time, right? Completely understand. But I'm going to ask you or make this comment and see what

you guys' thoughts are. Okay. I feel the reason that they're not DFAing Chris Taylor is because

he's almost at his 10th year of service time. Obviously, we know 10 years of service time means

lifelong benefits and pension for players. I think this is a play to attract free agents

later in their career that have a few years

left knowing that the Dodgers take care of their players.

Here's why, yeah, that's interesting, Alford.

No, no, but here's why his theory doesn't work.

Okay.

Had they kept Austin Barnes for the remainder of this year, he would have gotten that.

So they've already proven or at least shown that they're willing to make tough decisions.

And again, this, Mace, this isn't the boys club.

All right.

This isn't a participatory thing.

No.

If your bat dries up in year nine, the Dodgers aren't bad guys if they let you go.

You get your 10-year vesting if you play good in year 10.

So if Chris Taylor is not performing, I don't think the Dodgers should be criticized for letting him go.

What's amazing about it is how many times do you think Chris Taylor has been to the plate this year?

How many played appearances? I'd say less than 50. 32 times. He's only batted 32 times. I mean,

he's not serving any significant role with this team right now. Right. And Hei, and Hei-on-Kim is a five-tool player, man.

I'm telling you.

...