McCourt divorce subverts investment in the Dodger farm system

When the McCourts first became suitors and eventual buyers of the Dodgers, I voiced a great deal of skepticism about their motives. I'm not going to take the time in the morning rush to link to all the stories (forgive me), but if you search the Dodger Thoughts archives in late 2003 and early 2004, you'll find plenty of posts expressing concern, based on the McCourts' words and actions (or silence or inaction), that they viewed the Dodgers as a means to a personally profitable end, rather than an end in themselves.

For all their faults -- for all their chaotic hirings and firings of staff from top to bottom, for all their eagerness to grab the media spotlight when things were going well and run away from it when things were going poorly -- I did ease up on them when they showed a commitment to keeping the team in Dodger Stadium and making improvements to the ballpark. It helped assuage my fear that they were going to use the team and its property simply to trade up in the real estate market. It didn't guarantee that they would be great owners going forward, but it bought some goodwill from me.

With the almost daily revelations emerging in recent weeks from Frank and Jamie McCourt's divorce fight, however, it's fair to ask again whether they are good or bad for the franchise.  Bill Shaikin's column in The Times today does a very effective job of doing so.

Shaikin argues that the amount of money the McCourts paid themselves might have cost the Dodgers prospect Carlos Santana, which in turn might have cost them Cliff Lee. There's still no guarantee that Lee would have been a Dodger today, but it is hard to look at the loss of Santana with any generosity at this time.

But the larger point is this:

[Dee] Gordon and pitcher Chris Withrow emerged as elite prospects this season, but the minor league depth is limited by the Dodgers' limited investment in it.

The Dodgers have paid $8.5 million in signing bonuses for draft picks over the last two years -- the lowest figure among all major league teams, according to Baseball America.

The Dodgers, so proud of their heritage in Asia and Latin America, today are a non-factor in bidding for top amateur players abroad. In 2008, according to Baseball America, major league clubs combined to sign 115 such players for bonuses of more than $100,000. The Dodgers did not sign one.

"They're definitely not the pioneering team they were," Baseball America editor John Manuel said. "They've squandered that advantage." ...

The numbers speak for themselves. The McCourts have not been shy about asking fans to pay top dollar and, at least according to the divorce proceedings, they have not been shy about paying themselves top dollar.

It's time to invest top dollar in player development. It's better to be the talk of the World Series for what your players do, not for what your lawyers say.

The tough part is that investment in player development requires the greatest amount of will, of patience, of character.

When he signed his new contract, General Manager Ned Colletti voiced an interest in ramping up the Dodgers' international scouting efforts. But for either McCourt to support greater investment in the development of players who don't figure to pay dividends until, let's face it, both Frank and Jamie have likely disappeared from the Dodger ownership scene ... that seems like a pipe dream now.

Even if one of them emerges from the unpleasantness with control of the Dodgers, what are the odds that investment in player development --a low priority in happier times for the McCourts -- will become a higher one?

Yes, Logan White works his periodic miracles, and yes, the Garrett Gould signing this summer was encouraging. But those events don't indicate a commitment from ownership to be leaders in this area. That doesn't mean the Dodgers' days of winning the division and contending for the World Series title are over, but it does hamper efforts to sustain and build upon the last two years of success.

Shaikin has voiced the correct call to action for the Dodgers. Perhaps what's most discouraging about the McCourts' disintegration is how unlikely they are to heed it.

Comments

[nsxtasy]

>> I'm trying to think of an owner that could be worse than McCourt.

George Steinbrenner or Lewis Wolff come to mind...

[nsxtasy]

(for entirely different reasons)

[regfairfield]

After this I'm convinced Vince McMahon would be a better owner.

[eeebayou]

The McCourt's took all of the risk, put their money (credit) up and bought the Dodgers. Why shouldn't they be allowed a fair cash distribution and all expenses paid? If I had close to a billion dollars tied up in a team, I wouldn't feel bad about taking ten million here or there out of the pot.

[yours truly, Johnny Dollar]

With apologies to Joannie Mitchell...
it's been said before, the McCourts "have paved paradise
and put up a parking lot."

[nsxtasy]

This past May, SI.com published an article on the five best and five worst MLB owners. The McCourts didn't appear on either list. http://tinyurl.com/MLBowners

[Jon Weisman]

The McCourts have the right to do all sorts of things. Doesn't mean I have to like all of them.

[Horace Andy]

The Dodgers are not just another business. There is a history, civic pride, a rabid fan base, and other factors to consider. Anyone who buys the team knows this going in-- how much they chose to weigh these factors is up to them, and how much the city, fans, and commenters chose to hold them to their responsibilities is also up to us.

[PismoBruce]

I Googled narcissistic carpetbaggers and up popped a picture of the McCourts.

[PismoBruce]

I'm trying to think of an owner that could be worse than McCourt.

George Steinbrenner or Lewis Wolff come to mind...

Posted by: nsxtasy | November 04, 2009 at 08:03 AM

Now that it's football season, how about Dan Snyder or Al Davis? And interesting to see that Wolff was a frat brother of none other than Bud Selig.

[favoriteplayer10Cey]

Shaikin is right. Going decades between postseason successes is unacceptable. This organization is too profitable, and it wasn't that hard to add the pieces we needed. The McCourts just didn't. They both have to go, for the good of our team. Just get away, as far away as possible. Collect the check from whomever buys our organization, enjoy your profit, and get as far away as possible. Dodgers fans want World Series championships, and that just isn't going to happen with either McCourt onboard. They see the franchise as another piece of a parking lot or real estate, nothing more. Just go away.

[Ken Noe]

Frankly, I thought that Frank was improving as an owner after a shaky start. I'll now be shocked it either end up with the team. Neither can afford to buy out the other without significant additional investors, and even Bud Selig won't let Jaime and her Pillsbury boy toy own the club. Seems to me the real questions are the effect in the short run, and who the possible new owners are.

[SaMo]

I'm trying to think of an owner that could be worse than McCourt.

Georgia Frontiere?
Marge Schott?
Whoever it is that owns the Nationals, Pirates, Reds, Indians, et al?

[nsxtasy]

>> Now that it's football season, how about Dan Snyder or Al Davis? And interesting to see that Wolff was a frat brother of none other than Bud Selig.

That same SI.com article (see link above) was part of a series naming the five best and five worst owners in all four major professional sports. Snyder and Davis were indeed on the list of the five worst NFL owners.

[Horace Andy]

Owning the Dodgers carries certain advantages that owning other teams do not. The nation's largest or second-largest media market (depending on how you measure) is just one of these advantages.

I also thought McCourt was growing into the ownership role and it may be that he would have emerged as a fine owner over time. I don't think we'll find out, though.

[kinbote]

When it rains, it pours (from rottentomatoes.com):
"Guttenberg Promises Three Men and a Baby Sequel."
NOOOOOOO!

[Ken Noe]

Speaking of bad owners, my favorite NFL teams are the Browns and Jags.

[Phenomenal Smith]

Didn't Three Men and a Baby already have a sequel?

Is it going to be a trilogy?

[kinbote]

PS--Apparently so. From same article:

"We’ve seen Three Men and a Baby. We’ve seen Three Men and a Little Lady. Now we’re about to get…

Three Men and a Bride."

[regfairfield]

Marge Schott was evil and racist, but she at least kept tickets cheap and had a semi competitive team in a small market. Advantage, Schott.

[bhsportsguy]

The amount of money spent on signing bonuses is somewhat of a red herring. You really don't spend the big money unless you have a high first round pick or several early picks. In 2009, the Dodgers had only a supplemental pick (since they decided to sign Orlando Hudson, who ultimately was paid a shade under $8M)and lost their first round pick through compensation to the D-Backs.

As comparison, the Angels, who only spent a little over a million more in 2008-2009, they had 5 picks in the first round and first supplemental and they spent about $4M more than the Dodgers in those two rounds. In 2008, the Angels spent less than $3M in signing bonuses.

I am not disagreeing with Jon but I think using total signing bonuses is not a fair look unless you examine each draft separately.

[Jonny (TAFKAJ)]

Jon....great post.

In my mind, the most applicable phrase here would be.....

"Actions speak louder than words"

As time goes on and more facts are uncovered, we will probably disapprove of many of Frank and Jamie's actions. So, so unfortunate.

[Jack]

How can the Dodgers, being a big market team..invest the least in draft picks?

Thats crazy.

The Dodgers should have the advantage in being able to pay money for draft picks, international signings, and free agents. How do they expect to compete when their pool of cost controlled youngsters dries up?

This organization is going down the tubes.
But, the only thing that still looks good is Dodger Stadium. The stadium looks great for being one of the oldest in the league. Maybe McCourt is better at managing property than personel..

[regfairfield]

So by that logic, the Yankees and Red Sox would have spent even less money.

[Jon Weisman]

Vicente Padilla's favorite SNL skit:

http://bit.ly/2ff4CP

[bhsportsguy]

BTW - This stuff isn't exactly news, Jon and other blogs have been talking about this partiuclar issue long before any of the McCourts personal issues came out. If it took this unfortunate personal issue to arise to make it a point of discussion, so be it but I do think that for the LA Times to raise now is a little late in the day.

[Jon Weisman]

There was an ad in Variety today for an upcoming film called "Robogeisha."

Talk about a bull's-eye. How on earth did it take so long for someone to come up with this idea?

[Maddz]

That's just really disappointing. I guess since they've been breaking records over the past 4 years in attendance (and likely raking in the cash), there probably isn't much of a push to invest in the team long-term (as in, prospects, scouting, drafting, etc.).

[bhsportsguy]

reg - I am just saying its lazy to look at a total amount and use that as the basis of not spending money especially when the vast majority of team's signing bonuses is tied up with their first round/supplemental picks.

Why look at the last 2 years, why not look at the amount spent during the entire McCourt ownership?

And really, outside a few players, even the Red Sox and Yankees don't go over slot at every pick.

Again, I am not saying don't try to examine if in fact the McCourts co-mingled money, got too much debt and thus cut short paying for developing players, but like most things, it is a complicated issue that you cannot point at one thing and say "Ah ha" that's the fact that nails it for my argument.

But again, this could be a situation where we have a lot of circumstantial evidence and not much direct evidence to prove an argument.

[Jonny (TAFKAJ)]

I do not believe either of these people (the McCourts) have truly ever understood what a profound privelege they've had in owing the absolute treasure which is the Los Angeles Dodgers.

From the expansion of professional baseball (along with the Giants) to the West Coast....to the contributions of Jackie Robinson & all the other great coaches and players....to turning Vinny on the radio....And, most importantly of all, the millions of fans through the years.... Dodger baseball, to many of us, holds a very special place in our lives.

It is not merely an investment vehicle from which to acquire millions and millions of dollars, it's so much more than that.
The next owner / owners need to be "Dodgers" at heart.

[regfairfield]

Other than Kershaw (who still only got slot money), who the heck have we spent money on in the last few years of the draft. I think if you expanded it to look at the entire McCourt regime, it would look even worse.

[Craig88USC]

Bringing Ramirez into the Dodgers for the past TWO winning seasons, with a possible third excellent year in a row for the Boys of the Ravine should somewhat ease any condemnation of the McCourt ownership.

But it won't.

Divorce is rampant in our society. So is gossip. I understand the interest in how the team has recenty allocated it's resources but I'm satisfied with Ned's acquisitions; bringin' in some real nice winning bats, gloves and arms. Not to mention, Frank getting us a Hall of Fame manager.

Folks, we have a fun, promising and hopefully great 2010 season awaiting us. Keep your eye on the prize. We are a WINNING organization with yet another winning season about four months away. I'm still not convinced that we aren't the cream of the NL crop. You might argue, "well, Craig, the Phillies are better!" I say they're not, only luckier... "What about the mighty NL East & Central?" My answer is - LOL... "But, aren't you afraid of all that pitching in the other NL West organizations? We have, and will continue to handle 'em in my opinion... :)

Plus, Dodger Stadium looks beautiful under this regime.

[PismoBruce]

Speaking of bad owners, my favorite NFL teams are the Browns and Jags.

Posted by: Ken Noe | November 04, 2009 at 09:20 AM

Soon to be the Los Angeles Jaguars of the City of Industry

[bhsportsguy]

Did you know that the Dodger record from 2000-2009 (862-758 .532)was their best overall record for a decade since 1970-1979. And it was first since that decade where only one team finished under .500. The 80's had great competitive teams but the Dodgers finished under .500 four times.

[356man]

I'm surprised Donald Sterling's name hasn't popped up under the bad owners list. Aside from the divorce, he and McCourt appear to have more in common than I would care to think. And I would guess the Kings' ownership is pretty crappy, but it's hockey, so who cares?

[Craig88USC]

Bruce, how 'bout ???

The Los Angeles Jaguars of the City of Tebow featuring Maurice Jones-Drew at running back...

all coached by Pete Carroll!

[Lee Dambis]

If I were advising Andre and Matt, I would recommend holding off on any club overtures to sign them long term. They can both be making $7 - $8 million a year as a result of arbitration without committing longer term to a club with an uncertain financial future. If Frank and Jamie fight it out and drain available financial resources the way I see happening, it's quite possible that the Dodger franchise can face bankruptcy. What good is having a long term contract then except to tie up your future?

What already concerns me is the poor condition of our farm system, if the media accounts are to be believed. If we're not going to spend on fresh talent, why keep Logan around? The current status sounds bad enough, and it seems like it will get a lot worse. When will MLB step in? Oh, I forgot that means Bud Selig - well, never mind.

[underdog]

>>There was an ad in Variety today for an upcoming film called "Robogeisha."<<

D'oh! {crumple up screenplay} {throw in trashcan}

As for the McCourt saga, it seems like the Dodgers improved their farm system again over the past year or two but only because of the gift that keeps on giving that is Logan White, DeJon Watson and company -- not because of any financial investment in doing so. It's becoming increasingly clear that for the Dodgers to succeed going forward, they'll need to keep White, Watson and staff as intact as possible, while jettisoning *both* owners. They do not have the financial organization nor the deep and abiding devotion to all things Dodgers to be in the fans' best interest.

[Humma Kavula]

Here is the question I've been grappling with for several days.

The worst-case scenario is very, very bad. I'm not sure I understand all the details... but what can anybody do about it?

I heard a story about some Bengals fans recently. (Before I repeat this story, I'll note that I know nothing about football or the Bengals... I will bring this back to baseball in the next paragraph.) These fans have felt for a while that their team has been mismanaged for years and in order to achieve long-term success, they need to completely rebuild the franchise. So they have advocated fans spending no money on the team... no season tickets, no merchandise, no nothing, until the team turns itself around. But this year, the team is having tremendous success that these fans feel is due to... well, not necessarily luck, but just one of those seasons where a team puts it together. So on the one hand, these fans are thrilled -- their team is winning! -- and on the other hand, they feel left out of it, and also that success this year proves nothing, because for long-term success they need a complete rebuild. What's a fan to do?

With this story on the brain, what do we do about the Dodgers? Do we stop going to games? Do we stop buying merchandise? Spending money does seem to reward the owners that have been using the team as their personal bank account -- like Shaikin hints, the McCourts' shady dealings may be the reason the Dodgers didn't get over the hump this year, and it's frustrating to think that my money contributed to that. On the other hand, NOT spending money seems only to be spiting ourselves. The Dodgers, no thanks to the McCourts, are still a very good team, one that I enjoyed watching, one that was, IMO, worth the price of admission.

Clearly, I'm lost here. How do you all separate support/love of the team with a desire to effect change in the ownership?

[nsxtasy]

My guess is that neither Jamie nor Frank wants to hurt the club's market value by draining it of finances or talent - especially when a sale is a distinct possibility. Don't be surprised if you see them spending money on players this winter.

When we start hearing about winter transactions - probably in the December-January time frame - that will give us a good indication of where the club is headed.

[jim hitchcock]

Posted by: PismoBruce | November 04, 2009 at 08:46 AM

Great line!

[Jonny (TAFKAJ)]

Craig....some very good points you make.

Also....just a question here........
With all the talk in recent years about "returning to the Dodger way by investing in the farm system", I had been picturing this rich stable of studs (arms) we had to bring up at any given moment. (Kind of like the Giants seem to have....) However, I've been puzzled (until I read Shaikin's article today) as to why it seemed we had so few real options. Always seemed like the same small group of guys...(Elbert, etc.) .....

So, I guess what I'm asking is....Which players represent the Dodgers' best home-grown pitching talent, within the organization?

Billingsley
Kershaw
Broxton
Elbert
McDonald

Please tell me there are more....many more....

[underdog]

Humma, are you sure you're not thinking of the Browns? I've been hearing those kinds of stories about Browns fans recently (the team that has been awful for several years now, and just canned their GM after one year). The owner, Lerner, is apparently having a meeting with the fans directly on Monday. He's the one who hired both the GM(s) and the coaches, including what many feel was a bad, rushed hire in Eric Mangini.

Anyway, it may have happened to the Bengals too but more likely a couple of years ago when they'd hit bottom. Now they're at least competitive and on the right track.

[Horace Andy]

I say keep supporting the team through thick and thin, owners will come and go. They may be irresponsible but if the team is winning it's hard to fault them.

[Jon Weisman]

I think any kind of fan boycott is a complete nonstarter. If the team becomes less exciting, some will probably spend less money on games, souvenirs, etc., but I just don't think there's any possibility of an organized fan boycott having an impact.

[regfairfield]

Aside from Kershaw, 2004, 2005 and 2006 are looking like really unimpressive drafts, especially pitching wise. Our high pitching picks those years have either been bad (Justin Orenduff, Blake Johnson, Josh Wall, Bryan Morris, Kyle Smit) or have had terrible things happen to them (Elbert, Hochevar). We're just now seeing the effects of those drafts on our current team.

[bhsportsguy]

jonny - Broxton - 2002 1st Round-Supplemental, Billingsley - 2003 1st Round, Elbert - 2004 1st Round, Kershaw - 2006 1st Round. Only James McDonald who was a draft and follow pick, was not picked in the first round/supplemental.

2007 and 2008 1st Round picks, Chris Withrow and Ethan Martin, will be among the top Dodger prospects next year, Aaron Miller, the Dodgers first pick in 2009 (1st Supplemental) will also be in that group.

And there are some others but those 3 should be the names you'll be hearing about.

[kinbote]

"Which players represent the Dodgers' best home-grown pitching talent, within the organization?"

Aside from the five you named, Josh Lindblom is the only one who's remotely close to the majors. Ethan Martin, Chris Withrow, Nate Eovaldi, Aaron Miller, and some other low-level arms are the next wave of talent. We need to hoard these guys in hopes they develop into the next big thing. (And, international signings wouldn't hurt either.)

[Kevin Lewis]

It would have to take a fire sale or the trading of Matt Kemp to make way for Juan Pierre to make me not want to see the Dodgers play live.

[bhsportsguy]

Not the Yankees are making any more money but just imagine if you paid $1K for a ticket tonight and there was a Game 7.

http://bit.ly/jTFAl

[Eric Stephen]

Jon,

Catching up on the comments, I was hoping as I clicked that link that the SNL skit would include Claudine Longet, and I wasn't disappointed! Well played, sir.

[Craig88USC]

I'm on board the Chattanooga Albuquerque LA

Lindblom choo choo train. :)

[kinbote]

Now that's he's healthy {knock wood}, I would love to see Elbert used as a starting pitcher next year. He has always had great athleticism, so I don't think there's any issue of stamina. Adding him as our 5th starter would do a lot to ease concern about the rest of the rotation. With three set starters (Bills/Kershaw/Kuroda), we could focus on adding a potential high-impact arm to round out the rotation. I fully expect us to be players for one of Lackey, Bedard, Harden, Sheets. (I'm resigned to McDonald coming out of the pen.)

[Jon Weisman]

I just wish there were video of it online.

[Kevin Lewis]

BH,

That link is not working

[sarcastro]

I can't get past the fact that they could have had Casey Blake AND Carlos Santana had they been willing to give up TWO MILLION DOLLARS- basically an increase of $1 per ticket per game, if this McCourts. If this isn't a red alert where these carpetbaggers' priorities lie, nothing is. (Full disclosure: I'm a carpetbagger myself, and obviously have nothing against being from somewhere else, so long as you show you care. It's hard to say that the McCourts do, and I can't imagine that this divorce is going to help. Just ask Padre fans.)

[Craig88USC]

Randy Wolf has only one foot out the door.

Don't shut it yet, Ned. ;)

[Jack]

I think its fine to make money if you run a business, even if its a sports team. But I'm more puzzled by the lack of investing in the long term prospects of the team...Doest McCourt know that if you invest in the farm...that you'll usually get back more than what you put in? Which in turn will lead to greater financial gain for the McCourts...

Its a philosophy I really dont agree with.

I think the Detroit Tigers have the best model right now. They'll pay for free agents, but then they'll also go over slot and get a guy like Porcello.

Hoping Logan White pulls some diamonds in the later rounds (like a Kemp/Russ Martin) isnt going to happen very often. And with no Dominican kids...(crazy since the Dodgers used to be the #1 team down there)...the ownership seems to have taken a short run business model on a (what should be) long term venture.

Is McCourt trying to flip the Dodgers?
Have any owners actively tried to do this...flipping sports franchises? The liquidity usually isnt there to do this.

[sarcastro]

"$1 per ticket per game, if this McCourts. "

meant to say: "$1 per ticket per game, if the McCourts were really that unwilling to pony up that pocket change themselves. "

[Craig88USC]

Kinbote, we're all just carpetbaggers on this planet. : )

[bhsportsguy]

Try this link

http://bit.ly/K511p

[Jonny (TAFKAJ)]

Thanks for the info. regarding the pitching guys....

[Jonny (TAFKAJ)]

Thanks for the info. regarding the pitching guys....

[Craig88USC]

Brox, McDonald, Elbert, Bills, Kersh, Martin, Loney, DeWitt, 'Dre and The Bison...

It seems like a "long term venture" to me, Jack. :)

[Craig88USC]

oops :)

Kinbote, we're all just carpetbaggers on this planet. : )

Posted by: Craig88USC | November 04, 2009 at 11:37 AM

--That was a reply to Sarcastro, not you, Kinbote ;)

[Jon Weisman]

New post up top.

[kinbote]

One last thought on homegrown pitchers: Edwin Jackson and Greg Miller used to be 1A and 1B on the future-ace-o-meter; Joel Hanrahan was projected to be a solid middle-rotation horse; and Chuck Tiffany . . . well, Chuck Tiffany had a cool backstory, threw with his left arm, and hadn't actually done a lot. Kershaw has made a lot of people forget about Greg Miller, but the failure/departure of these names has a lot to do with our current pitching situation.

[Humma Kavula]

I don't disagree with the points made by Jon or Kevin. I know a fan boycott would not be effective, and because of that, it's probably just spite.

So let me rephrase. At what point would the Dodgers' management so disgust you that you felt you could no longer attend the games?

I'm not sure how far I want to go with this argument. I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here. But bear with me:

It appears that right now, the Dodgers are intentionally sacrificing their future in order to finance their owners' lavish lifestyles today. Every business should turn a profit, and if the Dodgers' revenues couldn't support building infrastructure for the future, that would be one thing. But that's not what is happening here. Instead, the Dodgers aren't investing in Latin America or in the draft or signing their core players to long-term deals... And all not because the team can't afford it, but because the team can't afford both those investments AND an owner who is taking money out of the team.

We all enjoy winning now while we're winning now, but if the choices the Dodgers are making now are affecting whether they will win later, is that something you're comfortable supporting with your entertainment dollars? Or is that something you just chalk up to being a fan -- is ownership greed/stupidity just one of the burdens you take on when you follow a team?

That's about as far as I want to go with this argument. I'm not sure it holds any water at all. Please feel free to weigh in, because I'm interested in others' points of view, but I'll drop it here.

[Fallout]

eeebayou---I agree with you in theory but the McCourts did not act responsibly toward the team. Apparently when they saw an opportunity to pluck a few extra dollars from the team's cash flow they kept it for themselves...and when the team had personnel needs they would not give back what they had taken. If I am reading into the situation correctly, the McCourts do not have a bright line between the organization's cash and their own salary.

What bothered me the most in Bill Shaikin's article was this paragraph:
"Colletti might have gotten Lee if he had Carlos Santana to offer. Santana, a catcher, is a more advanced prospect. Yet the Cleveland Indians already had him, because Colletti had to sacrifice him last year in order to get the Indians to pay the balance of Casey Blake's contract."

The McCourts chose to give up a prospect rather than pay for a player's salary. Apparently they had the cash from the Schmidt insurance policy but decided to keep it putting themselves above the team...grabbing the fruit from the farm for themselves. I see it as self deceit and greed.

[JIM McVEIGH]

The Dodgers have always been tight with a buck. When Williams, Dimmagio and Musial were making 100gs a year Snider got 50. And they always used to play for second place just good enough to keep the sucker coming back. Today thanks to another greedy ex-owner, (Bud Selig), they play for the National League division or wild card. And face it with the L.A. market, competing against all of the smaller markets in the NL west, its a cinch to win with a small payroll. If they truly want to win they have to start spending over 150 million a year. We now know that these charlatans will never spend the money. Just remember Vlad Guerro (sic) waited for long time for McCourt to come up with the money. The old limbo excuse was in order then. And believe me he got ($) millions of excuses.

[JIM McVEIGH]

The Dodgers have always been tight with a buck. When Williams, Dimmagio and Musial were making 100gs a year Snider got 50. And they always used to play for second place just good enough to keep the sucker coming back. Today thanks to another greedy ex-owner, (Bud Selig), they play for the National League division or wild card. And face it with the L.A. market, competing against all of the smaller markets in the NL west, its a cinch to win with a small payroll. If they truly want to win they have to start spending over 150 million a year. We now know that these charlatans will never spend the money. Just remember Vlad Guerro (sic) waited for long time for McCourt to come up with the money. The old limbo excuse was in order then. And believe me he got ($) millions of excuses.

[Scrounger]

I still think the Dodger "Kids", now getting into 7 digit salaries, will be traded for $400,000 prospects to support the McCourt lifestyle, divorce, whatever...
What if.. Some people on the Internet and in picket lines near the stadium convinced a large number of people to not buy Dodger tickets? What if the attendance dropped by 25% or more? Do you think MLB would put pressure on McCourt to sell the team? It's a cinch as long as we keep supporting them nothing will change.

[EmBee]

I dont recall the parking as being as bad at Dodger Stadium when Fox and the O'Malley's owned the club.
This major snafu from the man who built his "fortune" on Parking Lots.

[EmBee]

I dont recall the parking as being as bad at Dodger Stadium when Fox and the O'Malley's owned the club.
This major snafu from the man who built his "fortune" on Parking Lots.

[Erick]

I guess the McCourts can do whatever they want with their business. This is very simple, dodgers with all the historic baggage is still a bussines, bussines should not be mixed with feelings. For us fans, Dodgers is not a business, it is part of our emotions and that is why we pay to see them. I hate what is going on, I hate that I am not chearing for Dodgers and just watching what others are doing... It is up to us, if we like what they sell is up to us to buy it... It might be the season but I think I should start looking for something else to do instead of watching the Dodgers... Good luck to all.

[Jennifer]

I read Jamie McCourt's Declaration under penalty of perjury when it was posted on TMZ.com. I would have loved to have read Frank McCourt's counter-declaration, but I guess TMZ felt it was way to spicy to post.

One thing I gleaned from her Declaration is that the McCourts have 4 adult sons. With respect to the Dodgers stock, the Superior Court has jurisdiction over the stock, and the voting power which comes with it, whether Major League Baseball likes it or not. It seems to me that the smartest thing the court could do is appoint the 4 sons as State Court Receivers over the Dodgers, effectively replacing the Dodgers "Board of Directors", and taking control away from Dad and Mom. That way "the family" could run the team while the Superior Court decides who owns the stock.

Obviously, the ideal settlement with respect to this divorce would be for the 4 sons to actually purchase the stock and the stadium land now, with Dad and Mom "carrying the mortgage". If that were the case, then the issue would simply be a fight over the split of the proceeds, over ownership and control of the Dodgers themselves.

P.S. I bet Dad had a girl friend or two, before Mom got her new friend. As my Irish American grandmother told me, Irish men can't help but cheat on their wives. It's in their genetic makeup, especially when they've got money. My grandmother's sage advice: Don't marry an Irishman. Poor Mrs. McCourt, she didn't have an Irish grandmother to warn her.

[Carlitos]

McCourts have to be on the top three of the worst list of owners in the league. What did we as fans need to do so they can appricate our love for dodger blue...TOMMY pass them some knowledge.