Categorized | Mark Timmons

All Eyes on McCourt

All Eyes on McCourt

Since Frank stepped out of his Beverly Hills office this week and and has made some public statements, the fallout has been intense. 

Mostly negative, as you can imagine.  Right now, I am certainly in the minority in my belief that the Dodgers will be just fine.  Everyone is anticipating the May hearing scheduled for the purpose of determining the Dodger ownership.  I happen to believe that there is at least a 50-50 chance there will be no hearing and that this issue will be resolved between the parties.  Just my opinion – feel free to disagree…

In case you haven’t read the articles, here they are:,0,109198.story

There’s more, but you get the picture.

The best one is written by my buddy, Tony Jackson:

It’s good to see Tony back in the saddle and writing regularly for EspnLosAngeles.  I have a link to his column at the Top Right-Hand side of the page.

From Baseball Think Factory (check out their ZIPS predictions):

While the Phillies are possibly the most dangerous team in the NL with their front-line talent, I think the Dodgers are the superior team over the season itself, thanks to better depth.

One thing the Dodgers demonstrate is that who the GM is can be overrated – the organization itself is top-notch and a testament to the work that Dan Evans and to a lesser extent, Paul DePodesta kept the team running while it recovered from the Kevin Malone era.

Even with a lot of the names on the list here only because they haven’t signed yet, the Dodgers could trade the entire current bullpen and cobble together a fairly decent one from the remaining depth. Luckily, they don’t have to do that. Of the pitchers I’ve projected so far (I’ve done most of the pitchers for all but the Braves, A’s, and Angels), the Dodger bullpen sports 3 of the 6 lowest reliever ERA+s.

The team still could use another starter and they’ll probably add one (at last check, they’re still in the running to bring Jon Garland back).

Like I have been telling you, it’s not gloom and doom!  The 2010 Dodgers are contenders for the NL Title.  You naysayers are going to be really disappointed this season!

About Mark Timmons

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

17 Responses to “All Eyes on McCourt”

  1. Rory says:

    First post in comments below “Divorce won’t affect Dodgers:

    IMALMT wrote:

    “Hate to sound like an echo, but McCourt really takes us all for idiots.”

    Couldn’t have put it better myself.

    Or how about this one:

    “Fairy tales can come true….”

    But my favorite:

    “McCourt is a liar!”

    Come on kids, stop with the spinning. It is what it is and nobody will know anything until the courts decide ownership. Maybe Frankie will come out of this ok – he won’t have a house to live in and his bank accounts will be empty, but he could possibly be the owner of the Dodgers.

    In the mean time it’s actually a good thing we aren’t signing any more Schmidt’s or Jones’. A payroll around $85 million could actually still give us a good team. It’ll be a team with a payroll like the Giants, but, hey, they are pretty good. They could actually win 88 this year too.

  2. Bill Russell says:

    What Badger said

  3. Bill Russell says:

    The signing of Chad and Matt to – two years is a signal that it’s a short term fix, like Frank sticking his finger in the hole of the dam wall. I just can’t feel good about this teams success until we get a new owner or until after the divorce an a new partner is brought in. I can’t see Jamie and Frank working together building this team to win a WS. I also can’t see Frank as the sole owner of the Dodgers like he says he is. All I can see is money being spent on the divorce and not on the pieces needed to build a great team. I know Mark feels I’m a Dodger downer but I just hope the Dodgers will have enough to stay competitive in the West and to find a way to keep most of the kids on the team until whatever solution is found to save Dodgerland.

  4. Bill Russell says:

    I also predict that Torre isn’t extended at his high salary to sleep on the bench. I love Torre but lets all face it, He’s semi retired.

  5. Roger Dodger says:

    What Badger said, what Bill said . . .

    I would like to know — just what happened last Sept when Joe Torre did not talk to and with Hudson when Joe sat Hudson. Joe is supposed to be better than that. What was going?

    When Joe writes about managing — how does he answer the question about communication with and to all of his players?

    That approach can only bit the manager and the team in the pants. See, the Dodgers did not win.

  6. Rory says:

    ‘I would like to know — just what happened last Sept.”

    Me too Roger. We picked up Belliard because Odog needed a few days off, but Orlando was fine for the play-offs. What really happened? How do you bench a guy that was a spark in the early and mid season, when the team built such a lead. Hudson was Gold Glove All Star that was ready to go in post season. Something happened between those two, and then the arb deal. Bad juju folks. Add it to the list I suppose.

  7. mark says:

    You both may be attributing something bad to Torre when in reality he was hiding an injury and out of respect to O-Dog, has not disclosed it.

    Some of you have talked about how the Dodgers “screwed” Hudson by not playing him, but the reality of the situation is that Hudson hit all his bonuses except one for $10,000. He signed a 3.8 mil guranteed deal and made about 4 million more than that. The Dodgers knew he was a Free Agent to be and maybe they hid an injury so that he wouldn’t end up geting squat in free agency.

    Why is everyone so quick to attribute something bad to this? Maybe it was good…

    I’m not the only one who thinks Hudson was concealing an injury (probably his wrist).

    • Ken says:

      He did wear that soft cast the whole year while playing and still hurt his wrist a couple of times while playing.

  8. mark says:

    You all talk like the Dodgers just screw people or players. Baseball folks don’t think that. It’s just like Baseball Think Factory says “the organization itself is top-notch.” That may not be your feeling because you are removed from the situation, and maybe ignorance is bliss, but it’s also still ignorant. The Dodgers have a first-class organization. Ask any player what they think of Torre and his staff and you will be hard-pressed to find anything bad.

    When the ones closest to the manager have nothing but good to say and the fans say bad things, well you do the math!

  9. McCheapness says:

    Please almighty god..let mccheap get raped in court and force him to sell the team…

  10. Ken says:

    The Family Law Court in California is NOT a court of law. It is a court of Equity. No matter what the law is the judge can make new law in order to bring equity to the wife and kids. That is the real reason Franks is talking about giving the Dodgers to his kids. To gain subjective favor with the Judge.

    If Franks offers a property and income split that attempts to guarantee the corpus goes to the kids and much of the income goes to the ex-wife he will come across much better in a court of equity because of the simple rule “He who seeks equity must do so with clean hamds”.

    That post-nuptual agreement demonstrates that at least one of the two spouses did not have clean hands (motives) in that transaction. The question is whether the unclean hands had to do with each other or to outsiders such as creditors.

    If the court awards the Dodgers to Franks they will still award some of the increase in value to Beans within the bounds of equity to the parties. The only question is how much and for how many years will she have to finance Franks’ purchase of her portion of the value of the Dodgers from her. Usually the court awards a cross gift of the value for a note which means that Beans will be paid for an extended period of time by Franks.

    After a year, waiting to qualify for long-term capital gains treatment, Franks might look for a minority partner to buy out the note and pay off Beans thus reducing Franks’ cash outflow and possibly allowing him to invest in a Cable network or facility renovation, or keeping players.

  11. Mark Timmons says:

    … which is why I think that both parties (with the help of the 4 adult kids) will reach a settlement before the hearing. Well said.

  12. Mark Timmons says:


    The Dodgers have won more under McCourt in his first six seasons than was ever anticipated. If they win the division this year, it will be the only time in their history they have been division champs 3 years in a row.

    You are delusional.

  13. Rory says:

    Thank you counselor. California law will make sure that the split is fair. Which means McJamie is entitled to her half. McNoNickels is on a very strict budget for a while.

    Mark, regarding Odog and Torre, some of us never meant to say it was necessarily about bonus money, or really even anything personal. Belliard was hitting, I get that. But, I believe every Dodger fan that was talking about it at the time assumed Hudson would be back in there for the play-offs. The Dodgers were paying both Hudson AND Belliard, so if it was about money, wouldn’t they have dumped Belliard earlier? He stayed in there in September because he had a hot bat. But, come play-off time, if there was anyone who should have been benched it was Blake. I have seen no logical explanation why a ready Hudson wasn’t played post season. I am merely asking – why didn’t Hudson play?

  14. Roger Dodger says:

    Hey Mark, I do not have the quote in front of me at this moment . . . but I remember something about Hudson saying that Joe had not talked with him.

    IF that is true — that bothers me.

    What I think might have hung on the line to dry better might have been, “Joe and I have talked about my situation and I am ready to help the Dodgers any way I can.”

    Did not hear something like that —- but the other, no communication.


Mandatory Daily Dodger Reading