10-15-2014, 12:07 PM
Quote:
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MickKelleherWasMyHero" data-cid="230428" data-time="1413322665">
<div>
Probably means the Dodgers aren't likely to add significant payroll, which mean no bidding on Lester or Scherzer for the Dodgers (hopefully).
How do you figure? Just because Friedman never bid on FAs in Tampa doesn't mean he won't in LA. He never had the means to do so in Tampa if he wanted to. That said, I think fair to say he might see more value in a late first round pick than the risk of overpaying for Lester/Scherzer, but I don't think that puts them out of the bidding. The Dodgers can afford anyone they want, and I wouldn't put it past Kasten to demand they acquire a big piece on the FA market out of principle.
Having said that...what I do think Friedman means to the Dodgers...is that Puig isn't going anywhere. Obviously no one is untouchable and any good GM/PofBO has to listen to every offer, but Friedman is a numbers guy. Puig's metrics are far and away his biggest draw, as his fundamentals and behavior are piss poor. Colletti being of the traditional sort, was always more likely to wear thin on the intangibles to where he'd have a lower threshold for dealing Puig or Kemp.
And for that, I'm forever thankful. I know it would've been far fetched, but I'd hate to deal for Puig when he theoretically have almost the same player in Soler without having to give up anything. I'd be interested in Scott Van Slyke, who is an OPS gawd without the outrageous price tag.
</div>
</blockquote>
There were some stories last week that the Dodgers wanted to get their payroll down to $190 million. Hiring Friedman kind of confirms that report. You don't hire a guy like Friedman and continue on with business as usual.