The Los Angeles Dodgers have once again made headlines with their offseason maneuvers, adding two of the top free agents in the sport. With back-to-back World Series titles and the highest payroll in MLB, their dominance continues to draw both admiration and controversy.
Despite their reputation, landing Edwin Díaz and Kyle Tucker was not as straightforward as fans might think. Díaz, a star closer, signed a three-year, $69 million deal, setting an AAV record for relievers, while Tucker secured a four-year, $240 million contract with opt-outs—one of the most lucrative short-term deals in recent memory.
However, Dodgers general manager Brandon Gomes recently revealed a surprising truth about the process: Los Angeles didn’t initially see themselves as the frontrunners for either star.
“You have to do your due diligence. You check in on guys you think would be a fit, even if it’s likely a long shot,” Gomes explained during a “Baseball Isn’t Boring” interview. “Like, we felt Edwin was a long shot. We felt Tuck was definitely a long shot … then as things become more real, just being ready to fire.”
Kyle Tucker poses during his introductory press conference with the Dodgers. @Dodgers
Could the Dodgers’ spending approach be too dominant for MLB balance?
While Díaz’s decision was influenced by the Mets’ inability to retain him, Tucker’s free agency lasted longer, giving him multiple high-value offers from Toronto, New York, and Los Angeles. Tucker ultimately chose the Dodgers’ proposal, highlighting LA’s financial might.
see also
MLB Rumors: Blake Snell’s Opening Day status remains uncertain for Dodgers
Even if the Dodgers didn’t initially see themselves as favorites, the perception is clear: when Los Angeles engages in the market for a top free agent, they are a difficult team to beat.
SurveyDo the Dodgers’ offseason signings of Díaz and Tucker create an unfair advantage?
Do the Dodgers’ offseason signings of Díaz and Tucker create an unfair advantage?
already voted 0 people
