Dodgers stance on Tommy Edman could affect their offseason flexibility

It raised some eyebrows when rumors surfaced about the Dodgers' interest in Cardinals utility man Brendan Donovan. The immediate thought was that it put Hyeseong Kim out of a job, but we should probably be asking the same question about Tommy Edman.

Edman, like both Donovan and Kim, is a second baseman, outfielder, and shortstop. All three spent most of their time at second in 2025 and played their best defense there.

On one hand, there's no way that the Dodgers could sideline or cut Edman, who they extended on a five-year, $74 million contract at the end of 2024. On the other, it's curious that the Dodgers would be entertaining the possibility of trading for a guy who can do exactly Edman's job and had a healthier (and more productive) season at the plate this year.

Of course, they could be looking at Donovan as a solution for the outfield if they can't get any of Kyle Tucker, Cody Bellinger, or Steven Kwan, but why would they uproot him from what's been his best defensive position over the last two years and where he has the most experience?

There's a lack of clarity on how the Dodgers envision Edman's role next season. He's coming off of an ankle surgery, so will he be their everyday second baseman? If that's the case, what do they do with top prospect Alex Freeland? Do they have Donovan, an everyday player with the Cardinals, share left with both Dalton Rushing and Ryan Ward and bounce to second base on Edman's off days?

Edman's down year on offense might be attributed to the ankle problem that's been bothering him on-and-off for a while, but are the Dodgers betting on a bounce back or are they already giving up on him?

There's a weird lack of clarity on the Dodgers' plan for Tommy Edman

No one expected a lot of power out of him (even though he did briefly become Tommy Tanks in the first few weeks of 2025), but his typically reliable contact has also been missing since he came over to the Dodgers at the 2024 deadline, and his strikeout rates have been higher than ever.

There's also the problem of the Dodgers' aging roster. They locked up so many guys to long-term deals, which is one way to look at the future and has clearly been working for them, but five of the Dodgers' six long-term deals (including Edman) are for position players over the age of 30. There's a question of how the Dodgers will infuse youth down the line — and they're already running into a lot of problems with that right now — if players in their late 30s, with careers that are flagging but are making too much money to cut outright, are blocking younger guys.

There are four years and $65.6 million left on Edman's contract, with a club option worth $13 million for 2030. At a $16.4 million AAV, it's hardly a bad deal for a Swiss army knife kind of player, even if it might not be very attractive to buying teams after his down year.

The Dodgers probably wouldn't trade Edman, not when they haven't seen a fully healthy year from him yet, but there are a lot of questions for the Dodgers' front office and the future of their roster. Figuring out exactly what they're going to want him to do going forward would not only clear up the Donovan question but clarify the Dodgers' long-term thinking, which might not actually be as clear as it seems.