Pretty much everyone has wanted Frank McCourt to sell the Dodgers, so that the team and the city could finally be done with the psycho-drama of the McCourt divorce, the team’s bankruptcy, and all the other horrible accompanying details. After McCourt, folks figured, it simply had to get better. After all, it couldn’t get any worse.
Or could it.
The news is out today that the pool of bidders for the world’s most storied franchise is down to seven, and the pool has me worried.
Already, Peter O’Malley, whose family owned an interest in the team for more than a half-century (when Walter first became a minority shareholder in 1944 until Peter sold the team to Fox in 1997), opted out of the process after advancing to the second round. O’Malley was apparently concerned that he could not win because he was one of the early McCourt critics. O’Malley was undoubtedly the right owner—the Dodgers won all six world championships during that time, went from nearly bankrupt to the jewel of the baseball, and had organizational stability that would make the Yankees drool.
Next, local developer Rick Caruso, who had smartly enlisted the aid of former manager and MLB executive Joe Torre, dropped his bid for the team because McCourt refused to even negotiate on the parking lots adjoining Dodger Stadium. This is an important note, because it suggests a very scary idea—that McCourt may hope to keep himself somehow involved in Dodger affairs after the team itself is sold. While Torre was more of the front man, and probably not bringing too many dollars to the table, he was a solid get for Caruso, demonstrating a smart business and baseball mind. And Caruso himself is a local guy who at least seemed committed to the team and community. He was probably the second best bidder.
The field is now down to: St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke; Beverly Hills-based real estate developer Alan Casden; New York Observer owner and Donld Trum son-in-law Jared Kushner; Magic Johnson and veteran baseball executive Stan Kasten; a group led by Stanley Gold and the family of the late Roy Disney; New York media executive Leo Hindery in partnership with Tom Barrack, chairman of Santa Monica-based Colony Capital; and Connecticut investor Steven Cohen and longtime Los Angeles agent Arn Tellem.
Let’s take these one at a time to see if there is anything good in the pile.
We start with Stan Kroenke. Kroenke owns the St. Louis Rams. I am not sure I need to go on to demonstrate how bad that is.
Kroenke obtained a minority interest in the Rams when they moved from “Los Angeles” (or “Anaheim of Los Angeles,” in Angels parlance) to Missouri and blackmailed the city there to build it a new stadium. But Kroenke did not control the team during its few winning seasons. Since buying out the heirs of Georgia Frontiere in 2010, he has been blackmailing the city of St. Louis to build him yet another new football stadium, and the consensus view is the Rams are destined to move again. Rich sports owners with billions of dollars should not be living off the public dole and coercing cities to build them newstadiums (Walter O’Malley did not either, thus Dodger Stadium was privately financed), and in Kroenke, we may see him immediately trying to abandon Dodger Stadium for just this purpose. Kroenke used to own sports teams in Denver, where he has been close to Phil Anschutz (they are now held by his son, because NFL rules prohibit owning teams in different markets). Anschutz, of course, has stakes in the Staples Center, and has been a mover in plans to build a new downtown football stadium.
Two strong possibilities exist with a Kroenke move (beyond copying the Rams futility): he could seek to move the Rams to LA with a new football stadium in Chavez Ravine. And while this sounds fine at first, the scenario probably imagines partnering with Frank McCourt to house the stadium on the parking lots surrounding Dodger Stadium. So you get the Rams with Frank McCourt involvement—does anyone think that is a good idea? Or, a potential partnership with Anschutz pushing for a Downtown Los Angeles stadium, giving up the perfection of Chavez Ravine while trying to blackmail the city into helping them finance the deal.
Admittedly, the concerns about Kroenke are just speculation—maybe everything would be OK with him. But if you do not like speculation about a new owner’s plans, here is hard fact about Alan Casdan: when bidding on the Dodgers in 2003, the LA Times reported: “Casdan contends that by razing Dodger Stadium and relocating the team a few miles down the 110 Freeway, he could offer a markedly better experience for fans -- and at the same time provide thousands of new housing units in Chavez Ravine.”
The Times quoted him as saying: “They knock down stadiums all the time. Dodger Stadium is not an antique. It’s not Frank Lloyd Wright. It’s a nice place to play baseball, but there are far better.”
Think about that for just a moment. Better places to play baseball than Dodger Stadium?
If you want to argue Wrigley Field is better, it is an interesting argument (but still wrong). If you want to argue Fenway, at least you can argue history (but you are still wrong—and Fenway is pretty much a pit). While it is fair to say that some investment still needs to be made in Dodger Stadium, the third oldest stadium in baseball still looks new and is remains the best stadium in baseball. A new owner must to be committed to Dodger Stadium—not just because of its inherent greatness, but also because the alternative would be an attempt to blackmail the city into building a new stadium, for which the taxpayers simply should not pay. (Fortunately, Angelenos have consistently refused to pay for such corporate welfare, but an insistent owner would then put the team’s future in jeopardy).
Casdan is actual proof that Frank McCourt was not the worst possible owner when Fox sold the team in 2003—and he may get his chance now.
Jared Kushner is the 31-year old son-in-law of Donald Trump. Should I say more? His father—from whom it seems inevitable that Kushner got his money—was convicted of tax evasion in 2005. Allegedly, he is not involved in the bid. Nor is Trump. With those assurances, Kushner is willing to sell you his holding in an historic piece of construction that spans the East River from Manhattan to Long Island.
Those are just the nightmare scenarios. These are the people who, if they buy the Dodgers, will likely mean that I have to become an Angels fan. But the “good” bidders are not that great. For starters, remember the problem that Caruso and Torre had with the bidding—Frank McCourt would not negotiate with the parking lots. So each of these groups may be leaving the door open to the guy who TJ Simers has presciently called the Parking Lot Attendant.
Magic Johnson, of course, stands out. Magic is rich, but not Dodgers rich—enough to pay $1.5 Billion for the team. He comes with Stan Kasten, who helped pilot the Nationals out of MLB-ownership (and the Nats have put together a decent organization). But the real money in this group comes from Mark Walter and his global financial services firm Guggenheim Partners. I cannot find too much about Walter, and he has happily stayed in the background, which is smart. But I do not see any ties to LA. The rumors are strong that this group might bring Patrick Soon-Shiong into the group, reportedly the richest man in LA and the basketball fan who bought out Magic’s interest in the Lakers. This all sounds good. But Magic is still not a baseball guy, and we have no idea what this group’s commitment is to Dodger Stadium or Dodger tradition. So, it is a leap of faith.
The Gold/Disney group brings the same questions. Magic/Kasten/Guggenheim bring sports ownership knowledge and an LA face, but their commitment to LA is a question. Gold/Disney certainly has the community connection. Gold/Disney were the key movers to fight off a takeover bid of Disney in the early 1980’s and bring in Michael Eisner, which was a big success. Twenty years later, they turned dissident and eventually forced Eisner out—something which most in the industry think of as a success. And while Disney is a global brand, it is firmly a Los Angeles company. But the Dodgers are not Disney, and Roy Disney (the nephew of Walt) has since passed away. But they are a maybe.
Hindery/Barrack is questionable. Hindery is a New Yorker, who has been involved in sports media. He was President of the YES Netwoerk that Steinbrenner and the Yankees built, so he knows something about the business (of course, Steinbrenner was forever complaining about historic Yankee Stadium and the Bronx, although the new Yankee Stadium ended up being right next door, based on history, and mostly privately financed, so maybe Steinbrenner was just working the umpire). Barrack is local, and has invested in small sports teams. So maybe there is hope. But very little is known about these possible owners.
Steve Cohen is known as the Hedge Fund King. He is a New Yorker who is making a purchase of a minority stake in the Mets. This does not sound like a commitment to the Dodgers to me (though he would apparently sell his interest in the Mets). Cohen is apparently making all the right moves, with agent Arn Tellem. He has engaged a sports management firm and has hired Populous (formerly HOK Sports), the firm that has built about half of the new baseball parks, including Camden Yards and AT&T Park (or whatever the Gints are calling their home field this week). Supposedly, Populous is looking only at improvements to Dodger Stadium, and civic leaders like Eli Broad and David Geffen have given their seal of approval to him. But we have been waiting on Broad for a decade to help save the team, and if Cohen uses his Hedge Fund money to flip Chavez Ravine and try to bully the city into a throwback ballpark, we have problems.
These are scary times for a Dodger fan. The players group of Steve Garvey/Orel Hershiser group never made it past the first round. Nor did former GM Fred Claire. And Mark Cuban, who might be outspoken but has proven in basketball that he knows what he is doing, was almost always unlikely at the Dodgers’ inflated price, and also eliminated in the first round. The ideal owner to get back to the Dodgers’ core values took himself out of the running, and the big local financier with the best baseball guy on board pulled out because McCourt was not acting in good faith. That leaves three disasters and four question marks, all of whom appear to be willing to let McCourt have some involvement in the team’s history. This is not good.
The settlement between MLB and McCourt gives Frank way too much ability to make this determination. Meanwhile, the last line of defense is MLB’s ability to approve or reject potential owners, a right which they ceded far too much of, leaving it to Commissioner Bud Selig to play hardball and force McCourt to sell his interest in the parking lots and to one of the ownership groups that might have a chance at succeeding, which means our fate is in the hands of the guy who is responsible for inter-league play, the cancellation of the 1994 World Series, the 2002 All-Star Tie, the Milwaukee Brewers, and for approving McCourt in the first place.
Things have gone from bad to worse.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Monday, February 06, 2012
The Reality of Democratic Primaries
“I'm shocked, shocked to find that politics is going on in here!”
Marta Evry at “Venice for Change” offers a column about the various Democrat-on-Democrat primaries taking place in California, and the spending by the state legislative leaders. She claims that it “raises troubling questions” for Speaker John Perez and other state leaders. But the fact is that this
The fact that state legislative leaders are contributing to campaigns of their allies is not surprising, is not news (certainly not to anyone in the 53rd AD), and represents some of the LEAST egregious exercises of power by Sacramento leadership. Moreover, this post seems to posit this is a failure by the legislative leadership rather than the natural result of the political decision-making process, and suggests that primary challengers like Torie Osborn are good-natured victims of this scenario, rather than part of the reasons (good and bad) which drive these results.
First. Shocking. I was almost as stunned by this as when the Sun rose in the East this morning. I mean seriously, that has happened to me some 5832 times in a row. Who could have guessed that it would happen a 5833rd time! After all, if Tom Brady can’t complete 17 consecutive SuperBowl passes, what is the chance that the Sun would keep up a streak like this, much less politicians would engage in politics.
This column even explains why this type of thing happens. The “labor-intensive fundraising isn't practical for sitting lawmakers trying to legislate during a 2-year election cycle[, s]o the caucus pools resources through their individual campaign committees.” The caucus is something of a mutual beneficial society. So when an incumbent, like Betsy Butler or Mike Allen is challenged, the first goal is to make sure that those who are busy legislating and do not have the time to put into a continuous fund-raising cycle, have the financial resources to get re-elected. It is naturally the first goal to provide for the legislators who contribute to the effort. Complaining about this is like asking for an insurance company to pay the uninsured before paying off claims to people who have paid their policy premiums.
Today’s scenario is not that bad. Those of us in the 53rd AD remember when the Sacramento leadership came into the 53rd AD during the 2005 Special Election for the open seat left when Mike Gordon passed away. Even though two good Democratic candidates were seeking the relatively safe seat, legislative leadership came in with big money (and political threats) to force out one of the candidates, and then dumped a bunch of money to win without a run-off, even though our new Assemblyman took office after all the votes for the session had concluded. And 2005 does not compare to the story that a friend and mentor told me about his first run for the state assembly in 1974, against an incumbent Republican. Willie Brown and Leo McCarthy were both competing for the Speakership as Bob Moretti was leaving to run (unsuccessfully) for Governor, and this then-young man dutifully visited both of them, seeking their blessing. Brown chose another Democrat to support, in the hopes of getting his vote when the legislature convened after the election. McCarthy also did not back him, as he had good relations with the Republican who held the seat, and preferred him to any Democrat (or, at least to spending the resources that it would take to get a Democrat elected to the seat). Today’s Sacramento leadership getting involved on behalf of Democratic incumbents—even in safe Democratic seats—is nowhere near as bad as times like these, and surely many more, where legislative leaders have gotten involved in open seat races or even tacitly supported Republicans.
Second, the idea that Sacramento leaders are pushing money towards incumbents like Butler and Allen now, rather than challengers like Murastuchi and Galigani, is a normal part of the political process. If the goal is to get to a two-thirds majority, than the road to getting to 54 seats starts with locking down the 52 we already hold. The election is 9 months from now, and the strategy for picking up those two extra seats will be determined as we get closer to the election. Over the next few months, challengers may prove to be very successful—they may raise a lot of money, earn broad-ranging endorsements, and build strong political organizations. If the President’s coattails are strong, we will be able to expand the field and contest a lot of extra seats as we try to get to 54 seats. On the other hand, political head-winds might be strongly against us; although the Republicans lining up in the 66th AD now appear to be a couple of Tea Bag Partiers, it could still draw a challenger like moderate Republican Redondo Beach Mayor Mike Gin; or these new challengers, yet untested in politics, might prove over time that they are painfully poor candidates (imagine pouring a bunch of money into a candidate that proves to be as effective as Martha Coakley) or beset by scandal (like Herman Cain). The reality is as the issue landscape, the economic realities, and the polls take shape, decisions will be made as to whether we can expand our majority, and hopefully candidates like Murastuchi and Galigani will be targeted for support by leaders in Sacramento. But those decisions are premature now.
Finally, this post says that this process raises “troubling questions for Speaker John Perez and Sacramento Democrats.” But the questions are no more troublesome for Democratic challengers like Torie Osborn. If the goal is to achieve a two-thirds majority in the State Assembly, then why is Osborn mounting a primary (and, with the new Cajun Primary rules, likely a November) challenge? Osborn has already raised more than half a million dollars, forcing Butler to raise similar amounts to defend her seat. Both women will probably triple that figure (or more) if they both go to November, meaning there will be more than $3 Million spent on a campaign to hold a safe Democratic seat. That money could fund campaigns in two different swing Assembly Districts like the new 66th AD, and since money and organization is not an infinite supply, Democratic chances of gaining a two-thirds majority in 2012 are hurt by these intra-party challenges. Certainly, there is no question about Butler’s support for the issues that form the core of Osborn’s campaign—environmental protection, LGBT issues, women’s rights. And in the era of term limits, Osborn could have waited a mere four years, when Butler was termed out, and sought the seat then. If Osborn is committed to Democratic principles, then doesn’t she have an obligation to put those goals above her personal ambition? And if she is unwilling to do this, it would seem to raise questions about her that are just as troubling as the ones allegedly raised for Speaker Perez.
There are real problems in California politics—lots of them—and money and its sources are amongst several of those problems. There is no doubt that that it is critical for local Democrats to build up grass-roots organizations so that candidates are responsible to local voters, not Sacramento leaders and special interest PACs. But this column by Marta (a big Osborn supporter) is meant to portray her as a victim of politics. But there is nothing particularly angelic about Osborn’s campaign—which has used hard edged tactics to wrest endorsements of local Democratic clubs, paying in bulk for new Members, who are imported from hours away to show up to vote at one meeting, never to be heard from again. The reality is that all of these factors—Betsy Butler’s decision on where to run, Speaker Perez’s efforts to support Butler and other incumbents, and challenges by candidates like Torie Osborn are pretty standard fare in politics. The messy truth is that that result of the combination of decisions ends up being sub-optimal (at best) for Democrats in November, but none of these actions are shocking nor particularly troubling. And while it would be nice for someone to put the greater good first, no one here is doing that, and expecting someone to blink first is optimistic, but not very realistic.
Marta Evry at “Venice for Change” offers a column about the various Democrat-on-Democrat primaries taking place in California, and the spending by the state legislative leaders. She claims that it “raises troubling questions” for Speaker John Perez and other state leaders. But the fact is that this
The fact that state legislative leaders are contributing to campaigns of their allies is not surprising, is not news (certainly not to anyone in the 53rd AD), and represents some of the LEAST egregious exercises of power by Sacramento leadership. Moreover, this post seems to posit this is a failure by the legislative leadership rather than the natural result of the political decision-making process, and suggests that primary challengers like Torie Osborn are good-natured victims of this scenario, rather than part of the reasons (good and bad) which drive these results.
First. Shocking. I was almost as stunned by this as when the Sun rose in the East this morning. I mean seriously, that has happened to me some 5832 times in a row. Who could have guessed that it would happen a 5833rd time! After all, if Tom Brady can’t complete 17 consecutive SuperBowl passes, what is the chance that the Sun would keep up a streak like this, much less politicians would engage in politics.
This column even explains why this type of thing happens. The “labor-intensive fundraising isn't practical for sitting lawmakers trying to legislate during a 2-year election cycle[, s]o the caucus pools resources through their individual campaign committees.” The caucus is something of a mutual beneficial society. So when an incumbent, like Betsy Butler or Mike Allen is challenged, the first goal is to make sure that those who are busy legislating and do not have the time to put into a continuous fund-raising cycle, have the financial resources to get re-elected. It is naturally the first goal to provide for the legislators who contribute to the effort. Complaining about this is like asking for an insurance company to pay the uninsured before paying off claims to people who have paid their policy premiums.
Today’s scenario is not that bad. Those of us in the 53rd AD remember when the Sacramento leadership came into the 53rd AD during the 2005 Special Election for the open seat left when Mike Gordon passed away. Even though two good Democratic candidates were seeking the relatively safe seat, legislative leadership came in with big money (and political threats) to force out one of the candidates, and then dumped a bunch of money to win without a run-off, even though our new Assemblyman took office after all the votes for the session had concluded. And 2005 does not compare to the story that a friend and mentor told me about his first run for the state assembly in 1974, against an incumbent Republican. Willie Brown and Leo McCarthy were both competing for the Speakership as Bob Moretti was leaving to run (unsuccessfully) for Governor, and this then-young man dutifully visited both of them, seeking their blessing. Brown chose another Democrat to support, in the hopes of getting his vote when the legislature convened after the election. McCarthy also did not back him, as he had good relations with the Republican who held the seat, and preferred him to any Democrat (or, at least to spending the resources that it would take to get a Democrat elected to the seat). Today’s Sacramento leadership getting involved on behalf of Democratic incumbents—even in safe Democratic seats—is nowhere near as bad as times like these, and surely many more, where legislative leaders have gotten involved in open seat races or even tacitly supported Republicans.
Second, the idea that Sacramento leaders are pushing money towards incumbents like Butler and Allen now, rather than challengers like Murastuchi and Galigani, is a normal part of the political process. If the goal is to get to a two-thirds majority, than the road to getting to 54 seats starts with locking down the 52 we already hold. The election is 9 months from now, and the strategy for picking up those two extra seats will be determined as we get closer to the election. Over the next few months, challengers may prove to be very successful—they may raise a lot of money, earn broad-ranging endorsements, and build strong political organizations. If the President’s coattails are strong, we will be able to expand the field and contest a lot of extra seats as we try to get to 54 seats. On the other hand, political head-winds might be strongly against us; although the Republicans lining up in the 66th AD now appear to be a couple of Tea Bag Partiers, it could still draw a challenger like moderate Republican Redondo Beach Mayor Mike Gin; or these new challengers, yet untested in politics, might prove over time that they are painfully poor candidates (imagine pouring a bunch of money into a candidate that proves to be as effective as Martha Coakley) or beset by scandal (like Herman Cain). The reality is as the issue landscape, the economic realities, and the polls take shape, decisions will be made as to whether we can expand our majority, and hopefully candidates like Murastuchi and Galigani will be targeted for support by leaders in Sacramento. But those decisions are premature now.
Finally, this post says that this process raises “troubling questions for Speaker John Perez and Sacramento Democrats.” But the questions are no more troublesome for Democratic challengers like Torie Osborn. If the goal is to achieve a two-thirds majority in the State Assembly, then why is Osborn mounting a primary (and, with the new Cajun Primary rules, likely a November) challenge? Osborn has already raised more than half a million dollars, forcing Butler to raise similar amounts to defend her seat. Both women will probably triple that figure (or more) if they both go to November, meaning there will be more than $3 Million spent on a campaign to hold a safe Democratic seat. That money could fund campaigns in two different swing Assembly Districts like the new 66th AD, and since money and organization is not an infinite supply, Democratic chances of gaining a two-thirds majority in 2012 are hurt by these intra-party challenges. Certainly, there is no question about Butler’s support for the issues that form the core of Osborn’s campaign—environmental protection, LGBT issues, women’s rights. And in the era of term limits, Osborn could have waited a mere four years, when Butler was termed out, and sought the seat then. If Osborn is committed to Democratic principles, then doesn’t she have an obligation to put those goals above her personal ambition? And if she is unwilling to do this, it would seem to raise questions about her that are just as troubling as the ones allegedly raised for Speaker Perez.
There are real problems in California politics—lots of them—and money and its sources are amongst several of those problems. There is no doubt that that it is critical for local Democrats to build up grass-roots organizations so that candidates are responsible to local voters, not Sacramento leaders and special interest PACs. But this column by Marta (a big Osborn supporter) is meant to portray her as a victim of politics. But there is nothing particularly angelic about Osborn’s campaign—which has used hard edged tactics to wrest endorsements of local Democratic clubs, paying in bulk for new Members, who are imported from hours away to show up to vote at one meeting, never to be heard from again. The reality is that all of these factors—Betsy Butler’s decision on where to run, Speaker Perez’s efforts to support Butler and other incumbents, and challenges by candidates like Torie Osborn are pretty standard fare in politics. The messy truth is that that result of the combination of decisions ends up being sub-optimal (at best) for Democrats in November, but none of these actions are shocking nor particularly troubling. And while it would be nice for someone to put the greater good first, no one here is doing that, and expecting someone to blink first is optimistic, but not very realistic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)