Skip to content

Dodgers “50-50″ between Fox Sports and Time Warner for new television deal

Jan 5, 2013, 11:55 AM EDT

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

Fox Sports have long been considered the favorites to work out the oft-mentioned mega TV deal with the Dodgers, but Bill Shaikin of the Los Angeles Times hears that an agreement between the two sides is no longer a slam dunk.

Whether the Dodgers keep their television broadcasts on Fox Sports or move them to Time Warner Cable appears to be a “50-50″ proposition, according to a person familiar with the team’s TV negotiations but not authorized to discuss them.

The Dodgers remain in discussions with Fox and TWC, according to two people familiar with the talks. The Fox exclusive negotiating period expired five weeks ago.

At the time, the Dodgers and Fox were negotiating a deal that could have been worth at least $6 billion over 25 years. However, no deal has been finalized, in part because the Dodgers prefer to avoid a U.S. Bankruptcy Court showdown with Major League Baseball over the structure of the deal.

In the interim, the Dodgers appear increasingly intrigued with the wide latitude TWC might be able to provide for all-day programming — for the team, and perhaps for other entertainment assets of Guggenheim Partners. Mark Walter, the Dodgers’ controlling owner, is chief executive of Guggenheim Partners, which controls Dick Clark Productions.

In a nutshell, there’s disagreement over whether the Dodgers will end up contributing either around $1 billion or $2 billion to MLB’s revenue sharing program, so they are looking at alternative ways to structure a deal that will allow them to keep as much money as possible while making MLB (and the court) happy. As Craig pointed out last month, the difference between these two figures represent more than most teams get for their entire television deal. Some world they are living in.

  1. dirtydrew - Jan 5, 2013 at 12:17 PM

    Now they will just be paying more for lousy play by over the hill has been’s. Go GIANTS!

    • koufaxmitzvah - Jan 5, 2013 at 12:52 PM

      Can you name the over the hill hasbeen whom the new Dodgers ownership signed to an outlandish contract?

      Apparently, one needs at least 3 World Championships before the fandom begins to make any sense.

      • Kevin S. - Jan 5, 2013 at 12:59 PM

        Brandon League
        Andre Ethier (locking into his years of likely being an over-the-hill hasbeen, anyway)

        Acquiring the outlandish deals of over-the-hill hasbeens Hanley Ramirez, Carl Crawford, Adrian Gonzalez and Josh Beckett.

      • koufaxmitzvah - Jan 5, 2013 at 1:07 PM

        Over the hill at 31? Ethier was signed by McCourt. Picking up contracts does not equate signing players to those contracts.

        Do 3 strikes still make an out in your world?

      • cosanostra71 - Jan 5, 2013 at 1:30 PM

        Whether or not they signed Crawford, Beckett, etc, themselves, they still acquired the contracts, which has the same effect.

      • Kevin S. - Jan 5, 2013 at 3:16 PM

        Ethier signed his extension a month after Guggenheim bought the team, and for a player of Ethier’s body type and skill set, early decline is something I’d look for.

        And you’re right, picking up contracts isn’t the same as handing them out. The Dodgers were dumb enough to surrender prospects with actual value, too.

      • paperlions - Jan 5, 2013 at 4:46 PM

        What the Dodgers have is a lot of expensive players, many of which have not played up to their reputation for a while, or have never been as productive as their reputation suggests. They have a LOT of “names”, most of which can expected to be solid regulars and not much more.

      • koufaxmitzvah - Jan 6, 2013 at 9:05 AM

        Stupid, Kevin? I admit that I would have liked to watch to Eovaldi, Webser, and de la Rosa develop as Dodgers, but what they got in return– Ramirez, Gonzalez, Crawford, and even Beckett– makes the Dodgers more competitive over the next 3 years than sub-five year major league pitching.

        That could just be me, of course. You’re the one with the untainted vision, right?.

      • koufaxmitzvah - Jan 6, 2013 at 9:11 AM

        Paper: I agree the names on the back of the jersey don’t automatically equate success. Ramirez is going to be a test, and Crawford is a bit of a gamble. Gonzalez, however, will be just as good if not better than his time in Boston simply by playing in a stadium and location that he is much more familiar with, in a division in which he thrived, and surrounded by a lineup that is much more formidable than his Padres days. And, yes, I think that is worth 2 top minor league pitchers + 2 minor league position players + 1 James Loney.

        I don’t think you’re crazy thinking it won’t necessarily work out, but I would rather take the wait and see approach than dumping on them all off-season.

      • koufaxmitzvah - Jan 6, 2013 at 9:19 AM

        No, Cosanostra. You are wrong.

        The free agent market was driven by the people signed those players. Therefore, Boston felt that both Becket and Crawford would be worth their $17 million this year, and Florida felt that Ramirez would be worth his $15 million. The Dodgers, on the other hand, felt that Ramirez + contract was worth Nate Eovaldi and Gonzalez, Crawford, Beckett + contracts were worth 4 minor leaguers and James Loney but only if Nick Punto was part of the deal.

        That’s not the same thing. If those players are paid too much, you t hank Florida and Boston. They drove the marketplace for those guys. The Dodgers are there to sop it up. That’s quite evident, and I’m stunned when core HBTers can’t differentiate between the two.

    • bubbalynch - Jan 5, 2013 at 1:26 PM

      Look who is talking, a die hard sf fan (since 2010) whose team signs the likes of Rowand, Huff, Zito just to name a few! SF fans have never been accused to be the sharpest tools in the shed. THINK BLUE

      • whitlockd - Jan 5, 2013 at 2:44 PM

        The first Huff signing was a steal. The second signing was the make-up.

    • lostsok - Jan 5, 2013 at 7:04 PM

      Maybe LA should just team up with BALCO like the Giants. That seems to work…

    • fanofevilempire - Jan 5, 2013 at 7:24 PM

      I have no problem with how the Dodgers spend their money, at least they put their money into their team and they often win. I hate owners who get the revenue share money and write themselves huge bonus checks, then they cry poor for the fans.
      I’m a Yankee fan, so you know I like huge salaries and I like to beat up on .500 teams too.

  2. phipfwe76 - Jan 5, 2013 at 1:42 PM

    As long as Vin Scully goes with, it doesn’t matter to me where they show their games.

    • D.J. Short - Jan 5, 2013 at 4:05 PM

      +1

  3. cavemanna - Jan 5, 2013 at 11:28 PM

    All I know is that from here on out the Dodgers have money to build a squad. How n the world is HanRam an over the hill has been ? Last I heard AGon was a pretty decent hitter. We took on the Beckett and Craford contracts cuz we wipe our azzez with dough now. Go Blue

  4. fiddytucker - Jan 6, 2013 at 8:05 AM

    Doyers preent mony senior.

Leave Comment

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

Featured video

This was 'the perfect baseball game'
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. S. Kazmir (4990)
  2. K. Uehara (4313)
  3. T. Wood (3665)
  4. G. Springer (3468)
  5. J. Kubel (3305)
  1. M. Machado (3162)
  2. T. Walker (3009)
  3. H. Rondon (3003)
  4. D. Pedroia (2949)
  5. J. Reyes (2894)