Skip to content

Dodgers owner Mark Walter says the team can be a dynasty

Mar 1, 2013, 9:00 AM EDT

New Los Angeles Dodgers owners Patton, Jr., Kasten,Walter, Johnson, Guber and Boehly pose after a news conference to announce the new ownership of the Major League Baseball team at Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles

Bob Nightengale sat down for an interview with Dodgers owner Mark Walter and team president Stan Kasten yesterday. And if there was any notion that Walter is going to be some sort of behind the scenes, business-oriented owner, it was put to rest.

Walter sends Kasten trade ideas all the time. He talks about how damn frustrating it was to see the Dodgers not be able to hit against the Rockies, essentially saying, “hey, their pitchers suck, why can’t we hit them?” And, he says, the Dodgers are going to become as dominant in the NL West as the Braves were in the East throughout the 90s:

They believe the Dodgers will become a dynasty, and when asked whether it’s possible for anyone to duplicate the Atlanta Braves’ era when they won 14 consecutive division titles with Kasten as president, they weren’t shy.

“It’s going to be done again,” Walter said, “this time on the West Coast. Oh, sorry.”

Kasten, briefly taken aback by the bravado, said: “I’m saying, ‘Yes.’ But that’s all I’m going to say.”

I like owners to be fans. I like them wanting to win. While you don’t want a guy to constantly meddle or turn into some sort of old Steinbrenner/Loria figure, I sorta hope Walter becomes one of those hands-on owners who is happy when the team wins and loudly complains when they lose. It’d be good for business.

  1. historiophiliac - Mar 1, 2013 at 9:05 AM

    Perhaps he will follow the Ilitch model. :)

    • Old Gator - Mar 1, 2013 at 9:37 AM

      No, Illitch wasn’t talking dynasty in the traditional sense. The Dodgers really do plan to undertake several generations of inbreeding.

      • historiophiliac - Mar 1, 2013 at 9:47 AM

        I meant about his style of management — not the Hapsburg effect.

      • fanofevilempire - Mar 1, 2013 at 11:51 AM

        all you fallas are wrong Dynasty was a tv show, filmed in LA.

        my opinion is a Dynasty should be defined by championships.

        Montreal Canadians
        Islanders
        Yankees
        Reds
        Oakland-Catfish and Reggie
        Cowboys
        New England * caught cheating
        Lakers
        Celtics

        I probably left out a few, but you see my point.

    • fanofevilempire - Mar 1, 2013 at 11:40 AM

      Steinbrenner did a lot of winning and as much as I dislike Loria, he did
      win it all twice. Walters hasn’t won anything yet, so he should stay quiet.
      The Dodgers have been doing a lot of talking, I hope Donnies guys can deliver.

      • larrymahnken - Mar 1, 2013 at 12:08 PM

        Loria won once.

      • Old Gator - Mar 1, 2013 at 7:10 PM

        I can understand “fan’s” mistake. It does feel like Scrooge McLoria has been here forever.

  2. uyf1950 - Mar 1, 2013 at 9:09 AM

    Before an owner of a team talks dynasty shouldn’t they at least win something?

  3. Chris Fiorentino - Mar 1, 2013 at 9:11 AM

    Sounds to me like they are following the lead of the Eagles a couple years ago. Get a bunch of high-priced players together and call it a “Dream Team” or “Dynasty”. I’ll say about these guys what I said about the Eagles…can they win ONE World Series before they start spouting off on being a “Dynasty”? Bravado is nice…but so is a little humility every once in a while.

    • historiophiliac - Mar 1, 2013 at 9:28 AM

      Or division/league championships? I’d say that if you win a string of those even if you don’t take the big prize, you’re a legit dynasty. After all, the Marlins won a WS but I don’t think anyone talks about the Feesh Dynasty much.

      • Chris Fiorentino - Mar 1, 2013 at 9:32 AM

        I don’t think you are a legit dynasty unless you win 3 championships within 5 or 6 years. What I meant in my post was that you can’t even START TALKING about becoming a dynasty until you win at least one title. What the Bills did in the early 90’s was a great accomplishment losing 4 Super Bowls in a row…but they weren’t a dynasty by any means. Taking it to baseball, if the Giants win their third in four years this year, then I would consider their team a dynasty for the first half of the 2010 decade.

      • historiophiliac - Mar 1, 2013 at 9:38 AM

        No, I got what you meant about wins and I agree with you. I’m just saying I don’t think it necessarily has to be the big dance.

        PS when you bring up football, you know you lose me, right?

      • bgrillz - Mar 1, 2013 at 10:25 AM

        So the Yankees, who keep getting bounced in the first round every year, and wins their division makes them a dynasty? Rings make you a dynasty. No one will think of the Buffalo Bills being a dynasty. They will always recognize them for losing 4 straight super bowls.

      • historiophiliac - Mar 1, 2013 at 10:34 AM

        First of all, if you want to talk about football, there’s a freaking page for that, and it’s NOT HERE. Secondly, if your team goes to the WS every year for 4 years and you don’t consider that remarkable or you think you’re a loser if you don’t win them, then you are either a Yankees fan or someone that the fans of a bunch of other teams hate. Shesus. If you think everyone who doesn’t win the WS is a loser, you seriously need some perspective.

      • zzalapski - Mar 1, 2013 at 10:35 AM

        @bgrillz: First round every year, huh? Like 2012? Or 2010? Or 2009?

      • srgntyork - Mar 1, 2013 at 10:45 AM

        Rings are the only measure of a dynasty period. Sports, professional sports especially, are about winning. You dont get bonus points for coming close. Try asking the people who play the game, its all about the rings peop-le!

      • Chris Fiorentino - Mar 1, 2013 at 10:47 AM

        histo…I wouldn’t say that a team that loses in the WS is a “loser”. Or a team that loses 4 straight World Series is a “loser”. I would say that is a great accomplishment. But I would never say that team was a “Dynasty”. I guess I’m a “small dynasty” guy. Dynasties are reserved for teams that win championships. The Braves of the 90’s were NOT a Dynasty no matter how much some Braves fans want to say they were. They won 1 World Series. They were a great team and winning 14 straight division titles is a great accomplishment. But there is no way in 50 years people are going to talk about the Atlanta Braves Dynasty of the 1990’s.

      • historiophiliac - Mar 1, 2013 at 10:51 AM

        You’re right. I would agree that’s small thinking.

      • chill1184 - Mar 1, 2013 at 11:04 AM

        @historiophiliac

        While what the Bills did was remarkable by fan standards. Sports lore views the Bills as a team who choked four times in a row. In some forums I saw that uttered about the Texas Rangers which in my opinion don’t view as fair. The general definition of dynasty is multiple league championships in a short amount of time. Currently the only team that has a legit shot at that are the SF Giants.

      • Chris Fiorentino - Mar 1, 2013 at 11:29 AM

        You know what, histo…I went back and checked into the Braves run a little further. I’m not a historian of baseball the way I am with Football so I have to admit I may have spoken a little too soon about those 90’s Braves. In the 90’s the Braves made it to 5 World Series and won 1. They were a Dynasty. I stand corrected. If you make it to 5 championships, you only have to win one of them to be a Dynasty in my eyes.

      • historiophiliac - Mar 1, 2013 at 11:30 AM

        chill, we have 2 leagues, so it’s a little different. If you were NL or AL champs every year for 4 years, I would consider that substantial even if you didn’t win the WS. Again, if you think making it 4 times but not winning it is choking, you’re a spoiled fan of the Evil Empire or something.

      • chill1184 - Mar 1, 2013 at 11:36 AM

        @historiophiliac

        I wasn’t disagreeing with you at all just making a general point. In addition you know I’m not a Yankee fan. I would ecstatic if my team made it to the big dance four years in a row. As a Mets, Devils, Steelers and Knicks fan I’ve always cherished any accomplishment the teams have made.

      • historiophiliac - Mar 1, 2013 at 11:54 AM

        I guess you all think someone’s not an HOF’er if they don’t have a ring either. smh

    • escapingexile - Mar 1, 2013 at 9:37 AM

      Granted, I don’t follow the Eagles so I can’t say I am positive of the context in which Vince Young ran off at the mouth calling the team in which he was a backup the dream team. That being said, Walter was asked a direct question and gave a direct answer. How did you want him to answer? As a fan, I’d be peeved if he said yeah hopefully we can win one. I don’t want to hear that from my owner. I’m from L.A. damn it, and a baseball fan above anything else. We need another Jerry Buss type running the Dodgers. Championship or bust. That’s what you play the game for, and that’s all anyone should care about, regardless of the sport.

      • Chris Fiorentino - Mar 1, 2013 at 9:51 AM

        I’m with you on having a confident ownership. But it’s one thing to say we want to win and quite another to say we are going to be a dynasty. The “d” word shouldn’t be even spoken by anyone who hasn’t won a championship yet. So if the Giants want to say something about dynasty, then they can because they have won two of the last 3. Even the Cardinals with 2 of the last 7 WS Titles are closer to a dynasty than the Dodgers.

  4. bgrillz - Mar 1, 2013 at 9:23 AM

    They are looking up at someone who, in reality, are chasing a dynasty. You know, those two rings in NoCal, that actually exist…

    • Old Gator - Mar 1, 2013 at 9:39 AM

      You’re talking about those rings on the History Channel map showing the extent of the destruction five and ten miles from the epicenter, respectively?

    • cosanostra71 - Mar 1, 2013 at 12:50 PM

      NoCal?

  5. pellypell - Mar 1, 2013 at 10:08 AM

    Definition of DYNASTY
    1: a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time

    A powerful group(Dodgers) that maintains it’s position(losing) for a considerable time(1999-2013 and beyond). So yes, in the literal sense, the Dodgers are a dynasty.

    • mrfloydpink - Mar 1, 2013 at 10:31 AM

      Did you really just characterize the Dodgers of 1999-2013, with their grand total of one playoff win, as “powerful”?

    • Chris Fiorentino - Mar 1, 2013 at 10:51 AM

      I don’t think it’s fair to call their position “losing” considering they made the playoffs 4 times in 6 years between 2004 and 2009. They had a couple lean years, but there are a TON of teams (Pirates, Royals, etc) who would love to have had that type of run.

      And I believe mrfloyd missed your sarcasm, then missed the fact that the Dodgers actually won two playoff series(2008 and 2009).

  6. echech88 - Mar 1, 2013 at 10:35 AM

    Seeing as their biggest asset is free agency and free agency has proven to be a short term and often ineffective way of *sustained* success, I fail to see how they are going to be the new Braves.

    Money doesn’t help in the draft anymore with the new rules and if they are in indeed going to be abusing their $ advantage in free agency, they will be without a first round pick (and probably 2nd..and the money attached to those picks) pretty much every year.

    They will be good for sure but dynasties are built with extremely productive farm systems churning out guys in their PRIME. If anything, the presence of the Dodgers’ spending will just motivate teams to lock up their young superstars even quicker, meaning fewer and fewer high impact free agents will be available in their prime years.

  7. srgntyork - Mar 1, 2013 at 10:40 AM

    Dynasty? lolol Is this guy serious? They haven’t won a championship since 1981 you have to go back to 1964 to find another. NIghtengale might want to try and winning more than one title in the last 32 years before he starts throwing around dynasty talk. By the way how did that big payroll do last year?

    • chill1184 - Mar 1, 2013 at 11:15 AM

      I hate the Dodgers but they won the WS in 1988 and before that 1981. So if your going to rant about them at least use facts

  8. elmo - Mar 1, 2013 at 10:55 AM

    After the “wasteland years” of Fox and McCourt, I’ll be content if they can stay competitive within the division every year and make the playoffs most years. Time will tell if this is really a new era. There’s been New Sheriffs in town before who came and left without much to show for it.

  9. omniusprime - Mar 1, 2013 at 11:38 AM

    I like that one of the Dodger’s new owners is confident about the team’s future but first things first. First win a championship before yapping about being a dynasty. I’m glad that corrupt moneychanger McCourt is gone, all he did was bankrupt the team while turning it into the laughingstock of MLB.

    On another note Pete Rose does not deserve to ever disgrace the Hall of Shame of MLB. The young morons who don’t know what Pete did wrong are all wrong saying he should be forgiven. Pete was a habitual gambler who was given three chances and all three time he screwed up and broke his deal to clean up his gambling ways on pro baseball. If MLB allows this habitual gambling criminal into the Hall of Shame then MLB will prove that it is the most corrupt pro sport in the world.

    Go Dodgers!!!

    • natslady - Mar 1, 2013 at 1:52 PM

      Here is the problem with Rose saying he only bet on his own team to win. It was pointed out on Baseball Tonight that he didn’t bet on his team for every game. So the days he didn’t bet, obviously he had inside info (like his pitcher for that night was going to stink)–and what do you figure happened to the betting lines when they saw he didn’t place a bet?

      You just have to look at soccer to see a sport infected with gambling and fixing. Sorry, Mr. Rose, you were a great player, and fine, have an exhibit in Cooperstown. But no plaque for you, nope!

    • buckeye2280 - Mar 1, 2013 at 3:22 PM

      F the dodgers and you are an IDIOT. IF 1 Roid head gets in the HALL OF FAME then so should Rose. Tell me who did more damage to the sport, Rose or all the players that have fucked over the stats of baseball. Baseball has been the 1 sport where you can compare numbers between era’s

      Frack the Dodges. GO REDS. (Big Red Machine, GREATEST EVER!)

      • Reflex - Mar 1, 2013 at 4:43 PM

        1) Rose did far more damage and its not even close. Rose affected the integrity of the game in a way that impacted whether or not fans could even be certain the outcome on the field was real rather than fixed. What he did blurred the line between a serious sport and theater like pro wrestling. It is unforgivable and absolutely should never be forgiven.

        2) I dislike the roiders as well, but I guarantee you some are already in the Hall, and even a lot of classic players like Ruth used early versions of roids(sheep testicle extract for instance). However at the end of the day they did not impact the game to the degree that gambling has, which nearly ruined the sport a century ago. Yes they tainted some records, but so did cocaine in the 80’s, greenies in the 60’s and 70’s, and so on. Its bad, and I do not mind leaving them out of enshrinement, but they are not nearly as bad as those who compromised the sport as a whole, the gamblers.

        3) If you have thought you can ever compare numbers between eras in baseball then you do not understand baseball eras. How can one possibly compare straight up the dead ball era of the teens to the live ball era of the 20’s? By your standard, hitters all sucked one decade, then were awesome the next. Fact is a lot of things changed beyond the players that affected how the game was played. This has happened repeatedly throughout baseball, and is why advanced statistics correct for era as well as park, player and position. Nothing the roiders did affected the ability to compare eras, they were never comparable.

  10. officialgame - Mar 1, 2013 at 3:19 PM

    It’s a long season dude.

  11. djpostl - Mar 1, 2013 at 5:25 PM

    So lots of divisional titles and abject failure in the playoffs is a dynasty now?

  12. jimeejohnson - Mar 1, 2013 at 7:37 PM

    The owner is no Genghis Kahn! More like…kim jong un (bluster king).

Leave Comment

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

Featured video

Can Angels recoup loss of Richards?
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. R. Castillo (5133)
  2. M. Cuddyer (2606)
  3. K. Bryant (2368)
  4. W. Myers (2054)
  5. G. Richards (2041)
  1. H. Ramirez (2008)
  2. D. Ortiz (1988)
  3. A. Cashner (1890)
  4. J. Hamilton (1859)
  5. A. McCutchen (1819)