LA Times Columnist's Take on Ohtani Sparks Debate

A recent opinion piece by Los Angeles Times sportswriter Bill Plaschke has ignited a debate regarding Shohei Ohtani's future with the Los Angeles Dodgers, particularly after the team's early exit from the postseason. Plaschke suggested that if Ohtani insists on continuing his two-way playing career, the Dodgers should consider trading him.

The article from OutKick argues that Plaschke's take is "unhinged" and defies baseball logic. The core of Plaschke's argument, as reported, is that Ohtani's body is changing, his skills are deteriorating under the "burden" of a long career, and his pitching is "distracting him" and "exhausting him."

Plaschke's proposed solution is that the Dodgers "pull him off the pitching mound permanently" and, if he resists, "seriously consider trading him." This suggestion has been met with strong opposition, with the OutKick article characterizing it as "beyond insane."

Arguments against trading Ohtani, even if he were to face significant injuries that ended his pitching career, highlight his immense value. His offensive prowess alone is estimated to be worth $50-60 million annually. Even limited pitching usage, comparable to top relievers who throw 60-70 innings, is valued at an additional $20 million or more. The combined value of his hitting and pitching makes him arguably the most valuable player in baseball.

The piece also points to Ohtani's performance in the Dodgers' 2025 World Series-winning season, including a standout performance in Game 3 of the NLCS where he hit two home runs and pitched six shutout innings with 10 strikeouts. Furthermore, Ohtani's presence is credited with generating significant revenue for the Dodgers through advertising, marketing, and promotions, making his contract a considerable bargain despite its deferred nature.

Critics contend that Plaschke's take is not only illogical from a baseball and financial standpoint but also questions his ability to objectively cover the sport. The commentary suggests a focus on his "one true love; left-wing politics" might be more appropriate for his writing, implying his current approach is detrimental to both himself and the publication.