(The following is being syndicated from The Captain’s Blog).
Move aside . Fred McCourt is one of the most vile, reprehensible men in the history of baseball. At least that seems to be the popular sentiment expressed in the wake of Bud Selig’s decision to wrestle away control of the Los Angeles Dodgers.
The McCourts in happier times.
It’s impossible to deny, not to mention excuse, the abuses that have pervaded McCourt’s tenure as owner of the one baseball’s flagship franchises. It seems likely that the organization and the city of Los Angeles will be much better off under someone else’s guidance, but that reality shouldn’t be exaggerated by fiction. Although McCourt may not be the best option to lead the Dodgers in the future, his past actions weren’t all bad for the franchise.
Before Frank McCourt purchased the Los Angeles Dodgers early in 2004, the team had passed from the longtime stewardship of the O’Malley family to the cold claws of News Corp. Even though there were some early reservations about having an out-of-towner take over the team in a highly levered acquisition, McCourt’s purchase was also seen as rescuing the Dodgers from corporate ownership.
The sale of the Los Angeles Dodgers to Frank and Jamie McCourt heralds the beginning of a new era of family ownership for one of the game’s most storied franchises. This transaction meets all of Baseball’s debt service rules and financial requirements in every way. We at Major League Baseball are confident that Mr. McCourt, as a rabid and knowledgeable fan and successful businessman, will devote the time and energy necessary to make the franchise a great success.” – Commissioner Bud Selig, quoted by MLB.com, January 29, 2004
The optimistic sentiment expressed by Selig, and many others, was not without merit. After all, during News Corp.’s ownership, which commenced in 1998, the Dodgers didn’t exactly thrive. On the field, the team continued its post season drought, which extended back to the 1988 World Series, while in the board room, the bottom line dried up as well. In the three years preceding the sale to McCourt, the Dodgers experienced significant operating losses and stagnating revenue, which is probably why News Corp. was so eager to sell, especially considering the less than sanguine economic environment that existed at the time.
Dodgers’ Financial Snapshot, 2001-2010
Note: Dodgers owned by News Corp. from 1998 to 2003 and by Frank McCourt from 2004 to 2010.
Source: Forbes
In McCourt’s first year as owner, the Dodgers won the division and came close to turning a profit. Over the next six seasons, the team made the post season three more times and consistently posted impressive operating profits. McCourt’s ability to significantly increase revenue might have led to some of his indiscretions, but it also bolstered the team’s financial strength. That’s why the franchise’s estimated value has increased exponentially, even as the embattled owner’s personal issues played out in court.
There’s every reason to believe that the Dodgers will emerge from their current predicament without too many scars. Just consider the 2010 Texas Rangers, who also became wards of the state after owner Tom Hicks’ personal financial difficulties overwhelmed the franchise. In only months time, the Rangers went from being a distressed asset to American League champions. Now, after signing a new lucrative cable deal, the team is almost looked upon as a model franchise. Ironically, McCourt already seems to have a lucrative cable deal in place, so now baseball just needs to find a stable owner (it wouldn’t hurt if also agreed to play the role of ).
I am proud to announce that the Boston National League franchise is almost entirely New England-owned for the second time since it became a charter member of the National League back in 1876.” – President and part owner Bob Quinn, quoted by AP, April 21, 1941
Finally, there’s one more interesting historical twist to this story. In a recent post, The Platoon Advantage recounted the trials and tribulations of 1936 Boston Braves (Bees), which fell under control of the league due to financial mismanagement by ownership. In telling the tale, however, TPA confused one fact. Although long-time baseball executive Bob Quinn emerged as president of the team, Charles F. Adams (the man to whom former owner Emil Fuchs was indebted) retained majority control of the team. It wasn’t until 1941 that Quinn was able to put together a pool of investors with enough money to buy out Adams’ 73% share of the team.
And, who just happened to be a member of Quinn’s syndicate? None other than Frank McCourt, the grandfather of baseball’s newest public enemy.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
William, great piece. It’s important to note that the reign of the McCourts was not 100% negative. It was probably 90% negative, not a scientific estimate, but that’s probably not the main take-away point. From a fan’s perspective, the Dodgers had more success on the filed under the MoCourts than they did under the ownership of Fox or (before Fox) the final ten years of the ownership of the team by Peter O’Malley. I don’t know how much of the credit for this belongs to the McCourts, but I suppose this is worth mentioning.
I note that the McCourts owned the Dodgers during a period when their earnings and revenues have increased, but I don’t know how much credit the McCourts deserve here. To some extent the McCourts purchased the Dodgers at a good time to own a baseball team.
But William, I live in L.A., and it would be hard to explain to an outsider the scope of the damage caused by the McCourt ownership. We Angelinos probably exaggerate, but (aside from the nasty business of the Al Campanis comments on race, and the much earlier real estate scam that allowed the construction of Dodger Stadium) the Dodgers have operated in this town with a kind of class and a regard for its fan base that built up considerable good will.
As a rough measure of this good will, compare the Dodgers attendance to that of the Yankees during the period I mentioned above, from 1989 to 2003, a 15 year stretch where the Dodgers failed to win a single post-season game. During this period, Dodger attendance dropped below 2.8 million only three times (two of those three times were years affected by the baseball strike). During much of this period, Dodger attendance exceeded Yankee attendance, and by a wide margin, by around 700,000 fans annually. True, the Yankees were going through their own bleak period during the first half of the period we’re examining. But in 1996 and 1998, years when the Yanks were World Series champs, the Dodgers still outdrew the Yanks. The Yanks did not catch up and then pass the Dodgers in attendance until 1999. But while the Yanks are now attendance and revenue champs, the Dodgers have also been putting fans into the seats.
The Dodgers have drawn fans in good times and bad because they’ve been seen as a safe, clean, pleasant, family-friendly and (relatively speaking) reasonably priced form of entertainment. It’s kind of been like a baseball Disneyland. I’ve been to a few games with a Phillies fan friend of mine (including one post-season game) — he wears all that red Phillies gear, and we’ve never been hassled (kidded some, ribbed a lot, insulted a little bit, but never even threatened).
My unscientific take is that much of that atmosphere, and much of that good will, evaporated under the management of the McCourts. They ate through the better portion of 40 years of accumulated good will in just a few years of stewardship. My guess is that some of that goodwill will return relatively quickly, and that some of it is gone forever.
So … I agree with your main take. When it comes to the award ceremony for the worst sports owners ever, the McCourts will not win the crown, but they WILL be on stage when the crown is awarded.
[Reply]
William J. Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 5:28 pm
Over the last few years, it does seem as if the environment at Dodger games has changed, but I am not sure what that would have to do with McCourts. I can’t recall reading about this situation before the divorce, so it’s kind of hard to pinpoint. Could something else be at play in LA (maybe something related more to the city than the McCourts)?
[Reply]
Larry@IIATMS Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 6:13 pm
William, as far as things changing in L.A. over the past few years … I can’t point to much. Sure, L.A. has all the usual urban problems with gangs, crime and violence. During the years of the L.A. Raiders, a lot of people were afraid to go the Coliseum to see them play — reportedly, some L.A. Raider PLAYERS were afraid to have their families see them play. But there was nothing comparable at Dodger Stadium.
As for the McCourts — it didn’t help that Frank McCourt fired the Dodger Stadium head of security last year and did not try to replace him until after the attack on the SF fan in the parking lot. I’m not an expert on Dodgers affairs (a bad choice of word I know), but from what I’ve read, when Frank fired his ex-wife Jaime, he also fired (or lost) a lot of long-time Dodger employees, and he replaced them with people who were not all that experienced in baseball matters. There’s also an impression that Frank has cut back on Stadium and Dodger expenses across the board, that the Stadium is not being well-maintained, that there’s graffiti in the bathrooms, and so forth. I have not been to Dodger Stadium since last summer, and I noticed nothing amiss, for whatever that’s worth.
Obviously, it doesn’t help that whatever reduced amount is being spent on Dodger operations, a portion of this is reportedly being paid to McCourts’ children, none of whom actually do any work.
Also FWIW, the Dodgers are now reportedly among the three lowest spending teams in baseball both in terms of signing draft choices AND signing foreign free agents from Latin America and elsewhere. I don’t think this leads to Stadium violence, of course, but it is indicative of a certain neglect of the team overall.
I’m commenting here mostly to give you a local feel for this situation, but there are people a lot more expert than I am on this subject … like Josh Fisher at DodgerDivorce.com.
[Reply]
William J. Reply:
April 22nd, 2011 at 9:12 pm
Thanks again for the insight. I’ve seen similar thoughts offered in other places, so there must be something to it. I wonder, however, if the general neglect under McCourt is parallel to the increase in violence, but not a cause. After doing a quick search, it seems as if two trends have developed. Dodger merchandise has become very popular with LA gangs, and apparently, the bleachers have become a popular hang out for the same. If true, especially the latter, the Dodgers do have a serious problem on their hands.
[Reply]
William, I can only comment based on my experience, which is that the left field bleacher crowd at Dodger Stadium is a lot like the bleacher crowds elsewhere: the fans there are noisy and more than a bit inebriated. I’ve sat there with my wife within the past 3 years and had a blast … cold sober. The right field bleacher is all you can eat included in the price of admission, and I don’t need any encouragement in that area, so I’ve never sat there.
I’ve read stuff on gangs at Dodger Stadium, but I’m not there often enough to comment. As I’ve said, I’ve never felt unsafe at Dodger Stadium.
[Reply]