Frank McCourt

$1.2B bid for the Dodgers: “There are questions within the sports industry about whether this is a genuine offer”

16 Comments

My first reaction to yesterday’s news that Bill Burke and Chinese investors were offering Frank McCourt $1.2 billion for the Dodgers was that Major League Baseball would be jumping for joy.  It’s probably a good rule, however, to never be content to settle on your first reaction, because stuff that involves billions of dollars is usually a lot more complicated than that.

And, as Steve Dilbeck reports in the L.A. Times, this could be a lot more complicated than that. MLB executives are skeptical of the bid. And, as Dilbeck’s post establishes, there are some good reasons for skepticism. Not to put too fine a point on it, but McCourt’s interests would be served quite conveniently by having an offer like this out there separate and apart from actually selling the team to the folks making this offer.

How?  Well, for starters, McCourt has been looking for minority investors to help him out of his jam.  If there was an offer like this on the table, McCourt could easily point to it and say “Hey, look how valuable this team is! If you want in, it’s gonna cost you more.”  Moreover, as the matter of his mismanagement of the Dodgers sits before the bankruptcy court, he could likewise point to this offer and say “if I’m such a bad steward of this team, why are people willing to give me billions for it!”

Throw in the fact that McCourt has had past business dealings with the Chinese — who are reportedly underwriting the majority of this bid — and it’s enough to at least make you raise an eyebrow about the seriousness of the offer.

Jake Peavy is having a bad go of things right now

SAN FRANCISCO, CA - MAY 25: Jake Peavy #22 of the San Francisco Giants pitches against the San Diego Padres during the first inning at AT&T Park on May 25, 2016 in San Francisco, California.  (Photo by Jason O. Watson/Getty Images)
Getty Images
4 Comments

Veteran hurler Jake Peavy has not signed with a team. It’s not because he’s not still capable of being a useful pitcher — he’s well-regarded and someone would likely take a late-career chance on him — and it’s not because he no longer wishes to play. Rather, it’s because a bunch of bad things have happened in his personal life lately.

As Jerry Crasnick of ESPN reports, last year Peavy lost millions in an investment scam and spent much of the 2016 season distracted, dealing with investigations and depositions and all of the awfulness that accompanied it. Then, when the season ended, Peavy went home and was greeted with divorce papers. He has spent the offseason trying to find a new normal for himself and for his four sons.

Pitching is taking a backseat now, but Peavy plans to pitch again. Here’s hoping that things get sorted to the point where he can carry through with those plans.

The AT&T Park mortgage is paid off

att park getty
Getty Images
14 Comments

This is fun: The San Francisco Giants recently made their last payment on the $170 million, 20-year loan they obtained to finance the construction of AT&T Park. The joint is now officially paid for.

The Giants, unlike most other teams which moved into new stadiums in the past 25 years or so, did not rely on direct public financing. They tried to get it for years, of course, but when the voters, the city of San Francisco and the State of California said no, they decided to pay for it themselves. They ended up with one of baseball’s best-loved and most beautiful parks and, contrary to what the owners who desperately seek public funds will have you believe, they were not harmed competitively speaking. Indeed, rumor has it that they have won three World Series, four pennants and have made the playoffs seven times since moving into the place in 2000. They sell out routinely now too and the Giants are one of the richest teams in the sport.

Now, to be clear, the Giants are not — contrary to what some people will tell you — some Randian example of self-reliance. They did not receive direct public money to build the park, but they did get a lot of breaks. The park sits on city-owned property in what has become some of the most valuable real estate in the country. If the city had held on to that land and realized its appreciation, they could flip it to developers for far more than the revenue generated by baseball. Or, heaven forfend, use it for some other public good. The Giants likewise received some heavy tax abatements, got some extraordinarily beneficial infrastructure upgrades and require some heavy city services to operate their business. All sports stadiums, even the ones privately constructed, represent tradeoffs for the public.

Still, AT&T Park represents a better model than most sports facilities do. I mean, ask how St. Louis feels about still paying for the place the Rams used to call home before taking off for California. Ask how taxpayers in Atlanta and Arlington, Texas feel about paying for their second stadium in roughly the same time the Giants have paid off their first.