Andrew Friedman may never make this exception again after Kyle Tucker leaves Dodgers

The Los Angeles Dodgers are running away with the NL West and should be able to easily put the division on ice sooner rather than later now that the second half is underway.

The priority will soon shift from keeping the San Diego Padres and Arizona Diamondbacks at bay to shoring up the squad and putting themselves in the best position to come away with a third-straight World Series title. One thing that would make that a whole lot easier would be Kyle Tucker playing up to his billing.

By the numbers, Tucker hasn't exactly been bad, per se. The 29-year-old has been a hair above average offensively with a 101 OPS through July 18, though his defensive performance in right field has left something to be desired with -5 outs above average. Basically, with that caliber of defense, his .244/.340/.373 line has led him to produce 0.9 fWAR, putting him on track to finish the year as an average starter.

His contract, though, makes it clear that Los Angeles was expecting much more. The four-year, $240 million deal that Andrew Friedman gave the former Houston Astros star is unique in a couple of ways. First, it comes with opt-outs after the second and third seasons, essentially giving Tucker control as to how long he wants to stay a Dodger.

Second, it comes with a $64 million signing bonus and some deferrals. That ultimately takes the AAV calculation down from $60 million per season to $57.1 million, which is still the largest post-deferral AAV in history. For that kind of money, you'd expect to be getting a whole lot more.

Andrew Friedman handcuffed himself (and the Dodgers) with the Kyle Tucker contract

The Dodgers basically print money, meaning a single bad contract isn't going to hold them back at the trade deadline or in the offseason from pursuing meaningful upgrades. It's also true that while the Tucker deal looks bad, it's nowhere nearly as painful as the long-term, big-money deals that are weighing down the Padres and San Francisco Giants right now.

But what it does do is cede all control to Tucker. He's going to be a Dodger next season, but at that point, he and he alone hold the key to his future. If he plays well in 2027, he's likely opting out to pursue long-term security. If he continues to taper off as he has this season, he'll stay put in LA. Either way seems like a losing situation for the Dodgers.

Los Angeles has rarely granted opt-outs while Friedman has been at the helm, and this is a perfect reason why. A popular trend in recent years has been the two-year deal with an opt-out after the first season, which properly hedges risk on both sides. However, taking that framework and extending it out over a longer term swings the pendulum thoroughly in the player's favor.

Again, the money isn't the concern for the Dodgers, but tying up the roster spot certainly is. If Tucker sticks around and continues to underperform, it can hinder some of the club's maneuverability.

So, even if Tucker starts doing more than the bare minimum to bust his slump, he's still firmly in the driver's seat when it comes to his future. Friedman hopefully has learned his lesson, and if he's not sold on giving a player a long-term deal, then he should simply stay away.

Add us as a preferred source on Google

Follow