Having Frank McCourt drive you into bankruptcy is the new market inefficiency!

Taken altogether, the settlement terms suggest MLB was so eager to get McCourt out as owner and to avert an open-court airing of charges he’d leveled against Selig in filings that it made significant concessions, said Phoenix bankruptcy attorney Thomas Salerno.... Manfred said MLB’s decision to settle was motivated solely by its desire to bring about a transfer of Dodgers ownership quickly.

So Manfred didn't exactly outright deny Salerno's suggestion.

Really, this whole McCourt era was a huge mistake, and apparently driven by the dreadful Rupert Murdoch:

Selig bowed to pressure from seller News Corp. to approve McCourt, who, unlike some other potential bidders, had agreed to extend the Dodgers broadcast contract with Fox Sports for 10 years...

Still doesn't justify taking on Crawford's contract.

I used to think Selig wanted McCourt in LA as to have a bad owner in a major market. Gives the others a chance, ya know. Like Milwaukee.

Now I think Selig realized how much money MLB was leaving on the table due to McCourt, and so did everything possible to get deep pockets into the owner's box at Chavez Ravine.

Nice point gold Star. He was just waiting for SF to get out of the post Bonds funk before intorducing too much competition.

>Now I think Selig realized how much money MLB was leaving on the table due to McCourt, and so did everything possible to get deep pockets into the owner's box at Chavez Ravine.

I had similar thoughts, in pretty much the same order. I think it was probably the lucrative nature of the NY-Boston rivalry that tipped him off.

If the Dodgers have a $141 million head start on everyone else every freaking year, no wonder Magic & Co. have a money-is-no-object vibe.

Yet if MLB's thinking is rising tide lifts all boats, then if you're SF or AZ or SD you know this LA ownership - willing to exploit a major market to the hilt - will be good for your bottom line. So maybe you don't ##### too loud over the subsidy.

Can't see why a period of poor ownership (with excessive unrelated spending & the owners divorce) leading to bankruptcy should give the new owners a competitive advantage over the better run teams that played by the rules. Doesn't sound like the owners approved this dodge, and I'm not so sure Seligula has the power to favor one team over all others (unless it is the Brewers).

Its not that the Dodgers have a $141 million advantage. Teams like the Red Sox Cubs, or Yankees could already do this with a RSN. If anything, it just gives the Dodgers more options.

I used to think Selig wanted McCourt in LA as to have a bad owner in a major market.

Why imagine double-bankshot theories when simple near-term greed, sprinkled with incompetence and cronyism, explains everything perfectly well.

That conspiracy theory assumes that Selig thought he could control McCourt like the other owners, and that is clearly wasn't the case.

If the Dodgers have a $141 million head start on everyone else every freaking year, no wonder Magic & Co. have a money-is-no-object vibe.

It's not a $141 M head start, they aren't paying "taxes" on that $141 M. I have no idea how much they would put into revenue sharing from that money but it can't be a huge percentage.