Jeff Passan's 'perfect' offseason move for LA Dodgers ignores elephant in the room

The Dodgers have a relatively short to-do list this offseason, but the top item is a big one: they need to fix the bullpen. The rotation is full and will actually have excess arms next year if River Ryan and Gavin Stone are ready to go by spring training and the majority of LA's position players are on long-term deals. The bench could use a few upgrades, and the Dodgers are definitely going to be talking to Kyle Tucker, but the bullpen is the most immediate need.

Tanner Scott and Blake Treinen's contracts are two of the biggest blights on the Dodgers' payroll. Scott will make $12.59 million next season and Treinen will make $13 million; Scott had a 4.74 ERA this year and Treinen had a 5.40. Both spent time on the IL.

The Dodgers could turn some of those excess starting pitchers (Ryan, Stone, Emmet Sheehan, Justin Wrobleski) into bullpen arms, but it'd be far more characteristic of them to spend a lot of money on pitchers like Scott.

Jeff Passan wrote that the "perfect transaction" for the Dodgers this offseason is signing former Mets closer Edwin Díaz, but why keep signing relievers to long-term deals when they already have two on the books they're already regretting?

Jeff Passan proposes "perfect transaction" for Dodgers would be signing Mets closer Edwin Díaz

Díaz is likely to get a three- or four-year deal in free agency, and for more money than Scott's $72 million. In fact, he's already reportedly looking to ink something similar to the record-setting contract he signed a few years ago. The Dodgers would have absolutely zero qualms about spending that money, but Scott, Treinen, and Kirby Yates proved that relievers can be volatile. Díaz himself had a 3.52 ERA in 2024 before bouncing back nicely this season. Why lock another pitcher into a deal that could sour immediately the way that Scott's did?

The Dodgers have some of the most highly-touted pitching coaches in baseball who could take on a lower-cost reliever on a one-year deal and work with them, or they could focus their attentions on the high-earners they already have to at least try to make those contracts worth it.

But LA, clearly, is always more inclined to go the brand-name route, even if they were already proven wrong about one of the most highly regarded arms on last year's free agent market. It's not a bad strategy if the Dodgers have no financial constraints (and they don't), but it might be a little lazy, and Scott proved that it could easily backfire.