Tag: Los Angeles Dodgers

Do People Really Think A New Guards’ Owner Would Replace The Front Office?

Whenever people are critical of the Dolan ownership of the Cleveland Guardians (and we are among that group), one of the retorts from the Dolan supporters is they leave the front office do their job without interference.

The secondary theory is if a new owner that was willing to spend more cash were to buy the Guardians, they would get rid of Chris Antonetti and Mike Chernoff, despite the way they produce winning seasons on a shoestring budget.

Talk about living in your own fears.

If anything, wouldn’t the new owners want to see what kind of magic Antonetti and Chernoff could perform if they had an extra $30-$40 million to spend? Because we would. That’s only logical.

Baseball’s new villain, the Los Angeles Dodgers are a great example to look at, $350 million payroll notwithstanding.

When the Dodgers hired Andrew Friedman as president of baseball operations following the 2014 season, they did so based on the job Friedman had done in his tenure as vice president of baseball operations with small market Tampa Bay.

Friedman took over the Rays following the 2005 season, and took the downtrodden franchise to its first playoff appearance in 2008, as they made it all the way to the World Series.

He also was in charge as Tampa made the post-season in 2010, 2011, and 2013.

The Dodgers felt like if Friedman has this kind of success guiding a team with a small revenue stream, imagine what he could do with all of the money a team in a huge market has.

Now no one can be sure, but we would bet when the Dolans’ sell the team to minority owner David Blitzer (or someone else, who knows?), the new person holding the purse strings would take notice of the job Antonetti and Chernoff have done and would think (we think correctly) they could do more with more money to spend.

Especially if Blitzer takes over because he’s seen the results first-hand.

And that would be seven playoff appearances in the last 12 years, including going to the seventh game of the World Series in 2016. That team ranked 17th in the majors in payroll.

Cleveland got as high as 11th in players’ salaries in 2019, a season in which the Indians went 93-69, missing the playoffs after three consecutive playoff appearances.

When they missed, the payrolls were sliced, dropping to 20th in ’20, 27th in ’21 and ’22, the latter season being a division title team, 29th in ’23 (following a division winner, a forebearer to this off-season) and last season.

NOTE: Payroll numbers are from baseballreference.com

We know the Guardians’ owners have justifications for reducing the cash spent on players, but frankly, we don’t believe them. We believe the money is there.

Some of the reasons for supporting an owner that doesn’t spend or better yet, doesn’t seem to have an overwhelming desire to win a title, are crazy. We have said before that the Dolans seem to be nice people, and we are sure it makes it difficult to be critical, especially by media members.

We also understand the goal of owning any business is making a profit but also think winning and making a profit aren’t mutually exclusive.

In fact, if the Guardians won the World Series, the owners would make even more cash.

But giving them support because you think they will fire people who are very good at their jobs seems silly. Come up with a better reason.

Kershaw’s Deal Brings Up Old Debate on Smaller Markets

Earlier this week, the Los Angeles Dodgers signed their ace pitcher, Clayton Kershaw to a seven-year deal for an estimated $215 million, an average of over $30 million per year.

The Dodgers were lauded for tying up arguably the game’s best pitcher up contractually for his prime years, ages 25-32.  They weren’t paying outrageous cash to a player currently in his 30’s, like the Angels’ deal with Albert Pujols and the Yankees’ second contract with Alex Rodriguez.

However, the signing once again highlights baseball’s biggest problem:  The disparity between big market teams and the middle and small markets.

Yes, the talking heads will point to the Twins’ deal with Joe Mauer (8 years, $184 million) and the Reds’ contract with Joey Votto (13 years, $263 million) as proof that mid market teams can keep star players for a long period of time.

But can those teams put a competitive team around those stars over a long-term if they are paying one player that large of a percentage of money spent on salaries?

There is no question the sport is flush with cash, despite what the Indians claim, and salaries continue to climb and climb.

Could teams like Cleveland, Kansas City, Milwaukee, and Pittsburgh have signed Kershaw to that same contract?  The answer is probably not.

Baseball has put luxury taxes in place to be able to keep smaller markets in the mix, all you have to do is look at Tampa’s situation with former Cy Young winner David Price as an alternative.

Price may not be as accomplished as Kershaw, but he is close.

The Rays signed a one year deal with Price for $14 million this season, but the expectation throughout the game is that Tampa will deal Price sometime before the 2015 rather than let him walk away because they can’t afford to pay one player the $25 million per season that the lefty will get on the open market.

There just isn’t a reward for non large market ballclubs to be able to develop and keep the talent they have developed.

It’s funny when baseball writers talk about the four World Series won by the Yankees from 1996 through 2000, and they talk about how the cornerstones of the team were homegrown:  Derek Jeter, Jorge Posada, Andy Pettitte, and Mariano Rivera.

The point they are missing is could any non-large market team have been able to keep four players in the organization for most of their careers?

All you have to do is look to Cleveland for that answer…no!

In the early 90’s, the Tribe drafted Albert Belle, Jim Thome, and Manny Ramirez, and traded for Sandy Alomar, Carlos Baerga, and Kenny Lofton before they spent any significant time in the major leagues.

Then GM John Hart took the then revolutionary step of offering long-term deals to young players to keep them under Cleveland’s control for an extra year or two beyond the free agency service time, but one by one, they left the organization, with Alomar staying the longest–11 years.

The Tribe made a legitimate huge offer to keep Ramirez, but he turned them down to head for Boston after the 2000 season.

Belle and Thome left as free agents, while the others were traded before they reached that point.

We see similar story lines every year in the majors, when will the small market team pull the trigger on a deal which will send a player becoming a free agent for younger, more controllable players.

Someone is going to say that the Yankees lost Robinson Cano to Seattle this winter, but when was the last time something like that happened?  Usually, New York just keeps Cano.

To us, we still think paying a pitcher $30 million a year isn’t the most sound idea, not matter what their age.  They are simply too volatile in terms of performance.

Hart once said the difference between the Yankees and other teams is that New York can afford to make mistakes.  If Kershaw gets hurt (which we hope he doesn’t), it’s not that big of a deal for Los Angeles.

It would be crippling if it happened to the Royals, Brewers, Indians, or Reds.

MW