LET THE BIDDING BEGIN : WHO WILL BUY DODGERS?

Byline: Eric Noland Daily News Staff Writer

As Dodgers president Peter O'Malley endeavors to sell one of baseball's flagship franchises over the next few months, one of his challenges will be to separate the players from the pretenders, says a baseball high roller who has experienced both ends of a franchise sale.

``No question. It happens in any transaction,'' said San Diego Padres president and chief executive officer Larry Lucchino, who participated in the sale of the Baltimore Orioles to a group of investors led by Peter Angelos, and later joined with John Moores in the purchase of the Padres. ``The `big hat, no cattle syndrome' is the phrase that is used a lot.

``You have to have intelligent, sophisticated agents working for you who can separate the men from the boys.

``Baseball insists on that, too. Baseball does some kind of preliminary checks, as well, because they don't want financial information disseminated without regard to the qualifications of the purchaser.''

Given the dizzyingly high profile of the Dodgers, prospective ``buyers'' are likely to lurk in every Los Angeles alleyway over the next few months.

But there also figures to be no shortage of big-time players seeking a seat at the table.

The day after O'Malley's shocking announcement that he was putting the family business on the block, speculation on interested parties revolved around some of Tinseltown's fattest cats.

DreamWorks co-owner Steven Spielberg. Warner Bros. Studios chairman Bob Daly. MCA/Universal. Sony Corp.

``That sound you hear,'' one major-league baseball official said with a laugh, ``is Michael Eisner screaming in the distance.''

Indeed, Eisner, chairman of the Walt Disney Co., was undoubtedly a victim of bad timing. Just last year, Disney bought 25 percent of the Angels for $30 million with a provision to obtain the remainder upon the death of Gene Autry. Who'd have thought at that juncture that the infinitely more prized Dodgers would soon be on the open market?

Here's a scenario to mull over, though: Eisner dumps his interest in the Angels and jumps into the Dodgers fray.

Meanwhile, expressions of mild interest are already surfacing.

Bob Daly, chairman of Burbank-based Warner Bros. Studios, said Tuesday evening: ``I'm a real strong Dodger fan. I've told people over the years that if the Dodgers were ever available, I'd love to be in position to do something there.''

It would have to be done on a personal, rather than corporate level, since Time Warner's ownership of the Atlanta Braves represents a conflict of interest.

Said Daly: ``On a personal basis, sure, I definitely would have a desire to buy the Dodgers, but it means putting together a group, and it's not so easy, and I'm sure there are other corporations that will be in there. So it's a long shot from my standpoint.''

He added that ``people in the (entertainment) industry have called and indicated that they'd be interested, but so far that is only conversation.''

Orange County businessman Peter Ueberroth, the former baseball commissioner and darling of the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics organization, headed a group of investors that was a prime contender for the Angels before Disney flattened the competition. Ueberroth said he would be interested but voiced concern about the possible price tag - expected to range anywhere between $200 and $500 million.

``The Dodgers baseball franchise is, in my view, the most valuable franchise in baseball,'' Ueberroth said. ``We would have a strong interest, but I don't think we'd be a very likely winning bidder because of the marquee nature of the Dodger franchise.''

On the morning after O'Malley's announcement, speculation over a potential buyer and the magnitude of the purchase price was coupled with some forays into the realm of the absurd.

Brooklyn borough president Howard Golden sent letters the New York Gov. George Pataki and New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani asking them to join in setting up a commission that would seek to return the Dodgers to Brooklyn, where they resided for 68 years before moving West in 1958.

The New York tabloids also took up the hue and cry, the Post with a clamorous headline that said: ``Bring 'Em Back!''

Fat chance. O'Malley noted that in his search for a buyer, ``commitment to community, to Los Angeles and to Southern California, is the No. 1 priority.'' Besides, the New York Mets, who launched operations in the wake of the Dodgers' departure, now have turf rights.

On this coast, Los Angeles City Councilwoman Laura Chick floated the idea of public purchase and ownership of the Dodgers, along the lines of the NFL's Green Bay Packers.

But the Packers are a small-market operation that benefits hugely from the NFL's commitment to sharing its broadcast and marketing wealth equally. Given the way deep-pockets ownership is running roughshod over the pipsqueak operations in baseball today, public ownership of the Dodgers would seem to be an idea with little merit.

Regardless of who buys the Dodgers, fans who have grown comfortable with such franchise hallmarks as loyalty to players, managerial stability and a gentle stadium ambience might be wise to brace for a shock.

``The O'Malleys have done it better than anybody, but the people who come in will do it their way,'' said Steve Brener, a former Dodgers publicity director who today runs a Reseda public relations firm. ``Disney proved that with the Angels. There could be a lot of billboards at the stadium. The owner could come in and clean house, not believe in building (the roster) from within, raise ticket prices.''

The new ownership group might feel that change is its prerogative - one that comes with chasing off the weakling bidders and meeting a purchase price that is expected to be staggering.