Categorized | Mark Timmons

How Do You Measure The Fight in The Dog?

How Do You Measure The Fight in The Dog?

It’s easy to measure the “dog in the fight” but that’s only part of the deal.  For example, in terms of talent, Pete Rose was not in the same category as an athlete when compared to Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Barry Bonds and most other hitters, but Pete Rose holds the record for hits.  There were a lot of  hitters with a lot more talent than Pete, but in his case, it wasn’t the size of the dog in the fight, it was the amount of fight in the dog.

I have been saying for some time now, that our 2B this year will be Blake DeWitt.  Some of that, I admit, is wishful thinking, but Blake DeWitt has something else.  Something that you can’t measure.  You can’t measure IT by seeing that he hit over .300 the first two months of his rookie season, or that he hit .204 last year and wasn’t that impressive in AAA.  You simply can’t measure IT, but when I see Blake DeWitt, I believe he has IT and will win our 2B job this year.

The fact that he is a lefty is a huge bonus.  Blake thought he was ready to play 2B last year, but the Dodgers didn’t and brought in the O-Dog.  It was the right move, but DeWitt continued to hone his skills at 2B, and by all accounts, he is ready defensively.  I believe Blake DeWitt is a guy who will hit .265 with 15-20 HR THIS year.  If you could measure the fight in this dog, the meter would read “Junkyard.”  Blake DeWitt is a Junkyard Dog and I mean that as a compliment!

About Mark Timmons

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

26 Responses to “How Do You Measure The Fight in The Dog?”

  1. Badger says:

    You already said that our 2b combo of DeCarrolliard would hit .300. If DeWitt is only .265 of that combination……

    I would love to see DeWitt win the 2b job. I just don’t think he will do it. The Dodgers signed Carroll ($3.85M for two years) for a reason and I have to believe that reason is to play second base. I don’t believe in putting young players on the bench as back-ups. DeWitt needs to play every day, and I just don’t see him doing that in L.A.. I do hope I am wrong about that. And the “it” that you refer to, he had better show IT in AAA or he won’t have a chance to prove IT at the big league level.

    Looks to me like we have a platoon of back-ups at our second base position. Who gets to stay and who goes down? Stay tuned.

    Take a look at the “odds and ends” up above this morning. This caught my attention:

    Confidential documents in the McCourts’ divorce hearing reveal that the Dodgers may seek to spend on players at level pace while doubling ticket prices and revenue through 2018, writes Bill Shaikin of the Los Angeles Times. This is bad news for Dodgers fans as the uncertain financial status of the club has limited their activity this winter.

    Just a dose of reality for all of you “positive” thinkers out there. Increase in ticket prices makes sense to me, it had to come, I just wonder what this will do to attendance figures. And, with a “level” pace of payroll, Colletti is going to have to do a much better job of finding the right players. We cannot afford anymore Schmidt/Jones – even Manny – contracts on this team. It will be a delicate balance as long as McFrankie is the owner.

    Brooklyn, you in on that 500 push-up bet? Anybody else?

  2. lawdog says:

    So, exactly what have I been telling you about Bottomfeeder McCheapskate and his cash cow called the Lost Angels TaxDodgers?

    Read this pertinent part of Shaiken’s column from this mornings LA Times and weep for our once great major league team. This is only going to get worse folks:

    By Bill Shaikin
    February 22, 2010

    The Dodgers could seek to keep their player payroll below last year’s level through 2018 while the average ticket price and club revenue could nearly double, according to confidential financial documents included in a court filing last week.

    The documents, submitted by former Dodgers chief executive Jamie McCourt in divorce proceedings against owner Frank McCourt, offer a rare glimpse into the finances of a major league club.

    The documents — prepared by the McCourt management team in May to solicit Chinese investors for a partnership that could have included the Dodgers, a soccer club in Beijing and another in the English Premier League — show that the Dodgers spent $128 million in player compensation for their 40-man roster in 2007, then spent $123 million in 2008.

    They spent $132 million last season, according to figures from the commissioner’s office, which included in its accounting deferred payments to Manny Ramirez and Andruw Jones.

    The projections show the Dodgers planning to cut it to $107 million this year, with slight annual increases thereafter. In 2018, player compensation is estimated at $125 million.

    The document anticipates a significant rise in club revenue, from $295 million in 2008 to $529 million in 2018, and in the average ticket price, from $29.40 in 2007 to $53.50 in 2018.

    Dodgers attorney Marshall Grossman, asked via e-mail what the club would tell fans wondering why the rise in revenue might not be accompanied by a similar rise in the player payroll, responded with an e-mail that noted financial plans are subject to regular revisions.

    “It is prudent for a well-run business to engage in ongoing financial modeling and planning,” Grossman wrote. “When the Los Angeles Dodgers have financial information relevant to the public and the fans, it will be made public by the Dodgers.

    “The Dodgers’ commitment is to operate on and off the field as a premier baseball organization, for the benefit of the fans and the Los Angeles community. The Dodgers continue to honor that commitment.”

    The Dodgers spent 46% of revenue on player compensation in 2007 and 42% in 2008, according to the documents. The projections call for that percentage to fall to 25% by 2013 and remain at about 25% through 2018.

    Commissioner Bud Selig encourages teams to spend about one-half their revenue on player compensation, according to two high-ranking major league executives contacted by The Times.

    “That’s Bud’s rule of thumb,” one of the sources said.

    The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because the Dodgers have not released the documents.

    On the day he took control of the Dodgers six years ago, Frank McCourt said he would maintain a player payroll among the top one-quarter of major league teams.

    The Dodgers ranked seventh in player compensation last season — behind the two New York clubs, the Chicago Cubs, Boston Red Sox, Detroit Tigers and Philadelphia Phillies — but that ranking probably would fall dramatically if the projections were to hold.

    In 2014, the Dodgers projected player spending at $115 million, a level reached by five clubs in 2007 and eight apiece in each of the last two years.

    “That’s not going to do much five years from today, especially in a big market,” one of the executives said.

  3. lawdog says:

    Great article in Rolling Stone Badge!

  4. Badger says:

    Uh – yep.

    Glad you got to the article ldog. I figured you would enjoy it. Though it is frustrating at times, it is good to remain informed.

    Yahoo…… starting lineup as of 2-21:

    1. SS Rafael Furcal

    2. CF Matt Kemp

    3. RF Andre Ethier

    4. LF Manny Ramirez

    5. 1B James Loney

    6. 3B Casey Blake

    7. 2B Ronnie Belliard

    8. C Russell Martin

    not a bad lineup – not a great lineup either – if everyone stays on the field and has good years….. could win as many as……. 94


    C Brad Ausmus

    INF Jamey Carroll

    1B Doug Mientkiewicz

    OF Reed Johnson

    OF Jason Repko

    I don’t see DeWitt’s name in there.

  5. lawdog says:

    Bud’s rule of thumb is to pay the players 50% of club revenues in salary. That sounds like something everyone should be able to live with and continue to put a contending team on the field for Los Angeles.

    But Perfectly Cheap is planing to keep 75% of the money “laundering” some of it through club “operations” when it’s just a money grab that’s so incredibly selfish as to make the Georgia Rosenbloom rape of the Rams look “fair and balanced” by comparison.


  6. Roger Dodger says:

    Hi folks. I have been away for the past five days to my, three times a year visit to Marshall, Mo for meetings. No computer. No e-mail I can work on. Soooo been out of touch.

    Just read the posts. Thanks for the insights and the attached articles from Dodger writers.

    On second base. I think the Dodger would love to have DeWitt field and hit like they want him too. And he just might do it. The butterflies should be over by now. If he does, the job should be his and the others will fight for back up spots.

    But it he struggles, with fly balls to the warning track in Glendale and little ground balls to the 2nd and 1st basemen — he is out of there.

    Oh, I looked at two of the annual spring baseball magazines with the predictions for the year — and they both picked the Rockies to win the West. Interesting.

  7. McCheapne$$1 says:

    Hahahahaha MARK won’t even talk about that article because his so up McCheaps ass right now..

  8. A Shot of Haeger says:


    Well lawdog… if you or anyone doesn’t like McCourt as an owner… why don’t you do something about it? I hear all the McCourt haters whine and complain about how awful he is, but all you do is whine and do nothing else. Why don’t you sue McCourt? You’re a lawyer.. you could find a precedent somewhere for which you can file suit to have him removed. You may not win, but at least you’re trying.

    Instead, just post your 75 paragraph posts about how the Dodgers are going to hell and we’re heading a down a path of destruction..blah, blah, blah, etc. etc.

    I challenge you to do something about it or stop complaining

  9. Ty says:

    Mark, you are usually way too kind on your statistical predictions but 265 BA and 15 HR’s from DeWitt is very reachable.

  10. Mark Timmons says:

    It’s too bad we don’t have a legal system that allows rebuttal. It’s too bad that when the briefs are filed by one side that just settles it.

    I guess there is no reason for a hearing or a trial. Jamie gets the team. Lawdog has spoken. McCheapness has seconded it.

    I guess you guys believe everything you read, huh?

    McCheapness, I didn’t respond because I’m not stupid enough to do so. I’ve seen people like you before – but I had to pay an admission…

  11. McCheapne$$1 says:

    Hahahaha I like your logic fatboy..

  12. lawdog says:

    For the sake of all that’s holy, Mark. Confidential sources have now revealed McCheap’s plan to reduce Dodger payroll to 25% of team income over the next few years. That’s half of the Selig “rule of thumb” (50%). Add that evidence to what McCheap did this off season (basically nothing except to hire cheap one year stop gap geezers to patch the holes made by his payroll reduction strategy and how can you ignore what the man is doing to our beloved team.

    He’s shameless.

    This isn’t rocket science. It’s just opening your eyes to the obvious.

  13. Mark Timmons says:


    It not confidential sources. It’s Jamies Lawyers and of course, they would always tell the truth like all lawyers do. Right?

    And, of course it’s not “work product” or “projections.”

    My eyes are open. I think you should wash yours out!

    Don’t believe everything you read – especially if it is disseminated by a lawyer…

  14. ken says:

    Normally the Family Law courts in California will value the company based upon the fair market value, but if there is no potential buyer then they will place a value based upon present investment value to the owner. Obviously, Beans is trying to say that there is a buyer so that they can value the team based upon future income. Every “Leak” has a greedy purpose.

  15. Badger says:

    No potential buyer? How do we know that if the team isn’t for sale? And what idiot wouldn’t believe there would not be a buyer for the Dodgers?

    Oh there would be a buyer for the Dodgers all right. And the value of the Dodgers now, and I assume they will use current market values, is around $725 million. She will say it’s worth more, he will say it’s worth less, she will say this he will say that, but any moron with a gavel knows the Los Angeles Dodgers are in the top 5 valued teams in MLB. How does one determine that? Having seen our laws at work, the judge might just guess, but there is this:

    From Forbes

    2009 MLB franchise values:

    Yankees – $1.5 billion, Mets – $912 million, Red Sox – $833 million, Dodgers – $722 million, Cubs – $700 million, Angels – $509 million, Cardinals – $486 million.

    As further reported by Forbes:

    Team values increased an average of 1% over the past year to $482 million, an all-time high. Fueled by more ticket sales and television money, league revenue increased 5.5% to $5.8 billion (our figures are net of revenue used to finance stadium debt). Operating income (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) rose 1.8% to $501 million–another record.

    Now I suppose it could be argued, maybe even successfully by the loudest lawyers, that the value is down now because of the economy, market stresses – what the current owner is doing to the franchise – even if the courts dropped the value by 5%, which I doubt they would, that is a lot of asset to be divided. Where does Frankie Dimes get the money to pay this woman off? Until I hear otherwise, California law says she is entitled to half the couple’s assets. Half of $700 million is a lot millions. Where does he get that money?

    While I agree with Mark that we don’t know everything, I absolutely see from where ldog’s passion comes. The Dodgers are in trouble. How much? none of us really know.

  16. Mark Timmons says:

    It’s not $700 mil.

    It’s $700 mil minus debt and the appreciated value factors in as well.

  17. Mark Timmons says:

    Jamies’ lawyers are trying to paint Frank as the bad guy. They are trying the case in the court of public opinion, which could really backfire on them.

    If Fran’s attorneys are smart, you won’t hear a peep. It’s nice to have your opponent play their cards first.

  18. Casual Observer says:

    you guys are funny, “not funny ha ha, funny queer!” A check in here once every month or so, is about all I can stand. Enjoy each other’s flesh!

  19. Brooklyn Dodger says:

    Weisman wrote;

    “In other words, while this seems juicy, I wouldn’t overreact. The documents, Shaikin writes, were “prepared by the McCourt management team in May to solicit Chinese investors for a partnership that could have included the Dodgers, a soccer club in Beijing and another in the English Premier League.” They’re designed to make the Dodgers’ profiteering, if you will, look as glowing as possible. It doesn’t seem to me that the scenario they describe is any more realistic than one that suggests the Dodgers have cheap ticket prices and top-of-the-line payroll. The truth is somewhere in between.”

    Fact is, all we know is what the parties want us to know. In other words, we really don’t know anything. Somebody on this blog will probably turn out to be mostly right, but it won’t be because they know anything the rest of us don’t know, or because of superior insight. They’ll get there, because with all the varying opinions that abound, someone is likely to wander in the right direction simply due to dumb luck.

    And I wish I was in good enough shape to do those 500 push-ups.

  20. Rory says:

    Yeah, the Dodgers are worth $700 million, and their real estate holdings are worth – whatever – they put $200M down, add subtract multiply and then you divide it all by two. When you factor in the appreciation of the Dodgers (from $430M to $725M) one of them is going to own the Dodgers and the other one is going to be owed a ton of money.

    I don’t think these two are trying this case in the court of public opinion. Because they own the Dodgers, the public is extremely interested in what is going on. And since we are a tabloid country, we are going to get our noses right in the middle of this.

    I have yet to see anyone say anything that tells me how one intends to buy out the other. Whoever is left standing, and I think we all believe it will be Frank, will be forced to sell or take on a partner. Is there any other way?

  21. Mark Timmons says:

    Well, it’s clear that Franks plan is to show that Jamie gave up any claim to the Dodgers when they transferred all the “safe” assets to her and Frank took the Dodgers. If they succeed in that, it makes no difference if the Dodgers are worth 700 cents or 700 billion.

    That’s their story and they are sticking to it.

    I know California Family Law is different, but I believe Frank has a good shot at winning this and Jamie is ABSOLUTELY trying the case in public. Frank isn’t!

  22. Badger says:

    I find it funny, funny haha, that people like Casual Observer can drop by and make judgments without offering anything. We have a nation of people like that.

    Brooklyn is right, none of us know how this will turn out. I can’t imagine the law throwing Jamie out with nothing and it would surprise me if that happened. But, again, having watched what can, and does, happen in this world, I know for a fact people at the top of the pyramid make their own laws. I know how it was explained to me when I was there, and I have seen nothing with divorces between people in my pay grade to believe something other than an equal split, but I have been around long enough to know that some people are above the law. Is Frank? Who knows. Even Johnny Carson got nailed. And ask former Padre owner John Moores how it worked out for him. (Yeah yeah, the Moores case is nothing like the McCourt case – except for the fact that it is very much like it.)

    Mark, I think Frank will “win” ownership, if that’s what you are talking about. But I am still waiting for someone, anyone, to explain to me how Jamie ends up with nothing. She has been in that marriage for 30 years, she is entitled to half the assets. Half the assets of a billionaire is a half billion – or 60-40 or however they decide to do it. Where does this money come from if not from the Dodgers? Much of their net worth is tied up in the appreciation of the team.

    In the mean time, Manny comes forward and says he knows he will not be with the team next year. And the explanation in the piece mentions the Dodgers financial situation. The Dodgers financial situation is right there for anyone and everyone to see. Some do see it, some refuse to. Manny is a DH waiting to happen, and if the Dodgers’ wheels come off early, Manny could be a DH by July 31st.

    And Brooklyn, I can’t do 500 push-ups and neither can Mark. Last year it took me a few sets to pay off that Blake/LaRoche bet. Even if it takes you a week, you can do it. And, it would be good for you. Step up to the plate and take a swing my man.

  23. train says:

    Many times i have been dissatisfied with McCourts decisions, but he has kept the young core intact, that in itself has meaning. But trying this case on what can best be described as the venom of an ex-spouse with an axe to grind..Well my advice is wait and see what the judge decides..NOT YELLOW JOURNALISM trying to make headlines with projections and innuendos that may or may not have bearing on the real case. That case being, who indeed owns the LAD.

  24. Rory says:

    If you guys haven’t read this, you really should:

    Only the uber rich can live off someone else’s dime tax free. Gotta love our tax system.


  1. [...] View full post on – Get Your Daily Dodger Juice, Dodger News and Dodger Rumors [...]

Mandatory Daily Dodger Reading