http://www.msnbc.com/news/946136.asp#BODY

Glazer is just what Dodgers don't need



Historic franchise deserves ownership that can build perpetual winner

COMMENTARY


July 30 — One of the many clichés associated with the city of Los Angeles
involves a rosy-cheeked teenaged girl stepping off the bus after a long trek
from some Midwestern burg, full of hope for success and dreams of stardom.
Unfortunately, the scenario usually takes a dark turn, as some lecherous
charlatan steps in, promises the moon, delivers only heartache and sleaze,
and robs the poor child of her virtue.
NOW, FOR OUR purposes, think of the city of L.A. as that vulnerable
young lass, and potential owners of sports franchises as the dastardly
predators, and that will approximate both the previous relationships with
avaricious carpetbaggers and the many yet to come. For some reason, wealthy
entrepreneurs with an interest in sports look at Los Angeles the way voyeurs
look at an all-girl Catholic school. Usually I am not a prude, but in this
case I wish the vice squad would send in a SWAT team to protect our
innocence.
The latest Snidely Whiplash in our lives is Malcolm Glazer, owner of
the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, who is licking his bushy chops at the prospect of
buying the Los Angeles Dodgers. According to one report, Glazer already has
agreed in principle on a price, but that means zilch, since he still has to
hack his way through a thicket of ownership rules placed in his path by the
NFL and Major League Baseball. If you take a good look at the tumbleweeds he
has attached to his jawline, it shouldn’t surprise you that he doesn’t
appear to have a clear view of the situation.
No one is exactly sure what Glazer is up to, but then again, Angelenos
are used to living with suspicion when it comes to franchise ownership.
Remember, Georgia Frontiere inherited the Rams when her husband, the late
Carroll Rosenbloom, an expert swimmer, one day inexplicably took a nap among
the coral. With no regard for archaic concepts such as tradition, loyalty
and fan support, she then leaped at a chance to move the team to richer
earth in St. Louis like a fat man lunges at a smorgasbord.
Al Davis sued the NFL for the right to move from Oakland to Los
Angeles in the early ’80s. He won, moved, became dissatisfied, moved back
and sued some more. Davis is currently in Oakland, still claiming that he
owns the L.A. market, which is a little like the Iraqi Minister of
Information insisting that Saddam is blowing the doors off the infidels.
Since the Rams and Raiders left Los Angeles, Ken Behring, Bill
Bidwell, Red McCombs, Rupert Murdoch and others have had a look-see at the
city. They don’t submit viable proposals, they stuff dollar bills down
garters.
If sources around the Glazer situation are to be believed, what he
would like to do is buy the Dodgers and sell the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, but
only if he has assurances from the NFL that he can later be awarded an
expansion franchise. That would leave him with a baseball team and a
football team, plus Dodger Stadium and possibly a new state-of-the-art
football stadium to boot.
Nice plan, except most of Glazer’s wealth apparently isn’t in liquid
form. The NFL won’t allow him to use the Bucs as collateral to buy the
Dodgers. So he would have to borrow, and baseball has limits on that.
Whether this transpires really is irrelevant. The bigger issue for
those in and around the Dodgers is this: Is it a good idea for an already
struggling franchise to be taken over by someone who is on such shaky
financial footing?
This team needs somebody with deep pockets — like the current owner,
News Corp. — but with more patience and greater expertise in baseball. There
aren’t many of those, but Glazer certainly does not fit the profile. He is
all wrong, and the best thing that could happen to the city of Los Angeles
is for this Amish impersonator to continue churning his butter in Florida.
It seems the impetus for Glazer’s grab at the L.A. market is the fact
that he has a son, Ed, who lives in the city, and he would theoretically
take over the running of the Dodgers. That seems imbecilic, considering how
Ed Glazer has little, if any, experience in this area. Then again, Bud Selig
is commissioner.
From a baseball standpoint, the Dodgers have the best pitching in the
majors and the worst hitting. So bats are sorely needed, and they cost money
In order to streamline this club and keep it competitive while remaining
under the $117 million luxury tax threshold, it would require the unique
business acumen that comes with fielding a cost-efficient club in this
current era of the big market-small market disparity, but also some keen
baseball minds who wouldn’t think of entering a season with Brian Jordan,
Shawn Green and Fred McGriff representing the meat of the batting order.
Relatively speaking, it’s easier to prosper in the NFL, where all the
clubs are playing within the same restrictions presented by the salary cap,
free agency and the draft. Sooner or later, the Glazers figured to break
through with a Super Bowl appearance, even if they had to embarrass
themselves with the botched Bill Parcells courtship along the way.
This is different. They could go out and hire Joe Torre as manager,
like many have speculated, but the Tampa Bay Devil Rays hired Lou Piniella,
and at this writing, they’re still the Tampa Bay Devil Rays.
Malcolm Glazer and his cronies are ill-equipped to swing a deal for
the Dodgers and parlay that into a thriving baseball-football empire in Los
Angeles. It appears their greatest qualification in that area is an
insatiable lust for power, money and thrills. Thanks anyway, fellas, but in
L.A., we’re already overstocked in that department.




Michael Ventre writes regularly for NBCSports.com and is a freelance writer
based in Los Angeles.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]