The Dodgers may or may not have a limit to how much money they’re willing to spend. We don’t know. But, as we anticipated when the big Boston deal went down, the willingness to eat so much risky Crawford/Beckett money to get Adrian Gonzalez is only going to open the door to having everyone think that they can simply pawn off every other bad contract on the Dodgers.
Today’s clownshoe culprit is Nick Cafardo of the Boston Globe:
Thinking out loud: Why wouldn’t the Dodgers take on Alex Rodriguez? The Yankees would gladly eat some of the contract. With Carl Crawford joining them in May (or sooner) after his surgery, the Dodgers will likely not re-sign Shane Victorino, saving a few bucks (not that money matters)
Do I even need to here? While I’ve thought the furor about Rodriguez’ postseason performance this year is overblown, he’s 37 years old with five years and $114m left on his contract. Even if the Yankees eat some of that, the point is… what, exactly? Remember, taking on the Crawford risk was necessary to get Gonzalez, whereas Cafardo offers no reason for the Dodgers to want Rodriguez other than “well, they have money.” (I have no idea how letting the approximately $3.3m they paid Victorino this year go has any relevance.)
For the record, the Dodgers were connected to Rodriguez back in 2007, when it was expected he would opt out of his contract and pursue free agency. (He did opt out, but stayed in New York.) We didn’t like the idea any better at the time:
Even worse, while he might actually be worth that much now, what happens when he’s 38, 39, and 40 and is still owed that much? That has disaster written all over it.
Shockingly, a Hall of Fame caliber player is no longer as good at 37 as he was at 32 or 27 or 22, and that’s not a trend likely to turn around. So yeah, why wouldn’t the Dodgers want in on that? Come on, Nick. You’re better than that.