Categorized | Mark Timmons

You Can’t Handle The Truth

You Can’t Handle The Truth

…or maybe you can.  Multiple sources are reporting that Dodgers owner Frank McCourt will resume overseeing the day-to-day operations of the

The Truth?

Dodgers, as the club has severed ties with President Dennis Mannion.  Allegedly, Frank will take ”a more direct and active role” in managing the team.

I am sure that this will be spun a lot of ways, but I think that this is the truth:

  1. Mannion cost the Dodgers a lot of money each year – if McCourt takes over his job and eliminates Mannions assistants he saves hundreds of thousands;
  2. He can eliminate the cost of his Beverly Hills office –  and slash costs;
  3. He flattens the organizational structure and   resumes responsibility for running the Dodgers.  Ned will report directly to him and hopefully this will eliminate any mis-communication;
  4. Love him or hate him (or just be indifferent like me), anyone who has been through a divorce must admit that it is traumatic.  Maybe Frank is substantially over the accompanying grief and ready to function as the overseer of the Dodgers; and
  5. Mannion wasn’t “all that!”

This is a money-saving move and a flattening of the organization.  Pure and simple.  I might look for a few advisors to leave and other expenses to be shaved.  At this juncture, Frank knows that he has to spend as much as possible to put a good product on the field and act quickly and decisively in the player market.  The players on the field have to be the priority.

UPDATE

By the way, if you think some of my trades and deals are “wacked out” check out Phil Gurnee and True Blue LA:

http://www.truebluela.com/2010/10/8/1730668/you-are-the-gm-100-million-dollar-dodger-edition#comments

I can tell you this – it will be an interesting off-season.  Probably much better than the 2010 season.

I will be absolutely shocked if Frank does not allow the payroll to be over $100 mil!

About Mark Timmons

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

23 Responses to “You Can’t Handle The Truth”

  1. Mark Timmons says:

    That means a payroll NORTH of $100,000,000!

  2. Ray says:

    let’s hope so Mark

  3. Badger says:

    If I were Frank, I would consult Shpunt before making any moves like this.

    $100,000,000? I’ll take the under for 500.

  4. Brooklyn Dodger says:

    It’s pretty clear that I’m not a Frank McCourt fan. However, I’ve stated in the past that I wouldn’t be surprised if he began to spend more money as the Dodgers got closer to the establishment of their TV networks. Well, that’s not until 2014, so it’s still a while off. However, a Mannion here a Mannion there, and a few other cuts, and maybe Frank can find a few more bucks to spend on players. And there’s some player money coming off the books, including some deferred money paid to Nomar, Schmidt, and maybe one or two others. Who knows, maybe he’s even considering naming rights, or some other forms of sponsorship to bring in additional revenue. And as admirable as he is not, Frank ain’t stupid, and must realize that he needs to do something to re-build his credibility. And I’m sure his ego plays a role as well. So perhaps, just maybe, Frankie will spend some money this winter to improve the product.

    But having said what I’ve said doesn’t mean I wouldn’t prefer a new owner. And if he does spend more, I’m not sure how much it’s going to be, or if it will be enough to bring about a significant upgrade. I believe that until the completion of the World Series teams are restricted from making major announcements. So while the Dodgers may be speaking to some people, we won’t know anything until after the World Series, at the earliest.

  5. Anonymous says:

    i also have not hid my dislike for mccourt.

    HOWEVER, there is one scenario where i see frank signing a big name (cliff lee, carl crawford), or trading for a big time player (prince fielder, etc). and that is that we all know how image conscious he is. and we all know how is image has been absolutely crushed due to this divorce. hell he got booed like crazy when torre gave his goodbye speech.

    there is no way that 90% of us will ever support him, UNLESS he does something to force us to change our minds.

    getting a big name in here, and spending the 100mil+ it will take to do so, will help rebuild his horrendous image.

    im holding on that bit of hope this whole offseason. and no, i dont count beltre as that stud, or adam dunn as that stud.

    i mean a STUD

  6. Mark Timmons says:

    I would count Beltre or Dunn as a stud.

    Both are durable and both would help the Dodgers.

    I’d take both!

  7. Brooklyn Dodger says:

    Beltre would no doubt be an upgrade over Blake, both offensively and defensively. A stud? Not sure. I’d have to see him everyday. Problem is, he’s likely to be very expensive, and I’d be reluctant to commit to too many years. If his acquisition kept us from strengthening elsewhere, I wouldn’t be too quick to take him on board. But if available, he’s certainly someone that should be at the very least considered.

    Dunn I assume in this scenario would be brought in to play LF. He too would be a huge upgrade compared to what we had in LF in 2010 (although not defensively–but no worse than Manny). He brings a lot of strikeouts, but also a lot of walks, which translates into a high OBP. If he hit .260 with 35-40 bombs, and an OBP at or about .400, he could be a force, especially if we had bounce back years from Ethier, Kemp and Loney. Add Beltre to that lineup, and they just might feed off of each other.

    If you’re thinking beyond 2011, and the lefthanded hitting Dee Gordon becomes part of the picture in 2012, then having Dunn, Ethier, Loney and Gordon in the lineup would make the Dodgers somewhat vulnerable to lefthanded pitching. But that’s probably overthinking the situation, because for now the overriding concern is 2011. Beyond that things would probably work themselves out, especially if the Dodgers are successful in 2011.

    My preference for the outfield would be Jayson Werth. He brings speed, power, and defense. His presence in the outfield would enable Ethier to return to leftfield, where he’s better defensively, especially given that his arm beomes a big plus at that position.

    And, of course, the Dodgers need to add a pitcher or two, or three.

    All of the above is dependent on McCourt’s willingness to spend. Until we know the answer to that, it’s all pretty nebulous.

  8. Badger says:

    I agree that Dunn and Beltre would make the Dodgers better. But, I also agree with Brooklyn that until we know more about how solvent McNeutered is, how can we believe he can afford either of those guys? The bidding is going to be high for players like them, and we don’t outbid anyone anymore. Our owner is living on borrowed money people, he is in the middle of a nasty, costly divorce. Face it, it just doesn’t look good for the immediate future.

    Speaking of not looking good, I see the gints wore their softball jerseys tonight.

  9. I agree with Anonymous….McCourt could make a splash. Remember this..no one, and i mean NO ONE….thought we would sign Zach Lee. Time will tell.
    Mark-I agree with you….Gurnee;s ideas were…..how you say…..ridiculous. His trade ideas are terrible. Like their blog….don’t like his ideas.

  10. AnewBlueDay/Roger Dodger says:

    Badger, to pick up on your post above –

    I see this organization going 1 of 2 ways:

    A) McCourt sells, new ownership comes in, and it is a totally new day for the Dodgers . . . the sky is back, the darkness goes away, and we “play ball.”

    B) McCourt keeps the team and tries to make it work by becoming more involved with the day to day operations. Is visibly around.

    Maybe he picks up some new funds, maybe he continues to cut costs in other areas, maybe his (ex)wife is gone totally.

    He signs a fringe player or two. Makes a few medium level trades. The team comes to Spring Training — with hope and more clarity. BUT we know it is not a championship type team. IF everyone on the final 25 man roster has career years — maybe they make it in the post season for 2011. Key, can this team find passion, a heart, and do the things needed to win games. But the other teams will be ahead of them. So, we continue to play hope against reality.

    ———–

    Footnote: almost everyone here, and in Dodgerland has said: if only Russ Martin would stop trying to pull the ball and hit it out of the park — but instead, go the other way once and awhile, go up the middle, try to hit some singles when it is called for, move a runner over, get the sac fly when needed — he would be a solid player again.

    Here is my take on those words — do you not think he has NOT heard that, read that, and had it said to him by the hitting coaches??? Is he the only person in Dodgerworld that, that is new to???? He just refuses to do it. That tells me he has some un-coaching data in his brain.

    If baseball were back about 12 years, and he were taking “the stuff” like others took then, maybe, just maybe he would hit 20 HRs, 105 RBIs, hit .295, etc. But we are not there — Russ Martin needs to play, within himself . . .

  11. Badger says:

    Zach Lee cost $5 million over 5 years. I think Cliff Lee might expect a bit more than that.

    But, point taken. It sure surprised me.

    Didn’t Ken mention the Dodgers are about as deferred out as they can get?

  12. Badger says:

    Don’t have the time right now, but there is a site that shows where all balls in play are hit. Seems to me I remember Martin making a lot of outs to center and right, but I could be wrong about that.

    I agree with your take Roger. Frank firing a front office minion and taking over doesn’t mean a thing to me. It’s not like we can sign a free agent with the money saved firing Mannion. And what the heck does Frank know about running a baseball team? He knows Boston parking lots and litigation, that’s how he got enough reputation to leverage his way into ownership.

  13. Badger says:

    Here’s a chart on Martin….. looks like most of his hits are center/right, and most of his outs are center left. There are a lot of ground outs to the left side – maybe those are middle outside pitches he is trying yank?

    http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/player/russell-martin/hitchart/348529

  14. lawdog says:

    McGoo go out and sign some real FAs? Yeah right! And pigs will start flying in 2011 too. :shock:

    If Mcgoo could mortgage his immortal soul to get some cash he’d do it. Unfortunately, I’m afraid he’s probably already sold that asset. If he could raise the money it would take, he’d spend it on a private jet for his sons and a condo in Thailand. No FA in his right mind would come here in the “dollar down, chase me around plan. :roll:

    Until McBastard is forced to sell the team, and let that court order come soon, ‘m araid we’ll see more Jan Castros and Casey Blakes before we’ll see Adrian Beltres or Dunns. :mrgreen:

    This parasite has got to be removed from the Dodger bodyand pronto! :mad:

  15. AnewBlueDay/Roger Dodger says:

    Hey Lawdog, best you take three whites and a yellow. Then, walk around the bock once (Note: if you live on the edge of a cliff, then just walk back and forth in your front year for twenty minutes).

    If I were HE, I would go out and find a few folks with some excess play money and have them invest as a silent partner, and then sign the “A” type players and stand back and let the Dodgers move forward.

  16. lawdog says:

    Problem with the silent partner is that McGoo has screwed everybody he’s ever formed any kind of a joint venture with over the years. Only a real rube would invest in a business that he has no control over and will be managed by a crook like McGoo.

    That’s like buying a lawsuit against an insolvent man.

    Oh well, J.P. Barnum did say there’s a sucker born every minute. However, they usually don’t have bazillions to invest in a sucker’s deal. :cry:

  17. lawdog says:

    Hitler reacts to the Randy Moss trade. (Don’t tell him McGoo is going to try and keep the Dodgers.) :roll:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0dCd8-4Skw

  18. Mark Timmons says:

    Lawdog,

    Of all people, you should know better. If the Court ordered McCourt to sell the team, there would be 3-5 years of appeals.

    Is that what you really want?

  19. lawdog says:

    There will be appeals no matter what the court does. And I can tell you now that the Supreme Court will refuse to hear it if the ruling is that the “ambiguous” marital property division is unenforcable and therefore finds the team must be ordered sold to effect the division of community property now. And an appellate court will make shorter shrift of the case if the property agreement is thrown out and the team ordered sold than if the trial court tries to jam the obviously ambiguous property division down Jamie’s throat and awards the team to McGoo.

    You’ll have a lot shorter appeals process if the court rules for Jamie than the other way around. Plus, I doubt McGoo has the wherewithal to bond the judgment while the appellate process goes forward so there’s a chance the Dodgers will be sold before the appeal is ultimately heard. His appeal would be frivolous i any event. The judge would clearly be within his discretion to find a signed agreement that was unilaterally changed as to the most significant provision by one of the parties after both had executed the agreement which favored Jamie at the outset. If he ignores the fact that the writing was unilaterally modified by Frank after both had signed it, the appeal will last much longer because he really doesn’t have a way around the statutes and cases which require any modification to the original writing to also be in writing and signed by both parties.

    So actually, the appellate process will grind on much longer if the team isn’t ordered sold Mover.

  20. Mark Timmons says:

    Lawdog,

    You may be right, but either way it’s 3-5 years!

  21. lawdog says:

    You might be surprised how fast it could turn around if there is no reason to overturn the judge’s ruling. No matter how high the rollers happen to be involved in the litigation, I’ve seen frivolous appeals practically dismissed out of hand by the appellate court in a very short time. The Supreme is most likely going to refuse to even consider the matter if the “aggrieved” party can’t make much of a case for reconsideration in it’s request for a hearing t that level.

    I guess what’s Im saying is that a ruling for Jamie would be on solid grounds and Frank’s appeal would be considered frivolous. On the other hand, a ruling for Frank would create very serious issues to be considered on appeal. The matter could well go all the way up to the Supreme Court if Frank prevails and Jamie is the one to appeal. Consequently, I think the Dogs being ordered sold will get the matter resolved long before a ruling the other way around.

    But you are right that either way there will be some sort of appeal raised by the loser. A party with the law on it’s side usually gets the win with a short appeal process while a party trying to change established law has a long process to go through to keep the trial judge’s verdict while the loser with the law on it’s side has a longer appeals process and ultimately a chance to have the matter reversed and returned for a new trial.

  22. lawdog says:

    In any event, the appellate process will probably end up sending both the McGoos into bankruptcy court before the matter is final if they don’t sell the franchise and cut their losses.

  23. Badger says:

    When this thing gets appealed, what happens to the bank accounts?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks


Leave a Reply

Mandatory Daily Dodger Reading