Skip to content

Frank McCourt offered $1.2 billion to sell the Dodgers

Sep 1, 2011, 3:30 PM EDT

Image (1) dodgers%20logo.jpg for post 3955

Well, we weren’t expecting this. From out of the blue comes an offer — all cash — to Frank McCourt to sell the Dodgers. It’s for $1.2 billion, and it comes from a man named Bill Burke. Burke, who is the founder of the Los Angeles Marathon, is backed by “certain state-owned investment institutions of the People’s Republic of China” and other investors, Bill Shaikin reports. Which probably means that Burke is just the figurehead/American face of the deal.

According to my friend (and Los Angeles resident and native) Bob Timmermann, Burke is married to former Los Angeles County Superintendent Yvonne Brathwaite Burke. The Burkes remain big players in Democratic politics, Mr. Timmermann says. I would assume this means that he’s not just some crazy rich person looking for attention.

The deal is reportedly for everything, including the team, the ballpark and the surrounding real estate.  McCourt has no comment and it’s unclear whether he’s open to selling.

But jeez, it’s not every day that someone offers you $1.2 billion in cash.  Assuming it’s something Major League Baseball would be receptive to — and why would they not be? — how could McCourt turn this down given all of the financial challenges he currently faces?

  1. Paul Bourdett - Sep 1, 2011 at 3:35 PM

    It’s possible MLB would not want to kick open the door for China to start buying its teams.

    • The Common Man - Sep 1, 2011 at 3:47 PM

      Why not? That’s a HUGE market to sell Dodgers gear.

    • clydeserra - Sep 1, 2011 at 3:55 PM

      Dodgers played in China in 2009 or 2010.

      • HL - Sep 1, 2011 at 5:16 PM

        China in 2009. Taiwan in 2010. Big difference between the two.

    • marshmallowsnake - Sep 1, 2011 at 4:14 PM

      Why not? They own everything else in this country…or will soon.

      • jamaicanjasta - Sep 1, 2011 at 4:19 PM

        See my below post to understand why this comment is totally inaccurate.

        TLDR: The Chinese do not own anything close to the amount of debt/property you’re claiming and the Federal Reserve owns more U.S. than all foreign countries combined. Yes this includes China.

      • bigleagues - Sep 1, 2011 at 8:44 PM

        The same was said of the Japanese. Never happened. And while China is likely here to stay as an economic force, there are already signs that their rapid rise via manufacturing is about to crest as the middle class in the semi-democratized enterprise zones begin to seek better wages and benefits, which will ultimately drive manufacturing to other developing countries.

  2. klbader - Sep 1, 2011 at 3:37 PM

    The bankruptcy court would have to approve such a transaction too, not just MLB.

    • Roger Moore - Sep 1, 2011 at 5:31 PM

      I doubt that the bankruptcy court would have any problem with any deal the results in the creditors being paid off in full. That’s the ideal result of a bankruptcy proceeding. The judge would need a very strong argument to reject a deal like that.

  3. HL - Sep 1, 2011 at 3:37 PM

    The “certain state-owned institutions” are run by Communist Party officials. There is no separation between the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese government. They are the same thing. That’s what happens when you have a single-party state.

    As much as I can’t stand the McCourts, I have to say “hell no”. I don’t trust my neighbor. I sure as hell don’t trust the Chinese Communist Party.

    • klbader - Sep 1, 2011 at 3:41 PM

      Communists know how to run baseball teams. Look at how good the product is in Cuba!

      • HL - Sep 1, 2011 at 5:18 PM

        Well, they do pay their players $250 per month. So they’ve got that going on. Surely a lot less drama on-and-off the field. Come to think of it, must be nice down there not having to deal with agents or a players union. Then again, you can’t expect a whole lot when you’re making $250 per month.

    • kopy - Sep 1, 2011 at 3:51 PM

      I see your points, but how bad would it truly be? MLB is strict with their owners (when they want to be), it’s not like the Chinese could say, “We own them? Okay, we’re moving them to Shanghai!”

      Of course, they would have to be very careful with the ownership agreement. I’m on the fence about a Chinese Communist Party profiting off one of the most American things in existence, but if they owned the parking lots and land, that might put me a little over the top.

      In the end, it might just be too much negative PR for MLB to consider.

      • HL - Sep 1, 2011 at 5:31 PM

        I’m sure this Bill Burke would be the managing partner (owner on paper) of the Dodgers (if this went through). The problem is the funding aspect of the deal. Bill Burke doesn’t have $1.2 billion, which is clearly a reason why he had to go elsewhere to find that much cash. Nothing in China compares to the scale of Major League Baseball, and more specifically, the salaries paid to professional athletes. The guys that write the checks will invariably be sitting in an office somewhere in China wondering why an 18 year-old pitcher from Omaha picked in the first round of the draft should be given a $5.2 million signing bonus. It simply wouldn’t make sense (and to a degree, it doesn’t make sense to me either). Nobody in any sport in China with 10-15 years of professional experience would make even a fraction of that.

        Owning a big-time sports franchise is sexy. There’s no doubt about that. I’m sure many of us have thought about how awesome it would be to own our favorite teams. But the Chinese Communist Party running a baseball team? You’ve all heard “Be careful what you wish for.” Just wait until a big-shot Communist Party official sends Bill Burke an email telling him there are not enough Chinese ballplayers on the field and that the Dodgers need to start playing more Chinese ballplayers. China sees sports as an avenue for generating national pride. Its primary function is not entertainment, like it is to us. That’s the entire reason why Yao Ming, health-wise, is all screwed up, because the Chinese government had that guy play in every single possible basketball tournament and make every single possible public appearance so they could pimp him out as a symbol of Chinese greatness. Can anyone here legitimately (don’t use Google or Wikipedia) name a Chinese ballplayer? Not Taiwanese. Chinese. Good luck with that.

    • clydeserra - Sep 1, 2011 at 3:56 PM

      1) how could the Chines government mess up more?
      2) its not like Walter O’Malley had launch codes or something, its just a baseball team

  4. sdelmonte - Sep 1, 2011 at 3:38 PM

    I do not want the Chinese government owning anything in this country. Even if it means getting rid of McCourt.

    • drunkenhooliganism - Sep 1, 2011 at 3:42 PM

      I’m a conservative and I’d rather have the dodgers owned by “The Chinese Communist Party” than the McCourts. I trust the communists much more.

    • ThisIsBaseball - Sep 1, 2011 at 3:46 PM

      They own our national debt. Why not a baseball team to go with it?

      • scareduck - Sep 1, 2011 at 3:50 PM

        You’d think Treasury would throw it in for free or something.

      • ThisIsBaseball - Sep 1, 2011 at 4:00 PM

        Buy a tillion worth of Bonds, get the Dodgers free!!

      • jamaicanjasta - Sep 1, 2011 at 4:08 PM

        This is a terrible misconception, ThisisBaseball. The Chinese only own most of the FOREIGN held debt of the United States. The foreign held debt is 32% of the total national debt, thus the Chinese ‘own’ only 36% of this. Doing the math around 11% of our TOTAL debt is owned by the Chinese. The Federal Reserve (yes our Federal Reserve) ‘owns’ more of our debt than ALL other countries in the world combined.

        Yes this includes China.

      • jamaicanjasta - Sep 1, 2011 at 4:10 PM

        I mean, sigh, I don’t really understand what perpetuates this myth that the Chinese hold most of our debt. It’s really REALLY easily disprovable and frankly false.

      • teamlkc - Sep 1, 2011 at 4:18 PM

        I’m not sure that I want any foreign countries owning our national pastime. However, it’s a common misconception that China owns our national debt. China is the largest owner of US bonds, however, it only equates to less than 7% of our total debt.

      • jamaicanjasta - Sep 1, 2011 at 4:22 PM

        I agree with the baseball part team, but only because I don’t feel comfortable with the idea of another country leveraging an American team for political purposes, here or abroad.

      • ThisIsBaseball - Sep 1, 2011 at 4:22 PM

        According to jamaicanjasta its “around 11%”, not “less than 7%.” He was so upset about by attempt at humor, he felt the need to post twice. Once to correct me, and once to sigh at me.

      • jamaicanjasta - Sep 1, 2011 at 4:29 PM

        It’s hard to read humor online, but I was frankly annoyed when I read it because every time I see a story or article about China, someone has to bring up that false statistic about the Chinese owning this country or most of it’s debt or something like that. Joke or not, some people actually believe this stuff and I’d rather not spread misinformation silly or not.

      • jamaicanjasta - Sep 1, 2011 at 4:32 PM

        Also, team’s percentage may be right, I’m going off of numbers I knew to be the case a couple of years ago off the top of my head. I could research it now to be sure but it would be impossible (literally) in 2-3… or 10-20 years for the Chinese to own anywhere near most of our debt.

      • ThisIsBaseball - Sep 1, 2011 at 4:46 PM

        I was making a a point, in joking form, that China owns some significant holdings in the US, public and private. Even if they don’t own -all- of the US debt, they can still cause a headache. 11% (or even 7%) of the national debt is still a shit-ton of money.

      • granted42 - Sep 1, 2011 at 4:47 PM

        @jamaicanjasta, are you saying we should approach the Fed to buy the Dodgers? Does Uncle Ben even like baseball?

      • jamaicanjasta - Sep 1, 2011 at 4:55 PM

        Sure the they can cause a headache, as could any of the foreign holders of U.S. debt. The Japanese for example have almost as much as the Chinese, but we don’t hear the same comparisons now.

        Here’s my point, the same fever going on about the Chinese owning a small portion of our debt went on in the 80’s and early 90’s about the Japanese and the whole ‘Buy U.S’ crowd. It was an overreaction then and it’s an overreaction now.

      • ThisIsBaseball - Sep 1, 2011 at 4:57 PM

        @granted42. He’s apparently a regular a Nats fan. “A Washingtonian of late, Bernanke recently switched his allegiance to the capital’s baseball team, the Nationals”

      • jamaicanjasta - Sep 1, 2011 at 4:59 PM

        I don’t think Uncle Ben likes many people or things Granted42 haha, but I have to admit you have me laughing pretty hard in spite of the fact that I have two more hours of work 😦.

        Whenever I see Bernanke, I think of the bank branch manager that just stares at you while you’re in the bank. Never saying a world. Just watching. Eating into your soul.

      • jamaicanjasta - Sep 1, 2011 at 5:01 PM

        ThisisBaseball, this is interesting news about Bernanke. Hmm… I may need to amend my statement about him being the creepy stare dude.

      • ThisIsBaseball - Sep 1, 2011 at 5:12 PM

        @jamaicanjasta. First – Yes, every picture I’ve seen of him makes him seem like a creeper that will just stare into you and suck your soul away. Apparently, he was a big BoSox fan before moving to Washington.

        Second – You’re right. we do overreact to everything. It’s ingrained in our society. We need an enemy to motivate us to do anything. What better way to create an enemy than to overreact to something. We have to do X, because if we don’t, then Y wins. Whether Y is Communism; the opposing political party; a Government we don’t like; or, hell, even your in-laws. There’s no better way to motivate someone to do X, than to overreact and over-hype Y and make them seem a lot worse than they actually are.

        (Disclaimer: No, I am not trivializing the human rights abuses by China. I am talking in the abstract).

      • jamaicanjasta - Sep 1, 2011 at 5:35 PM


        -Hmm, I don’t know if it’s just a blatant pandering maneuver but I don’t think I could change my allegiance from the Braves for any one or any state. I lived in Ohio for almost 4 years (something about Braves fans and Ohio huh) and I could not seriously cheer for the Indians no matter how much my (then) girlfriend or her family prodded me.

        -I totally agree with this second part, and sadly that’s ingrained as you said in human nature. It’s not something that will ever completely go away and it makes me sad. What also makes me sad is that China’s human rights record is as it is and if any country dares talk about it, China uses it’s huge markets to blackmail said country. Bleh.

        Anyway, baseball is probably where I should stick to talking about, I’m actually pretty easy going in person but my writing style over the internet makes me sound more annoyed than I am. I blame college >.>.

      • ThisIsBaseball - Sep 1, 2011 at 5:53 PM


        – I agree with having an allegiance and not being able to trade it. I am a Yankees fan (when I was growing up, my uncle took me to Yankees games, which is how I became a fan). Now that I live in PA, I could never root for the Phils, or Pirates. (I do follow the Nats though, because the MiLB team where I live, the Harrisburg Senators, are the Nats’ AA team).

        – You’re right. Baseball is probably the “safest” topic. Politics and policy discussions have become too nasty to have a civil conversation about anything remotely close to the subject. Like yourself, I am pretty easy going. Unfortunately, the internet is not the proper medium to convey my sense of humor: dry and sarcastic.

      • bigleagues - Sep 1, 2011 at 7:21 PM


        Yes, but the Chinese along with fellow BRIC countries are actively buying up more and more US debt in an attempt to gain leverage against the dollar as the worlds singular reserve currency.

        Human Rights atrocities persist. Freedom of expression is stomped on. And American, as well as, Western intellectual properties remain under assault with little help from the Chinese government.

        Granted, nearly every chintzy promo item that is given away at the gates of Major and Minor league ballparks is manufactured in China, but to allow the Chinese government to purchase and control a MLB franchise by proxy is a bad idea for all of the reasons listed above. China plays by its own rules and I for one do not want China’s blood money to be part of Major League Baseball.

        Ultimately MLB will have to reject this bid outright. Just imagine the scope and frequency of human rights protests that will focused on Dodgers Stadium. This is clearly a risk that MLB will not want to deal with.

    • paperlions - Sep 1, 2011 at 4:14 PM

      China (as well as businesses from many middle eastern countries) already owns a lot of things of great value and importance in this country. People are always shocked when they find out things like entire ports in this country are owned by businesses located in countries with which we have hostile political relationships. The Americans that own (or owned) this country will sell any part if it they own to the highest bidder, they don’t care who they are or where they are from.

  5. andrebeingandre16 - Sep 1, 2011 at 3:38 PM

    thats a lot of dodgers dogs!

  6. steve7921 - Sep 1, 2011 at 3:43 PM

    and those red commie b#@$^%^% are worse than McCourt and his Jesters? Really? and I thought it was 2011….

    • sdelmonte - Sep 1, 2011 at 3:58 PM

      I don’t care that they’re Communists. I don’t like the idea of any foreign government owning things here.

      Never mind that the regime in China is repressive to the extreme.

      • Old Gator - Sep 1, 2011 at 4:46 PM

        Yeah, recently some Muslims wanted to build a mosque in Murfreesboro, China….

      • A.J. - Sep 2, 2011 at 1:50 AM

        And what happened with the the Murfreesboro mosque?
        The government, not just the federal government but even the local government, ruled that they had a right to build it.

        Isn’t that exactly the point of a working (non-repressive) regime? To protect the rights of those who are be unpopular or persecuted?

  7. Panda Claus - Sep 1, 2011 at 3:45 PM

    If nothing else this sets a beginning market price for the team. That may be the only good news in this offer.

    • CJ - Sep 1, 2011 at 4:16 PM

      I have a hard time believe someone will come in with a better offer than 1.2B given the circumstances of the sale.

  8. crazimitch - Sep 1, 2011 at 3:47 PM

    Let them… Its great for us. In ten years they’ll be selling it back to an Ameican for 1.2Billion. It’ll be like Japan buying Manhattan Real Estate in the 80’s. When China tries to buy an MLB team, its the top and time to sell cause they’ll be overpaying…..

  9. halladaysbiceps - Sep 1, 2011 at 3:48 PM

    China is not on the love list of the U.S. right now. I don’t want to make this a political issue. All I have to say is that I don’t see MLB owners approving this deal if the financial backing is from China, with the sensitive climate in the country right now. It would be a move judged by many Americans as a sellout, especially when you are talking about a historic franchise such as the Dodgers.

    Personally, I would rather see an American, like Mark Cuban, given a shot if he is interested in writing the check. If not him, there are plenty of rich Americans that love baseball that could buy the team.

    • boston25rocketman - Sep 1, 2011 at 3:51 PM

      I think MLB would rather deal with owners who are thousands of miles away rather than a guy who’s gonna show them up and call them out on their stupidity.

    • boston25rocketman - Sep 1, 2011 at 3:51 PM

      That said, go Cuban!

    • The Common Man - Sep 1, 2011 at 3:53 PM

      Mark Cuban would not be approved by MLB as a buyer, and I have a hard time thinking that a competent financier would overpay significantly for the Dodgers. Why would baseball owners reject a Chinese offer, when it opens up a huge potential market for merchandising and broadcasting revenue?

      • halladaysbiceps - Sep 1, 2011 at 3:55 PM

        Political climate would be the main reason. That’s all I have.

      • The Common Man - Sep 1, 2011 at 4:02 PM

        I don’t know. I mean, they’d hardly the first US corporation to do business with China.

      • halladaysbiceps - Sep 1, 2011 at 4:14 PM

        You right. China is a big investor in the U.S. But, there is a difference in being a silent investor/backer, I believe, in a corporation that doesn’t get the media spotlight and being the primary owners/backers in an American baseball team with a frontman. I do not believe this will play well in the American media nor with the American people. It will be viewed as a prestige hit. I will get much media attention and scrutiny.

      • The Common Man - Sep 1, 2011 at 4:28 PM

        And the US uses Chinese manufacturing as well. Again, there’s a lot of economic interaction between the two countries. While you’re right that baseball is a more public entity than a lot of American corporations, it’s also fundamentally less “important” in a real value sense. I don’t trust the American people much regarding their ability to not freak out about stuff, but I also can’t see how this would hurt MLB’s bottom line in any way. And I think that’s what would carry the day.

      • pbannard - Sep 1, 2011 at 5:22 PM

        “I will get much media attention and scrutiny.”

        Then I’m all for it – we all could use more ‘ceps in our lives!

        Also, how ironic that the letter you omitted (t) is the one you were so famous for adding to your name.

    • drunkenhooliganism - Sep 1, 2011 at 3:53 PM

      Any offer that included financing would include, in some part, a loan from the Chinese. If they sold bonds, the Chinese would likely buy some. If it was money from a large bank, the Chinese are already invested in it.

      This is just more in your face than that. And that’s what gets “the get off my dodger stadium outfield lawn” people in an uproar.

    • clydeserra - Sep 1, 2011 at 3:58 PM


      • kopy - Sep 1, 2011 at 4:03 PM

        Can we create a campaign with a slogan that is something like “Just say no to Communists, vote Cuban!”

  10. The Common Man - Sep 1, 2011 at 3:49 PM

    I neglect to see how this proposal would be bad for baseball. If someone can explain it to me, I’d appreciate it. From where I sit, this seems like a terrific way to solve a large and immediate problem that MLB and the Dodgers have. Feel free to set me straight.

  11. cur68 - Sep 1, 2011 at 3:49 PM

    I have too many friends who fled communist China and who lost family @ Tiananmen Square and other places to want this. McCourt may be the anti-Christ and his wife is worse but he aint a murderer, let alone a mass murderer (as far as we know). Just say no, Bud. Just say no.

    • drunkenhooliganism - Sep 1, 2011 at 4:02 PM

      If he could have gotten away with it, he would have killed more people than China

    • Old Gator - Sep 1, 2011 at 4:50 PM

      If you’re averse to mass murderers, I would guess you wouldn’t want to see George W. Bush back at the helm of the Texas Rangers now, would you?

      • Lukehart80 - Sep 1, 2011 at 5:13 PM


      • cur68 - Sep 1, 2011 at 5:16 PM

        Gator I never wanted him there in the first place. It pains me to this day that Nolan Ryan seems to like the little skunk, but I let it slide because, hell, you can’t dislike Nolan Ryan, man. That would be like disliking cake or something.

  12. The Common Man - Sep 1, 2011 at 3:54 PM

    Craig, I know bankruptcy isn’t your general area, but do you know whether the judge in the case could force the McCourts to accept this offer?

  13. hackerjay - Sep 1, 2011 at 4:09 PM

    The Mariners are owned by a Japanese guy, and yet somehow the league has managed to survive. Getting rid of McCourt couldn’t be anything but a positive.

    • ThisIsBaseball - Sep 1, 2011 at 4:10 PM

      I thought they were owned by the company Nintendo, not specifically a Japanese person?

      • halladaysbiceps - Sep 1, 2011 at 4:19 PM

        I would only say this. Japan is an economic and political ally. China is not. I believe this is the difference in this particular situation. I believe it is touchy from a political standpoint. I remember when the Japanese bought the Mariners. I thought of it in a passing way as “ok, this country has money, but are our friends.” Not so much with China. Just a gut reaction.

      • CJ - Sep 1, 2011 at 4:22 PM

        Just curious but what would the difference be between that and the scenario described above (other than of course the differences between China and Japan)? anything?

      • The Common Man - Sep 1, 2011 at 4:23 PM

        In the 1980s, Japan was definitely not considered a friend, economically speaking. There was incredible anger and resentment at their success, and fear about them toppling the U.S. economically. What a difference a few years can make. Might be something to keep in mind.

      • CJ - Sep 1, 2011 at 4:24 PM

        ‘cepts, I’m impressed. you answered my question 3 minutes before I even asked it! That’s a fair point.

      • halladaysbiceps - Sep 1, 2011 at 4:26 PM

        CJ, are you asking myself or ThisIsBaseball? If me, could you clarify your question? I don’t understand.

      • halladaysbiceps - Sep 1, 2011 at 4:34 PM

        Common Man, economically, Japan was respected as a whole by some people. The majority of American people viewed Japan as a threat, economically, at the time. I agree with you.

        The difference between the two is the military threat the China could pose to the U.S (Gog, I did not really want to go down this road, I swear). Japan, after World War II, obviously was never allowed to have a offensive military again. It’s written into their constitution. So, there was no threat from Japan’s financial sucess on that front. However, China has been more progressively building up their military. We have the Taiwan issue with them, and we have also been attacked by them through cyberwar acts. All of this has been reported, so I tell you nothing new.

        I get back to the political climate view. If this sale went through, there would be backlash. Just based on what I stated in the last paragraph.

      • The Common Man - Sep 1, 2011 at 4:41 PM

        I’ll just have to hope you’re wrong. After all, we’re only talking about a baseball team. And it could end up being a good deal for everyone involved. Which, of course, is how capitalism is supposed to work.

      • ThisIsBaseball - Sep 1, 2011 at 4:49 PM

        If it was to me, I just wanted to understand who owned the Mariners. I was under the belief it was the company Nintendo, and not an individual person.

    • HL - Sep 1, 2011 at 5:38 PM

      The Mariners aren’t owned by the Communist Party of Japan (if there even is one). Big difference.

  14. Jonny 5 - Sep 1, 2011 at 4:17 PM

    This is a blessing to both McCourts. Take the money and run you dumbasses!!!

    • The Common Man - Sep 1, 2011 at 4:35 PM

      This: +1,000

    • natstowngreg - Sep 1, 2011 at 4:44 PM

      Not that simple. As discussed above, anything involving Chinese money looks bad, since that money inevitably is tied back to China’s repressive government.

      Not to mention that, if Chinese money is involved, the sale could become a foreign policy issue. The U.S. Government may or may not be able to stop the sale through legal means, but it could put a lot of pressure on MLB if it wants.

      IMHO, Bud won’t want to go this route because it could be a major PR headache for MLB. He probably also doesn’t want to get tied up in america’s complicated relations with China.

  15. Paul Bourdett - Sep 1, 2011 at 4:51 PM

    I don’t really care either way. Maybe it would benefit MLB financially if they were to expand their reach into the Chinese market (although it’s arguable whether anybody in China can actually afford to purchase MLB merchandise with the average salary in Shanghai being around $10,000 US Dollars, much less in rural areas). But let’s be clear about one thing: this isn’t a Chinese businessman coming in and making the offer; this is the Chinese government making a bid. I don’t have a strong feeling for or against that, but from MLB’s perspective (and, more importantly, from the United States government’s perspective), do they really want the Chinese government owning not only a baseball team but actual land in the U.S.? Not that they might not already own some, but this would be well out in the open.

    • bigleagues - Sep 1, 2011 at 7:25 PM

      For better or worse (imho, worse) many, if not most, of the products you purchase at ballparks and is manufactured in China.

  16. Old Gator - Sep 1, 2011 at 4:53 PM

    Speaking of communists and baseball, anybody remember this little gem from back in the 60s, when being a communist really meant something?

    I read it when it first came out. Hilarious, but you’ll have to think back somewhat to inhabit the ethos within which this minor masterpiece fluorishes.

    • jwbiii - Sep 1, 2011 at 5:41 PM

      And who can forget “The Secret Life of Hal Trosky?

    • natstowngreg - Sep 1, 2011 at 8:32 PM

      Nope, never heard of it. Wish I had.

      Legend has it, the Washington Senators scouted Fidel Castro as a pitcher, but decided he wasn’t good enough.

  17. nineroutsider - Sep 1, 2011 at 4:58 PM

    So just like their uniforms, the Dodgers are going to be made in China. Perfet, more reason to hate the Dodgers than I already do.

    • HL - Sep 1, 2011 at 5:40 PM

      All MLB uniforms are made in the United States.

  18. SmackSaw - Sep 1, 2011 at 5:22 PM

    Has anybody pointed out that Bill Burke would be the first black owner in MLB history? That’s a huge selling point for the press.

  19. Chipmaker - Sep 1, 2011 at 5:29 PM

    Guess those “grow and market the game internationally” exhibition games in Beijing in 2008 really worked!

  20. jdillydawg - Sep 1, 2011 at 5:48 PM

    Take the deal McCourt and go back to Boston. The Burkes have been in LA a long time and Yvonne was good when in office. Maybe it is a Chinese deal, but it’s a homegrown deal it sounds like.

    PS: Dear Bill, I’m looking for work and bleed Dodger Blue. Please keep me in mind…

    • Old Gator - Sep 1, 2011 at 11:44 PM

      Learn to bleed Dodger red and you’ll have a chance to be with them for the long march to the 2012 crimson flag.

  21. Old Gator - Sep 1, 2011 at 7:46 PM

    Ackcherley, from a fan’s point of view I think the big problem with going to a Chinese Dodger game would be that a half hour after the game ended, you’d want to watch another one.

  22. serbingood - Sep 1, 2011 at 8:36 PM

    China, the country that gives you your iToys, TVs, most all things electronic. Heck sell them the team. Maybe they will give all attendees a free iPod Touch for a year or free Rx medicine (with a proper Rx from a doctor, of course). If they have the proper $ to buy the team and SUPPORT it, fine with me.

    Modern China is about as communist as Arizona now-a-days. My former wife was from there and I have friends in Beijing. They are about as capitalist as they come now.

    Yeah, let them have it via bankruptcy court. Good by to the McCourts.

    • Old Gator - Sep 1, 2011 at 11:47 PM

      Thanks for giving us a more lucid insight into the place than you’d get from a pandit (a cross between a pundit and a panderer) at TPN. Yeah, I didn’t meet any communists in China. It felt more capitalist than Japan. At this point, the government is just a bunch of monopoly capitalist autocratic oligarchs who would flunk a freshman political studies course exam on Marx and Engels.

    • Jonny 5 - Sep 2, 2011 at 8:02 AM

      I’d bet the Dodgers would actually become one of the better managed clubs in the country after that. Drafting from China? That might be interesting.

  23. dadawg77 - Sep 2, 2011 at 12:20 AM

    You know in the history of foreign investors paying big prices for American assets the foreigner overpays, gets taken to the cleaners and sells within ten years. Look at the iconic real estate like the Rockefeller Center or Pueblo Beach also assets like mortgage backed securities. So let the Chinese waste their money just wished someone besides the McCourts would benefit.

Leave Comment

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

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. D. Wright (2623)
  2. G. Stanton (2478)
  3. D. Span (2423)
  4. Y. Puig (2383)
  5. J. Fernandez (2312)
  1. B. Crawford (2295)
  2. G. Springer (2229)
  3. M. Teixeira (2151)
  4. J. Hamilton (2093)
  5. H. Pence (1969)