Categorized | Mark Timmons

Winter Meetings Heating Up

Winter Meetings Heating Up

I don’t understand why they didn’t have the Winter Meetings in Indianapolis again so I could easily attend.  What were they thinking? 

It’s old news that the Dodgers are interested in the following players, although they presumably won’t sign them all:

  • Russ Martin
  • Vicente Padilla
  • Matt Diaz
  • Scott Podsednik
  • An “Unnamed” LF

Source: Tony Jackson

Disclaimer:  These are rumors and can be hazardous to your health.

The “Divorce” won’t be over or even a final ruling made today, but according to THE LA TIMES:

Judge Gordon will rule TODAY on the validity of a marital agreement that would provide Frank McCourt with sole ownership of the Dodgers, according to multiple sources familiar with the case.

This should be interesting and remember, it’s not over, regardless of how the judge rules.

I think the Dodgers will get a deal or two done, but it appears that they have nothing big in the works.  At least, that’s what they are wanting everyone to think.  Stay tuned…

About Mark Timmons

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

35 Responses to “Winter Meetings Heating Up”

  1. Michael says:

    His lips are moving so he must be lying. Neds denial makes me think there really might be something to the Fielder deal.

    Do Badgers hibernate?

  2. Corey says:

    No Badgers head to Pasadena for the Rose Bowl! lol

  3. Brooklyn Dodger says:

    I believe Badger said that he was going away for a while.

  4. Brooklyn Dodger says:

    According to MLB rumors (above), the Dodgers are close to a deal with Padilla.

    Rumors can definitely be hazardous to your health. And they also can waste of lot of your time. They should be avoided like the plague.

    I imagine that the Dodgers could get a deal or two done. But it’s also possible that they could just lay the groundwork for future deals. So I wouldn’t despair if this were to drag on over the next couple of months, or more.

  5. Roger Dodger says:

    Last night MLB Network talked at length on the Milwaukee / Dodger possible trade with Loney-Broxton for Prince.

    Of course, the usual thing is, is Prince a one year deal, or would he sign a multi-deal right away. Would hate to have Loney-Broxton go for a year rental.

    But Prince’s bat would really make a difference.

  6. Bill Russell says:

    I feel the same way as Roger on the Fielder rumors which makes us both walking on the fence with no true opinion. On one hand, you hate to give away two players like Loney and Broxton for a one year rental. On the other hand, Fielders bat could bring some thunder to the lineup this year. I guess Ned would be saying that Broxton is a project to fix and Loney wouldn’t be resigned after this year.
    Reports that I heard yesterday was that many felt Broxton was pitching scared the second half of last year. Stay tuned

  7. Brooklyn Dodger says:

    There is no doubt that Fielder would be a one-year rental. His agent is Boras, who, unless there is a sudden change in how he operates, never does extensions prior to a player’s free agent year. The questions are:

    1. Do the Dodgers want to take on Fielder’s contract for 2011, which is estimated will be about $15-20 million.

    2. Are the Dodgers confident, in the event that Fielder doesn’t sign with them after 2011, that Jerry Sands would be ready to take over at 1B, and that Broxton could also be replaced in the bullpen (e.g., RDLR, etc.)?

    Assuming that the deal was done, it is likely that in the case of Fielder, the Dodgers would offer arbitration next year, and be in line to receive 2 draft picks if Fielder left.

  8. Bill Russell says:

    The other thing to consider is that the Yankees, Phillies and Red Sox all have long term contracts for their 1st basemen. So with the three biggest money players out of the running, will Fielder get the huge contract in 2012? Pujols will also be on the market in 2012. Pujols will probably get a crazy contract unless he gets hurt. But maybe the market will dry up some with the major players out. Too much for me to figure out.

  9. DRomo says:

    UH OH!

    Judge rules that Jamie is CO- OWNER !! Appeal time, Our team remains the laughing stock, The soap opera continues….

    Prince Fielder? Yeah he adds thump but do we really want to go down this road again?
    Tell me if this sounds familiar:
    We trade for a slugger. The guy can straight out hit for power and average. He is a free agent after the season. (For argument sake) He has a great season and the team does well, He will not accept arbitration or re-sign until he sees what the market has to offer, HE IS A BORAS CLIENT!, He will bend the Dodgers over a barrel next offseason when we have other guys to get locked up (namely Kemp and Ethier!!). It’s the Manny situation all over again! Did we not learn anything?
    Think fellas think!!
    Trading for this spoiled child, fat boy would be a horrible decision unless he was signed to an extension. And since he is a Boras client there is no way in hell he will do that!

  10. Badger says:

    Looks like you guys have been busy. I have a lot of catching up to do.

    I love Hawaii. We took our boys with us and stayed on the move, swimming with the sharks, submarine ride, boat rides, snorkeling the reefs and skydiving over North Shore. Good to be home, but, I coulda stayed another few months.

    No Pac 10 team in the Rose Bowl. Something weird about that.

    GO DUCKS!

    I didn’t read about any bats arriving yet, but I just got up after arriving home at 3 a.m.. What’s this about Dominican players bringing Beltre in here?

  11. Corey says:

    espn reporting padilla signed by dodgers for 1 year $2mil

  12. Ken says:

    Padilla – Very good now how much are the incentives?

    Broxton – Make him the closer and tie Honeycutt’s job to Broxton’s performance. They both stay or both go.

    PostNup – Waiting for the actual ruling and whether the Judge has the b…. to write the word “fraud” in his opinion.

    Signings – After Padilla just 2 OF who bat right handed and the Dodgers are probably done. Any additional signings would be very nice but unexpected.

  13. Ken says:

    How about a 40 man roster update?

    I sense that there are 3-5 marginal players who are out of options. With Padilla the Dodgers have 38 players but how many will they lose because of lack of options? Hu?, Paul?

  14. Brooklyn Dodger says:

    I think we now know why Frank accepted judge Lichtman’s settlement proposal. Think maybe he had an inkling as to the what Gordon’s decision would be? Maybe the same can be said as to why Jamie did not accept it.

    Now the question is whether or not this will clear the air enough to allow for a settlement, or whether it will result in an appeal and continued legal wrangling. Could there be a sale in here somewhere? Maybe, maybe not. And maybe dromo is correct and “The soap opera continues….”

  15. lawdog says:

    The only true solution to the Dodger problem now that the trial court has given the dragon lady co-ownership is to get mad enough to totally boycott Dodger games and products. Force the McGoos into bankruptcy by denying them a profit margin to further backload their debts and a bankruptcy court would force a sale of the club. Otherwise, we’ll continue to field mediocre clubs and finish around .500 (If we hit on all cylinders and our mediocre geezers play over their heads.)

    LA Dodgers deserve better than that, as do the club’s fans.

    The only way to get rid of these parasites is to deprive them of their cash cow.

    • Ken says:

      I am very happy that the Judged ruled in the manner that he did. Now the real legal work begins. CP versus SP versus QCP. Van Kamp or Pereira. Income Available for Support. Large issues. Possibily large enough for Bud and the other owners to step into this mess in the best interest of baseball in order to prevent 5 more years of public embarassment.

      If the owners do not step into this mess and get rid of the McCourts then they should allow Pete Rose into the HOF. The McCourts gambled their way into MLB and continue to leverage the team to such an extent that their operations of the Dodgers is tantamount to gambling.

      The only way that the McCourts can afford to keep the Dodgers is if they sell most of their real estate, give Frank a salary with half of it going to Jamie as alimony. No more fancy living or LD’s boycott might actually occur.

      This is great news in the long run because they either will fight and both lose or both significantly compromise and the fans win. Let Jamie eat cake.

  16. Badger says:

    I agree with Ken’s analysis. The ruling could force a settlement very quickly, at least, the smart move would be for Frankenjamie to do that.

    But, smart? These two have royally screwed this thing up and it may be too late for smart.

    Frank has been doing the winter shopping and signing thing in duel effort to marginally improve the club and convince season ticket holders it’s business as usual. What happens now? I can see thousands of fans staying away from this mess to send a message – SELL THE TEAM!

    from dodgerdivorce:

    “This is Selig’s train crash. There is no way MLB will let these two co-exist in any sort of ownership structure for the team. If the court rules it as a joint asset, and one party cannot buy out the other (which is impossible given their finances), then they will be forced to sell.”

    The court can force a sale or the MLB can. There is a provision in the contract that exists between the owners and league that allows the MLB to require a sale for the good of the league or something like that.

    The McCourts had better accept the fact that a settlement should have already happened, they dropped that ball, and now before this goes any further…… agree to something.

  17. lawdog says:

    I don’t see any settlement coming until we get deep into the appellate court system. The parties are just too angry and stubborn to give an inch to each other. I’ve never seen more hate anywhere other than in a divorce court between to parties litigating everything down to the kids, a cat and a clock. I’ve never seen anymore hated between divorcing parties than appears to exist between what I’ve seen so far from the McGoos.

    I don’t think selling real estate will save their butts now as the market is not coming back and they’re probably “under water” on their speculative real estate investments. You they’re motto is: never invest a penny more than you have to and back load as much as you can.”

    Our only hope is that they’re forced to sell the Dodgers either by the league or through bankruptcy. They’ll both fight to the financial ruin of them both otherwise. Mark my words. I can sense disaster awaits them both and they’ll end up taking the team down with them.

    Kind of like Hitler and Germany during the end of the European part of WWII.

  18. DRomo says:

    Wow Lawdog! Did you just drop a Hitler bomb on the McCourts?

  19. lawdog says:

    Maybe too exteme of an analogy. The McGoos aren’t mass murderers. Bu the are almost as “vile” in their own way and they are not likely to go down without dragging the Dodgers down with them just out of spite like Hitler tried to do to Germany before he committed suicide. That’s why I used the extreme analogy . And it’s just a feeling I get when i watch them in “action”.

  20. Mark Timmons says:

    Personally, I don’t think this changes much. I suspect that the arbitrator added up the value of the assets and said “here’s the deal: Frank gets the Dodgers, Jamie gets the houses. The houses are worth $175 million and there are $50 million in loans on them (just making that number up). The Dodgers are worth $700 million and there are $475 million in loans on that property.

    The net value of the Dodgers in $225 million. The net value of the homes is $125 million. That means that Frank owes Jamie $50 million.”

    That’s what I see!

  21. Bobby says:

    mark, and all the lawyers out there (i’m just law school grad, not a lawyer yet :)

    here’s a scenario going off of mark’s math above:

    if the dodgers net value is $225, would frank making a trade for fielder, and then signing fielder to a 6 yr 120mil deal perhaps lower the net value of the dodgers because of that huge committment?

    if so, would frank do that to lower the perceived value of the dodgers, and thus he’d owe jamie even less?

    i thought about that today while hearing about the judge’s ruling, and how this could actually help increase the payroll now for frank’s personal benefit (and, to all of our benefit as well)

  22. lawdog says:

    I think it’s more likely that the houses are worth $75 million and the McGoo’s owe $150 million on them. I don’t think those of you who think the McGoo’s have any net value in their real estate (purchased at the apex of the real estate bubble and undoubtedly leveraged to the hilt) realize how much the real estate market has plummeted. Up here in Seattle where values have stayed relatively higher than most other areas I watched our own “value” in our home drop from $550,000 to approximately $280,000 which puts us about $30,000 under water. With foreclosures all around us the market is just getting worse ever day.

    LA has been hit with some of the worst decline in real estate values than any other area.

    As to Bobby’s idea, I think McGoo might consider such a plan to scare the dragon lady into selling her interest to him if he could get such a FA to backload 95% of the deal. But if she’s now co-owner, how can he now do anything without her consent? I’d hate to see what kind of lawsuit McGoo is about to file against that law firm that screwed the pooch on drafting the deal that has now been tossed by the judge. Unless the ruling is somehow reversed on appeal, such a suit is a slam dunk policy limits case against the firm’s malpractice carrier.

    I’ll bet that won’t be enough for him. He’ll probably end up with all the assets the law firm and it’s partners actually have.

  23. DRomo says:

    My head hurts!

    Seriously I don’t see us trading for Fielder. It would just be bad business for the future. Then we would have a HUGE hole at 1B next season and still at catcher. Lets not forget we have a starter now that was a career backup and he is only signed for 1 year! Garland and Kuroda will be gone and Kemp and Ethier will be up!

  24. Mark Timmons says:

    The Dodgers just signed Tony Gwynn, Jr. (allegedly). Maybe he will magically start hitting like his 500 pound father.

    Maybe pigs will fly…

  25. Ken says:

    I just read the Judge’s “Statement of Decision”

    He did not accuse them of fruad.

    He did conclude that they both had severe credibility issuea regarding their testimony.

    He came close to implying that the attorneys who drafted the MPA committed malpractice by not understanding the law of both MASS and Calif.

    He set the table for the next issue – Are the Dodgers Frank’s seperate property becasue they were acquired from the proceeds of Frank’s seperate proprty plus debt that Jamie refused to be a part of?

    The next trial should first determine the above issue. The next issue is whether Jamie has an interest in the increase in value of the Dodgers from date of purchase until a future date. That future date can be either the date of seperation (usually for a professional firm) or date of trial (normally for an active trade or business). Presuming the Judge decides that the date of trial is the approriate date to determine value you can bet that Jamie will postpone this trial until the Cable deal is signed. Post trial increase in value does not count which means that future income does not count which means that forecasts do not count when detemining value based upon profitability. Jamie will have to convince the court to determine value based upon Market value or what someone will pay for the dodgers. This meas she had better put a dream team of investors together that are willing to pay $1 billion for all of the Dodger bundle of rights.

    The next issue is whether Pereira or Van Camp will detemine how to allocate the increase in value to Jamie. The Pereira formula takes the initial value times 1 plus the number of years times an annual reasonable rate of return. This gives you the value of Frank’s seperate interest. Subtract Frank’s seperate interest from today’s value and you get the community property interest. Half to Frank and half to Jamie. ($425 plus 6 years times 10% or at least $42 million per year, or almost $700 mil. Subtract this number form teh curent value of the Dodgers) Not that much left for Jamie so she will try to get the court to agree to apply the Van Camp allocation method which could give Jamie a significant portion of the value of the Dodgers.

    Jamie “We have not yet begun to fight!!”

  26. Michael says:

    I sure hope we get that other bat before Bud steps in takes away Franks checkbook. Soon after Frank got all of his pop bottles and monopoly money together to get ownership approval, Bud stepped in and wouldn’t let him sign Vlad.

    No checks accepted, Cash only

  27. chucky says:

    When valuing a company for sale you take what you think they will make in the next 5-10 years (using by using an adjusted EBITDA) and factor that by the value of the brand and typically comparison sales of companies in that industry(3-8 times EBITDA is the rule of thumb). You then add in the adjusted value of the assets. It is not just worth less debt (no matter where you get the worth number)

    I heard that the rejected settlement probably included a small share of the company to be given to the MRS.(example was about 15%)

    An interesting strategy could be; spend as much as possible to make the company worth less (San Diego did just the opposite; sell off the high salaries so that the price would come down and someone would buy the company). The Dodgers will not have a lack of buyers.

  28. Mark Timmons says:

    We are a long way from MLB stepping in. It could happen, but right now there is a lot of legal ground to cover and the McCourts have to consider that it will be VERY expensive.

    I predict a settlement before years’ end.

  29. Jared Massey says:

    Ned Colletti stated that the Dodgers have talked to the Kansas City Royals. He wouldn’t specify which player they inquired about, but we can only hope it was Zach Greinke. However, with the moves that have been made recently, it was probably Jason Kendall.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/news/story?id=5896878

  30. Bill Russell says:

    If the Dodgers are in on Greinke, you can bet Billingsley would be part of the package.

  31. Mark Timmons says:

    It would have to be a 3-way deal because I don’t see KC taking him, unless they want to trade him later.

  32. Bobby says:

    if we got greinke, bills would be off to milwaukee with loney to get fielder.

    that would improve the team, and devalue the team (good for frank)

Trackbacks/Pingbacks


Leave a Reply

Mandatory Daily Dodger Reading