Skip to content

Dodgers at around $233 million for 2013 but can add more

Dec 8, 2012, 11:10 PM EDT

dodgers logo

Jon Heyman of CBS Sports says “word is” the Dodgers may try for “another big free-agent starter.”

And it’s pretty easy to believe those whispers.

According to Jeff Passan of Yahoo! Sports, the Dodgers have $210.1 million in salary commitments for 2013 and will pay another $22 million in luxury tax (for a total sum of $233+ million). But their new 25-year local television contract with FOX Sports West is going to bring in over $240 million per season and so they’re still — as amazing as it might sound — operating with great comfort financially.

The Cardinals, for comparison, make under $30 million annually from their television rights deal with FOX Sports Midwest, which is locked in through 2017. Their player payroll in 2012 was just over $110 million.

The Dodgers could sign Anibal Sanchez, or Kyle Lohse, or finally work out an agreement with Korean left-hander Ryu Hyun-Jin, knowing full well that the club will still be highly profitable. Big national television money is coming, and Dodger Stadium hosts three million fans practically very summer. Then there’s the high-dollar revenue from things like merchandise, concessions and parking.

Handing a record-breaking free agent contract to a guy who’s not even an ace seems crazy, but it simply isn’t for the Dodgers. And they’re not done yet.

118 Comments (Feed for Comments)
  1. texassportsfan2 - Dec 8, 2012 at 11:17 PM

    This is getting obscene

    • chill1184 - Dec 8, 2012 at 11:25 PM

      I think one day MLB fans are just going to look back at the Dodger spending spree and chuckle.

      • recoveringcubsfan - Dec 9, 2012 at 12:20 AM

        I think people who don’t watch the Dodgers but pay for cable in the LA market should get out their pitchforks and torches and storm the cable company offices. Really, everyone who doesn’t watch TV sports (I do, so I am making this point out of fairness to the majority who don’t give a flip about televised athletics) ought to be up in arms about the fact that 50% of their cable bill is a subsidy to major league sports teams. Is that what the free market suggests should happen? Or could it be that multi-millionaires are once again sponging off the American public?

      • Old Gator - Dec 9, 2012 at 12:45 AM

        The American public can vote with its wallet. You’re not “sponging” off of the public when they’re paying the bill every month out of their own free will – however addled that will might be.

        But as a loyal Feesh fan, I must decry, on general principles, what the Bums are doing. Such vulgar extravagance! If they want to see what can be accomplished with a strictly prudent fiscal policy, then they need only have a look at Macondo Banana Massacre Field during a Tuesday night game with the Pittsburgh Pirates this coming season.

      • Glenn - Dec 9, 2012 at 1:41 AM

        I remember when my cable bill went up very specifically to add the YES Network. I called to complain that I was giving money directly to the Steinbrenners to support a team competing against my own without any choice. We had been watching Yankee games on my cable all along, so it wasn’t even a new addition. I was told that it was too bad and that was what people wanted. Of course there was no survey and no choice of a different cable option.

      • somekat - Dec 9, 2012 at 3:58 AM

        The cable stuff should only be an issue if there is no way to get the service without the respective networks

  2. schuss87 - Dec 8, 2012 at 11:18 PM

    Greinke isn’t an ace?

    • Drew Silva - Dec 8, 2012 at 11:22 PM

      3.83 ERA, 1.22 WHIP in three years since his Cy Young.

      • Ari Collins - Dec 9, 2012 at 12:40 AM

        Behind terrible defenses and 3/4 of the time in a bandbox. While not as bad as pitcher wins, ERA and WHIP have too much of what the team behind them is contributing.

      • cktai - Dec 9, 2012 at 4:18 AM

        I would think xFIP (3.17 5th in MLB) and SIERA (3.24 tied for 7th with Verlander) are better metrics predicting future performance.

      • thereisaparty - Dec 9, 2012 at 4:23 AM

        WHIP? You’re better than that

      • paperlions - Dec 9, 2012 at 9:56 AM

        Of course, no metric, estimate, or predictor is perfect. The problem with using a one-size-fits-all mentality for things like xFIP and SIERA is that they value a particular set of outcomes that in general are predictive….but not always. There are many pitchers whose FIP-type stats always show they pitched better than their results, and others whose FIP-type stats always show they pitched worse than the results. The problem is that the FIP type stats make a bunch of assumptions that are not true for all pitchers. Matt Cain is a perfect example of a pitcher whose xFIP is always higher than his ERA and usually it is nearly a run higher or more. They are a general model that may not apply to ever instance. It also ignores the order of events, which may not be realistic…some guys pitch much better from the windup than the stretch, meaning once they let a guy on they are less effective and give up more runs than their overall performance suggests that they should.

        I am not saying these stats aren’t useful or better than ERA or WHIP (as ERA and WHIP don’t belong to a pitcher but to a pitcher AND his defense)…just that there are some idiosyncracies that other models simply can’t account for.

    • thereisaparty - Dec 9, 2012 at 1:05 AM

      How does the author define ace? Must be a narrow definition. And yes I understand that he likely will not be the #1 on the Dodgers, but that does not mean he wouldn’t be a #1 on a majority of teams

      • brewcitybummer - Dec 9, 2012 at 1:25 AM

        Scouts have a very different definition of an “Ace” than the media. Kevin Goldstein and Jason Parks at BP talked abou this a lot last year on their podcast (Before Goldstein left for the Astros).

        Basically, an ace is an elite, strikeout machine, workhorse with at least one elite pitch and two very good pitches in his aresenal. In other words, a guy who strings together multiple elite years then becomes an “Ace”. There is no such thing as a “potential ace” or “ace pitching prospect”. You’re a number 2 until you’ve been one of the best in the game for awhile. So, there is probably 4-8 aces in baseball at a time.

      • thereisaparty - Dec 9, 2012 at 4:16 AM

        That definition matches my assessment of Greinke. But surely 4 aces is far too low. The public and BBWAA has trouble choosing a Cy Young in each league every year. By that definition, how many aces are on the Phillies? 0?

      • cktai - Dec 9, 2012 at 4:32 AM

        Over the last 5 years:

        Pitcher #1: 155 GS, 1125.2 IP, 7.88 K/9, 1.40 BB/9, 3.00 xFIP, 1.09 WHIP
        Pitcher #2: 160 GS, 1035.2 IP, 8.75 K/9, 2.27 BB/9, 3.26 xFIP, 1.20 WHIP
        Pitcher #3: 168 GS, 1154.2 IP, 8.89 K/9, 2.63 BB/9, 3.53 xFIP, 1.13 WHIP
        Pitcher #4: 165 GS, 1154.2 IP, 8.33 K/9, 2.68 BB/9, 3.32 xFIP, 1.18 WHIP
        Pitcher #5: 155 GS, 1111.0 IP, 7,95 K/9, 1.34 BB/9, 3.19 xFIP, 1.10 WHIP

        Spot the number 2 among the aces.

  3. jkb0162 - Dec 8, 2012 at 11:24 PM

    Like Greinke but when will teams ever learn? You can’t simply buy a championship. The Giants and Cardinals are still better teams in the National League, and other teams compete for championships without spending over 200 million. Not to mention your spending 150 million for a number two starter.

    • macjacmccoy - Dec 8, 2012 at 11:36 PM

      its like people never heard of the yankees and there 25+ and counting championships. They legitimately have won some of those through scouting and development. But they also have bought more championships then most teams have played for.

      • paperlions - Dec 9, 2012 at 10:06 AM

        The Yankees have only won 7 of their WS during the FA era, and 4 of them were the late 90s teams that were most certainly due to scouting/development of their own players. Most of their earlier championships may have been because they spent more money scouting or signing amateurs (and using the KC As as a farm team), I admit that I am not a Yankee historian, but most of their wins came during the reserve clause era, when a player spent his entire career with one team unless that team willingly traded him.

      • jl9830 - Dec 9, 2012 at 11:24 AM

        Most of the Yankees championships came way before they became a financial juggernaut.

      • manchestermiracle - Dec 10, 2012 at 10:10 AM

        paper: So the oft-cited rumor of the Yankees “buying” Babe Ruth from the BoSox is untrue?

  4. Carl Hancock - Dec 8, 2012 at 11:37 PM

    The rest of the NL is lucky the Cards don’t get as much revenue from their TV deal. If they could spend like the Dodgers they’d win the NLCS every year considering how well the organization does on a much lower payroll. The Dodgers on the other hand? They make end up choking in the end. They acquired all those players last year and still missed the playoffs.

    • thereisaparty - Dec 9, 2012 at 4:21 AM

      And the Cardinals are lucky to be designated as a “small-market” team by MLB. The organization gets an allotment of league-shared revenure disproportionate to other clubs with similar payrolls

      • paperlions - Dec 9, 2012 at 10:12 AM

        The Cardinals are a small market team, and they have one of the 5 lowest paying TV contracts. In any case, who is considered “small market” is irrelevant in revenue sharing. Every team pays 31% of its local revenues into a pool and that pool is split evenly among the 30 teams, so any team that makes less than average local revenues will get revenue sharing money.

    • skerney - Dec 9, 2012 at 7:19 AM

      Let me guess, you are a Cardinals fan.

    • chill1184 - Dec 9, 2012 at 8:47 AM

      Cardinals being in a significantly weaker division than the Dodgers also helps

      • paperlions - Dec 9, 2012 at 10:13 AM

        Because the Rockies, Padres, and D-backs are all fantastic teams?

    • jl9830 - Dec 9, 2012 at 11:26 AM

      So if you think you can’t buy a championship, why would the Cardinals suddenly be more successful if they were given the chance to buy a championship? Your logic is off. The Cardinals are so good precisely because their scouting, development, and coaching is second to none.

  5. stabonerichard - Dec 8, 2012 at 11:37 PM

    Money doesn’t matter & stuff. It’s all about having smart dudes to build a baseball team, and money is just an excuse. Duh.

    • stabonerichard - Dec 8, 2012 at 11:42 PM

      Next season there will likely be a team or two from the bottom half of payrolls that will make the postseason and then we can all pretend that it’s evidence that payroll disparity isn’t a major issue in baseball.

  6. sportsnut101 - Dec 8, 2012 at 11:43 PM

    hey dont blame them blame the media company willing to pay it

    at least th dodgers spending on what looks like good moves but they still wont win world series

    spending the most doesnt mean u win ask the yankees 1 title in last 11 yrs with 200 million dollar payroll

  7. jonirocit - Dec 8, 2012 at 11:45 PM

    Gonna laugh my ass off when they still finish 3rd in the nl west

  8. WhyDoIActuallyCare - Dec 8, 2012 at 11:47 PM

    I’m wishing the Dodgers were getting some quality bats instead. Dodgers pitching was better than every team in the NL West in almost every category in 2012, and while I understand that they need to fill some holes (Billingsley, Lilly, etc), the holes in the batting order need filled, too.

    • tuberippin - Dec 9, 2012 at 5:31 AM

      There’s no upgrades at 2nd, 3rd, or short really worth pursuing in free agency. I don’t think Luis Cruz and Mark Ellis is going to be a particularly serious downgrade from something like Stephen Drew and Kelly Johnson.

      Then again, maybe they just save some money for next offseason and throw a monster deal at Robinson Cano to play 2nd base. He’s not going to give a hometown discount for the Yankees and they’re trying to keep payroll down.

  9. 13arod - Dec 8, 2012 at 11:53 PM

    grenkie is a great pitcher but i dont think he deservies $140 million he isn’t that good

    • thereisaparty - Dec 9, 2012 at 12:54 AM

      He became a free agent at a favorable time. It isn’t fair to compare his contract to those that signed extensions.

      • somekat - Dec 9, 2012 at 4:02 AM


        If the Phils hadn’t resigned Hamels, and he hit the FA market, Grienke would not have got this deal. But he is the only top of the line starter available. I don’t know that I would of given him $140, but the starting point was probably 6 years 120

      • jl9830 - Dec 9, 2012 at 11:28 AM

        It’s not the market; it’s the Dodgers. Anybody they give a contract to cannot be indicative of the market, it’s clearly an outlier that will not be taken into consideration the next time a pitcher is looking for a contract.

  10. Gordon - Dec 9, 2012 at 12:08 AM

    They won’t even make the playoffs this upcoming season.

  11. ndrick731 - Dec 9, 2012 at 12:11 AM

    Tv has destroyed sports. Espn is the worst thing ever for sports. The athletes of today are just juiced up prima donnas. Of course who can blame them. Take the drugs and take ten years off your life but party hardy until you go. It’s why I stopped going to live sports.

    • paperlions - Dec 9, 2012 at 10:15 AM

      Ignorance abounds.

      • proudlycanadian - Dec 9, 2012 at 11:38 AM

        You are red hot today paperlions. I have never given you so many thumbs up.

      • paperlions - Dec 9, 2012 at 12:13 PM

        Haha…probably because none of it involves the Jays 😉

      • proudlycanadian - Dec 9, 2012 at 12:16 PM

        Agreed! Cheers!

  12. phillyphannn83 - Dec 9, 2012 at 12:21 AM

    bye bye cable! I’m already paying too much and now the Dodgers and Fox have set us down the path of $300 a month cable bills. Sorry but I’m not going broke for the Dodgers, I’m a g*d-d*mn Phillies fan!! I can pay for 2-3 years of season tix for the cost of 1 season of cable at that rate. It may not hit for 4-5 years but trust me, when every teams current deals run out, they’re ALL going to be huge deals(some not as big as the Dodgers but all will be bigger than they are now). Your bill is going to skyrocket whether you like it or not. Cable sucks now anyway. Good riddance.

  13. flyeredup - Dec 9, 2012 at 12:21 AM

    Greinke = Joe Blanton 2.0

    • thereisaparty - Dec 9, 2012 at 12:50 AM

      I forgot about that season where Joe Blanton put up historically great numbers.

      • drunkenhooliganism - Dec 9, 2012 at 3:12 AM

        a homer in the world series from a starting pitcher is historic. And great. And historically great.

        Also a fluke.

        Respect the Joe-Joe.

  14. jcioffi1485 - Dec 9, 2012 at 12:38 AM

    And Jeffrey Loria of the Marlins, is laughing so hard, saying, “what a bunch of idiots! There’s no real winnner or loser……there’s no real champion….its tthe bottom line that counts. with that said, I say, I see your $233,000,000 payroll and I raise a toast to your stupidity. I have a $10,000,000 payroll, a free new stadium and revenue sharing. I will make about $75,000,000 after taxes. Who do you really think wins next year? I do……suckers!”

    • Old Gator - Dec 9, 2012 at 12:57 AM

      Nope, there really are losers. The fans. All two dozen of us.

      Speaking conservatively, I mean.

      • proudlycanadian - Dec 9, 2012 at 7:57 AM

        All 24 of you will like Hechavarria at short stop.

      • umrguy42 - Dec 9, 2012 at 11:50 AM

        OG, where do y’all host your conventions? I mean, from the TV, it doesn’t look like you do it at the ballpark ;p

      • Old Gator - Dec 9, 2012 at 12:38 PM

        Wel-l-l, Macondo itself has a sprawling convention center over on the Beach – north of Lincoln Road, so it doesn’t qualify as South Beach, but that’s where our visiting conventioneers can go to piss on the sidewalks outside their bar of choice and be pulled out of the gutter in the morning. There’s also a new, thick red colored former warehouse building in the slowly gentrifying Wynwood district of Macondo, south of the so-called “Design District,” for conventioneers in the arts, architecture, artsy furniture and furnishings, what have you. I’ve never been inside of it but I have been assured that they did, indeed, kill all the rats before they began repainting it. Then again, a block north there’s a warehouse-cum-art studio and gallery with a painting of Mr. Mxyzptlk on its loading bay door, so maybe we’ll be attracting more out-of-dimension revelers in the future.

        Macondo Banana Massacre Field would be a great place for conventions if it had convention facilities, though. It’s just unfortunate that the building is accursed.

      • Old Gator - Dec 9, 2012 at 12:47 PM

        Proudly: yeah, he looks like he’ll be fun to watch – from a distance. I’m stuck with Sunshine Network and Fox Sports on my cable channel as long as I want to ogle Stephanie Abrams on the Weather Channel in the morning while I’m waiting for the liquid pacemaker to reach my brain and trying to sort out whether to leave my umbrella at home in the morning or merely forget to take it. Ergo, I’ll be able to watch most of the games I even care to watch at all without having to face myself in the mirror over having contributed any additional funds into Scrooge McLoria’s pockets.

        In any event I have no plans whatsoever to set foot inside Macondo Banana Massacre Field as long as Scrooge McLoria owns the team, and I dare say I’ll probably see more games at the Rogers this coming season on my periodic visits to TO than I will here at home. What with all the former Feesh on the team, I’ll probably be referring to them as the Feather Scales instead of Feather Lice.

    • aceshigh11 - Dec 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM

      Reminds me a bit of Ned Beatty’s epic tirade from the film, Network:

  15. melsh13 - Dec 9, 2012 at 12:58 AM

    I’m a huge Dodger fan, but if they win it all by buying players, it won’t mean a quarter as much as it did in ’81 or ’88.

    • somekat - Dec 9, 2012 at 4:05 AM

      Never been a fan of a team that was largely imported, and won a title, but I’d have to agree. While any title is special, it just doesn’t have the same feel to it if the majority of the team isn’t home grown. Or at least if traded for/signed, done at a young age

      • koufaxmitzvah - Dec 9, 2012 at 9:00 AM

        Are you suggesting that Adrian Gonzalez was more legitimate as a Red Sox than as a Dodger?

    • manchestermiracle - Dec 10, 2012 at 10:46 AM


      Being “home-grown” is somewhat over-ranked. Ironically, the most iconic player of the Brooklyn Dodgers, Jackie Robinson, was from Pasadena, California, 10 miles from Dodger Stadium. And the most iconic player of the Los Angeles Dodgers, Sandy Koufax, was from Brooklyn.

      The ’81 team did have some great homegrown talent, such as Valenzuela, Garvery, Cey, Howe, and Lopes. But they also had important contributions from imports like Guerrero, Hooton, Forster, and Baker.

      That ’81 title was tainted seven ways from Tuesday. The strike that year wasted 706 games, the team with the best overall record (Reds) didn’t even make the playoffs and ditto for the team with the best record in the NL East (Cards).

      The ’88 team opened the series with a highly unlikely game-winning homer from Kirk Gibson and got a crucial game 4 save from Jay Howell (the closer suspended in the NCLS for having pine tar on his glove). Both imports, by the way.

      It’s fun to watch guys who’ve been with the club make their way up the ladder to the bigs, but I get a lot of satisfaction watching a player somebody else thought was done have a great year (see Gibson). Bottom line, I want wins no matter where the guys wearing my team’s uniform happen to come from.

  16. andrebeingandre16 - Dec 9, 2012 at 1:21 AM

    The 22 million dollar tax is completely wrong. You pay only the amount you are over. And since the Dodgers are first time offenders it is only a 22.5% tax rate so about 7.5 million dollars.

  17. ireportyoudecide - Dec 9, 2012 at 1:56 AM

    I was curious just how much spending does make a difference in the win column. Thanks to my friends at USA Today and Wikipedia I can tell you the following.

    Over the last ten years, teams in the top 5 of salaries made the playoffs 23 times, that would be 46% of the time for those of you who are math challenged. Those in the bottom 5 made the playoffs 5 times, that would be 10%.

    46% to 10%, that’s a big difference. Don’t kid yourselves that money plays an important part in the MLB standings.

    • temporarilyexiled - Dec 9, 2012 at 9:57 AM

      But then don’t forget about the 44% in the middle. There’s no question being a top payroll team gives you a better chance. In fact, if you are, you’ve got a lot of ‘splainin’ to do if you don’t make the playoffs.

      If your team is at the bottom, getting in is extremely impressive, and as we know, there are a couple of teams that seem to be able to do this quite often.

      To me, it’s the teams in the middle that everyone forgets about, which is a shame, considering this is where good management can really earn championships.

    • jl9830 - Dec 9, 2012 at 11:34 AM

      LOL. Obviously the 5 lowest spending teams will make the playoffs less than the top 5. You really want to prove something by comparing the Yankees and Phillies with the Marlins and Padres.

      You can’t just ignore the other TWO-THIRDS of teams.

  18. randygnyc - Dec 9, 2012 at 3:12 AM

    As a Yankee fan I have seen ups and downs since the mid 70’s. After the late 90’s, early 2000’s, I believed that with the highest payroll, it was understood that money could by championships. That last 10 years has made me realize I was mistaken. That era was a Bon a Fidel dynasty, which will probably never be duplicated by any team, ever. This is regardless of payroll. I and others, including Yankee players and brass, realized it was folly to play each season as World Series or bust. With as much parity in talent and the randomness of short post season series, the goal is now, as it should have always been, make the playoffs. The wild card is ok too. This validates a successful season, the playoffs.

    So, with that in mind, it’s fair to say that money can NOT buy championships. It will most DEFINITELY increase the odds, exponentially, the chances of making the playoffs. The primary goal.

    • somekat - Dec 9, 2012 at 4:08 AM

      Then again, while the Yanks have always had the higest payroll, they have not been double the #2 team lately like they used to be during that era. It’s one thing to spend 200 mil, when someone else is spending 160, and a few others at 135-145 (especially since they constantly had a sizeable chunk tied up in bench players). It’s another to spend 180 million when #2 is spending 90ish, and the other highest are in the 70’s

      • koufaxmitzvah - Dec 9, 2012 at 9:03 AM

        Yankees spent $194 million last year. Philly $174 million. Angels $154 million. Red Sox $146 million.

        The Dodgers spent less than $94 million in 2012.

        What’s your point?

      • Francisco (FC) - Dec 9, 2012 at 10:08 AM

        You misunderstood him, I think he’s saying the Yankees of old outspent #2 by a factor of 2. Not sure when that was.

  19. dirtydrew - Dec 9, 2012 at 3:17 AM

    It’s funny, but I am quite sure the Dodgers are not as good as the world Champion Giants. This article ought be titled, ” Boy, the Dodgers have sure wasted a lot of money.”

    • lostsok - Dec 9, 2012 at 4:27 AM

      How does someone have their team win a championship, but still come off as jealous dweebs?

      Someone…the fans of the BALCO Giants manage to pull it off…

  20. somekat - Dec 9, 2012 at 3:55 AM

    Can’t be mad at them. If they have that kind of money, can’t hate them for spending it. They can have that payroll, and everything they bring in at the stadium during the season is still pure profit. They should take advantage of that extra money while they have it. Not that they’ll lose the money, but they’ll lose a chunk of the advantage. At the moment, they are the only team in the NL bringing in anywhere near that kind of money. Teams like the Phillies, Cubs and Nats (I believe) will all be getting new local deals soon (Phils are next year I believe). None of them will get as much as the Dodgers, but they wwill get a ton more than they are getting now, so they’ll all get a similar reveue spike.

    I’d be excited if I were a dodger fan, although maybe a bit disappointed that it didn’t come during a stronger FA class

  21. lostsok - Dec 9, 2012 at 4:30 AM

    Lot of hate for people who invested 2 billion dollars showing a willingness to spend more to make the product better. Long term I expect LA will go more on the Atlanta model: build from the inside one a major addition every few years.

    But this is their first full off-season running the team. How could they NOT go all out at this point and be taken seriously?

    If the new ownership HADN’T spent that money on the team…I can only imagine what the comments would be.

    • chill1184 - Dec 9, 2012 at 9:09 AM

      I think it’s a couple of things;

      1. What the Dodgers do (along with the Yankees and Red Sox) gives more ammunition to non-baseball fans, critics and pro-salary cap people who say Baseball is rigged and that only high payroll teams actually have a chance. While the rest just become farm systems.

      2. I can only speak for myself but I don’t blame the new ownership for doing what they’re doing. They’re biggest rival captures two world series titles in three years so it would be safe to bet that Dodger fans want their new ownership to do something. However you can’t blame other fans for just waiting for this to all fall apart. You can’t buy a championship, just increase your odds.

      • paperlions - Dec 9, 2012 at 10:22 AM

        I don’t think non-baseball fans care at all. What payroll disparity does do is continue to increase disparity between fan bases and revenues. It is probably slowly killing the viability of teams in many small markets. It is the frustrated former fans from small markets that use it as a reason to not follow baseball anymore.

  22. angrycorgi - Dec 9, 2012 at 5:52 AM

    NEWSFLASH: No broadcast deals have been signed. Their TV deal is purely optimistic speculation. Given the epic failures of other crazy ventures (see Longhorn Network) built around one team, FOX would be wise to back away from the table and think clearly before signing over a substantial amount of their earnings in one direction.

    • koufaxmitzvah - Dec 9, 2012 at 9:11 AM

      You can’t compare the Dodgers cable programming to UT football and the Longhorn network. 12 games vs 162 games for starters. And as popular as UT is in Texas and the rest of the West (during my last visit back home, I saw so much burnt orange that I thought I was back in Austin) it doesn’t come close to the universal popularity of the Dodgers.

      That’s something a lot of folks here are missing in their analyses. The Dodgers have a universal fan base. From Valenzuela to Gonzalez, Nomo to (potentially) Ryu, the Dodgers are selling jerseys and caps all across the globe. You can not underestimate the value of a growing, universal market.

    • manchestermiracle - Dec 10, 2012 at 10:53 AM

      Three million seven hundred thousand fans each year in the stadium alone torpedoes your argument.

  23. sdelmonte - Dec 9, 2012 at 7:20 AM

    So just how high will the Dodgers’ luxury tax be?

  24. buffalo65 - Dec 9, 2012 at 7:54 AM

    The only issue with these deals is you are paying for past performance and usually to get the guy you promise him large money into his twilight years. The Yanks are paying the price now for this. At least Greinke won’t be 40 in his final year of this deal.

  25. kash71 - Dec 9, 2012 at 8:03 AM

    Money can buy championships but it depends who you spend it on.

    If A-Rod for example lived up to his contract in the playoffs, maybe the Yankees would have had at least one more ring.

Leave Comment

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

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. J. Baez (2302)
  2. B. Crawford (2264)
  3. H. Pence (2205)
  4. B. Harper (2140)
  5. A. Rodriguez (2099)