The Chicago Cubs failed, and their lack of intent is to blame. One thing they were looking to achieve the next season was to add some experience to the bullpen; however, the team lost another star to the Los Angeles Dodgers. It is difficult to ignore the Dodgers’ bright lights, as it has been every winter. Moreover, the Chicago Cubs kept adding options to tackle the bullpen issues, which cost them again in the Tanner Scott trade. But what made Scott choose the Dodgers as his landing spot?
One of the top MLB relievers available in the free agent market, San Diego Padres’ Tanner Scott, had a great 2024 season. He posted a 1.75 ERA, having an ERA+ OF 252, with 84 strikeouts and 22 saves in just 72 innings, which made his first All-Star appearance. So, Scott’s inclusion could help the Cubs close down the left-handers and cause difficulties for the right-handed batters during the playoffs.
The team could have even paired him with the closer Porter Hodge in the bullpen’s backend, and that’s why they made a substantial offer to him: a 4-year, $66 million contract. However, the LA Dodgers put out a better offer; MLB insider Jon Morosi announced their new acquisition, with a four-year, $72 million contract. Tanner Scott provides a slider and fastball combination from the left, which most hitters cannot match up.
ADVERTISEMENT
Article continues below this ad
The Cubs reportedly offered Tanner Scott a 4-year contract at $66 million, before agreeing to a contract worth 4-years $72 million with the Dodgers, per @jonmorosi. pic.twitter.com/9vCmp3xott
— Cubs Zone (@CubsZone) January 20, 2025
While only a few players could hit him in the playoffs, Scott has been a prized asset in the past couple of years. Moreover, Tanner Scott‘s versatility could have provided the Chicago Cubs with the good flexibility they sought. He struck out seven times in five innings without scoring, and four strikeouts were of Shohei Ohtani. But given he missed the bat multiple times, with a 32.7% whiff rate, he currently holds the lowest hard-hit percentage in the MLB. So, will that be enough for the Dodgers?
The Los Angeles Dodgers get what they wanted
ADVERTISEMENT
Article continues below this ad
Tanner was willing to go to the Chicago Cubs; however, despite having a good amount of money, the Cubs didn’t offer him a better deal. And that’s where the LA Dodgers took the lead. But Tanner Scott is unable to find the right strike zones sometimes, and he struggled quite a lot in his early days. The Los Angeles Dodgers, however, think he will get better over time and also gradually reduce his walks.
Tanner would contribute significantly as one of the dominant relievers and turn the Dodgers into a formidable team in the future. But it’s just not him that makes the Dodgers so special. Well, the team continued the offseason quite strong as they signed the free agent 2B Hyeseong Kim, who adds depth to the infield. With an impressive offseason record, slashing .326/.383/.458, 75 RBIs, and 11 home runs, he looks to hit for average and also get to the base at a much higher clip in KBO.
Due to the gradual improvement in both of these areas, the Dodgers would have the added advantage of playing him wherever he suits the best but that’s not all! The team even got back their left fielder, Teoscar Hernandez, who has a career-high 33 homers and posted .840 OPS. Hernandez has been quite consistent in his power-hitting ability, which made him find a place in the team again.
ADVERTISEMENT
Article continues below this ad
Do you think the former Padres’ reliever Tanner Scott made the right call signing the LA Dodgers, or should he have signed the Chicago Cubs? Share your thoughts in the comment section below.
Have something to say?
Let the world know your perspective.
Challenge Your Sports Knowledge!
Solve the puzzle and prove your knowledge of iconic players, terms, and moments.
Debate
Did the Cubs drop the ball, or did Tanner Scott make the right call with the Dodgers?
What’s your perspective on:
Did the Cubs drop the ball, or did Tanner Scott make the right call with the Dodgers?
Have an interesting take?