moonslav59

The money freed up helped, and we got Miley for some of the Dodger return players.

I don't remember any of the cliff dwellers taking about a 3+ year drought. I also don't think any felt like it would be just one year, either, but I suppose one could call 2019 a semi-cliff year. I thought it would take longer to build the farm back to middle of the pack than it has, and I felt we'd be re-setting, which we did. I wasn't sure about staying under for 2 years, and our playoff season in 2021 was a bit unexpected. Hats off to Bloom for that. I will agree that the "cliff" did not last as long as all of us thought, but we did have one, and we still have a ways to go to get to a sustainable winning formula and roster.

This team has continually gone under the tax line, sometimes for 2-3 straight years, so it really should have been expected- chosen or not. It was the posters who felt like henry should and WILL continue to spend over the tax line year after year who had the "problem with the cliff theory" not those who expected what has always happened before and did happen again.

Is pick 41 for Fabian? Is the ERod sandwich pick listed? if so, which one?

This seems to contradict... A team that neither exceeded the luxury tax in the preceding season nor receives revenue sharing will lose its second-highest selection in the following year's Draft as well as $500,000 from its international bonus pool. If it signs two such players, it will also forfeit its third-highest remaining pick. If that team loses a free agent, it will be awarded a Draft pick immediately following Competitive Balance Round B. The 13 clubs that fall into this category during the 2020-21 offseason are the Angels, Athletics, Blue Jays, Braves, Cardinals, Dodgers, Giants, Mets, Nationals, Phillies, Rangers, Red Sox and White Sox Examples: A team with one pick in each round of the 2021 Rule 4 Draft would lose its second-round pick. A team with two first-round picks would lose its second-highest first round-pick. Qualifying Offer | Glossary | MLB.com WWW.MLB.COM The Official Site of Major League Baseball

I think we trade for a lower salary pitcher (Montas or Castillo or one year guys like Bassit, Manaea or S Gray.)

Wow, the opt out is interesting.

Who is happy?

I thought they lose their 2nd pick, even if it a comp pick.

The Reds and A's seem to be the teams everyone thinks will be out to dump salary. They both have some very nice talent, some of which play positions we already have filled- like 1B and 3B, but I suppose we could trade Dalbec, casas or move Devers to 1B. Here are the salaries for 2022: Cincy $50/2 Votto (1B) $22.5M lux tax $38/2 Moustakas (2B) $16M lux tax $34/3 Suarez (3B) $9.4M lux $10.9/1 S Gray (SP) $10.9M $8M/1 Akiyama (OF) $7M Arbs: ~8M Castillo (2nd of 3) SP ~6M Winker (2nd of 3) OF ~5M Mahle (2nd of 3) P ~3M Naquin (3 of 3) RF OAK $14.3M Andrus (SS) + option $15M lux tax $7.6M Piscotty (OF) option Arbs: ~$11M M Olsen (1B) 2nd of 3 ~$10M Manaea (SP) 3 of 3 ~$10M Chapman (3B) 2 of 3 ~$8.5M Bassit (SP) 3 of 3 ~$5.5M Montas (SP) 2 of 3 ~$3M Laureano (CF) 1 of 3 ~$3M Trivino (Closer) 2 of 4

Many of his articles are like this.

While that may not make up for missing 100 games in the season, the Dodgers were the best team, and they won a long post season.

While Dalbec did great the last 2 months of the season he went hitless in the playoffs (0-12). Renfroe hit very well, at the end of 2021, too, and did better than Dalbec in the playoffs. (6-20 v NYY & TBR and 1-16 v HOU) Renfroe: .936 last 42 games (175 PAs) .859 last 125 games. I like Dalbec more than Renfroe, too, but let's not cheapen what Renfroe did with the bat and arm.

ERod rejected his QO, so we get a draft pick, if we don't sign him or lose it by signing someone else's QO FA.

I'd really like to upgrade RF defense, but it's not easy finding someone that can offset Renfroe's bat and arm for just $7.5M. If we trade for someone, who do we give up?

I don't take many points off. The playoffs were still the playoffs, and a the Dodgers would certainly have made the playoffs in a 162 game season, too. It is what it is. Put the asterisk, if you must, but many seasons were marred by shortened seasons and messed up planning around them. To me, they earned it, but I can understand your view.

That 5 out of 6 stretch was tough, but going into many of those seasons, I felt pretty good about the roster. I think that makes a difference, to me, especially in terms of judging our GMs.

Well said, and it's easy to get side-tracked or want to make a bigger push (at the expense of the future) when you feel so close, but it's also hard to sustain a highly competitive team that wins a ring, eventually.

Scoreboard, dude.

I think Dodger fans are still happy with their team and GM.

The last one was wrong, for sure. We've finished in last place many times and had many disappointing seasons, like 2019, where we spent a ton and did way under expectations. The second one: we have rebuilt faster than I thought we could, so maybe they were partially right, but we are not a top tier farm, now. Henry can spend more, but he doesn't often enough.

He was decent. He had a couple other good years but was .771 before 2018.

I don't think Pearce had the profile to get as much as we signed him for. It wasnt a massive overpay, and it was one year, but I think the playoffs upped his pay.

True, but it was based on a couple week sample size. We're only talking about one more year for Renfroe, too, as we can deny arb in 2023, if we want.

What happened with several posters was that they wanted us to go all in, but denied it would have a lasting effect on future chances. "Henry can just spend more." "We just need to rebuild the farm." "There is no reason a top spending team can't contend every year."