Zack Scott

And that's like a very, you're kind of locking in on that decision when we obviously decided to do that.

And now it's like, okay, it's JD or bust.

And there were some people that were opposed to doing that, but more people that felt like this was the right way to go because he was just so much more impactful than any of those other players.

And we felt like we needed to go for the most impact.

And so it worked out, but it could have very easily not because we were making a decision in December that didn't get resolved until February.

So it's hard.

What I do remember in terms of competition, you know, we didn't, you know, typically those kinds of players, it's probably a lot like what Alonzo has gone through the last couple of years where it's like, you know, looking for $200 million.

And, you know, we felt like the way the market had been for, especially for pure DH is how we saw him.

And we felt like the industry saw him.

We were confident that he wouldn't get that, and then it becomes, well, how much off of that is it going to be?

We valued him really around where we paid him, probably paid him a little bit more just to get the deal done.

My recollection is that the Diamondbacks had traded for him and that they were being aggressive on a short-term deal and that he was really considering it.

Actually, Tucker's situation, at least the way it's being reported, seems very similar where you go in shorter.

I think it was shorter than what the Mets are doing with Tucker, but I think it was probably like a two-year deal with a high AAV.

maybe some optionality for him to opt out.

I don't know.

I think they were going for that with J.D., trying to leverage the fact that he could hit the market again at a reasonable age.

He liked being there, even though it was a short time.

He raked while he was there.

So that was, I think, in the end, our impression was it was between that kind of deal and our deal.