2025-2026 offseason thread

Enscheff said:
Calling moves average is not being negative. Calling moves acceptable is not being negative.

I swear people don’t even bother to comprehend the words they read.
Click to expand...

In fairness, you have referred to these moves multiple times as doing the "bare minimum", which naturally has negative connotation. If you believe bare minimum and average are interchangeable terms then I guess that's fine. But to the majority of society, that isn't the case.
 
Carp said:
Lol.

The Dodgers are most certainly not acquiring players at below market rates, either in FA or in trades. They are neither developing young stars, nor are they consistently finding undervalued talent on the FA/trade market. They are spending money like a drunken sailor to sustain their success. Granted, they are hitting on all of their big money additions, but they aren't getting them at below market rates. Teoscar Hernandez was a good find in the 2023 offseason, but then they turned right around and gave him a market rate deal and he was.... not good this year to say the least. The only other significant player they have gotten on a below market deal is Max Muncy, but that was an extension.
Click to expand...

You clearly haven’t been paying attention. They routinely swoop in and sign players like Freeman towards the end of the offseason when they see the market fall apart. They sit on the periphery of every major FA, and jump in to grab impact players that almost always end up providing the expected impact.

The also use deferrals to the extreme to maximize current talent. Or did you forget about everyone being upset over their use of deferrals?

They also use their farm coupled with their massive payroll to consistently trade for high end impact stars. And then those stars almost always produce as expected.

The Dodgers have been putting on a masterclass for how to deploy a mega payroll, especially compared to teams like the yanks and Mets. Anyone denying that is simply being jealous that their team isn’t doing the same.
 
Carp said:
In fairness, you have referred to these moves multiple times as doing the "bare minimum", which naturally has negative connotation. If you believe bare minimum and average are interchangeable terms then I guess that's fine. But to the majority of society, that isn't the case.
Click to expand...

It’s only negative if you think the moves should be rated more highly.

If you think paying market rates for mediocre players to fill glaring holes created by the same guy filling the holes is something other than average at best GM work, or bare minimum acceptable work, I suppose that’s an opinion you’re free to have.

Personally, I think fixing obvious holes with obvious players while paying the obvious price is average work.
 
Enscheff said:
You clearly haven’t been paying attention. They routinely swoop in and sign players like Freeman towards the end of the offseason when they see the market fall apart. They sit on the periphery of every major FA, and jump in to grab impact players that almost always end up providing the expected impact.

The also use deferrals to the extreme to maximize current talent. Or did you forget about everyone being upset over their use of deferrals?

They also use their farm coupled with their massive payroll to consistently trade for high end impact stars. And then those stars almost always produce as expected.

The Dodgers have been putting on a masterclass for how to deploy a mega payroll, especially compared to teams like the yanks and Mets. Anyone denying that is simply being jealous that their team isn’t doing the same.
Click to expand...
Freeman hardly saw his market fall apart. He took more money than we were offering, despite us moving on to Olson. That's just a fact. What other players are they signing that see their markets fall apart? Certainly not Ohtani, Snell, or Yamamato. Not Tanner Scott last year.

Their use of deferrals doesn't make them smart or savvy. They have the money to pay out 100+ million in annual deferral payments 10 years after these players are no longer on their team. Other teams can't do that. That's like saying the 27 Yankees were "smart" when in reality, they just bought all the best players for cash. Anyone can do those things if they have the financial ability to do that.

The last big trade they made was Tyler Glasnow in 2024, who they then signed to a big contract. While he's not been bad, he's missed about 25 starts over the last 2 years. Prior to that, they hadn't made any significant trades since the Trea Turner/Scherzer trade in 2021.

I will say, it's quite impressive how they have convinced the entire baseball community that they have this amazing farm system, despite not actually developing any of that farm system into quality major league players. So props to them for that.
 
Enscheff said:
It’s only negative if you think the moves should be rated more highly.

If you think paying market rates for mediocre players to fill glaring holes created by the same guy filling the holes is something other than average at best GM work, or bare minimum acceptable work, I suppose that’s an opinion you’re free to have.

Personally, I think fixing obvious holes with obvious players while paying the obvious price is average work.
Click to expand...
I think bare minimum is negative because nearly everyone who uses that phrase means it in a negative way. It literally implies a lack of effort.
 
Lol the dodgers success is 100% because they spend a lot of money and are able to defer contracts. Acting as if they have some mastermind front office is so funny.
 
Teoscar isn’t even a good example. Dude put up 0.6 fWAR last year. Their team is full of guys making market value and they sign market value players every offseason.
 
Carp said:
I think bare minimum is negative because nearly everyone who uses that phrase means it in a negative way. It literally implies a lack of effort.
Click to expand...

Ok, I should have chosen the wording more carefully. I was thinking of in terms of software development where I’m planning the “minimum viable product”, which is certainly not a negative concept in any way.

Had I left out the word “bare” I suspect the discussion would have gone differently.
 
The music is going to stop for the Dodgers eventually and they'll be saddled with a billion dollars worth of contracts on a bunch of players who are barely league average. Betts seems to have already started a hard decline. Luckily for them he improved his defense dramatically at SS. I've never seen someone transition from RF to SS at age 30 and turn into a positive defender. Pretty astonishing. But the bat may be completely gone. Only 1 year worth of data, but his savant page wasn't pretty.

Freddie has started his decline too, though his decline seems to be 10x better than the normal decline.

Hernandez is probably washed, but it isn't a huge contract, so no matter.

Tommy Edman looks like a terrible contract, as does Tanner Scott

Ohtani can't keep this up forever either.
 
Last edited:
AA gambled on Arcia/Allen not being relied on for hitting and just for defense.

Nobody would have expected Acuña to tear his ACL again. Ozzie to have so many freak injuries, Riley getting injury bug, Murphy having awful luck with health, and Harris disappearing.

One or two of those sure, that's baseball. But the last few seasons it was the perfect storm in terms of injuries and unexpected performance regression.

Granted also Snit was horrible with load management. Hoping the younger staff will encourage Weiss to be more open to resting guys now that we have utility versatility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top