Kind of new this, but still staggering to contemplate.
What the Dodgers have going for them in this position is that the L.A. media is not nearly as harsh as the N.Y. media is with the Yankees should their massive spending plan fail. What the Dodgers don't have going for them is that even with a big TV contract, over spending by $75M+ in any business still hurts somebody's pocket pretty huge.
"Certainly it is true that there is not a perfect correlation between highest salary in MLB and WS championships, but it helps."
A rich guy with a great idea and exceptional execution capabilities will always beat a poor guy with the same capabilities.
The issue is not whether the Doggies have money...it's whether they have a great idea (strategy) and the exceptional execution capabilities (people and processes) required to deliver the goods.
I continue to contend that their first move should have been to replace Agent Ned...but as a Giants fan, I'm awfully glad they didn't.
Well, in many cases, the teams count on the fans to support the higher payroll, in increased costs across the board. AT&T prices aren't what they were back in 2000, for sure.
Most of the current big spending teams money does come in the form of TV contracts, so you can say the fans don't technically 'pay', except maybe slightly higher cable bills when those bigger contracts force the channel subscriptions up, but it's not huge.
I think most fans are happy when their team spends more dollars. Especially if spent seemingly wisely. I do think some people are generally uncomfortable being the massive spenders, because of the connotation that you're trying to buy a trophy, rather than earn it through superior management and gameplay. But that only comes into play if you don't win -- everybody loves a winner no matter what.
I think Bud Seedy made a huge mistake. There was a window, where he could have engineered a move of the A's to the Los Angeles market.
When McCourt owned the dudgers, a vote by the other mlb owners may have had a chance.
Word is, this along with Tampa to the N.Y. area was briefly analyzed, but obviously rejected. Don't have a link, but they can't really come out and say it. Call it a 3rd party leak/acknowledgment.
Edit: Big difference, but now I do recall. It was the potential contraction of the A's and placing their owner into the dudgers ownership, after McCourt got booted out. Forgot the part about the Rays, but it also pertained to contraction.
Its a great pile of talent, but does not always translate into winning titles. If you were to look at them on paper, you would have to be impressed...
C A. Ellis1B A. Gonzalez2B M. EllisSS H. Ramirez3B L. CruzLF C. CrawfordCF M. KempRF A. Ethier
They are still on the hunt for a new SS/3B to bolster the line up as well. Hanley will just play the opposite position. I don't see much on the free agent market, but if they were willing to give up Dee Gordon, Luis Cruz, and someone like Zach Lee, I think they would be able to get a lot of different trade partners for a 3B/SS type. Its pretty obvious that they do not plan to build this team with youth from within, so prospects should mean anything at all to them.
Gonzolez, Kemp, Ethier: excellent...Cruz: very good...Ellis, Ramirez, Crawford: O Ha ha ha Ha ha!
On the whole a very good team if it was an average payroll...