The Dodgers' Dominance: A Tale of Strategy, Wealth, and Controversy
Don't despise the Dodgers for their success; instead, admire their mastery of a flawed system. The Los Angeles Dodgers have crafted a dynasty, an empire forged from a multitude of shrewd decisions. They cater to their fans by capitalizing on every inherent advantage, as they rightfully should. As the adage goes, 'Don't hate the player, hate the game.'
The Dodgers' pursuit of championships is relentless, and there's no shame in that. Take Kyle Tucker, an exceptional player who hasn't hit 30 home runs or batted .300 in a season, yet he's now grossly overpaid with a $57 million average annual salary. But he enhances the Dodgers' prowess. If ownership can afford him, more power to them.
However, it's naive to believe that every team can emulate the Dodgers' approach. When the Dodgers set their sights on a player, outbidding everyone else, what options do other teams have? Consider the New York Mets, who, in response, signed the next-best player, Bo Bichette, for a staggering $126 million over three years.
This is the essence of free agency—Tucker's contract sets a precedent for Bichette, who will then set the bar for the next player. It's the free market at play, and it has undeniably elevated the sport of baseball.
When free agency began 50 years ago, many owners protested, but the advantages soon became evident. The New York Yankees, Philadelphia Phillies (with Pete Rose), Houston Astros (Nolan Ryan), and San Diego Padres (Steve Garvey, Goose Gossage) all experienced unprecedented success due to this system.
Fans have embraced free agency, but baseball stands unique among the major sports leagues (MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL) as the sole league without a salary cap. The Dodgers' dominance intensifies the calls for a cap.
In the previous collective bargaining agreement, measures were introduced to curb tanking and service-time manipulation, and luxury taxes on high payrolls are here to stay. Yet, the disparity in wealth and ambition among owners remains unaddressed.
Baseball needs a system that encourages low-payroll teams to spend more. Providing them with more money but mandating player spending sounds ideal, but owners may seek to lower the ceiling, effectively creating a salary cap. History suggests this is unlikely to happen.
The players' strike in 1994, which canceled the World Series and delayed the next season, taught us that advocating for a salary cap is a risky move. It's akin to winning a war by destroying the planet.
As the CBA expires this December, the challenge is to negotiate an agreement without a salary cap that safeguards the 2027 season while altering the perception of baseball as inherently unfair.
This perception is deeply rooted, as Michael Lewis' 'Moneyball' famously portrayed baseball as an unfair game. Despite occasional low- to mid-payroll champions like the 2003 Florida Marlins and 2015 Kansas City Royals, the image persists.
Payroll disparity is not new. 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' expenditure. Last year, the Dodgers' opening day payroll was $325.9 million, while the Miami Marlins had the lowest at $69.1 million, just 21.2% of the Dodgers' figure.
Baseball has endured these inequities because the on-field performance levels the playing field. Despite winning the last two World Series, the Dodgers previously lost in the division series to San Diego and Arizona, reminding us of the unpredictability of short series.
The Dodgers have adapted by de-emphasizing the regular season and constructing a deep roster, virtually guaranteeing a playoff spot. This strategy allows them to rest key starting pitchers for half the schedule, relying on openers and placeholders.
If this means playing a wild-card round instead of a bye, so be it. Last fall, Tyler Glasnow, Blake Snell, and Shohei Ohtani were ready when it mattered, starting 70.5% of the Dodgers' postseason games after starting just 26.5% of the regular season games.
While this strategy may not be entirely sportsmanlike, it's undeniably clever. Andrew Friedman's front office demonstrates innovation and adaptability. Remember the Dodgers' heavy reliance on matchups in the 2018 World Series against the Red Sox? Last year, they started eight position players in all seven games against the Blue Jays.
The Dodgers' success lies in their ability to acquire players that other teams overlook. They play close to the backboard, ready to seize any opportunity.
Freddie Freeman wanted to stay in Atlanta, but the Braves let him go in free agency. The Boston Red Sox's refusal to pay Mookie Betts his market value led to his trade to the Dodgers (along with David Price) for a minimal return. The Los Angeles Angels, despite pairing Shohei Ohtani with MVP-caliber Mike Trout for six years, couldn't even achieve a .500 record.
Will Smith, the hero of Game 7 in Toronto, was the standout player in the first round of the 2016 draft, selected 32nd overall. He's signed for a modest $14 million per season through 2033.
The Dodgers recognized Max Muncy's potential when others didn't. They acquired Tommy Edman in a lopsided trade with the Chicago White Sox and St. Louis Cardinals. Manager Dave Roberts excels at utilizing veteran role players like Kiké Hernández and Miguel Rojas.
The Dodgers' success is not solely due to their wealth and desirable location. The other L.A. team struggles, and teams in Chicago, New York, and Missouri have had varying degrees of success. Baseball has seen 16 different champions since 2000, compared to 14 in the NHL, 13 in the NFL, and 12 in the NBA. Since January 2012, 18 MLB teams have reached the World Series, compared to 17 in the Stanley Cup Finals, 13 in the Super Bowl, and 13 in the NBA Finals.
The Dodgers take risks that others avoid, like signing Tucker for $60 million per year or players like Michael Conforto, Tanner Scott, and Kirby Yates, who collectively earned $46 million last season but underperformed. Older, pricier players come with challenges, just as younger, cheaper players do.
Money is a significant factor, but it's not the only one. Teams in other markets, like Milwaukee, Cleveland, and Tampa Bay, consistently make wise decisions, winning in the regular season but falling short in October. Luck hasn't been on their side.
Players and owners should explore innovative ways to level the playing field, but you can't diminish the Dodgers' intelligence or drive. As long as they remain smart, motivated, and opportunistic, this era will continue to be theirs. And this is where it gets intriguing: can the Dodgers' dominance be challenged, or is it here to stay?
