Don't let your dislike for the Dodgers cloud your judgment of their success. They've mastered the art of navigating an imperfect system, and it's time we appreciate their strategic approach.
The Los Angeles Dodgers are an exceptional franchise, a testament to strategic decision-making. They prioritize their fans and leverage every advantage, which is exactly what a successful team should do. Think of it this way: don't hate them because they've found a way to win, even if it's not always pretty.
The Dodgers' pursuit of championships is admirable, and their recent signing of Kyle Tucker, an outstanding player, showcases their commitment. Despite never hitting 30 home runs or batting .300 in a season, Tucker's $57 million annual salary (adjusted for deferrals) is a testament to the Dodgers' ability to recognize talent and invest wisely.
But here's where it gets controversial: can other teams replicate the Dodgers' success? The answer is a resounding no. If the Dodgers set their sights on a player and are willing to outbid everyone, what choice do other teams have? Take the New York Mets, for example. When faced with the Dodgers' pursuit of Tucker, they signed Bo Bichette to a three-year, $126 million contract, setting a new precedent.
This is the free agency system at work, and it's designed to benefit players and teams alike. Tucker's contract sets a benchmark for Bichette, who in turn will influence the next generation of players. It's the beauty of a free market, and it has undoubtedly elevated the sport of baseball.
Free agency has been a game-changer for baseball, but it's important to note that MLB is the only major sports league without a salary cap. When the Dodgers excel, the calls for a cap intensify.
In the last collective bargaining agreement, owners and players agreed on measures to address tanking and service-time manipulation, and luxury taxes on high payrolls are here to stay. However, the reality remains that some owners have deeper pockets and are more aggressive in their pursuit of success.
The league needs to find ways to encourage low-payroll teams to spend more. Providing them with additional funds and forcing them to invest in players could be a step in the right direction. But here's the catch: if owners raise the floor, they'll likely want to lower the ceiling, which essentially becomes a salary cap. And there's no indication that a salary cap will ever be implemented.
The players' strike in 1994, which canceled the World Series and delayed the next season, serves as a stark reminder of the potential consequences of imposing a salary cap. It's a nuclear option that could destroy the very fabric of the sport.
As the current CBA nears its expiration in December, both sides must find a way to protect the 2027 season without a salary cap. But more importantly, they need to address the perception that baseball is fundamentally unfair.
This is the toughest challenge, as it's deeply ingrained in the sport's culture. Michael Lewis' "Moneyball" highlighted the art of winning an unfair game, and that was over two decades ago. The occasional success of low- to mid-payroll teams, like the 2003 Florida Marlins or the 2015 Kansas City Royals, hasn't changed this perception.
Payroll disparity isn't a new phenomenon. In 1992, the Mets had the highest payroll at $44.3 million, while the Cleveland Indians had the lowest at $8.2 million, a mere 18.5% of the Mets' spending. Fast forward to last year, and the Dodgers' opening-day payroll (excluding tax penalties) was a staggering $325.9 million, with the Miami Marlins at the bottom with $69.1 million, just 21.2% of the Dodgers' figure.
Despite these inequities, baseball has thrived because the product on the field is the great equalizer. The Dodgers, for instance, lost in the division series two years in a row before winning back-to-back World Series. It's a reminder that short series can be unpredictable.
The Dodgers have adapted by de-emphasizing the regular season and building a deep roster, ensuring they rarely miss the playoffs. This strategy allows them to rest their starting pitchers, using openers and placeholders instead. They're willing to play the wildcard round if it means having their top pitchers rested and ready for the postseason.
It may not be the most sportsmanlike approach, but it's a smart one. It showcases the innovation and adaptability of Andrew Friedman's front office. Remember the 2018 World Series against the Red Sox, where the Dodgers heavily relied on matchups and platooning? Last year, they started eight position players in all seven games against the Blue Jays, a stark contrast.
The Dodgers' success is built on acquisitions that other teams couldn't secure. They're like a basketball team playing close to the backboard, ready to grab any loose balls that come their way.
Freddie Freeman's departure from Atlanta, Mookie Betts' trade to the Dodgers, and the Angels' inability to maximize Shohei Ohtani's talent are all examples of the Dodgers' ability to capitalize on others' mistakes. Will Smith, the catcher who hit the winning home run in Game 7 in Toronto, was drafted 32nd overall in 2016 and is signed for a reasonable $14 million per season through 2033.
The Dodgers recognized Max Muncy's value when others didn't. They acquired Tommy Edman in a lopsided trade with the White Sox and Cardinals. And manager Dave Roberts expertly utilizes veteran role players like Kiké Hernández and Miguel Rojas.
Yes, the Dodgers have financial advantages and play in a desirable city. But their success isn't solely attributed to these factors. The other L.A. team is struggling, and the Chicago and New York teams have had their fair share of ups and downs.
Baseball has seen 16 different champions since 2000, compared to 14 in the NHL, 13 in the NFL, and 12 in the NBA. In the last decade, 18 MLB teams have played in the World Series, while the Stanley Cup Finals, Super Bowl, and NBA Finals have seen 17, 13, and 13 teams, respectively.
The Dodgers take risks that others shy away from, whether it's signing Tucker for $60 million per year or acquiring players like Michael Conforto, Tanner Scott, and Kirby Yates, who combined for $46 million last season. Older, more expensive players come with their own challenges, just as younger, cheaper players do.
Money is undoubtedly a significant advantage, but it's not the sole factor. Teams like Milwaukee, Cleveland, and Tampa Bay consistently make wise decisions and win through the summer, but they struggle in October. Randomness hasn't been their friend.
The players and owners must find creative solutions to level the playing field and bring other teams closer to the Dodgers' success. But one thing is certain: you can't make the Dodgers less intelligent or less driven to win. As long as they remain smart, motivated, and opportunistic, this era belongs to them.
