Should the Dodgers Go “All-in” Like the Rams?

This article has 57 Comments

1. I think getting to the World Series is one of the hardest things to do in sports. I honestly believe that the Dodgers would have beaten the Braves easily. If, Bauer had been on the team, Kershaw, Turner, Muncy, Kelly not injured in the late stages of the season. Scherzer had not had a tired arm. Injuries played a major role in the team not repeating. Braves made some astute pickups before and at the deadline. And every one of those guys contributed to the win. Also, except for a couple of players, the offense went ice cold. With Turner and Muncy out, a bench that did nothing save Albert Pujols, Seager, Trea, Smith, Barnes, all went ice cold. Pollock, Bellinger and Taylor provided most of the offense. Seager hit a couple of meaningless homers, but in crunch time, he did not produce. The bull pen was overworked and their best starters, Buehler and Urias melted when they needed them the most. Go all in? There are no guarantees of winning in baseball. Football is a different animal all together. Salaries are not guaranteed. Players come and go regularly. Football teams rely on college players to fill the gaps where there are no free agents. No, I do not think that is AF’s philosophy at all. I do think the team will be very active in both the free agent market and trades. The bench definitely needs retooling. I have little faith in most of the players in that role. Barnes is what he is, a good defensive catcher and an able back up for Smith. With the status of Muncy still unknown, Lux is the second baseman until he either loses the job, or they sign Freeman and move a healthy Max to second. There are plenty of scenarios. I for one do not think any of the free agents they have signed to minor league deals will make much of an impact on the 40 man roster.

2. I’m with Bear on this one. No need to panic, get everyone healthy, and stop supplying the league with ex-Dodgers, who become solid on the main stage. Freeman is an exception for me. Not only does he have all the skills, he is the kind of guy you want in the clubhouse.

3. Didn’t the Dodgers already do that?

   In Andrew Friedman’s own words, they were “pigs.” After years of developing a top down winning organization and avoiding overpaying for bloated long-term contracts, they went all in and traded for and signed Mookie. After making it a policy of hording prospects, they traded their two top prospects for short term impact players.

   What was the result?

   They got bounced in the League Championship Series.

   You’re operating on the assumption that going all in is a guarantee of a championship. It’s not. Especially in playoff baseball, there are just too many variables; too many things that can go right or go wrong.

   With the Rams, I think the one missing ingredient was a real top end QB. Goff just wasn’t going to deliver a championship even with a championship caliber team. Stafford put them over the top.

   Both Lux and Cartaya project as future all stars. Miller projects as a #2/#3 starter. Developing players such as these to be important future components of the team allows the organization to pay Buehler, Urias, Bellinger, TT … Freeman. As rich as the Dodgers are, even they can’t spend unlimited amounts of money. You give up years of inexpensive all star level production from Cartaya and Lux for two years of Ramirez before he will demand a 10/350 contract? Do you pay up for that, too? Add that to the list of Dodger players who will soon be demanding huge multiyear deals.

   1. Well, I guess they did get “bounced” by the eventual WS winner once again. Although they did lose two one-run games to start the series in Atlanta.

      I wouldn’t trade Cartaya for anyone much less Lux and Cartaya in the same deal. I won’t trade Lux until Turner signs an extension.

      The only rumors regarding Jose Ramirez that I’ve seen have come for blog sights.

      I think I’d rather have two A’s pitchers than 2 Reds pitchers.

      I would like them to focus attention on Freeman and Rodon and move to trades if those don’t work out.

      I would like to see that lineup play against the NL in an All Star game.

4. Don’t misunderstand… I am not advocating that!

   Just throwing it out there for discussion.

   For the record, I would not have done the trade for Scherzer and Turner.

   Imagine how the Dodgers would look right about now, with Gray and Ruiz… and signing a SS, like Story.

   1. Yeah, I know you stir the pot. If you didn’t this place would be boring. What else are we going to argue about? Politics?

      I thought it was a good trade that made a huge impact in the regular season. Scherzer had a great run and carried the team back into a race with the Giants . He just came up a game short at the end. It was a bridge too far.

      I don’t know that there was a permanent spot for Ruiz. Cartaya might have a higher ceiling. Will is already ensconced at catcher. Ruiz didn’t quite have the defensive or game calling ability to be true backup catcher. Ruiz’s best role was as a trade chip. It’d be nice to have Gray right now, but I think he topped out as a #3.

      Right now we need Lux, at the very least as a left handed super sub.

   2. They would look just like they do right now with an extra backup catcher and an extra pitcher at the very back end of the rotation, but no Trea Turner. Thank God they made that trade.

      1. Well said

5. Projections do not mean a thing…..until the guy does it in the bigs. Lux and Cartaya have a lot of talent. Whether or not that translates on the big stage is another question. Lux has not really had a lot of chances yet. If he can stay healthy, and play a full season, then maybe we can see what kind of player he is.

   1. “Projections do not mean a thing”

      Yeah they do.

      1. We can agree to disagree. I have seen far too many can’t miss prospects miss by a mile. There are no sure things when it comes to prospects. You can project all day long, and most of the time you will be way off. Today’s can’t miss kid is tomorrows, well he never lived up to his projections.

         1. Projections are usually wildly inaccurate, but that doesn’t mean they do not mean a thing. I mean, if you’re including prospects in a potential trade, you have to have some assessment of their future value, don’t ya?

            1. True, but any trade for prospects is loaded with risk. Usually assumed by the team trading for the prospect. They might be the basis for a trade, but in my mind, it is all guess work. Lets take the Betts deal. Verdugo was the only piece of that trade that had any MLB experience. Now, he has played well for the Sox in the two years he has been there. Jeter Downs, who was a top prospect in Cincinnati, has not made it to the majors yet. Last season he was unimpressive hitting .191. The other player in the deal, Connor Wong, has appeared in 6 games for the Sox. Verdugo will no doubt be a huge piece for the Sox the next few seasons. The other two are still unknowns. Sometimes the projections come close to what a player might do. But more often than not, they are way off.

6. How long does a negotiations meeting need to last in order to qualify as an actual meeting?

   Today’s lasted 15 minutes.

   1. I see no agreement in the near future. Neither side seems willing to budge, and time is running out.

      1. The first report I saw sounded as though the players actually demanded more than they had previously in terms of the amount of players eligible for the pool money and the total amount of pool money.

         I guess they figured if slowly edging toward the other side wasn’t working they would go in the opposite direction to see if that would bring results.

         1. I thought that as well. This negotiation seems like a joke. Three years of service at making ONLY $650K per year before they make Millions in arbitration? How do they expect these kids to wait until their mid twenties before becoming millionaires? What a joke! Imagine having to wait until you’re 28 years old until you buy your first Bugatti! Do they really expect them to just keep driving Benzes and Beemers and only have 1 house?

            1. I just absolutely love your sarcasm. It is great.

   2. 15 minutes is barely long enough to throw expletives across the table.

      At what point do they lock the door? I figured we’d be there by now. Apparently not.

      1. They’ve basically locked the door. Problem is both sides are on the outside of the room.

7. I’m all in favor of owners just fielding teams of minor leaguers at this point. Good opportunity for the Dodgers to pick up another cheap title.

   1. Alex DeJesus SS
      Michael Busch 2B
      Diego Cartaya C
      Miguel Vargas 3B
      Andy Pages OF
      Jose Ramos OF
      Brandon Lewis 1B
      Luis Rodriguez OF
      Bobby Miller P

      None of the above are on the 40-man, so not in the MLBPA and would be eligible to play.
      Not a bad lineup, especially if playing against other rosters with the same restrictions.

8. Obviously, I have never negotiated a Union Labor Agreement, but negotiation is a rather simple matter:

   You ask for more than you actually want and then determine where to settle. They have done that in a few cases, but in other parts, neither side has budged. It’s called “compromise.” Both sides just need to back off a little so they can spin that they “won.”

   Maybe they will both be ready for a mediator in a few days… Just meeting in the middle.

   Show ’em the Curve:

   1. Love that movie

9. Jeff Passan just tweeted the following:

   “While exact plans are not finalized, MLB and the MLB Players Association intend to hold multiple bargaining sessions — perhaps every day — as early as Monday, sources told ESPN. Multiple owners and players expect to fly in for sessions leading up to MLB’s stated Feb. 28 deadline.”

   Maybe something will finally get done next week.

   1. For decades unions are typically fighting for a living wage and health benefits. What these guys are fighting over are fortunes unrelatable to the average worker. I was in two unions, in one I fought for a raise from $6.18 an hour. In the other, the CTA, I fought for a thousand a month. I agree with BP (there’s a scoop). This fight is between Zeus and Hades. All we can do is sit and wait, then pay both gods whatever they ask.

      I don’t understand why there isn’t an independent mediator at this point. I think I could decide this one. There’s a 4 billion dollar a year pie on the table. You guys get this, you guys get that, none of you lose a nickel as fans are not only willing to put up with your petty b.s. they are willing to pay the entire nut ……easy peasy, end the greedy ….. now….PLAY BALL!

      1. They will eventually kill off baseball… maybe not this time, but it is coming.

         1. I certainly hope it doesn’t come to that. But, you may be right. Baseball, as we’ve known it, feels as though it’s on life support. At what point do fans say – enough?

10. We can only cross our fingers and hope. MLB players have been saying for years that spring training is too long. Lets see how they do with a shorter warm up time. My concern would be rushing the pitchers. They usually need at least 5 games getting their innings built up. And Buehler is a notoriously slow starter.

11. I really wanted to see Pepoit this spring, to see if he had a chance to really impact the bullpen in 2022.

    Oh well, maybe I can see how good he is on a video game

12. Echo the general negativity here.

    Until the owners get their serious game-faces on, the negotiations can happen every day, for every minute of every day and nothing will happen.

    There’s so much money flowing in with National TV, Gaming and local revenue (which I concede is not shared nor equitable) but the owners are just being silly.

    1. Broadly speaking, owners are quite used to making the rules. They’ve been doing it a long time.

       1. Yup.

13. I probably have a different take on this. While I think both sides are greedy, I am not as down on the owners as many in the media. Let’s remember that writers and journalists all know how to do whatever it is they are writing about – they just generally have never done it. They are experts in telling you about it, but in most cases, they are never-weres or wannabees!

    I have had my own business for over 20 years.

    1. None of my employees has ever missed a paycheck. I have!
    2. None of my employees have ever had to face a vendor or a banker (on behalf of the company) and say “I can’t pay you today.” I have!
    3. None of my employees has had to go home after working 12 hours and work another 6 hours on the website. I have! Many times!
    4. None of my employees have had to go out on Christmas Day, or other paid holidays, or in the middle of the night.
    But I have! Probably over 200 times.
    5. None of my employees have had to sign a note for $5 million dollars, pledging all their personal assets as collateral. But I have!

    I have paid people when they were ill and could not come to work for six weeks, because I knew they would lose their house. I have given people cars because they could not afford one. Now, I live in a nice house. We have nice things and nice cars, and I do share our wealth… and we pay people very well. That’s how we keep them, but no one has made the sacrifices or paid the price that I did to build this company. I suspect some (not all) of the owners are in the same boat as me.

    The players work hard, they sacrifice, but the owners built the business. Players are a commodity, not business partners. They deserve to be paid, but owners have skin in the game. It’s a tough position. I think they need a mediator.

    1. I don’t think you’ll find any sympathy trying to equate small businesses ownership with owning a Major League Sports franchise.

       There are precisely ZERO owners who have to worry about missing paychecks, or working 6 hours on their website.

       Many, if not all, are Billionaires who have very little day to day involvement in the running of the team.

       I understand your larger point, I believe, which is that starting and owning a business is a risk and as a reward for shouldering that risk owners are entitled to upside.

       Owning a major league team is generally (US soccer excluded, I think) a risk free way of building wealth.

       To paraphrase the founders, “All business owners are not created equally”

       1. I agree Bluto.

          Mark, you’re an owner. While you may believe all those points you made I can say from my own experience some of them can be challenged.

          #1. Yeah they did. The next week after you fired them, they missed a paycheck.

          #2. Leave off the parenthetical caveat and many if not all of them have had to do something close to it

          #3. A lot of people have had to work second jobs. Maybe you pay a living wage to all your people. If so, good on you.

          #4 me too. When I was a Nuclear Med Tech, I was single so I was on call Christmas Day. I could tell you some very sad stories about that. I won’t. Married guys had the pager on New Year’s Eve.

          #5 You think your employees don’t wish they could do that? You think they wouldn’t trade places with you?

          I’m not trying to be disagreeable here Mark. I’m sure you are a decent employer. I’m just saying it’s often easier looking down than it is looking up.

    2. I agree 100%. The big difference between the players and owners is the owners could lose everything. Probably all of the owners could sell their team, take the money and run and equally or more successful business and make as much money or more. Probably NONE of the players can take their skills into another job and make as much as they’re making even if they’re ONLY making the minimum.

14. I don’t think that anyone wants to get into the legal theory behind collective bargaining and the role of business owners vs employees. Anyone here who isn’t familiar with Jones and Laughlin Steel v NLRB 301 US 1 (1935) or who isn’t familiar with constitutional litigation under the Interstate Commerce Clause (Art I, Sec 8) of the US Constitution probably isn’t qualified to address the issue. Nor the history of the Union movement and its intersection with the communist, anarchist and syndicalist movements.

    In general, I think that the way that owners compensate players needs to be revisited – the players have a valid beef. I also think that the issue of competition needs to be addressed and that clearly has an effect on what players get paid as well. But most of the comments about the evil team owners are not well taken.

    1. I studied Constitutional law as both an undergrad and in law school. I also studied labor law in law school and worked in the field, and also taught it at the junior college level. I have done mediation, arbitration, have filed and represented employees in grievances and assisted in drafting proposed language for CBAs.

       1. Well, clearly I’m not qualified to address the issue.

          Guess I’ll just take a seat, outside the stadium, and watch what happens.

          I am qualified to say this much, MLB can take that escalating FCI and shove it.

       2. Did you study labor negotiations?

          1. You asking me Bluto?

             I went to a few lamaze classes. Does that count?

       3. So, you’re telling me you’re biased against owners in favor of employees?

    2. Rick,

       It’s ironic that you would mention the NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. I do not remember if it was my first or second-year law course, but I had to present my thoughts on the decision. I remember that this case changed the face of labor relations by requiring employers to treat unions and union workers fairly (they couldn’t be fired for small infractions especially if they were involved in union activities), and if I am not mistaken, it also was applied in enforcing the Commerce Clause in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I lost what seemed to be months of my life studying this decision and this case was influential in helping me decide NOT to be a lawyer. It’s way over my pay grade. It made my head hurt.

       1. The case upheld the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Act which mandated that employers negotiate with unions and mandated that employers allow employees to unionize. It also reversed 150 years of previous Commerce Clause decisions and greatly expanded the right of the Federal Government to regulate business activity, even if it only took place within a single state (and thus was not interstate commerce) if it affected the “stream of commerce”. The decision was issued shortly after FDR threatened to pack the Supreme Court for striking down many other New Deal-era laws as being contrary to the Commerce Clause.

          It had nothing to do with the Civil Rights Act which was not passed for another 30 years.

          1. Well, it had something to do with it. I did not have time to research it much, but here is what I found quickly:

             https://cases.laws.com/national-labor-relations-board-v-jones-laughlin-steel-corporation

             “The expansion of the Interstate Commerce clause that came about as a result of National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation would have far-reaching effects not only for the New Deal, but substantially beyond. This expansion would later be used to help ensure the constitutionality of civil rights legislation, like the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

             1. What the decision did was to expand the use of the Interstate Commerce Clause to permit the federal government to regulate commerce that was not interstate. That’s how it influenced civil rights and other legislation later.

                Think of it this way: Let’s say you operate a business that only buys and sells in Indiana. The exact language of the Interstate Commerce Clause only gives Congress authority to regulate commerce “between the states”. So prior to Jones and Laughlin, Congress didn’t have authority to regulate business that only operate within a single state.

                What Jones and Laughlin (among other cases) did was to say that a business could affect the “stream of commerce” outside of a state even if it only did business within a single state. This decision gave Congress the ability to regulate other conduct as well, resulting in the application of laws like the Civil Rights Act to businesses that only operate within a single state.

             2. It was a long time ago, but I remember something about it Thanks for clearing it up.

15. MLB: Spring Training Games Postponed Until At Least March 5
    By Steve Adams | February 18, 2022 at 1:18pm CDT

    Major League Baseball announced Friday that Spring Training games will not begin until at least March 5. A delay to the start of Spring Training was a foregone conclusion amid the ongoing labor strife between the league and the players association, but today’s announcement now makes the delayed schedule official.

    “We regret that, without a collective bargaining agreement in place, we must postpone the start of Spring Training games until no earlier than Saturday, March 5th,” MLB said in a statement. “All 30 clubs are unified in their strong desire to bring players back to the field and fans back to the stands. The Clubs have adopted a uniform policy that provides an option for full refunds for fans who have purchased tickets from the Clubs to any Spring Training games that are not taking place.”

16. And here is the MLBPA response to MLB’s statement:

    “MLB announced today that it ‘must’ postpone the start of spring training games. This is false,” the statement read. “Nothing requires the league to delay the start of spring training, much like nothing required the league’s decision to implement the lockout in the first place.”

    1. It’s all propaganda.

       Like the owners playing up their push for a mediator. Just to try and curry favor with the public while earnest negotiations are still on the horizon.

       1. Maybe we should dispense with the negotiations and just have the two PR departments fight it out.

17. It’s fun to speculate about an “all-in” gamble, and that theoretical lineup seems doable. But I prefer AF’s approach to building a dynasty. Of all the prospects I prefer hugging, Cartaya is No. 1 and Miller No. 2.
    That said, I do think AF can advance the dynasty mission with a couple of strategic moves. Freeman’s bat and durability would more than make up for Seager’s departure from the lineup. If Max comes back healthy, Freeman isn’t really needed–but he’d be nice to have. So landing Ramirez to take over third base and top-tier SP may be a higher priority.
    So I keep thinking that maybe the best fit for a deal is Oakland. What would it take to land Manea or Montaz plus Matt Chapman? Chapman slumped last year, but he’s a gold glover and power threat, while the SPs are much more exciting that Gonsolin or Heany. And while I could be wrong–it happens!–I still suspect AF and the Dodger brass want to to provide Bauer with a fresh start while eating the bulk of his salary. So maybe Billy Beane or some other cost-conscious GM team would be interested. “Dodgers Deal Bauer”–yeah, i can easily imagine a headline like that starts like that.
    Come to think of it, I’d say that signing Bauer was kind of an “all-in” move. He got the highest AAV ever, but relatively short-term deal. (Damn but I wish he’d taken the Mets offer.) The long-term, dynasty-style contracts are offered solid citizens like Mookie and Kersh. Freeman might be worth such a deal.
    But enough about that…
    Harkening back to Bear’s oldtimers day post, I’ve been engaged in some research for a project related to the 1947 Dodgers. Jackie wasn’t the only rookie, of course. Duke Snider made his debut later in the season and Wikipedia offers a surprising stat: He appeared in 40 games, had 83 at bats… and ZERO home runs!
    Well, I was surprised.
    Also surprising: The HR leader for the Dodgers only had 12. One was Robinson, and the other was… Pee Wee?
    So sayeth Wikipedia.
    Bear, could this be true???

    1. Absolutely true. As a team, in 1947 they hit exactly 83 HR’s. After Pee Wee and Jackies 12, next highest was 9 by Bruce Edwards and Dixie Walker. Furillo had 8. Hermanski had 7 off of the bench.

18. Dodgers didn’t lost last October from a lack of top end talent, but rather, getting away from what makes the Dodgers the Dodgers. Uncharacteristic, lack of quality depth and spotty defense. Joc, Chris Taylor, Kiki, Freese, Wood, Maeda, etc. All these players had big moments in prior post seasons while playing utility roles and we got zilch from their replacements last year. Maybe we get away with it had we avoided injuries and fatigue, but that’s risky. Trading multiple prospects for a plus SP or a new 1B or an established long baller is going the wrong direction imo.

    Frankly, since Zaidi left, Dodgers haven’t really found those cheap 2nd chance castoffs that bloom – particularly for position players, so it’s going to fall on the prospects to fill those vital utility roles and I think they’re up to the task.
    There’s the money end of it, too. The Dodgers like financial flexibility and graduating prospects facilitates that end. If we’re going to carry 3-4 giant contracts, having cheap and under control younger guys is going to be imperative.

    One player in particular, Cartaya, I think should be untouchable. He’s not a finished product, but the profile reads perfectly to me. He’s apparently has high baseball IQ, a plus arm and potentially better defender than Smith. Dodgers appear to prioritize SP more than any other position, which is smart imo. Shouldn’t they pair their prized unit with the best handler to get the most out the pitchers? I really like Smith as hitter, so I’m not looking to dump him, but I’d start preparing him for a position switch.

    The starting pitching, at the moment, is a concern. This time next year, if we do nothing, it could be a super strength again if May returns to form and Miller/Pepiot/Jackson/Knack can secure the 4th/5th spots. We just need to survive the gap. Trading or signing a rental veteran pitcher or two past his prime could be all we need. Also, I think priority one should be re-signing Kenley. If we know the SP might struggle, we’ll need a strong bullpen again to minimize the damage.

    Last thought, I hope Friedman considers two lessons from last season. Top end talent isn’t everything, especially if they don’t produce when you need them, and I hope he returns to emphasizing roster balance going forward. Maybe we need more super subs than additional stars. Secondly, remember what the real prize is. It’s not the NL West title. We wore ourselves ragged last year trying to win the wrong title and the same scenario could easily happen again. We don’t need home field advantage. We’re the Dodgers and can win anywhere at anytime.

    1. Well said!

       1. Personally, Sax, I’d add Miller to untouchable group.

          Another bad part of no spring training yet, is not being able to see how good Ferguson looks, and when he’ll be back.

          He and Pepoit could really impact the bullpen in 2022.

Comments are closed.