Jim Alexander: The Dodgers are again the villains of baseball, to no one’s surprise, following this week’s Winter Meetings. But here’s an interesting twist: Among the people complaining are fans of the only team that had a higher payroll than the champs this season, the (less than champion-like) New York Mets. Of course, Mets fans are irate that their own organization – and particularly President of Baseball Operations David Stearns, a small market executive running a big city franchise – didn’t go to the mat (essentially an extra $3 million per year) to keep reliever Edwin Diaz.
And this is an interesting twist to the whole “buying championships” claim, and the counterargument that other teams aren’t trying to win with the ferocity the Dodgers are: According to this chart, posted by Boston sports journalist Joon Lee in October, the Dodgers are No. 2 in baseball in the percentage of payroll costs to revenue – 73%, with $752 million in revenue, which I assume includes revenue from Spectrum SportsNet LA as well as whatever the club has recouped from Japan advertising and marketing, compared to $549 million in payroll and luxury tax costs. The only team higher: The Mets at 90%, $444 million to $400 million (and for a team in the nation’s largest market to only clear $444 million in revenue is really surprising until you take the Ohtani Factor into account).
But the chart, using revenues calculated by Forbes magazine and salary figures from Spotrac, also points up how many other teams in this sport don’t even come close to spending significant portions of revenues on the talent on the field, with 21 of the 30 teams spending less than half their revenues on player payroll. (The Angels, by the way, are ninth – $410 million in revenue, $215 million in payroll costs – and look where it got them.)
I wrote before the NLCS that the Dodgers were the game’s new Evil Empire anyway, and their fans should just roll with it and have some fun. There does seem to be some pushback among their fan base on social media – basically, that this run is karmic payback for the Frank McCourt years and all of those October disappointments from 2013-19. But Joe Posnanski, whose daily JoeBlogs newsletter is worth checking out, points out the difference between Dodger fans still sensitive to criticism and Yankee fans, who continue to maintain their haughty arrogance even though they haven’t won a championship since 2009.
I’m not sure, contrary to many others, that all of this – or any of it – constitutes evidence that MLB needs a salary cap. But while I was a little surprised that Dodgers manager Dave Roberts suggested such a fix wouldn’t be out of line, he nailed it in another respect when he insisted that it would work only with a salary floor to force the laggards to spend money. Look at that chart and see if you don’t agree. (And he then threw down a challenge by suggesting it wouldn’t matter anyway.)
What say you, Mirjam?
Mirjam Swanson: Yep. Data like that only goes to show that it’s a game of How Bad Do You Want It?
Sure, the Dodgers are rich, they’re flush with spending money and capital and income coming in – but more than that, they’re spenders. They’re the ones at the auction whose paddle keeps going up, the one fellow bidders should expect they’re going to have to outspend if they’re going to compete or keep up. And they could, many of them, but they don’t. They won’t.
And so the Dodgers are just going to keep assembling talent, keep improving their super-team, keep irritating opposing fans, and, yes, probably keep pushing baseball toward that salary-cap cliff.
And that prospect is only going to incentivize them further to spend big while they can – well, that and their dynastic dreams, ambitions that are rarely as realistic as they are now for these three-peat-chasing Dodgers.
So welcome to L.A., Edwin Diaz, an awesome get for a club who went into the offseason needing to bolster its bullpen as much as it needed anything.
It seems doubtful Diaz will be the only addition to get red carpet treatment here in L.A., the Dodgers being so game to go for it. There were the rumblings – intriguing regardless of their veracity – about a potential deal that would bring Detroit Tigers ace Tarik Skubal over in exchange for, say, Tyler Glasnow, Emmet Sheehan, and top prospect Zyhir Hope.
Is it too much to sacrifice that kind of important depth, even for a massive talent like Skubal? It’s a good question, but it’s also the Dodgers we’re talking about. And unlike “bottom-feeders,” per Roberts, who will shy away from big, bold risks, we can trust the Dodgers to go for it if they think it will improve their chances to win another championship.
Jim: Roberts also had his hand in another key transaction this week. A proud UCLA alum and former Bruins player, he played a role in the Bruins’ successful pursuit of Bob Chesney as their new football coach. It is good to have star power on your side – especially championship-caliber star power, including not only Roberts but former Golden State Warriors GM Bob Myers, who was a member of the selection committee that zeroed in on Chesney. Myers knows success, too: His Warriors teams won four NBA championships, and he won Executive of the Year twice, during his tenure from 2011 through 2023.
You were there for the introductory news conference on Tuesday, at which Chesney seems to have made a very solid impression. Any additional tidbits that came out of that beyond what you shared in the column?
Mirjam: Hmm.
One part of the hire that I like and didn’t really get to in either of the Chesney columns I’ve written so far is that I do admire his determination to finish the mission at JMU before bolting for the West Coast – and that UCLA is accommodating that. I think that’s a sign of the relationship getting off on a good foot, at least. (UCLA fans say they’ll be rooting for Chesney in the CFP; still I don’t think many are expecting his No. 12 Dukes to beat fifth-seeded Oregon in the first round, but what if … it’d be worth the delay, no?)
Also, UCLA chancellor Julio Frenk’s opening comments Tuesday – “Athletics are the front porch of the university, one of the most visible symbols of what we stand for” – were kind of profound, in the broad philosophical sense of what sports can mean to any community, UCLA included.
It felt a bit like what a president of the IOC would say at an Olympic Opening Ceremony. I think it was cool, and that if you’re a UCLA fan, that you’d take such sentiments as a positive sign in terms of what the school is willing to invest (though pretty words don’t stifle the bad smell of a potential Rose Bowl move).
What are your thoughts, Jim, on the Bruins’ much-ballyhooed new football coach?
Jim: I’m impressed with Chesney’s demeanor, and impressed that he wants to see his current task through before coming to Westwood – and yes, there are significant differences between Chesney staying with James Madison before coming to UCLA and Lane Kiffin attempting to take a new job, with SEC rival LSU, while still trying to coach Ole Miss in the CFP. (For one, I doubt Chesney is trying to recruit any of his James Madison underclassmen to join him at UCLA.)
I’m also impressed that he seems up for a tremendous challenge, and that this hire has at least spurred Chancellor Frenk to say the right things and publicly profess his support. Frenk’s predecessor at UCLA, Gene Block, voiced nowhere near such public support of athletics that I can remember during his term, from 2007 to ’24. My theory: If you know the guy in the chancellor’s or president’s office cares, it makes a difference.
Which gets back to the point I made last week: The talk is that there will be a renewed institutional commitment to football, but I’ll believe it when I see it. And the other question: If UCLA does indeed move its home games to Inglewood, will that renewed institutional commitment be cited as the reason? Stay tuned.
Our last topic this week has to warm the hearts of those of us of a certain age (and beyond): Philip Rivers is back on the carousel, signed to the Indianapolis Colts’ practice squad this week and likely to see playing time in a real NFL game soon, for the first time since 2020.
I’m surprised and yet I’m not. When Rivers, now 44, left the NFL to become a high school coach, at St. Michael Catholic High in Fairhope, Ala., there was always this suspicion that he could be tempted out of retirement temporarily for a team that needed him late in the year after the high school season had ended. After a couple of years had passed, that speculation died down … and yet here we are, following Daniel Jones’ season-ending Achilles tendon injury.
I will say this, after covering Rivers through most of his Chargers career in San Diego and L.A.: He’s the kind of guy the NFL needs, a fiery competitor but one with the right perspective.
And consider this: Only four previous athletes in this continent’s major sports have competed after becoming grandfathers: Stan Musial, Gordie Howe, Julio Franco and Brett Favre. Rivers would become the fifth. As a grandparent (redacted) times over, I love it!
Mirjam: I didn’t know that stat! Interesting. Imagine calling a teammate grandpa, but not to tease, but because he is, in fact, Grandpa.
I’ve not had the pleasure of covering Rivers, but it does seem like it would have been a pleasure. You mentioned he has the right perspective, and I can see that. Listening to his re-introductory news conference this week, hearing that passion, that appreciation, hearing him be open and willing to share his thoughts and feelings with reporters – and, via reporters, fans who are invested in him and his story. That’s very cool.
And it struck me how different he is than the Chargers’ current QB, the uber-talented but introverted Justin Herbert, who tried to run away from a live ESPN interview in the moments after Monday’s thrilling overtime win. Naturally, fans had Herbert’s back, by and large, because dude just wanted to celebrate with his teammates and not stop for 30 seconds to talk to an on-field reporter live on TV – on behalf of an audience of millions of fans who were watching and would have appreciated the type of candid reaction Rivers always seemed to deliver. Instead Herbert stopped long enough to offer some canned responses in what was, otherwise, actually, a plenty authentic moment – pass on the talking, let other people talk about his passing.
Nevertheless, I’ll be tuned into this surprise comeback of Rivers’ in Indianapolis. To see what he’s able to do – and what he says about it afterward.
Jim: I will say this, having been on my way down to the locker rooms Monday night and not knowing of Herbert’s interaction with the TV reporter until way later: He’s cooperative with the media but he keeps his personality tamped down and is hardly the chatty type. Rivers always has been, and it’s part of his attitude of, “Hey, we’re getting together with the guys and playing NFL football, and isn’t it great?”
But both of them inspire the utmost confidence among everybody else in their locker room.