Dodgers reportedly cheaping out on Corey Seager, Max Scherzer is tough stuff

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA - OCTOBER 11: Max Scherzer #31 of the Los Angeles Dodgers reacts after striking out LaMonte Wade Jr. #31 of the San Francisco Giants during the fourth inning in game 3 of the National League Division Series at Dodger Stadium on October 11, 2021 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Ronald Martinez/Getty Images)
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA - OCTOBER 11: Max Scherzer #31 of the Los Angeles Dodgers reacts after striking out LaMonte Wade Jr. #31 of the San Francisco Giants during the fourth inning in game 3 of the National League Division Series at Dodger Stadium on October 11, 2021 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Ronald Martinez/Getty Images) /
facebooktwitterreddit

Unfortunately for Los Angeles Dodgers fans, they have to live for the next few months with a sour taste in their mouths.

The return of Chris Taylor helps alleviate the pain, but the departures of Max Scherzer and Corey Seager, as well as the uncertainty surrounding Clayton Kershaw and Kenley Jansen, pale in comparison. The front office has a lot of rebounding to do once the MLB lockout ends.

To make matters worse, however — and believe us, we don’t want to do that — we recently learned the Dodgers reportedly fell well short of the negotiations with Scherzer and Seager before they both bolted for the Mets and Rangers, respectively.

That’s … not the financial juggernaut we’re accustomed to, is it? How did the Dodgers come to terms with paying Trevor Bauer a record AAV and more than $100 million in total guarantees but decided to let a World Series hero in Seager waltz away and arguably the best pitcher in the game sign with … the lowly Mets?!

When you’re exposed to the insight into how it all went down, you’ll undoubtedly be even more upset.

Did the Dodgers even come close to signing Corey Seager and Max Scherzer?

Here’s what Jorge Castillo of the Los Angeles Times revealed about the team’s negotiations for Seager:

"“Offensively, the Dodgers wanted Seager to stay long before he hit free agency. They offered him an eight-year, $250-million contract during spring training this year. They were among the teams vying for his services as a free agent once the season ended. Ultimately, they weren’t close to meeting the Rangers’ extravagant offer of $325 million over 10 years, according to people with knowledge of the situation.”"

If that didn’t hurt enough, perhaps his piece about Max Scherzer will officially have you reeling:

"“The Dodgers were one of four or five teams, including the Angels and San Francisco Giants, in the mix for Scherzer, according to people with knowledge of the situation. But the Dodgers declined to offer Scherzer three guaranteed years. By Sunday evening team officials were pessimistic. Ultimately, the Angels, desperate for more starting pitching, were closer to landing Scherzer than the Dodgers, according to a person with knowledge of the situation.”"

OK … an eight-year, $250 million deal for Seager is actually fair, so that just makes us believe the slugger didn’t truly want to be a Dodger. He took $75 more million to play for an AL bottom-feeder. What else did you expect, though? He’s a client of Boras … and so is Scherzer.

But the issue with Scherzer was a bit different. Not willing to go to three years for the three-time Cy Young winner? After he just put forth one of the best seasons of his illustrious career? Andrew Friedman and the front office had to have known going the extra mile for a pitcher of his caliber was going to be required, and since it was a short-term deal, it’s hard to believe that was a stretch for them. Ponying up another two years and $75 million for Seager and extending the deal to 10 years is one thing. Scherzer’s three-year deal fits right in line with the team’s premier World Series window.

Perhaps the Dodgers are ready to spend this extra money in ways we could’ve never imagined. But the early indicators suggesting they were far off on retaining two of their most important players really isn’t encouraging.