I am more than a bit unsettled by the Dodgers’ spending spree since the new owners took over. The notion that if this acquisition (Carl Crawford) or that one (Adrian Gonzalez) is just an expensive mistake and, oh, well, we have more money where that came from …

It creeps me out.

Isn’t that the approach that the U.S. government (and we as consumers) took too often and for far too long? And have we not discovered that eventually those expensive decisions come home to roost?

I have decided this:

I would prefer the slow and steady approach.

The Dodgers may think they are able to spend money like George Steinbrenner after a few cocktails, but it cannot be a good business practice. And it cannot be sustainable.

Jayson Stark of the espn.com noted that the Dodgers now have committed nearly $570 million in contracts to five players: Matt Kemp, Andre Either, Crawford, Gonzalez and today’s signing, the right-hander Zack Greinke.

Last time I checked, it takes nine players to play the game.  (Ten, when playing interleague games in an American League yard.)

And remember, this is baseball, where all contracts are guaranteed. Can’t just make a guy go away, like the NFL does, and avoid paying much or all of the later years of a deal. The Dodgers will write checks for that $570 million.

I admire that the new owners are spending money on baseball players and not on divorce lawyers and mansions, which seemed to be Frank McCourt’s preference, during his final awful years.

It’s just this growing concern that fiscal unreality is becoming a way of life at Chavez Ravine. That, and the notion that the best franchises are those who are constantly building from below, and not showering cash on guys who might be good — but might be busts, too.

How many future big-leaguers could have been drafted, signed and developed for the $147 million Greinke apparently will get over the next six years? More than five players, I would think.

The key to all this is the Dodgers’ anticipation of billions (perhaps six billions) of dollars over the next quarter century coming from a local broadcast rights deal.

Maybe that much money is, in fact, a sure thing. But it doesn’t mean the Dodgers have to spend a big chunk of it even before a deal is signed.

(And it doesn’t mean it won’t come out the pockets of fans and consumers, eventually, through cable fees or higher ticket prices or more advertising. The owners are not running a charity, I’m pretty sure.)

Can we call a moratorium now, on spending huge amounts on single players? Can the Dodgers find a decent shortstop for maybe $3 million and one year? Some pitching depth for modest amounts?

Fiscal sanity. Maybe consider it. Before finding that it ends with the club peering over a fiscal cliff.