Skip to content

The Dodgers TV deal is almost done and they’re gonna spend like crazy

Jun 14, 2013, 11:32 AM EDT

dodgers logo

Bill Shaikin of the Los Angeles Times reports that a settlement of the long-brewing Dodgers TV deal has been reached and it will mean about $7 billion for the team over time.  That’s all interesting, but the implications of it are more interesting. Check out this quote from one of the team’s owners when asked if the Dodgers are going to be able to sign big deals as a result of their TV money windfall:

Boehly declined to comment on specific players. However, when asked whether the Dodgers could afford to take on two players with $200-million contracts if the baseball operations department recommended it, he answered, “Yes … And, if there was a need to put another $100 million into the stadium, we could do that to.”

Clayton Kershaw will almost certainly be one of them. But could they go after Robinson Cano? I suppose with this money they could go after anyone and everyone.

  1. wonkypenguin - Jun 14, 2013 at 11:48 AM

    Every post about these TV deals reminds me of the housing bubble and how, in three years, mlb.tv is going to cost $100 a month to cover it.

    • Jeremy Fox - Jun 14, 2013 at 1:20 PM

      Um, the price of mlb.tv will reflect the demand for it. If lots of people are willing to pay $100 a month for mlb.tv, that’s what the price will go up to, no matter whether the Dodgers choose to spend lots of money on salaries or not. Conversely, if nobody’s willing to pay $100 a month for mlb.tv, the price won’t go up to that level, no matter whether the Dodgers choose to spend lots of money on salaries or not.

      • wonkypenguin - Jun 14, 2013 at 3:31 PM

        Yeah, I understand basic economics. I’m just suggesting that this TV money thing may get (have gotten) out of control and, subsequently, the costs will be passed onto other venues because people won’t be willing to pay extravagant amounts for the sports package on their cable/dish and MLB will subsidize the fallout any way it can.

  2. davidpom50 - Jun 14, 2013 at 11:51 AM

    Obviously, Puig will be the second $200 million player, and he’ll be extended before the All Star break, because that’s how baseball works.

    • specialkindofstupid - Jun 14, 2013 at 12:00 PM

      +1

      Gosh, I wouldn’t put it past Ned Colletti to do just that.

    • historiophiliac - Jun 14, 2013 at 12:29 PM

      Why the hell would they give him that kind of money now?

    • evanwins - Jun 14, 2013 at 12:38 PM

      They have another 6 years left on his current deal. I don’t think they;re going to extend his deal with that much time left.

      • senioreditor2 - Jun 14, 2013 at 2:05 PM

        actually he’s arbitration eligible after 3

    • bubbalynch - Jun 14, 2013 at 8:28 PM

      Why would they pay him that kind of money? They just signed a 7 year deal worth $42 million!

  3. tfbuckfutter - Jun 14, 2013 at 11:52 AM

    I believe John Lackey may be available in the right trade situation.

    Just throwing it out there.

    • specialkindofstupid - Jun 14, 2013 at 12:04 PM

      Good idea. And, from a Braves’ fan perspective, let me add the names Dan Uggla and B.J. Upton. But, only if you ask nicely, because we really want to hold onto these two.

    • 18thstreet - Jun 14, 2013 at 12:36 PM

      Lackey’s become a bargain. The Red Sox get an extra year, if they so choose, at the league minimum thanks to his injury. So while he’s earning $15.25 this year and next, the team can (and, presumably will) pay him $500,000 in 2015.

      Three years at $10 million per is a very good value for a guy pitching as well as Lackey is.

      • 18thstreet - Jun 14, 2013 at 12:41 PM

        Lackey to the Dodgers
        Lee to the Red Sox
        The entirely Dodger farm system plus a top Red Sox prospect to Philadelphia.

        That’s my offer.

    • turdfurgerson68 - Jun 14, 2013 at 12:36 PM

      Why would the Sox trade him?

      With one year and 15mil left, given the way he’s been pitching, that seems reasonable.

      • turdfurgerson68 - Jun 14, 2013 at 12:38 PM

        of course if they could get a few decent pitching prospects for him its see ya later Lackey!

      • 18thstreet - Jun 14, 2013 at 12:38 PM

        Two years and 15.5 million left. He’s getting cheaper by the second.

    • asimonetti88 - Jun 14, 2013 at 1:01 PM

      Would they be interested in Albert Pujols and Josh Hamilton? They wouldn’t even need to move :D

  4. specialkindofstupid - Jun 14, 2013 at 11:59 AM

    Wait, haven’t they already spent like crazy? Is a big Juan Uribe extension in order now? Or an extension to Andre Ethier’s current extension? {shudders}

    • ryanrockzzz - Jun 14, 2013 at 1:09 PM

      Actually…they have some good uses for the money planned.

      1.) The Dodgers will invest in a badass time machine, that will be tested first by going back in time to get Hideo Nomo, and Raul Mondesi’s right arm. The arm would man right field and throw runners out with great regularity…Nomo will specialize in teaching Dodgers closer Brandon League a super cool badass delivery, which will hopefully hide his awful pitching.
      2.) They will print Jeffrey Loria a 1,000 dollar bill. After determining this bill will be enough to trade the entire team’s roster, Loria will feel shortchanged and will request a star on the Hollywood walk of fame to be thrown in. The Dodgers will then pay to have that roster take on the Harlem Globtrotters on a daily basis, finding some use for their consistent losing. Only Giancarlo Stanton, Mike Dunn and Billy the Marlin will remain on the active roster.
      3.) The team will pay 5,000 extra’s per home game to sit in the stands after all of the fans leave after the 4th inning
      4.) After seeing his leadership skills, they will then fire Don Mattingly replacing him with Billy the Marlin, who will hold all press conferences from his new home in the Pacific Ocean.

      I see nothing wrong with this influx of cash sir.

  5. kingscourt25 - Jun 14, 2013 at 12:05 PM

    Where are those idiots that said buying this team was an overpay? *looking at you *Darren Rovell*

  6. paperlions - Jun 14, 2013 at 12:13 PM

    $2.17B of that will be going into revenue sharing, 1/30th of which the Dodgers will get back.

    This TV deal will probably make more money for about 10 teams than those teams’ respective local TV deals will.

  7. yahmule - Jun 14, 2013 at 12:16 PM

    Give Kershaw $200 million and donate the other $200 million to his charities.

    http://www.kershawschallenge.com/2013-goal/

  8. Francisco (FC) - Jun 14, 2013 at 12:17 PM

    Wow, they are out-Yankee-ing the Yankees.

    • bh192012 - Jun 14, 2013 at 1:18 PM

      You were so close…. Should have been

      Wow, they’re out-Yanking the Yankees.

      At least that’s what I assume the GM’s of these teams do when they are looking at rosters.

      • Francisco (FC) - Jun 14, 2013 at 1:37 PM

        I’m out of practice. I’ll get it right next time.

  9. hisgirlgotburrelled - Jun 14, 2013 at 12:23 PM

    Perhaps a few bucks to Bryan Stow?

  10. goawaydog - Jun 14, 2013 at 12:26 PM

    Do they have anything other than money to go after a big trade such as Cliff Lee?

  11. drewsylvania - Jun 14, 2013 at 12:31 PM

    Great. Why not pay Stow’s medical bills with a tiny fraction of it?

  12. evanwins - Jun 14, 2013 at 12:46 PM

    Good luck Dodgers. The other team in LA “spent like crazy” and it’s not working out to well for them.

    And didn’t the Dodgers already “spend like crazy” when they took on Crawford, Gonzalez et al?

    These massive cash infusions seem to hurt teams more than help them. They go out and sign massive deals to aging players and then are shocked when they don’t get returns.

    General Managing a team with a high payroll is a specialized skill just like managing one with less resources is. Quite frankly only the Yankees have been successful in using this magnitude of resources to build a winning club. All other teams seem to get worse with the more money they’re given.

    • 18thstreet - Jun 14, 2013 at 2:10 PM

      I think that’s absolutely true. There have been a lot of teams that tried to buy championships, and very few have pulled it off. Lots of people (including me) have criticized Brian Cashman by wondering if he could be successful with a smaller payroll. It’s irrelevant, though. He’s got a huge payroll and he’s won with it. So many teams have tried to spend their way to titles and flopped at it.

      It’s like wondering if Phil Jackson or Bill Belichick could be a great women’s volleyball coach. Answer: probably, but that’s not his job. The Yankees hired the right guy.

  13. realgone2 - Jun 14, 2013 at 1:00 PM

    Apparently money can’t buy happiness or a good baseball team.

    • 4d3fect - Jun 14, 2013 at 2:37 PM

      “That’s *hic* impossible!”

      -Ned “Drunken Sailor” Colletti

  14. alwaysdodgers - Jun 14, 2013 at 3:16 PM

    When kemp and Crawford go to full recovery, i think that the dodgers letting go of Eithier could be a possibility, even with his contract

Leave Comment

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

Featured video

Pineda ejection wrong message from MLB
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. I. Davis (4225)
  2. K. Farnsworth (2945)
  3. M. Harrison (2905)
  4. D. Robertson (2813)
  5. M. Minor (2805)
  1. I. Nova (2711)
  2. M. Perez (2684)
  3. A. Eaton (2662)
  4. O. Taveras (2624)
  5. M. Machado (2623)