Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Dan Marino Starting College For Developmentally Disabled

Jon Weisman breaks down Frank McCourt

with a killer Frank McCourt Interview in which he seems to ask just about every question you could think of. We may not like or agree with the answers, we may think he's still hiding some information or being coy, but Jon asked the right questions. 

Comment 55 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

FYI, Jon said in the comments that he secured the interview before moving to ESPN

by Eric Stephen on Feb 9, 2010 9:55 AM PST reply actions  

Indians are hiring stats people

Hat tip to The Book, which has the job description of the type of stats people they are looking for.

by Xeifrank on Feb 9, 2010 10:04 AM PST reply actions  

Great article

I believe this

But the evidence is more compelling that the Dodgers largely spend when they want to, that their relatively quiet offseason mostly reflected a lack of exciting options in the free-agent market, that their bargain-hunting is a strategy to avoid wasting money rather than a recourse to avoid spending money they don’t have.

but I don’t really believe this

“Generally speaking, we do spend at that level just below the Yankees and the Red Sox,” McCourt said.

And generally speaking, I still can’t quite buy what McCourt is trying to sell here.

by BFDC on Feb 9, 2010 10:16 AM PST reply actions  

Yup

really misspoke on that one. He must have been talking about hot dogs because he wasn’t talking about payroll.

by meercatjohn on Feb 9, 2010 10:30 AM PST up reply actions  

I don’t really care about McCourt. I do care (and worry about) our GM-for-life Ned Colletti. I think we’re going to lose White and Ng one of these days and we’ll see what type of vision Colletti truly has. A great franchise with great players and a serviceable manager can’t overcome poor general managing. I don’t believe in Ned.

by kinbote on Feb 9, 2010 10:21 AM PST reply actions  

I agree. I’ve pretty much accepted it as a foregone conclusion that we will be losing Ng in the near future, but I don’t trust Ned at all without Logan White around.

by BFDC on Feb 9, 2010 10:33 AM PST up reply actions  

Maybe not

but I have no compelling reason to believe that Logan White can be a good GM or Kim Ng. Logan White is great at what he does, but as GM his duties would have little to do with scouting. Kim Ng may know everything there is to know about every admin part of the job, but that does not mean she can do the other parts of the GM job. We won’t know until they become a GM because as of now each of them only does a small % of the total job a GM would do.

by meercatjohn on Feb 9, 2010 10:34 AM PST up reply actions  

I wasn't trying to advocate that Ng or White should replace Ned

but merely saying I don’t know if I trust Ned in terms of player personnel without the advice of White.

by BFDC on Feb 9, 2010 10:37 AM PST up reply actions  

His advice

did not keep Santana or Bell on the team. I think DeJon Watson has more input on the value of the current prospects, his job is developing them, Logan’s job is to get them.

by meercatjohn on Feb 9, 2010 10:39 AM PST up reply actions  

Logan White

will not leave until he gets a GM job. Very very few of those opening come up and given how he has been treated when those opening have opened up doesn’t sound like he’s going to be a GM anytime soon. Kim has been in on some big time jobs, at this point other woman might be passing her on the ladder to becoming the first female GM. I just don’t think it is going to happen in such a male dominated sport. Not soon enough for her anyway.

by meercatjohn on Feb 9, 2010 10:41 AM PST up reply actions  

Good points. DeJon Watson’s name certainly belongs in the current braintrust mix.

by kinbote on Feb 9, 2010 10:51 AM PST up reply actions  

indeed

In particular, Kim Ng seems to get almost reflexive praise amongst fans a lot of the time. Sure, she’s excelled at her current position, but that doesn’t mean she’d so much of an upgrade, or even BE an upgrade, with the top job.

I’d trust Logan White maybe a LITTLE bit more, just because we at least know he has an eye for talent. But yeah, that doesn’t mean he’d have other aspects of what is needed to be a good GM.

by sarcastro9 on Feb 9, 2010 11:31 AM PST up reply actions  

I think the optimism

stems from the low ability of the current GM though.

Like saying you want to grade from Theo Epstein is fine, but is Jed Hoyer or another assistant really gonna be a top 3 GM? It’s much more likely that an assistant can replace somebody like Bavasi or Malone or Sabean or whatever. Colletti isn’t exactly the upper crust here.

by Chad Moriyama on Feb 9, 2010 2:29 PM PST up reply actions  

no, but I think he's done pretty well overall, so far

I sort of think of him like the types of players he obtains- Pierre, Blake, Furcal, etc.- in that while he is not going to set the world on fire, he’s a solid company guy, who makes the most out of what he’s got.

by sarcastro9 on Feb 9, 2010 4:58 PM PST up reply actions  

No, I don't think we'll see his vision

until he is given a normal payroll and not instructions to cut costs

We saw his vision in the first half of regime before Phil mentioned everything started becoming a cost cutting move after July 2008 or so.

by Chad Moriyama on Feb 9, 2010 2:34 PM PST up reply actions  

Ironically

This made him a far more effective GM. :o

by Chad Moriyama on Feb 9, 2010 2:34 PM PST up reply actions  

Just to play devil’s advocate for a minute: one way managers are gauged is by the performance of those that work for him/her, whether or not he/she hired them or retained them. Given the fondness some hold for White, Ng, Watson, whoever, Colletti does get credit for the job that they do, just like my boss gets credit for work I do for him.

The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.

by David Young on Feb 9, 2010 7:47 PM PST up reply actions  

Managers are

incorrectly judged that way

in my opinion :o

by Chad Moriyama on Feb 10, 2010 2:49 AM PST up reply actions  

I disagree. In my experience, my biggest problem with bad managers is that they aren’t savvy enough to identify the correct people to listen to for guidance. When manager picks the wrong people for key positions, the organization flounders. When they pick the right people, the organization succeeds.

The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.

by David Young on Feb 10, 2010 11:23 AM PST up reply actions  

Great article!

Boy did they totally whiff on Santana. But who doesn’t know this anymore? Ned really wanted Casey Blake and gave them a gem, and not just a gem, a catcher with power.

by Julio Nievas on Feb 9, 2010 10:56 AM PST reply actions  

If Jon's source

can be believed than it appears that Ned simply wanted Blake and if the price was Santana they decided so be it. Ned was on the record recently saying that before they pulled the trigger they sent their best evaluator to look at Santana and evidently based on what he said they felt they could trade him. I’d have a long talk with that evaluator but who knows they may still be right, Santana has yet to garner a single major league at bat. He may simply end up being Andy LaRoche and if that was the price for Blake no big deal, if he ends up being a Victor Martinez then they oops big time.

by meercatjohn on Feb 9, 2010 11:10 AM PST up reply actions  

I'm still skeptical, to put it nicely

the Dodgers certainly didn’t do anything at the time to counter the rumors that they could’ve just given up an additional $2 million- it’s only now that he’s getting closer to becoming the real deal that we’re hearing this damage control. The Indians had Victor Martinez, and it seems unlikely that they would have been SO hard pressed for Santana- especially considering how much less they got for C C Sabathia, and then later for Cliff Lee.

by sarcastro9 on Feb 9, 2010 11:34 AM PST up reply actions  

By countering the rumor

They would then have to be on the record about that deal. And frankly, no one (not the Indians either) have ever confirmed nor denied the details about the deal.

The national media has a general storyline about the Dodgers for the past couple of years, dysfunctional front office and potential cashflow problems. Thus, it is in their interest to continue to cite unnamed sources to back up these stories.

by bhsportsguy on Feb 9, 2010 11:51 AM PST up reply actions  

I don't think it matters how they turn out

If absolutely nothing else, Santana was the upper level key piece the Dodgers were missing in trades for guys like Halladay or Lee or Gonzalez or whoever else they were after. Hell, if Meloan continues to do what he did in Oakland last year, maybe even he was too much to give up for 3 months of Blake.

by Chad Moriyama on Feb 9, 2010 2:31 PM PST up reply actions  

I didn't realize:

Meloan’s career AL numbers: 10 1/3 innings, six baserunners, 13 strikeouts, 0.00 ERA. And they say the NL is the easy league :)

by JonWeisman on Feb 9, 2010 2:47 PM PST up reply actions  

Small nitpick: Jon’s article said not signing Hochevar gave us the pick to get Kershaw. What he meant to say (and I know this has been discussed plenty) is that without Hochevar in the 2006 draft, KC would’ve taken Andrew Miller #1 and Detroit would’ve gotten Kershaw at #6.

by silverwidow on Feb 9, 2010 11:45 AM PST reply actions  

Yeah, that’s what I meant. I need to fix that.

by JonWeisman on Feb 9, 2010 11:50 AM PST up reply actions  

Speculating about the draft is just that, speculation

Lincecum, Longoria and Kershaw should have been the first 3 players taken in that draft. Certainly, all three should have gone before Hochevar.

by bhsportsguy on Feb 9, 2010 11:54 AM PST up reply actions  

Thank god we didn’t such Hochevar. I never knew that’s what it came down to.

by Ivdown on Feb 9, 2010 1:42 PM PST up reply actions  

Press Guide

Does anyone know when and where the Maple Street guide can be purchased? I saw it will be in some local bookstores.

by robotmadeofnails on Feb 9, 2010 12:32 PM PST reply actions  

On the right side of this page there is a section called Recent Posts. Within that is an article on the new Maple Street quide.

by RawhideBlue on Feb 9, 2010 12:40 PM PST up reply actions  

I’d look at it on newsstands, but the simplest thing is probably to order it online.

http://www.maplestreetpress.com/index.cfm?book_id=67

by JonWeisman on Feb 9, 2010 12:40 PM PST up reply actions  

Thanks, Jon. I think I will look for it on the news stands because I don’t want to pay $5 for shipping.

by robotmadeofnails on Feb 9, 2010 1:39 PM PST up reply actions  

Of course you might spend more than $5 of your time, of wear on your car or the soles of your shoes, etc., trying to find it. But could ask your local guy if the store is ordering it, then at least you’ll know where to go.

The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.

by David Young on Feb 9, 2010 2:40 PM PST up reply actions  

That’s the plan. Call local places…if no go, than I order online.

by robotmadeofnails on Feb 9, 2010 2:52 PM PST up reply actions  

Scott White at CBS is calling Manny a 2010 bust, Billingsley poised for a breakout, and Loney a sleeper.

by silverwidow on Feb 9, 2010 1:17 PM PST reply actions  

I like (and agree with) 2 of those 3 things

I guess it also depends on how you define “bust”. Most people would probably settle for Manny’s 2009 (minus the suspension), so long as the performance was a lot more even than it was in ’09.

by sarcastro9 on Feb 9, 2010 1:22 PM PST up reply actions  

Dodgers are going to have 11 spring games on Prime Ticket, plus 3 more on KCAL. I’ll have a post up shortly.

by Eric Stephen on Feb 9, 2010 1:17 PM PST reply actions  

When does “Better Know an NRI” begin? ;)

by kinbote on Feb 9, 2010 1:19 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

Nicely played.

The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.

by David Young on Feb 9, 2010 2:41 PM PST up reply actions  

Does anyone know if you get Spring Training games if you buy the season pass for MLB.TV?

by BFDC on Feb 9, 2010 1:30 PM PST up reply actions  

The email I got yesterday said that MLB.TV would cover all spring training with no blackouts.

by robotmadeofnails on Feb 9, 2010 1:36 PM PST up reply actions  

That seems like a ton of games

Great to hear. I only remember watching 1 game on TV last year (not to say that more weren’t televised, but it didn’t seem like very many were.)

by Michael White on Feb 9, 2010 1:44 PM PST up reply actions  

The one obvious mistruth

should have been followed up.

McCourt claims to take a “philosophical” not “economic” position on slotting. That cannot be true, however, if he ever breaks slot. That is, if you really believe (as McCourt claimed) that the draft rules and the slotting are “what is good for baseball” and the it is “wrong” to deviate from that, then you don’t deviate from it. But, he does. Just not very often.

That means slotting is not an ethical position for McCourt, but rather something to always be considered, but simply rarely done (again, presumably for economic reasons).

by Paul Scott on Feb 10, 2010 1:28 PM PST reply actions  

Couldn’t one just as easily say that slotting is “simply rarely done (presumably for philosophical reasons).”

I’m not saying he’s not spinning and that economics don’t play a role, but I don’t understand your rationale that any behavior that violates a philosophy means that the philosophy doesn’t exist. I don’t believe I should ever yell at my kids, but I have.

by JonWeisman on Feb 10, 2010 2:59 PM PST up reply actions  

You yell at your kids on an impulse

You don’t sit around, discussing with a staff whether or not you should yell at your kids and then decide – well I think yelling at my kids is wrong, but tomorrow I will do it.

If you look at what he said:
“we are one of 30 teams”
“…fairness of baseball”
“..purpose of the draft system”
“It is wrong [to pay out of slot]”

That is not a line of reasoning that can lead you to “I will occasionally pay over slot.” Those are statements that “We are all in this together and for the good of baseball I will not pay over slot.”

But then occasionally, but never for much money, he does.

This is just not the sort of philosophical reason subject to gray areas. There are no impulses involved here – just well thought out and vetted decisions.

If you disagree, please distinguish, on philosophical – not economic – grounds the difference between Hochevar and Gould.

by Paul Scott on Feb 11, 2010 8:35 AM PST up reply actions  

I don’t think it’s philosophical the reason he doesn’t always go over-slot. In fact, Jon discusses that the real reason why he doesn’t go over slot is for diplomatic reasons. He is trying to (at least artificially show) that he is on board with the Commisoner’s office WRT slotting so that he can exchange that political capital for consessions on revenue splits and other issues more important to him. Within this lens, you can see how he can make 1 off exceptions. For the most part, he goes along with the slot recommendations so that it pleases the commisioners office and buys him some good will. Occasionally a player will be drafted who he believes is too good of a talent to simply lose so he goes over slot. While this will cause some damage to his political capital, it doesn’t completely obliterate it either. He’s picking his battles.

/That’s the way you can convice yourself that selectively going over slot is not an economic decision

by Michael White on Feb 11, 2010 10:27 AM PST up reply actions   1 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

A place for Dodger fans to congregate without spending $15 on parking.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

100_1427_small
Dodger Blogger Softball Tourney Update
2011-philly-game-me__2__small
2011 Dodgers Spreadsheet Project
Ed-ak286_scully_g_20091006143938_small
It is time to play - Name the BA Top 30

Recent FanPosts

Albatross_small
All-star predictions
Img_0247_small
Dodgers.com might have a job opening...
Small
Law Ranks Dodger System #12
Small
DODGERS -- 2 GREAT SEATS FOR SALE
Small
Joe Torre Horrow Show
Small
Are you the Biggest Dodger Fan?
P1010315_small
1st Trip to LA

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

2012 Dodgers Payroll

Italics denote estimates
Pos No Player 2012 Salary
C 17 Ellis $500,000 team control
1B 7 Loney $6,375,000
2B 14 Ellis $2,500,000
3B 5 Uribe $8,000,000
SS 9 Gordon $485,000 team control
LF 21 Rivera $4,000,000
CF 27 Kemp $10,000,000
RF 16 Ethier $10,950,000

IF/OF 6 Hairston $2,250,000
OF 10 Gwynn $850,000
2B/3B 3 Kennedy $800,000
C 18 Treanor $850,000
IF 12 Sellers $485,000 team control

SP 22 Kershaw $6,000,000
SP 58 Billingsley $9,000,000
SP 29 Lilly $12,000,000
SP 37 Capuano $3,000,000
SP 44
Harang $3,000,000

CL 54 Guerra $485,000 team control
RHP 74
Jansen $500,000 team control
RHP 55 Guerrier $4,750,000
RHP Coffey $1,000,000
RHP 66 MacDougal $650,000
LHP 57 Elbert $485,000 team control
RHP 36
Hawksworth $500,000 team control

TJ 41 De La Rosa $485,000 team control



Manny $8,087,432 deferred


Andruw $3,375,000 deferred


Pierre $3,050,000 deferred
Furcal $3,000,000 deferred
Kuroda $2,000,000 deferred
Garland $1,500,000 option buyout
Blake $1,250,000 option buyout

Totals
$112,162,432

For more detailed information, click here.

Players on 40-man roster used as roster
fillers until moves are made.

Current 40-man roster count: 40
(not including Belisario)

2012 Non-Roster Invitees

No Player Age*
63 Jose Ascanio rhp
27
61 Alberto Castillo lhp
36
60 Matt Chico lhp
29
35 John Grabow lhp
33
59 Angel Guzman rhp
30
47 Wil Ledezma lhp
31
72 Shane Lindsay rhp
27
62 Fernando Nieve rhp 29
73 Scott Rice lhp 30
70 Will Savage rhp
27
71 Ryan Tucker rhp
25

30 Josh Bard c 34
82 Griff Erickson c 24
81 Matt Wallachc 26
67 Jeff Baisley 3b/1b 29
62 Luis Cruz ss/2b 28
33 Josh Fields 3b 29
64 Lance Zawadzki if 27
56 Cory Sullivan of 32

*Age on June 30, 2012

NRI count: 19

For more info, click here.


Manager

Eric___ned___reporters_2011_trade_deadline_small Eric Stephen

Editors

100_1427_small Phil Gurnee

Dgy_small David Young

Hanauma_bay_small Chad Moriyama

2501_small Michael White

Raptors_small Brandon Lennox