt-out: Six paragraphs in I'm informed that this is an opt-out situation and that, if I do nothing, my book is going to the AI company and I'm getting that $355. There's a one-week window to opt-out. I've been in touch with a couple of authors who received this email whose books are way, way older than three years old and who were only vaguely aware that Arcadia is their publisher of record given that it has acquired a number of publishers over the years. I would guess that a lot of authors to whom this email applies won't even notice that they got it. Maybe it goes right to spam given the spammy-sounding "Royalty Opportunity" subject line. That's assuming Arcadia even has updated email addresses for all of its authors. And no, I did not get a copy of this in the U.S. Mail.

"Fair Use:" The fourth paragraph, and its implied threat of "take the money now because later the AI companies may just be able to steal your book," is both manipulative and wildly misleading. There have been some legal rulings that using copyrighted material for AI training is "fair use" but they are highly-caveated and set forth some complicated multi-factor tests which could radically change the outcome depending on how the tech company is using the material in question. And, of course, the AI company Anthropic recently settled with hundreds of thousands of authors of books for which it originally claimed fair use rights but is now paying them around $3,000 for each book because it determined that it faced a crippling legal defeat on this very issue. To suggest, then, that I must either agree, without any further information about how my book will be used, to a $355 payment now or forever be boned is total bullshit and, frankly, insults my intelligence.

"Trusted Partner": The final paragraph of the letter, referring to Arcadia’s position that the technology company is "a trusted partner" is fucking rich given that they will not tell us who the technology company is. People who have read some things I've written before know very well that there are some companies in the AI space that I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw one of their data centers. I'm just supposed to take Arcadia's word that they're trustworthy, however.

The FAQ: The FAQ link goes to a page that, in some ways, made me more angry than the email itself. Just at first glance:

• It constantly refers to this situation as "an opportunity" which is advocacy on behalf of the technology company, not information, and certainly not the sort of thing a publisher with whom an author has a standing relationship should be communicating to the author;
• One of the questions is "How was the price determined? It seems high compared to my royalties," which may be the case for some people but may not be for others, and either way is not informational but, again, advocacy for writers to accept the payment;
• The answer to the aforementioned question is "The technology company did not share how they determined the price they would pay. We do think the price is fair." Which (a) sets up my publisher and the tech company against me rather than has the publisher looking out for me, its author; and (b) really undermines the idea in the letter about the company being "a trusted partner." Trusted partners actually share information. At the very least they share their identity. If they don't want it public for competitive purposes then tell me and get ME to sign an NDA given that I'm at least nominally, in this transaction;
• The next question, "Why can’t I have more time to decide to opt out?" is answered with "We realize that the timing is very tight, but the timetable stems from the technology company, who has not been receptive to requests for more time." I'm guessing this deal has been some time in the making, yet their first communication to authors came just before 4PM on a Friday afternoon, a week before a non-negotiable deadline. What if I wanted to talk to a lawyer about this? Have you ever tried to retain a lawyer and get actionable legal advice from them in the space of four business days? Given my work history I can tell you that, unless that lawyer is your brother-in-law or your old college roommate, you are not getting actionable legal advice for them in the space of four business days;
• I've gotten some preliminary information through informal channels that the accelerated time table is being pushed by the tech company, not Arcadia, but that's no excuse and, in fact, makes things worse. Arcadia is a business entering into an arm's-length business relationship with whoever this company is. If everyone has to rush like hell to meet the tech company's demands, no one can know anything, and it's all basically "take it in the next week or leave it and, hey, we might just take it pursuant to fair use anyway" that's not a business deal. That's Trumpian-style extortion;
• Another question: "Who can I talk to if I have other questions?" is answered with "Please understand that we are bound by a Nondisclosure Agreement between Arcadia and the technology company and at this point we have shared all that we believe we legally can." So it's basically a black box and I am not allowed to even pose a question to someone who wishes to enter into a business transaction with me regarding a book on which I spent two years of my life and on which I have staked a decent amount of my professional reputation. Take it or leave it, bitches, because we're in business with the AI company, not you.

I am profoundly disappointed that, in an age in which human labor and creativity is being debased and the work of writers, artists, musicians, and filmmakers is being treated as disposable because some folks in the Bay Area have figured out a nifty new way to commit plagiarism, my publishing company is entering into this sort of arrangement. I suspect that it and other publishers are doing this because they're afraid that, if they don't, they'll be ruined. I feel like they need to understand, however, that the tech companies want to ruin them anyway. They're doing deals like this because they fear some short-term legal friction, but make no mistake: they are hellbent on destroying the publishing industry specifically and the concept of copyrighted creativity in general. If the publishers want to try to make a buck or two before they're put to the blade, great, but I don't see much of a percentage in negotiating to be the last one killed.

Needless to say I have opted out of this "opportunity." I also hereby opt out of ever working with Arcadia/Belt Publishing again. They can ask me why that is, but I'm led to understand that, in this relationship, one must blindly trust the other party when it comes to important matters and not to expect any answers to their questions. Believe me, though, that I have full confidence that it's the right move.

Maybe I'll publish a FAQ on that.

Have a great day everyone.