LOS ANGELES _ The news is that the Dodgers have signed free-agent outfielder A.J. Pollock.
The story is that they won't be signing Bryce Harper.
The news is that the Dodgers have added an injury-prone former Arizona Diamondbacks center fielder whose stints on the disabled list frequently overshadow his elite defense and smart hitting.
The story is that, for yet another winter, baseball's richest team passed on baseball's richest available talent.
For all the swagger that Pollock will spread to the field and clubhouse, his presence will smother baseball boss Andrew Friedman with an even broader question.
Why Pollock and not Harper? Why a 31-year-old who has played one full season in his seven-year career and not a 26-year-old former MVP who is one of the best players in the game?
Certainly, Pollock is a right-handed hitter that the Dodgers' lefty-heavy lineup desperately needs, and his veteran presence should stabilize an outfield after the dumping of Yasiel Puig and Matt Kemp, with Joc Pederson possibly being traded next.
But isn't Pollock someone you sign in addition to Harper? Isn't he the complementary player you sign after you've landed the big star? Wouldn't this be like last summer's Lakers signing Chris Paul and passing on LeBron James?
Do you really give Pollock four years and $55 million when he's played 237 games in the last three years combined and has never had more than 21 homers or 76 runs batted in during a season?
Or do you dive into your TV riches, and your ticket riches, and your merchandising riches, and pony up whatever it takes to land one of baseball's true stars _ one who last season, when he supposedly struggled, still had 34 homers, 100 RBIs and a .393 on-base percentage?
Harper could have cost more than $300 million, but the Dodgers have the resources. Harper might want a 10-year deal, but at the end of that deal, he'd be barely older than Pollock at the end of his deal.
A.J. Pollock makes sense until you realize he's replacing Bryce Harper. Then his presence falls into the Dodgers' recent ominous offseason pattern of ignoring big-money acquisitions _ Giancarlo Stanton last year, for example _ in lieu of plugging the gaps with modestly priced gamers.
They continue to have one of the top payrolls in baseball, and their strategy has landed them in consecutive World Series, but they've lost both, and one wonders how much difference it would have made if they had just one more premier slugger, one more giant arm ... one Bryce Harper.
All of which leads to the biggest question posed by the Pollock acquisition, a question that fans have to ask themselves as the team continues to refuse to make the shiny purchase.
You can't watch them on TV while they're making $8.35 billion on their TV deal. You pay higher prices to sit in the stands even as their yearly revenues grow.
Just what are the Dodgers doing with your money?
