10-15-2014, 04:08 PM
Quote:
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="1060Ivy" data-cid="230462" data-time="1413397070">
<div>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="funkster" data-cid="230461" data-time="1413395333">
<div>
I don't think that's true at all. He's going to spend now that he has it.
Agreed. Having the opportunity to spend is most likely a driving factor for Friedman's departure.
Dodgers may not break the bank this offseason but they still have the ability to outspend the Rays by a significant factor - even in lean years. Considering the Dodgers TV contract, lean years should be few and far between even with the luxury tax.
</div>
</blockquote>
(1) Why on earth would you hire a guy who has made his mark drafting and developing and then not have him draft and develop?
(2) Of course they'll outspend the Rays. $190 million is still a hefty payroll, but they're going to have to spend efficiently to get there. Spending another $20-25 million on a pitcher when you already have Kershaw, Greinke, and Ryu isn't spending efficiently, And there's the challenge that might have drawn Friedman to LA. He fixed a small market team, now he gets to fix a big market team that hasn't spend efficiently in the past.
</div>
</blockquote>
I feel the same way about the Dodgers not being out of bidding on players like Lester.
1) Parallel fronts -- develop AND acquire expensive FAs, etc
2) Friedman does just what you said: fixes a big market that hasn't spent efficiently in the past.
Spending about 5 million per WAR is pretty efficient even if (and on a fully developed roster, especially if) you are paying for a half dozen of them from one guy. And that's even if additional Wins are all the same value. (They aren't. Wins that put you in the post season are much more valuable than wins that put you over .500--Our team has been a study in that (and patience) for a couple of years.) And that's also even if millions are are all the same value. (They aren't either. Big market vs. small, TV deals, differed payments and otherwise creatively structured contracts, salary cap position, etc.)
If you are right, and the Dodgers don't really want to spend big on one or three more old expensive dudes, other bidders need only believe that they do; and the Dodgers are then still players in the bidding process. It doesn't cost Friedman a dime to drive up his competitors costs--exactly for the reason you stated originally; to prevent us from getting "good news."
I am not necessarily saying I want Lester, cheap or no. Although signing him here would signal good news as to where the FO sees us in the rebuild, because they'd only go there to acquire those particular Wins that put us in the 2015 post season.
The Dodgers are still part of the calculus.
(Edit: I loved typing the phrase "put us in the 2015 post season," but I could have just read Ivy's post; it is what I wanted to say, said better, and shorter)