Dodgers Trade Deadline Thoughts: Time to Play It Cool
With the trade deadline fast approaching for Major League Baseball, the NL West-leading Dodgers have some questions to answer.
Can we get better player-wise?
Do we feel like we can win in the playoffs with this team?
The Dodgers, of course, can always get better. And even in the middle of a losing skid, the Dodgers should feel more than capable of winning in the playoffs.
Is there a missing piece the team needs? Possibly. But with a current seven-game lead in the NL West and one of the best records in baseball, the Dodgers are sitting pretty player-wise heading into the weekend.
Last season, the Dodgers landed Manny Ramirez in a three-team trade at the deadline, and, without a doubt, it has changed the face of the team.
The Dodgers' image, mentality and scoring changed as soon as Manny slipped on No. 99.
A big-game player aquired at the deadline can breathe new life into a team; but the Dodgers don't need new life this season.
While losing has become an issue as of late, it is strictly because of team performance, not because of a chemistry or lack of talent problem. The Dodgers have been one of the best teams in Major League Baseball all season, and while I feel they should sit quietly at the deadline, they will still stay atop the West.
As the old saying goes: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," and the Dodgers are nothing close to being broken. They have their issues that need to be worked out before the playoffs, but nothing that can't be fixed from the inside.
This weekend, expect the Dodgers to play it cool and let other teams scrap away over new talent. The Dodgers have been a team to beat all season, and they will continue to be just that with the talent they already have.
Ken Armer is a Senior Writer at Bleacher Report and a Community Leader for both the NHL and Dallas Stars. Ken also covers the Los Angeles Dodgers and Anaheim Ducks for SoCalSportsHub.com. He can be reached at email@example.com.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?