What’s the long-term plan for Dodger Stadium?

11 Comments

Steve Dilbek talked to Stan Kasten about the plan for renovating Dodger Stadium. In the short term — meaning this offseason — there are a lot of things that are going to get done: upgrades to the electrical system and water pipes. A sound system tweak. Addition of more gathering areas. That sort of thing.

But when asked about larger, more long-term plans, Kasten says that he and his partners haven’t thought about it yet:

“I know what we need in this ballpark for now, that I can do now in this off-season. Now if I also knew I was going to be here for the next 50 years like Wrigley and Fenway, then we’d also be doing probably other 50-year things,” he said. “I would be announcing a five-year building program. That may yet happen. I haven’t had my time to think about the second step … I know those are fair questions, and there will be time for me and us to think about that. We just haven’t had that time yet. My guess is we’ll be here, long term, permanent.”

And, as Dilbek notes, it is just a guess, as there are a lot of possibilities involving Chavez Ravine, AEG — which the Guggenheim Group which owns the Dodgers may buy — and AEG’s plans to build an NFL stadium. Which could be downtown. Or could be at Chavez Ravine.  As could a ballpark for that matter.

My instincts as a fan would be to go with a Fenway-style renovation, keeping the beauty, view, and the most apparent and wonderful elements of Dodger Stadium intact, while modernizing the place.  Ultimately, though, it’s gonna be about the money.  Because it’s always about the money.

Must-Click Link: Do the players even care about money anymore?

Getty Images
2 Comments

Yesterday I wrote about how the union has come to find itself in the extraordinarily weak position it’s in. The upshot: their leadership and their membership, happily wealthy by virtue of gains realized in the 1970s-1990s, has chosen to focus on small, day-to-day, quality of life issues rather than big-picture financial issues. As a result, ownership has cleaned their clock in the past few Collective Bargaining Agreements. If the union is to ever get back the considerable amount of ground it has lost over the past 15 years, it’ll require a ton of hard work and perhaps drastic measures.

A few hours later, Yahoo’s Jeff Passan dropped an absolute must-read that expands on that topic. Through weeks of interviews with league officials, agents and players, he explains why the free agent market is as bad as it is for players right now and why so many of them and so many fans seem not to understand just how bad a spot the players are in, business wise.

Passan keys on the media’s credulousness regarding teams’ stated rationales for not spending in free agency. About how, with even a little bit of scrutiny, the “[Team] wants to get below the luxury tax” argument makes no sense. About how the claim that this is a weak free agent class, however true that may be, does not explain why so few players are being signed.  About how so few teams seem interested in actually competing and how fans, somehow, seem totally OK with it.

Passan makes a compelling argument, backed by multiple sources, that, even if there is a lot of money flowing around, the fundamental financial model of the game is broken. The young players are the most valuable but are paid pennies while players with 6-10 years service time are the least valuable yet are the ones, theoretically anyway, positioned to make the most money. The owners have figured it out. The union has dropped the ball as it has worried about, well, whatever the heck it is worried about. The killer passage on all of this is damning in this regard:

During the negotiations leading to the 2016 basic agreement that governs baseball, officials at MLB left bargaining stupefied almost on a daily basis. Something had changed at the MLBPA, and the league couldn’t help but beam at its good fortune: The core principle that for decades guided the union no longer seemed a priority.

“It was like they didn’t care about money anymore,” one league official said.

Personally, I don’t believe that they don’t care about money anymore. I think the union has simply dropped the ball on educating its membership about the business structure of the game and the stakes involved with any given rule in the CBA. I think that they either so not understand the financial implications of that to which they have agreed or are indifferent to them because they do not understand their scope and long term impact.

It’s a union’s job to educate its membership about the big issues that may escape any one member’s notice — like the long term effects of a decision about the luxury tax or amateur and international salary caps — and convince them that it’s worth fighting for. Does the MLBPA do that? Does it even try? If it hasn’t tried for the past couple of cycles and it suddenly starts to now, will there be a player civil war, with some not caring to jeopardize their short term well-being for the long term gain of the players who follow them?

If you care at all about the business and financial aspects of the game, Passan’s article is essential.