2K24: Los Angeles Dodgers

[Sour Masher]

Have the Dodgers indicated they will cut him ?

No, I think they will, but that is just a guess based on the risk/reward for a team making as much money as the Dodgers do. It is different math for different teams. The Dodgers are one of the few that could eat that money, or much or it in a trade, and still contend. But I imagine they will wait to see what the league penalty is first, and get a sense of public sentiment. I would imagine/hope they also survey current players and take into account team chemistry. Again, these factors may not make a difference for some teams, but the Dodgers are as big a market as any team in sports. Morality aside, there is a lot more potential downside for them financially than most teams.

[Sour Masher]

The Dodgers owe him $64m over the next two years. Why should the Dodgers cut him, only to see another team pick him up and pay him the league minimum? If he’s not “toxic” enough to play for another team, why is he too toxic for the Dodgers? This kind of thing has happened way too often throughout sports — Kareem Hunt, Michael Vick, Plaxico Burress, etc.

He may be a total asshole, but if he wasn’t charged with a crime, then let him play. Fans don’t have to root for him.

Those examples are from football. I can't think of another case of such a divisive player before the incident, once not liked by many of his teammates, have a violent assault like this with photos, being welcomed back to the team. My hunch is that some teams would be willing to take on the toxicity of him, because of the talent, but that the Dodgers are one of the few teams that just do not need to, so I would be surprised if he ends up pitching for the Dodgers again.

[Sour Masher]

If my memory is right, I think several Dodgers were vocal in not wanting Bauer back. I think Kershaw was one of them. Maybe their feelings will change with no charges, but I just think the Dodgers will weigh the situation and try hard to move him, even if it means they pay most of his remaining salary and get nothing back to do it. And if that does not work, I think they will release him and someone else will sign him cheap, because the market will be no where near what his on-the field performance would warrant. So, the Dodgers will be out tens of millions, Bauer will still be obscenely rich, and another team will reap whatever benefit there is to reap from having Bauer on their team.

[the heat]

Can they do what the Texans did with Watson?
Pay him, don't play him. On 40-man but not Major league roster?
Or some sort of administrative leave so he can't sign with another team?

[The Feral Slasher]

If my memory is right, I think several Dodgers were vocal in not wanting Bauer back. I think Kershaw was one of them. Maybe their feelings will change with no charges, but I just think the Dodgers will weigh the situation and try hard to move him, even if it means they pay most of his remaining salary and get nothing back to do it. And if that does not work, I think they will release him and someone else will sign him cheap, because the market will be no where near what his on-the field performance would warrant. So, the Dodgers will be out tens of millions, Bauer will still be obscenely rich, and another team will reap whatever benefit there is to reap from having Bauer on their team.

Maybe I'm too cynical, but not many organizations are willing to write off $60 million when they don't have to - and apparently Bauer won't be charged with anything. I can see them dealing him and paying some salary...but cutting him and writing off all that cash is hard for me to fathom.

[rhd]

Can they do what the Texans did with Watson?
Pay him, don't play him. On 40-man but not Major league roster?
Or some sort of administrative leave so he can't sign with another team?

Players on the restricted list dont count against the 40-man roster. So I would guess this is what the Dodgers will do.

Re: roto players taking him in an auction/draft, I think he's too good and the likelihood of him pitching again at some point too great for people to completely ignore him. But if the Dodgers keep him on ice for the next 2 years, then maybe noone takes him this year but maybe he's a $1-$3 flyer or a reserve round pick in 2023. And comp'ing his situation to situations of other athletes in the past in terms of reprehensibility, I think he might be somewhat similar to Kobe or Vick and not so much to Josh Lueke. Kobe didnt have charges filed (sustained?) against him either and he didnt miss any time but Bauer is not quite as good or as well liked or respected as Kobe. Vick missed time (2-3 yrs?) and he seems similar to Bauer in terms of value to a team and he returned to play so I think Bauer probably will too. Lueke had no pro experience so very uncertain value and what he did people probably consider to be even more reprehensible than Bauer's situation so the fact that Lueke never got signed anywhere is probably not too analogous to Bauer's case.

[Sour Masher]

Maybe I'm too cynical, but not many organizations are willing to write off $60 million when they don't have to - and apparently Bauer won't be charged with anything. I can see them dealing him and paying some salary...but cutting him and writing off all that cash is hard for me to fathom.

I don't think being a cynic and thinking Bauer is done with the Dodgers are mutually exclusive. A cynic could believe that the reason the Dodgers eat the 60 plus million is they did a cost benefit analysis and decided that what Bauer adds to the team is outweighed by what he takes away in terms of PR, team chemistry, the potential impact on endorsement and advertising deals, etc. The reason I think Bauer likely does pitch again somewhere else is that the math will be different for another team that likely has much less revenue steams, so less to lose, and will be paying him much less, likely at a time when some of the anti-Bauer sentiment has dimmed, maybe late in the season when fans are more willing to overlook it if their team is a good arm from a playoff spot.

ETA: Some of how it shakes out will be based on how long the suspension will be. I think it will be at least twice as long as Ozuna's 20 games, given the relative severity of the injuries and the sexual nature of the assault compared to Ozuna's case. I wouldn't be surprised it they suspended him for more than 80 games, to avoid the inevitable comparisons between Bauer's assault and being popped for PEDs. He sent a woman to the hospital with severe injuries. Larry Baer got suspended for four months for knocking his wife down while taking a cell phone from her, a much less graphic and traumatic assault. Bauer might be suspended a whole year, although I don't know if he will get credit for the time he missed last year.

[Todd Zola]

Players on the restricted list dont count against the 40-man roster. So I would guess this is what the Dodgers will do.

It's not that easy. A team needs league approval to put a player on the restricted list and it's generally unpaid, though they can choose to pay him.

[The Feral Slasher]

I don't think being a cynic and thinking Bauer is done with the Dodgers are mutually exclusive. A cynic could believe that the reason the Dodgers eat the 60 plus million is they did a cost benefit analysis and decided that what Bauer adds to the team is outweighed by what he takes away in terms of PR, team chemistry, the potential impact on endorsement and advertising deals, etc. The reason I think Bauer likely does pitch again somewhere else is that the math will be different for another team that likely has much less revenue steams, so less to lose, and will be paying him much less, likely at a time when some of the anti-Bauer sentiment has dimmed, maybe late in the season when fans are more willing to overlook it if their team is a good arm from a playoff spot.

ETA: Some of how it shakes out will be based on how long the suspension will be. I think it will be at least twice as long as Ozuna's 20 games, given the relative severity of the injuries and the sexual nature of the assault compared to Ozuna's case. I wouldn't be surprised it they suspended him for more than 80 games, to avoid the inevitable comparisons between Bauer's assault and being popped for PEDs. He sent a woman to the hospital with severe injuries. Larry Baer got suspended for four months for knocking his wife down while taking a cell phone from her, a much less graphic and traumatic assault. Bauer might be suspended the whole year.

I don't think there is anything cynical about that. That is just rationale cost/benefit analysis. Anyway, we will see how it plays out, and I have spent enough time talking about that asshole.

[rhd]

It's not that easy. A team needs league approval to put a player on the restricted list and it's generally unpaid, though they can choose to pay him.

Thanx for the info. But dont you think that MLB would easily approve restricting Bauer if the Dodgers choose to do so?

[Todd Zola]

Thanx for the info. But dont you think that MLB would easily approve restricting Bauer if the Dodgers choose to do so?

Honestly, who knows? However, once their (possible) imposed suspension expires, why would they let the Dodgers extend it?

[rhd]

Honestly, who knows? However, once their (possible) imposed suspension expires, why would they let the Dodgers extend it?

I dont know why they would resist a Dodgers' restriction/suspension when the reported facts of the case, as I understand them, appear so reprehensible. It would look like MLB was being soft on abuse towards women, an image MLB definitely does not want.

[Todd Zola]

I dont know why they would resist a Dodgers' restriction/suspension when the reported facts of the case, as I understand them, appear so reprehensible. It would look like MLB was being soft on abuse towards women, an image MLB definitely does not want.

The facts weren't reprehensible enough to warrant criminal charges. I don't want to do down this road. My point is, the league will impose what they feel is warranted so I'm not sure they'll allow the Dodgers to go beyond that.

[rhd]

The facts weren't reprehensible enough to warrant criminal charges. I don't want to do down this road. My point is, the league will impose what they feel is warranted so I'm not sure they'll allow the Dodgers to go beyond that.

I dont want to belabor this point too much but the reason no criminal charges were filed wasnt necessarily because the actions werent reprehensible enough. It was because they didnt think they had a good enough chance to get a conviction. Big difference between those 2 things. Probably a similar situation in the Kobe case.

[Ken]

The facts weren't reprehensible enough to warrant criminal charges. I don't want to do down this road. My point is, the league will impose what they feel is warranted so I'm not sure they'll allow the Dodgers to go beyond that.

I agree, seems like it would be a huge issue for the players union if mlb could just decide to restrict a player with no charges and no pending charges against him. That would be a bad precedent for them to allow, as terrible as this individual person/act is.