More On The Dodger Divorce
This is going to get way worse before it gets better.
almost 2 years ago
Al Yellon
92 comments
1 recs |
Email
PrintComments
You're right.
Weird. When I posted it, it was a link about the Dodgers. I’ll see if I can find the right one and replace it.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
If you don't care about something, pass on by.
There’s no need for comments like that.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Actually,
I kind of do. I’m not really following this story with any regularity, so if someone wants to pass along an link when a new twist becomes public, I really do appreciate it. It’s baseball related, a bit funny – sad too, but mostly funny – and has potential implications for the pennant race this season.
Since you asked.
by Damen Jackson on Mar 8, 2010 1:24 PM CST up reply actions
An owner's financial condition
can really affect a team. If this drains Mc Court’s coffers, it could be an unexpected fire sale.
Finally my revenge on Ned Colletti
for ruining 2006. Makes my post July sig (I Hate Ned Colletti) worth the trouble.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim
Yeah, some revenge
two time defending NL West Champions and two straight appearances in the BLCS. And favorites of many to win again this year. That is some revenge.
Not going to make it this year
Ned will have to watch as his payroll is cut and he loses his players. No more taking Furcal & Maddux from us
(I don’t care if it did not happen that way, that is how I see it).
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim
by Doggie Stalker on Mar 8, 2010 10:39 PM CST up reply actions
Well, when the Cubs
have made two consecutive appearances in the NLCS you can spout off. Until then, phfffft.
I can gloat over Ned's troubles if I want.
I feel bad for Kim Ng though
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim
by Doggie Stalker on Mar 8, 2010 11:15 PM CST up reply actions
Ned and Kim are doing just fine, thank you
Rumors of the Dodgers demise are exaggerated, and premature to say the least.
That's nothing, look at this:
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/05/sports/la-sp-mccourt-divorce-20100306
They’ve already set a record for attorney fees and the divorce really hasn’t even gotten started. $19 million!!!!! By comparison, Spears/Federline was $835K, although they weren’t married nearly as long, but you get the idea.
I especially like the part where they talk about the fees not affecting the club, then mention how they let Orlando Hudson go in favor of two retreads and a prospect.
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
Don't forget how they didn't offer arbitration...
…to Randy Wolf! They let their 2009 ace walk and got NO draft picks in return.
"I always tell the truth -- Even when I lie" -- Tony Montana
Yup
You wonder why they haven’t low balled someone like Jarrod Washburn, who is a lot like Wolf. Probably because they can’t even afford to low ball somebody.
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
Or even Pedro.
Pedro seems like a name that McCourt could use to create some hype amongst Dodger fans to get some asses in the seats.
"I always tell the truth -- Even when I lie" -- Tony Montana
Too much dinero, not durable enough
They need a workhorse innings eater. Washburn or Jon Garland, a guy they had late last year, would fill the bill.
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
The Dodgers announced
they weren’t going to bring Orlando Hudson back in mid-season last year. There were some really good reasons for that decision, and none of them had to do with divorce.
As far as Wolf is concerned, that decision was made because of his injury history. The Dodgers feel it is likely they caught lightning in a bottle with Wolf last year and the chances of it repeating this year are slim to none.
On Hudson....
…. seriously? Because I sure don’t recall that.
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
Yup
The Dodgers announced that they were not planning to resign Hudson during the season last year…BEFORE they benched him in favor of Belliard. In fact, I’m certain that is part of the reason they benched him. Hudson signed a one year, below market deal before the season started last year and he made it clear he would be looking to sign a multi-year deal this offseason.
That didn’t materialize, as he wound up with another one year deal with the Twins.
That just doesn't sound right
Halfway through the year they say they’re not bringing him back and then keep playing him? If you’ve got a link or something, ok, but I really, truly don’t remember this at all. It’s bizarre for any team, much less the Dodgers. Why not let him go right then? What I remember is the Dodger beat writers wondering in print around September why Hudson suddenly fell out of favor and Torre was playing Belliard so much, because Hudson enjoyed a much better reputation.
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
It *is* correct
I recall this very clearly and discussed it with my son at the time. It was surprising that they announced it when they did, but trust me, it happened. It made the news here in Phoenix, as this is where O-Dog played before he went to the Dodgers. There was even speculation that the D-Backs might try to bring him back, but truth is, he burned bridges here, and I suspect he did in LA also. He is popular with teammates, but not with front office.
I too have no memory of such an "announcement".
As a matter of fact, LA Times writers pondered whether or not the Dodgers would offer arbitration to Hudson. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but it just seems strange that these writers would discuss Hudson receiving arbitration if the club had already announced they’d walk away from him.
"I always tell the truth -- Even when I lie" -- Tony Montana
It's true that there
was a lot of speculation over whether or not the Dodgers would offer arbitration. None of it came from the Dodgers, however, and it seems apparent they never seriously considered it.
But, what I am telling you is true. I was shocked that they would announce in mid-season that they would likely not bring Hudson back…at that point he was still having a pretty productive season. But, it happened, I assure you.
I just checked with my son
and he remembers it the same way I do. I have not been able to find a link to a news story, but I swear that during July or August last year, the Dodgers announced that they likely would not bring O-Dog back in 2010.
Understood!
My point, however, is that the writers would have made some reference to the “announcement” in their columns had such an announcement been made. There were countless articles in the Times written about Hudson during the off-season — None of which made any mention of the mid-season announcement.
Do you recall where you heard this? I’d be interested in reading about it.
"I always tell the truth -- Even when I lie" -- Tony Montana
I am pretty sure
it was an LA based news source, but I don’t recall which one. What I do recall is that there was a lot of discussion about it on the D’Backs TV broadcasts and on local sports radio. There were a lot of people speculating that the D’Backs might pursue Hudson in the off season as nobody except me seems to think Augue Ojeda should be the every day 2nd baseman.
This may have been reported but it doesn't sound like it was very credible when it was
My attempts to google for any references to what you’re saying keep bringing up this thread instead, and absolutely nothing else that indicates Hudson wasn’t being considered for 2010 (until the offseason started).
I’m not saying you didn’t hear it, but until you have a link, it sounds like you it was something that may have been misreported. A statement by any of the Dodger management would have created a flurry of articles.
Also note
Hudson’s benching, and the timing of same resulted in him falling ONE plate appearance short of maxing out the large incentive clauses in his 2009 contract.
That was no accident. And that alone sent a strong signal that O-Dog did not fit into their 2010 plans, and that had to cause serious resentment.
I DO remember
talk of the incentive clause during the season, and speculation that the LAD would do exactly what they did.
Which was.....
…. after they got Belliard, and Belliard, for some inexplicable reason, rose off the scrap heap and got hot. But I still don’t recall any announcement mid-season that they weren’t bringing back Hudson. None at all.
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
More On Hudson
I e-mailed Bill Shaikin, who is the has been writing the McCourt articles for the L.A. Times, is their major league baseball writer and former Dodger beat writer. I asked him if the Dodgers made any kind of announcement about not signing Hudosn during the season last year. This is his response:
Thanks for the note, Don. I can’t recall anyone with the Dodgers saying they would not try to retain Hudson. However, in fairness, it would be rare for any team to make that kind of statement in the middle of a season, because you would essentially be telling the player, “Play hard for us, but we don’t want you back.” Maybe a small-market team that has no chance to sign a free agent, but that might be the rare exception.
Bill
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
Watch attendance plummet this season in LA.
Unless this team pulls off a miracle, I can’t see them filling Dodger Stadium like they did last year. The fans are tired of McCourt, tired of Manny, and frustrated at the lack of off-season moves. It couldn’t happen to a nicer franchise!
"I always tell the truth -- Even when I lie" -- Tony Montana
I'll be willing to bet
their attendance does not plummet. Dodger fans love Manny, and they don’t care about any of the rest of it as long as the team wins, and with the core of young, talented players they have, they are still the favorites to win the NL West.
Maybe plummet was too big a word to use.
However, if you read some of these fan comments it’s clear there are plenty of people unhappy with the Dodgers. Considering all the bad press they’ve received, I predict AT LEAST a significant decline in attendance. We shall see.
"I always tell the truth -- Even when I lie" -- Tony Montana
The problem is
the Dodgers attendance numbers are mostly generated by season ticket holders and they already announced in January that they have surpassed the season ticket numbers from last year:
Dodger VP of Communications Josh Rawitch has confirmed that the the Dodgers have not only reached 2009’s season ticket sales but are in all likelihood, going to surpass them. “Our staff is projecting our best renewal rate in the past three years based on data they are getting from our call center.”
As anybody who has been to Dodger Stadium will tell you, it is not unusual for them to announce an attendance of 50,000 when there is only 35,000 in the park. Season ticket holders, for the most part, account for the difference.
That's true.
I often see Cubs games vs. the Dodgers where there are tons of empty seats behind the plate, where the bigtime season ticket holders would have seats.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
And a lot of them are Cub fans
I’ve been at Dodger Stadium with people looking around going “I thought I was in LA.”
Of course, a lot of the fans are tourists, and some drunk Chicagoan always embarrasses me by shouting “When’s the #$#& beer guy coming ’round?”
Hmmmmm
What I read and hear is Dodger fans are tired of his act, especially after the stupid “I know I won’t be here next year” remark he came up with at the start of Spring. They liked him in 2008, and pretty much were sick of him after the steroid bust and weak performance at the plate thereafter. Many actually lamented the departure of Juan Pierre because they envisioned a situation where Manny wasn’t playing due to some Manny made up reason.
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
You fail to realize
that Manny is beloved by Hispanic Dodger fans. And as long as he plays for the Dodgers, that will be the case, no matter what he says or does.
Manny achieved cult status amongst the rest of the Dodger faithful with his unbelievable stretch run in 2008. The bought him a lot of slack. Sure people will complain about him and this and that…but when push comes to shove they will buy tickets and cheer him on. The people that post on boards like this are not typical fans nor do they make up a significant portion of the ticket buying public.
Manny is a lightning rod and will always be the center of attention. But, the bottom line is that he attracts fans.
Speaking of Manny Ramirez...
This article was just posted in the LA Times. “Lightning rod” is the perfect word to describe him.
"I always tell the truth -- Even when I lie" -- Tony Montana
You do realize I live in L.A., right?
I’m not failing to realize anything here. While not every fan hates him, hispanics included, he truly has gone a long way to wearing out his welcome, hispanics included.
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
I do realize
you live in LA. I wonder how many Dodger games you have been to recently. 99% of the Hispanic fan base, which is substantial, view Manny much the way they viewed Fernando Valenzuela.
What?
What does how many games I’ve been to have to do with anything? How many have you? And for the record, there’s no way he’s regarded like Fernando. That’s yet another thing I haven’t heard here.
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
I have been to probably a dozen Dodger
games since Manny joined the team. You are mistaken about his popularity. People go crazy over him and Fernando mania is the closest parallel I could draw.
In Arizona or L.A.?
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
Then you no doubt heard the boos from Dodgers fans...
…when Manny struggled down the stretch last season. IMO, any love Manny earned from LA fans in ’08 is evaporating rapidly. He is skating on thin ice, and if he continues to struggle, the boos will increase.
The whole “Mannywood” marketing strategy was shelved when he got caught cheating and the Dodgers had to refund tickets in the LF Mannywood section. I realize plenty of Latino Dodger fans continue to cheer for him, but I don’t think it’s anywhere near 99% — and, IMHO, it’s nothing remotely close to Fernandomania.
"I always tell the truth -- Even when I lie" -- Tony Montana
And the fans clamored
to bring Mannywood back, so the Dodgers did.
Read this from last July if you don’t believe me.
http://jay-mariotti.fanhouse.com/2009/07/17/night-in-mannywood-fans-blind-to-truth/
That was in July when he returned...
..from the 50 game ban — shortly thereafter, when he struck out again and again, there was tepid enthusiasm for Manny. I may very well be wrong here, but I sincerely feel that support for Manny has waned amongst the fans.
They will cheer wildly on Opening Day - More so if he starts hot- but if his struggles continue from last year, he’ll be booed mercilessly.
"I always tell the truth -- Even when I lie" -- Tony Montana
Exactly
And let’s not forget, this is Mariotti, who has a hard enough time keeping his pulse on Chicago, much less know what’s actually going on in L.A. I imagine the same people who are still cheering for Manny are also the same frustrated Raider fans who make going to Dodger Stadium such an enjoyable experience.
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
Attendence NEVER plummets
at Dodger Stadium. The figures can fluctuate a bit, but people keep parading through the turnstyles even in down years. They might not stay the whole game, but they keep a’ comin.
(Heavens! Sounds like….Cubs fans….)
I know I’m in the minority on this, but my hunch is the divorce will not mean a lot to the team in the long run.
by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Mar 8, 2010 7:58 PM CST up reply actions
I am *confident* that the divorce
will be nothing but a small blip on the radar when it is all said and done. If it means the McCourts have to sell the team, then that will be a plus, because they never should have been approved as owners in the first place.
You are right about attendance and fan support and that is the reason that even the McCourts mess cannot screw up the Dodgers juggernaut. This team has played in the NLCS the last two years. That trumps everything else. And they have the best roster of young talent in baseball, bar none.
Au contraire....
…. if the California economy doesn’t pick up, you’re going to see a lot of season ticket holders cancel, because while it’s anecdotal, I know of several law firms that did not renew for this year (they’re obviously not connected to the divorce). Moreover, I wouldn’t trust a damn thing the Dodgers say about surpassing last year, either. Frank has every reason to tell his spokespuppet to lie right now. He’s trying to project the image things are great. California unemployment is approaching 15%, and many cities and counties are about to announce massive layoffs this summer and fall if they don’t find new revenue streams. It’s ignoring reality and near depression-like conditions to say the Dodger attendance won’t suffer, even if there wasn’t a divorce.
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
The deadline
has already passed for Dodgers season ticket holders to have their money in, so I think your speculation the there will be a lot of cancellations is most unlikely. They actually surpassed last years renewals for season tickets. The economy has not hurt the Lakers attendance, and their tickets are a lot more expensive than the Dodgers.
If you would like to make a bet on this…I’m in.
If that's the case...
… this may not have an impact until 2011 ticket sales. But I bet it will happen.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
2011 was what I was referring to.....
….. as it relates to season tickets, but I wasn’t clear , I guess. I also think walk up tickets are going to suffer this year since, as we discussed a while back here, the Dodgers raised the prices on the cheap seats.
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
The only ones benefitting from this
Are the lawyers….they’ll be spending that $19 Million on champagne and crab legs( or sushi since it’s LA) and everyone else suffers. This will be a major drama, and will play out all summer. I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a fire sale in July…..Remember a judge has to rule who actually owns the team and Jamie is already pulling out all the skeletons. Whoever winds up with the team is going to be broke and unable to pay bills.
There will never be a 'fire sale.'
As I have said before, this is not equivalent to the Padres/John Moores divorce. The Padres have a season ticket base of less than 10,000. They do not have the massive TV revenues. That divorce was a back-breaker for San Diego
The LA market is a whole different world, and many here who seem to be salivating at a Dodgers collapse — it’s just not gonna happen.
Even if the team winds up for sale, don’t look for the Dodgers at the bottom of the NL West.
by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Mar 8, 2010 8:05 PM CST up reply actions
While you may be right....
… this divorce has gotten into bizarre territory. I would NOT rule anything out, even a fire sale.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
The McCourts
werr sucking the Dodgers dry >before< the divorce. They’re avoiding personal taxes by just borrowing $100 million from the Dodgers—money that they have no way or intention of paying back. In the face of that, the $600k a year salaries that they pay their kids for evidentially no work is just peanuts.
Divorce or no, eventually the team is going to default on the loans and the McCourts have no way of paying it back except by selling the team.
You don't know that...
This divorce is far, far from over. ANYTHING can happen.
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
Doesn't matter
what happens in the divorce. The cash cow that is the Dodgers will continue to operate just fine.
by azjazzman on Mar 8, 2010 9:58 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
We shall see
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
‘m kind of enjoying this sub-plot. I’ve never really respected the Dodger organization for more a typical LA-something-to-do type of franchise, and If we can steal one of their great players, so be it.
"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks
by dtpollitt on Mar 8, 2010 10:50 PM CST via mobile reply actions
After the fiasco that was...
the Cubs sale, the last thing I’m going to concern myself with is the Dodgers ownership woes.
I'm not a Dodgers fan, obviously.
But to call them a ‘something-to-do’ type of franchise is far from being accurate.
There are a myriad of ways to spend your entertainment dollar in Southern California. And, in some cases, all you have to do is spend some gas money to go to a beach…or spend some time in the mountains. Essentially, those destinations are free.
Or, might want to spend some of that dollar at Disneyland…or at the host of theme parks from L-A to San Diego….but 3.4 million went to Dodger Stadium last year during a recession. I’d hardly consider that behavior a ‘spur-of the-moment-what-we-do-today’ activity. In fact, a day at Dodger Stadium can be cheaper than a day at ANY theme park. Just don’t buy the 150-dollar tickets. Go to their site. Check the ticket prices, and you’ll see plenty of affordable tickets.
The massive LA market has PLENTY of disposable income, regardless of the unemployment rate. I’d bet money I don’t have that once again, the team will be close to 3 mil.
Perhaps the crowds will lessen a bit. It is certainly a possibility. However, I think many here are not giving the team’s fans enough credit, placing them in the ‘fair-weather’ category. I think after over 50 years and zillions of fans in attendence, the team has more than earned its’ stripes as a Los Angeles fixture with a massive fan base. Non-natives, like transplanted Chicagoans will help a crowd count, of course. Cubs fans mightbe able to turn a regular game that might have a NORMAL 45K crowd into a 56K sell-out.
The team has been a winner, more often than not and it’s certainly easy to follow them, as their fans expect success more often than not.
I think jealousy of the Dodgers is clouding some of the comments on this thread, and history is being ignored.
by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Mar 9, 2010 11:53 AM CST reply actions
Honestly, I don't think it's jealousy at all.
I think the current economy puts all of this in uncharted waters. Everything you say is true based on what’s gone on in the past.
However, in the current conditions, I’m not sure all of that is true any more. And with Frank McCourt raising ticket prices this year, it’s a lot more likely that people will say, “Screw it”, especially if the Dodgers don’t get off to a good start.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
The Dodgers drew
3.6M last year and 3.7M the year before. The economy was worse last year than it is now. The Dodgers did not raise prices on season tickets and this year their home schedule is enhanced with a three game series in June against the Yankees and a four game weekend series just before the All Star game against the Cubs.
As I said above, anybody that wants to bet me that the Dodgers don’t experience a major drop off in attendance this year has a taker.
So what happens then
in a few weeks when a judge decides who owns the team? You think that’s going to go down nicely? And let’s not forget 19 MILLION DOLLARS in legal fees and they’re not even close to deciding anything yet. Just what do you think either one of them is going to have left after this is all said and done? This is huge, and it’s public and nasty, and expensive. Whoever ends up with the team likely is going to be broke and have to sell the team to cover bills. And if they don’t they’re liable to do it anyway to spite the other person.
Now it may not happen in the beginning of the season no, but it will snowball for sure, and by the all star break things will be at rock bottom if not on the way there. Maybe I’m wrong, and I am great, I’ll be the first to say it, but I don’t think so. I know speaking for me I think this is incredibly sad for the dodgers beause they are such a great organization with great history. So I don’t wish ill on them, but to sit there and think that it won’t affect the team at all is crazy. This doesn’t happen in a vacuum. The players are going to get caught up in this, they already are, getting asked what they feel about all this. It’s only a matter of time before they start wondering if they’re even goign to have a job after this and if that contract is even worth the paper it’s printed on, and going to their agents asking them to find them other teams to play for. I’d bet that’s what’s driving manny and his comments…..i was watching ESPN a few weeks ago and they said the dodgers dont’ have enough money to fund his salary next year. This is going to tear this team apart…..I don’t see them really competing at all because of all the distractions from the divorce.
I am going to archive this post
and sometime after the All Star break I will trot it out again and we will see how prescient you are.
In the meantime, I still maintain that the LA Dodgers were a model franchise for decades before the McCourts owned them, and they are still one as we speak and they will continue to be so after the McCourts mess is over and done.
You keep saying that......
… and I’ll admit you have some basis for doing so, but this divorce, as new as it is, has quickly become the all time leader in fees in Los Angeles (and that’s saying something) and, well, the potential for this action to have a nuclear, devastating effect not just on the Dodgers, but on all of the McCourts’ holdings and businesses, whatever they may be, is very real. I’m a government attorney here and have had some interaction with some contemporaries of the lawyers involved in the McCourt case. The face both McCourts are putting on publicly is nothing like what they’re yelling at each other in private. Each of them intends to destroy the other, and if the Dodgers go down in the process, one will point the finger at the other and blame him or her. They truly don’t care. It isn’t what either want, but if it means ruining the other somehow, so be it. The hiring of Boies confirms what we’ve been hearing. Boies has no trial peer, anywhere. He’s just about the best there is.
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
Here's the story on Boies
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/08/sports/la-sp-dodgers-mccourt-20100309
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
That's fine
And believe it or not, I really do hope that I’m wrong. The Dodgers as a franchise are too good of a franchise for this to happen to. If I’m wrong, great, and I’ll be the first to admit it. But if I’m not…..well then this has the potential to flatten one of the great teams in baseball for many years
Not sure what you mean by "flatten", but...
…if you mean a Judge ruling that the club is 50/50 community property, I’d imagine the team would have to be sold; neither Frank, nor Jamie, have the financial resources to buy the other one out. In other words, SD Padres Part 2.
If flatten means the team crumbling and players not being paid their earnings like you described above, well, that just WON’T happen. In order for something remotely close to that scenario occurring the club would have to file for bankruptcy protection; which would more than likely be followed by a huge fire sale; which would be followed by a sale of the club. The Dodgers COULD NOT just stop sending out checks to their employees.
This 2nd scenario is just not possible — There’s too much money involved. The team is just part of the whole package. Don’t forget about sponsorships, TV deals, season tickets, Dodger Stadium, and the PRICELESS real estate it, and its MASSIVE parking lot sit on overlooking the LA skyline.
"I always tell the truth -- Even when I lie" -- Tony Montana
A judge ordering
that the Dodgers be sold and the McCourts splitting the proceeds is, by far, the most likely outcome. And that would be the best thing that could happen to the Dodgers right now.
It probably would be, yes.
But that process could take a while — look how long it took to sell the Padres. And what kind of buyer would step up in this economy?
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Come on
The rich still have their money. The Ricketts bought the Cubs in a recession. Didn’t Michael Jordan just complete a purchase of the Charlotte team? If the Dodgers go on the market, there will be buyers. I’ll bet a local one too.
It still could be a long process, which could damage the franchise.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I'd say the Cubs just went through a long process
Were they damaged? Hampered and handcuffed a bit on occasion perhaps, but I wouldn’t say damaged.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
The Dodger sale would be comparable to the Padres, not the Cubs, due to the circumstances.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
That's more of what I meant
bascially a huge fire sale that lets everybody go and yeah, looks like the padres.
This was going to be Manny's last year in LA
no matter what. Has nothing to do with the divorce. Manny has become a serious liability in the OF and starting in 2011 his value will be as a designated hitter only. He knows it, his agent knows it and every team in baseball knows it, especially the Dodgers.
The trial on team ownership won't be until Fall now
The date was continued a couple of weeks ago. Today, the L.A. Times reported that Jamie McCourt has brought in the heaviest of artillery in trial lawyer David Boies, who was involved in the Bush/Gore Hanging Chad debacle and is one of two lawyers, along with Theodore Olsen, a former solicitor general, in challenging the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage initiative. She already has Bert Fields, a very prominent entertainment/business lawyer and Dennis Wasser, one of the very lite, if that’s a term, Beverly Hills family law lawyers. The hiring of Boies would strongly indicate Jamie is going to reinvent the concept of scorched earth.
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Cubs By The Numbers
Cubs By The Numbers is a history of the ballclub by uniform number, but the biographies help trace the history of our beloved team in a new way. For everyone who's a Cubs fan, anyone who ever wore the uniform is like family. Cubs By The Numbers reintroduces readers to some of their long-lost ancestors, even ones they think they already know.
Click here to order your copy, available now!
Recent Stories in Ticket Exchanges
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
- Will Bryce Harper start the season with the Nationals?
- Mitch Mustain puts football behind him, signs reported rookie deal with White Sox
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
