Dodgers Still Paying the Price for One of MLB’s Worst Contracts Ever: The $182 Million Mistake That Haunts the Franchise Today
The Los Angeles Dodgers are one of Major League Baseball’s premier franchises. They’ve consistently remained at the top of the sport thanks to a winning culture, elite player development, and a willingness to spend money to compete for championships. But even the most well-run organizations have their missteps, and for the Dodgers, one financial decision continues to loom large in hindsight—a decision now widely considered one of the worst contracts in MLB history: the $182 million deal given to Carl Crawford.
Back in August 2012, the Dodgers pulled off a blockbuster trade with the Boston Red Sox, acquiring a package of players that included first baseman Adrian Gonzalez, starting pitcher Josh Beckett, and outfielder Carl Crawford. The goal was simple: take advantage of new ownership under Guggenheim Baseball Management and inject the roster with talent capable of immediately competing. At the time, the Dodgers were a rising power and needed a spark to reestablish themselves as World Series contenders.
But while Gonzalez became a productive and steady bat in the middle of the Dodgers’ order, and Beckett delivered a few strong outings before injuries caught up with him, the Carl Crawford part of the deal turned out to be an outright disaster. The Dodgers not only acquired Crawford but took on the full remainder of his seven-year, $142 million contract that he had signed with Boston in 2010. Combined with other bonuses and incentives, it eventually cost the team a staggering $182 million.
Crawford’s time in Los Angeles was plagued with inconsistency, injuries, and disappointment. Once one of the most dynamic and electrifying players in baseball during his Tampa Bay Rays days, Crawford was a shell of that version by the time he arrived in L.A. The speed was diminished, the power was inconsistent, and the confidence seemed lost. What was expected to be a marquee addition to a superteam quickly became one of the biggest burdens on the payroll.
In four seasons with the Dodgers from 2013 to 2016, Crawford played in just 320 games out of a possible 648—barely half of the total. He posted a combined batting average of .278 with just 18 home runs and 99 RBIs over that span. While those numbers weren’t atrocious on paper, they were nowhere near the production expected of someone earning north of $20 million annually. His defensive skills, once a strength, also declined sharply. Injuries to his hamstring, back, and oblique continuously sidelined him, and his inability to stay healthy became the defining feature of his Dodgers tenure.
Perhaps more frustrating for the organization and fans was the opportunity cost. Crawford’s massive salary not only limited flexibility in free agency but also blocked younger, more promising talent from emerging in the outfield. For several years, the Dodgers were forced to platoon or shift pieces around to accommodate Crawford’s presence when he was available—even though his performance no longer warranted it.
The deal also stands out because it symbolized a short-term gamble that lacked long-term vision. When the Dodgers agreed to take on Crawford’s contract, they were attempting to accelerate their return to contention. But instead of investing in players with upside or future value, they bought into a fading star whose best years were behind him. It’s the kind of move that has come to define what not to do in modern team building, especially as analytics and long-term projections have become central to front office strategy.
Crawford was eventually designated for assignment in June 2016, despite still being owed more than $35 million. The Dodgers chose to eat the remainder of his deal rather than continue to carry a non-productive player on the roster—a painful but necessary move. At that moment, it became undeniably clear: the contract had failed in every possible way.
Even now, nearly a decade after the trade, the Carl Crawford deal remains a cautionary tale. While the Dodgers have since built a juggernaut team filled with homegrown stars and carefully curated free agents, the memory of that misfire continues to linger. It’s a reminder that even the richest teams can get it wrong. A deep checkbook doesn’t guarantee success if the scouting, timing, and judgment are off.
When examining MLB’s history of bad contracts, several names frequently come up—Albert Pujols with the Angels, Chris Davis with the Orioles, Jacoby Ellsbury with the Yankees. But Carl Crawford’s deal with the Dodgers deserves its own place on that infamous list, not only for the lack of return on investment but for the ripple effects it caused within a competitive roster.
The deal also highlighted the danger of taking on another team’s problems. The Red Sox, desperate to move on from an expensive and underperforming player, had found a willing partner in the Dodgers. For Boston, the trade was a masterstroke, allowing them to reset their payroll and eventually build a new contender. For the Dodgers, it was a lesson in overreaching—a gamble made with more hope than calculation.
In fairness, Carl Crawford himself never seemed indifferent or disengaged. By all accounts, he tried to stay on the field and contribute. Injuries simply derailed what had once been a promising career. Before joining the Red Sox, he had been a four-time All-Star, a Gold Glove winner, and one of the most feared base runners in the game. But the steep drop-off in performance post-2010 revealed the risk of betting on speed-based players in their 30s—a pattern MLB teams have since become more cautious about.
The Dodgers, to their credit, learned from the Crawford mistake. Since then, their front office has become one of the savviest in baseball. They’ve combined a strong farm system with calculated spending, investing big money in the right players—like Mookie Betts, Freddie Freeman, and Shohei Ohtani—while also developing internal stars like Walker Buehler, Will Smith, and Gavin Lux. The contrast between the Crawford era and the current Dodgers setup is striking. It’s what makes the misstep even more glaring in retrospect.
Looking back, the Crawford contract also underscores the evolution of baseball economics. In today’s game, teams are much more data-driven and cautious when it comes to aging players. Long-term deals are now scrutinized more heavily, and front offices are hyperaware of the risks involved in paying for past performance rather than future projection. The Crawford saga helped shape that shift.
For fans, the disappointment wasn’t just in the contract—it was in what could have been. Dodgers faithful hoped Crawford would bring the excitement he once provided in Tampa Bay, where he regularly stole 50-plus bases, hit for average, and covered vast outfield ground with ease. Instead, they got a player who never quite fit, who never found his rhythm, and who ultimately became synonymous with wasteful spending.
The media hasn’t forgotten either. To this day, Crawford’s name comes up in discussions about the worst MLB contracts of the 21st century. The numbers speak for themselves: over $180 million committed, a handful of average seasons, and zero playoff heroics. In a city like Los Angeles, where expectations are high and scrutiny is relentless, that kind of return simply isn’t acceptable.
And yet, every bad contract tells a story. For the Dodgers, Crawford’s deal was a turning point. It marked the end of an impulsive, win-now mindset and the beginning of a more strategic, sustainable approach to roster building. That shift helped turn the Dodgers into perennial contenders and eventual World Series champions in 2020. In some strange way, the pain of the Crawford contract forced the organization to be better.
Carl Crawford is now long removed from the game. His final MLB appearance came in 2016, and he’s since remained mostly out of the spotlight. But the financial impact of his time in L.A. lasted much longer. It served as a financial warning shot for the Dodgers and every other team looking to make a splashy trade or free-agent signing.
Baseball history is full of mistakes—bad trades, overhyped prospects, missed draft picks. But when it comes to sheer financial regret, few contracts match the $182 million that the Dodgers took on for Carl Crawford. It was, and remains, one of the most expensive lessons in Major League Baseball history.
