Skip to content

Report: MLB explores possibility of new ballpark for Dodgers

Jul 13, 2011, 7:11 PM EST

Dodger Stadium AP

SPORTSbyBROOKS has been told by multiple sources that MLB has reached out to AEG to inquire about the feasibility of building a new ballpark in downtown Los Angeles for the Dodgers.

AEG is the owner of the Staples Center, home of the NBA’s Lakers and Clippers, in downtown L.A. and has already proposed to the city a plan to build an NFL stadium in the same area.  MLB is looking to get involved as a way of getting Frank McCourt out of Dodgers business for good.

McCourt, who has taken the Dodgers into bankruptcy proceedings, not only owns the team, but he also owns the land occupied by Dodger Stadium.  Some have suggested that even if MLB succeeds in wrenching the franchise away from him, it could create a situation in which the new owner is forced to pay McCourt rent.

Says Brooks:

Talks between MLB and AEG remain in the formative stage, but I’ve been told that if such a plan were carried out, AEG would not have a controlling ownership interest in the Dodgers.

Dodger Stadium has been the home to the Dodgers since 1962, making it baseball’s third oldest ballpark behind Fenway and Wrigley.  In 2008, McCourt and the Dodgers announced a $500 million project to restore the area around the stadium and the creation of a new museum, with the idea the renovations would be completed for the 50th anniversary in 2012.  However, those plans almost entirely fell apart.

  1. shaggylocks - Jul 13, 2011 at 7:17 PM

    I absolutely hate to see the old, historic ballparks torn down to make way for a new stadium named after a mega-corporation, but I think this is a really, really good idea, given the circumstances.

    • sasa7 - Jul 14, 2011 at 11:49 AM

      I too love the idea of a new ballpark for the Dodgers. I too hate to see historic ballparks to be taken down in place of ballpark malls- but to me, Dodgers Stadium was not even close to its predecessor, Ebbett’s Field. So I propose a better solution, move the Dodgers back to Brooklyn and let the Mets go bankrupt. Or, allow NYC to field three teams once again, the infrastructure is in place, and a cable channel, appropriately called the BSN- Brooklyn Sports Network, could be hammered out. The YES network really does not need the Nets as the fan base is limited, and since they are moving to Brooklyn, it is a no brainer.

  2. losburrosinblue - Jul 13, 2011 at 7:19 PM

    Lame.

  3. SmackSaw - Jul 13, 2011 at 7:21 PM

    NO!

    If they’re going to do that, then blow up every ballpark built before 1960. The idea is heresy!

    • shaggylocks - Jul 13, 2011 at 7:38 PM

      Yeah, but don’t you think the idea of Frank McCourt continuing to have anything to do with the Dodgers is even worse?

      • SmackSaw - Jul 13, 2011 at 7:41 PM

        Bud screwed this up. He’s got to fix it.

    • thinman61 - Jul 13, 2011 at 7:49 PM

      “Every” ballpark built before 1960? That would be a list of two: Wrigley and Fenway.

      • SmackSaw - Jul 13, 2011 at 8:48 PM

        Very good. You’ve mastered “The Google”, I see.

      • jimbo1949 - Jul 13, 2011 at 9:33 PM

        or read the article:
        “Dodger Stadium has been the home to the Dodgers since 1962, making it baseball’s third oldest ballpark behind Fenway and Wrigley.”

        .
        Reading Is Fundamental

    • Old Gator - Jul 14, 2011 at 12:06 AM

      Aside from the most formless sort of nostalgia, I don’t see what the big deal about this stadium is. It’s in a great spot scenically but it’s dowdy and outdated in so many ways. By all means, dump it in McCourt’s lap and let him choke on it. Meanwhile, make a deal to share the Angels’ stadium the way the Borg shared Shea with the Mutts when the old stadium was being refurbished and get cracking on the new stadium. It’s going to take a few years to rebuild this franchise after the Beantown Bagger gets through with it anyway.

  4. teachmehowtodickey - Jul 13, 2011 at 7:22 PM

    Its a travesty I tell ya

  5. yankeesgameday - Jul 13, 2011 at 7:37 PM

    Okay whoa. No effing way.

  6. clydeserra - Jul 13, 2011 at 7:56 PM

    Why not?

    I haven’t been to dodger stadium since the mid 90s, but then it was a terrible place to get to. Has no sort of Ambiance other than itself. The seats aren’t don’t all face the action as well as modern ball parks.

    Downtown would have better public transportation access and better views. I think there would be better access to the freeways if memory serves.

    Its not like Fenway or Wrigley where there is a historic reason to keep it. It’s not pretteier than old Tiger Stadium, or Shea for that matter.

  7. dogsweat1 - Jul 13, 2011 at 7:56 PM

    New Stadium should be in Brooklyn…………..

    • mrznyc - Jul 14, 2011 at 9:03 AM

      It already is (almost) – it’s in Queens – it’s called Citi Field a blatant homage to the Dodgers.

  8. smoothaswilkes - Jul 13, 2011 at 8:12 PM

    Step 1 – AEG provides new downtown ballpark for Dodgers

    Step 2 – New ownership group takes over Dodgers

    Step 3 – Frankrupt sells Dodger Stadium and surrounding land to AEG

    Step 4 – AEG has new location for whatever NFL franchise comes to LA

    win. win. win. win.
    (especially for AEG)

    • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Jul 13, 2011 at 11:32 PM

      Even better:

      Step 1 – MLB/AEG announce smoothaswilkes plan

      Step 2 – McCourt sells out a little early to AEG

      Step 3 – Dodgers stay put in the AEG owned Dodger stadium and the new stadium goes to football or whatever.

  9. andrebeingandre16 - Jul 13, 2011 at 8:49 PM

    bill shaikin just shot this rumor. having dodger stadium downtown would be nice but i couldnt imagine watching the dodgers anywhere else. i love dodger stadium its too classic to just tear down.

    • clydeserra - Jul 13, 2011 at 10:11 PM

      Oh don’t don’t think for a minute this would happen. For starters without a stadium the dodgers would be cheap enough for those of us here to cobble together an ownership group.

      But seriously, what makes it so special? Its only OK as far as venue is concerned, it has bad access to get in, its not in a great fun neighborhood, etc.

      I grew up going to Dodgers stadium from the 70s to the 90s, when I lived down there. About 8 people in my family went to opening day in 1962. Its OK, its a fine place to see a game in a vacuum, but I just don’t see it as a place that needs to be preserved.

      Please, instead of thumbs downing this,could you explain why it should be preserved (not aimed at you andrebeingandre) (also go ahead and thumbs down if you like doing so when comments navel gaze about the thumbs up and down, that is totally acceptable)

      • andrebeingandre16 - Jul 13, 2011 at 11:38 PM

        yeah but every old venue has its issues. i went to fenway park last year when the dodgers played the sox and the seats were tiny and uncomfortable but i still loved the stadium. i know the access to get to dodger stadium is bad but they now offer the trolly free with a ticket to the game so thats a start. plus think about 50k fans downtown trying to leave at once. it would probably be equally as bad. i would say probably 80% of dodger fans love dodger stadium and those who dont feel it needs to be like other stadiums that offer more to do other than just baseball.

      • clydeserra - Jul 14, 2011 at 12:04 AM

        right, old venues have their issues (wasn’t dodgers stadium built without drinking fountains?).

        But Dodgers stadium is not the same as fenway or wrigley. (a stadium that it was traded for). Hell, if you can tear down Yankee stadium, I think it would be OK to get rid of dodgers stadium.

        The point is, its not ideal and I can’t see a historical argument to keep it.

  10. Jonny 5 - Jul 13, 2011 at 8:54 PM

    I kind of saw this happening. He also owns parking around the stadium, so there are two or more separate entities the Dodgers new ownership would be held hostage for. You better believe Frank would rape them too.

  11. aaronmoreno - Jul 13, 2011 at 10:15 PM

    Don’t the Dodgers have contracts and leases to deal with EVEN if they got this magical new stadium the people of Los Angeles are dumb enough to pony up the cash for?

  12. fpbear - Jul 13, 2011 at 11:49 PM

    Building a baseball stadium downtown would be better than building an NFL stadium in the same spot because NFL stadiums need to be larger. A baseball stadium would fit better in that limited urban space.

  13. bgtymin - Jul 14, 2011 at 1:51 AM

    I have been to over half of the “new” and “classic” stadiums. I can tell you right now there is nothing “classic” about that shize hole except the Dodger Dogs, which will taste as good downtown. Thete is nothing that leads a sane person to believe that stadium has value other than the families who live in Chavez Ravine. I watched an 8 year old implode Cowboys Stadium after writing an essay. Nothing is sacred. Your dad took you to a game… Buy it from Steiner Sports, get over it. Drive 2 hours south and experience a modern day MLB game. You’ll be amazed. Sincerely, No One From California

  14. bgtymin - Jul 14, 2011 at 2:00 AM

    That is buy your seat or a piece of dirt or whatever helps you sleep at night. Dodger Stadium may not leave with McCourt but your days are numbered. Enjoy.

  15. adonley33 - Jul 14, 2011 at 3:09 AM

    you cant call yourself a dodger fan if youre okay with the stadium being torn down. dodger stadium has had so many famous events occur there, not only in baseball. it feels like youre out of the city but still close. and i guess if youre on the top level, you dont hav to walk up 4 flights of stairs lol. i just dont see any way that they are going to tear down dodger stadium AND move it. at the most they will probably do an extreme renovation leaving the stadium in its place

  16. skerney - Jul 14, 2011 at 5:30 AM

    30 year Giants fan here. Dodger stadium is sacred. They won championships there. The pope gave mass there. It’s gorgeous. The Dodgers have played more games at Chavez Ravine than they played at ebbets field. If the Dodgers leave it would be a travesty. My nightmare is when Selig finally wrangles the dodgers from McCourts hands, Dodger stadium will stay with McCourt. Selig in a play to cut McCourt out of the loop will insist the Dodgers move somewhere else, LA Live perhaps. McCourt will then give the NFL a sweetheart deal on the Chavez Ravine property and football will return to LA. Farmers Field falls through and McCourt bulldozes or repurposes Dodger Stadium for a football team. Far Fetched? Yes. Implausible. No.

  17. mrznyc - Jul 14, 2011 at 9:10 AM

    He isn’t called “Bud Lite” for nothing – Here he allows a franchise which owns it’s own stadium (no need for the taxpayer to chip in anything) with a large loyal fan base, in a major media market and for some unexplained reason hands it over to the least qualified buyer out there. If the fix wasn’t in, then he’s twice as dumb as we all assumed.

  18. blackngold4life - Jul 17, 2011 at 1:01 AM

    COMBINE THE 2 STADIUMZ TOGETHER… F’ FRANK McCOURT.. LEAVE HIM THE LAND AND MOVE DOWN THE 110..HE DONT DESERVE TO HAVE A NEW STADIUM! THATS LIKE BUILING NEW APARTMENTS FOR A SLUM LORD.. ALREADY HAVE THE NAME.. “FARMERS LOS ANGELES METRO PARK” SOUNDS GOOD DONT IT!?

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Maddon has high hopes for Cubs
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. P. Sandoval (4744)
  2. G. Stanton (3457)
  3. J. Lester (3085)
  4. Y. Tomas (3083)
  5. R. Martin (2774)
  1. J. Heyward (2602)
  2. M. Scherzer (2380)
  3. A. LaRoche (2295)
  4. T. Hunter (2193)
  5. J. Upton (2141)