And Tatis's mouthy ASS made the last out. You can't make this stuff up! Can't wait to watch him bump his gums in whatever Winter League he decides to play in. #dodgers

@RSteinfeld53 I have interviewed Joe, so, I have a ton of respect for him. He was nothing but kind when I approached him, so I have nothing but respect and thankfulness for him.

@RSteinfeld53 Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but math is math, which is what a Hard Cap is. I would expect Dodgers fans to have this opinion because the system is greatly in our favor.

The alternative would be a revenue-sharing and hard Cap system where every team has an even playing field. Where the Royals can become the best team in the league, and for several years. And the Pirates can be one of the most successful franchises year in and year out. Or one where Buffalo is more successful than either New York team basically every year. A system that is not determined by money because that part of the playing field has been leveled because no one team spends more than the salary cap. If an organization chooses not to spend up to the Salary cap, that's on them. So, it's determined by how well the Front Office drafts, develops, and structures contracts. In that world, the Dodger's financial advantages are eliminated. I can't imagine any Dodgers fan wanting that. What Dodgers fans want, and rightfully so, is to be able to buy every player they desire in Free Agency while also holding on to all of their prospects. This system gives the Dodgers organization its cake and lets them eat it too, so it's great for us. But, it's terrible for everyone else and the prospects themselves.

They do have the right to stockpile, under the current system. That system, IMO, needs to be changed so as to prevent organizations like the Dodgers from stockpiling. Stockpiling is not a good thing unless the only thing you care about is the win/loss record of the wealthiest team(s) in the MLB.

Yes, it's a penalty, we are agreeing on that. And, it's in response to building your team via Free Agency which, in and of itself, stockpiles your prospects because it adds a layer of talent at the Major League level that eliminates opportunity. And, it's not based on what each prospect deserves, it's based on the fact that the Dodgers can afford every Free Agent they want. That removes the prospect's runway and opportunity they deserve, and it has, most times, nothing to do with their "readiness", and only has to do with the fact that an elite Free Agent became available and the Dodgers could afford him.

@RSteinfeld53 They get to build a roster as powerful as they want via free agency, with no limits, but they don't get to do that while also stockpiling prospects that need opportunity. Not gonna get in the "Gavin Lux" weeds, but we'll disagree on him.

I'll have to disagree with your assessment of "readiness". The example of Bryan Hudson, or some of the others would show potential of otherwise. I'll especially disagree on Drew Avans. He's quite possibly the greatest player in the History of the franchise of OKC, which dates back to 1962. Much of which I've experienced firsthand and in person. There is literally nothing else Avans could do or have done to be ready. There just was no opportunity. Don't believe me though, the folks in the organization, who know a lot more about this than I do, say the same thing about him. I hope Kody stays healthy again this year and continues to show MLB clubs that he's ready for his opportunity. From a numbers perspective, it likely won't happen with the Dodgers, which makes him the exact type of prospect I'm talking about who needs to be moved to an organization that could use him.

You're giving your opinion on my opinion. That's the furthest thing from being factual. And, to say that allowing guys like Drew Avans to time out, and become a Free Agent without ever being put on a 40-man roster isn't building for the future. Stockpiling Ryan Ward, Kody Hoese, Andre Lipcius, Hunter Feduccia, and all the pitchers that are going to start in AAA, who are closer to 30 than they are 20, is not building for the future. It's stockpiling because the guard rails in place don't prevent it. Again, the Dodgers are doing exactly as they should under the current system, it's the system that needs fixed.

Okay...Thanks for stopping by, I actually couldn't care less about your opinion, to be honest. At least when combined with the approach you choose to present it. I prefer good conversation, which is what happens on this site, vs. your Social Media "tone", which doesn't happen on this site.

It would be exactly the same as the Rule 5 draft, which is already in place, except organizations wouldn't have to put the players they chose immediately on their 26-man roster for the entire next season. And, the determining factor is service time and not just simply being put on a 40-man roster. Players can get put on the 40-man roster, to avoid making them eligible for the Rule 5 Draft, the stored away in the Minor Leagues. So, to your "stupid stuff" comment, this model is already in place; it just needs to be modified to actually have an impact. The Rule 5 Draft doesn't, and, never has. It's had a player or 2 make an impact, but it has no real overall impact on the competitive structure of the MLB or for the progress of prospects. Each club that doesn't go over the CBT gets to draft a prospect they want from an organization that went over the CBT by the amount that qualifies an organization to lose a prospect. And, again, the pool of prospects is determined by Service Time.

What's up John 100% spending should be incentivized for the lower-tiered spenders, and that needs to go hand in hand with not allowing organizations like the Dodgers the ability to stockpile prospects. First, it's terrible for the prospects themselves. Second, those are players the smaller market teams could really use. There is no better incentive than giving smaller-market teams access to elite talent they can afford. It's tough to convince a club to spend a lot on a player or two when they know the rest of their roster will be full of AAA players. Shortening the length it takes a player to reach Free Agency would be a great step, but, there is a reason why the Chiefs can win multiple Super Bowls, but the Royals have to suck 90% of the time. And the NFL is the better League for it, I don't think many would argue with that. Organizations should not be able to get whoever they want, with only cash being the penalty, when they have more cash than they'll ever know what to do with. Fining a multi-billionaire, like the Dodgers are, has 0 effect on them. And because of that, the MLB is going to lose interest. I enjoy fishing, but not when it's in a barrel.

@MooneyOwnsYou I think that would be great, and I think if they had more access to elite talent tbat they could afford, they'd be much more excited to spend. It's a hard situation to spend big, the know the rest of your roster is filled full of AAA players.

@SnavelyCody6 Teams on the lower end will have greater incentive to spend the more they have access to elite talent that they can afford.

@LegalCatDaddy No, not at all As a matter of fact, quite the opposite. Make them use the great talent they've scouted and developed.

@SnavelyCody6 Again, as I said, the Dodgers are doing exactly as they should. MLB is who needs to find a way to fix it.

I challenge anyone whose interested to look at the opening day roster for OKC and be honest as to whether or not the Dodgers have used the trade market to provide enough opportinity for these guys . Again, the Dodgers are doing as they should, MLB just needs to get this part of it fixed.

@SnavelyCody6 Yordan

@SnavelyCody6 All these guys need opportunity, so statements like this can be proven one way or the other. So, the point is, if Pages I'd the only one that deserves time in this roster, then move the other guys and let give them their path