Dodgers: Deadspin’s Clayton Kershaw take is wildly embarrassing

It’s possible to be of the opinion that the Los Angeles Dodgers should move on from longtime ace Clayton Kershaw this offseason, allowing him to sign a misguided deal with his hometown Texas Rangers or something of the like.

That’s an opinion you may have, and as long as you articulate it well, you’ll find no problems with me.

Perhaps you’re worried about too much money being allocated to a feel-good Kershaw deal instead of towards Max Scherzer, or any number of other needs this deeply-flawed Dodgers team still has. That’d be fine. I’m less worried about the very intelligent Dodgers getting distracted by the need to pay tribute to one of their greats, but that opinion is at least worth fretting over a little bit. Too much money filtered towards a regressing Kershaw, instead of towards lineup-balancing bats or true ace-types, would be problematic.

But if your argument is simply, “The Dodgers shouldn’t sign Kershaw because … come on now!! What are we doing, man! He’s old!” then I’d rather sandpaper my knuckles.

Luckily, Zombie Deadspin chimed in right on time, peppering in that utterly empty take at Peak Spooky Season.

Perhaps this won’t sway you into the “Sign Kershaw!” column, but it will certainly help you realize who you’re standing with while you say the team should move on.

Dodgers lefty Clayton Kershaw should probably re-sign, actually.

Moving on after something that used to be great becomes worse? Man, it’s surprising that’d be Deadspin’s take on Kershaw considering they can’t do it themselves.

Serious question: does Deadspin have any concept of a “legacy” and how meaningful it can be? Of course they don’t, they were gutted by a private equity firm and sold for parts, but still.

Another serious question: Does Deadspin realize the Dodgers are the Dodgers, and that no amount of money spent should ever prevent them from spending more money? For goodness sakes, this isn’t the Red Sox we’re talking about here. LA usually blows past the luxury tax unabated, and would certainly not let, say, a three-year Kershaw legacy deal muddy that up whatsoever.

But, you know, maybe we should hear them out. The Saudi Oil Baron who owns their website now (or whoever it is, I’ve lost track) financed these words for a reason. It’s not just the ad units, right? It can’t be just the ad units … right?

Unfortunately, this isn’t even an article. It’s Rob Parker video content, something nobody’s asked for post-Bush presidency. He doesn’t make a single point until 46 seconds in when he exclaims that Kershaw used to be an ace, but would now be the fourth starter. Brilliant! Hey, Rob, did you catch the postseason without Kershaw? A burned out Julio Urías, Walker Buehler and an injured Max Scherzer carried them. They couldn’t even get to four! Four would be nice.

He goes on to waste the next minute by telling fans they can’t live in the past, the “worst thing” fans can do. “Do you really want to see Clayton Kershaw hang around and get knocked around like a rag doll?” Parker asks, ignoring the fact that this isn’t a choice between a new deal in LA and forced retirement.

Kershaw’s staying in Major League Baseball, whether Parker likes it or not. With a glaring need for pitching depth, there’s no reason for it to take place anywhere but Los Angeles — and oh, by the way, he’s coming off a 2.16 ERA 60-game sprint and 144 Ks in 121.2 innings/a 3.55 mark in 2021. Despite the elbow uncertainty, he’d be a worthwhile short-term investment. Nobody still has a sky-high ceiling on him except for Parker, who apparently doesn’t believe anyone older than 33 is allowed to continue to make money, bringing his own employment into question.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got a scab to pick.

Dodgers: Albert Pujols update hints he won’t be retiring

Looks like Albert Pujols...might...not be retiring after all? Should the Los Angeles Dodgers reunite on a one-year contract?