Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 35
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Brea,CA
    Posts
    31,716
    vCash
    1500
    Shields is 30 years old and good, definitely not great, not worth giving up Lee + Gordon, we need those 2 guys for our future, need to build up a good farm system
    Foam Party!

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    2,208
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by DigglinDickers View Post
    I just can't wait for the winter meetings to get on the way and i have a feeling that Dre is getting traded. My only concern is they don't give Hamilton too many years.
    I feel this is going to happen too. I love Dre but if we can get an ace or 2 starter for him as part of a package, I would do it. Hamilton would be great on a short term deal if we can nab him for 3 years or less. Maybe 4 if we can make it an option for the last year. I dont see him getting long term security because of his history and exceedingly poor play down the stretch for the Rangers last season. We will see though.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    10,697
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by LASportsFan1996 View Post
    Shields is 30 years old and good, definitely not great, not worth giving up Lee + Gordon, we need those 2 guys for our future, need to build up a good farm system
    I wouldn't give up Lee but Ethier + Gordon and cash? That wouldn't be bad.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Brea,CA
    Posts
    31,716
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Dodgerbluemmm24 View Post
    I wouldn't give up Lee but Ethier + Gordon and cash? That wouldn't be bad.
    I'd do that, but Ethier's salary is in question, we'd have to pay quite a bit of his salary, another thing to consider is Shields is due up for free agency in 2014, so he could ultimately be a rental player, I wouldn't touch Shields
    Foam Party!

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    The doghouse (wife won't let me in)
    Posts
    1,325
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by LASportsFan1996 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dodgerbluemmm24 View Post
    I wouldn't give up Lee but Ethier + Gordon and cash? That wouldn't be bad.
    I'd do that, but Ethier's salary is in question, we'd have to pay quite a bit of his salary, another thing to consider is Shields is due up for free agency in 2014, so he could ultimately be a rental player, I wouldn't touch Shields
    My fear is that Colletti is willing to toss in Lee - he always overdoes it in trades. Ethier, Dee, spec (not lee) and $ wouldn't be horrible. We would need to resign him to a 3 year deal to make it worth it.

    Either way we would likely still get Grienke and Hamilton if that trade happened.

    I'm loving this tv deal !!!!


    A Real American HERO !!!





    Quote Originally Posted by spliff(TONE) View Post
    Dodgers rule.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SG 9 Miles from Dodger Stadium
    Posts
    8,690
    vCash
    1500
    i was just about to post this.

    6-7 billion.

    if it goes thru in a few months the guggenheim group would have tripled their investment.

    i still wish colletti was replaced with a better gm though.

    i dont trust him with and without money.


    PWEEEG The Gawwd

  7. #22
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    5,328
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by IndiansFan337:24455387
    A few months before they sold the team, didn't the former owner try to pass a new TV deal for only $2 billion that Selig rejected?

    This is 3+ x that amount. That is an unbelievable difference.
    Here is the thing, it was when McCourt still owned the team. I've been saying this since the team was sold, the new owners are doing all these big name trades to start a bidding war to drive the price of the rights up to the other universe. My only what if I have is, what if this is what happened. They get their contract and what now? Would the owners keep on spending?
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    ^ESPN and PSD Agrees

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Akron, Ohio
    Posts
    42,999
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by mikekhelxD View Post
    Here is the thing, it was when McCourt still owned the team. I've been saying this since the team was sold, the new owners are doing all these big name trades to start a bidding war to drive the price of the rights up to the other universe. My only what if I have is, what if this is what happened. They get their contract and what now? Would the owners keep on spending?
    I'm sure that they would have paid less to McCourt for the team if they would have been locked into a long term TV contract already.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    5,328
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by IndiansFan337:24461438
    Quote Originally Posted by mikekhelxD View Post
    Here is the thing, it was when McCourt still owned the team. I've been saying this since the team was sold, the new owners are doing all these big name trades to start a bidding war to drive the price of the rights up to the other universe. My only what if I have is, what if this is what happened. They get their contract and what now? Would the owners keep on spending?
    I'm sure that they would have paid less to McCourt for the team if they would have been locked into a long term TV contract already.
    Well, that's a given. What i'm trying to say is that the proposed 2 billion that Fox was willing to pay for the a new contract is a team consisted of washed up players, shaky ownership, and seemed like a very dark future. Since the new owners pretty much did a 180 on the organization, the price of 2billion would not cut it. That's the difference.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    ^ESPN and PSD Agrees

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,551
    vCash
    1500
    It has been 2 years since I posted in this forum, even though I read posts everyday here. But I had to chime in on this. Holy God! That is a huge deal, and like Mikekehlx said, this is the beginning of a tv bidding war for all MLB teams with regionalized sports networks. I think you could see Hamilton/Grienke out of this but I wouldn't count on both. Grienke yes. When the angels over spent last year it wasnt a baseball move, it was a tv move. Justify the big contract with Fox, 150 mill a year/20 years, with Pujols and Wilson. I think the real LA team has showed it will be the star capital of baseball for the next 20+ years.

    Now, forgo the new football stadium in downtown, make it the new Dodger Stadium and use Chavez Ravine for Football. That is the only thing that makes sense!

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    2,208
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by BigtimeDodger View Post
    It has been 2 years since I posted in this forum, even though I read posts everyday here. But I had to chime in on this. Holy God! That is a huge deal, and like Mikekehlx said, this is the beginning of a tv bidding war for all MLB teams with regionalized sports networks. I think you could see Hamilton/Grienke out of this but I wouldn't count on both. Grienke yes. When the angels over spent last year it wasnt a baseball move, it was a tv move. Justify the big contract with Fox, 150 mill a year/20 years, with Pujols and Wilson. I think the real LA team has showed it will be the star capital of baseball for the next 20+ years.

    Now, forgo the new football stadium in downtown, make it the new Dodger Stadium and use Chavez Ravine for Football. That is the only thing that makes sense!
    Once this deal gets signed, we are the yankees of the west coast easily. lol. I think with this we will get rid of Ethier now as part of a package for another ace and then still sign Hamilton and Greinke. If that is the case, I dont see us signing Ryu unless Bills is included in the trade for the ace but that is too much salary to dispose of imo.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,551
    vCash
    1500
    The big thing about this deal that will come out over the next few days is the $84 mill cap that was secretly done in bankruptcy court with MLB.

    John Helyar and two other authors report that "[the settlement]... gives the Dodgers' new owners a chance to cap income subject to revenue-sharing from a proposed regional sports network at about $84 million a year, according to five people familiar with the confidential ‘special terms.'"

    What I take from this is that currently all MLB baseball teams share 34% of their local tv dollars with other MLB owners. But the Dodgers won't have to share 34% of 250-300 mill, just 34% of 84 mill. That is worth the 2 bill spent. The dodgers would only spend roughly 24 mill with MLB rather then 75-90 mill a year. Wow, this is going to ruffle the feathers of many MLB team owners if what was reported in May is true.
    Last edited by BigtimeDodger; 11-26-2012 at 09:09 AM.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,133
    vCash
    1500
    I can't wait to see what moves the Dodgers will make after the TV deal.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Torrance, CA
    Posts
    1,562
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by IndiansFan337 View Post
    A few months before they sold the team, didn't the former owner try to pass a new TV deal for only $2 billion that Selig rejected?

    This is 3+ x that amount. That is an unbelievable difference.
    Yes, it was rejected because Selig didn't want McCourt to be able to save his financial issues with the new TV deal and keep the team. If you think about it, McCourt needed the money so bad, all the leverage was on Fox's side. They surely lowballed him, and were probably crossing every finger imaginable that Selig would approve it so that they wouldnt have to do real negotiations with the new ownership group.

    I am not surprised by the $$ for this deal. If you think about it, now that the Lakers are with TWCSN, FSW and FSPT would basically be the Angels and Clippers network, if they could not get the Dodgers contract. It would have been really bad for FSW and FSPT so they basically had to overpay.

    These googenheim guys (or whatever they are called) are also gonna take over AEG (Staples Center, Kings, NFL in LA). They are great businessmen that have seen the opportunity in the LA Market, and are taking it over. In 20 years, we will all look back and say damn those googenheim guys run LA sports and did a damn good job.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    La Puente, CA
    Posts
    7,431
    vCash
    1500
    If I were the Dodgers, I'd say $10 billion to FOX or go shove it until the current deal ends. The idea of negotiating with other networks at the end of next season and fetching a bigger payday just seems so enticing.

    If we were to hook onto a channel like CBS Sports Network, then I think we would be visible from all over the country. But I doubt that network has enough $$$$ to compete with FOX or Time Warner for a massive contract.


    Future Hall of Shamers:
    (1) B.A.L.C.O. Barroids (2) Mark McJuicer (3) Jose Chem-seco (4) Rafael Palmeiroids (5) Ken Chem-initi (6) Jason Gi-andro (7) Ryan Fraud (8) Muscle Melk (9) Woman-Ram (10) Shammy Sosa (11) Roger Clear-mens (12) A-Roid

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •