Dodgers to drop payroll to $75 million??

[JC]

IIRC, the McCourt ownership group was heavily leveraged when they purchased the Dodgers. It seemed like that sale went on forever as MLB delved pretty deeply into the finances.

Yeah, I also remember hearing that McCourt could barely afford a new Buick, let alone an upmarket MLB team. This news tends to lend credence to those reports, as I highly doubt the team's revenue stream has dried up nearly this much.

 

So why would MLB allow someone without much in the way of liquidity to purchase a major market team?

 

Your post assumes that MLB makes consistently good decisions. The contraction nightmare, growing evidence that it looked the other way with steroids, and the wart that is the ownerless Washington Nationals is evidence to the contrary.

[USSoccer]

IIRC, the McCourt ownership group was heavily leveraged when they purchased the Dodgers. It seemed like that sale went on forever as MLB delved pretty deeply into the finances.

Yeah, I also remember hearing that McCourt could barely afford a new Buick, let alone an upmarket MLB team. This news tends to lend credence to those reports, as I highly doubt the team's revenue stream has dried up nearly this much.

 

So why would MLB allow someone without much in the way of liquidity to purchase a major market team?

 

Your post assumes that MLB makes consistently good decisions. The contraction nightmare, growing evidence that it looked the other way with steroids, and the wart that is the ownerless Washington Nationals is evidence to the contrary.

 

Touche.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

The Dodgers, like the Cubs, have about $40MM in freed up money to spend this year--if they maintained recent payroll. What the news is indicating is that the cheapskate McCourt intends on absorbing most of that payroll deduction and not replacing it. Considering the Dodger history, its profitability, and its location in the #2 market, this outcome is heinous. Dodger fans should justifiably be scaling the ramparts, pitchforks and torches in hand.

 

Dodger fans have had their pitchforks and torches ready since McCourt bought the team and DePo took charge.

[NorthsideAvenger]

Where o' where is the "New Sherriff in town" Kevin Malone?

[LeftCoastCubFan]

The article is just a case of people who know nothing about money talking about it.

 

The Dodgers opening day payroll last year was 83 million. Of that 13.4 mil was paid to Darren Driefort who didn’t play in 2005 (and likely covered by insurance), a bad contract from the Fox days. So the true payroll for 2005 was really about 70 mil. If the budget is truly 75 mil it is an increase from last year, not a decrease. The 2004 budget was 93 mil, but again you have Dreifort at 12.4 mil plus they traded Shawn Green’s 16.7 mil that off-season.

 

You also have to remember that Fox sold the team because it was losing 25 plus mil a year. In 2004 Mc Court lost 20 mil (we wont know about 2005 till Forbes writes about it in April, but it is unlikely that they made a profit).

 

The Dodgers revenues are slightly less then the Cubs, and given the MLB debt rules (McCourt financed the complete purchase), the payroll is right around where it should be. You can fault McCourt for many things, but not the budget.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

The article is just a case of people who know nothing about money talking about it.

The Dodgers opening day payroll last year was 83 million. Of that 13.4 mil was paid to Darren Driefort who didn’t play in 2005 (and likely covered by insurance), a bad contract from the Fox days. So the true payroll for 2005 was really about 70 mil. If the budget is truly 75 mil it is an increase from last year, not a decrease. The 2004 budget was 93 mil, but again you have Dreifort at 12.4 mil plus they traded Shawn Green’s 16.7 mil that off-season.

 

You also have to remember that Fox sold the team because it was losing 25 plus mil a year. In 2004 Mc Court lost 20 mil (we wont know about 2005 till Forbes writes about it in April, but it is unlikely that they made a profit).

 

The Dodgers revenues are slightly less then the Cubs, and given the MLB debt rules (McCourt financed the complete purchase), the payroll is right around where it should be. You can fault McCourt for many things, but not the budget.

 

That's like saying the Cubs payroll was 87M instead of 100M in '05 b/c of Sosa's contract and then saying that if the 2006 payroll was 90M, it would be an increase in payroll. :?

[LeftCoastCubFan]

The article is just a case of people who know nothing about money talking about it.

The Dodgers opening day payroll last year was 83 million. Of that 13.4 mil was paid to Darren Driefort who didn’t play in 2005 (and likely covered by insurance), a bad contract from the Fox days. So the true payroll for 2005 was really about 70 mil. If the budget is truly 75 mil it is an increase from last year, not a decrease. The 2004 budget was 93 mil, but again you have Dreifort at 12.4 mil plus they traded Shawn Green’s 16.7 mil that off-season.

 

You also have to remember that Fox sold the team because it was losing 25 plus mil a year. In 2004 Mc Court lost 20 mil (we wont know about 2005 till Forbes writes about it in April, but it is unlikely that they made a profit).

 

The Dodgers revenues are slightly less then the Cubs, and given the MLB debt rules (McCourt financed the complete purchase), the payroll is right around where it should be. You can fault McCourt for many things, but not the budget.

 

That's like saying the Cubs payroll was 87M instead of 100M in '05 b/c of Sosa's contract and then saying that if the 2006 payroll was 90M, it would be an increase in payroll. :?

No it's not. The Cubs actually spent the money on Sosa. It wasn't paid back by the insurance company (I am making an assumption on the insurance being paid).

[E.J.]

Looks like the Dodgers might have offered the GM job to Theo Epstein

 

There were strong indications on Sunday night the Dodgers have offered their vacant general manager's position to former Boston GM Theo Epstein and that they had sweetened the deal by offering Epstein a small ownership stake similar to what Billy Beane has in Oakland.

 

Even if the offer has been made, it is questionable - and perhaps even doubtful - whether Epstein will accept. Epstein, 31, stepped down as the Red Sox's GM late last month, spurning a three-year, $4.5 million offer to stay. At the time, he gave only vague, cryptic reasons for his departure, but it was clear his relationship with Red Sox president Larry Lucchino, Epstein's longtime mentor, had soured.

 

Most of those close to Epstein believe he will take some time away from the game, a belief that seems to fit perfectly with widespread reports he is a candidate to take over as team president and possibly GM in Washington once the pending sale of the Nationals is complete.

[CuseCubFan69]

Looks like the Dodgers might have offered the GM job to Theo Epstein

 

There were strong indications on Sunday night the Dodgers have offered their vacant general manager's position to former Boston GM Theo Epstein and that they had sweetened the deal by offering Epstein a small ownership stake similar to what Billy Beane has in Oakland.

 

Even if the offer has been made, it is questionable - and perhaps even doubtful - whether Epstein will accept. Epstein, 31, stepped down as the Red Sox's GM late last month, spurning a three-year, $4.5 million offer to stay. At the time, he gave only vague, cryptic reasons for his departure, but it was clear his relationship with Red Sox president Larry Lucchino, Epstein's longtime mentor, had soured.

 

Most of those close to Epstein believe he will take some time away from the game, a belief that seems to fit perfectly with widespread reports he is a candidate to take over as team president and possibly GM in Washington once the pending sale of the Nationals is complete.

 

Who are they selling the team to.... the ghost man at third?

[Mark Priors Calves]

Can someone rationally explain to me why Darren Dreifort was signed for so much money? I have never understood why he received the kind of money he did, his numbers weren't great before the deal and they sure weren't good afterwards either. Any help would be appreciated.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Can someone rationally explain to me why Darren Dreifort was signed for so much money? I have never understood why he received the kind of money he did, his numbers weren't great before the deal and they sure weren't good afterwards either. Any help would be appreciated.

 

Had to be those 2 massive HR's he hit against the Cubs at Dodger Stadium in 2000. It's the only reason I can think of...

[Guest]

Can someone rationally explain to me why Darren Dreifort was signed for so much money? I have never understood why he received the kind of money he did, his numbers weren't great before the deal and they sure weren't good afterwards either. Any help would be appreciated.

He was an awesome double threat at WSU. And his dad writes great books.