The Dodgers’ Payroll Situation Is Far from Dire

The Los Angeles Dodgers have been incredibly successful on the field under the Guggenheim Group, winning four straight division titles and twice coming within two games of a World Series appearances. Not only does the club possess a massive television contract with Time Warner, but they’ve also drawn more than 3.7 million fans in every season under the current ownership group. The team has also been at the top of Major League Baseball payrolls — and, including competitive-balance tax money, has paid out roughly $1.2 billion in salaries over the past four years. There are rumblings that those payroll figures could come down quite a bit, with a detailed piece from Bill Shaikin in the Los Angeles Times indicating how and why payroll could be reduced.

Shaikin does a good job separating the Dodgers’ debt issues from their payroll concerns. While obviously related at some level — both matters are relevant to the Dodgers’ financial health — the one doesn’t necessarily affect the other. According to the current (and expiring) collective bargaining agreement, teams are forbidden from carrying a franchise debt in an amount greater than eight to 12 times the team’s earnings. (The exact multiplier depends on a few different factors not worth exploring here, and how earnings are calculated and why it matters are explained in this comment.) The rule exists to ensure the financial security of all MLB teams, limit outside influences, and make certain that teams aren’t in danger of going under. The Dodgers’ ownership group has been given five years as a grace period before the rule applies to them, giving them another year to address their debt.

The Dodgers, like many billion-dollar purchases, were acquired with a combination of assets that included debts. As Shaikin reports:

When Guggenheim bought the Dodgers for a record $2 billion in 2012, the new owners assumed $412 million in team debts as part of the deal. They also funded the purchase in part with about $1.2 billion in investments from insurance companies controlled by Dodgers chairman Mark Walter, as The Times reported in 2012. Boehly said then that the companies would be repaid for those investments — over time, and with interest.

While carrying a massive payroll obviously affects a club’s bottom line and the earnings of the club, it’s the debts from the purchase itself that need to be addressed under the terms of the debt-service rule. A few million dollars of payroll here and there is unlikely to make a big dent one way or another. There seems to be little doubt that Los Angeles will satisfy whatever requirements they need to meet. That does still leave the issue of payroll, however, and what will happen over the next few seasons.

Since the departure of Frank McCourt, the Dodgers’ increase in payroll has been significant, as illustrated by payroll figures for the club over the last decade, including competitive-balance taxes.

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.

screenshot-2016-11-29-at-11-51-43-am

We see the huge spike after 2012, the year in which new ownership took over, with the number peaking in 2015. When a team pays out $280 million in salaries, they’re unlikely to be regarded as frugal. That said, the club’s 2016 payroll actually represented about a $50 million decrease in spending relative to the previous season. That cut didn’t have any negative consequences on the field, as the Dodgers still won the division. In an attempt to make themselves competitive immediately, the incoming ownership group had taken on a lot of dead weight in contracts. Some of those contracts came off the books after 2015, but Los Angeles still had one of the largest volumes of dead money heading into last season. Releasing Carl Crawford only caused that figure to grow.

The Dodgers have about $187 million in payroll right now, with arbitration raises pending. That means the team, which is already projected as one of the best in baseball without Kenley Jansen or Justin Turner, could make a splash in free agency and still enter the the 2017 season with a lower payroll than in 2016. While we don’t yet know what the competitive-balance figure will be for next season, we can calculates some kind of estimate. Let’s say it receives a small increase, up to $200 million, with a 50% tax for repeat offenders like the Dodgers. If the Dodgers went out and signed Jansen and Turner for $40 million next year and made no other moves, their payroll would still decrease by about $40 million next season. Now look at the salary commitments disappearing for the club over the next two seasons.

Los Angeles Dodgers Expiring Contracts: 2017-2018
Player Year Amount
Andre Ethier 2017 $15 M
Carl Crawford 2017 $21.9 M
Alex Guerrero 2017 $7.5 M
2017 Total $44.4 M
Adrian Gonzalez 2018 $22.4 M
Scott Kazmir 2018 $17.7 M
Brandon McCarthy 2018 $11.5 M
Yasiel Puig 2018 $9.2 M
Hyun-Jin Ryu 2018 $7.8 M
Erisbel Arruebarrena 2018 $6.5 M
2018 Total $75.1 M
2017+2018 $119.5 M

The only player here who projects to be an above-average contributor on the 2017 team is Yasiel Puig — and he might not even be on the roster come spring. Shaikin suggests that the Dodgers are looking to get to a $200 million payroll by 2017, and it doesn’t seem that difficult. Here are the total guaranteed contracts the Dodgers have pending over the next few years.

screenshot-2016-11-29-at-12-16-06-pm

After 2018, which could offer a free-agent class including Bryce Harper and Manny Machado, the only significant guarantee the Dodgers have on the books is Clayton Kershaw, although he has an opt-out for that year. Joc Pederson isn’t arbitration eligible until 2018 and Corey Seager won’t get his first million-dollar salary until the following season. Even then, their contracts will be limited by the arbitration process.

While there’s been talk recently that the Dodgers couldn’t afford to sign Kenley Jansen and Justin Turner, that doesn’t seem to be the case after examining the hard data. Indeed, the team could sign both players and retain plenty of flexibility for the future. The team could easily dip below the $200-million threshold by 2018, effectively resetting the competitive-balance tax if it still exists in the next CBA (a strategy the New York Yankees appeared determined to employ before abandoning it after the 2013 season). That plan could save the franchise hundreds of millions if they do choose to supplement their young team with stars following the 2018 season.

A decrease in Dodgers payroll over the next couple seasons might be timed to follow the debt-service rule mandated by MLB. An examination of the data, however, suggests that such a decrease in payroll might also just represent sound baseball strategy — and potentially ready the club for a major increase in spending for 2019. At this point, it wouldn’t be surprising to see the team return closer to the $300-million mark in a few seasons. Given the influx of money to MLB teams, and the financial health of baseball — as well as the club’s continued success at the gate and potential resolution with regional cable providers — a $300 million payroll isn’t crazy. For the Dodgers, it might be their best strategy as their young, cheap stars lead the team for the next few seasons.





Craig Edwards can be found on twitter @craigjedwards.

22 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
@3_2count
9 years ago

Eric Stephen at TrueBlueLA has a great payroll breakdown going forward to 2020. http://www.truebluela.com/2013/10/21/4861112/los-angeles-dodgers-payroll

carmot
9 years ago
Reply to  @3_2count

Yes, Eric Stephen does very well to get accurate annual salaries (which most news/sports/media agencies do not). However, he only lists their actual salaries. Not mentioned are their AAV salaries- as they would apply towards the CBT. I’ve pointed it out to him previously (via email in August 2015). He’s clearly chosen to ignore his discrepancy.

Will H.
9 years ago

In your scenario of Turner/Jansen equaling $40 million less than 2016, doesn’t that still omit arb raises (as you mention earlier in the paragraph that those are still pending after noting the %187 figure)?

Will H.
9 years ago
Reply to  Craig Edwards

Got it, thanks!

carmot
9 years ago
Reply to  Craig Edwards

Craig, is your $187M including any CBT penalty?

My projection is $205.0M CBT payroll (incl. arb estimates)

My projection is $182.57M in actual 2017 payroll:
25-man + former players/obligations + 5.0M as 50% CBT penalty.

Basically, a $129 million 25-man roster will cost the Dodgers $206M+. Including injury replacements, call-ups, bonuses, 40-man roster, former players, MLBPA player benefits, etc.

ShauncoreMember since 2019
9 years ago

Looking at the CBA remedial issues for non-compliant debt service teams, they are subject to a couple interesting things:

A) Must submit a plan of action to become compliant
B) Consult with the commissioner before agreeing to any contract of 5+ years
C) Prohibition from incurring further debt (obviously)
D) Requirement to raise further capital through equity offering
E) Prohibition from spending any more capex (facilities repair, equipment, etc…)
F) Blanket rule saying that the commissioner can basically prohibit anything else not outlined
G) Withholding of portions of the central fund and/or gate receipts from playoff series
H) Commissioner approval general expenses
I) Limit/suspend any further financing operations through credit
J) Limit the club’s involvement in Rule 4 and 5 drafts
K) Deny the club a seat at the MLB table
L) Suspended ownership or executives
M) Monetary sanctions
N) Another blanket statement
O) Another blanket statement
P) Owners have to guarantee the debt for the next 3 years

Quite a laundry list of possible penalties. Meanwhile there is also an outline of what the MLB looks for in handing down punishments too (compliance previously, ownership intent to be compliant, ownership willing to cover debt, industry economic factors).

Bchevezcalito75
9 years ago

Would trading McCarthy to a team for a mid level prospect help out next year in getting Otani

jdbolickMember since 2024
9 years ago

Otani can’t come to the U.S. as a free agent until after the 2021-22 NPB season, so it’s hard for me to imagine Nippon-Ham posting him until after the 2018-19 season if not even later. It would have happened sooner under the old posting system when there was no limit on bidding, but the Fighters will get $20 million regardless of when they post him.

Bchevezcalito75
9 years ago
Reply to  jdbolick

Just asking Incase he gets posted next season

Dave TMember since 2025
9 years ago

Good post overall, but I have to take issue with a significant inaccuracy in this sentence: “Teams are forbidden from carrying a franchise debt in an amount greater than eight to twelve times the team’s revenue.” Shaikin also describes this concept imprecisely in his article.

It’s not eight to twelve times revenue. It’s eight to twelve times EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization). Especially for a baseball team, the concept is essentially revenue less all cash spending on expenses by the team, other than interest and income taxes. It’s a financial metric that is also sometimes referred to as “operating income”. The detailed wording of the debt service rule is in Attachment 22 of the CBA – http://mlb.mlb.com/pa/pdf/cba_english.pdf

Player payroll is clearly one of those expenses that’s deducted from revenue to calculate EBITDA, as should be luxury tax payments. (For the “tax” in EBITDA to encompass the “luxury tax”, which is not at all a tax in the sense of government income taxes, would be profoundly strange.) So what might seem like relatively modest percentage moves in payroll and luxury tax move debt capacity quite a lot, because EBITDA is the denominator. Other things being equal, cutting payroll by $20 million increases debt capacity by either $160 million or $240 million ($20 million decrease in expenses = $20 million increase in EBITDA that should then be multiplied by either 8 or 12).

My concern here is that someone will read the post’s reference to revenue, see that the Dodgers’ estimated revenue is around $450 million, and think that the Dodgers can support something like $3.6 billion in debt. That’s not at all the case.

I’m also hesitant to assume that most, or even any, of the $1.2 billion in investments from related party insurance companies is “debt” for the purpose of this calculation. It’s difficult to see how having $1.6 to $1.7 billion of true “debt” is a plausible amount if the Dodgers hope to comply with this rule, because the highest amount of EBITDA that Forbes estimates for any MLB team is $73 million for the Giants. Forbes also shows a debt/value ratio for the Dodgers that implies $400 to $500 million of debt. The $1.2 billion from insurance companies could be structured as preferred stock, which can sound a lot like debt to layman but isn’t for accounting purposes (and has some important legal differences).

Also, by the way, the circumstances for a maximum of “eight times debt to EBITDA” vs. “twelve times debt to EBITDA” is defined in the attachment to the CBA. It’s eight times as the default, unless the team has stadium debt from a stadium opening or major renovation within the past ten years. In the latter case it’s twelve times. I’d think that the Dodgers are in the “eight times” category.

Dave TMember since 2025
9 years ago
Reply to  Craig Edwards

Thanks!

carmot
9 years ago
Reply to  Dave T

Great details, thanks Dave T! Interesting read. (rec’d)

Dave TMember since 2025
9 years ago

Their cable TV contract looks to me like a medium-term (3-5 year) concern for the Dodgers.

Time Warner Cable (now branded as Spectrum) is reportedly taking big losses on the deal so far, which is hardly surprising since it’s had so little success signing up carriage with other distributors. It’s tough to say how ironclad the deal is without seeing the actual contract and what TWC entities guaranteed payments to the Dodgers. SportsNet LA is a single team channel, however – just the Dodgers – so at first glance the easiest way out of the contract would be to put a separate SportsNet LA entity into Chapter 11 bankruptcy, because that channel has no business or value outside of carrying the Dodgers. There’s a similar precedent for that in the CSN Houston bankruptcy filing.

So if a SportsNet LA Chapter 11 filing happened, the network would presumably get the existing contract rejected by the bankruptcy court. The Dodgers would have their broadcast rights back but would need to negotiate a new TV deal, presumably with significantly lower revenue since the prior deal didn’t work for the TV partner.

Maybe SportsNet LA will become successful. Maybe the (rather odd, IMO) Department of Justice collusion lawsuit against DirecTV / AT&T will help convince other distributors to pay for it.

But maybe that won’t happen, and so far the network has been unsuccessful even in the midst of a period when the Dodgers have won the NL West for 4 straight years. That makes me wonder if the Dodgers, from a business perspective, in part need to keep spending because even one or two years of mediocrity might be the death knell for their cable network partner seeing a chance of making money on the TV deal. And I strongly doubt that the 25-year TV deal will remain in place if TWC/Spectrum keeps losing tens of millions dollars on it every year. Whether it’s bankruptcy for the network or some other strategy to break or renegotiate the deal, high-paid executives and attorneys aren’t paid that money just to sit around and shrug when they’re stuck losing money every year on a contract that runs for twenty more years.

Dave TMember since 2025
9 years ago
Reply to  Dave T

Or, TLDR to echo the headline: The Dodgers chances of keeping their current TV deal will be dire unless the cable network’s finances improve significantly over the next few years.

carmot
9 years ago
Reply to  Dave T

The Dodgers tv deal might be a mess, but there is strong reason to believe that Dodgers ownership would want to keep it intact. As part of the McCourt/Guggenheim court settlement with MLB…

IIRC, only $84M was revenue sharing taxable in the first year of its operation. As Shaikin wrote, “MLB generally exempts profits from team-owned television networks.”

And one of Craig’s older articles here on Fangraphs, “The ownership shares are incredibly important when it comes to revenue-sharing because any money gained as an owner of a network is shielded from revenue-sharing…”

IF the Dodgers had this current tv deal collapse and/or be re-negotiated, I doubt the new terms could possibly be as favorable (to the Dodgers). Even if they owned 100%. No doubt you know, Dave, their last agreement was to help prevent Bankruptcy Court. It will be interesting to follow this in upcoming years. Cheers.

Dave TMember since 2025
9 years ago
Reply to  carmot

Very good points, thank you. I vaguely recalled that the Dodgers had what looked like a team-favorable agreement on how much TV revenue was subject to local revenue sharing as a result of the McCourt mess, but you’re far more knowledgeable on the details.

Question for you: do you know if the Dodgers – inclusive of whatever related entity may own their stake in SportsNet LA – are for now effectively receiving less than the face value of their TV deal due to losses at the network? Because I’ve seen it reported that Time Warner Cable has been taking losses of over $100 million per year ( http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-time-warner-cable-sports-chief-david-rone-20151026-story.html ), but haven’t read how those losses are impacting the Dodgers’ overall revenue from the TV deal.

Agree that it will be interesting to follow what happens, and it may just be the first of many 15-25 year RSN deals that turns into a contentious fight if/when the cable bundle revenue model breaks down.

carmot
9 years ago
Reply to  Dave T

I’m no expert on the LA market, nor the Dodgers. Your question is a good one. Probably the area where things start to get pretty hinky and fuzzy to me. The answer according to this old 2013 ESPN article:

“Time Warner is guaranteeing $4 a month from every eligible household in the Los Angeles area, regardless of whether that household receives SportsNetLA via their cable or satellite provider, and without regard to the success of the channel. In other words, if Cox doesn’t pick up SportsNetLA right away, there’s no financial loss for the Dodgers. Time Warner will cover the carriage fees of distributors who don’t sign on to carry the channel until such a time that a deal is reached with that provider.”

Seems like a BIG CHUNK might’ve already been paid to the Dodgers in channel naming rights? How different are these things in name versus substance? Yankees “sold” their majority share of YES Network, but increased their annual tv revenue rights by double, while also receiving a massive cash payment (IIRC, nearly $500M?). Lots of money shifting around and being sheltered, somehow. Who’s really eating the losses? Are the losses realized or projected?

Are there about 6 million households in the Los Angeles GMA? But who really “owns” SportsNetLA? If it’s losing money, then are the Dodgers responsible? If Time Warner honors their deal and pays LAD and LAD has to eat a loss in its ownership stake/operating losses… It’s basically spreading around the Profit and Loss, right? You and I could probably come up with dozens of questions. Who gains from the TimeWarner ad revenue of SNLA? I mean, if the carriage fees haven’t been picked up, ad spends must be lower.

It gets all wonky to me. Partly because of the lack of games previously broadcasted- previously by AT&T. But now, AT&T bought TimeWarner. So that means AT&T, Dish, Cox, U-Verse should have no problem airing them. Maybe new ‘channel packaging’ forces everybody in the Los Angeles Greater Metropolitan Area to include SNLA with HBO or Cartoon Network or TBS or CNN. I’ve no idea. Instead of a $4 carriage fee, maybe it’s now part of a $17 bundle? LOL. I’ve no idea.

This tv rights bubble is sure to burst.. I’ve worked on trends much of my life. I see it coming. From DVRs to social media broadcasting (like Twitter/NFL) to MLB[dot]tv to (pirated) online streaming to browser ad blockers. Live tv commercials will be toast. People will find alternative methods of viewing- I’d bet a lot already have when they couldn’t view Dodgers over-the-air on AT&T or Dish. So, why pay now when they’ve figured out how to get by? Astros have had THREE games with unheard of ZERO Nielsen ratings. Like, I said… toast.

My “guess” is TimeWarner/AT&T eats the losses and pays the Dodgers. But there could be a new legal battle or three. “Stay tuned,” eh?

Dave TMember since 2025
9 years ago
Reply to  carmot

Thanks again.

Also, to clarify one point, the Time Warner that AT&T has a pending deal to buy is not Time Warner Cable. Time Warner Cable was spun off by Time Warner back in 2009 and has been completely independent of Time Warner. (As an aside, this has made for some interesting confusion, including dissatisfied TWC customers mistakenly tweeting at Time Warner’s CEO Jeff Bewkes, who would sometimes snarkily retweet the complaints at Time Warner Cable’s CEO.) Time Warner Cable has the contract with the Dodgers. TWC was itself acquired by Charter earlier this year and rebranded as Spectrum.

The Time Warner that AT&T plans to acquire is the company that owns HBO, Cartoon Network, the Turner Networks, etc. So packaging SportsNet LA with those channels won’t be an option.

And, yes, it does look like the LA TV Market is about 5.5 million TV households – http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/us/en/public%20factsheets/tv/2016-local-television-market-universe-estimates.pdf . Of course less than 100% have cable or satellite, but the target market for SportsNet LA should also pick up another few hundred thousand households in smaller markets like Santa Barbara, Bakersfield, etc.

I agree that the evidence does suggest that Time Warner Cable (now Charter/Spectrum) has to eat the losses itself and pay the Dodgers. There’s your quote above, and this additional hint from the 2013 Shaikin article that you’d linked: “The Time Warner [Cable] deal provides the Dodgers with ownership of the new SportsNet LA network, but MLB disputed how much financial risk the team would take.”

carmot
9 years ago

Hi Craig. I applaud your efforts and details here, however, I’ll respectfully ask you to re-examine your data points. I know… I’ve tried contacting many media outlets in the past, to them I hold no credibility whatsoever. So, please take this as you wish. This stuff is quite complicated to explain, please forgive the length here.

…after examining the hard data. Indeed, the team could sign both [Jansen & Turner] and retain plenty of flexibility for the future.

I’ve examined MLB payrolls closely for years now. It appears every media outlet uses the Cot’s Team Excel spreadsheets. These are mostly wrong for player salaries. They derive salaries from the year’s (actual) salary AND ADD an averaged amount of whatever signing bonus. Please consider using ONLY the Cot’s TEAM FRONT PAGE for salaries- just scroll down.

For example: McCarthy won’t make $11.5M in 2017 or 2018.
Each of 2017/18, McCarthy will earn $10M, the team will pay him $10M. That $6M signing bonus was paid back in 2015. For some truly stupid reason, BaseballProspectus muddles everything up by dividing it out to $1.5M for each of 4 seasons. Hence, 10 + 1.5 = 11.5M. Which isn’t even an accurate depiction of his 2017 or 2018 CBT salary (a constant AAV of $48M/4 years = $12.0M). See how this skews?

Everybody in the media uses “wrong” salaries. USAToday, ESPN, Baseball-Reference, spotrac, MLBTR, etc. EVERYBODY. Previously, I’ve contacted nearly a dozen medea sites and reporters directly, including SF Giants media, Eric Stephen at TrueBlueLA, and others. I’m also either dismissed or ridiculed by other Giants sites/commenters. They all disregard me as if I wear some tin foil hat. My hope is that Fangraphs would actually care to get player salaries and team payrolls accurate. You can confirm on your own. My hope is that you’d be willing to consider doing so.

My personal projections have the Dodgers at $205M CBT right now. Without certainty in LF, 3B, or closer. (There are several different team payroll numbers people “choose” to use for “actual payroll,” like whether including 40-man players, MLBPA benefits, bonuses/injury replacements/call-ups, etc). So, this would disagree with your narrative of them being capable of still signing both Jansen & Turner. Because…

The 2018 CBT is the focus here. My LAD projections show $178M in actual payroll and effectively $171M 2018 CBT already committed. Using the just reported $197M CBT threshold for 2018, that leaves just under $26M they would be able to add. (No, Bill Shaikin, a team cannot simply “back-load” contracts, the CBT is applied to their Average Annual Value). Obviously, long-term contracts totaling more than 26M could be done, if LAD can offload some other players/salaries. I’m simply reporting where I’d project them- given the known factors at present.

Craig, and others interested, I have much more detailed explanations for how MLB team payrolls function and especially as considered towards the Competitive Balance Tax (CBT) threshold.

Are the LA Dodgers Doomed?

2015 Dodgers Payroll = $362M

[full disclosure] As a Giants fan, I did a preliminary 2017 Giants’ payroll projection that I will update. The Giants likely have only $13M to spend before reaching the 2017 CBT threshold. Cheers. Dream big…

carmot
9 years ago

Yikes, Craig… My initial comment must’ve missed the end tag on the “blockquote.” What a mess, sorry.