Categorized | Mark Timmons

It’s Time to Get Beltre Back!

It’s Time to Get Beltre Back!

Don’t throw your stats at me.  This is just a gut feeling.  The stats say Adrian Beltre is a good (not great) 3B, but I think he could be a  Great 3Bstats for us at age 30!  Just a gut feeling I want Adrian Beltre back, but first we have to move Casey Blake.  Blake’s contract isn’t huge, so hecould easily be moved, maybe packaged in the right deal.  The Tigers could use infield help (Cabrera would be DH) at 1B and 3B, especially if Polonco walks.  The Tigers also covet Sherrill, so how about sending them Blake, Sherrill and McDonald for Edwin Jackson.  I found the trade of Sherrill for Jackson laughable – the Tigers would want more, and I think Blake and McDonald would fill that need.  They could even use a SS such as Hu. 

Forget signing a 2B.  Adrian Beltre would get us 25-30 HR at 3B (maybe more) and we would be solid defensively.  Let 2B be a platoon of DeWitt and Hu or DeJesus.  Use 2B as a minimum salary position.  I think this is do-able!  It’s just a gut feeling, but I believe that Adrian Beltre would be an All-Star with the Dodgers.  He would be like a “hog in sloop” back in LA.  Just do it Ned!  Pull the triggers!

Jackson would be a solid #3 and would give us an “inning eater.”  Beltre gives the Dodgers the power they crave.  It’s a risk, but it was also a risk when Bill Belicheck went on 4th down last Sunday.   Oh….

About Mark Timmons

When you see the invisible, you can do the impossible!

46 Responses to “It’s Time to Get Beltre Back!”

  1. Ty says:

    I’m not against signing Beltre but I doubt we sign any impact FA’s with the divorce going on

  2. Badger says:

    Beltre again. You are dreaming my friend.

    I disagree that Blake’s contract will be easily moved. Moved maybe, but not easily. He is one year older, has had leg issues and is still owed $11.25 million. That’s a lot of change for 37 year old below average third baseman. Detroit might do that trade with McDonald in it, but I doubt it. They will want cash too and the Dodgers have none. I ask again, why would the Tigers want to move Jackson? He is very affordable to them right now. That deal would cost the Dodgers money and players, that’s why I doubt it.

    I agree with Ty. I just don’t see any real moves until the divorce is done. Take a close look at who we got now and start building your lineup.

    Furcal
    Hu/DeWitt
    Ethier
    Ramirez
    Kemp
    Loney
    Blake
    Martin

    Bills, Wolf, Kuroda, Kershaw, Haeger.

    Kuo
    Bellisario
    Troncoso
    McDonald
    Broxton
    ?
    ?

    Pierre
    Ausmus
    a Ray Durham type player
    a Randy Winn type player

    It is also quite possible there will be a salary squeeze. Ethier should double his $3 million, Kemp should get whatever he asks for, and Martin will want an increase as well. Loney is due a raise, as is Bills and Kershaw. If it were at all possible I would bet Blake. Kuroda and Pierre would be jettisoned, but not in a deal that would bring back a quality ML starter. Kuroda is due $13 million this coming year. The Dodgers would love to move that contract.

    How many of these guys can the tight-assed Frankenjamie’s afford right now?

    Sell the team Frankie.

  3. lawdog says:

    Frankie will just keep doing what he’s always done–mortgage the future to sign a geezer on the downside of his career. The only way to move Blake and his contract is to eat ablout 2/3 of it–Frankie has probably already backloaded most of his salary so it wouldn’t be much more of a problem than what he did with Andruw. At some point all that backloaded money will come back to bite him in the ass, but by then he’ll probably have sold it to a real cowboy like Mark Cuban.

    You can tell Blake’s about to hit the wall hard the way he stopped hitting altogether in August. He’ll be the devil to move.

    I’d like Beltre at 3rd

  4. Brooklyn Dodger says:

    Actually, if traded, Blake is owed $13.25 million over the next two years. $6 million in 2010, $5.25 million in 2011, and a $2 million buyout of his $6 million 2012 option. The $2 million buyout is if he’s traded between 2009-10 (NOW!!!!). Otherwise, the buyout is $1.25 million.

    I believe that Blake is tradeable, but probably won’t bring back much. I’m sure that even at even his age (37 next August) Blake would have value to an American League team where he could DH when not playing in the field. And since they’re attempting to cut payroll (see below), I seriously doubt that Detroit would entertain taking on Blake’s contract w/o the Dodgers picking up a sizable piece.

    I have heard that Detroit is looking forward with respect to the arbitration eligible Jackson, and would like to move him before he becomes overly expensive. However, he is a valuable commodity, and there will be serious competition to get him. Sherrill, McDonald, Blake probably wouldn’t do it.

    Beltre would be a nice addition, but it really depends on the cost. His agent is Boras, and it’s not likely he would be taking any discounts to join the Dodgers. He’s not going to command the kind of contract he received after 2004, but it’s also not likely to be cheap.

  5. Badger says:

    From ESPN Spin:

    “The Hot Stove season has officially arrived. With a bloated payroll, don’t be surprised if half of Detroit’s roster gets mentioned in trade rumors over the next month. This would be a solid time for the Tigers to sell-high on Jackson, who is coming off a career year, but he’s one of their cheaper options in the rotation and will probably stay with the team.”

    Couldn’t have said it better myself. Jackson is too good to give up unless you get plenty in return. We just don’t have plenty to give up for one arm.

    Good contract points on Blake Brooklyn, but I still don’t see him having a great deal of value, even as a DH. There are plenty of better hitters out there looking for jobs. But, who knows. Maybe. Could be we just give him away.

    I think whatever Beltre costs it will be more than the Dodgers are willing to give. The Dogs have plenty of options for third base – DeWitt, Hu, Loretta, Castro……… the A player they get for Blake.

  6. lawdog says:

    Trade Blake for the fabled “player to be named later”

  7. Ken says:

    Mark

    Very interesting idea. Yes the Dodgers need at least one low cost position, especially since they need at least 2 pitchers. There will be a bidding war for Edwin, who might be a #2 on this staff.

    However, we might just have to sit back and watch Beltre go to the Angels just like Vladdy did when he was pissed at the Dodgers over a previous player deal. You never know!

  8. Brooklyn Dodger says:

    It’s ironic that Blake’s buyout for 2012 is $2 million if he’s traded this year. That’s exactly what the Dodgers saved by including Santana in the deal when they acquired Blake from Cleveland. And Santana is getting close to the big leagues. This past year at Akron (AA) he hit .290/.413/.530 with 30 doubles, 23 HR, and 97 RBI. His OPS was .943. He even walks more than strikes out, having walked 90 times and striking out only 83.

    He’s a player that could have ultimately made Russell Martin expendable, or himself could have been used in a package to get a major piece like Jackson, Halladay, etc. Instead, for an amount of money less than is given to sign some top amateur talent, we let go a top professional prospect. Rest assured that Logan White raised objections, and was overruled by an owner who has been allowing the Dodger farm system to deteriorate over the past couple of years. Without new ownership it’s going to get worse.

  9. Badger says:

    I can give you 15,750,000 reasons Halladay will not be a Dodger in 2010.

    Blake for PTBNL – good call ldog.

    “Without new ownership it’s going to get worse.” (Brooklyn)

    Uh, yep.

  10. lawdog says:

    I hear the Dogs are thinking of changing the name of the “Mannywood” section to “Geezer Grounds”. They plan to expand the area to include the 3rd base area so that both of the teams 37 year old players can have their following right at their sides when playing defense.

  11. DRomo says:

    OK Blake, Sherrill, & Hu for Jackson. Sign Beltre…by the way isn’t he a Boras client? So he will be asking for 10 yrs/ $500 million or so. But OK, Mark I am with you so far.

    But here is the major deal for me. I know I will get beat up over this!! Sign Bengie Molina, 2 year deal for an attractive but reasonable price. Then trade Russ Martin and Billingsley and another prospect not named Lambo, Martin, or Lindblom for Roy Halladay. Ellis can back up Bengie for the next 2 years and be groomed to take over duties in a year or so. I love Martin but I believe with our young staff a veteran catcher will make all the difference. Martin being Canadian will be an attractive PR move for the Jays besides being a damn good catcher which they need!

    Our Lineup then is:

    Furcal
    Polanco (Oh yeah I didn’t mention him. A classic #2 hitter)
    Ethier
    Kemp
    Manny
    Loney
    Beltre
    Molina
    Pitchers spot

    Our rotation is :
    Doc Halladay
    Kershaw
    Jackson
    Kuroda
    J. McDonald/Charlie Knuckles

    Am I crazy? Believe it or not I think this is all do-able.

  12. Brooklyn Dodger says:

    Blake, Sherrill and Hu does not get Jackson. The Tigers are trying to dump payroll. That doesn’t do it. Besides, why would they trade a rising commodity like Jackson for that bunch. Dombrowski is smarter than that (unless he’s a Dodger plant in the Tiger town).

    I’m not even going to look up Molina’s stats, because I know he’s going to 36 and is one of the most impatient hitters in the game. Forget about the Dodgers being near the top in team OBP.

    Billingsley is by no means an ace (at least for now). While Halladay may be an improvement, the rotation still only has three starters (unless it’s assumed that Jackson is obtained in the Blake, Sherrill, Hu deal). Finally, Halladay will be in the final year of his contract in 2010, and would be a one-year rental if he isn’t signed to a long term deal, which is likely to be in the $20 – 23 million annual salary range. What makes anyone think that the Dodgers are ready to do that deal?

  13. Ken says:

    I presume that the Dodgers will be working hard to get to at least a 35 man roster during Nov & Dec. and will not deal with signing veteran free agents until Jan 2010. That has nothing to do with the divorce but rather the extreme number of Dodger free agents (49) this year.

    Also there are the 87 special assistants that Ned has to manage everyday and all of the important arbitration cases that Ng has to deal with. LD – Maybe Ned’s 87 special assistants are the group of people that actually increased the value of the Dodgers, as oppossed to either Beans or Franks.

    Mark – After winning that race with your brother did you send a picture to Newsweek. Maybe you can get your picture autographed in Fort Wayne today!

  14. Badger says:

    Did you guys see the number 15,750,000? Do you know what that represents? That is the number of dollars Halladay makes next year on the extension he signed with the the Jays. Do you really believe the Dodgers will take on any contract like that? If you do, you are delusional. If the Dodgers do anything with contracts it will be to dump them until this divorce is settled.

    What the Dodgers will do for players is pick up the Ausmus’ and Loretta’s that are lying around – $1,000,000 each. That lawyer I talked to in L.A. said this divorce is costing them $500 an hour and no matter what happens they WILL divide their assets. One of them is down the road and with them goes about 1/2 the net worth. Can we all understand what that means to the entire Dodger organizational payroll? My “inside” guy said he is betting on the under (2 years to get it done) because he thinks the longer this goes the more it hurts both parties so they each will want to settle. Wouldn’t it be great if it were over before ST? Not likely, but if so, we will know exactly where we stand. In the mean time, I really doubt we will be talking to the Borass’ of the world. We will be lucky to survive the arbitration hearings with this team in tact.

  15. Badger says:

    That of course is $500 an hour each – costing the Dodgers $1,000 an hour. How many hours have already gone into this? How much money has been lost in real estate equity? And, they still owe Jones $3.2 million for the next 5 years.

  16. DRomo says:

    I think the Dodgers will take on payroll. Just think of what payroll came off the books….cough..Schmidt..cough… I know the Martins and Ethiers and Kemps will need raises but that still leaves us room to add significant payroll and be around $100- $120 million.

    My lawyer friends (since we all have them) say there is no reason the Dodgers will operate differently with respect to adding payroll. The reason is this divorce will be a lengthy proccess and with the current status leaving the team to Frank. He has no restrictions to add payroll or re-invest in his product. If a judge made a ruling against Frank or ordered him to sell the team that would be different but that is not going to happen at least until the 2010 season is long gone. S

    o the fears of the team being hamstrung by this divorce is just not valid. I will say that if the money is not spent after the MLB leading attendance last season we fans have a right to be upset..I mean pissed! It is our job to put our butts in the seats and buy the merchandise. Frank & Ned it is your turn now.I am positive they will spend mony this offseason. THEY ALWAYS DO, LOOK IT UP! I am just as positive that Dodger fans who are complaining now about the “cheap owner” will whine about the money being spent in the wrong spot. It never gets old does it?

  17. Badger says:

    “THEY ALWAYS DO, LOOK IT UP!”

    I don’t need to. I already did and posted it right here. Payroll has gone from $118 million in 2008 to $100 million in 2009. I am betting on it being closer to $88 million next year.

  18. Ken says:

    If Franks does not keep the payroll, now reasonably estimtated by me at $85 milpost arbitration, above $105 mil, then the value of the team will decrease, for several reasons, thus signalling that Franks may not win the divorce action to his satisfaction. However the value of team will be deemed to be at least the value at the time of separation. If Franks spends above $100 mil then he is optimistic about the results of a judge’s rulings regarding the postup and the reason that the value of the Dodger’s has increased. Look for an orderly process this off season with activities going slowly and at Franks’ pace and not ours.

    Maybe Franks will stop building inner city ballparks, improving Dodger stadium, etc. to pay for the divorce instead of cutting payroll.

    As written about on Dodgers.mlb.com today they must go after pitching first.

  19. Mark Timmons says:

    Badger,

    You are a little off. Here is the ACTUAL Payroll for 2009:

    LA DODGERS salary+prorated bonus
    Ramirez, Manny $25,000,000
    Schmidt, Jason $15,500,000
    Kuroda, Hiroki $12,433,333
    Pierre, Juan $10,000,000
    Furcal, Rafael $7,500,000
    Blake, Casey $5,000,000
    Wolf, Randy $5,000,000
    Martin, Russell $3,900,000
    Hudson, Orlando $3,380,000
    Ethier, Andre $3,100,000
    Mota, Guillermo $2,350,000
    Broxton, Jonathan $1,825,000
    Ohman, Will $1,350,000
    Loretta, Mark $1,250,000
    Ausmus, Brad $1,000,000
    Mientkiewicz, Doug $550,000
    Billingsley, Chad $475,000
    Kemp, Matt $467,000
    Loney, James $465,000
    Kuo, Hong-Chih $437,000
    Young, Delwyn $406,000
    DeWitt, Blake $405,000
    Kershaw, Clayton $404,000
    Wade, Cory $402,500
    Troncoso, Ramon $401,000
    McDonald, James $400,750
    Vargas, Claudio $400,000
    Jones, Andruw $5,000,000
    Loaiza, Esteban $375,000
    TOTAL $109,176,603

    … and that does not include what they paid to Elbert, Paul and others who spnt time on the Major League Roster.

    Now, some money is deferred, but it still is 2009′s Payroll.

  20. lawdog says:

    Most owners don’t let their personal problems interfere with managing the club and payroll, but Frank is a different brand altogether. No other owner is leveraged for cash like our owner is. You can already see with all the back loading he’s done that he’s trying to play both ends against the middle to produce a winning club. Now it’s in his best interest to lower the overall value of the Dodgers for valuation purposes when the court divides the property. If he gets to ultimately keep the asset he’ll want it valued at a real low ball amount. Keep that in mind. Also, even if he wanted to spend big bucks to bring in the star power we need to go to the world series, he’s unable to deliver because he’s so leveraged in terms of cash flow. All the assets are either in real property–which is tanking, or the Dogs with it’s high overhead requirements and very little in terms of cash or easily liquidated properties, real or personal.

    The spirit might be willing but the flesh is weak. McCourt doesn’t have the scratch to keep the dogs running like a well oiled machine, imho.

  21. DRomo says:

    There are a lot of clubs that pro rate salary. That is just a fact but here and whiny fans in general love to beat up the McCourts because they do it too. Fine I get it you will never be happy. But Badger, didn’t we go out and offer big contracts to Soriano and Lee just to have them refuse to come here. Then we paid big to Schmidt and everyone applauded jsut to have his arm fall off, we also overpaid for Furcal a few years ago, spent big bucks to get Andruw Jones,& re-signed Manny. Sure the overall payroll went down but why? Look at the roster. The core of this team is young talent that is under control. Go down the list Martin, Loney, Kemp, Ethier, Kershaw,& Bills, are all inexpensive and all the core of this team. Even the bullpen Broxton, Sherrill, Troncoso, Bellasario, & McDonald are all very good and very cheap. That will change just in arbitration cases alone our payroll will continue to rise.

    The point here is this: You can argue that money hasn’t been spent wisely but the argumenet that they are cheap just isn’t smart and holds no water.

    One more thing to remember that ties into the whole “not spending money” argument. There is an urban legend out there that the Dodgers were too cheap to sign Vlad Guerrero when he came to the Angels years back. The truth was he told Manny Mota he wanted to be a Dodger, he worked out a deal with Dan Evans but because the owners hadn’t approve McCourt as the owner yet. Frank McCourt could not make a decision like that. The Angels offered him the same deal as the Dodgers and Vlad took it. The Dodgers asked Vlads representation to wait and they did not. McCourt had no choice or say in the matter. That is the truth and I have heard that in person from someone that was right there in the middle of the room when it went down.

  22. lawdog says:

    The Dodger big buck transactions were backloaded because the McCourts are cash poor. That’s why they’d give up Santana to save a measley $2 million. All the transactions DRomo mentions above were made before the split. The split makes the big difference and is the reason I think we’re about to see the team go right down the toilet. Now Frank is motivated to lower the value of the team he expects to be awarded so it will cost him less in the divorce. As badly as they were leveraged for cash in the past (because they really didn’t have the necessary cash and equities in the parking lots and real properties to pay Fox for the team, they got in way over their heads when it comes to have a comfort level in operating the team. They always had to rob Peter to pay Paul and they took out huge amountso f cash in the form of salaries to continue to support their life style.

    Now he’s leveraged that much worse because of the accumulating attorneys fees and the necessity of supporting two “over the top” households when neither partner is really working. He has to keep paying balloons, back loaded salaries and pay for his and Jamie’s life style–all from proceeds from the Dog’s.

    The payroll has to shrink, our talent level has to decline, the value of the Dogs will also decline and the situation will be even worse after the divorce is final and he has to support himself and pay all that alimony to Jamie after half the assets walk away with her. There is only so much backloading of payroll you can do before it catches up with you and bites you in the ass. Particularly when you’re already basically bankrupt when it comes to liquidity.

  23. DRomo says:

    So what happens when they do raise payroll? What will you say when they do add pitching and they do give raises to the young core of this team? What will we say then?

    What did we say last year? The McCourts are too cheap to sign Manny? I remember all the fans lining up to say “we were wrong”..right? I didn’t think so. Just wait and see and the will spend money I guarantee it. They always do. And fans will complain because….we always do.

  24. GoNzO says:

    I’m with you Romo.

  25. lawdog says:

    The divorce changes everything Romo. You’ve got to factor that in with the fact that they’ve been playing with borrowed money (through back loading) since they got here.

  26. lawdog says:

    At some point you’ve got to roll back expenses when you’ve been living “over your head”. The day of reckoning has arrived with the divorce. McCourt drew the line in the sand when he fired Jamie and fired up the “Franks and Beans” lawsuit.

  27. Badger says:

    Mover, I got my info from Cot’s.

    http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/los-angeles-dodgers.html

    The McCourts used the Dodgers to live lavish lifestyles, paying themselves $8 million a year and using the Dodgers as their private bank. Sure they put some money back into the franchise, but not at the rate some clubs do. From the lack of signing bonuses 9The 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)to the lack of player development (Baseball America last spring ranked the Dodgers’ farm system 23rd among the 30 teams), to the lack of international scouting (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) to having the highest attendance in the league but not being able to get the players needed to win the Championship, to a divorce that could split the Dodgers in half – everything is right there for all to see. I don’t see how it can business as usual, but I guess we will just have to wait and see.

    The Los Angeles Dodgers, along with the Yankees, should be a shining flagship of how it should be done. I don’t see the Yankees and the Dodgers ownership in the same league at all.

    We will see who is right. In this case, I hope I am wrong.

  28. lawdog says:

    You nailed it Badger. At least now we know why the Dogs are passing on the elite FAs and expensive players on the trading block.

    Ivan DeJesus Jr., Kenley Jansen and Trayvon Robinson were added to the Dodger 40-man roster. More details at True Blue L.A.

  29. Ken says:

    LD – Franks can not lower the value of the Dodgers, the court will count the higher of the value at the date of separation or time of trial but he can limit the increase in the value of the Dodgers. Thank you for your minor league update.

    Go Badger! However I believe that Franks will allow a payroll between $105 – $110 mil for 2010 which is another $20 – $25 mil above my current post arbitration estimate. Franks will have to go cheap in other areas, but not all, like minor leaque players, Camelback, inner city ball parks, donations, special assistants for Ned, and scouting until 2012. Why would any player sign a contract with the Dodgers that lasts past the 2011 season if the Cable deal happens in 2012?

  30. DRomo says:

    If the divorce changes everything (and it may) it won’t be this year. Being this close to winning the Dodgers as a franchise stand to gain in “Value of the team” if they can bring a championship home. If a judge orders the sale of the team both Frank and Jamie stand to do better by selling a successful franchise. It is the “paint the house” analogy Mark has spoken of.

    But from all accounts the “sale of the team plan” is not coming soon.It would be at least a year away if it gets to that point. Drawing a comparison to the Padres isn’t a fair comparison because the Padres were a team in transition anyway with a lot of older players with bad contracts.A guy like Peavy was in his prime but very expensive. Gonzales is still affordable otherwise he would be gone as well.

  31. Ken says:

    Mark – I am patiently waiting for your commments regarding True Blue LA’s 2009 Top 200 Prospects, yes top 200!!

  32. Badger says:

    I am in agreement with ldog. It just seems to me that if you are about to divide your assets in half, you wouldn’t want to increase your debt load. They are already up to their gluteals in debt, why add millions to it?

    And there is the fact they are paying attorneys fees that amount to $1,000 an hour. Since we know they don’t have income other than the Dodgers, the Dodgers are also paying these fees. Somebody in that relationship is getting half of the stash. The other somebody in that relationship is getting the other half. If I were in this position, I think I would c my a and keep spending at a minimum.

    If it’s business as usual, I think it would be good for them to send a message to the fans and sign somebody right away. If they don’t, words mean nothing. And like Ken said, what FA, and his lawyer agent, is going to want to enter into a financial agreement with the McCourts? The instability of all this is just to enormous to ignore.

  33. Mark Timmons says:

    Here’s why the Dodgers will continue to operate with business as usual: The Dodgers make money. The more money you spend (up to a point), the more you make. If Frank goes on the cheap, he’s giving Jamie ammo to say “See he’s not fit to run the Dodgers.”

    Speculate all you want, but the payrool will be about teh same as last year.

    On True Blue LA: 200. Yeah, right! Somebody has too much time on their hands.

  34. Badger says:

    With 3.7 million in attendance, and $15 parking, the Dodgers should be able to break even with a $100 million payroll so, maybe you are right.

    Chad Billingsley, Matt Kemp, James Loney, Andre Ethier, Russell Martin, Jonathan Broxton, George Sherrill and Hong-Chih Kuo. If they all get what they deserve….. I defer to Ken’s post:

    http://www.ladodgertalk.com/2009/11/you-paint-the-house/comment-page-1/#comment-19034

    this is about as accurate an estimation as I could come up with and he did the work so – there it is. We are at $85 million right now. It might go as high as $88M if Ethier and Kemp get what they really deserve. If you add Wolf and Hudson (why not?) that puts us at or close to the $100M mark and we just tee it up again with Manny out there all year and all the young players a year older and hungry to finish what they started. If you don’t want Wolf and Hudson, then get a quality starter (that alone will take most of the $12-15 million left) and sign the Feliz/Uggla or do the platoon (that will end up being less productive than would signing Hudson) and let the fans know early the Dodgers will be fielding a competitive team.

    The longer we wait on all this stuff, the more antsy fans will become.

  35. Mark Timmons says:

    Here’s something to think about:

    While the Dodgers attendence was not down, 23 of the MLB teams were down. I also think that people probably smuggle in more booze and food during recessionary times, so the revenue from concessions is down and as well as the Dodgers’ share of the gate on the road. I have no idea how much it is, but the Dodgers’ revenue is so much more than attendence.

    Right now, this is going on at Dodger Stadium:

    Los Angeles Dodger Stadium Sale Offers All Authentic Team
    Merchandise at 50-Percent Discount

    WHAT: The Los Angeles Dodger Stadium Sale gives fans the opportunity to purchase all authentic team merchandise, including on-field jerseys, hats, playoff gear, women’s apparel and signed memorabilia, at a 50-percent discount. Specialty items, like baseballs signed by Fernando Venezuela, will also be offered for half price. Parking at the stadium is free.

    WHEN: The sale is up and running, and will take place until Friday, Nov. 27. Store hours are 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday; 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. Saturday; and 11 a.m. to 4 p.m., Sunday.

    WHERE: The Dodger Stadium Store at Dodger Stadium

    WHY: Delaware North Companies Sportservice and the Los Angeles Dodgers are offering their fans the opportunity to purchase authentic team gear in time for the holiday season.

    The actual why is THEY NEED THE MONEY!

  36. lawdog says:

    Anybody else notice a grim faced Jamie sitting with her 24 hour driver right behind the Lakers bench last night covered in HD on TNT?

  37. Badger says:

    Hey ldog, could read this for me please and give me your take on it?

    http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_documents/1027_jamie_mccourt_wm.pdf

    then this please:

    http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/shysterball/article/the-mccourt-divorce-readers-digest-version/

    from NBC’s Craig Calcaterra:

    First, it’s impossible to say who’s right and who’s wrong based on reading a single filing in a massive lawsuit, but if even a portion of the allegations regarding how Frank McCourt pushed Jamie McCourt out after they seemed to have built their financial fortunes together over 30 years are true, Jamie is going to walk away from this with half the Dodgers, which could either force the team’s sale, or force Frank to buy her out and run the team on a shoestring. Or, now that I come to think of it, force Jamie to buy Frank out and run the team on a shoestring.

    Which of those things will happen? Well, according to Jamie, the McCourts are worth $1.2 billion, with $800 million of that worth being the value of the Dodgers. Assuming for a minute that those numbers are accurate, and assuming that Jamie is found to be the co-owner of the team as of right now, whoever walks away from the ownership in the divorce will have to either (a) pay the other all of their remaining total assets; or (b) go into hundreds of millions of dollars in debt. That suggests sale to me, though I’m sure there are some other creative options I’m not considering at the moment. All of the options, however, would lead to ownership upheaval in some form or another.

    The second observation is that, based on Jamie McCourt’s description of the Dodgers’ owners’ lifestyle — constant private jet travel at $12K an hour, hotel rooms which never cost under $1000 a night, six dinners out a week at $400+ a pop, etc. etc. — I’m going to get medieval on anyone who suggests the players are the greedy ones who make too much money to play a kid’s game. No player in the game lives anything close to a lifestyle as opulent as the current Dodgers owners do, and I’m certain that all of them work just as hard at what they do as the McCourts do for their money. Everyone in the game is pretty rich, people, and it’s a business. Nothing makes that more clear than the details Jamie McCourt provides regarding the inner workings of the Dodgers here.

    Oh, one final observation: don’t ever, ever, ever get married.

    • Ken says:

      As I have been saying focus on what might be “Quasi-community property” and the associated rules that will allow the Judger to award to Beans more than Franks would ever want her to receive.

  38. Ken says:

    The future Dodger fiscal budget is obviously tied to the Beans & Franks personal budget which not only includes lavious personal expenses and massive real estate debt but also the added features of legal fees, permanent spousal support and gigilo? allowance. In order to speculate what will happen with future Dodger fiscal budgets we should use simultantous equations to arrive at the best short term and long term outcomes for Franks and the worst for Beans. For instance if the payroll is cut, then there is more “income available for support” thus allowing for increased temporary alimony and its allocation to the G allowance, while simultaneously decreasing the number of above average Dodger players and presumably the Dodger record for 2010 and the related value of the team.

    Frank is in a difficult place spot financially and must determine how what may appear to be the best approach in the short run will adversely effect his long-term wealth and vice versa. That is one of the reasons, plus gut feelings, why I believe that whatever happens with the Dodger roster this off season it will take a long time before the 40-man roster is completely settled and we will just need to be patient.

    “The bigger a person’s gut the more frequent the gut feelings” Ken

    All joking aside, it may be that by January 1st we all realize that Mark was right all along, but will he be able to prove, by citing posts, why he was right back in early November 2009. Just a thought!

  39. Badger says:

    “there is more “income available for support””

    I hadn’t even thought of that.

    “Because the McCourts have drastically raised ticket, parking and concession prices, and because they bought neighboring homes in Malibu and Holmby Hills for $72.5 million (to go along with two vacation homes on Cape Cod, a condo in Vail, Colo., and properties in Montana and Cabo San Lucas, Mexico), she may as well have been saying to Dodgers fans, Let them eat cake.”

    “They’ve had this weird, tone-deaf history of public relations,” Weisman said.”

    “I don’t think anyone has a particular horse in this race,” said Jon Weisman, who runs the Dodger Thoughts blog on The Los Angeles Times’s Web site, referring to the fans’ interest. “I think they want whoever is going to be the best steward, although a lot of people feel neither of them are capable of that right now.”

    From the moment the McCourts bought the team in 2004, they have been consumed with their image. They have employed at least six publicists.”

    “When Grossman, Frank McCourt’s lawyer, was asked how much the divorce would affect the Dodgers, he did not wait for the question to be completed.

    “Zero, zero, zero,” Grossman said, a figure that may equal the number of people who believe that.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/sports/baseball/15mccourt.html?_r=1&ref=sports

    Check out the legal teams on both sides. I just don’t believe it can be business as usual. These two are trying to shred each other.

  40. lawdog says:

    My God! I can’t believe my own eyes. I read most of that stuff Badger. Took me most of the morning and I still didn’t get through all the schedules and misc. supporting documentation..

    I think Jamie is “underwater” on most of the real property. On some of it didn’t she didn’t specify what was owed, but on the items she did specify, the McCourt’s were up to their asses in mortgage debt. Since most of that stuff was bought and “remodeled” just before the real estate bubble burst, I’d be surprised if they didn’t owe more right now than the property would realistically sell for if put on today’s market.

    Jamie’s lawyers are mean SOBs. They’ve undoubtedly asked for twice what they expect the judge to order, but it still boggles the mind.

    Hard to believe two vultures can suck all that money out of the Dodger franchise. Makes me want to puke and rethink my support of capitalism as the preferred social system.

    If they can hold on until the cable deal kicks in, the two of them just might weather the storm that engulfs them right now. Neither of them appear to deserve any of this . They’re both bottom feeders! I guess they’re proving that you can never be too thin or too rich. And that no matter how much money flows into one’s hands, if you’re greedy enough, you can spend it all and still teeter on the brink of bankruptcy.

    They should both be banished from the golden goose which resides in the magical kingdom Known as Dodgerland.

    For Jamie: “Get thee to a nunnery!”

    For Frank: Make him reside in a monastary until the cable deal comes through.

    Sell the team to Mark Cuban, who also might be filthy rich, but doesn’t have to live such a decadent life style.

  41. Ken says:

    If Beans can convince the Judge that her lifestyle expenses are reasonable and Franks is not paying her enough alimony then, she may be able to convince the Judge to make Franks pay her attorney fees, then the war will get even worse.

    Remember that Income per their tax returns is not always the same as income available for support.

  42. Mark Timmons says:

    If you want to read a GOOD plan for the offseason, read what Kensai, ‘er Chad has to say at Memories of Kevin Malone:

    http://www.memoriesofkevinmalone.com/

    The “stinkin’ stat geek” has it nailed! ;)

    I shall not add a word!

    In fact, I may quit writing – that guy is good!

    • Ken says:

      Come on he did not even have a clue about Belisario last spring so what could he know?

      Dan Ugla? No way!

      Long term contracts? No way any agent will let his player sign a long term contract until after the Cable deal is done.

  43. Badger says:

    What ldog said.

    We all know that people with that much money have more loop holes than the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. The rich invented them, so, there is obviously more money around than what they claim. But the question remains, is there enough to feed the sharks, pay the mortgages, eat $400 meals every night while staying in the Presidential Suite, and run the Dodgers.

    Support? If she needs and gets support to the tune of $300,000+ per month – there goes Frank, right down the crapper. Neither of them work for living, they have the Dodgers as their bank and if Jamie takes half of everything and gets support too – the Dodgers will be sold.

    I hope it happens and the sooner the better.

    I hope Cuban was serious. And, what’s Eli Broad doing these days?

  44. mark says:

    Ken,

    I didn’t say I agreed with all that Chad wrote, but he has a plan.

    I like that.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks


Mandatory Daily Dodger Reading