Re: RF should be Reddicks to lose
posted at 6/30/2011 6:39 PM EDT
In Response to Re: RF should be Reddicks to lose
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: RF should be Reddicks to lose : This is all true. However, it's been my understanding, and history seems to point towards this, that incoming owners typically prefer as little guaranteed money as possible going forward. These billionaires don't like being told they HAVE to pay X player Y amount of money.
The Sox ownership tried every year from acquiring the Sox on to dump Manny. That being said, I don't think it's totally out of the question to see one of these two (Kemp/Ethier) moved for promising younger parts, or more controllable at least, as Ellsbury would be for an extra year than Kemp. A new owner is definitely NOT going to want to buy this team in the mess their in, and immediately have to negotiate with it's best player. That's a headache on top of a headache. Sox ownership basically gave no money to existing players. Lowe/Nomar/Pedro and later Manny were all traded, or left to walk. They (the team) wanted THEIR players, for better or worse. It's far easier to make a team your own when there aren't any big contracts or big egos left over from previous ownership, who may have let these guys do whatever they want on top of it (ahem...MANNY!).
Posted by ma6dragon9[/QUOTE]The Dodgers have control of both players through 2012 via arbitration. The 2004 walk away FAs in Boston have little to do with LA situation. Those players were left to walk after a team won a ES and the ownership had been in control of the team for two full seasons.
It didn't have anything do with wanting their own, each player was a valuation decision. And in the case of Nomar and Pedro they were very correct. LA went one year longer than Boston for Lowe, Tek resigned and Manny was Manny a unique package with no parallel.
The Trio were attracted to the RS IMO because they were getting a media outlet (NESN) and a pretty solid MLB team that needed a few tweaks to be a legimate annual post season competitor and therfore drive high revenues quickly to apply against their debt service.
Whoever buys the Dodgers will need to rebuild bridges with the fans and needs to competitive pretty much out the gate. The current TV contract expires in a couple of years and the next deal unless it is media outlet buying them is improved if the Dodgers are a draw. Whoever buys them is not going to want to surrender any fan market to Moreno and won't be happy if the media market erodes. And as I say the market here in LA has tough competition for the entertainment dollar and drives on star power.
If anything historically teams have tried to build themselves up to be put on the market and then balk at making any additional moves once they actively announce they are entertaining offers.
In short I think trading Kemp and/or Either is announcing a long rebuilding plan and that won't happen with the Los Angeles Dodgers. MLB isn't going to approve those type of moves happening until after there is a new owner and I suspect they believe by this time next year there will be a new owner (everybody but Frank McCourt thinks so.)