Dodgers Web musings: As the McCourt world turns -- what is Jamie's role in potential new TV contract?

Apparently, it’s just never going to be simple. Not in the foreseeable future, anyway. Not as long as Frank and Jamie McCourt still own the Dodgers.

Frank was unexpectedly babbling nonstop to the media in New York and complaining that Commissioner Bud Selig won’t take his call, which The Times’ T.J. Simers found just a wee bit hypocritical.

Frank’s morning complaint on CNBC’s "Squaw Box’’ was that he just couldn’t understand why Selig won’t explain himself. Guess that eight-page letter Selig sent must have been full of blanks.

 

Now comes word from The Times’ Bill Shaikin that one of the reasons Selig is less than eager to approve the proposed deal with Fox is that Jamie has yet to approve it.

Jamie has been quiet throughout baseball’s taking over control of the Dodgers, save for a brief statement welcoming the commissioner’s actions.

Despite Frank’s claims, it is probably not the smartest thing to lock up the Dodgers’ broadcasting rights for the next 17 years. Particularly when the original thought was to start their own network.

Meanwhile, Shaikin reports that team monitor Tom Schieffer arrived at Dodger Stadium for the first time Thursday and spoke with Frank on the phone.

The Times’ Bill Dwyre came away from Schieffer’s introductory press conference thinking that behind an easygoing manner is a man who clearly plans to take charge.

Schieffer’s press conference was held in Los Angeles while Frank held his in New York (for those interested, there is a full audio report from ESPN Radio here). Among other things, Frank complained that baseball’s investigation had a predetermined result, which may well be true.

It made for an interesting 24 hours, and it figures to stay that way for awhile.

Also on the web:

-- Yahoo Sports' Tim Brown continues his excellent work, observing of Frank:

  "McCourt counters with defiance. He counters with remorse. He stands between his son and his vice chairman and pokes a finger into Selig’s chest, like a man with nothing to lose but his money and his reputation, and, well, there’s so little left of either."

-- Josh Fisher of Dodger Divorce won’t criticize Frank too harshly for wanting to fight, but asks: Is the effort worth it?

-- ESPN/LA’s Ramona Shelburne said there is a fundamental disconnect between Frank looking at the Dodgers as an asset and the fans who see them as a civic treasure.

-- ESPN’s Buster Olney (Insider status required) said Frank’s attempt at winning public opinion comes much too late.

-- Washington Post columnist Jayson Reid, who covered the Dodgers for The Times when Frank purchased the Dodgers, said Selig deserves much of the blame for the franchise’s woes for agreeing to let Frank have the team.

-- Ross Newhan, The Times’ national baseball writer during the purchase, also rails against Selig for approving the purchase to a buyer without cash.

-- As only they can do back in the center of the universe, New York Times columnist George Vecsey wonders if this mess isn’t all cosmic comeuppance to the Dodgers for leaving Brooklyn. Honest.

-- Daily News columnist Tom Hoffarth couldn’t help but notice the contrast in Wednesday’s press conference styles:

"When compared to the highly emotional tone McCourt brought to the table in front of reporters just moments earlier, Schieffer looked as if he'd just watched a hound dog chase his tail in circles before collapsing of exhaustion, then offering him a bone.’’

-- Zocalo Public Square’s D.J. Waldie, a contributing editor at The Times, longs for the days when Los Angeles could take proper care of its own institutions without requiring outside direction.

-- The Times’ Shelby Grad and Richard Winton said Bryan Stow, the Giants fan severely beaten at Dodger Stadium on opening day, is showing small signs of improvement.

-- The Hollywood Reporter’s Lindsay Powers said Charlie Sheen will donate all proceeds from merchandise sales at his San Francisco show to benefit Stow.

-- Jonathan Broxton tells The Times’ Dylan Hernandez he is very close to the All-Star form he displayed in the first half last season.

-- Hernandez again, this time profiling the growing presence of Andre Ethier on the Dodgers.

-- Here is a Fox video with Kevin Kennedy discussing Ethier’s rise.




-- Yahoo Sports’ Brown said billionaire Ron Burkle has not committed to being on Steve Garvey’s group that wants to buy the Dodgers.

-- Dodgers.com’s Ken Gurnick said the 2009 Matt Kemp has returned.

-- LA Weekly’s Gene Maddaus developer Stanley Stalford still dreams of public ownership of the Dodgers.

-- Steve Dilbeck

Comments

[Native Angeleno]

McCourt has never but made positive statements about himself, his great leadership of the team, his assurances he'll keep the Dodgers much higher in the player payroll stats than he in fact has. His statements are really to be ignored. They're virtually all self-congratulating, and when he opens his mouth about being a good steward of the Dodgers, all that comes out is an instantly-recognized lie. Imagine how many Selig has heard from face-to-face in all those meetings. The thought of nearing nothing but more probably makes him ill.

The guy is hoist on his own drunken spending pitard, spinning in the wind. There is never any recrimination that comes to him for his lies and self-promotion, or any benefit that matters. He can spin how he's hewn to baseball's minimum requirements all he wants, but ya don't get control of your team taken away for nothing, period. He's like the idiot teenager who's run his dad's car up a telephone pole and declares dad's mean and incomprehensible for taking away the keys, cuz he swears the car will still run up to minimum standards. No one believes him. His karma (action, not "fate" or "justice") is self-promotion and lying. That he's not changed is proof he's just a born liar who continues his m.o. even tho no one believes it any more, probably doing it to convince himself of his fantasyland so he never has to look in the mirror and take stock. When McCourt looks in the mirror, he sees a dashing wizard who keeps pulling assets out of smoke with, as proof, a $1000 haircut, and probably nothing critical.

So when we hear and read him babble, we need to not let him affect us with murder in our minds, but listen to how he's convincing himself of his latest series of lies of the moment. "Nobody gave me the Dodgers"--really!--"and nobody is going to take them away", which has already happened, Frank, when you gonna wake up and join the rest of reality?

Once even you realize Your Anus will never occupy the owner's box again, bub.

[something to think about now]

While its not likely, loyal Dodger fans need to think about what kind of a relationship they'll have with the team if Frank somehow manages to hang on to his franchise.

[Jim Mcveigh]

Things are finally starting to go our way(the fans). When this is finally over with and we are free of these people,whose favorite color is green. After we thank whatever shrine we worship at. WE HAVE GOT TO BE FORCEFUL, FORCEFUL ENOUGH, THAT buddie DOES NOT INFLICT ON US ANOTHER BANANA LIKE frankie. Remember it was buddie that begat frankie and jamey!!ETC neddie. buddie will try and get one of his cronies to buy. You know what that means? No one like Mark Cuban, God for bid, someone who wants to win and can and will spend the money to do it. It means some clown who just wants to take out a large profit while running the team on a shoe string budget. In buddies perfect little world. We will have baseball run like the NCAA basketball tournament. Baseball will expand every time the owners( the ones buddie appoints), claim they are losing money.This way an entry fee into MLB of MILLIONS can be had for the lords of MLB!! buddie wants a teasm like Pittsburgh with 39million dollar salary base to win the World series while being the extra wild card to the extrs wild card. Why play the season if every team has a chance to win because most of the teams are in the playoffs, even if they play below 500pct. buddie wants some one who can say "I got my team to the playoffs"...BIG DEAL, frankies claim to immortality is, according to his flunkie friends, the Dodgers were in the playoffs four time in the last six years.BIG DEAL They haven`t been in the World Series in TWENTY THREE YEARS.!!!! The longest time between World Series apprarance for the Dodgers before now was twenty one years, 1920-1941. buddie PLEASE DON`T INSULT US ANY MORE11111

[Tom Daniels]

Actually, the divorce IS, I think, in many ways the REAL issue here. Frank insists he owns the team. Jamie says they both do.

So who can really make decisions for the Dodgers? McCourt is acting like he can sign a long-term TV deal, but I am sure Jamie is saying, whoaaaa! Not without my consent. Since all that is unclear, I think it forced MLB's hand, and it became logical to have a reciever to make decisions. The Dodger's should logically be in recievership until ownership is determined.

Especially if the TV deal includes loans to McCourt and 35% ownership of the TV network, as reported. That bypasses Jamie, who probably owns 50% of the Dodgers.

The divorce is creating a huge legal mess, exacerbated by Frank ating like owns the whole team.

[something to think about now]

Here's another mess to consider....

Frank has legally separated the land under Dodger Stadium from the franchise.

Think about THAT Dodger fans!!!

[grumpy3b]

Why does her royal hindass get any more say in what happens with the Dodgers? First I don't have it fresh in my memory as to what the exact verbatim ruling was as to the Dodgers by the divorce judge. If he ruled he is entitled to compensation equal to 50% of the appraise value of the team that is one thing. If the ruling was she owns a half interest of the team that is another. Neither granted he any actual control over the team. And remember if she "owns" half interest then she also owns half the debt in either case.
 
Next why in the heck is she getting a free pass by every member of the media? Who was it who bought all those homes? It was not Frankie baby. It was her setting up for the divorce. It's a well know behavior for women looking to bail to go on HUGE shopping sprees just to get even and get a head start on their cut. From the outside it would seem to me that most of the $100M went to JAMIE not to Frankie-baby. I am thinking the homes alone were around $60M - $70M. And who now "owns" those homes? She does!!
 
Who was it who had to buy the adjoining Malibu estate because the first one simply would not do for the lifestyle she envisioned. And what guy out there never spent whatever it took to keep a woman he cared for happy? Come on admit it, you've done it, I've done it, your dad did it and so did his dad...we all have done it at least once in life some to the extent it ruined our lives financially for a while or even forever. And somehow I don't take Frankie-baby as a manly-man who has enough female companionship options that he does not still feel secure with women. He shows many signs of those sorts of insecurities. Not an excuse but part of the whole pathology.
 
From what I see in the media yeah Frankie-baby was well over the top on suits, haircuts, the hotel costs and what not. But those costs pale in comparison to what Jamie spent.
 
I am absolutely not absolving Frankie-baby of culpability in this whole issue. He was right there with her spending as if the Dodgers were the equivalent of that mythical Black AMEX. But lets stop giving her that free pass. She is as evil or, as I suspect, far more malevolent than he will ever be.
 
So dear gawd please start hammering on HER because she is far from lily-white here but is being held to a far different standard and level of responsibility. I make no secret I flat do not trust Selig and his hand picked ferret that now has an office at Dodger Stadium. But what concerns me the most is for all his chest thumping and back-room dealings to oust Frankie-baby, he has not said squat nothing about HER involvement in all of this. If Frankie-baby is being forced to bear all the blame then she should get to say NOTHING. She has no right to an opinion if she is not being held equally responsible, I mean she is claiming she was always an equal partner in the team.
 
Keep an eye on this because if Selig does not place an equal amount of blame on her then Selig is indeed doing this for all the wrong reasons and genuinely does not have the interests of the Dodgers in mind. He only wants to try and cover up his own role in causing this entire fiasco and is using some very populist deflection to cause everyone to look at Frankie-baby not Selig.

[howard]

So, was the reference to CNBC's "Squaw Box" in paragraph 3 a typo or an inappropriate female reference? Kidding.