In Part 1, we argued that the Mets do not have an ambition problem. They have an execution problem.
In Part 2, we examined how slow starts create a pressure-amplification cycle that makes every season feel harder than it needs to be.
In Part 3, we explored how the Yankees learned to carry pressure through decades of stability and accumulated trust.
In Part 4, we examined how the Braves built resilience through development, continuity, and replacement power.
That brings us to the third modern baseball powerhouse.
The Dodgers.
And perhaps the most misunderstood organization in sports.
Because contrary to popular belief, the Dodgers do not win because they spend money.
They win because they create options.
The Wrong Conversation
Whenever the Dodgers are discussed, the conversation usually begins and ends with payroll.
Too much money.
Too many stars.
Too many advantages.
It's an easy explanation.
It's also incomplete.
Plenty of organizations spend money.
The Mets spend money.
The Yankees spend money.
The Phillies spend money.
The Padres spend money.
Yet none have produced the sustained success of the Dodgers over the past decade and a half.
The difference is not the amount of money.
The difference is how the money is used.
The Dodgers Rebuilt Themselves
It's easy to forget that the Dodgers weren't always what they are today.
Before the current ownership group took control in 2012, the organization had spent years dealing with instability, ownership dysfunction, and uncertainty.
The Dodgers had history.
They had brand power.
They had market size.
But they weren't operating like the modern standard they would eventually become.
What followed over the next fifteen years was one of the most impressive organizational transformations in professional sports.
They didn't simply buy players.
They rebuilt the organization.
They invested in:
player development
scouting
analytics
infrastructure
sports science
international operations
baseball operations
They paired financial strength with organizational strength.
And that's where the real advantage emerged.
The Dodgers Rarely Have One Plan
Most organizations operate with Plan A.
The Dodgers often operate with Plans A, B, C, and D.
A prospect breaks out.
Great.
A prospect fails.
There's another one.
A star leaves.
They replace him.
A pitcher gets hurt.
They have depth.
A trade opportunity emerges.
They have resources.
A free agent becomes available.
They have flexibility.
That's not payroll.
That's optionality.
And optionality may be the most powerful advantage in modern baseball.
The Difference Between Spending And Flexibility
This distinction matters for the Mets.
Steve Cohen's ownership immediately changed the organization's financial profile.
For the first time, the Mets could realistically compete with any organization in baseball for talent.
Many people assumed that meant the path forward was simple:
Spend more.
But spending is not the destination.
Flexibility is.
The Dodgers use resources to create choices.
Choices improve decision-making.
Choices reduce desperation.
Choices allow organizations to adapt when circumstances change.
Over time, choices become competitive advantages.
The Dodgers Rarely Panic
This is one of the most remarkable aspects of the organization.
The Dodgers experience setbacks just like everyone else.
They lose players.
They suffer injuries.
They endure disappointing playoff exits.
They make mistakes.
What they rarely do is overreact.
Because organizations with options don't need to panic.
The Dodgers have built enough organizational depth that one problem rarely forces a desperate response.
The organization absorbs setbacks and moves forward.
That should sound familiar.
The Yankees do this through stability.
The Braves do this through replacement power.
The Dodgers do this through flexibility.
Different paths.
Similar outcomes.
The Mets' Greatest Untapped Advantage
This is where the Dodgers become especially relevant.
The Mets already possess the raw material.
Steve Cohen's resources are real.
The ability to invest aggressively is real.
The ability to pursue talent is real.
The ability to improve infrastructure is real.
The ability to accelerate organizational change is real.
The challenge is turning those resources into something more durable.
Because money itself is not a competitive advantage.
Lots of organizations have money.
The real advantage is creating a system where resources continuously generate more options than your competitors possess.
The Dodgers have spent fifteen years doing exactly that.
The Bigger Lesson
The Dodgers are not simply a rich organization.
They are a highly adaptive organization.
They've combined:
Yankees-like credibility
Braves-like development
modern infrastructure
financial flexibility
organizational discipline
The result is an organization capable of surviving almost any challenge.
And that may be the most important lesson for the Mets.
Because the goal of the Cohen era should not be to build the highest payroll.
It should not be to win the offseason.
It should not even be to assemble the most talented roster.
The goal should be to create an organization that consistently has more good options available than its competitors.
That's what the Dodgers built.
And that's why they remain one of baseball's most formidable organizations year after year.
What The Mets Should Learn
The Dodgers demonstrate that resources become truly powerful only when paired with discipline.
Money creates opportunities.
Infrastructure develops opportunities.
Player development sustains opportunities.
Organizational consistency protects opportunities.
Put them together and you create something much more valuable than payroll.
You create flexibility.
And flexibility is what allows great organizations to remain great when everything doesn't go according to plan.
Part 5 Thesis
The Dodgers do not use money to buy certainty.
They use money to create flexibility.
Their greatest advantage is not payroll. It is the ability to generate more options, absorb more setbacks, and adapt more quickly than their competitors.
What We've Learned So Far
Part 1: The Mets do not have an ambition problem. They have an execution problem.
Part 2: The Mets' slow-start problem is not a standings problem. It is a pressure-amplification problem.
Part 3: The Yankees did not eliminate pressure. They learned how to carry it.
Part 4: The Braves win because they reduce randomness better than almost anyone else.
Part 5: The Dodgers do not use money to buy certainty. They use money to create flexibility.
Next: Part 6 – Citi Field Is Still Part of the Problem
The Yankees teach stability. The Braves teach resilience. The Dodgers teach flexibility. But the Mets face challenges unique to their environment. Before deciding what the Mets should become, we need to understand the obstacles they must overcome.
2 comments:
You will probably get to this in part six, but the coal soggy weather in New York, makes New York and Queens, a tough place for players to want to come. Meanwhile, the Dodgers have a big strategic advantage. If you are an Otani or one of their other Japanese players, the flight back to Japan is much shorter. The weather is great, and you can afford the best of the best out there in terms of living conditions. If I were a star, Japanese player coming up through their system overseas, I would really strongly consider playing for the Dodgers. Perennial winners, now, and for all of the reasons I mention above.
Yes, mechanics of Citi field & implications are coming this Saturday.
The Mets need to identify & cultivate their structural advantages & mitigate structural disadvantages wherever possible.
Fortunately, Steve Cohan has the resources to focus on both. The key is to correctly identify eacj
Post a Comment