McCourt smells like an old fishmarket
by Phil Gurnee on Dec 10, 2009 8:32 PM PST
108 comments
Ashen faced - when all the blood drains from your face when you have come to the conclusion that the optimism was mis-placed and the negative nellies were probably right all along.
Color me ashen faced.
Back in 2004 Rob McMillin of the excellent blog 6-4-2 blog linked to a story that should have sent chills down the spine of every Dodger fan. I hadn't started reading blogs back then but if I had I'm sure I would have shrugged it off as just another blogger with an axe to grind. I welcomed the McCourts because by then they had hired DePodesta and I was feeling optimistic about the future and I wasn't interested in the cries of doom and gloom.
In the beginning everything was probably going even better then they planned with the value of the team increasing in value enough for them to keep adding debt even without increasing cash flow. I didn't become skeptical of the McCourts until the summer of 2008 when they started making decisions that openly made me question if they had the cash to run the Dodger franchise properly. Dave Young asked me on Tuesday Night why no one was talking about the financial situation until this year. I didn't want to tell Dave that I and many other bloggers have been questioning the McCourts for over 15 months and some like 6-4-2 for every year of their ownership. Of course no one was reading this blog back then so I'm sure my concerns were not read by more then a handful of Dodger fans. Since I wrote that column not one Dodger financial decision has been made that has made anyone feel like the Dodgers don't have financial constraints.
The divorce simply complicates a situation that already existed. I have no idea what is going on with the Dodgers financially, and I hope like hell that Dennis Mannion can clean up whatever mess the McCourts have created. Dodger fans should think about suing Bud Selig for even letting the McCourts buy the team; if a blogger in 2004 can dig up a story like the fish market fiasco it is obvious that Selig did not do his due diligence when allowing the McCourts to own the team.
I'll admit that for a few years they were good stewards of this franchise and the success on the field has been impressive for most of their tenure. I'll give them that. I'll give them the fact they were able to buy one of most recognized sports franchises in baseball with little money of their own. How they got away with it is something we as Dodger fans will always wonder about but it is impressive to me that they got it done. I'll give them the fact they borrowed capital to improve the grand old lady of Los Angeles. I'll give the fact they created Think Cure and have tried to make the Dodgers more community conscious. Over the five years they have owned the team they have done good things.
I'll take it all back if they destroy this franchise and little by little that is what they have been doing since July 31st, 2008, the day the music died at Dodger Stadium even as they played deep into the playoffs. It is hard to tell if we are teetering on the brink of disaster as what happened in Baltimore, or if this is simply a short term problem that will eventually sort itself out. I'm not feeling very optimistic tonight. Are you?
1 recs |
108 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
The worst part of McCourt’s decision not to offer arbitration to pitcher Randy Wolf(notes) is that it reveals how little regard the Dodgers have for spending the time and money to continue developing homegrown talent. The Dodgers would have received two draft picks when Wolf signed a three-year deal with the Brewers, but the fact is they don’t want high draft picks because it would mean spending money earmarked for the arbitration raises of three- and four-year veterans.
L.A. has made the playoffs three of the last four years primarily on the backs of a nucleus of young talent drafted and developed in-house. Yet ownership isn’t committed to continuing that tradition by accumulating draft picks that would require hefty signing bonuses. The Dodgers spent less on draft bonuses than any team in baseball the last two years, and that trend likely will continue.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=sh-wintermeetings121009&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
Not true
If they keep their first round picks, it will not be at the bottom. Of course they could crater and then maybe have a top 5 pick. Then you can really spend money. I understand this argument but if you don’t account for the non-first round pick in 2009 then you are not doing your homework.
by bhsportsguy on Dec 10, 2009 11:27 PM PST up reply actions
Yep, completely worthless.
I blame Peter O’Malley. If he hadn’t gotten “bored” for a few months, we would have never, ever found ourselves in this mess.
Mayor Riordan asked Peter to halt construction of his football satdium and give the Coliseum
another shot.
Soon after O’Malley announced the team was for sale.
by 68elcamino427 on Dec 10, 2009 9:30 PM PST up reply actions
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/a-look-at-jamie-hoffmanns-platoon-splits/
Before you cry small sample size (his PA totals versus left-handers are only in the 110-150 range), be aware that strikeout and walk rates are among the first stat categories to stabilize. Looking at this, it seems that Hoffmann’s huge improvement against lefties in 2009 might be more of a real improvement than just a fluke. For some perspective on what a 2:1 BB:K ratio means, see this list of the MLB leaders. Obviously it’s not the be-all end-all statistic to look at when thinking about hitting ability (ahem, Luis Castillo), but it’s a decent indicator.
After not having great success against left-handers earlier in his career, there are some doubts over whether or not his 2009 explosion against them was real or simply a fluke. Looking at this a little more closely has led me to believe his success will continue.
My favorite tragic humorous part about all this
is that the article linked above refers to the Opryland, USA-run Baltimore Fishmarket, an entertainment center and theater in Baltimore.
In December 2007, the Dodgers signed Andruw Jones during the winter meetings, which were held at the…wait for it…Opryland Hotel!
More backstory on the Baltimore Fishmarket
1989 NY Times story RE: shut down of market
1993 Baltimore Sun article about attempts to reopen:
Yesterday, the mayor described the vacant building as “a big hole” in the city’s efforts to rejuvenate the Market Place corridor.
He said that the city has given developer Frank McCourt “a lot of time” to make good on promises to reopen the building.
Merrill Diamond, a spokesman for the McCourt Co., said he was surprised to learn of the mayor’s remarks. He said that Mr. McCourt has been working diligently to reopen the Fishmarket as a “multivenue entertainment complex” and remains committed to carrying out that plan.
“There’s been an on-going dialogue” with the city, Mr. Diamond said.
“We’re making progress. There are a lot of pieces to this puzzle.”
The mayor said that the McCourt group has had difficulty obtaining financing to reopen the building, which has more than a dozen liens against it. The developer also owes the city back taxes on the property.
Much like the McCourts with the Dodgers, he started the Fishmarket venture during booming economic times and then struggled when the economy took a downturn.
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
by David Young on Dec 11, 2009 12:16 AM PST up reply actions
I am so ticked off in regards to the LAD not offering Arbitration to Wolf and Hudson, the words to express my contempt for this fiasco escape me. This has to be two of the dumbest decisions in baseball history. This idicates that McCourt is so broke that the idea of signing high draft choices (four that we would have received) and giving the bonuses necessary are out of his financial capability. No I am not happy, and confidence in this regime is low, very very low. No joy here.
Oh look, Bill Plaschke wrote an article about the Dodgers.
I haven’t seen the books. I don’t know the budget. But I recognize the silence.
While other teams noisily scrambled through an Indianapolis hotel this week in hopes of improving themselves, the Dodgers were in an entirely different race.
The Indy 000.
No talk about improving the team through high-priced free agency or expensive trades. No talk about improving the ballpark through needed renovations.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-plaschke11-2009dec11,0,6991537.column
Read that a few minutes ago. I still dislike Bill, but I hope he writes an article ripping these clowns. It can be his Manny summer 2009 crusade for 2010.
Incomprehensible, however, is that they didn’t even make him an arbitration offer — essentially a one-year deal — which would have ensured they received two picks of next year’s amateur draft as compensation for his loss. With one stroke of the pen, they turned down a chance to add an extra sandwich pick between the first and second round, and a second-round pick, both potentially valuable pieces of an organization’s foundation.
Fucking hypocritical bastard. Plaschke doesn’t give two shits about the farm system!
It's scary
But I LOVED that article. This is weird.
by Eric Stephen on Dec 10, 2009 9:47 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
That's why it's called a "no brainer"
Even someone without a brain can get it.
by Cool Dudes on Dec 10, 2009 11:40 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
hey, let's just give credit where credit's due
when I read the article, I thought to myself, “Wow, this reads like a ‘Dodger Rage for Dummies’ piece”- and I mean that in a GOOD way. The “average” fan that we keep bringing up needs to understand the magnitude of this, and Plashke reaches over to those folks. This isn’t like Matt Kemp getting snubbed for the All-Star game (twice)- this really is something that is worth repeating over and over, until it reaches the mainstream and the McCourts finally have to answer for it!
I agree to a point
At least the guy is writing something productive that will educate the fans rather than make them dumber.
One of the reasons I keep hammering how stupid these moves has been is that I want as much light on this as possible. The more light, the more likely the inevitable reaction occurs where F MC decides he can’t keep the Dodgers and gives them up. To this end, I think this was a good article.
re; Plaschke
The next important off-season milepost is long-term contract negotiations with some of the Dodgers’ good young players.
Championship teams keep their kids with these kinds of deals. Failing teams can’t make the deals, and lose the kids.
if the dodgers ‘cheap out’ this winter on locking up their Kiddie Corps long term, then it should be pretty obvious that the team is going to be sold shortly ….
and trading any of them now would be a most ominous signal that things are far worse than we can imagine!
As much as I hate Plaschke
Let him write this stuff on a daily basis. Let him unload on the McCourts with all he has. Hypocritical as he is, he is correct on this point.
by Capt Obvious on Dec 10, 2009 10:31 PM PST up reply actions
I'm puzzled
“Dave Young asked me on Tuesday Night why no one was talking about the financial situation until this year. I didn’t want to tell Dave that I and many other bloggers have been questioning the McCourts for over 15 months and some like 6-4-2 for every year of their ownership.”
Why not?
Plaschke writing something isn't go change anything
I mean McCourt is the owner (or the McCourts are the owner), who is going to fire them. Donald Sterling gets hit pieces written on him and he isn’t selling the Clippers.
by bhsportsguy on Dec 10, 2009 11:20 PM PST up reply actions
The Bank Will Fire Him
I think his new move to put one of the company guys in charge is an acknowledgment that Frank and the Dodgers will be parting ways.
Because Phil is polite enough not to embarrass me by reminding me that I had forgotten that the trades that included much better prospects in exchange for salary relief were already a year and a half ago almost.
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
by David Young on Dec 11, 2009 12:14 AM PST up reply actions
In essence I had confused the timing between the lowered opening day payroll (2008 vs. 2009) and the prospects for cash trades.
I do, however, remember reading Phil’s article that he linked in this article.
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
by David Young on Dec 11, 2009 12:23 AM PST up reply actions
Reason number 1 why no one writes about the finances
Because as Plaschke says in his intro, we don’t know the story. And once the games start, your interest is going to be there.
Baseball enjoys a monopoly thanks to an exemption granted to them by the Federal Courts
Congress occasionally threatens to take it away when they need to do some grandstanding, but they are never serious about it. Not that I really want politicians involved – the McCourts are greasy enough already – It would be interesting if Congress demanded a certain amount of openness and transparency on some portions of the books on baseball teams in exchange for the continued privilege of their monopoly.
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
by David Young on Dec 11, 2009 12:27 AM PST up reply actions
JAYPERS (IL)
During yesterday’s Rockies chat, Tracy Ringolsby made a pretty bold statement when he said Tyler Matzek’s development was ahead of Kershaw’s “in all areas”. I’d like to get a second opinion. Thanks.
Jim Callis
(2:04 PM)
J.P. is referring to the Rockies chat we had at baseballamerica.com . . . That is bold. Kershaw was just as highly regarded coming out of the draft. Matzek finished strong in the CIF playoffs, but I think Kershaw showed slightly better stuff over the course of his high school senior year.
http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/29689/mlb-with-jim-callis
My Thoughts
I’m trying really hard here to have a good perspective on things.
We can complain as much as we want about the McCourts, but in reality, these last two years have been the best years to be a Dodgers fan since I was 6 years old in 1988.
We’ve been 3 games away from the World Series twice in the last two years. Two games away each year if Jonathan Broxton throws two better pitches. That’s success right there, especially for this organization over the past 20 years.
We have the best young core in baseball. Two pitchers that could easily be Aces this year or next. Two outfielders that should be all-stars every year. A first baseman who loves to play ball in October. A catcher who’s 26 and already enjoyed two All-Star seasons, a Gold Glove, and a Silver Slugger award.
We have legitimate veterans in Blake, Furcal, Manny, and Pierre.
And don’t forget – we’ve got the 8th highest payroll in baseball – it’s tough to say that they’re being “cheap.” There have been some really bad moves and decisions over the last ten or so years (Brown, Dreifort, Jones, Schmidt, Pierre) that have bloated that payroll a bit – but they do spend money.
But going along with all that, I think what’s frustrating to me isn’t the Wolf/Hudson arbitration things, it’s the fact that we’re essentially in the same boat as we were in last year, but it seems like we have less money to spend.
I’m not that worried about the future right now – I’m worried about the present. We’ve been SO close. I really hope we can cash all the chips in and see what we can come up with. I’m not hoping for a Yankees/Lakers type of run over the next ten years – I’m hoping for one or two World Series appearances and hopefully a ring or two.
Sorry this whole thing was really in-cohesive – it was just a lot of jumbled thoughts put into one boring rant. Tell me how I’m wrong now because of OPS + and XFIP.
I like your general sentiment, but I disagree with this:
“it’s tough to say that they’re being "cheap."
The 8th highest payroll, but also #2 in attendance. They are one of the richest teams in terms of revenue (estimated) in baseball. Perhaps in the context of their debts they aren’t being cheap and could surely be cheaper, but I think that gets at the heart of what was wrong with McCourt as an owner from the beginning.
Help, I’m over-leveraged and now my wife wants a divorce!
Love my baseball team , but can I really afford to run it properly?
How did she talk me into buying those damn houses on the beach?
Well, we’ll just cut at the bottom, that’ll work for awhile.
It’ll be ok, don’t worry my ship’s gonna come in.
by 68elcamino427 on Dec 11, 2009 7:59 AM PST up reply actions
Sorry this whole thing was really in-cohesive – it was just a lot of jumbled thoughts put into one boring rant. Tell me how I’m wrong now because of OPS + and XFIP.
I wasn’t going to tell you you were wrong because I actually agree with your post to some degree (though I don’t see how Kevin Brown belongs with any of those other names you listed.) But I thought your cheap shot at the end about using OPS+ and x-FIP was pretty juvenile.
by Michael White on Dec 11, 2009 7:45 AM PST up reply actions
It was a joke!
a decent one at that, given what i had to work with. don’t get your styrups in a bunch (you see what I did there? another joke! i’m on fire!).
sorry. maybe Brown doesn’t belong in that category. I guess I just picked him because of his record breaking contract – even if he did have some great years as a Dodger.
My wife
thinks that the divorce is a big plan to get themselves out of debt. At least this way they can keep half of what they have!
Couldn’t they just simply have sold the Dodgers, taken their relatively slim nine-figure profit (after the Dodgers debts are satisfied as part of the sale), and used it to fix up the finances in the rest of her life?
Should you be concerned that she’s mulling over divorce schemes? ;)
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
Well
If this were a secret plan, they’d get to keep everything — the team and all the real estate… right?
Not to say I’m buying into this secret plan idea. The divorce got very ugly very quickly. When you’re talking about swimming pool time and secret liaisons, it’s hard to imagine that it’s all for show.
The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy
by Humma Kavula on Dec 11, 2009 9:54 AM PST up reply actions
No
A divorce filing would not prime the current lenders.
by Michael White on Dec 11, 2009 9:56 AM PST up reply actions
Rich Harden deal
has $2.5m in incentives, per Evan Grant of the Dallas Morning News:
$500k for each of
155 IP
165 IP
175 IP
185 IP
195 IP
That could bring total 2010 salary to $10m.
Harden’s career high in IP was 189.2 in 2004. That is the only time he was higher than 148.
The big thing that worries me
More than the refusal to lock up players like Kemp/Kershaw, more than the lack of investment in the farm, more than anything, is the bit that Joshua Fisher picked up a few weeks ago: the Dodgers have leveraged the land around the stadium, and if there is a change in ownership, that note may come due.
If the Dodgers are sold, and Frank lets the bank take the land, the jewel that is Dodger Stadium will be tarnished. Teams and players will come and go and we can always argue about what we woulda shoulda coulda done if we’d been in charge, but at least we have the stadium*. If we lose that — if we end up staring at Westfield Dodgertown Mall over the centerfield fence — the stain will last forever.
*Perhaps this is a good time to acknowledge that the history of Chavez Ravine is complicated to say the least and maybe we shouldn’t have it in the first place. I am not the expert in these matters — but I felt it should be mentioned at least in passing.
The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy
If the team is sold and the Dodgers move out of the Ravine as a result
I would view this as a positive development. I am not a fan of Dodger Stadium and I would love for the team to move to a more “transportation friendly” location.
/Acknowledges that I am in the minority in this position.
Not sure how much development could really happen up there anyway. The Stadium is already a geographic oddity since it sits on top of a mountain. Not sure why one would want to put a mall there.
by Michael White on Dec 11, 2009 9:55 AM PST up reply actions
Universal Studios sits on top of a mountain and they build the CityWalk mall up there. Seems pretty successful.
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
by David Young on Dec 11, 2009 10:20 AM PST up reply actions
I love Dodger Stadium and consider it to be The shrine for west coast baseball. However, MWhite brings up an outstanding point that there needs to be better public transportation options for arriving and departing from the stadium, specifically a Metrolink extention.
2009-10 Kings Hockey: Delivering Milk Steaks from the Meat Train at an arena near you!
by DodgerBlueBalls on Dec 11, 2009 1:31 PM PST up reply actions
Who got the stadium in the McCourt's post-nup?
When the McCourts bought the team, they did a post-nup that said Jamie owed their real estate and Frank owned the franchise.
Who owns the stadium and the land that surrounds it? Frank (‘cause it’s used by the team), or Jamie (‘cause it’s real estate)?
by MattBakerJr on Dec 11, 2009 12:12 PM PST up reply actions
The real estate referred to is their private homes in Malibu, Holmby Hills and wherever else. The Dodger franchise owns the stadium and the surrounding land.
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
by David Young on Dec 11, 2009 12:19 PM PST up reply actions
The land and note will be settled before a sale to a hypothetical /buyerowner..
Either the loans against the land will be paid off with the sale of the team, or Franks has to pay off the loan when he gets cash during the sale of the Dodgers. There is no way a buyer and his or her investment bank aiding them will allow deal as long the loans with Dodger property as collateral is still in force.
One of the loans, that Frank got in 2004/5 5 to help with the $150 million Bank of America loan is a 25 year/$250 million dollar private placement loan at 5.66% interest that is AAA rated, (meaning he can’t be behind payments) he is probably paying $10 million a year in loan repayments and $14-15 million for the 5.66% interest. This is one of the loans that puts 300 acres of Dodger Land and Dodger Stadium as collateral. Frank probably has a couple more loans on the property..
The Banks won’t take the land, they want the money. They will take the land from Frank if he falls behind in payments, and force the sale of the team.
Frank is developing (or rather trying to develop) “Next 50” around Dodger Stadium, because he will use the rents from the development to pay off loans, etc, and have more revenue streams, especially in off season months.
However Franks has an absolutely awful record in developing land. He had huge dreams about his Seaport District/South Boston properties, that never pass the concept phase. His “Next 50” plan is slated for a $500 million budget, but where the hell is going to find the money?
Right now, like many of Frank’s ideas, “Next 50” is a pipe dream. He needs other people’s money to develop it, and he is already over leverage as it is, given he is still paying off the loans to buy the Dodgers in 2004.
No, no --
The Stadium itself, to my knowledge, is NOT leveraged. Even under this scenario, the Dodgers should be calling Dodger Stadium their home for years to come.
So they’d be in the stadium you don’t like, in a location you don’t like, surrounded by the eyesore/monstrosity of your choice. Condos? Strip malls? Pick ’em.
The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy
I would imagine that in a sale scenario all debts, including the debt held against the land, will be required to be serviced, and then be settled in escrow. We should be more worried about McCourt defaulting on the loan – or deeding the land in lieu of default/foreclosure – before a sale. He wouldn’t like that either because it hurts his sale price.
Perhaps the divorce is happening because Jamie (an MBA and a JD) knows they need to sell the Dodgers now because of the debt-load, and Frank won’t agree to it. That would be really bad. (I don’t seriously think this, but who knows?)
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
by David Young on Dec 11, 2009 10:26 AM PST up reply actions
I would have no problem
with the Dodgers developing the land around the stadium and turning it into Dodger Walk, however the residents around Chavez Ravine would never let it happen.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Dec 11, 2009 10:40 AM PST up reply actions
I do not want to start THAT thread, but if you have kept up with the recent articles about the expo line delays among many other MTA struggles, DS I, DSII, and DS III will never be transportation friendly.
Even a park which had sidewalks and main streets adjacent to the stadium would be more friendly than the current construction.
by Michael White on Dec 11, 2009 10:02 AM PST up reply actions
friendly to whom? The people who live within walking distance of the stadium? LA is not a very dense city so no matter where you put it, most people are going to have to drive there.
A train up the hill to DS would connect it to public transport and wouldn’t be impossible to accomplish. It’s such a gem of a stadium and experience it would seem silly to me to tear it down because of transportation issues, which is something that affects the entire city and not just that location.
I just don’t see what’s so “gem” like about it. I like the stadium fine I guess, but I don’t care one way or the other. If somebody wanted to move the stadium to a more central location, I would view that favorably. I just don’t feel personally attached to any aspect of the actual stadium; to me it’s just a detail.
by Michael White on Dec 11, 2009 10:37 AM PST up reply actions
Staples Center qualifies
At least in my opinion…
by Michael White on Dec 11, 2009 10:41 AM PST up reply actions
I'd agree right now with that
within a five mile radius of Staples you pretty much have everything that I’d call Los Angeles.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Dec 11, 2009 10:42 AM PST up reply actions
which includes Dodger Stadium
it certainly doesn’t feel that way, as it usually takes 30 minutes (at least) to get from Staples to your parking space. But geographically, they’re within jogging distance.
Nothing exists in West LA
that I personally identify with the City of Los Angeles. Each person probably has personal choices.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Dec 11, 2009 11:44 AM PST up reply actions
Well that’s one thing I like about LA, we’re all free to make it our own. However it’s odd to me that your LA does not include the beach, UCLA Getty Center, etc.
Good point about the "many different LA's"
because I’m kind of like Phil. I haven’t been to UCLA in years and the only time I even went was when they had that annual fair when I was a kid (I don’t even know if they still do that.) I went to the Getty Center once to impress my high school girlfriend and if I go to the beach I tend to go up to Ventura or Santa Barbara (never any West Side beaches.) The spot on the West Side I frequent the most is the airport.
by Michael White on Dec 11, 2009 1:24 PM PST up reply actions
I don't consider the beach
Los Angeles, I consider the beach, “the beach”. I consider the WestSide the Westside, and I consider Los Angeles what I said earlier. I’m not that tied to the real boundries that the city of Los Angeles boasts of.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
I am just not a fan
of big hulking arenas and stadiums in downtown areas. When they are not in use they give off a cold, empty feel to the neighborhood.
Not if the immediately surrounding downtown area is vibrant. Staples used to be as you described, but with LA Live right next to it and the surrounding area becoming inhabited with multi-unit dwellings and other restaurants nearby, it’s a lot better. It helps that two sides of Staples are bordered – more or less – by the freeway and by the Convention Center – giving it a feel of being on the border of the active area.
Nashville’s football stadium on an island in the river with a walking bridge to the happening riverside downtown area is a brilliant solution.
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
by David Young on Dec 11, 2009 12:27 PM PST up reply actions
SI_JonHeyman
#yanks as much $34 million apart on damon so far — 18 mil for 2 vs. 52 mil for 4. doesnt this have to get done tho?
Yankee's should hold tight
Damon has no chance for the deal he’s looking for other then from the Yankee’s and if they aren’t biting he’s going to go hungry.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Dec 11, 2009 11:21 AM PST up reply actions
After Jason Repko was drafted in 1999, the #Dodgers have had 52 different players (by my rough count) play the OF who are no longer w/team. Repko – still here
How does arbitration work for guys with option years?
Does the arbiter set out two contracts, one for the minor leagues and one for the pros?
What is your guess Repko will get?
by Michael White on Dec 11, 2009 10:43 AM PST up reply actions
Repko gets a full contract that becomes guaranteed on day one of the regular season (all arb contracts are technically non-guaranteed before the season starts; if a player is cut 16 or more days before the regular season starts he gets 30 days termination pay, and if he gets cut in the final 15 days before season starts he gets 45 days termination pay). Even if he is in the minors all year, he gets every penny of the major league contract.
I suspect he will sign another deal around $500k, maybe with a couple hundred grand in PA incentives (like he had last year). I doubt it goes to arbitration.
by Eric Stephen on Dec 11, 2009 11:23 AM PST up reply actions
equally as amazing is that his Dodger debut was before anyone else's on the current team
It’s sort of like if you’re at a company, and the only employee who is the same in one 5 year time frame is the guy who fixes the coffee machine!
This is one reason why I’m always so with consumed with “keeping the core together”. I remember at the beginning of the 2006 season, looking around at the team, and saying, “Who ARE all these guys?!” The few that WERE identifiable (Nomar, Penny, Lowe, Furcal, etc.) had all made their names with other teams. Of course, by the end of the season, we saw our first glimpse of the guys who make up the center of our team that we have today, so it wasn’t nearly as bleak as it seemed at the beginning of that year. Plus, without the dreaded 2005, we never would’ve had Kershaw.
Looking back, losing Beltre, Green, and Lo Duca within one season was not nearly the outrage it seemed at the time- quite the opposite, in fact- and the guys that make up the heart and soul of the Dodgers now are 10 times more compelling to root for. But if THIS crew is allowed to walk, or is traded away in a year or two, don’t expect lightning to strike twice, especially the way the McCourts have starved the farm system. I guess we should just be glad to root for them now, and hope for the best down the road.
That is nuts
He beats out Broxton by a few months. Repko started the second game of 2005. Broxton pitched later that year in July (as a 21 year old.)
If Repko makes the team to start the year, I have a feeling I will be using that trivia question a few times throughout the year.
by Michael White on Dec 11, 2009 11:43 AM PST up reply actions
That should read “have acquired 52 different players…”
The Dodgers had several more OF who were already in th organization when Repko was drafted.
by Eric Stephen on Dec 11, 2009 11:33 AM PST up reply actions
Selig and the McCourts
I’ve always thought – and even more so now – that Selig wanted and guided the sale of the Dodgers to the McCourts because he didn’t want a deep pocketed owner in the second biggest market bidding up player salaries.
I am extremely pessimistic about this team as long as the McCourts own it. The best case scenario is that the divorce prompts a quick sale of the team.
Selig okayed the sale to the McCourts as a favor to Murdoch.
It is a huge conflict of interest, because MLB was going to negotiate a contract renewal with News Corp/Fox. Any serious bidder would want the Dodgers and the broadcasting rights in the second largest media market in the US, but that would be a huge threat to Fox Sports and their ratings share.
Good for him
It’s scary times out there.
The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy
by Humma Kavula on Dec 11, 2009 1:31 PM PST up reply actions
For
newspaper writers. It will be an interesting day when an ex newspaper person goes against a blogger for a real paying gig like the ESPN deal and the blogger gets the job.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
That's great news!
My favorite newspaper-based Dodger bloggers has always been the Kamenetzky Brothers (Damn you, LA Times!) but Tony had a personable style of writing and never hesitated to engage his readers on the insidesocal.com message boards. He will be a great addition to ESPN LA…
2009-10 Kings Hockey: Delivering Milk Steaks from the Meat Train at an arena near you!
by DodgerBlueBalls on Dec 11, 2009 1:38 PM PST up reply actions
All they need now is to add Will Carroll
The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy
by Humma Kavula on Dec 11, 2009 2:58 PM PST up reply actions
Former Los Angeles Daily News beat writer Tony Jackson is one of three being interviewed for the new ESPN-LA network. The other two are as well known: Dylan Hernandez of the LA Times and Ken Gurnick of Dodgers.com. All three are quality people.
Jackson is a confirmed hire. We exchanged emails.
by Eric Stephen on Dec 11, 2009 3:16 PM PST up reply actions
Craig Counsell
according to Adam McCalvy (Brewers’ beat writer for MLB.com), Counsell hopes to have a deal by Monday, likely with the Brewers:
“I think we’re getting close,” Meister said. "I hope one way or another, whether it’s with the Brewers or another team, that we’ll have something by Monday
marcus thames
if we trade juan pieree, thames would be a great 4th outfielder vs left handed pitching..
New Post Up Top
http://www.truebluela.com/2009/12/11/1196680/winter-meeting-blues-not-for-this
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
I don't think the McCourt divorce is really that big of a deal
The big deal, as others have noted, is the absence of draft picks for Randy Wolf.
Witty .sig goes here.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
NL West Standings
| W | L | PCT | GB | STRK | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
San Diego
|
79 | 59 | .572 | 0 | Won 3 |
|
San Francisco
|
78 | 62 | .557 | 2 | Lost 1 |
|
Colorado
|
75 | 64 | .539 | 4.5 | Won 6 |
|
Los Angeles
|
69 | 71 | .492 | 11 | Lost 5 |
|
Arizona
|
57 | 83 | .407 | 23 | Won 1 |
(updated 9.8.2010 at 10:10 PM PDT)
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Create-a-Caption: Dusty Baker wants YOU to buy playoff tickets
- Padres' Heath Bell wistful about Trevor Hoffman's 600th save
- Want your first career home run? Face a pitcher from Chicago
- Slumpbot .200: Phil Hughes runs into New York's Joba Rules
- Grandstand Gems: A trio of fans got defensive on Tuesday night
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
