PDA

View Full Version : Dodgers on the block


JDP
01-15-2004, 08:10 AM
A deal, awaiting finalization from MLB owners, has the sale of the Dodgers at $430,000,000.

This having any affect on trading with LA now or in the future?

Also, anyone have any information on the selling price (if they were ever to be sold) of the White Sox?

Rex Hudler
01-15-2004, 10:16 AM
The sale of the Dodgers could include some roadblocks. LATrueBlue or Longshot might have better info on this if they live out that way. Apparently there could be issues on how much debt will be used to purchase the club.

Forbes estimates the value of the White Sox at $233 million. A sale price could be higher or lower that. That said, I doubt you will see a sale of the White Sox any time in the near future.

LATruBlue
01-15-2004, 02:22 PM
Several posters here in LA feel that the sale is directly affecting our ability to sign players to major contracts. Apparently, there was an article supposedly written by a LA Times reporter named Bill Shanklin (whom I haven't been able to locate yet), who wrote that Dan Evans was told at the last minute to stop negotiating with Vlad Guerrero because had the Dodgers inked him (which apparently they were about to) it would have thrown McCourt's debt/revenue ration out of whack and the owners wouldn't vote in favor for McCourt based on an indirect hint by Selig.

So that's why it is speculated that we haven't signed any big contracts yet. McCourt wants to but he fears losing the vote. Plus, it was speculated that when the deal is done then Dan will be given the go ahead but it may be too late then. Also, it was also believed that once Vlad found out that the vote had been postponed once again, he decided to take the Angel deal. Much of this speculation was aired by posters and the sports radio personalities out here.

McCourt is highly leveraged with loans, coupons, IOU's, and etc. to buy the Dodgers. Like trying to buy the Dodgers with credit cards as one poster said. According to an article in the LA Times yesterday, McCourt hasn't even put up any of his own money. Go figure. There is some debate on how liquid this guy is. He is only worth $400,000,000, yet, it was mentioned that that is not the problem.

This guy has me concerned. It looks like on the face of it that he doesn't have the deep pockets to compete. And if it reverts back to Fox, then who knows what Dan will able to do since Fox wants to lower payroll in order to attract buyers. This is a travesty for a team once able to compete to get anyoone they needed.

It is also speculated that should he get approval for the purchase, that he will start complaining that he needs a new stadium downtown. Many of us prefer Dodger Stadium because of it's history. We aren't looking forward to "Taco Bell" Stadium or whatever.

A.T. Money
01-15-2004, 03:45 PM
If Uncle Jerry loves the Dodgers, maybe he'll sell the Sox and buy them!

JDP
01-15-2004, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by LATruBlue
There is some debate on how liquid this guy is. He is only worth $400,000,000, yet, it was mentioned that that is not the problem.


He's only worth $400,000,000? Wonder how he'd feel about someone 1/2 to 1/3 his age being worth twice as much? Hehe.


So if the change in ownership prevented large contract additions for FA, then that is most likely the reason such salaries as PK (as a PK for Perez trade rumor) hasn't been and cannot be added. Therefore, it appears as if the only real "taker" for moving PK's sundial-like speed and GNP-like contract off this roster are approaching 0% fast.

LATruBlue
01-15-2004, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by A.T. Money
If Uncle Jerry loves the Dodgers, maybe he'll sell the Sox and buy them!

Ironically, JR is on one of the main committees concerning the Dodger purchase. JR and some guy representing Atlanta.

This is like a bad nightmare.

Some one must have ticked off the "Big Dodger" in the sky.

TommyJohn
01-15-2004, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by LATruBlue
It is also speculated that should he get approval for the purchase, that he will start complaining that he needs a new stadium downtown. Many of us prefer Dodger Stadium because of it's history. We aren't looking forward to "Taco Bell" Stadium or whatever.

I lived in SoCal for a few years and went to Dodger Stadium
a few times. It is a great place, clean, new-looking and with
tickets that are reasonably priced. ($6 for the outfield.) It
would be a shame if that place were torn down.

Rex Hudler
01-15-2004, 11:47 PM
It is also speculated that should he get approval for the purchase, that he will start complaining that he needs a new stadium downtown. Many of us prefer Dodger Stadium because of it's history. We aren't looking forward to "Taco Bell" Stadium or whatever.

But isn't Dodger Stadium part of the sale?? Why would he ask for a new stadium from the city when he owns the current one?

LATruBlue
01-16-2004, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
But isn't Dodger Stadium part of the sale?? Why would he ask for a new stadium from the city when he owns the current one?

Dodger Stadium lacks many of the amenities that the newer stadiums have. But more importantly, they would want the high priced luxury suites that Dodger Stadium doesn't have. Well, actually they do, they were added in later as an after thought, but you know how that is. I don't think the Dodgers can charge as much like they could if the luxury suites were fully integrated into the stadium. Not to mention, getting in and out is a challenge in of itself.

Sorta of like how the Lakers went from the Great Western Forum which lacked any suites to the Staples Center that has three levels of luxury suites and several restaurants and bars for those suites customers.

Although Dodger Stadium is one of the oldest stadiums in the baseball, it stills looks darn good.