Is it fair to be envious of the Los Angeles Dodgers' success? They've built an empire, a model of smart decisions, leveraging every advantage to serve their fans. Like that old shampoo commercial, we can't help but admire their beauty! But, is it all sunshine and roses? Let's dive in.
The Dodgers' relentless pursuit of championships is undeniable. Take Kyle Tucker, for instance. Despite never hitting more than 30 home runs or batting .300 in a season, he's now handsomely compensated with an average annual salary of $57 million (adjusted for deferrals). The Dodgers can afford him, and that's that. But is this a sustainable model for everyone?
It's easy to see why other teams can't simply mimic the Dodgers' approach. If the Dodgers want a player, they'll likely outbid everyone. So, what's a team like the New York Mets to do? They might go for the next best option, like Bo Bichette, and offer him a deal like three years for $126 million. This is how free agency is designed to work.
Free agency has undoubtedly improved baseball. Fifty years ago, when it started, many owners were furious. But the benefits spread, with teams like the New York Yankees, Philadelphia Phillies, Houston Astros, and San Diego Padres all winning like never before.
However, baseball stands alone among the big four sports leagues – MLB, the NFL, NBA, and NHL – as the only one without a salary cap. When the Dodgers flex their financial muscle, calls for a cap grow louder.
In the last collective bargaining agreement, measures were taken to curb tanking and service-time manipulation. Luxury taxes on high payrolls are here to stay. However, the reality is that some owners are richer and more aggressive than others.
The league needs a system to incentivize low-payroll teams to spend. This sounds great in theory, but if owners raise the floor, they'll want to lower the ceiling – a salary cap. And there's no indication that'll happen.
Players fiercely opposed a cap in 1994, leading to a strike that canceled the World Series. The lesson: a salary cap is a dangerous weapon that shouldn't be deployed. You can't win by destroying the game.
With the current collective bargaining agreement expiring this December, the sides need to reach an agreement without a salary cap that protects the 2027 season and addresses the perception of unfairness.
This last part is tough. Michael Lewis's "Moneyball" highlighted the art of winning an unfair game. Even the occasional low- to mid-payroll champion, like the 2003 Florida Marlins or the 2015 Kansas City Royals, hasn't changed the image.
Payroll disparity isn't new. In 1992, the Mets had the highest payroll at $44.3 million, while the Cleveland Indians had the lowest at $8.2 million, or 18.5% of the Mets' outlay. Last year, the Dodgers' opening day payroll was $325.9 million, while the MLB-low Miami Marlins' payroll was $69.1 million, or 21.2% of the Dodgers' figure.
The game has survived these decades of inequity because the product on the field is the great equalizer. The Dodgers lost in the division series two years in a row before winning the last two World Series. It's easy to forget how unpredictable short series can be.
The Dodgers have adapted by building a deep roster, making it difficult to miss the playoffs. They can rest talented but fragile starting pitchers, using openers and placeholders.
This isn't exactly sportsmanlike, but it's smart. Andrew Friedman's front office innovates and adapts. Remember when the Dodgers leaned heavily on matchups in the 2018 World Series? Last year, eight position players started all seven games.
The Dodgers built that stable lineup with acquisitions that other teams missed.
Freddie Freeman wanted to stay in Atlanta, but the Braves let him go. The Red Sox foolishly traded Mookie Betts to the Dodgers for minimal return. The Angels, despite pairing Shohei Ohtani with Mike Trout, couldn't even finish .500.
Will Smith, who hit the winning home run in Game 7 in Toronto, was the best player taken in the first round of the 2016 draft with the 32nd pick. He's signed for a reasonable $14 million per season through 2033.
The Dodgers saw value in Max Muncy when others didn't. They acquired Tommy Edman in a trade. Manager Dave Roberts expertly uses veteran role players.
Yes, the Dodgers are wealthy and play in a desirable city. But the other team in Los Angeles is struggling. The two Chicago teams have combined for three pennants since 1946. The two New York teams have combined for one championship in the last quarter-century, while the two Missouri teams have three in that span.
Baseball has had 16 different champions since 2000, compared to 14 in the NHL, 13 in the NFL, and 12 in the NBA. Since January 2012, 18 different MLB teams have played in 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, such as Tucker at $60 million per year, and also on players like Michael Conforto, Tanner Scott, and Kirby Yates, who underperformed while earning $46 million. Older, more expensive players often come with problems, just as younger, cheaper players do.
Money helps, but teams like Milwaukee, Cleveland, and Tampa Bay make wise decisions. They win during the regular season but falter in October. Randomness hasn't helped them win rings.
The players and owners should find creative ways to challenge the Dodgers' dominance, so other teams can compete. However, you can't make the Dodgers less smart or less driven. As long as they are smart, motivated, and opportunistic, this era will belong to them.
So, what do you think? Is the Dodgers' success simply a matter of financial advantage, or is it a testament to their superior strategy and execution? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
