Dodgers Seemingly Scrap Spending Plans, Acquire Miguel Rojas

Sam Navarro-USA TODAY Sports

Over the past decade, some storied names have manned shortstop for the Dodgers: Hanley Ramirez, Corey Seager, Trea Turner, heck, even an aging Jimmy Rollins was captain of the infield in LA in 2015 (though that move was ill-conceived). And now, after two years of historic free agent shortstop classes that saw the departures of both Seager and Turner, the big-money Dodgers will be adding to that list… Miguel Rojas?

At first glance, this is surprising. But by some measures, it makes sense: The Dodgers spread their money around and are less top-heavy than their wealthy counterparts. Even as they head into 2023 with an estimated $41 million less on the books than in ’22, the Dodgers will still be doling out $20 million or more to three players (four if you include Trevor Bauer). However, compared to the five other members of the $200 million payroll club, this mark is either tied for the lowest or at least below average depending on if we count Bauer: The Yankees are handing $20 million to six players, the Padres and Phillies five, and the Mets four. While the Angels only have three such players in that category, all are taking home at least $30 million and no Dodger is. In fact, of the $200 million club, the Dodgers and Phillies are the only teams without a $30 million payout for 2023.

So, it stands to reason that of these teams, the Dodgers might be best equipped to reset their hefty consecutive-years luxury tax penalty this offseason. Yet here’s where the Rojas trade doesn’t make sense all over again: adding him seems to put the Dodgers over the first luxury tax threshold.

Perhaps this trade will mark the first in a flurry that includes the Dodgers both upgrading at shortstop and finding themselves beneath the first threshold again. A major reason the latter has been so difficult is that the Dodgers were hoping Bauer’s suspension would continue through the 2023 season. Instead, the suspension was reduced on December 22, which left the Dodgers on the hook for his 2023 salary and exceedingly close to the first threshold (though still below). But the next move the Dodgers make likely won’t be a Bauer trade; part of the reason they took every bit of the two weeks following his reinstatement to DFA him was because they were probably waiting to see if another team would express interest in a trade, but no one did. Additionally, they likely didn’t release him outright because DFAing him has given them another seven days to seek a trade; those seven days are up January 13.

Barring a last-minute suitor for Bauer, there are other ways the Dodgers can free up payroll. They could throw in a prospect in order to dump Blake Treinen’s salary; after missing most of 2022 with shoulder issues and ultimately undergoing surgery, the righty appears set to miss most (if not all) of ’23. Or, now that they have some additional middle infield help in the form of Rojas, they could deal one of Chris Taylor or Max Muncy.

This scenario is the most plausible. Both players would be attractive to win-now teams and neither comes with a particularly daunting financial burden. Taylor, who has three years and $41 million left on his contract (plus a $12 million club option for 2026), is coming off of his worst offensive showing since 2016. But he dealt with a bevy of injuries including a fractured foot and still managed to hold his own defensively at multiple positions. In fact, his utility is what might make the Dodgers hold onto him; currently, he sits atop their depth chart in left field and figures to factor into the mix everywhere but first base and catcher.

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.

Muncy is also coming off of a down year offensively, though he has a better track record with the bat than Taylor and a higher offensive floor due to his batting eye. Further, an elbow injury in the spring messed with his mechanics; a tweak brought about a second-half rebound. He’s also marginally cheaper than Taylor and comes with less of a commitment, as he’ll be making $13.5 million this year with a $10 million club option for 2024. However, he’s less versatile: he sits atop the depth chart at third, where he’s historically graded out worst according to Outs Above Average (OAA), though he figures to factor in at first and second as well.

To me, Muncy seems like the more obvious trade candidate. While both him and Taylor are buy-lows, he’s shown more tangible signs of returning to form and comes with a smaller and shorter commitment; he’d have more suitors. Plus, the Dodgers would be largely relegating him to an unnatural position at third. On the other hand, OAA has typically liked Taylor’s work in left. Plus, Miguel Vargas would stand to gain from a deal involving either Muncy or Taylor, and Vargas has played the most at third in recent years in the minors, making him a more natural successor to Muncy.

Luxury tax considerations aside, it’s easy to see how Rojas fits into the Dodgers’ plans even alongside Muncy and Taylor. This offseason, the club lost an excellent defender in Cody Bellinger and a solid one in Trea Turner. To replace Turner at short, they were poised to shift over Gavin Lux and Taylor. OAA likes Lux much more at second, though his work at short in the majors consists of just a 500-inning sample; he’ll still have opportunities to spell Rojas at short against righties, but with less pressure, so the Dodgers will get another chance to see if he’s viable there long-term. Rojas is only under contract for one year, at a cool $5 million, but his sure-handedness will hold down the fort during that time. Since 2017, the year he began playing short full-time, he ranks 14th in shortstop OAA among the 87 players with at least 250 attempts. Turner, who incidentally began playing short simultaneously, ties for 16th; Rojas is an upgrade even over him.

There are a couple of other side effects of the Rojas acquisition. Let’s assume for now that the Dodgers will hold onto all of Taylor, Muncy, and Rojas — yes, even Rojas could be flipped. The advent of Rojas will free Taylor up to spend more time improving the club’s sans-Bellinger outfield defense. Additionally, with Lux moving back to second, Muncy primarily at third, and Taylor primarily in left, Vargas will be without a clear role. Yet, this may actually be a positive: Though Vargas has played more third than outfield in the minors, our Eric Longenhagen noted recently that Vargas’s below-average glove has looked okay in left, which is to say superior to his play at third. Given that the team is still likely to utilize Taylor and Muncy’s versatility, there will be ample opportunity for the Dodgers to cycle Vargas between his two more-obvious fits and continue assessing where his ultimate landing spot will be.

After all of this postulating, the Rojas move still doesn’t sit quite right with me. It’s probably because, despite the positives he brings to the team, I can’t wrap my head around why the Dodgers chose to deal their 15th-best prospect in exchange for him. Yes, they have a deep system. But Jacob Amaya was their highest-ranked shortstop, and a major-league ready one at that. Eric pegged him for a utility role in the near future and described him as the “best defensive infielder on Los Angeles’ 40-man.” ZiPS projected 1.2 WAR for Amaya, assuming he receives sufficient playing time. That WAR mark is actually equivalent to what Rojas posted last year; both are glove-first, though Amaya’s 14% walk-rate at Double- and Triple-A last season bodes well for his offensive floor. Giving Amaya the starting job at short still would have come with more risk than rolling out Rojas, sure, but also the same amount of roster flexibility and added luxury tax flexibility. I look forward to seeing him get a chance in Miami; though Joey Wendle is currently blocking him there, Wendle’s been on the trade block too. For Miami, this deal seems like a no-brainer.

But we won’t know exactly what the Dodgers were thinking for at least another day or two. Maybe a last-minute Bauer trade partner emerged. Maybe a deal for Muncy and/or Taylor is already in the works. Maybe the club even has an agreement to flip Rojas for a player better than Amaya. Because otherwise it just doesn’t check out that the Dodgers are so high on Rojas that they’re not only willing to set aside major luxury tax benefits for him, they’re also willing to part with a solid major-league ready prospect. Mike DiGiovanna reported that the Dodgers were already over the threshold, but if that were the case, why did they make it harder to get back under it for Rojas? The next luxury tax threshold is at $253 million; currently, we estimate the Dodgers’ taxable expenses at just over $237 million. Elvis Andrus could have been had on the free agent market at no prospect cost, and inking him for a bit more than Rojas’ $5 million would have had the exact same tax repercussions. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see, but this head-scratcher can’t be the last move of the offseason for baseball’s model franchise. Can it?





Alex is a FanGraphs contributor. His work has also appeared at Pinstripe Alley, Pitcher List, and Sports Info Solutions. He is especially interested in how and why players make decisions, something he struggles with in daily life. You can find him on Twitter @Mind_OverBatter.

59 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
sadtromboneMember since 2020
3 years ago

Let me see: Miguel Rojas might need to undergo another wrist procedure, he’s coming off a terrible offensive season, and they just dealt the one guy on the roster who could play shortstop to get him. And he puts the Dodgers clear over the luxury tax if they don’t have a deal in place to dump Bauer’s contract on some team (who will also DFA him).

What is the point of all this? They don’t reset the tax, shortstop is potentially still a mess, the backup option is gone…they could have signed Elvis Andrus instead, or traded for a better and/or cheaper shortstop (Jorge Mateo or Nico Hoerner being possibilities), or just roll with Amaya at short. All of those would have actually made some sense because it would have been a logically consistent direction, but somehow they have a decent shot of failing at all of their goals.

It’s one of those things that is probably not a big deal but it’s a whole lot of very small deals.

jtricheyMember since 2021
3 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

I understand that you don’t get it, but I don’t understand the thought that the Dodgers are doing something stupid here. I don’t mean that they are above reproach but they generally have a process that is very successful. We’ll see what happens. It could be as simple as they need someone else who can play short at times, don’t believe very much in Amaya (I agree with them there), and they have accepted that they will be over the luxury tax this year.
By the way I don’t think Rojas is now the shortstop. I think he is much closer to what Hanser Alberto was last year than the full time or even longer half of a platoon shortstop.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
3 years ago
Reply to  jtrichey

It’s ridiculous because somehow they’ve managed to make moves that probably move them further away from every single possible goal. You know how hard it is to do that? Maybe if he didn’t have to go under the knife again it would work because you could hope he bounces back to a barely acceptable hitter but his availability and hitting capability is in serious question. And it’s even worse if he’s not at least a half-time shortstop.

I really object to this “their process is successful” argument. The Dodgers got a whole lot worse this offseason and are going to have nothing to show for it.

JakeDuboisMember since 2020
3 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

The Dodgers may have gotten worse this offseason, but that is hardly any argument against “their process is successful.” No team can ever sustain an endless upward climb where each season is better than the last. That is impossible. There are going to be individual seasons where the team takes a step back. It’s inevitable. This is one of them.

Acknowledging that their process is successful is looking at the past decade of Dodgers baseball (especially since Friedman arrived) and saying that, on the whole, I trust that they know what they’re doing.

I guess I’d say that the Dodgers’ FO has earned the benefit of the doubt on this.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
3 years ago
Reply to  JakeDubois

Or, they misjudged what would happen this offseason enough that they are going to take a big step back in terms of wins, not get anyone to help them in future years, and not meet their financial goals. It’s a testament to the FOs overall performance over the past 5+ years that they are still somehow World Series contenders. It doesn’t mean they didn’t mess up, because they did; it’s just that they have a lot of wiggle room because the FO made a ton of good decisions in the past.

Jolly Good Show
3 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

They’ve got quite a few prospects banging on the door. It sounds like they might give some of them a go. It worked last time and many (or may not) work this time.

Smiling PolitelyMember since 2018
3 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Yeah, I think Friedman went into the offseason thinking he could bag someone for a high AAV and low years and found out too late that the market shifted to years. But moves like this…they really do make you wonder if we need to ask a variation of the Joe Maddon question: Is he a genius, or is it just [the money]?

sadtromboneMember since 2020
3 years ago

Genius might be a bit much but he’s still on of the top 5 front office execs in the game. The development system is great, both in the minors and for veterans alike. That counts for a lot. He typically makes good trades and spends money wisely. But it’s a good reminder that even people who are good at their jobs misjudge things.

Bless You BoysMember since 2025
3 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Rojas may prove to be wrong, but this FA market was packed with overpriced guys. There are bigger prizes coming down the road. LAD plays the long game until the AS break, when they pounce. The way not to run a franchise is down the 5 in San Diego.

Last edited 3 years ago by Bless You Boys
John WickMember since 2018
3 years ago

I think you can square this circle pretty easily: they don’t think they’re going to stay under the tax, and so they brought in someone they know can play SS at the MLB level.

1) After the Bauer decision came down, the Dodgers now believe they are unlikely to both stay under the luxury tax and compete for a World Series title. I think this is the right assessment. The Treinen dump is the only plausible cut that makes sense going into the season — I don’t think they want to be dealing Muncy OR Taylor because they don’t know if Vargas is a 3B (or a good MLB hitter right now), and they don’t know whether they will need Taylor in the OF with some question marks there as well. Add in the fact that they don’t want to lock themselves out of buying players with salary, and I think it’s pretty easy to see them saying ‘well, with Bauer’s salary we just aren’t going to be able to thread that needle.’

2) They need someone they know can play SS on this roster. Rojas isn’t exciting but he can do that. He’s a more known quantity than Amaya, who could absolutely flounder in his first taste of the MLB level. Andrus and presumably Mateo were other options (Hoerner probably isn’t available absent a stupid cost), but I can also understand why they wouldn’t prefer those options (depends on Mateo’s cost / availability, and Andrus has been unusable in stretches over the last few years)

3) They don’t think Amaya is anything special or part of their future. If they don’t care about the luxury tax, I can absolutely understand prioritizing a more known quantity in Rojas to rolling the dice, and they should know their prospects better than anyone else. A utility infielder, if they think that’s all he is, just isn’t of much value to a team with their depth that’s willing to spend money, and is a 40-man spot next offseason.

So while Rojas is far from exciting, I saw this news and nodded my head. Their roster makes a lot more sense to me with him there as a safety net.

Last edited 3 years ago by John Wick
lavarnway
3 years ago
Reply to  John Wick

I think this is the answer. No reason to overthink it.

je5Member since 2025
3 years ago
Reply to  lavarnway

hi ryan

Roger McDowell Hot Foot
3 years ago
Reply to  John Wick

Or: even if they think they can still squeak under the tax with a trade later, or intend to try, they’ve still determined not to let the tax constrain their decisions. That’s really it, I think.

rzbzadraMember since 2025
3 years ago
Reply to  John Wick

Exactly this. It was highly unlikely they were staying under the tax before this move with so little room to spare, Rojas is a proven major league quality shortstop. Lux is a BIG question mark to play SS all season, what happens if the yips come back? Apparently the Dodgers didn’t think Amaya was the answer as depth, I’m going to assume they know more about him than most. They would have had to pull a salary dump trade to stay under and this doesn’t preclude them from doing that.

Last edited 3 years ago by rzbzadra
cowdiscipleMember since 2016
3 years ago
Reply to  rzbzadra

They definitely have questions at SS. But if they don’t think Lux is the answer, and they don’t think Amaya is the answer, and they also are resigned to going over the tax, why weren’t they in on any of the good FA shortstops? There aren’t any internal solutions that I can see.

Going over the tax line by a few million for a low end, short term solution seems like a real failure. Maybe there’s a master plan that we just can’t see yet, but it’s hard to imagine what it could be except to trade someone to get back under.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
3 years ago
Reply to  cowdisciple

Yeah whatever the master plan was, this isn’t it. Island if it was the master plan, I’d be even more worried about the front office there.

rzbzadraMember since 2025
3 years ago
Reply to  cowdisciple

Signing one of the premier FA would have made it almost impossible to dip back under and by the time the Bauer decision was made there wasn’t much left on the market.

I think they weren’t expecting for the Bauer suspension to be repealed by as much as it was and got caught in between. Agree that barely going over is probably the worst possible scenario.

That being said, I think even if they knew they were going over they still wouldn’t have shelled out this year for a SS. Dodgers are big money but rarely shell out mega deals like the ones we saw this off season. They aren’t going to spend just to win the off season and if they don’t want to commit to a player they don’t love for 7-10 years then well, you end up with Miguel Rojas/Lux as a stop gap.

Last edited 3 years ago by rzbzadra
cowdiscipleMember since 2016
3 years ago
Reply to  rzbzadra

They had both Turner and Seager two years ago, with plenty of time to figure out how to extend one of them. This year’s issue was visible that whole time.

Not really attempting to extend either was a curious choice, but you could always figure maybe they had another plan. If this is the other plan it isn’t very good.

Luy
3 years ago
Reply to  cowdisciple

They didn’t try to sign Seager or Turner?

cowdiscipleMember since 2016
3 years ago
Reply to  Luy

Not very hard. Their reported offer to Seager was $75m less than what he got. If they made an offer to Turner, I must have missed it. To me it seems like they tried about as hard as the Red Sox tried to retain Bogaerts.

Last edited 3 years ago by cowdisciple
raregokusMember since 2022
3 years ago
Reply to  John Wick

I find this to be a pretty unsatisfying explanation. Miguel Rojas isn’t moving the needle that much when it comes to LA’s title chances so the idea that they just said “screw it, Bauer will cost too much to stay under the tax line” and are going for broke doesn’t really hold water. This seems like you’re trying to reverse engineer a justification for a move that, on its own, is just baffling.

John WickMember since 2018
3 years ago
Reply to  raregokus

He’s not supposed to move the needle, and they aren’t ‘going for broke.’ I’m not saying this is some masterstroke. I’m saying it was a logical trade.

The team didn’t have a sure SS on their roster, they have one now. They traded a 45 FV likely utility guy out of a deep system to make that happen, which isn’t a big loss. This isn’t rocket science and the bafflement is, well, baffling.

(Why not one of the top SS? Could be timing — everyone but Correa was gone by the time the Bauer news came down. Could be they didn’t like any of them at their prices. Could be they don’t want to take on a big salary because they want the decks clear for Ohtani. But the expectation that they undoubtedly *should* have been on these guys is also a little weird, this isn’t the Mets we’re talking about.)

raregokusMember since 2022
3 years ago
Reply to  John Wick

But Rojas needs wrist surgery, costs significantly more than Amaya, and doesn’t make it more likely that LA wins a title this year. Even if Rojas is miles better than Amaya, you still only get him for a year and he’s already injured.

The reason this move is baffling is because it doesn’t seem to help the Dodgers reach any of their medium or long term goals. They traded a 45 FV prospect for a defense-only SS rental in a year where they either needed to duck under the tax line or reload with some younger blood. This doesn’t help them sign Ohtani next year, it doesn’t help them get under the tax line this year, and it doesn’t move them closer to winning a title in 2022 (or really any year after that either).

You’re welcome to continue acting bewildered that everyone is piling on them for this move, but I still haven’t read any justification that actually makes sense.

John WickMember since 2018
3 years ago
Reply to  raregokus

It’s not a medium- or long-term move! They needed a frickin’ shortstop this season and now they have one. And to make that happen they traded a guy that they don’t think was going to be part of their future.

It’s a small trade to shore up a weakness and create some insurance. Didn’t cost much. Makes complete sense given their roster. Means they won’t be caught with their pants down in May or June if Lux couldn’t handle SS or Amaya couldn’t hack it in the majors or one of their infielders got hurt.

And — yes — that helps increase their title chances, given they are probably in a dogfight for the division title and a mess at SS could mean the difference between starting in the NLDS and Wild Card rounds.

dozingoffdadMember since 2021
3 years ago

This also doesn’t really make the JD Martinez signing make sense. $15 million plus Amaya for Martinez and Rojas seems like an odd use of resources

sterling62Member since 2020
3 years ago
Reply to  dozingoffdad

The JDM signing still seems like a good value to me when you compare his 1 yr/$10 million contract to Justin Turner which is $15 million guaranteed for one yr with a player option for another year at $6.7 million. Other comps are Joey Gallo at $11 million, Joc Pederson at $19.6 million, Brantley at $12 million, and Conforto at 2yrs $36 million.
Martinez was an all star in 2022 and had BA of 320 and OPS of 900 in late June until he sustained injuries. He has been a consistently great hitter for the last 9 years. Maybe it all changed last June and he suddenly got old or stopped hitting, but it is a risk worth taking for the upside potential.

raregokusMember since 2022
3 years ago
Reply to  sterling62

Consider the opportunity cost, though. Is having Rojas and JD Martinez for $15 million worth going over the tax line for a negligible increase in their title chances for this season?

SenorGato
3 years ago

Seems like this is to get the Dodgers over the cap to say they went over the cap

jtricheyMember since 2021
3 years ago
Reply to  SenorGato

No, now that is stupid.

SenorGato
3 years ago
Reply to  jtrichey

Meh. It certainly benefits them in the Long Run Future to have the historical note (same for Uncle Cohen’s Correa offer), the audience is gullible enough, the legions on payroll can explain why…Seems obvious to I…Hope Dodgers fans are excited to parrot with pride they came in second place for Ohtani/Machado next year

Dave Stewart
3 years ago
Reply to  SenorGato

Parrot with pride loll. Is there a Dodger’s fan on this web sight with a parroty account?

PhilMember since 2016
3 years ago
Reply to  SenorGato

“See, Steve Cohen, *this* is who you go over the luxury tax threshold for”

SenorGato
3 years ago
Reply to  Phil

?? What?

SenorGato
3 years ago
Reply to  Phil

My mistake, a little slow on the uptake

cowdiscipleMember since 2016
3 years ago

It isn’t entirely clear to me who would be interested in trading for Muncy right now. Maybe the White Sox? He would certainly fit there, but they already had opportunities to add a 2B. Not that Muncy isn’t a desirable player – it’s just hard to see a neat fit on a contender’s roster. There are quite a few “second basemen” who can hit but maybe can’t field the position with the shift ban floating around.

ctmuuseMember since 2016
3 years ago
Reply to  cowdisciple

Orioles? Brewers?

cowdiscipleMember since 2016
3 years ago
Reply to  ctmuuse

Orioles already signed Adam Frazier. I don’t love that, but I think they’ve made their choice. Brewers could make a lot of sense if they’re willing to add the payroll.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
3 years ago
Reply to  cowdisciple

Muncy might be able to play third but if he can play third at a satisfactory level then the Dodgers would want to keep him.

penile
3 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

They do want to keep him.

Devlsh
3 years ago
Reply to  cowdisciple

Red Sox seem like a logical fit. They can absorb payroll, and could use Muncy at 2B.

cowdiscipleMember since 2016
3 years ago
Reply to  Devlsh

He would definitely make them better this year and next, and they can afford it. I’m just not sure if they’re realistically going to be competitive in 2023 or 2024.

bernardgilkeyhasaposseMember since 2019
3 years ago
Reply to  cowdisciple

Cardinals could very much use him, if he’s basically “free to a good home.”

penile
3 years ago
Reply to  cowdisciple

Muncy to the Mets makes perfect sense right now. DH/IF utility

je5Member since 2025
3 years ago
Reply to  cowdisciple

why would the dodgers want to trade their 3rd best hitter who plays 3 different infield positions (1 great, 1 pretty good, 1 avg to below avg) and who is a lynchpin of their lineup and offensive approach, especially with JT now gone

Smiling PolitelyMember since 2018
3 years ago
Reply to  cowdisciple

This question seems backward in that there are plenty of interested suitors, but why would the Dodgers want to trade him?

cowdiscipleMember since 2016
3 years ago

I don’t know that they do. The whole logic for their inactivity this offseason is that they were trying to reset the luxury tax. Now they have to shed something like $10m payroll if they still intend to do that. They have two second basemen. It certainly isn’t the only way they could cut $10m in payroll, but it’s one of the most obvious. Maybe they aren’t trying to get under the tax any more – who knows at this point.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
3 years ago
Reply to  cowdisciple

The most obvious person to dump is Blake Treinen who is coming off a pretty nasty surgery. They would have to package someone who isn’t part of their plans to do it, though.

The second most obvious person to dump is JD Martinez, who they just signed and can’t play any position at all and probably should just be replaced by whatever regular needs a break from fielding that day. But I doubt they do that, since they just signed him.

Last edited 3 years ago by sadtrombone
cowdiscipleMember since 2016
3 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Yeah, that’s another route, but it would cost them another prospect. They could probably get by without Syndergaard too, if they wanted to move him. That might cost a low level lotto ticket or something.

DreaminDodgerBlue
3 years ago

Strikeout rate. Agreed Andrus could have performed a similar role. But I think the Dodgers feel that Amaya will be overmatched at the plate after seeing his strikeout rate jump when going from AA to AAA, and that it will continue to climb when he moves to the MLB. And they’d prefer someone who puts the ball in play, especially after watching so many strikeouts in key situations in the last couple playoffs.

loria_estefan
3 years ago

yeah, i don’t get it either. if the plan is to reset, great. but if the plan wasn’t to reset, and the plan brought you to miguel rojas, then what good was the plan?

deuce26
3 years ago

With the shift going away, the Dodgers know that Lux’s arm isn’t playable at SS and Muncy is no longer viable at 2B. The had to acquire someone who is a legit SS defensively. If getting under the luxury tax is really a priority, I could see Muncy or Taylor traded to shed payroll. That would also free up AB’s for Vargas.

Last edited 3 years ago by deuce26
tung_twista
3 years ago

>the structure of [Mookie’s] deal is part of why this year marked the perfect opportunity for the Dodgers to look for a cheaper shortstop solution in order to reset their hefty consecutive-years luxury tax penalty. 

Luxury tax is determined by AAV so the structure of Mookie’s deal is irrelevant for that purpose.

The Duke
3 years ago

Who is paying Rojas’ salary? Are we sure it’s the Dodgers ?

je5Member since 2025
3 years ago

not super relevant to the overall point, but just because this sort of stuff irks me:

heck, even an aging Jimmy Rollins was captain of the infield in LA in 2015 (though that move was ill-conceived).

Rollins was acquired as a stop gap because Seager wasnt ready yet (he would debut when rosters expanded that year and play 21 games (21 at SS) and play every playoff game. at the time it was understood that at some point in 2015 Seager would knock the door down and take the job, they just needed a vet to keep the seat warm knowing it wouldnt really affect their playoff chances (won the div. by 8 games).

Jolly Good Show
3 years ago

A few years ago, they did a trade with the Braves, where they traded a player with one year left for a player with two, for the similar combined salary (eg one was $10m over one year and the other was $10 over two years). They could try something like this again, assuming suitable players fit the criteria.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
3 years ago

I remember when they did that and we all said, “why on earth did the Braves do that?” The Reds and Padres bailed them out of other jams like that too. I suppose the offseason isn’t over yet; they could still hypnotize some team into doing it again. I don’t know how they keep doing it…but they do!

Groundout
3 years ago

Couldn’t they also do that with extending their own guys? Let’s say they they go to Freeman and offer to tear up the (I think) 5/135 they owe him and replace it with 7/161. Freeman gets $13m/year for when he’s 38 and 39, and the average drops from $27m to $23m. This works, right? And if Freeman doesn’t want to do something like this, won’t someone else?