Dodgers Notes: Fielder, Barrack, Franchise Sale

With no clear frontrunner in the Prince Fielder sweepstakes, ESPN.com's Buster Olney (Insider link) says the Dodgers should step in and make a play for the slugger. Olney concedes current owner Frank McCourt "probably flinches reflexively at the idea of spending money these days," but argues that spending on Fielder would be a smart investment since it would increase the bids for the team over the next few months. Here's the latest on the sale of one of baseball's most storied franchises:

  • Tom Barrack, the head of a Santa Monica firm that controls $34 billion in assets, plans to pursue the Dodgers, reports Bill Shaikin of the Los Angeles Times.
  • U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Kevin Gross approved the Dodgers' settlements with MLB and Fox today, writes Shaikin in a separate piece. "We have a relatively short time left for the sale process," Gross said. "The settlement will allow the process to proceed without distraction."


23 Responses to Dodgers Notes: Fielder, Barrack, Franchise Sale Leave a Reply

  1. Lastings 3 years ago

    Wow a story about Barrack and Luke Scott on the same day. I call that coincidence!

  2. Mikeschoolerforever 3 years ago

    Buster Olney should bid for Prince instead of telling other teams what they need to do

  3. I wasn’t aware Buster Olney was a comedy writer.

  4. MarinersRoyalsBraves2014 3 years ago

    YES!! Dodgers and Kemp know they need to sign Fielder. It makes the team competitive for the division, and can get the money back during the purchase.

  5. PieroB 3 years ago

    S’nother mystery team that’s for sure. But no-trade clauses? Maybe? Since it doesn’t matter to the current owner or GM. They might be on their way out? The commish might block the deal as a result?

  6. ilikeike29 3 years ago

    For a second i thought it said that Barack Obama was buying the Dodgers.

    • thegrayrace 3 years ago

      Hey, he’s one of the few people in the world to take more criticism than Frank McCourt. At least it wouldn’t be a difficult transition…

  7. Don’t think Fielder is a fit for the Dodgers…

  8. shane abbas 3 years ago

    Ha!

  9. Gumby65 3 years ago

    You go Buster.  Read up on Dilbeck’s columns and come up with a super-sneaky national article.  Nevermind that everybody knows about “Frank’s potential parting gift” anyways…  But at 10 years, I hope Frank Doesn’t deliver.  Especially when a “more svelte” pops retired at 34, possibly (in all fairness) due to declination of skills associated with his weight.  Big money for 3-5 years?  Hell yeah, gift us Frankie.  May only dislike you a whole lot instead of wishing you land at Logan with the Patriots front line waiting to kick your bum on a Hollywood pay-off.

  10. Shane Kelly 3 years ago

    why on earth would the dodgers want to do that? any potential owner who doesn’t like the contract (assuming fielder signs a 7+ deal) would be less likely to make a bid. this would reduce the pool of potential buyers and run the risk of reducing the selling price. further, i doubt any particular group would offer significantly more because of fielder’s presence. yes it would certainly help on the baseball side, but it runs the high risk of scaring groups away who like the fact that the team is not burdened with any long-term commitments likely to turn sour (the Kemp deal looks like it will provide roughly fair value for both sides over the lifetime of it assuming the cost of a WAR keeps going up). in summary, it seems like an unnecessary risk for a sale that is already likely to top $1 billion. 

    • Red_Line_9 3 years ago

      I’m not sure that a Fielder contract would dent the overall value of the Dodgers as a franchise.  Like you were saying, the team likely sells for over $1 billion.  A Fielder contract is pocket change.

  11. Wow, is Olney reading MLBTR?  I proposed this exact thing last week in a Fielder Rumors thread.  

    • From Thursday…  now give me my gold star…

      Ryan AguirreCollapseSo can Frank McCourt sign Fielder to a massive deal with the league minimum as the first years salary so he can afford it, then years 2-8 just make up the first year?  A team with Kershaw, Kemp, Fielder and Ethier would surely bring in more money than a team without Fielder…  Right?  Backload that sumbich’n contract and reap the rewards come auction time?EditReply
      6 days agoF

      • I would be very afraid if I discovered that I thought the same as Buster Olney, and sure wouldn’t publicize it.

    • vtadave 3 years ago

      Yeah I’m sure he trolls this site looking for ideas from the geniuses that post here.

  12. 0bsessions 3 years ago

    This article is not relevant to my interests. What gives?

  13. Red_Line_9 3 years ago

    Potential owners are likely competitive human beings.  It could create more revenue to buy into.  I’m not saying that it’s make or break either way…but it could entice higher bidding.

  14. triple_play_baseball 3 years ago

    Granted, I don’t see this kind of scenario happening at all, it wouldn’t be such a bad idea. Fielder’s current market, from what’s been reported, is very limited. If it was hard seeing him sign a 10 year deal before the offseason started, it’s definitely harder to see it happen now. Why not pull the trigger on something in the 5 year range? He’s only 27

    Not only will the city be excited with having new ownership in place this season, they’ll be excited because the team would be actually be competitive. The value of the team rises with having an asset like Fielder on the roster.

Leave a Reply