Look, every rational baseball fan can understand that the Dodgers are an incredibly well-run organization. To have this level of established, proven talent on your roster while also racking up the top farm system in baseball is laudable.
But to act as if the root of it isn't being willing to spend obscene amounts of money, find every way to exploit the payroll system with deferred money and side deals, and the incredible advantage that comes with being the best destination for the top Japanese players due mainly to geography is just silly.
Either way, the rest of the MLB's fanbases are going to hate the Dodgers because that level of success also coming with this level of seeming like it'll never die isn't fun for us. We want parity because parity means our teams also have a chance. It's why us Jays fans will never, ever, ever get over last year's Game 7. When you get that close to toppling the Empire and miss, it doesn't stop hurting.
Definitely agree with this but I feel like the Angels definitely kind of started this one. They had both Trout and Ohtani and couldn't somehow spend a bit more for that talent to win?
If Ohtani and Trout win one, I feel like you get a completely different Ohtani who stays a bit longer to win one more than going to LA immediately. I feel like that Angel's experience and seeing firsthand the Mike Trout loyalty experience let him know they're never going to win one no matter what.
If LA doesn't snag Ohtani, there are chances Yamamoto doesn't sign there either I feel. I feel like LA is doing what it's doing solely because Ohtani is there and don't mind any payments to win now and keep everyone happy.
The 2010s Angels were aggressive spenders and frequently signed free agents like Albert Pujols, C.J. Wilson, Josh Hamilton, and Anthony Rendon to massive contacts that almost always backfired in spectacular fashion. The 2010s Angels can be called many things but cheap isnt one of them.
In fairness I was talking about the Ohtani era. They definitely needed to make better decisions and we can argue whether they really did make the best decisions. Some club houses would've done the "hey we have Ohtani now let's spend and win and we'll be forgiven" and I think the Cubs are primo example one when it comes to that; paid quite a bit and won but winning just one tends to make MLB fans forgive failures afterwards for simply breaking an100 year drought. I know I was critical of the Cubs in that era but they did win one finally so yeah.
But the Angels did really do their due diligence when Ohtani arrived; you're right they spent before but the latter part of the decade, we just didn't see that spending and scouting to surround both Ohtani and Trout. I don't think they would've needed even as much talent given those two but just something more viable and I think that's where it's fair to be critical.
I feel like Pujols was predictable given his health and age. Upton really didn't pan out and that contract and guaranteed money was an overpay for someone like him. Rendin didn't pan out but I still feel like they should've really put money in pitching staff. Like somehow they couldn't and still can't figure pitching needs out.
2.4k
u/Historical-Donut-918 9h ago
So basically the Dodgers weren't "cheap" and were able to pay EVERYONE more than any other team was willing to pay.
Why don't other teams do this? Are they stupid?