Joel Sherman says 'A surprising number of baseball execs believe the dodgers will ultimately be in...

Joel Sherman says 'A surprising number of baseball execs believe the dodgers will ultimately be in play on Fielder.'

Anything that keeps him away from texas.

Comments

He's gotta write SOMETHING.....

It’s Sunday.

by wumbug on Jan 22, 2012 12:23 PM PST reply actions

First problem : It's Joel Sherman writing

Second problem: Initial bids for the Dodgers aren’t being submitted to the court until tomorrow.

Selig’s stated optimal time frame doesn’t have the bidding completed until the end of April, more or less one month after the start of the season. The first round of bids are due tomorrow, then the parties will probably consolidate their numbers and form partnerships to get the deal done, but not before several months of bidding, getting any deal signed off by the bankruptcy court, etc. MLB has to approve of all the bidders in the final round of bidding before the process can advance to the final round, lest the winning bid be from a syndicate unpopular with current MLB owners, All of these processes take time.

It is worth remembering that it took Sam Zell two full seasons of baseball to auction off the Cubs and Wrigley, even though there was no bankruptcy court to deal with. It simply took that long for the parties to evaluate their bids, line up their financing and get to the finish line after multiple rounds of bidding.

That would put Colletti in a strange position in negotiation for Fielder: He has no idea what budget the new owner would be able to afford, so it is easy to say “yes” to anything Boras requests in order to close the deal (nota bene: This represents Scott Boras’ wet dream), but he could be saddling the franchise with the worst contract since Alphonso Soriano’s.

I simply don’t see how it is possible for McCourt to bid with money he clearly doesn’t have and with no financial constraints of any potential new owner known.

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read" ~Groucho Marx

by George Kaplan on Jan 22, 2012 3:59 PM PST reply actions

Didn't seem to slow down Texas.

Dear Texas: "One, two...........THREE!" The next number IS THREE!!!

by Stirrups on Jan 22, 2012 7:20 PM PST up reply actions

That's because MLB owned the Rangers during that time

As far as I can tell, McCourt is still the owner, with someone from MLB placed in the front office to approve/deny requests and make sure he doesn’t strip the franchise of assets on his way out.

Additionally, there were only two bidders for the Rangers when the bankruptcy court ordered the auction (the group with Mark Cuban and the winning Ryan group). At this point, there may be a half-dozen syndicates interested in buying the Dodgers, and it will take time to boil those down to a smaller number.

Think about it: How does a GM negotiate for a player when he has no idea what the maximum amount to bid is? That would be like me negotiating with Boras on behalf of the next ownership of the team, whose identity may not be known for 3-12 months. It would be very easy for me to say “yes” to anything Team Boras asks of me if the Prime Directive is to get Fielder on the Dodger roster, and as long as I am bidding against another team—or think I’m bidding against another team—then the price will go up and up and up.

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read" ~Groucho Marx

by George Kaplan on Jan 23, 2012 4:02 AM PST up reply actions

Adding a star first baseman isnt going to hurt the offers you get

if anything it would help.

by Balls and Strikes on Jan 23, 2012 6:56 AM PST up reply actions

No, it could be a plus

The problem is, most negotiations are framed by the financial limitations of those making the offers. The team might be able to offer $22M per season but not $23M, that sort of thing. If the person doing the negotiation (say, Colletti) doesn’t know what syndicate is going to be the owner, and knowing that the change in ownership may not take place for 6-12 months, can Colletti negotiate a salary McCourt can’t pay until the new owner take over?

If we assume that the Nationals are still in the hunt, then Boras has offers pinging back and forth, but when would Colletti know that the air is too thin? And what if he engineers the next Alphonso Soriano deal, which would be the inheritance of any new ownership?

We’re all assuming that Prince would show his value over a deal of 8-10 years (since they’re pegging the value against Pujols’ contract), but what if he gets a Mo Vaughn ankle injury early in the deal and is a shadow of himself thereafter, but drawing an enormous salary in the meantime? Such a contract might drive away bidders, not draw them in.

I think DiPoto should offer Boras $22M for a one-year deal for Fielder, let him DH and hit 4th behind Pujols, and wait until 2013 when both the Dodgers and Mets are ready to play with the big boys again.

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read" ~Groucho Marx

by George Kaplan on Jan 23, 2012 10:56 AM PST up reply actions

I would love to see the Angels sign Fielder to a one year deal as suggested

but that would almost necessitate a trade of K-Mo and/or a setback for Trumbo, are we sure thats the best option? I am not sold that K-Mo will come back to form or at all, but I am sure that Trumbo needs ABs next year. The addition of Fielder might cost us the future of both players for a 1 year loan and I’m not to sure I like that

When I flip a coin I dont say heads or tails, I say Halos or Spurs

by ItCouldHappen on Jan 23, 2012 6:02 PM PST up reply actions