---
So says ESPN's Jayson Stark. He writes:
Two years ago, the Dodgers' payroll was almost $119 million when the season started, and at about $122 million when it ended -- a number that doesn't even include all the salaries (Manny Ramirez's, most prominently) that were being paid by other teams.
By last year, the Dodgers' opening-day payroll had dropped to just more than $100 million, according to ESPN.com's calculations.
But this year, it looks as if the payroll is going to be somewhere in the 80s -- a plummet of approximately $40 million from just two years ago. And clubs and agents that have dealt with the Dodgers this winter keep coming away reporting: "They have no money."
Well, they led the major leagues in attendance last season. So you can't blame those folks for asking: "Where'd that money go, anyway?" Excellent question.
Well, barring a further salary purge, the
Dodgers will open 2010 with a payroll in the $90 millions according to Jon
Weisman's math. That's not important, though. What matters is that the club
is pretty much broke. Not in a can't-pay-its-bills sense, I don't think. But
certainly in a can't-operate-as-a-contending-team sort of way.
I don't mean the 2010 Dodgers don't have a
chance. You know I'm very hopeful about the upcoming season. But I do worry
that in the case of injury or unexpected poor performance, the Dodgers might
not have any flexibility to patch a hole in the ship mid-voyage.
It's going to be a tumultuous spring at
Chavez Ravine. For the life of me, I can't find or remember the source, but I
believe a baseball season must be 46 games old before what has happened in that
particular season matters more than what happened in the past. Game 46 for the
Dodgers is May 26 at Wrigley Field. Coincidentally, I'll be at the next day's
game.
Also coincidentally, the divorce
litigation will have recently concluded its third day. By the time Commissioner
Gordon determines the long-term future of the franchise, we'll have a very good
idea about the rosiness (or not) of the team's short-term outlook.
Baseball's quite the hurry-up-and-wait
game, isn't it? Unless the parties unexpectedly settle, it's going to be until
the kids are out of school before we know who's going to own the team. And
unless a key player is unexpectedly injured, it'll be at least that long until
we know what we've got with the 2010 Dodgers.
---
Also, if you're dying to know how I feel
about the Royals' Rick Ankiel signing, you can check that out here.
---
Posts
"I can't find or remember the source, but I believe a baseball season must be 46 games old before what has happened in that particular season matters more than what happened in the past."
ReplyDeleteSorry to get off topic here, but would you elaborate on the above concept some more? Your wording is a bit confusing for me, but I think I understand what you're trying to convey.
There's a Dodger fan forum I post on which has had a similar debate for a some time now. Try and wrap your head around this one, much in the style of Yogi Berra: "It's soon too late to be still early."
The argument being that it's never "still early" in a baseball season. Those games in the early months when a team should have obviously won a game and let it slip away, still very much count when September rolls around. Win those early games where a team "should have won" and September takes care of itself. This makes the "hey, it's still early" mantra a bunch of hogwash in my opinion.