The 2013 projection for the Dodgers from Dan Szymborski‘s ZiPS system was released last week, and given that it’s probably my favorite forecasting tool, it’s worth a look to see how the team fared.

Forecasting is not a complete science, obviously, and I’ll address some of the potential pitfalls as we go along, but it’s better to use objective tools like these than the hopes/dreams of fans or the bitterness/wishes of haters.

To start us off, how does the team fare, generally speaking? A solid playoff contender, for sure, but a super team? Doesn’t seem likely.

—–

The Field Players

Despite all the hype over the recent acquisitions, the key cogs in this machine are still Clayton Kershaw and Matt Kemp. It’s a promising sign then, that Kemp projects at a 144 OPS+ and the system has confidence in him continuing to put up offensive numbers in the ~.900 OPS range. His defense in center still lags below average, but his bat more than makes up for it. His playing time projection has dropped due to his injury woes last season, and quite frankly, it’s hard to fault it for that. Regardless, he still figures to be the most valuable field player on the team.

Adrian Gonzalez is slated to be another bright spot, as ZiPS pegs him to bounceback a bit, though not as much as some want, clocking in at an ~.830 OPS/128 OPS+. That would still be his lowest OPS+ since 2008 (besides 2012, of course), but it’s a marked improvement considering his age and negatively trending skills. A-Gon compensates for that lagging bat a bit by putting up plus defense almost worth a win by itself. Hanley Ramirez factors in as yet another bounceback candidate, projecting at a 115 OPS+, which is an upgrade over last year’s 106 and is closer to his pre-2011 production. Defensively, even his horribad -8 run defensive rating is optimistic to me, as he was truly terrible with the glove last year. Given that I already wanted to barf seeing him trying to turn a double play in 2012, I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see him put up horrid defensive numbers after basically not playing the position all of spring.

Unfortunately, that’s where a lot of the offensive optimism ends. Luis Cruz checks in at 84 OPS+ (106 last year), which will anger many fans, but is completely reasonable given the track record. He remains valuable through plus defense, though given the sample size, there’s reason to be skeptical there as well. A.J. Ellis at 96 OPS+ (118) is another depressing but completely logical projection, as evidenced by everybody’s surprise in 2012 at his potent bat. Andre Ethier at 112 OPS+ (123) is hard to figure for me, because he has been consistently putting up ~120 OPS+ seasons even if it has come down from the ~130 OPS+ range two years ago. I suppose the projection system thinks he’ll get old in a hurry … or maybe it just thinks he’ll face an inordinately high amount of lefties. Mark Ellis at 81 OPS+ (93) shouldn’t be much of a surprise considering he’s 36 and put up an 80 OPS+ at Coors Field in 2011.

The last guy of the starters is Carl Crawford, who is the enigma of the 2013 season. He checks in at 104, which is notable because it’s basically his career OPS+ and it’s about what he did in limited time in 2012 over in Boston. That’s of particular note for me, because what he did in Boston in 2012 can be attributed to a mechanical fix that I pointed out in an article for Baseball Prospectus. Understandably, his playing time checks in low, but if he can produce like he did in 2012 but over a whole season, the Dodgers will be much better for it.

Overall, after fixing the playing time of A.J., adjusting Ethier’s offense up a bit, and adjusting Hanley’s defense down a bit, the starting lineup totaled about 22 WAR.

—–

The Bench & The Prospects

Assuming a bench of Tim Federowicz, Scott Van Slyke or Alex Castellanos, Jerry Hairston Jr., Nick Punto, and Skip Schumaker, we’re looking at around 3 WAR here after playing time is adjusted back to realistic bench levels. I’m guessing Alfredo Amezaga or Tony Gwynn Jr. work their way in somehow, but a five-man bench seems likely initially if the Dodgers can’t deal multiple pitchers before the season starts. Neither player would affect the WAR projection much though.

Honestly? I have to hope the Dodgers do something to improve the bench, because the current configuration looks rather mediocre, and the other options are keeping Juan Uribe and/or Elian Herrera. Yuck.

The good news is that Joc Pederson, T-Fed, SVS, and Castle are projected to be solid at the MLB level, though it sees Dee Gordon basically languishing behind.

—–

The Rotation

Clayton Kershaw is simply a beast, and he figures to check in with a 75 FIP-. This might seem high considering his 2011 and 2012 ERA- figures of 63 and 67, respectively, but when you consider that Felix Hernandez clocks in at 78 FIP- for 2013, you get the picture.

What might surprise is how close new acquisition Zack Greinke comes in behind him, as he figures to put up an FIP- of 81. Granted, he has always projected favorably, as his career FIP- is 80, while his career ERA- is 88, but even adjusting slightly for that, there’s a definite case there for the best 1-2 punch in the majors.

Unfortunately, this is where it gets murky, as Chad Billingsley has the stuff to be the #3, but if I were a betting man, I would bet his elbow implodes before July. He projects at 92 FIP-, which would put him around last year’s performance, which was his arguably his best season since 2008. However, given the nature of his injury and its history in the league, you can basically never rely on him to stay healthy again until he has Tommy John surgery.

Next in the pecking order are Josh Beckett, who comes in below-average at 103, and foreign import Hyun Jin Ryu, who comes in well below-average at 116. As mentioned before, the scouting reports for Beckett match this projection, as he’s no longer a front-line starter due to his decrease in velocity. However, if he can manage to learn to pitch a bit more, he still has the curve to perhaps slot in as a #3 more than a #4. Ryu is a case where I would take any projection with a mound of salt, because there’s hardly anything to base objective projections on. Personally, I don’t think Ryu has the stuff to be a #2, nor do I think he’ll be a #3 on a team with a $250 million payroll, but he should slot in comfortably in the back-end of the rotation for years. I would project something slightly below-average for 2013 and then hope for better.

The rotation is a strong point because it has both arguably the best 1-2 punch in the majors and depth, with Chris Capuano (108 FIP-) and Aaron Harang (114 FIP) presumably traded for upgrades (or maybe kept somehow?), and it checks in at about 17 WAR.

—–

The Bullpen & The Prospects

As of right now, I’m assuming a bullpen of Brandon League, Kenley Jansen, Ronald Belisario, Javy Guerra, Matt Guerrier, J.P. Howell, and Ted Lilly.

Jansen is the best of the bunch (63 FIP-) and League projects a distant second (92 FIP-), but Belisario has the most upside in these projections (101 FIP-). After that, Guerra, Guerrier, and Howell are all around replacement level. Lilly projects as a league-average pitcher, assuming he’s healthy, which would be a boon to a team that has a ticking time bomb in the rotation.

As far as prospects go, ZiPS thinks Chris Reed could be a replacement-level fill-in right now, but Zach Lee, Matt Magill, and Garrett Gould need more seasoning. And for all of you who have Stephen Fife wet dreams (yes, you’re out there), he projects at a 4.91 FIP, so keep it in your pants.

Speaking of replacement level, that especially applies to the Dodgers bullpen because of Shawn Tolleson, Scott Elbert, Steven Ames, and Paco Rodriguez, so the 4 WAR projection for this pen figures to be solid.

—–

Team Projection

A replacement-level team figures to win 43 games, and the team with the lowest amount of wins to get into the playoffs last year was the Cardinals at 88 wins, so 42 WAR puts you in the contender range and 45 WAR makes you viable, while 50 WAR will generally make a team a safe bet to be in the postseason. The Dodgers total 46 WAR, which puts them well within the playoff hunt: good but not great.

The Dodgers basically project neck-and-neck with the rival Giants, while the D-Backs lag behind a bit by maybe a half dozen wins or so, but they’re well within striking distance as well.

So make no mistake, the Dodgers recent spending habits did not make them an elite team, as the money simply duct-taped over both a flawed team and farm system depleted by Frank McCourt‘s ownership and Ned Colletti‘s questionable decisions. But that’s not to denigrate the job the new owners have done, as they turned the franchise into a legitimate playoff contender seemingly overnight, which is still saying a lot about what money can do.

Granted, “we gave you a team that has the chance to make the playoffs” is not what fans want to hear, but it’s an acceptable scenario as they lay the foundation to rebuild the franchise the correct way in their own minds. The 2013 projections might not reflect world-beaters like most seem to expect, but it’s a projection based on historical trends rather than hopes and dreams.

The 2013 Dodgers are indeed a team with a lot of upside, and if everything breaks correctly, they could very well end up being one of the best teams in the league, but they also carry a ton of inherent age and injury risk, which is why the projections come in understandably conservative. Either way, if nothing else, this team figures to be never boring.

The Dodgers have signed Dominican outfielder Ariel Sandoval for $150,000, according to Baseball America‘s Ben Badler.

The scouting report on Sandoval is promising:

Sandoval is 6-foot-2, 180 pounds and impressed the Dodgers with his potential to hit for both average and power from the right side of the plate. He’s an above-average runner who should begin his career in center field, though he has the arm strength to play right field if he outgrows the position.

Sandoval, 17, marks the first international amateur signing of over six figures since the new international scouting regime of the Dodgers was put into place. His signing is indicative of the continued emphasis on international player development that was lost under the Frank McCourt regime.

—–

The Dodgers have signed Felipe Burin, Eliezer Alfonzo, Brian Barden, Ramon Castro, and Matt Palmer to minor-league deals, and the latter four have invitations to Spring Training. The team also re-signed Danny Carela. Alfonzo and Castro, in particular, are the ones to pay attention to, as they will likely be looked at to push Tim Federowicz in camp.

As part of the ebb and flow nature of the game, the Dodgers released Derek Cone, Ronny Lugo, Bret Montgomery, Jason West, Mike Drowne, Matt Laney, Greg Wilborn, Steve Domecus, Andrew Edge, Kevin Thompson, Scott Woodward, and Charlie Mirabal. No real surprises here as far as I can tell.

=====

Greg Zakwin is the founder of the site Plaschke Thy Sweater Is Argyle. Follow him on Twitter @ArgyledPlaschke.

I’ve already been wrong before about the Dodgers ownership and their willingness to spend. I figured they would be willing to open up the checkbook, but assumed they would stop short of the luxury tax, much like the Yankees have tried to do in recent years. Instead? They have blown that limit away and now project to enter 2013 with the highest payroll in MLB history.

As such, I understand when analysts and fans cite an unlimited payroll and assume the Dodgers could acquire anybody at any time. After all, who besides Steve Dilbeck legitimately thought the Adrian Gonzalez/Carl Crawford/Josh Beckett deal was remotely realistic, much less likely? Still, what I find disturbing is this new rhetoric going around where the Dodgers have so much money to blow that payroll efficiency and management has now been rendered unnecessary.

Not only are they assuming that the Dodgers have an unlimited payroll, which is a significant assumption in itself, but also that the lack of payroll restrictions will exist for an indefinite amount of time far into the future.

If that were true though, then why not seriously go out and sign Zack Greinke, Hiroki Kuroda, Anibal Sanchez, Josh Hamilton, Michael Bourn, and Mike Napoli?

“Oh you’re just being facetious.”

No, I’m being dead serious. If there literally was no limit to the wealth, then why not? All of the mentioned players would help upgrade the current roster, would they not? So if money isn’t an object, just designate players to clear room and sign them all. Then offer Andre Ethier, Yasiel Puig, and Zach Lee plus their entire contracts to the Mets for David Wright and then re-sign him for 10 years.

The reason why you’re probably saying that I’m nuts right now is because you know in reality that the payroll isn’t actually unlimited, we just haven’t seen what it is yet. As such, I stick with my assumption that there is a cap in mind and that it still needs to be managed on some level. The higher payroll provides the advantage of being able to fill holes with elite players in case the farm system is bereft of them, as the team is able to absorb the risk that other teams cannot. However, while overpays are to be expected in certain cases, what exactly is the point of overpaying average players?

Like on the Brandon League deal I see a lot of people going with the logic of “yeah, he’s not worth that much, but the payroll is unlimited anyway”. Well where would be your limit? I fail to understand where people would draw the line in these cases. Why not five years and $40 million? What difference does it make under the unlimited payroll logic? Five years and $75 million? There’s no end to it, really.

The rationale just doesn’t make sense to me. It’s the same train of thought as “well he’s better than James Loney” or “well he’s better than Juan Uribe”.

GREAT.

It’s a $200 million team, at what point does that stop being an excuse?

Now I understand that the instinct is to be optimistic, especially coming off the Frank McCourt ownership. I get it, perhaps more than most do, but I also feel that because there’s been no consequences for the team’s actions as of yet, people are getting way too deep into the forest made out of money to see the trees. It’s as if reality has been temporarily suspended and we all moved to this fairy tale land where spending money inefficiently has no consequences. And here I am, with my hand meekly raised, simply inquiring when that has EVER been true in baseball.

Then again, that’s just the conservative approach to things, and the Dodgers have blown past my assumptions before.

LAist: In what I had not seen reported anywhere else, oddly enough, Dodger Stadium is scheduled for renovations.

ESPN Los Angeles: Jamie McCourt is suing Frank McCourt for fraud. I’m sure we could fill the Grand Canyon with the amount of shits you all give.

—–

Mike Scioscia’s Tragic Illness: Mike Petriello says that the people already declaring the Adrian Gonzalez trade a failure are off-base. He’s right, of course, since this was always a long-term deal.

MLB.com: John Ely and Joc Pederson were named the Dodgers minor league players of the year.

—–

The Wall Street Journal: Now we have scientific proof that Vin Scully is awesome.

I previously complimented (sorta) Ned Colletti for potentially taking a sabermetric stance on the issue of Andre Ethier hitting against lefties, but after reading the rest of the interview with Barry Bloom of MLB.com, perhaps I spoke too soon.

MLB.com: Do you think there has been enough time for all these parts to fit together?

Colletti: What guys have been through as a group is always going to be a factor. The guys who are together the beginning of camp are different than those who come on Aug. 25. At the same time, you also have expectations. There was so much fanfare around that trade. It’s natural for players to come in and press and want to do well. Sometimes the harder you try, the tougher it gets. Still, in Adrian’s case you’re talking about 20 RBIs in a month. I’ll take that. I’ll take that the rest of his Dodger career. The deals we made were to really give us a chance to win this year, but [also] to fortify ourselves going forward. When we made these trades, we thought that these players were going to be with us for a while.

You know, I understand that this was basically just a public relations interview. I know I shouldn’t read into it too much, but if he didn’t believe in some of this crap, there’s no reason he had to say it the way he does.

He could easily say, “I just think Adrian Gonzalez needs time to adjust, and if you look at his recent performance, he’s having better at-bats.”

That would be logical and understandable, and it’s a position many are taking.

Instead, what does he do? He cites RBI in a month and says that what A-Gon’s done for the Dodgers to this point is what he’ll take for the rest of the contract.

Um … but with the Dodgers so far, A-Gon has a .276/.326/.425/.751 line. So no, I’d rather not just “take that”.

MLB.com: Do you feel this team has underachieved?

Colletti: I think it’s tough to tell, because we’ve made so many changes and so many different things happened. Whenever you have injuries to key players, it changes your dynamic. When a guy like Matt Kemp comes back after missing 51 games, it’s tough to play yourself back into shape. You don’t have six weeks of Spring Training that you can inject into a season. It’s so much more compact and so much shorter. When you have an injury as serious as he had, it really changed the whole context of the season.

So to say that we underachieved as a team, to grade that, you almost have to have a full complement all year. If Matt Kemp had played 162 games, if everybody had played the full year and we didn’t make trades we made and all the adjustments that they entailed, it might be a different dynamic. We might have as many DL days as any team in baseball. It’s unfair to characterize it as underachieving, because we fought through so many things.

Who thought this was a good idea? Is this supposed to appease fans? Nobody is gonna feel sorry for the Dodgers anymore, and the expectations are now much higher.

Why not just explain that there were a lot of injuries this year and then acknowledge that the team struggled after the trade, but add that he expects them to be fine for next year with an offseason of stability? You can admit something was disappointing and still subtly deny that it was your fault.

Maybe straight up making excuses worked when everybody felt sorry for the staff while under Frank McCourt, but the baby gloves type of handling simply won’t happen anymore. And it shouldn’t.

Mike Scioscia’s Tragic Illness: Even though he’s away from home right now, I think Mike Petriello comes away from the trade with the right approach.

So how am I feeling about it today? I think Gonzalez is going to be an incredible fit in LA, especially considering that reports of his demise in Boston seem overblown (he was outstanding last year and has been very good for much of this year after a slow start) and that he never seemed to want to leave Southern California in the first place. It’s a high price to pay, but if he is what we think he is – and don’t forget, there was little available in the first base market next year, so if you’re spending money, this is how you do it – and the team becomes a consistent contender, I think it’ll be a price we can live with.

And if not? The next decade could get ugly, fast. For now, I’m cautiously optimistic, but mainly excited for the rest of the season.

I’m the same. Hopeful, but wary for reasons that I believe are legitimate. Far too many Dodgers fans pretending this is highway robbery in our favor, in my opinion.

Dodger Thoughts: Jon Weisman invokes Pedro Martinez for Delino DeShields.

The chances of De La Rosa becoming one of the greatest pitchers of all time might be slim, but De La Rosa doesn’t have to become the second Pedro to represent a major loss for the Dodgers. He could just be really good, while Gonzalez apes DeShields’ decline.

Like I said, I’m hungry for a World Series title, and I’m not saying the risk of trading De La Rosa won’t be worth it. Don’t misunderstand me: The Dodgers need a player like Gonzalez, who boosts them at their weakest position. I even believe that a move back to his Southern California roots and away from the Red Sox maelstrom could revitalize him.

All I’m saying is, short of Clayton Kershaw, the trade of any other pitcher besides De La Rosa would have left me more comfortable.

Not sure I agree with the people flipping out on him, especially if the Dodgers can’t upgrade their rotation significantly in the coming years. However, I think Adrian Gonzalez is a far better player and Rubby De La Rosa, while one of my favorites, won’t get to ace level.

Sports Illustrated: Jay Jaffe acknowledges the risk and the reward, saying that if nothing else it makes the season compelling.

All in all, it’s a dizzying deal that could affect not only the outcome of this year’s NL playoff races, but also could turn the Dodgers into the NL West’s powerhouse for years to come, with an enviable middle of the order starring Kemp, Gonzalez, Ramirez and Ethier. Or it could blow up in the team’s collective face, saddling the Dodgers with unproductive players signed to long-term deals, and hampering their roster flexibility much as it did these Red Sox.

Given their surrender of two top young arms, and the massive savings — and saving face — that the deal offered Boston, the Dodgers should have come away with far more than $12 million in salary discounts. That they didn’t puts virtually all of the risk on them, but it makes for a compellingly aggressive play in a playoff race that remains wide open.

True Blue LA: Eric Stephen notes that the team is headed for the luxury tax.

Dodgers Now: Stan Kasten says they aren’t maxed out yet though.

If the Dodgers can add $260 million to their payroll in one trade — and close to a half-billion dollars in four months — is there a limit to their spending?

“Somewhere, I suppose,” Chairman Mark Walter said Saturday.

And where might that limit be?

“I haven’t found it yet,” President Stan Kasten said. “I’ll let you know when we get there.”

Not sure how much of that is rhetoric, but I think we’ll see in the 2013 off-season.

FanGraphs: Dave Cameron thinks it doesn’t make sense from a baseball perspective but that it might make sense if the Dodgers make a deep run into the playoffs due to financials.

From a purely baseball standpoint, this investment doesn’t make sense. Gonzalez isn’t valuable enough to make him worth taking on the albatross contracts of Crawford and Beckett, and the Dodgers almost certainly could have gotten a better bang for their buck in free agency this winter. However, making moves this winter won’t get people interested in the Dodgers in the same way that a deep playoff run this year will.

I’m getting a lot of similar comments on Twitter, so I know this isn’t a rare opinion, but I have to wonder how legitimate the train of thought is. Dodgers fans show up regardless of how the team is doing, and the only reason attendance plummeted last year was because of a fan boycott of Frank McCourt. Even with all the turmoil, they were sixth in attendance last year, and this year they’re already back up to third. As such, I don’t buy the argument that they needed to do this during the season to make the playoffs otherwise fans wouldn’t come back and they wouldn’t make money. If the tens of millions from potential playoff revenue is going to make or break a team with billions of dollars looming, then there are bigger problems here.

Also, I don’t buy that this is to create buzz for a media deal. We’re all speculating, but logically I don’t see why cable companies, who negotiate deals like this all the time, would be swayed off their valuation due to a small sample size and not take into account the big 15-to-25 year picture. It’s already rumored to be in the $8 billion range, so how much higher could it go? Maybe they are that dumb, I dunno, but it seems iffy to assume so.

There’s no getting around the fact that the Dodgers likely just paid $20 for a gallon of milk. Given the prices everyone else is paying for milk, that seems pretty silly. If you happen to have lots of $20 bills and no milk, however, and there’s only one guy selling milk in your immediate vicinity, maybe you just complain about price gouging and hand over the $20. Depending on just how many $20s the Dodgers ownership has, this might not end up being quite as nuts as it looks on the surface.

Or, maybe I’m just over-thinking all of this, and the Dodgers just made a horrible, horrible trade. I’m honestly not sure.

Maybe, but I can’t see this trade destroying the team down the road. It might make for an inferior roster, but as long as they continue to spend, the team will be competitive. I’d just rather have to go through as little big money decline phases as possible.

ESPN: Buster Olney names his winners and losers … with the Dodgers on both.

Winners: The Dodgers of 2012

They are markedly better today than they were before this deal. Adrian Gonzalez is perfect for their lineup, their lineup balance, their defense and their ballpark, and he knows the division from his many years with the Padres. Beckett might be energized, and he gets to shift out of one of the best-hitting divisions to one of the worst.

Winners: Magic Johnson, Stan Kasten and the rest of the Dodgers’ ownership group

In less than four months, these owners have managed to completely rebrand the franchise, and, even if the Dodgers don’t make the playoffs this year, they’ve set themselves up for a major bounce forward in attendance and interest and team success in 2013. The city might throw them a parade even if they don’t win the World Series because, ding-dong, the Frank McCourt era is over.

Losers: The Dodgers of 2017

The team’s stunning spending spree feels good today, but Los Angeles has set itself up to have a roster loaded with aging stars in about five years — Matt Kemp, Gonzalez, Crawford and Andre Ethier all have contracts that run through that season. By then, the Dodgers’ farm system should be replenished, and the club’s ownership should have the resources to pave over that type of problem in the way the Yankees have — and, in any event, Dodgers fans won’t have to worry about that for a while.

ESPN: Keith Law takes a good now and bad later approach as well.

This deal could end up looking good for both sides, better for the Dodgers in the very short term but much better for the Red Sox in the long term. Boston enters this winter with a new financial lease on life, freeing the Sox up to spend in a weak free-agent market or perhaps to take on a large contract someone else would like to move (Cliff Lee? Justin Upton?).

They’re also looking at a pretty interesting group of position-player prospects racing up the system, led by Xander Bogaerts, who has improved his defense at shortstop this year and might defy earlier expectations and stay at the position. That potential for an inexpensive core should help Boston avoid a similar tangle of large contracts in the near future, just at a point when the Dodgers are facing a financial quagmire and roster crunch of their own.

Baseball executives are chiming in on the trade, basically questioning what the Dodgers are doing.

Rival exec on #Dodgers: “If you had $250M to spend, is this how you’d do it?”

— Ken Rosenthal (@Ken_Rosenthal) August 25, 2012

Rival execs are wondering why LADs didn’t simply say to BOS: We’ll take your bad contracts, but we’re not giving you any prospects of note.

— Buster Olney (@Buster_ESPN) August 25, 2012

NL exec view:”The Dodgers so wanted Gonzalez they took Crawford and Beckett’s money and traded two great arms to get him.”

— Peter Gammons (@pgammo) August 25, 2012

While I don’t necessarily disagree with their assessment, one has to wonder how much of this is legit and how much of this is just being jealous.

The most talked about news of late regarding the Dodgers is Ed Desser of The Hollywood Reporter estimating that the Dodgers television rights deal could be worth anywhere from $4.5 billion to $8.5 billion depending on the route ownership chooses to go.

Sign a Rights Deal

Most Major League Baseball teams license about 150 regular-season games a year for regional telecast. The Dodgers can extend the license arrangements with Fox and/or KCAL; make deals with other stations in the market; contract with the two Time Warner Cable sports networks that launch Oct. 1; or license a new entity or some combination of these alternatives. Given the competitive marketplace for Dodgers rights, we estimate average annual rights fees between $175 million and $225 million. Assuming a 20-year initial term — the length of a deal recently inked by the L.A. Angels of Anaheim — this low-risk arrangement could be worth $4.5 billion.

Start a Network

The Dodgers could start their own regional sports network. In this scenario, they would essentially “sell” the rights to themselves and compete with their jilted suitors. The team would control production, ad and sponsor sales integration, team-related support programming and distribution of its product. But it would also undertake far greater risk, effectively “doubling down” rather than outsourcing the risk. Several teams have successfully launched such networks (the New York Yankees/Brooklyn Nets YES Network, Boston Red Sox/Bruins NESN). However, others have been unsuccessful in such endeavors in the past decade (Minnesota Twins, Kansas City Royals). Because of the wide range of potential distribution outcomes, we estimate average annual revenue from as little as $125 million to as much as $425 million. Over 20 years, if everything were to go very well, this could be worth $8.5 billion, including rights, profits and equity value.

The Hybrid Model

The Angels, San Francisco Giants and Texas Rangers have partnered with Fox and Comcast regional sports network operators to license their rights and obtain a share of equity ownership. The risks of obtaining distribution are effectively mitigated, and a large entertainment company provides the financial backing. The Dodgers could make such a deal with Fox or TW Cable. They could also take on production, sales, financial and/or distribution partner(s) to gain greater control but with lower risk and upside. With predictable distribution, the difference in value turns on the ownership percentage the team might obtain, the rights fee and the network’s profitability. We estimate the annual value to the Dodgers of $225 million to $375 million. A 20-year deal could be worth $7.5 billion in rights, profits and equity.

That’s all well and good, but I see this being used by people as justification for spending any amount of money on any amount of players, and quite frankly, it’s a bit scary.

While I’m certainly as excited about having payroll freedom as any fan is, I don’t agree with the sudden attitude shift. It’s as if the mindset now boils down to, “OMG! TEAM HAS MONEY! SPEND IT ON ALL THE BEST FREE AGENTS! WHO CARES WHAT IT COSTS?!”

Sort of an ironic attitude to adopt as we complain about the Yankees and Red Sox and mock the Giants for Barry Zito‘s deal, no?

—–

Fandom aside, my primary concern lies in the luxury tax serving as a de facto salary cap.

The luxury tax remained relatively unchanged in the new CBA. The threshold level for the luxury tax will be $178 million in both 2012 and 2013 (the same as it was in 2011), and will be raised to $189 million from 2014-2016.

I talk about it being a salary cap because under the new CBA, it has become punitive enough that even the Yankees are looking to head under the luxury tax by 2014. The Red Sox apparently aren’t immune to it either, as they traded their starting shortstop for a situational lefty before the 2012 season in what now appears to be an effort to avoid the luxury tax.

Given that the Dodgers payroll for 2012 now stands at $138,083,695, and that the team has already committed $148,383,716 in 2013 and $93,875,000 in 2014, I don’t think throwing money around wildly as if the Dodgers now have no limits is exactly the wisest course of action for the franchise.

To put the payroll situation in perspective, the Dodgers are already one big ticket signing away from being on the edge of the luxury tax next year, so people suggesting that the team go out and dump money in front of Zack Greinke, Josh Hamilton, and everybody else on the market might want to pump the brakes a bit before the team ends up with as little payroll flexibility as they had before Frank McCourt got evicted.

R.J. Anderson looked at Ned Colletti‘s trade history over at Baseball Prospectus and wondered why Dodgers fans are so worried about him.

Colletti’s evaluation mistakes cost the Dodgers two middle-of-the-rotation starters, an All-Star catcher, and a good fourth outfielder at most. But what about the flip side? What about when Colletti correctly evaluated his own prospects? Silver wrote, “One of [Colletti's] strengths seems to be knowing when to bail on his own players.” In the time since, Colletti has reaffirmed that notion. Some of Colletti’s better trades have come when correctly identifying the lemons in his own bunch. He traded Bryan Morris and LaRoche to acquire Manny Ramirez (easily the best deal of his career), used the intrigue of Joel Guzman to land Julio Lugo (whom, for whatever reason, fell to pieces, mitigating an otherwise clever deal), grabbed Jon Garland for Tony Abreu, got Jim Thome for nothing, and added Ted Lilly and Ryan Theriot for Blake DeWitt and two prospects who were unable to make the Cubs’ top-20 list this preseason.

Tagging Colletti as a good or bad general manager adds no value. What can add value is breaking general managers down to tools and skills. Colletti seems to understand that future value is worth less than present value, particularly when his team has the ability to compete now and the resources to compete later. Proper evaluation is the engine in Colletti’s machine. That means the Dodgers have to continue to land potentially useful players and continue to evaluate and harvest the potentially overvalued prospects. Every once and a while, Colletti is going to miss on a player. It happens; even John Schuerholz, the master of farm system self-evaluation, lost a few times.

This isn’t to say that Dodgers fans should have blind faith in Colletti, just that cowering in fear seems to be equally as unreasonable.

Andrew Grant addressed the notion that Ned Colletti’s not that bad of a General Manager over at Mike Scioscia’s Tragic Illness.

Ned Colletti isn’t without his merits. He’s good at assembling a bullpen on the cheap and the Dodgers get more mileage out of their veteran utility guys than most teams, but these are minor things in the big picture. Colletti inherited a dream situation, the best farm system in baseball with a payroll in the upper echelons of the league and the more it has become his team, the worse it has gotten. If you compare Ned’s moves to Bobo the General Managing Chimp he looks great, but if you assume a base level of competence from your GM Ned falls massively. James Loney’s monthly home run doesn’t make him a good player, so all of Ned’s moves not failing miserably shouldn’t make him a good GM.

I was actually going to write something similar, including using the exact same links he used, but instead, I’ll just address the question of whether Dodgers fans are justified in worrying at the trading deadline.

—–

Despite my derision of him as a General Manager, Ned Colletti has, in my estimation, specific strengths and weaknesses. He is terrible at major free agent signings, but fringe/average on the minor free agent deals. He’s good at trading away major league talent (usually guys that he signed, unfortunately) for useful minor leaguers. And as Andrew showed, he’s basically average at trading away minor league players, but it’s rare that he gets value in return for all that he trades away.

Coincidentally or not, his strengths all seem to derive from scouting and evaluation of minor league players (trading for minor leaguers/drafting minor leaguers/trading away minor leaguers). Such opinions were earlier justified in quantifiable form by The Hardball Times. Now I’m not saying that all the minor league strengths are due to Kim Ng/Logan White/De Jon Watson, but that is their job description, and two of those three were with the team before any of us were aware Colletti existed.

—–

So with that established, I don’t understand how or why R.J. gives Colletti credit for getting present talent in return on trades as if that’s what happens all the time when Colletti deals away minor league players.

Looking at the trades he has made over the years, it’s a bit odd to use that angle. Manny Ramirez was a once-in-a-lifetime scenario in which the Red Sox had to dump a Hall Of Fame talent, even the most ardent fan of Ned Colletti would have to admit that, and that’s ignoring entirely the report that Frank McCourt was the one who made it happen because he wanted to sell tickets. Andre Ethier was Colletti’s shining moment, and despite what Nate Silver said, I loved the trade at the time. Again though, that’s clearly not a deadline deal where he acquires current talent in exchange for future talent. Quite the opposite actually, and it’s certainly not what Dodgers fans are worrying about here.

So why are they worried? Because essentially, he has lost an All-Star catcher (a good one, at worst), two middle-of-the-rotation guys, and an outfielder who would have definitely started for the Dodgers over the years in return for what? Greg Maddux and Casey Blake for two months? Neither of which vaulted the Dodgers to the next level in the present or future.

As such, I would say Dodgers fans are justified to be worried about Colletti at the deadline. That is, unless David Wright decides to push over a Mets employee, bad mouth the Mets in the press, and quit on the team or Bobby Abreu blows his top and becomes a clubhouse cancer, forcing a deal for a minor league prospect. Because while the odds are good that he’ll both get nothing that helps the team and give away nothing that matters, more often than not, when the players involved have mattered, he’s come out on the losing end.

Via Vin Scully Is My Homeboy

So according to Alex Angert of MLB.com, the Dodgers are winning because they like each other … or something to that effect.

But in the Dodgers’ clubhouse, it provides the best possible answer as to why this mixed-and-matched bunch of journeymen and callups have been able to string together the best record in baseball at 42-25.

Not a surprising article, and quite frankly, I expected one sooner.

Whenever a team achieves something above what was expected, the media generally takes the easy way out and attributes the success to chemistry or some other intangible. It’s a simple justification for a complicated reality, and it basically amounts to saying, “We were wrong, but not actually wrong, we just couldn’t see the things that nobody else could have seen either!” But that’s lazy to me, and it’s almost completely devoid of responsibility.

For my part, I predicted the 2012 Dodgers to check in at 81-81, and I actually thought I was being optimistic due to the projection models of everyone else.

As for my mea culpa, I’ll simply say that I was wrong, but for quantifiable/real reasons.

—–

Quite simply, they are winning because they are good on paper, not because of mysterious forces. The team’s Pythagorean record is 40-27, they are 42-25. Their third-order wins record (factors in opponent quality/statistical normalization) is 39-28, good for second in the NL and fourth in the MLB. Their performance thus far shows that they’ve simply been legitimately good.

Now whether the talent level is legit is a different story. Nobody had the Dodgers as one of the most talented teams in the majors, which is still probably true. So what accounts for their success? Heart and grit and stuff, right? Not really.

They have shown to have more talent than projected, despite certain positions still remaining mediocre. While Clayton Kershaw has come back to Earth a bit, Matt Kemp not only didn’t regress but actually progressed (while healthy), and Andre Ethier is on pace for the best season of his career. Jerry Hairston Jr., Bobby Abreu, Elian Herrera, Chris Capuano, and Aaron Harang, despite impending regression, have all shown to have talent levels above their projections as well. Not to mention that the bullpen has been rock solid despite being almost entirely reliant on team controlled arms from the farm system.

That talent, however, hasn’t succeeded on its own, as the team currently own the second highest BABIP in the majors at .318. Furthermore, while their ERA is second at 3.13, their FIP is sixth at 3.65 and their xFIP is 11th at 3.86. On an individual level, Abreu has a .431 BABIP, Herrera has a .410 BABIP, and I’ve already pointed out that the rotation has overachievers as well.

So the Dodgers have been winning because they’ve been partially extremely good and partially extremely fortunate. It’s an excellent combination that has powered the team to the best record in baseball despite injuries and mediocre talent at multiple positions. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with being both lucky and good. The fact that they are treading water without the guy who carried the team for April is amazing, and in a fortunate bit of timing, if they can continue to tread water until Kemp comes back, the team shouldn’t actually regress as hard as they would normally be expected to.

—–

So while I do believe that Don Mattingly is a great clubhouse guy and I do think his work has factored into the team’s success, I also believe that winning creates chemistry, not the other way around. It’s not hard to love each other when you hold the best record in baseball.

It’s easy to just assign a magical season to outstanding team chemistry or due karma now that the team is without Frank McCourt or the gravitational pull of Todd Coffey‘s gut helping to align the planets, but there are quantifiable reasons for their success without having to resort to intangibles and superstition.

Hopefully people recognize that, because doing otherwise sells the quality of their achievements short.

Click To Enlarge

That comment on Dodger Thoughts from Terry Pruett on the ownership situation basically sums up exactly what I feel about the recent controversy.

I must be the only one who couldn’t care less whether the Dodgers owners reveal their whole involvement with McCourt.

— Chad Moriyama (@ChadMoriyama) May 16, 2012

Far more concerned with the trading deadline, what the front office looks like, and 2013 payroll.

— Chad Moriyama (@ChadMoriyama) May 16, 2012

As far as what they do with their own money? It’s up to them.

I’ll criticize if they fail to do what it takes to make Dodger Stadium better, to make the other facilities better, and to make the team better.

They don’t owe me (or us) anything beyond that.

Via Vin Scully Is My Homeboy

With the Dodgers finalizing the transfer of ownership from Frank McCourt to Guggenheim Partners yesterday, the new owners held a press conference today to answer questions and make statements about the state of the team.

It went well.

“We’re not going to gouge the fans just because we paid a nice sum for this franchise,” Johnson said, disclosing that general parking would come down from $15 to $10. “We don’t want the fans to think because we wrote a big check [$2 billion], we’re going to stop writing checks for talent. We don’t want people to think we’re short on money now. That’s not the case.”

In what is a solid public relations move, Magic Johnson announced that the team would reduce parking prices.

Most importantly though, he says that they will pay for talent. Will they just throw money at the situation though?

No, says Stan Kasten.

“We have to make a [scouting and development] commitment nationally and, more importantly, internationally.”

Stan Kasten on the Dodgers payroll: “Can’t give you a number, but we’ll be in on every major free agent.”

— Molly Knight (@molly_knight) May 2, 2012

How about concerns that Mark Walter will meddle in personnel decisions like Frank McCourt did from time to time?

Walter on Stan Kasten: “It would be incredibly stupid of me to tell him how to run a baseball team.” #dodgers

— Bill Shaikin (@BillShaikin) May 3, 2012

How about the team’s image with fans and the public?

“I especially liked what Magic said about not having to reinvent the wheel, and what Kasten said about [players] interacting with fans. Fred Claire, when he was in charge of public relations, used to send us out in uniform to do clinics in places like Pasadena, Compton, the San Fernando Valley — all over Southern California. The fans here love baseball and proved it over the years.”

“Mr. O’Malley, you put pride in the Dodgers,” Johnson said, asking the former owner to stand. “What we want to do is bring the pride back to the city and organization. We want to win on the field and make sure the fans have the best experience they’ve ever had. We want to make sure it’s fan-friendly and safe.”

But wait, doesn’t Frank McCourt still get a share of the parking lot revenue?

In response to repeated questions about McCourt possibly capitalizing on parking revenue, Johnson and Walter quashed that possibility — Magic firmly so, in no uncertain terms.

“We own it 100 percent,” Johnson said. “He won’t get a dime for the parking.”

Walter stressed that McCourt can profit only from future development, adding, “We don’t have any current plans for development. Nothing can be developed unless we think it’s good for us.”

Thankfully, there was no “there’s a new sheriff in town” moment, nor was there a sign of impending disaster.

I have to say that they got their reign off to a great start by holding a near flawless introductory press conference.

Why not completely flawless?

Kasten will work alongside general manager Ned Colletti in personnel matters in an effort to return the Dodgers to a place of consistent excellence.

Makes it sound like Ned Colletti will be sticking around or something. Ugh.

I’ve expressed my concern with that before, but I’ve also said that if Stan Kasten thinks keeping him on board is the right move, then I’ll try to evaluate him as a different GM under the new regime.

In Stan we trust, right?

We’ll see, but Colletti is now easily the part of the organization that I’m most concerned about.

—–

Magic Johnson and Mark Walter both took parting shots at Frank McCourt, even if they weren’t direct.

Magic: “Let’s move forward. Frank is not here. He is not part of the Dodgers any more. We should be clapping for that.”

— Bill Shaikin (@BillShaikin) May 2, 2012

New #Dodgers owner Mark Walter, who lives in Chicago: “I do plan to get a residence here. Just one residence.”

— Bill Shaikin (@BillShaikin) May 2, 2012

Glorious.

After having the sale delayed by a day, the Los Angeles Dodgers are finally, and thankfully, free from the clutches of Frank McCourt.

Source: #Dodgers sale has closed. McCourt era has ended.

— Bill Shaikin (@BillShaikin) May 1, 2012

With that done, now the Dodgers are going to win every World Series for the next decade, right? Well, not quite.

As bad as Frank McCourt was, the product that has been run out on the field in recent years is not all his doing, as not only Ned Colletti, but everybody in the front office has their hands on that. Despite the fast start to 2012, Stan Kasten and company have a long road ahead to rebuild the farm system, the team’s international presence, and reputation as a perennial contender.

Then there’s the owners, Guggenheim Partners, who have been quiet for a while now, sans Magic Johnson occasionally sending out basic public relations tweets. Well, now that they’re officially owners of the team, there will rightfully be questions about how they will go about their business. They now need to be able to provide the answers to those questions, because we’ve been waiting for a long time.

The situation that they’ve stumbled into is an ideal one for ownership.

Just don’t screw it up.

Andrew Ross Sorkin of the New York Times recently wrote an article about the new owners of the Los Angeles Dodgers, and it wasn’t exactly flattering.

Mr. Walter, along with his colleague Todd Boehly, Guggenheim’s president, appear to be living out a childhood fantasy using other people’s money, some of whom may not even realize it.

In addition to their own cash, Mr. Walter plans to use money from Guggenheim subsidiaries that are insurance companies — some state-regulated — to pay for a big chunk of his purchase of the Dodgers. Guggenheim controls Guggenheim Life, a life insurer, and Security Benefit, which manages some $30 billion, among others.

So basically, the inference is that they are taking money from other people and spending it for themselves.

Josh Koblin of Deadspin joins in as well, saying it’s all too good to be true.

Did it seem too good to be true when news hit that Magic Johnson and a series of investors had $2 billion to pay for the Dodgers, to rescue the team from financial ruin? Yup. Two weeks later, it looks too good to be true.

Tom Verducci of Sports Illustrated says others have concerns as well.

Major League Baseball officials have expressed concern that Guggenheim Baseball Management, the winning bidders for the Los Angeles Dodgers, has been slow to produce the details of the bid and the structure of its management team, according to several sources familiar with the sale process.

Several individual owners have joined baseball officials in questioning why the Guggenheim group, led by Mark Walter, Stan Kasten and Magic Johnson, has not filed a more detailed Purchase and Sale Agreement more than a week after the group was selected from among three finalists by Frank McCourt, the outgoing owner who is selling the club through U.S. Bankruptcy Court.

Not good, right?

Well, according to the New York Times, what is the major malfunction?

Using insurance money — which is typically supposed to be invested in simple, safe assets — to buy a baseball team, the ultimate toy for the ultrarich, seems like a lawsuit waiting to happen. Mr. Walters has been somewhat open in acknowledging that Guggenheim’s companies will be tapped, but the investor group has not disclosed how much of the purchase price is coming from individuals.

A lawsuit … why?

How is a baseball team not a simple and safe asset anyway? The only reason Frank McCourt was forced to sell to begin with was because of his divorce, and even then, he ACTUALLY DID steal from Dodgers fans for his own personal use, got away with it, declared bankruptcy, and is now a billionaire. Is there any way to try HARDER to lose everything in a baseball franchise and still not do it?

Yet I’m supposed to panic about the new owners tapping an insurance company under their control for funds, as if the Dodgers are going to go belly up and screw over all those insured by the company under the Guggenheim Partners umbrella?

In fairness, many insurance companies use their premiums to make investments, including private equity and real estate deals, a slice of which can sometimes even be speculative. As long as the insurance companies meet minimum capital requirements as determined by various regulators, they do not run afoul of the law.

Oh, so the big deal here is surely that they haven’t gotten cleared by the regulators, right?

People involved in the process who are close to Guggenheim said that while the company was using its insurance companies to pay for the Dodgers, it was a very good, prudent deal for its investors and policyholders. As long-term investors, these people said, the new owners could afford to be patient to see a return.

One person involved in the deal, as a point of comparison, noted that MetLife had paid $400 million for the naming rights to Giants Stadium. “This is a much better deal,” this person said. As for MetLife, “They don’t own anything.”

In a statement, one of Guggenheim’s regulators, Stephen W. Robertson, the Indiana commissioner of insurance, said: “Guggenheim’s past dealings with the Indiana Department of Insurance have demonstrated to us that the company and its representatives are of the highest integrity, and we have not taken exception to any interest Guggenheim may have in the Los Angeles Dodgers, nor do we plan to do so.”

So the regulators don’t see the problem either. Wait, what am I supposed to be pissed about again?

I’m seriously not trying to be an apologist here. If anything, I’m even more cautious about owners now, which is the only reason I’m even addressing this, but it just seems to me like there’s not even smoke here, just a bunch of people yelling fire.

The joint venture between the ownership group led by Magic Johnson and soon-to-be former Los Angeles Dodgers owner Frank McCourt for land around Dodger Stadium will not allow McCourt to reap any profits from parking revenue, according to three sources with knowledge of the situation.

Under terms of the deal, no development would take place on the lots unless the Johnson group and McCourt agree. The deal also ensures that McCourt can retain partial ownership of the lots and share in any future development revenue.

The money fans pay to park at Dodgers games goes to the new ownership group.

So go back to the stadium and stop whining.

Thanks.

As the excitement from getting out from under Frank McCourt‘s reign dies down a bit, we’ll have to start analyzing exactly what the hell just happened, both good and bad. Well, in an effort to do exactly that, Arash Markazi of ESPN Los Angeles talked to economists about the sale of the Los Angeles Dodgers, and he found that the $2 billion price tag has them skeptical about the deal.

“It was an extraordinary and surprising price,” said Andrew Zimbalist, a professor of economics at Smith College. “I rarely admit to not anticipating these things but I did not anticipate a $2 billion price. Keep in mind, in addition to the price, the new ownership group will have to invest something in the neighborhood of $300 million to refurbishing Dodger Stadium and that price does not include $150 million for the surrounding real estate. At the end of the day, you have to question this deal.”

“It’s the craziest deal ever; it makes no sense. That’s why you saw so many groups drop out,” said Mark Rosentraub, a University of Michigan sports management professor. “I don’t get it. The numbers just don’t work. It doesn’t make business sense. Nobody came up with this number. Under the most favorable circumstance you broke $1.1 billion with $1.4 billion getting crazy. Now you’re up in the $2 billion range, which is over $800 million more than what pencils out for a profitable investment for a baseball team. If making money doesn’t count, this is a great move. But now we’re into buying art and I can’t value art. I can just run the model numbers and this doesn’t make sense.”

Johnson, however, still can’t make all the numbers of the record sale of the team add up for many economists, who are skeptical that this deal will prove to be a success in the end.

“If they can figure out a way to put a basket above the pitcher’s mound maybe it will be a great match,” Zimbalist said. “Look, Magic is an icon in L.A. It creates a new energy that will be positive for the club, but this group has a big challenge ahead of them and it remains to be seen if the price they paid for the club was a good choice or not.”

The thing that jumped out at me right away is that they are primarily talking about whether it’s a smart business deal. As in, whether or not Mark Walter and Guggenheim Partners make money off this transaction.

Personally, I think that’s a moot point for fans. In the end, I don’t actually care whether the owners are making a profit hand over fist or are breaking even or are in the red, all I care about is whether the Dodgers will be a better team on the field with them in charge.

Of course, to an extent, there’s a legitimate argument that profitability would be tied to the amount of money they would spend on players, so the question is whether the bid total will affect the amount of money they can inject into the roster.

“One of the things that commissioner Selig was trying to avoid when he did not authorize the contract between McCourt and Fox was he thought McCourt would take the money and pocket it instead of using it to build the Dodgers,” Zimbalist said. “That indirectly will happen anyway because McCourt is going to get his money and the new ownership will have to use a good chunk of the television money to pay off their asset purchase.”

Unlike the Angels and Texas Rangers, which signed a similar 20-year, $3 billion deal with Fox, the Dodgers’ new television deal won’t simply be a nice influx of cash used to upgrade the roster. It will likely be used to pay for the team, pay for improvements to the stadium and pay for developing the land surrounding the stadium.

Maybe there’s a point there, that the Dodgers won’t be able to spend all of the rumored $3 billion to $4 billion that they’re supposed to make through the television deal on roster improvements, but I’m skeptical about Andrew Zimbalist‘s skepticism regarding how the deal with affect what the franchise spends on the payroll.

Basically, I just can’t see how they’d be willing to drop so much money, bank so much on the value of television rights and the fans coming back in droves, and yet fail to take advantage of all that momentum by not investing in the product on the field.

Maybe it’s just me, but it sounds awful farfetched that they would do all of this just to let the team continue to lose.

Oh, and about those parking lots, Bill Shaikin of the Los Angeles Times says that Magic Johnson‘s group will control them.

Parking lots will be controlled by Magic’s group.

#Dodgers deal allows Magic group to control parking lots for games, Magic and McCourt to jointly pursue any development of lots.

Clarification on joint venture in parking lots: Magic and McCourt would have to agree on any development. Magic can veto any plans.

Besides, the thing that jumped off the page to me is Zimbalist’s overt bitterness towards McCourt getting paid.

“It’s problematic,” Zimbalist said. “He was looking for some kind of ongoing income stream and he got it. Here’s a guy who borrowed practically all the money to buy the team for $430 million and now he’s selling it for $2.15 billion and he’s coming out with a healthy capital gain — it’s repulsive. This is someone who doesn’t deserve to walk away with a healthy profit after eight years of running the Dodgers in the most egregious, the most inefficient, the most self-interested, and the most vainglorious, idiotic way possible. It really is repulsive that he will still be making a profit in some way.”

Not many have been as publicly pissed off at McCourt as me, but even I think this little rant makes him appear anything but objective. The emotion in it just makes him and the rest of the story come off as a bunch of angry economists who are pissed that McCourt is getting paid off for his bullshit actions.

It’s not like I’m saying Dodgers fans should be happy about McCourt cashing in, but why should we concern ourselves with the morality of him getting paid? McCourt had a valuable asset and profited from it. No shocker there, and it’s irrelevant to why we enjoy sports and watching the team.

In that same vein, are you honestly going to care whether or not Walter and Magic make billions of dollars in profit if the product on the field is quality?

I won’t care one bit and I don’t think you should either.

Matthew Futterman (tee hee) of the Wall Street Journal has details on Magic Johnson‘s group’s winning bid on the Los Angeles Dodgers.

With a bid of $2.15 billion, including the surrounding land, Mr. Johnson, controlling partner Mark Walter and partners Peter Guber, Stan Kasten, Bobby Patton and Todd Boehly beat out a group of some of the wealthiest businessmen in the country to land a team that is one of Major League Baseball’s flagship franchises. The sales figure shatters the previous record sales price for a U.S. sports franchise, Steve Ross’s purchase of the Miami Dolphins for $1.1 billion three years ago.

But buying the Dodgers now comes with a unique opportunity to launch a potentially lucrative regional sports network in the country’s second-largest market, or sign a new local broadcast deal with the current broadcaster, News Corp.’s Fox unit, which has already offered the team a 17-year extension valued at nearly $3 billion. (News Corp. also owns The Wall Street Journal).

$3 billion is a ton, but David Wharton of the Los Angeles Times speculates that the price could be even higher, as much as $4 billion.

With Time Warner, Fox and others expected to show interest, estimates for the total value of the deal have risen as high as $4 billion.

“None of this is lost on the new owners of the Dodgers,” said Neal Pilson, former president of CBS Sports. “They have an opportunity to create a bidding war.”

So along with that surprisingly high $2 billion bid that had some people concerned are individuals who apparently knew what they were doing … unsurprisingly.

—–

The story of how Magic Johnson’s group won is rather amusing, as it basically amounts to making it rain cash on Frank McCourt.

According to a person involved with the process, the auction had been expected to take place Wednesday. Blackstone had asked the parties to submit sale contracts last week and deliver their initial offers by Tuesday morning, since approval of the bidders from Major League Baseball was expected to come easily on Tuesday afternoon. When the offers arrived, the bid from the Johnson-Walter group was so much higher than the competing offers, it essentially took the franchise off the block almost instantly.

The person said the other offers, which were perceived as opening bids, were in the range of $1.5 billion, some 25% less than the Johnson-Walter bid. As a result, the other bidders were never given a chance to match, and the deal was wrapped up by Tuesday evening.

The bid was described as a “100% cash offer.” Mr. Walter is making a significant personal contribution to the purchase price, with Guggenheim Partners, of which he is chief executive, playing a substantial role in financial contribution.

The deal is preliminary and still has to go through a complicated closing process and receive approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware. However, Mr. McCourt is under pressure to complete the deal by April 30, one day before he owes his ex-wife a $131 million payment as part of their divorce settlement.

Bill Shaikin of the Los Angeles Times confirms that it was indeed a 100% cash bid and adds that it should not run into any difficulty, specifically because of the cash nature of the bid.

In my mind, I’m going to imagine that the group walked up to Frank McCourt and said, “Straight cash, homie.”

“What’s two billion dollars? To me?“

Ken Gurnick of MLB.com says so.

The Dodgers have reached an agreement to be sold to Magic Johnson’s bidding group, according to a baseball source. See http://dodgers.com.

Dennis Berman of the Wall Street Journal says it’s for $2 billion.

Breaking from WSJ: Magic Johnson-led group buys LA Dodgers for $2 billion, shattering all previous prices paid for sports franchises.

The official statement from the Los Angeles Dodgers and Frank McCourt.

The Los Angeles Dodgers and Frank McCourt Announce Agreement With Guggenheim Baseball Management

LOS ANGELES, March 27, 2012 – The Los Angeles Dodgers and Frank McCourt today announced an agreement under which Guggenheim Baseball Management LLC (“GBM”) will acquire the Los Angeles Dodgers for $2 billion upon completion of the closing process. The purchasing group includes Mark R. Walter as its controlling partner, as well as Earvin “Magic” Johnson, Peter Guber, Stan Kasten, Bobby Patton and Todd Boehly. Mr. McCourt and certain affiliates of the purchasers will also be forming a joint venture, which will acquire the Chavez Ravine property for an additional $150 million.

The Los Angeles Dodgers stated, “This transaction underscores the Debtors’ objective to maximize the value of their estate and to emerge from Chapter 11 under a successful Plan of Reorganization, under which all creditors are paid in full.”

Frank McCourt stated, “This agreement with Guggenheim reflects both the strength and future potential of the Los Angeles Dodgers, and assures that the Dodgers will have new ownership with deep local roots, which bodes well for the Dodgers, its fans and the Los Angeles community. We are delighted that this group will continue the important work we have started in the community, fulfilling our commitment to building 50 Dream Fields and helping with the effort to cure cancer.”

Earvin “Magic” Johnson stated, “I am thrilled to be part of the historic Dodger franchise and intend to build on the fantastic foundation laid by Frank McCourt as we drive the Dodgers back to the front page of the sports section in our wonderful community of Los Angeles.”

So in addition to a ton of expected fluff, the statement alludes to McCourt still being involved with the Chavez Ravine property, not exactly what Dodgers fans want to hear. With that said, I would wait before overreacting to any news on the parking lots, because it still isn’t known if McCourt’s a majority or minority partner in that.

Richard Sandomir of the New York Times, for instance, has McCourt selling the lots.

The Johnson group will spend $2 billion for the team and $150 million for a joint venture with the beleaguered seller, Frank McCourt, on the land surrounding Dodger Stadium, including the parking lots. McCourt had until recently resisted selling the lots, preferring instead to lease them to the new owner. McCourt bought the team in 2004.

Regardless, he’s out as owner, which is the main thing.

…

…

…

The amount of bidders in the Los Angeles Dodgers ownership saga was recently cut to three, setting up a showdown that is set to be resolved on April 1st.

The three finalists: a group led by hedge-fund billionaire Steven Cohen and Los Angeles billionaire and philanthropist Patrick Soon-Shiong; a group led by Magic Johnson and veteran baseball executive Stan Kasten; and St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke.

The parties eliminated: a partnership between Memphis Grizzlies owner Michael Heisley and Los Angeles investor Tony Ressler; and a bid by Stanley Gold and the family of the late Roy Disney.

Major league owners are set to vote on the three remaining bidders early next week. Final negotiations will then take place with McCourt and Blackstone Advisory Partners, the investment bank brokering the sale.

So what was that? Three days after they were reinstated in the bidding, the two groups were eliminated yet again.

Of course, that news doesn’t change much, as now we’re left with the same trio everybody pegged as favorites long ago, but the owners voting on candidates could reveal a lot about how the potential groups are viewed.

—–

While the fact that this mess is finally coming to a close is a relief to almost every observer, Major League Baseball, Fox Sports, and Jamie McCourt aren’t so thrilled with the way things are going.

With the sale of the Dodgers in its final stages, three key parties lodged objections Friday with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court.

Major League Baseball, Fox Sports and Jamie McCourt each raised concerns that they asked the court to consider on or before April 13, the day of the scheduled hearing to approve the Dodgers’ sale. The concerns appear unlikely to derail the sale.

Frank McCourt, the Dodgers’ outgoing owner, has agreed to provide the court with a sale agreement by April 6.

In its filing, MLB claimed that the Dodgers used overly broad and legally inconsistent language in phrasing how the league and the team would release each other from future liability.

Fox Sports, which waged a successful legal battle to prevent Frank McCourt from marketing the Dodgers’ television rights as part of the sale, asserted the right to review the sale documents through April 28.

Jamie McCourt, the ex-wife of Frank McCourt, asked for assurances that the $131 million she is owed in a divorce settlement would be promptly disbursed from the sale proceeds. The Dodgers on Thursday asked the court to dismiss Jamie McCourt’s bankruptcy claim, saying she would be paid not by the Dodgers but by Frank McCourt personally.

As long as it doesn’t affect the sale, they could take every penny from Frank McCourt and I couldn’t care less.

—–

Joe Torre got his job back from Bud Selig after his failed attempt at buying the team.

Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig restored Torre as executive vice president of baseball operations, the position Torre vacated Jan. 4 to join Los Angeles developer Rick Caruso in bidding for the Dodgers.

As long as he’s away from the Dodgers.

Mike Ozanian of Forbes brings the potentially awesome news that the Los Angeles Dodgers ownership bidders want the parking lots as part of the deal.

The five remaining groups bidding for Major League Baseball’s Los Angeles Dodgers want the roughly 130 acres of land Dodger Stadium’s parking lots sit on to be included with their current offers for the team. The current bids for the Dodgers range from $1.3 billion to $1.6 billion.

According to a high-ranking baseball executive familiar with the bids who spoke on the condition of anonymity, the potential owners do not simply want the right to lease the parking lots at Dodger Stadium from team owner Frank McCourt, they want outright ownership of the land. The Dodgers would not comment but in the past have said on several occasions that the parking lots were not part of the auction.

Talk about an outstanding turn of events.

I hope the executive in question is correct, as this report is in contrast to everything that has been speculated before.

To us fans, it represents a major issue.

Regardless of which group wins the bid, I think not having any association left with Frank McCourt will get fans back into the stadium, just on the basis that we (the fans) would be totally done with that scumbag.

Dodger fans get criticized a lot for a lot of dumb stuff, but we can always be relied on to show up in droves unless your ownership gets boycotted by fans, so cutting ties with the man who somehow managed to make fans angry enough to not show up is probably the best move going forward.

After yesterday’s news that Alan Casden was out of the ownership bidding war, Mike Ozanian of Forbes revealed that Leo Hindery was eliminated as well.

A person familiar with the meetings held today between the seven groups remaining in the bidding for Frank McCourt’s Dodgers and Major League Baseball said the league’s owners were impressed with offers from the following parties: billionaire hedge fund titan Steve Cohenand agent Art Tellem; Magic Johnson and Stan Kasten; billionaire St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke; Memphis Grizzlies billionaire owner Michael Heisley and investor Tony Ressler and Stanley Gold, chief executive officer of Shamrock Holdings, the investment company of the family of the late Roy Disney.

The highest bid was $1.6 billion, from former Los Angeles Lakers great Johnson and former baseball executive Kasten, whose purchase would be partially financed by private equity. But the owners were extremely impressed with the make up of Cohen’s bid, according to my source, which was $1.4 billion but included an astounding $900 million of equity. “There were five strong bids,” said the source, who did not have permission to speak of the negotiations publicly. The lowest bid from the five groups was $1.3 billion.

All the bids included the lease to the parking lots for Dodger Stadium, which would still be owned by McCourt.

MLB was not impressed with the structure of the bid by the group led Leo Hindery, managing partner of the private equity firm InterMedia Partners and former chief executive officer of the YES Network…

To be honest, I’m not sure how much credibility to give anybody but Bill Shaikin in this process, so take it with a grain of salt, but it appears the bidders are slowly being whittled down to everybody’s assumed three favorites.

—

Anyway, two things:

1) That’s two sources (maybe the same person, but confirmation, regardless) that believe Steven Cohen is the favorite.

2) The reality appears to be that Frank McCourt is keeping his damn parking lots.

Alan Casden will not be the next owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers, as he had his ownership bid rejected by Major League Baseball.

Casden, a Beverly Hills real estate developer, was not invited to Monday’s meetings between Dodgers bidders and two committees of major league owners.

The six bidding groups at the meetings: hedge-fund billionaire Steven Cohen and longtime agent Arn Tellem; St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke; Memphis Grizzlies owner Michael Heisley and Los Angeles investor Tony Ressler; Los Angeles civic leader and investor Stanley Gold; New York media executive Leo Hindery; and veteran baseball executive Stan Kasten and Guggenheim Partners Chief Executive Mark Walter. Magic Johnson, who is a partner with Kasten and Guggenheim, was unable to attend because of a scheduling conflict.

So it’s down to six, but three clear favorites have emerged.

Cohen is widely considered one of three favorites to buy the team, along with St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke and a group led by Magic Johnson and veteran baseball executive Stan Kasten.

Steven Cohen appears to clearly be in the lead, but why?

There are several bidders offering $1.5 billion for the Dodgers. But who has the cash? Remember when Rick Caruso bailed? That wasn’t about the parking lots not being included, as Caruso so meekly claimed (how many teams own their own parking lots?). It was about Caruso not having the cash. MLB kicked out Jared Kushner because he didn’t have the cash either. He wanted to buy the Dodgers with too much debt. Been there, done that.

As expected, all of this comes down to money. Not so much total money bid, but who can give Frank McCourt the most money right now. As such, it appears that the three with the most are Cohen, Stan Kroenke, and Magic Johnson/Stan Kasten.

—–

Now I was going to write about the ownership situation in further detail, but Mike Petriello has already said a lot of the things I wanted to say.

I’ve been pretty apprehensive about Cohen since the first time we talked about him, arguing that a hedge fund guy under investigation from the SEC who’s had his own nightmare divorce which stretched over two decades isn’t exactly the ideal owner to follow up Frank McCourt. Besides, while it doesn’t bother me so much, I know the idea of another East Coast import (a Mets fan and recent buyer of a minority share in the club, Cohen currently lives in Connecticut) who has reportedly never even been to Dodger Stadium won’t sit well with any of us.

Yup. Do not want.

Then there’s Kroenke, who has some appeal. He’s clearly got a ton of experience in sports ownership, having owned parts or all of the St. Louis Rams, English soccer club Arsenal, and basically every professional Colorado sports club that isn’t the Rockies or Broncos, including the Nuggets (NBA), Avalanche (NHL), Mammoth (NLL), Rapids (MLS), and Crush (AFL). Beyond the teams themselves, his groups own the Pepsi Center in Denver and launched Altitude (a regional sports network which carries his Colorado teams) & TicketHorse, a ticketing agency for all of his teams.

He wrote a lot more on Kroenke, including finding an article from 2010 which talks about Kroenke’s management style, most of which paints him in a positive light.

Of course, the primary worry with him is that the Dodgers might be secondary to getting an NFL team in Los Angeles, as I mentioned previously.

—–

So basically, Magic Johnson’s group is still my favorite, but I’m starting to realize that Stan Kroenke brings a ton to the table as well. The worry is Steven Cohen because of a few black marks on his personal record, because I’m not convinced he’s actually interested in the team, and because he resembles Dr. Evil from “Austin Powers“.

Bill Shaikin of the Los Angeles Times reported earlier today that the Los Angeles Dodgers ownership sweepstakes is down to seven contestants.

I would have wrote about this earlier but napping was of greater importance.

Of the nine parties still in contention last week, the two eliminated Monday were Michael Heisley, owner of the NBA’s Memphis Grizzlies; and Tony Ressler, a minority investor in the Milwaukee Brewers and co-founder of Los Angeles-based Ares Management.

The remaining bidders include groups led by Johnson and veteran baseball executive Stan Kasten; Connecticut investment king Steven Cohen and longtime Los Angeles agent Arn Tellem; Stanley Gold and the family of the late Roy Disney; and New York media executive Leo Hindery in partnership with Tom Barrack, chairman of Santa Monica-based Colony Capital.

St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke, Beverly Hills-based real estate developer Alan Casden and Jared Kushner, owner and publisher of the New York Observer and son-in-law of Donald Trump, also remain in contention.

I honestly don’t care much about the two eliminated, maybe I would if I had any time to get an impression of them, but I didn’t.

It does worry me though that out of the seven groups there are three I don’t want (Steven Cohen/Jared Kushner/Stan Kroenke), three I don’t care about (Stanley Gold/Leo Hindery/Alan Casden), and one I want (Magic Johnson).

The remaining bidders proceed to a multilayered review by Major League Baseball, including consideration by two committees of owners. Each bidder then will be subject to a vote of all owners, with three-fourths approval required.

While we can hope that they eliminate the owners who allow Frank McCourt to keep the parking lots, it won’t happen, since it was Bud Selig who agreed to allow him to negotiate those terms to begin with.

Honestly though, how many Dodgers fans are going to be happy if the new owner starts off his era by letting McCourt keep the parking lots?

Not understanding why one would drop so much money on a franchise and get off to a bad start with the fans.

Bill Shaikin of the Los Angeles Times reports that the joint bid of Joe Torre and Rick Caruso has withdrawn from the Los Angeles Dodgers ownership sweepstakes.

Los Angeles developer Rick Caruso and former Dodgers manager Joe Torre have withdrawn a joint bid to buy the Dodgers.

Which is fine, as I didn’t want Torre involved as owner to begin with, but the reason for the withdrawal was the potentially disturbing part.

Caruso and Torre cited owner Frank McCourt’s refusal to include the Dodger Stadium parking lots in the sale, according to a letter, dated last Friday, that the men sent to Major League Baseball. The Times obtained a copy of the letter Thursday.

Caruso and Torre would reenter the bidding if McCourt would agree to sell the parking lots, people familiar with the sale process but not authorized to publicly speak about it said. McCourt has told people he has at least one bid in which the buyer would let him retain ownership of the parking lots.

Caruso and other bidders thought the purchase of the lots would be negotiable. However, in a recent meeting with Caruso, McCourt said he intends to keep the lots and develop them, according to the people familiar with the sale process.

McCourt and his advisors think the Dodgers can sell for at least $1.5 billion, even without the land. But at least one bid group discounted its offer by more than $300 million to account for the exclusion of the land, according to a person familiar with the process.

Sucks, right? Frank McCourt will still be hovering over the Dodgers even when he’s not the owner.

My initial reaction was probably the same as yours: “Oh what the fuck?”

However, it might not be all that bad. Mike Petriello explains that the source of the news is questionable to begin with:

But I’ll offer this: we just witnessed the winter of the “mystery team”. Who saw Prince Fielder going to the Tigers? Albert Pujols to the Angels? Yoenis Cespedes to the Athletics? You’ll notice that in the Shaikin story, the line that indicates McCourt has an offer that would allow him to keep the lots starts with the line, “McCourt has told people…” Well, I trust Bill Shaikin unconditionally, but that sentence might as well end with “…that Justin Bieber will be playing left field” or “…that he’s building parking lots on the moon.” Until we hear from a far more reputable source than Frank McCourt, we have no idea if there really is a bidder who is willing to let Frank stay involved. And if there’s not, then McCourt’s going to have no choice but to sell the team and the lots, if that’s the best he can do in the next few weeks.

To be clear, neither of us are questioning Shaikin, just the fact that it’s McCourt running his mouth about what he does and does not have in terms of bids at the moment. Take it with an ocean of salt.

Moreover, Rob McMillin explains that the lowered financial terms might force McCourt to sell the parking lots anyway:

This is a suspicion — and only that — but the $1.5 billion-plus bids the team is fielding now are at least in part contingent on the team being sold along with the parking lots. And if Frank is not selling the parking lots — as he has repeatedly said he won’t — along with the team, then the price will come down accordingly. As it has been my considered opinion that overpaying for the Dodgers will lead to bad teams (to make up for the overpayment), this cannot help but be a good thing in the short and long terms. My hope, anyway, is that McCourt intransigence will eventually mean he cannot recoup enough to make good with his wife. That will force him to sell the parking lots.

Rob was the first person I read to have a detailed account of why McCourt would be a terrible owner (back in like 2004), and I think the thought process here is logical enough. After all, I question how much bidders will be willing to pay if their ownership starts with the ghost of McCourt looming over it and with fans skeptical.

Either way, it’s not reason to panic … yet.

A common excuse for Ned Colletti defenders (here, in the comments) is to blame his recent lack of success on the current financial situation of the Los Angeles Dodgers brought upon by the nightmare ownership of Frank McCourt.

Generally speaking though, the lack of money hasn’t been the problem. Hell, it’s almost the opposite, as Colletti’s worst years as a GM were when the Dodgers had the most payroll flexibility due to an epic run of contributing prospects from the farm system.

#3) Los Angeles Dodgers — 95.5 WAR (3.98 WAR/player)

The recent legal troubles for the organization have sullied what was a solid run from 2006-2009. The latter portion of that stretch was driven by homegrown talent in every portion of the roster. Chad Billingsley and Clayton Kershaw headlined the rotation; Matt Kemp — and to a lesser extent Russell Martin and James Loney — provided value in the batting order; and Jonathan Broxton locked down the closer’s role. The Dodgers reached two consecutive Game 5’s in the NLCS in 2008 and 2009. The organization hopes that more recent draftees Dee Gordon, Zach Lee, and Nate Eovaldi can complement Kemp and Kershaw over the next three or four years and help the organization to a postseason berth yet again.

The study dates back to 2002, but the bulk of the value was contributed in the stretch after Colletti took over as GM, and given that payroll flexibility, he did nothing but sign big ticket disaster after big ticket disaster.

The fact of the matter is that as his freedom to sign large contracts evaporated, so did his tendency to bury the Dodgers under the dead weight of horrible deals. Don’t get me wrong, he still finds ways to make puzzling moves, like giving three years to Juan Uribe, but those errors are no longer soul crushing like the Jason Schmidt contract. While having money is a luxury, the underlying problem was always the decision making process and how to distribute the payroll intelligently, not the raw amount of payroll itself.

—–

Would the team have won a World Series or done any better with a different process? I don’t know, the playoffs are too much of a crapshoot to say.

What I do know is that the Dodgers squandered a ton of payroll flexibility on a lot of dead weight during the peak years of the team, and that’s not the fault of the owner, commissioner, or fans.

There’s nobody to blame for that mess other than Ned Colletti himself.

With the Los Angeles Dodgers in the news for the impending bidding war over the ownership of the team, I thought this would be as appropriate a time as ever to run through the publicly declared bidders, as the deadline for submission has come and gone.

Bill Shaikin of the Los Angeles Times breaks down the specifics of the bidding process in nice and tidy parts.

If McCourt has the final say on the new owner, what role does Major League Baseball play in the process?

MLB has agreed to approve up to 10 bidders. Yet Blackstone is unlikely to clear even that many bidders for MLB consideration, given the time needed for the league to investigate the structure and financing of each potential ownership group. To cover the costs of the investigation, MLB will charge $25,000 to each bidder cleared by Blackstone.

If MLB rejects a prospective bidder cleared by Blackstone, does McCourt have any recourse?

Yes. He can appeal to the mediator who brokered his settlement with MLB.

Do the other MLB owners have a say?

Yes. They can approve or reject any bidder that passes the MLB investigation. However, once the league informs Blackstone of which prospective buyers have been approved by MLB owners, McCourt conducts the final round of bidding and determines the winner. If the winning bidder’s final offer is dramatically higher than the initial offer, MLB reserves the right to review the financing.

When will this happen?

There is no set date, but the calendar suggests the end of March. McCourt has agreed to select the winning bidder by April 1 and disclose the winner to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court by April 6.

Outstanding stuff, as always.

Regarding the bidders themselves though, who are the groups and what good or bad traits do they bring to the table?

Let’s find out.

=====

Mark Cuban

The Good: A charismatic fan favorite of an owner, basically the exact opposite of Frank McCourt. His tenure as the Dallas Mavericks owner has obviously been a successful one, as he turned a joke of a franchise into a perennial contender. While his money has often been cited as the reason for the change, he has proven that he will explore any avenue that could potentially give his franchise an advantage. As such, he is unlikely to be as sabermetrics averse as the current Dodgers front office, as evidenced by his implementation of analytics in basketball to score his first NBA Championship.

The Bad: I’m not convinced he’s that legit of a threat to win. He’s not an idiot and he’s unlikely to go over whatever he has the Dodgers valued at, as he showed in the bidding for the Texas Rangers. While I’m confident he would find quality baseball men to run the franchise, he’s not going into the process with anybody in place.

My Take: I would love for him to be owner, as his history suggests he would make winning a priority and would explore the most efficient ways to do so. Unfortunately, I think it’s a long shot.

—–

Magic Johnson/Stan Kasten/Mark Walters

The Good: Magic Johnson instantly becomes the face of the ownership and it should go over extremely well with fans. Stan Kasten employs his experience with the Atlanta Braves and Washington Nationals to run the baseball operations. Mark Walters could use his eleventy trillion dollars to supplement the payroll and buy elite players. Seriously, Guggenheim Partners has over $100 billion in assets and he’s the CEO.

The Bad: Uh…none?

My Take: My current preference to win the bidding. I can’t see a better combination.

—–

Steven Cohen/Steve Greenberg/Arn Tellem

The Good: Founder of SAC Capital Advisors and a hedge fund manager, Steven Cohen is worth over $8 billion. The group’s baseball experience will come from Steve Greenberg, who served as a deputy commissioner of baseball, and Arn Tellem, who is a player agent for the Wasserman Media Group. Get to use puns on Arn Tellem’s name.

The Bad: In today’s political environment, it’s not exactly ideal in the public relations department to have a hedge fund manager as an owner, and especially not one whose company is under investigation by the SEC. Went through an ugly divorce that led to lawsuits. Sound familiar?

My Take: Do. Not. Want. I don’t want to deal with yet another owner with baggage. Haven’t Bud Selig and the other owners learned their lesson yet? Yes, other ownership groups could have drama, but this one has already been confirmed to have been involved in messes before, so why bother? My fear is that the Blackstone Group, which is in control of the sale, is a significant investor in SAC Capital Advisors, and that could give the latter a gigantic advantage.

—–

Rick Caruso/Joe Torre/Byron Trott

The Good: Joe Torre becomes the face of the franchise and has a ton of baseball experience. Despite his tenure with the Dodgers, I get the feeling that fans love him, and given that he just left a position with the MLB, he and Bud Selig should have a solid working relationship. Byron Trott, named by Warren Buffett as the only banker he trusts, heads BDT Capital Partners and was previously the vice chairman for Goldman Sachs. I would have the same concerns with him as I do with Steven Cohen, but he has no legal issues with his comapny and Buffett’s word carries weight. Rick Caruso is a local developer who is worth around $1.7 billion and has tons of local popularity.

The Bad: Honestly? Torre as the baseball man frightens me. A lot. He’s not progressive with his thinking at all and he never seemed to have a problem with Ned Colletti, leading me to believe he just might keep him around. Disastrous.

My Take: I don’t necessarily have a problem with the group, but the risk that Torre could regress the Dodgers to decades old thinking and retain Colletti is too much for me to bear. Out.

—–

Dennis Gilbert/Larry King/Jason Reese/Randy Wooster

The Good: Both Larry King and Dennis Gilbert are Dodgers fans, which is always a plus. King’s name carries weight, though I’m not sure he has any name value as a sports personality. Gilbert has extensive baseball experience as a former player agent, former player, and current special assistant to Jerry Reinsdorf, who owns the Chicago White Sox. Jason Reese and Randy Wooster are Chairman/CEO and President of Imperial Capital, a Los Angeles area investment bank, and the two will be providing the financial thump in the group.

The Bad: Not much public motivation, honestly. No idea if they actually have the money to compete.

My Take: If they have the money to spend competitively, then I have no issue with the group, but as of now, that’s a big unknown. There are rumors that they might have to hook up with Fox or Time Warner to get the finances to work. Ugh.

—–

Leo Hindery/Marc Utay

The Good: Leo Hindery is a Managing Partner at private equity fund InterMedia Partners, and he founded the YES Network for the New York Yankees and served as Chairman & CEO until 2004. Marc Utay is a Managing Partner at private equity firm Clarion Capital Partners. The pair of them tried to buy the Chicago Cubs back in 2009, so there’s a history there.

The Bad: They’ve been under the radar, and as a result not much has been revealed as to their finances or plans, so the biggest downside right now is the uncertainty.

My Take: Hard to judge what you know little about, so I can’t provide much positive or negative feedback until more is revealed.

—–

Steve Garvey/Orel Hershiser

The Good: Their resume in baseball speaks for itself, though little is known about their actual qualifications as executives. They certainly figure to have local support and can become the faces of the franchise.

The Bad: They don’t seem to have funding. Last time they spoke on the Dodgers, they were still looking for investors and it’s unknown who they found.

My Take: Not enough information to endorse two former players with unknown finances and unknown executive experience.

—–

Josh Macciello

The Good: He’s not a hedge fund manager or a banker or an executive, he’s a regular guy like you or me. He’s the CEO of ArmItal Sports and plans to use the gold mines he owns, which are valued in the tens of billions, as collateral for the purchase, so he says he has the financial backing.

The Bad: He’s a regular guy like you or me. The lack of baseball connections, the lack of executive experience, the lack of community support, and the legitimate questions about whether he would even be taken seriously by the commissioner and fellow owners. All of those are negatives.

My Take: I understand why fans might want to side with him, but I just can’t. It has little to do with his looks or his spelling or whatever else. It has more to do with the lack of experience in everything that I think an owner should be about.

—–

Stan Kroenke

The Good: Stan Kroenke is the largest shareholder in Arsenal F.C., owns the St. Louis Rams, Colorado Mammoth, and Colorado Rapids, and he formerly owned the Denver Nuggets, Colorado Avalanche, and Colorado Crush, all of which he transferred to his son to comply with NFL ownership rules. Needless to say, he has experience with this sort of thing and his teams have generally performed well under his tenure in charge.

The Bad: Perhaps his money will be spread a bit thin and I’m wondering if this has more to do with trying to move the Rams to Los Angeles than actually caring about the Dodgers. No idea about the baseball side of things.

My Take: I’m okay with this in theory, but I’m going to hold off on endorsing the move until more is revealed. We know a lot about him as an owner, but not a lot about his interest in the Dodgers.

—–

Potential Mergers And/Or Group Joiners

Peter O’Malley: Submitted an ownership bid himself, but has been rumored to be in discussions to link up with the bid of Stanley Gold & Roy Disney’s Family and/or Tony Ressler. A throwback to the good old days of Dodgers family ownership, but it’s probably not gonna help that he was talking about how terrible McCourt was as an owner considering McCourt will hold the ultimate decision.

Stanley Gold/Roy Disney’s Family: Submitted an ownership bid as their own group, but have been rumored to be linking up with Peter O’Malley and/or Tony Ressler. Gold is the President & CEO of Shamrock Holdings and has local popularity, but his financial clout is not known. Not much is known about what Roy Disney’s Family brings to the table either, I assume it’s money but nobody knows. Group is short on baseball experience.

Tony Ressler: Rumored to be linking up with either Stanley Gold & Roy Disney’s Family or Peter O’Malley or either or both. Co-founder of local investment firm Ares Capital, which has in excess of $40 billion in assets.

Tom Barrack: Chairman & CEO of investment firm Colony Capital has a net worth over $1 billion. Has been rumored to join several groups, but no specifics have popped up yet.

Fox: Seriously? No. Please no.

Time Warner Cable: They haven’t actually done anything wrong, but why get involved in this type of ownership situation again? Fool me once…

—–

Rumored Bidders

Alan Casden: A real estate developer worth over $1 billion, he might have more interest in the property the Dodgers own more than the team itself, which is disconcerting. Remember, this is the guy who tried to buy the team last time around and had plans to move Dodger Stadium to a different location. MLB didn’t want him last time because of an investigation into illegal campaign contributions to local politicians. Why deal with the headache?

Ron Burkle: Worth over $3 billion dollars, he is the current co-owner of the Pittsburgh Penguins. While no baseball people are rumored to be on board yet, he seems to carry a lot of weight locally. Divorce was…uh…messy.

Fred Claire/Andy Dolich/Ben Hwang: Fred Claire has experience as an executive with the Los Angeles Dodgers and Andy Dolich has experience as an executive with the Oakland Athletics. Ben Hwang, former executive at Life Technologies, will provide the finances for the group. The question mark revolves around money and whether they have enough of it.

Tom Golisano: Founder of Paychex is worth $1.4 billion and is the former owner of the Buffalo Sabres. Was preparing a bid, but it’s unknown whether he followed through or not. Worth noting is that Sabres fans criticized his lack of spending, and he’s on record as saying that the biggest payroll doesn’t lead to championships, which is correct in theory, but seems like code for not wanting to spend much.