Frank McCourt And Public Perception
by Eric Stephen on Sep 17, 2010 7:07 AM PDT
in News
Email
Print
Over on SB Nation Los Angeles, I took a stab at the McCourts (no, not literally):
But, with all things McCourt, perception overwhelms reality. Again, this all gets magnified by the on-field disappointment of this year's team. Ownership troubles are easy to sweep under the rug when the team plays in two straight National League Championship Series after nearly two decades of playoff irrelevance. But when the team loses, as this year's team has, the it's easier to blame McCourt for not spending to get an ace (ignoring that starting pitching, right now, is the team's biggest strength) than to focus on the failure and under performance of core players like Matt Kemp, James Loney, Jonathan Broxton, and Russell Martin.
Part of the lack of faith in Frank McCourt stems from his disingenuous character. He is an owner intensely concerned about public perception despite constantly shooting himself in the foot. In a 2007 meeting with readers of Jon Weisman's Dodger Thoughts (myself included), McCourt was asked if the Dodgers would build a statue in front of the stadium as several teams have done in recent years. We all collectively rolled our eyes when McCourt said he would build a statue of the fans. It was classic McCourt, a lip service response that was pandering at least and dishonesty at worst.
Even former Dodger owner Peter O'Malley is fed up with the McCourts, telling Shaikin yesterday that "it would be best for the franchise and the city if there was new ownership." Part of me wants to remind O'Malley that perhaps the Dodgers wouldn't have been in this spot if he didn't sell the team to Fox, but there is truth to his words.
*****
In happier news, David Brown of Yahoo! Sports had a wonderful interview with Vin Scully. You can listen to the audio here.
Manager Joe Torre has made his decision for 2011 and has told his family and Ned Colletti, but he isn't yet ready to announce that decision, writes Dylan Hernandez of the LA Times. I'll be covering all three games this weekend at Dodger Stadium, so from a purely selfish standpoint I hope he announces it very soon.
153 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
From the previous thread
I’ve been surprised how quickly some have been to dismiss O’Malley’s comments, and instead focus on Frank’s lawyer’s assertion that Frank would keep the team and pass it on to his kids. What else could a Frank lawyer say in the middle of a multi-million trial to decide the ownership of the team? Seems to me that if Frank wins, as I assume he will, he’ll still need to hand Jaime enough cash that he’s going to need team investors, money men who have to be approved by Selig and the owners. Is it outrageous to think that they might support an O’Malley group? Is it impossible that such a group would not want Frank to maintain control? They key right now is simply how much the ex takes Frank for. Call it wishful thinking—it may well be—but I wonder if we’re starting to see the lay of the ground change
"There’s no reason I can give you that makes sense. A lot of what I do is a feel thing."
by Little Blue Bicycle on Sep 17, 2010 7:12 AM PDT reply actions
This team is really in need of major upheaval from management to coaching to players. I really believe that the changes will be coming fast and furious this offseason. A new ownership group would be great, though I doubt it will be resolved this offseason. Torre, Scheafer, and Bowa need to leave. I am just hoping that when the smoke clears Wallach, Kershaw, Bills, and Kemp remain.
Sadly, I would normally push for keeping Kemp, but he has not impressed me this season. I know he has a ton of upside, but I would be okay with a trade if we got proper value. That is a big IF…we would probably sell him low, and it would suck
by robotmadeofnails on Sep 17, 2010 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions
My knowledge of property rights isn’t superb, but explain to me how Selig or MLB would be able to seize the team from Frank? And explain how the son of the former owner who decided to sell the team to Fox would facilitate the erosion of Frank’s property rights.
by Michael White on Sep 17, 2010 7:48 AM PDT up reply actions
I don’t think this is going to happen in any way. O’Malley said he had no interest in owning the team.
The only thing where Selig could get involved without getting sued would potentially be not approving Frank’s new investors should he try and keep the team after the divorce without outright winning the trial.
Not approving the investors is a great point, but that’s a really dangerous game. Not approving his investors in hopes that McCourt will relent and sell the team might backfire if McCourt just files for bankruptcy instead (though McCourt would come out of that with nothing.) If that happened, MLB loses a ton of their rights in the sales process (I think.) Besides, if you hold up the investors to try to get Frank to sell the team, and those investors would have made the Dodgers adequately capitalized, you better be damn sure there is a buyer out there for the team.
by Michael White on Sep 17, 2010 8:02 AM PDT up reply actions
I would have to think that if McCourt decides to take on investors that he would be forced to take a minority share, in which case McCourt becomes much less bothersome. I can’t imagine any investors not wanting a majority take.
Hard to say. There is still a robust market for minority investors (and they are going to get paid with preferred dividends) particularly since I assume they’ll be institutional investors. Those guys wouldn’t mind having Frank as the public face, so that they don’t go through all the bad press that Fox and Frank have. They just want their money.
by Michael White on Sep 17, 2010 8:14 AM PDT up reply actions
Perhaps. I typically think of people wanting to buy a sports franchise as doing it mostly for the prestige. I guess there could be people out there who just want to line their pockets, but I still think those people would be concerned about having Frank in the driver’s seat given his well documented fiscal irresponsibility.
There are two types of owners these days
Those that have plenty of their own money and don’t necessarily need the team to make money for them (although in most cases they still make money).
And those that expect the team to churn out huge profits as a core part of their overall business strategies.
Which makes Frank such an odd character. He wants the prestige clearly, he wants money,and he’s not as rich as we’d hope, but he wants to win and he wants to be loved. He’s no Sterling.
by Michael White on Sep 17, 2010 8:26 AM PDT up reply actions
Frank is certainly an oddity in the ownership world. Probably the result of the fact that he should have never been allowed to buy the team in the first place.
When there is nobody else making an offer….
by Michael White on Sep 17, 2010 8:32 AM PDT up reply actions
Ha. Seriously? You’re telling me that even though Frank has succesfully operated the business for several years, and there were no other offers on the table, MLB should have told Fox, “sorry you can’t sell to this guy”
by Michael White on Sep 17, 2010 8:35 AM PDT up reply actions
That is how normal business with debt covenants work. MLB bent their own rules in this case.
If I want to sell my business or property and the only buyer is someone who doesn’t have enough equity, then my business or property would not get sold.
If you wanted to sell your business, you would take the best offer or you wouldn’t that’s a business decision you have to make. There would be no third party telling you that you can’t sell.
If Fox decided they were done and they weren’t going to throw good money after bad, should MLB have held up Frank’s ownership bid when it’s since been clear that he was able to operate the franchise to a degree of success? Your position doesn’t make sense.
by Michael White on Sep 17, 2010 8:42 AM PDT up reply actions
My position is simply that if MLB had adhered to their debt/equity ratio standards, then Frank would not have been allowed to buy the team.
MLB had to bend those rules to allow the transaction.
How does that not make sense?
Also there are many instances where there is a third party who could say you can’t sell. If there is a loan with a minimum equity covenant in it, and that equity is not provided by the new buyer, then the Seller can’t force the sale to that buyer.
Ya, I since figured out you were talkign about satisfying a creditor (and I agree with your take regarding creditors) but that’s not really a fair comparison. MLB is not a creditor. The whole point of FCCR covenants is to allow the creditor to act if their investment is being eroded. It’s not easy to apply that same formula to MLBs oversight.
And still, MLBs rules are in place to ensure that a potential buyer is able to properly own and operate the team. I think it’s pretty clear that threshold has been satisfied even if some fans think they deserve better because they are the Dodgers. Moreover, if MLB did waffle on their rules in order to facilitate a sale, I’m not sure how the position of the Dodgers or their fans would be better with a reluctant Fox ownership trying to exit their investment than with Frank McCourt.
by Michael White on Sep 17, 2010 8:54 AM PDT up reply actions
You might be right out about that. But the ability of the McCourts reasonable ability to operate the team is in hindsight. And recently, we are starting to see the effects of their debt load and personal life hinder the team’s operations.
If a recession had hit in ’05 rather than ’08, we would have immediately seen this and their ownership tenure might have been much worse.
Whoops thats not what I meant to write haha
But the ability of the McCourts reasonable ability to operate the team is in hindsight.
you make it sound like you think the Dodgers are an independent franchise able to operate in any way they want. They can only sell to an owner the group agrees to and that is the way it is. Owners have been suspended at least twice that I know of Turner/George. The McCourts may own the Dodgers but they do not have full autonomy to do whatever they want.
If Frank took on insitutional partners
He would no longer be able to use the team to fund his personal lifestyle. I don’t see a fit there.
That would be true if he took if he took on individual investors too.
And that’s one of those, it’s nice to want things type moments. If he wants to keep his team, he’ll need money and that money will come with strings attached like caps on distributions, rent, salary, etc.
by Michael White on Sep 17, 2010 8:24 AM PDT up reply actions
Isn't the team debt also going to be
a problem when it comes to finding investors? I think returns would come much later from the investment.
"We were never friends"
Depends. Debt is relative. Debt is always measure against EBITDA, so just looking at gross numbers of the team owes X is misplaced. The team owes X but annually makes Y is the ratio investors will look at. If they see value they’ll invest.
I don’t have financial statemetns, so I can’t tell you if the leverage ratio is too high.
by Michael White on Sep 17, 2010 8:28 AM PDT up reply actions
Which also wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing. Frank might not be a bad owner if he had people provided checks and balances on him. We would just have to worry how much he would slash player payroll.
I’m irritated the lenders didn’t do that (or do a better job at it.) Sloppy, sloppy.
by Michael White on Sep 17, 2010 8:37 AM PDT up reply actions
I would think
the team cannot be sold until the Court decides the community property issue, so since that decision probably cannot free of any legal entanglements until at best early next year (short of a settlement approved by the Court), any thoughts of the team being sold are way premature.
You are right
Personally, I’m hoping for a new owner by 2012. It will be an interesting time, when the “core” guys need to either be signed or let go, vet contracts are up, there could potentially be a new wave of prospects that could make an impact, and new free agents could be signed to really create a new team.
Next year could end up being kind of a lost season. I don’t expect any good FA signings or extensions to occur with so much uncertainty with the ownership.
By 2012 offseason however, there could be a new owner, new GM and complete overhaul of the roster.
Maybe I’m being overly simplistic, but if the guy who you bought your house from didn’t like the color you painted it, the new paint color is pissing off the entire community, and he complained about it to everybody, I’d tell the guy to go eff himself.
Divorce issues might force McCourt to sell the team, but O’Malley suggesting the issue isn’t about community property is flat wrong.
I think he is just suggesting
That this is more than just an issue of who gets the house as in a typical divorce. He is saying there is a certain social responsibility to the team that the city and the fans deserve.
by BFDC on Sep 17, 2010 8:04 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Again
Since he was the one who sold the team to Fox whose ownership period led to this situation, I find his concern a bit late now.
Right, I mean, O’Malley got his money…
by Michael White on Sep 17, 2010 8:10 AM PDT up reply actions
Well maybe he's not the right guy to make the comments
but I still agree with the things he said. Perhaps I’m being too much of an idealist.
He's the right guy to make the comments
His family was the caretaker of the Dodgers for over 35 years. It is natural for someone to seek his opinion on the current state of the franchise.
1. Once his family arrived in LA they were considered the ideal owner melding community with competition.
2. His payroll was never extravagant but it was competitive
3. He made the mistake of thinking corporate ownership was the future in professional sports and sold to what he thought would be strong ownership corporation.
4. He may be wrong in his opinion on the McCourts but he does hold sway over a large % of Dodger fans so when he talks, many will listen.
Well he has that
But under the last 10 years of his ownership, the farm system began its fall from its heights and he probably gave Lasorda too much say in the future of the ball club.
I don't see how that is relevant
we are not discussing if his ownership was good. That is a different topic.
4) Do you think any Dodger fan changed their mind because of O’Malley’s comments?
by Michael White on Sep 17, 2010 8:22 AM PDT up reply actions
Sure
people are sheep with just a few sheep dogs keeping them in line, protecting them from the wolves. I expect a great many readers were nodding their heads. I myself would listen more to what Peter O Malley had to say about the McCourt ownership then Eric Stephen. He’s been there and done that. No one in this town knows more about being the owner of the Dodgers is about in relation to the community.
San Diego's playoff odds
are now less than 50%, they have almost dropped in half from their high of over 96% on August 25th.
Giants could send one of these two teams into the Top Ten Chokes
San Diego is 6-15 since August 26th and seen its 96.7% of getting to playoffs fall to 49.8%
Atlanta could also be even a higher pct. team (97.4% on September 2nd) if they don’t make it.
And I guess Colorado would sending the other into Top 10 Chokes.
by Michael White on Sep 17, 2010 8:29 AM PDT up reply actions
Word. I’m sick of this shit. I don’t care who’s season we spoil, just want to spoil someone’s.
by Michael White on Sep 17, 2010 8:32 AM PDT up reply actions
What I am really sick of is this trend of Cain and Sanchez beating the dodgers.
"We were never friends"
How sad that it's come to this.
Gosh, what a depressing season.
Fuck You Ruiz
by Humma Kavula on Sep 17, 2010 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions
How about 13
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6764
I think it’s old enough that it misses the Mets chokes of the last two years.
by regfairfield on Sep 17, 2010 8:49 AM PDT up reply actions
Actually
the Mets 2007 choke was mentioned at the bottom of story since the season wasn’t over yet, (it is number 2). Not sure how high they were in 2008.
It has tough to be a Mets fan in recent years, no doubt about it.
Our franchise, as murky as the future looks, has had a fine bit of success in recent years.
Fuck You Ruiz
by Humma Kavula on Sep 17, 2010 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions
2008 Mets
Looks like their chances peaked after play on September 10, when they beat the Nationals 13-10. They had a 90.64% chance at that point.
Their chances took a little dip after that, but still had a 88.8% chance after losing to the Braves, 4-2, on September 20.
So it looks like the ‘08 Mets collapse was bad, but not top ten all time bad. On the other hand, considering Mets fans had just seen their ’07 club put up the #2 collapse of all time, it couldn’t have been any fun to see them collapse again.
Fuck You Ruiz
by Humma Kavula on Sep 17, 2010 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions
Source
http://www.sportsclubstats.com/2008/MLB/National/East/Mets_ChanceWillMakePlayoffs.html
Fuck You Ruiz
by Humma Kavula on Sep 17, 2010 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions
It’s not even like the ’08 Mets played all THAT terribly in their final games. They went 3-5 after Sept. 20. But the Brewers went 6-1 and took the Wild Card and the Mets went home.
Fuck You Ruiz
by Humma Kavula on Sep 17, 2010 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions
1. 1995 California Angels
Peak Playoff Probability: 99.988% after games of August 20th
Odds of Collapse at Peak: 8,332-to-1 against
Unbelievable.
by Michael White on Sep 17, 2010 9:03 AM PDT up reply actions
That must be kind of old. He mentions the Mets “current” season at the end as being the 2nd worst ever if they end up losing.
by CarolinaDodger on Sep 17, 2010 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions
I've been following the Dodgers since 1964
and I couldn’t care less what O’Malley thinks of the current situation. He sold his right to get involved. Am I that much out of touch?
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man
I disagree
He knows more about running the Dodgers then anyone else alive, save Frank McCourt. It’s only natural to ask him what he thinks.
This stuff is only true to a point.
Imagine there is a president of the US that you don’t like. He advances policies you don’t like and presents a personal style you find grating. Now imagine a former president that you did like says the current president — the one you don’t like — should resign.
That criticism/call for resignation is meaningless pandering; maybe it’s harmless, or maybe it’s designed to foment unrest.
There’s a lot less on the line with the Dodgers, but O’Malley’s criticism of McCourt amounts to the same thing.
Fuck You Ruiz
by Humma Kavula on Sep 17, 2010 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions
In your analogy, given that 1,000 people who have never held the job of president will be giving their opinion on things, shouldn’t the people who have held the job be given a forum as well?
You seem to be having an issue mainly with what O’Malley said (the fact that he went so far as to suggest, in your analogy, resignation— former presidents often comment on the wisdom or lackthereof of the policies of the incumbent) but not his right to say it. My response to mleadman was that given O’Malleys past, he is uniquely qualified in general to discuss ownership issues. What he actually ends up saying is a different debate.
I just noticed your sig. You guys have me saying this in my head when I see him playing on the Show
by robotmadeofnails on Sep 17, 2010 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions
Do you think you are the average Dodger fan who has been following the team when
O’Malley owned them and felt they were good stewards? You’ve never seemed average to me but you know yourself better then anyone else.
I thought they were great
because you rarely heard from them. But I thought they were horrible as soon as they sold to Fox. Now, that was a betrayal.
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man
As soon as they sold?
Wasn’t there a lot of excitement of big payroll possibilities and domination when FOX showed up?
"We were never friends"
I was hoping Fox showed every game nationally, like Turner did with the Braves on TBS.
Every game could have been shown on FX throughout the country.
by Michael White on Sep 17, 2010 9:04 AM PDT up reply actions
Murdoch is the Prince of Darkness
You knew it wouldn’t end well from the beginning.
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man
At the time
as an 18 year old who watched everything FOX had to offer, I thought this was going to be the perfect marriage of all great things in my life. Good thing I found that picture of Bob Daly’s handprints at Graummans and me laying next to it last week.
"We were never friends"
For some reason I thought Fox owned WB
by Michael White on Sep 17, 2010 9:18 AM PDT up reply actions
Fair to say that, in the eyes of many Dodger fans, they feel “I don’t want to wait” for the McCourt ownership to end?
by Eric Stephen on Sep 17, 2010 9:54 AM PDT up reply actions
This brings up a really interesting question
McCourt has clearly proven himself to be a guy cares immensely about his reputation, image and what fans and the city think of him. He’s no Sterling.
So that being said, if McCourt somehow does retain ownership of the team, then which direction does he go with his plan? Does he stop caring about public perception and his image or does he try to re-assert himself with the fans. Surely, he can’t continue his business plan of raising prices and lowering payroll unless he decides he doesn’t care what people think. So what would he do? Sign a bunch of FA’s and spend lavishly? Could he even afford to do so?
I think he goes rogue, stops caring about what the fans think, and runs the team however he wants.
by Michael White on Sep 17, 2010 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions
This brings up a really interesting question
McCourt has clearly proven himself to be a guy cares immensely about his reputation, image and what fans and the city think of him. He’s no Sterling.
So that being said, if McCourt somehow does retain ownership of the team, then which direction does he go with his plan? Does he stop caring about public perception and his image or does he try to re-assert himself with the fans. Surely, he can’t continue his business plan of raising prices and lowering payroll unless he decides he doesn’t care what people think. So what would he do? Sign a bunch of FA’s and spend lavishly? Could he even afford to do so?
I’m sure the Vikings would recover 2-3 of those fumbles anyway.
by Eric Stephen on Sep 17, 2010 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions
SERIOUSLY?!
" Home runs in September: Troy Tulowitzki 11, #Dodgers 9"
…Just to clarify, the shock is aimed at the first part, not the second. Isn’t the record for a month something like 15, by Roger Maris? And that’s for the entire month!
15 is the Dodger record (Pedro Guerrero in June 1985)
The MLB record is 20, by Sammy Sosa in June 1998
Rudy York hit 18 home runs for the Red Sox in August 1937, which is still the AL record.
by Eric Stephen on Sep 17, 2010 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions
Yep. The September record, tied with 1995 Albert Belle.
by Eric Stephen on Sep 17, 2010 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions
That
was Musial.
Ruth was the Babe, the Sultan of Swat…
Fuck You Ruiz
by Humma Kavula on Sep 17, 2010 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions
This is where somebody should post the shot of Holliday taking one off the nads
you’ll recognize THAT, I’ll bet.
Fuck You Ruiz
by Humma Kavula on Sep 17, 2010 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions
even so
Tulo is on a pace to at least tie. I doubt he will, and HOPE he won’t, because that’d probably mean he’d have to hit a few this weekend.
He is also on a pace that almost nobody in history has ever kept up for any length of time.
by Eric Stephen on Sep 17, 2010 10:46 AM PDT up reply actions
Mark Whiten was on a hell of a pace once.
by Eric Stephen on Sep 17, 2010 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions
What is the Rockie record for home runs in a month?
Fuck You Ruiz
by Humma Kavula on Sep 17, 2010 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions
12! ?
4.790016 × 10^8 home runs?!
I don’t think Tulo is gonna make it.
Fuck You Ruiz
by Humma Kavula on Sep 17, 2010 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Tulo put up 8 homeruns for me in the first week of my H2H fantasy baseball playoffs. Alas, it was for naught as my pitchers stunk up the joint. That had to be the best single week from any player in fantasy terms though.
by CarolinaDodger on Sep 17, 2010 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions
Tulo is one of my favorite players to watch
by Julio Nievas on Sep 17, 2010 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions
This is not a first for Peter O'Malley
Tweeted by Kevin Modesti
KevinModesti
In 2002, speaking to the Daily News, Peter O’Malley rapped the #Dodgers’ Fox ownership for its mistake in making wholesale changes.
What were the changes between 2001 and 2002? I’m blanking on this.
Besides, the Dodgers won 92 games in 2002. What was the beef?
by Michael White on Sep 17, 2010 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions
Trying to find the article
it may take a while
by bhsportsguy on Sep 17, 2010 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions
pull quotes
Since O’Malley left, the Dodgers are on their fourth manager and fourth general manager. Their opening-day lineup Tuesday included three players who weren’t with the club last season, the heaviest turnover in more than a decade.
``The number of changes – pitching coaches, batting coaches, managers, farm directors, general managers – would be tough for any organization to withstand,‘’ O’Malley said. ``It just needs to settle down. People need to be relaxed working with each other. Stability is a key word, I think. And that’s going to take time.’’
``… I didn’t enjoy (watching the changes) at all,‘’ he said, repeating an opinion he has communicated to Dodgers chairman Bob Daly and president Bob Graziano. ``I thought some changes would be made in personnel. But too many changes were made too quickly and the earth started to shake. It was almost like Kevin Malone (the 1999-2001 GM) was trying to put together a new organization, an expansion organization. Wholesale change … I think that was a mistake.’’
O’Malley, ever the gentleman, said it all in the upbeat tone of constructive criticism.
``You’ve got to give Fox credit. Yes, you can say it hasn’t worked for them. But they have tried,‘’ O’Malley said. ``They’ve tried with their pocketbook. They’ve spent money on payroll. They’ve spent money on Dodger Stadium.’’
Park left, they traded Sheffield were the two big ones.
by Eric Stephen on Sep 17, 2010 11:22 AM PDT up reply actions
of course, both moves were pretty sweet in favor of the Dodgers…
by Eric Stephen on Sep 17, 2010 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions
you really thought they won the Sheff trade with the Braves? Of course LA got the ultimate peak of Gary’s career, but Jordan sucked, and it seemed everybody but me hated Perez.
"We were never friends"
Loved Perez, and the Dodgers got some work out of Jordan. He couldn’t stay healthy but he wasn’t a disaster when he was.
by Michael White on Sep 17, 2010 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions
Sheffield wrote his own ticket out of town, and given the circumstances that was an outstanding return.
Much like Bradley.
by Eric Stephen on Sep 17, 2010 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions
This just in
I have it on good authority that Tore is leaving and Mattingly is getting the job.
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man
Marty
the guys at the barbeque restaurant are not good sources (though they had the Lane Kiffin hiring down).
by bhsportsguy on Sep 17, 2010 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions
Honestly, I can’t help shake the feeling that the question of “Who will the manager be?” is, at best, the 11th biggest question the Dodgers face.
Fuck You Ruiz
by Humma Kavula on Sep 17, 2010 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions
Humma
it’s 5 o’clock somewhere (is this joke getting old)
by bhsportsguy on Sep 17, 2010 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions
I was wrong
1. Can Matt Kemp rebound?
2. What are the Dodgers going to do about first base?
3. What are the Dodgers going to do about catcher?
4. What are the Dodgers going to do about third SP?
5. What are the Dodgers going to do about fourth SP?
6. What are the Dodgers going to do about the bullpen?
7. What are the Dodgers going to do about third base?
8. Can Andre Ethier ever be anything more than Brad Hawpe?
9. Ryan Theriot? Really?
10. Who will the manager be?
Fuck You Ruiz
by Humma Kavula on Sep 17, 2010 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions
JA tweeted it too
jadande
RT @latimes: Breaking: Torre out, Mattingly in as Dodgers manager
2 minutes ago via ÜberTwitter
It's the Walter Alston
Tommy Lasorda deal all over again.
by bhsportsguy on Sep 17, 2010 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions
Why not let him manage games now
so is he not managing the Arizona Fall League team then?
by bhsportsguy on Sep 17, 2010 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions
You have to wonder
if the Dodgers even pretended to interview any minority candidates? Eric, this is a question I would like you to ask someone.
by bhsportsguy on Sep 17, 2010 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions
although the Fox deal turned out to be a disaster
the intent of it was right, and it could have been a home run.
O’Malley didn’t sell because he wanted to, he sold because he didn’t see his family being able to keep the dodgers as a flagship franchise in the era of free agents and big contracts. He couldn’t afford the volitality in the economics of baseball in the late 1990s and 2000s. This was an era when corporate money was coming into the game and payrolls were rising at astronomical levels.
OMalley sold to the people he thought could afford to make the dodgers the marquis franchise in the NL. And he was right in one way: They had the financial means, and they certainly spent enough to do it. However, they didn’t let the baseball people have enough say over the operations and the whole thing ended in disaster.
I think its revisionist history to be so critical of OMalley’s decision to sell to Fox when at the time, it was the best chance the dodgers could remain an elite franchise. It didn’t work out, but it wasn’t a bad bet.
Certainly there is no chance the McCourt’s can return the dodgers to an elite franchise on a reduced payroll every year, backloaded contracts, and zero financial reinvestment in the franchise. Luckily, they play in a division without any other major market teams.
by silverlakebruin on Sep 17, 2010 1:17 PM PDT reply actions
You make many valid points
but as someone who hates Fox, when O’Malley sold to Fox it felt like betrayal.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on True Blue LA
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
