according to tony jackson, the dodgers made some "initial overtures" to several free agents this week at the GM meetings, including brian giles. he also says that the payroll is "expected to shrink to somewhere in the $75 million to $80 million range".

http://www.dailynews.com/search/ci_3207672

Will be interesting to see if any free agents are willing to sign with a team that has neither a GM nor a field manager. But maybe the opportunity (however slight) to play along side Milton Bradley and Jeff Kent will be enough to convince them to sign.

Speaking of Milton:

"Talented and troubled Milton Bradley could be a choice (for the Yankees), but the Dodgers believe there will be an active trade market for him, a source said. It's believed that five other teams are interested - the A's, Cubs, Nationals, Pirates and Tigers. Jim Tracy, Bradley's former manager with the Dodgers, is now the Pirates' skipper and he thinks highly of the 27-year-old's talent."

http://tinyurl.com/9rw9c

the pirates do need outfielders...

but if it's already predestined that the dodgers are intent on trading bradley, then i would love to see a kotsay/bradley/payton outfield in oakland, probably with swisher and payton rotating back and forth. that might be the best defensive outfield in the majors.

i don't know who we'd trade him for, though.

Will be interesting to see if any free agents are willing to sign with a team that has neither a GM nor a field manager.
If the money is right, free agents will sign with the Chicago Whales.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHH/

Check out the pennant race in the 1915 Federal League.

It was the closest in major league history.

[6] odd that the teams didn't play the same number of games. that's no way to run a league.

Anybody around here hear anything about the Troy Glaus rumors?

here's an interesting article about aj burnett and how he's been thinking about his upcoming free agency payday since march, with buddy carl pavano telling him that the yankee players all have bentleys and ferraris. and you know things are good when your agent can just come out and say that he expects your contract will be "relatively exorbitant just in terms of sheer dollars".

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/sports/13094270.htm

(registration required, but just use bugmenot)

""""""' The Dodgers already have $58.66 million committed to nine players for 2006, and with the payroll expected to shrink to somewhere in the $75 million to $80 million range, that leaves no more than about $22 million with which to fill the other 16 spots on the season-opening roster. """"""""

lower and lower payroll, mediocre and more mediocre teams.
mccourt is killing this franchise.

10
It was mostly dead when McCourt arrived. She's just beating a mostly dead horse.

10 - having a low payroll in 2006 isn't the worst thing that could happen. I;d rather have the money to available to go after some great players next year than waaay overpay for a Burnett or Giles.

Has anybody looked ahead to the 2007 free agent class yet?

12
the payroll will be even lower next year.
this franchise is going down the toilet.
i bet mccourt fired depodesta just to have an excuse to not be active in the free agent market.

mccourt is only in this to make money, as soon as he loses money he will sell.

and as long as people support the team enough and as long as mccourt keeps his liabilities (payroll) low enough, he won't sell.

this team could have been great for years to come, if depodesta was kept and payroll was increase a little bit to about 115 million.

now that i've looked at other teams minor league players, we don't have any superstar minor leaguers, we just have a bunch of above average minor leaguers, guys that could easily tank.

no clear future superstar major leaguers.

i see alot of minor leaguers on other teams that have put up better stats than dodgers minor leaguers, we just have more above average minor leaguers than other teams.

other teams have a couple outstanding minor leaguers and nothing else, we have no outstanding minor leaguers, but a lot of above average minor leaguers.

ESPN's ombudsman didn't care for the simulated news conferences particularly because real ESPN reporters participated.

http://tinyurl.com/awx78

There's a lot of discussion of Terrell Owens before that part.

I don't know if anyone has broght this up here before, but this morning it struck me suddenly how much the LA Times is paralleling our LA Dodgers. Especially after yesterday with the odd firing of OpEd regular Bob Scheer and Cartoonist Michael Ramirez.

Both owners, the Tribune Co's and the McCourt's seem to be hell bent on running their properties into the ground, and they are doing it in a most alarming pace.

That's why this morning, I canceled the LA Times, even when they offered me once again, an even cheaper subscription, then the cheaper subscription, then the cheaper subscription rate they've offered everytime I've gone to cancel the paper in the past.

I feel sorry for some of you guys that work there. It must be a living hell not knowing whether your coming or going.

Nothing really seems to go to plan does it?

Nothing like the word ombudsman to kill a conversation.

[15] psst, tommy!

http://dodgerthoughts.baseballtoaster.com/archives/287685.html

it occurred to jon just yesterday :)

Thanks Vishal and my apologies to Jon. I didn't get to do much in-depth reading yesterday.

Bob, This is from Jon's LAT/Dodgers thread:

[19.] Bob Timmermann
"I've probably been reading the LA Times as I have been conscious of being a Dodgers fan.

Yet, I don't get the LA Times and I will likely go to just as many Dodger games as I have in the past and watch as many on TV."

The stench of being a Times subscriber/reader never really does go away does it?

14. The ESPN ombudsman doesn't seem to be having an effect. ESPN just keeps getting worse and worse.

20

I truly think that if all the FSN's got some sort of local sports-center more often than the SoCAl report and there would be less horse racing that nobody would watch ESPN anymore.

They also need to eliminate all those morning 'Paid Programs,' but it is there for the taking!

21. FSN tried a national sports show at ther inception and got creamed.

ESPN will continue to dominate because they have the national sports packages.

Also they are making suc a profit now that Fox would have to commit themselves to huge losses for many years to even try to compete.

13 How does it feel to have the number one movie at the box office?

Does anyone know how to make it so that the promo videos on the ESPN.com site don't start playing for no particular reason?

I have Firefox.

It's very annoying.

22 Sort of on the same topic...

The Yankees have their own sports network with revenues of $150 million a year. The Mets are about to start one, and because of that anticipated revenue, they expect to be able to go after several FA's this winter and/or pay ManRam's salary.

Why don't all teams do this? And more to the point, why don't the Dodgers?

I expect part of the answer lies in the Fox Sports West contract, which was designed to prevent the Dodgers from going that route. But why did they sign a contract like that, if the additional revenues would make such a difference?

I hope the next owner, after McCourt and Fox, has a more creative approach to capitalizing on the fact that Southern California is an immense market, but its signal baseball franchise has a budget closer to a mid-level region's.

Because when you say "McCourt is just trying to make money," you're right, but he has no choice--he's got to pay off his loans. He's not a crafty businessman, leveraging his investment to reap immense profits. He's an idiot. The only difference between any of you and Frank McCourt is McCourt was able to talk bankers into lending him scads of money. His management abilities would barely keep a doughnut shop on Venice Boulevard afloat.

We want an owner who's looking to make big money. Arte Moreno isn't doing what he's doing because he hates money. He expects to turn a profit, and I'd bet on him. McCourt is just floundering, and that's why the payroll is low. He doesn't know how to make it go higher.

Oh, and BTW...Go Bears!

25
You allude to a few things that have puzzled me.

1. Since McCourt and her husband had to borrow the money to purchase the team, couldn't ANYONE borrow money and purchase a team?

2. Since McCourt and her husband didn't have the money on hand to purchase the team, why would the league allow them to purchase the team? Shouldn't the fact that they didn't have the money be an indication that they won't have the money to spend on improving the team?

Which total will be higher today?

Leinart TD passes?
Ayoob interceptions?

lol!

ayood is winning with one so far.

There's one interception.

28
GM candidates that reject the Dodgers?

I feel somewhat sorry for Ayoob because I think most of his problems are psychological. I've never seen a QB with Steve Blass Disease. He'd probably fare better if he hadn't had all the hype of being the next Aaron Rodgers.

27 It puzzles me too. The conspiracy theory I've read here (and I generally avoid conspiracy theories) is that Bud Selig liked the idea of a financially constrained owner in the nation's #2 market. His big fear has been that 'big markets' like LA or Chicago would inevitably swallow up all the best players, leaving teams like the Brewers and Royals forever on the outs. Selig was against the far wealthier Eli Broad buying the team out from under McCourt, even though anyone in LA could tell you that Broad is the tycoon you would want involved. (He's not a nice guy, but he's also not someone content to be mediocre.)

We're being punished for Kevin Malone's sin of signing Kevin Brown to that massive contract.

if you go to milb.com you can watch a feed of the dodgers AFL players. i think all of them are in the lineup.

75-80 million dollar payroll is pathetic.

16-21 million to upgrade is also pathetic.

especially when the 16-21 million has to go to 16 players.

the mininum salary is 300 something thousand, lets say it 350,000, multiply that time 14 players = 4,900,000, that leaves 11-16 million for 2 players.

actually we have many 2nd and 3rd year players, so its more like 7,000,000 if not more

do the math, maximum 7 million each for a starting pitcher and a bat if not less, basically another weaver and a mediocre bat.

this is pathetic.

33
How long does Gibby's deal with Satan last?

re 35

its just speculation. dont get all mad when we dont even know if its true yet.

33-- Fox had the Dodgers for sale for YEARS, and Broad never showed any interest. Same with his "involvement" as a potential owner of any new LA NFL team. For a man who gets want he wants in LA (ie being able to push through his vision of the redevelopment of Grand Ave in downtown), the fact that all he did was posture is telling.

The myth that Broad would be a great, local owner who would save us from the McCourts is just that, a myth. He had ample opportunity to step up to the plate (same with the NFL), and passed on it.

10- What's the deal with all the quotation marks? Are you the guy who gets royalties every time one is used?

35 As you can see from the toolbar on the right, 2nd and 3rd year players only make slightly more than rookies.

wow.

kemp is 3-3 and a triple short of the cycle

laroche just hit his first AFL homerun. a rocket to right field.

go dodgers.

Those are " which are © werthgagne31, All Rights Reserved except in the Philippines.

Notre Dame did one of the most respectful, if not classy things I have ever seen in college football after the game just now. They actually followed the Navy players over to the corner of the stadium where the Naval cadets and their fans were sitting and listened to them sing their alma mater.

Go Irish!

It should be noted that regardless of McCourt's now undeniable incompetence, nothing will kill this team faster than a $100 million payroll in 2006. There are far more people who should be afraid and outraged that McCourt would panic, scramble to keep a "promise" which was stupid in the first place, and start throwing money at the current crop of free agents, all of whom make Jason Repko look like a tempting option in centerfield next year.

re 13

i disagree with your statements that we only have above average players in the farm.

we are going to have 3 players in the top 20 of BAs top 100 this upcoming spring. probably 5 in the top 50.

you also have to take into context age vs level of play. dodgers have always pushed their prospects hard and let them face higher competition. Look at joel guzman, he was only 20 in the southern league- a lot of teams have 20 yr old prospects in the SAL league. Hunter pence, the astros slugger got tons of publicy for killing the Sally league, and he was 22 there!

43

I watch "Knute Rockne, All-American" and cheer when George Gipp dies.

Every time Notre Dame wins a football game, Jesus cries.

44 And your just recognizing this now? We may not agree on much, but one thing we have in common is the dislike for the family known as McCourt.

See, there is common ground after all.

47You are going to burn in Hell! George Gipp was a saint. He was also a president.

48

Hmm my choices are:
1) Root for Notre Dame
2) Go to Hell

Where do I sign up for option 2?

Whomever said they saw Matt Leinart in a LA hat at a Laker game, well are you sure it wasn't an LA Angels of Anaheim hat like he was just wearing on TV?

49
Fill out one of these:

LADodgerGMJobApplication.doc

Bob,
Next year is going to be a banner year when the Irish destroy Uclah.

Speaking of which, did anybody go see Jesus is Magic, last night? Is it worth driving from the IE to Irvine for? It'll be in Pasadena next Friday, but not till the day after I already have to drive out there for Microsoft's SQL Server/Visual Studio shindig. Maybe if I email Bill Gates, he'll push that back a day, to more completely meet my needs. . .

I will worry about next season in the Fall of 2006.

My abiding distaste of Notre Dame is so great that I root for USC, Stanford, and BYU when they play them.

One day I will have to post my 95 theses on why I hate Notre Dame.

loney is getting pretty big. filling out nicely. The natural power will come.

D4P, Very good!

Who do we want to buy the Dodgers? Who can afford the Dodgers? Here are two candidates.

Eli Broad: Age: 72. Broad ranks as the 39th richest person in America, with assets of $5.5 billion. Forbes profile: http://tinyurl.com/2gjv4
Broad Foundation: http://tinyurl.com/a9bm5
Investors Daily
http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=21&issue=20051104

Philip Anschutz Age: 65 Forbes: Net Worth: $7.2 billion Source: Investments. Self made.
Marital Status: Married, 3 children
Hometown: Denver, CO Education: University of Kansas, Bachelor of Arts / Science
Father owned contract drilling company. Phil bought dad out 1961, struck big in Wyoming, Utah. Moved into stocks, real estate, railroads. Laid fiber along rail lines, took public as Qwest Communications. Now runs wide-ranging empire in telecom, sports, entertainment. Biggest holding: theater chain Regal Cinemas. Also owns LA's Staples Center, stakes in pro basketball's LA Lakers, hockey's Kings. Promotes family-values agenda through various motion picture projects. Next film: C.S. Lewis' The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe.

FYI - TinyURL seems to be having problems today.

Fight On! Go USC!

Bob,
Even Ted Kacynski had to have a manifesto...

55 Do you think he is using the Clear?

Jon has weighed in before for on Eli Broad. You might want to check the archives.

Philip Anschutz would have the opposite PR problem of the McCourts. Anschutz never appears in public or gives interview. And the Kings never had the reputation of spending a lot of money and lost many good players to free agency or trades because they didn't want to pay what they were worth.

Not BYU!

I even root for "God's Team 2.0" vs. "God's Team 1.0"!

54 - Bob, are you a Lutheran that still holds a Reformation-era grudge against the Catholic Church?

I ask this question of people who didn't attend Notre Dame?

Why do people choose to root for them?

If it has anything to do with religion, then why don't the same number of people root for Boston College?

It's all hucksterism.

24. Bob Timmermann

Go to your control panel, add and remove programs, find ESPNMotion and Remove.

Now, if we can just do that with the McCourts.

63
I'm a Catholic who holds a grudge against Notre Dame.

It is because Notre Dame was good for most of people's lives so they like them.

so kemp didnt get a triple in his last at bat... he homered instead.

so for the day he was 4-4 with a 2b and 2 homeruns. decent i guess.

No triple what a loser.

For those of you still reading the Times, you can see today in the lead story of the Calendar section what kind of talent Eli Broad thinks is worth $23.8 million. Hint: It's not A-Rod.

67
[rant]
But USC, Michigan, Alabama, and Oklahoma have all been successful too. It's just that Notre Dame has been force-fed to people to the Great Unwashed as the college football team that belongs to the average fan, when it really doesn't.
[/rant]

60. Bob - I read some of Jon's archived articles about Broad. They were written a BEFORE we knew just how woeful and miserable the McCourts ownership would truly turn out. I hope Jon will revist the topic soon and start a grass roots campaign to "change the Dodgers ownership."
I am not a proponent for either gentleman buying the Dodgers over the other -- I am simply a wishful thinker hoping someone will step up to the plate and offer the McCourts enough cash to convince them to bail out and head back for Boston. And, hopefully the next owner will be someone with plenty of money and closer ties to Los Angeles. Now, if you will excuse me, I have to run down to the local market and buy MegaLotto tickets. ;>)

71-
True. Plus Notre Dame has the whole mystique with Rudy and the Gipper and all that jazz. People think Notre Dame is college football.

Bringing up the name "Rudy" to me is like telling Steve that Jim Tracy has decided that he doesn't like Pittsburgh and wants to come back to work for the new Dodgers GM.

I hope Philip Anschutz would never buy the team. "Promoting family values" are words that scare me.

At the risk of getting in trouble at work, I don't think Broad is the answer. I've never endorsed the McCourts, but Broad just doesn't have the passion for baseball that you'd want.

The Dodgers need another option. But I really don't think we're going to see one for a few years.

"Promoting family values" would not be the problem with Anschutz. Anschutz just wouldn't want to spend a lot of money, but he would want to build a stadium downtown and turn Dodger Stadium into a giant mall with luxury apartments.

76. I politely disagree Jon. I think someone will view the current situation as an opportunity. Don't savvy business people try to buy properties with undervalued assets such as a prime location, loyal customers, strong "brand" recogition? (sorry about using that "word" here). The McCourts are deal makers -- not builders (despite their claims otherwise). If they get a good deal, they will sell. I'm betting sooner rather than later.

Let's get Michael Jordan to buy the team. He wants to own a franchise and he likes baseball hahaha.

I can't remember if this has been discussed, but a couple of recent articles at BP indicate that there are rumors the McCourts have decided to promote Kim Ng.

http://baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4601
(scroll down to the bit on LaRoche)

http://baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4598

I haven't been able to confirm these rumors on any other outlets yet.

80
Let's pretend for a moment that Ng becomes the new GM. Any experts out there care to speculate as to how Ng's approach would differ from Depo's?

78 - Mike, you're polite even without saying so :)

My question is, what's undervalued about the Dodgers?

Two years ago, they were perceived (true or not) as a money-losing franchise with a high payroll and stadium infrastructure issues. McCourt, like him or not, has apparently addressed or is addressing all three of those things.

The strengths of the team - location, customers - they're still there.

The only new problem with the team is the employee chaos.

Now sure, there is certainly an offer one could make to McCourt that he wouldn't refuse. But isn't it the point? It would have to be at a premium compared to the 2004 price. If you were going to by the team now, why wouldn't you have done it then?

I don't think McCourt will sell until a) he really needs the money, b) he starts losing money or c) all of Los Angeles comes at his house with torches and pitchforks. None of which appear to be happening yet.

But we can always revisit this in a year.

"Good Night and Good Luck"
Smart, simple, and short. Great recipe for a movie.

82. I believe the McCourts have actually lowered the value of the franchise. Yes, they have made some cosmetic improvements to the facility (and not all have been well-received). Yes, they have lowered the payroll, but at what cost to the product? And, the fans still showed up in 2005 in huge numbers. But can that last with the management of the team in such disarray?

A certain amount of any sports franchise's value is based on its success on the field - and its perceived ability to continue to be successful into the future. A team's perceived "success" value might be compared to a business valuation of goodwill - or an investor looking at a company's stock price as compared to its expected future earnings.

Imagine the value of the Dodgers if - they were a championship team, with a stable ownership, and respected leadership in both the dugout and in the GM chair, and the pipeline full of prospects to help continue the good times.

Wouldn't that be a scenario that would markedly increase the market value of the team?

With today's situation, I believe an Arte Moreno type could step in and take the Dodgers to a whole new level of value - and success on the field.

Well the Redskins have had the highest worth in the NFL for some years now and they have been constantly bad and underachieving until this year. With an owner that has a bad image and a constant changing of management and coaching. So on the field does not mean as much in my opinion. Look at the A's. Lew Wolfe got them pretty cheap.

84 - I guess that's where we disagree. It has only been one losing season. Meanwhile, as I wrote on BP yesterday, the team's TV contracts are lucrative and don't expire for 8-10 years. It won't take much, whoever the new GM is, to get the Dodgers to where they were pre-McCourt ... 80-92 wins per year.

And if nothing else, the move to fire DePodesta is an attempt to cultivate goodwill among the fan base. A bad attempt, in my opinion, but most people are happy.

The Dodgers really have had bad seasons and chaos before.

"Imagine the value of the Dodgers if - they were a championship team, with a stable ownership, and respected leadership in both the dugout and in the GM chair, and the pipeline full of prospects to help continue the good times."

- I have to go back to 1988 to imagine that. Has the team been going down in value since?

"With today's situation, I believe an Arte Moreno type could step in and take the Dodgers to a whole new level of value - and success on the field. "

I'd love to see it, but trust me, the Dodgers would be more expensive today than when McCourt bought them.

Public Service Anouncement: Comment number 23 makes a lot more sense if you know that the cartoon chicken movie beat out the $.50, one. It's possible I'm the only idiot who's spent the last two hours wondering about that. . .

That sort of makes sense, but I just figured it was a reference to something that went over my head.

86. Time for a dignified retreat. I guess a better argument for me to make - because you have expertly countered most of my subjective comments with cold hard facts - is to say that the value of the Dodgers as a business, and, more importantly as a successful baseball team, are both less than they should be - and that I definitely hold the McCourts accountable for that.

I will not argue the point that someone - anyone - would have to buy the Dodgers at a price greater than what the McCourts paid. I will argue, however, that if that someone had the capital to do so, they would have the opportunity to greatly increase the value of the team just by being better owners.

I am truthfully depressed to be discussing what's wrong with the business and management aspects of the Dodgers. I would much prefer reading, and commenting, on the players and the game of baseball. -- So, how many days until pitchers and catchers report for spring training?

84 -

Your feeling that the McCourt's actions have lowered the value of the team is just wishful thinking. I agree with Jon that the team is certainly worth more today then when they bought it.

My hope is that the McCourt's decide to run away from the horrible press they'll be getting over the next year or two and decide to make a large, quick profit by selling.

There are about 120 groups vying for ownership in DC. One of the losers would certainly be happy to buy the Dodgers. By the way, does anyone know the comparative values of the two teams?

" I will argue, however, that if that someone had the capital to do so, they would have the opportunity to greatly increase the value of the team just by being better owners."

No argument there.

*http://baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4601
(scroll down to the bit on LaRoche*

can someone post what it says on laroche or dodger prospects? i dont have a BP subscription.

a JtD update from rotoworld:

"Joel Guzman went 3-for-4 with two RBI yesterday to raise his DSL average to .360.
He has a .467 OBP and a .560 slugging percentage in 50 at-bats. He's probably not all that far away from the majors offensively. If only the Dodgers could decide where on the field he best fits."

excellent.

93 - At this point, I don't care where on the field he fits as long as he's in a Dodger uniform.

Nate,

The first link says:
"Andy LaRoche: Coming quickly, tearing up the league after a huge half-season at Vero Beach. Not to put to fine a point on this, but why doesn't the name "Logan White" come up more in baseball discussions? He's put together one hell of a farm system in Los Angeles, even as the rest of the organization was having its problems. If the rumors are true, Kim Ng has inherited a good baseball situation; it remains to be seen whether the ownership and media will allow her to succeed."

There's also a note on Reggie Abercrombie. It says unless he improves his plate discipline, he won't be too successful in the big leagues. Though he could be a useful extra outfielder.

The second link is just a link to the Kim Ng interview from awhile ago. It says:
"The Los Angeles Dodgers are reportedly on the verge of hiring Kim Ng as their GM to replace the recently fired Paul DePodesta. Ng sat down with Jonah Keri a couple years ago to discuss arbitration hearings, team building, and her candidacy for GM positions. Here's another look at the interview."

thanks fanerman.

all our top dodger prospects have played really well this winter. so at least there are some bright spots in the organization while the front office is going through turmoil.

JtD for Bob Wickman!

I'm in the McCourt's corner. The idiot writers of the LA Times hate him, the DT posters now hate him, the sabermetricians hate him, the old boys club hates him. You must be doing something right to have so many people hate you from both sides of the spectrum. Anytime Plaschke and Sheehan agree on a subject, something is fishy.

Why the hate:
1. LA Times - cause McCourt had the gall to buy the team without being stinky rich which meant he wasn't going to spend 120 million and buy a pennant which would help them sell papers and advertising. Cause he had the gall to hire a 31 year old Ivy league number crunching geek who just happened to have played a higher level of baseball then anyone employed by the Times and really wasn't a geek but anyone who wears glasses and can use a computer, you know is a geek in their eyes. In the two years the McCourts have owned the team they have fired/let go many old time Dodgers employee's who were friendly with the writers thus removing the sources for their behind the back stories. This is a crime because you know what a "great" job they had been doing in running the team, and when you spend 1/2 billion for a team and put everything at risk for the pleasure of owning a team why should you be able to pick who works for you. Then he fired the same GM that the writers had spent 24 months trying to get fired and they turned on him because Depo was now gone and he was the only one left as a target.

DT Posters - McCourt was a traitor to their sabermetric cause when he fired the man carrying their flag. For months McCourt was defended here from the many things that Tommy N would accuse him of because he had hired Depo in the 1st place and anyone who hired Depo must not be doing bad things. As soon as Depo was canned they jumped on McCourt like a pirrana on a bloody stump in the Amazon. Everything that anybody had ever said about McCourt was all the sudden true because of this one act.

Old School Dodger Fans - they take their cue from the LA Times, unable to formulate opinions on their own. They listen to talk radio and think the Big Nasty actually knows more then they do about sports. Sadly he probably does but that just shows how ignorant the masses are. They are happy Depo was fired but they still hate McCourt because, will because..., will because the Times says you should. If you were to ask the normal Dodger fan why they hate McCourt they would let fly with stereotypical answers
1. Doesn't spend enough money on payroll
2. Doesn't understand the Dodger way - the Dodger way doesn't exist but don't tell them that.
3. Is going to tear down Dodger Stadium - right, especially after spending millions each off season to modernize the stadium
4. Added more expensive seats and dared to change Dodger stadium - sure is a crime to try to make some money on a 1/2 billion dollar investment and modernize a stadium that is now the oldest in the NL except for the historical Wrigley field.
5. Keeps firing employee's - bad, very bad, everyone is a good employee, no one who works for the Dodgers should ever get fired. Not with the success that franchise has had.

I'm sure Tommy can come up with more specific reasons why the McCourts are such crappy owners. And he may very well be right

BUT

The McCourt's may or may not be lousy owners but just like in Depo's case, two years is not enough time to be burning them in hell. If Depo deserved more time then surely they deserve more time. They don't have a history of running a corporation like the Dodgers and because of that they have made tons of mistakes. Time will tell if they are jerks and can't learn from their mistakes or they are jerks who don't believe they ever made a mistake or just a stinky rich couple in over their heads for the first couple of years and with time will do us proud. Contrary to popular opinion they didn't make their money by being idiots or stupid. Just because they had to leverage their assets to buy the Dodgers doesn't mean they didn't build quite an empire to have the assets to leverage.

Someone asked why anyone couldn't just borrow the money and buy the Dodgers. You can if you have 1/2 billion in real estate on your ledger. That is the easy part. Getting the old boy Selig group to approve you is the hard part. They don't want an owner who is going to upset the apple cart. You can rest assured they would never let Mark Cuban buy a baseball team.

98 -- This day is called the feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian:'
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars.
And say 'These wounds I had on Crispin's day.'
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day: then shall our names.
Familiar in his mouth as household words
Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly remember'd.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember'd;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day!

Has anyone ever seen any statistical models that include "profits" as a dependent variable and things like win-loss records, attendance, salaries, location of team, etc. as independent variables?

I'd be curious to know which factors have the greatest influence on profit. There seems to be an implicit assumption that winning is good for profits, such that profit-maximizing owners will "naturally" do what it takes to win because it is in their best financial interest.

However, last year's Dodger team had a losing record, yet the McCourts still made money. And, I'm sure that there were probably teams with winning records who lost money (if not in 2005, then certainly in prior years).

In general, while it "sounds good" that owners should want to field the best team they can so as to maximize profits, I'm not convinced that such will necessarily be the case, and I'd like to see some evidence in this area.

100- I'm not sure it's possible, given that every owner lies about every aspect of every entry on his books. Maybe if you had subpoena power. . .

Wait, do you have subpoena power? Because that would rock.

101
The status of my subpoena power is classified. You'd have to subpoena me to access that information.

BTW, is there a worse word in the English language than "subpoena"?

Colonel, that word annoys me.

100 - I think Moneyball alluded that the most important thing was winning for attendance. Moreso than favorite players and what not.

87 Sorry for the confusion, I thought that joke would go over much better than it did. Hopefully most people simply didn't know which movie was #1 and moved on, that would be better for my pride :)

102 BTW, is there a worse word in the English language than "subpoena"?

"Utilize" That's the worst word I know. Absolutely unnecessary. It means EXACTLY the same thing as "use," but people use (ahem) "utilize" to sound sophisticated, especially in sports. I've even heard sportscasters say "use," then stop and correct themselves to say "utilize." Grrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!

Is there a more boring brand of football than the SEC? I think Alabama has scored a grand total of like 50 points in their 9 wins this year. Long live the Pac-10!

102 -- contact as a verb

106 Eh, utilize has more of an opportunistic slant to it. "Utilized the deep ball" has a more specific meaning than "used the deep ball". The first use implies that the deep ball was working well for the team while the second just states that they tried it.

102 - "Erstwhile". Hands down the worst word in the english language.

While we're word-bashing, I can't stand the word "whom". People always correct you when you don't use it, but doesn't "who" always refer to a person?

I hope Dorrell has some good defensive recruits coming in.

102- Hopefully. But it isn't really fair to blame the word for what's been done to it.

i happen to be enjoying this lsu bama game. i guess i like hard hitting defensive battles.

111

"Whom" is the objective case of "who". If it's being used as a subject (e.g. "Who ate my cake?") "who" is correct. If it's being used as an object (e.g. "Whom do I give the paperwork to?") "whom" is correct. The problem is that so few people seem to know how to properly use the two.

102 -- multi-year

111- Use who when it stands in for the subject of the sentence; whom when it stands in for the object.

Or just never use whom. Most people don't. It's the incorrect use of whom, "It was Paul whom crossed the ocean. . ." that is a hanging offense. At least in my company.

115, 117 I still don't get it

115- Ending a sentence with a preposition in your second example? For shame. 8^)

Rule #1: Substitute "he/him" or "she/her": If it's either "he" or "she," then it's who; if it's "him" or "her," then it's whom.

Another way of looking at it is substituting the name of the person you are referring to. If the sentence still makes sense, who is correct. If not, whom is correct. For example, Who is at the door? Frank McCourt is at the door.

Whom should I blame for my cable being out since 0915HST? On a college football Saturday? With the UH game on PPV only this evening?

Oceanic/Time Warner is gonna have some really unhappy customers if they don't get this fixed in the next four hours.

And why doesn't a giant media company like TW have a website (Oceanic Cable) which actually informs its customers just what's going on with its system?

Thank you. I needed to growl somewhere, and DT got elected.

In 2001 I went to a December game at the Rose Bowl between UCLA and ASU. The game wasn't televised as it had been delayed because of 9/11. UCLA despite being 6-4 wasn't going to a bowl game.

It was like attending a baseball game in late September between two teams mathematically eliminated from the playoffs.

UCLA won 52-42.

This is going to be one of those games, although I won't be seeing much of it because I'm going to a concert tonight.

In the sentence: "I gave the ball to Sarah." I'm the subject, because I am the one WHO gave (verb) the ball. Sarah is the subject, because she is the the one to WHOM I gave it.

Get yourself to a bookstore and pay seven dollars for Strunk and White's elements of style. It'll change your life. You can be one of the fancy few correcting the errors of others. Chicks dig pedantry.

If you want to be really pedantic, study up on the difference between was/were and you can learn about the subjunctive in English.

It's pedantry to extremes.

121
"Whom should I blame for my cable being out?"

According to Steve's Rule #1, Substitute he/him.

"I should blame he."
"I should blame him."

Looks like it should "who" there, buddy.

Sorry I couldn't resist.

119

Erm, yep. I guess I was just trying to avoid putting the "to" by the "whom" because of the whole "To whom/for whom" rule. On ending a sentence with a preposition, I basically subscribe to the "up with which I will not put" philosophy. Funny how one can be a stickler for some grammar rules and be completely cavalier about others - though there seems to be some controversy about whether the preposition rule is "real".

Slow again. I should get myself to a bookstore and find something to convince me to refresh the page before posting a pile-on.

125 - There should be a "be" in there somewhere.

"Reaches back to shelves for Strunk & White"

125 Beg to differ. ;)

There are too many Whos here; I'm feeling Grinch-y.

What concert are you going to Bob?

Lyle Lovett, Joe Ely, Guy Clark and John Hiatt at Disney Hall.

At this moment, Drew Olson's passer efficiency for the game against ASU is 487.7

125 - I'm certain my grammar is right, but it looks like I misapplied Steve's Rule. If I were more awake, I might have realized it at the time. Ah well.

I, as a long-time non-southern California resident, find myself this afternoon watching a UCLA football game on TV and discussing grammar on a baseball blog. Weird.

I stole that rule from the internet.

I was not even aware that the UCLA game was still in the first. This is has a good chance of being a ridiculous game.

USC must be watching UCLA play today (well, they're not, but it's a metaphor) and thinking "I think we can score against these guys."

And for our host, Stanford leads OSU 17-7 in the second quarter. The Cardinal needs to win 2 of its last 3 games to make it to a bowl game. Stanford's next two games are at home against Cal and Notre Dame.

135- Oh sure, blame the computers. . .

109 That's not right, overkill. "Use" and "utilize" are perfect synonyms. There is no specialy connotation of either. "Utilize" should be stricken from the language.

Bill Plaschke couldn't follow E.B. White's dictum to omit unnecessary words, because then his pages would be blank.

141- I think that set everybody to day-dreaming and whistling "What a Wonderful World."

142 Or "Daydream Believer."

131
Went to see Joe Ely around 18 years ago in West Los Angeles at a small club. Around 11:00 he finally showed up to play but my wife was fast asleep and no matter how loud he played she didn't budge until he had been playing for around 45 minutes. No drugs were involved she just tends to fall asleep if she's not moving. One of the reasons we have cats instead of children. Great show.

144 "...she just tends to fall asleep if she's not moving. One of the reasons we have cats instead of children."

Because she couldn't stay awake to care for children or because she couldn't stay awa...erm, never mind.

My most annoying word is "notwithstanding," which as far as I can tell means the same thing if you drop the "not," which just isn't right.

Akin to the flammable, inflammable problem, but pretentious and thus annoying instead of interesting.

144
We have cats instead of kids as well. If they annoy us, we just put them outside. Problem solved.

140 Perfect synonyms or not, they have a difference to me.

I think I'm gonna just keep living a whom-free life and punch anyone who tries to correct me.

140 Plus, I don't want to be a jerk or anything, but here's how dictionary.com defines them:

utilize: To put to use, especially to find a profitable or practical use for

use: To put into service or apply for a purpose; employ

148- I endorese this decision. "Whom" is like bunting--better not to utilize it at all than to utilize it incorrectly. Notwithstanding the advise of erstwhile experts.

100 As 101 pointed out, the problem with analyzing profit as a dependent variable is that the owners tend to cook the books. Every now and again (annually?) Forbes will do an article on baseball and including their estimates of how the teams are doing financially. One such article a few years ago found the Brewers had the highest profits because of transfer payments from other teams (which they were suppose to spend on players to improve competition).

As for last year's crappy season not hurting the bottom line -- it will, just not that immediately. Attendance is mostly dependant on performance over a number of years rather than any one year (see http://tinyurl.com/d3um5). It's very comparable to a company with a good reputation and a well regarded brand. Cutting corners on product quality won't hurt sales instantly, but over time it surely will destroy the brand.

150 To expand the analogy, literary people should use "whom" whenever they want since they know how to use it and when to use it (like having Izturis bunt in the 8 spot with a pinch-hitter coming up late in a tie game).

Adversely, engineers like me who took a grand total of zero english classes in college should just dump it altogether (bunting Bradley in extra innings with Kent on deck but Saenz in the hole).

151
Yeah, I wasn't sure if profit figures were released publicly or not. And I think it's probably true that, while in any given year, it might be possible to maximize profits by cutting a few corners to keep costs down, that's probably not the best long-term strategy. However, if you purchase a team with no intention of keeping it very long, and just want to make a quick buck, then you might choose to sacrifice the future for the present.

why do i keep hearing trade rumors involving the dodgers and glaus?

154
Because you keep reading TopDeck's posts.

138 One of the great things about Stanford is you can listen to all games free of charge at kzsu.stanford.edu. Comes in handy if they are playing your team.

153 Yep. Classic LBO strategy. Buy a well respected company entirely on debt. Maximize short-term profits with flashy marketing and cost-cutting, all at the expense of long-term profits. Then sell or go public before the new, bad reputation overtakes the good, old reputation.

Translated, McCourt should sell the club after the 2007 season.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5072656

that also expects a glaus to the dodgers trade.

158
Nate - Which is the worse deal: Glaus for $33 million over 3 years or Furcal for $50 million over 5 years?

glaus' remaining salary

06:$10.25M, 07:$11.75M, 08:$13.75M
(includes 4milSB porated over 4 yr)
PLUS

deal includes $0.25M annually for personal business expenses (wife's equestrian training)

re 159
both are pretty bad. i dont know, i wouldnt want either.

158 BP has a version with Glaus going to the Red Sox. They basically say it's addition by subtraction because of Glaus' huge contract:

"one thing is clear: any trade involving Glaus will help make the Snakes a better team in 2006 and beyond"

Why would we want that guy. We've got a one season hole at 3B before the stars from the Suns are ready. I'm content to go with Aybar/Perez/Robles.

160
I wouldn't want either contract either. That stuff about Glaus' wife's equestrian training is ridiculous. It's as if Dbacks aren't doing enough for Glaus already by paying him $10-13 million a year, and he somehow shouldn't have to use that money to pay for the training.

Maybe we should all be able to identify superfluous expenditures and have our employers pay for them in addition to our salary.

UCLA = worst tacklers ever

163
With the possible exception of the Stanford band.

98. molokai

Old School Dodger Fans - they take their cue from the LA Times, unable to formulate opinions on their own. They listen to talk radio and think the Big Nasty actually knows more then they do about sports.

That is quite a blanket statement. I'm what you would consider an "Old School Dodger Fan" but my ideas about this team are my own. The way that I see it is that the LA Times agrees with what I'm thinking about the Dodgers (most of the time). I don't live in LA anymore and do not listen to talk radio. I do not even know who the Big Nasty is. (When I did live in LA I listened to Hacksaw Hamilton-10 yrs ago)

I like reading your posts but this time the blanket does not cover well.

The McCourts can do with their team as they will. If they put pop-up ads in you seats at Dodger Stadium to increase profits are you still going to follow? :)

(imagine that as you choose)

98 Molokai,

You know, I don't think I'd have such a dire opinion of the McCourts if, in fact, they'd actually lined up Gillick and Valentine, or some other combination of Lasorda-approved veteran talent, and were ready to slot them in for DePodesta. I would vehemently disagree with it, but it would at least be a plan followed through. And from what the Times wrote, and what Lasorda was saying, that was my expectation. Wasn't it yours?

But no. They had no flippin' clue about Gillick's mindset, nor Valentine's. It was all a smoke dream. Then they're going after Theo Epstein, DePodesta's identical cousin? Then one after another senior baseball executive finds something, anything better to do than to come to work for what used to be a respected baseball franchise. I mean--Hunsicker would rather work for Tampa Bay? He doesn't even want to interview? If Bud Selig has his way, the Tampa Bay franchise will shut down in a couple of years!

I rely on my own judgement of the McCourts. You're right--I had far less problems with him when it was DePodesta and his team, along with Logan White, in charge of baseball. So my seething hatred for him now can fairly be called hypocritical. And that's true for a lot of other posters here.

But it should concern you that Gillick, Hunsicker, Hart, Bowden, Valentine and other baseball luminaries from both sides of the sabre-debate, would rather rearrange their sock drawer than come in and work for the Dodgers. That's an indication to me that baseball insiders think there's something seriously wrong here. I take my cue from that.

166 the third graf should read: "I don't rely on my own judgement of the McCourts."

#165, Fallout I agree. Old school Dodger fans are so dumb that they are unable to formulate opinions on their own. What an arrogant remark. As much as people who post here decry Plaschke, there are a few who sure seem to adopt his way of thinking if not his actual thoughts.

Stan from Tacoma

166 - If Bud Selig has his way, the Tampa Bay franchise will shut down in a couple of years!

This will be even more true after they win the AL East in 2006 and the tv ratings during the playoffs make this year's look like 2004's.

*actually I should have said 2003's, Cubs + Bosox + Yankees probably beat "The Phantom NLCS" last year

Worst word in the English language = "irregardless".

98 Molokai,
When the McCourt's first took over, I will be the first to admit that I was more positive about the take-over, just to get FOX out of there. I even would argue with the great Rob McMillan about it, saying, "Give em' a chance Rob. They deserve a chance..."

There was never any doubt in my mind that there was going to be some change over in the team and its front office staff. New owners do that all the time, they want to bring in "their" people. I would often remind this to Rob on several occasions during the early spring of 2004.

I told Rob, "Listen, if McCourt does all of the bad things you think he is going to do, I'll be the first to say I was wrong and I'll be right there with you calling for him to sell the team and get out of town. Lets give the man a chance.."

Rob, if you are reading this, I was wrong....

Now, much like Fallout, I'm more of a old fan, and one that doesn't have the time to memorize sabr numbers as if they were my social security number, drivers license, Mastercard, Visa and American Express account numbers. I just like to watch baseball and let myself get carried away in the true spirit of the game. I like to go to games by myself most of the time, simply because when I go to Dodger Stadium I want to be able to check my regular life in at the door, get my two D-Dogs without the bun and load them up with Spicy Brown Mustard, Onions, & Relish and then nosh away to the sounds of Nancy B. rattling away on the keyboard.

The game starts, I'm entranced and hopefully the Dodgers win. It just doesn't get any better then that for me.

I just like being there listening to the organ music, seeing the kids with amazement on their faces that their really in Dodger Stadium, while reliving the memories of my youth when I used to feel exactly the same way. In fact, I still think I do feel exactly like that every time I anxiously come in through the back way and see the stadium in its most irradiant form in the last hours of the day light.

It's truly my favorite place on earth.

So when the McCourt's tell me, make that promise me--a paying customer--that they are going do whatever it's going to take to make the team a winner, I had to buy into that simply because that's what good Dodger fans do. We support the team. But when they seem to be on some insane crusade to run the team into the ground nose first, well, I have to tell you it really pisses me off. I was sold a completely different bill of goods on this deal. I feel they lied to me and have conned me out of my money.

So, as much as I hate to do it, I'm going to still support our boob con-artist owner and his wife and kids and watch them dismantle every aspect of the stadium AND THE TEAM that I had come to know and love and respect while bitching and moaning about it till they finally leave on an old train rail, covered in tar and feathers.

Probably by that time the stadium will be ready to be torn down for some white architecturally undecipherable Donald Sterling-like condos that look like they bought on time from a Rose Hills or Forest Lawn used cript sale. Hopefully by that time Shannen will be so pissed-off by the money the McCourt's made off of her by selling the rights to a sex tape of her and Drew that she will cast a spell on the entire McCourt family and wish them into the cornfield.

You see, they may be boobs, but they're our boobs. We better get used to it. They didn't get the name, "Da Bums" for nothing.

I echo the comments of DssrtRatt & Stan.

I'm more of a old fan, and one that doesn't have the time to memorize sabr numbers as if they were my social security number, drivers license, Mastercard, Visa and American Express account numbers.

Because after all, this is such an original thought.

159-160 - seems like any deal shorter than the other would be a better deal if comparing the two.

Ouch. In the Nov. 14 issue of SI, Verducci leads the Scorecard section with a discussion of Epstein's departure from the Red Sox (John Henry's a passive owner, Lucchino has become a profit maximizer and needs big name trades this off season, while Theo wanted to tweak). He suggests Epstein will just sit or take a consulting job. Buried toward the end is this line:

"Forget the Dodgers, whose palace unrest puts Boston's to shame."

Hey, I make no excuses for who I am! I know you hate it, but I'm not going anywhere! Go ahead, rip away! :)

Ah yes. The gratuitous and unwarranted rip, followed by the Poor Steve is being mean to me, so embarrassingly turned to in the past. I'm relieved that you are at least not going to make excuses for it.

[171] irregardless is not a real word.

and i'm no grammar expert, but i always figured that you use "whom" when the person you're talking about is an object; "for whom", "to whom", etc...

that's why it's "guess who's coming to dinner" (where "who" is the subject committing the action) and "for whom the bell tolls" (the bell is doing the tolling, and "whom" is the object). or say, on the phone: "to whom am i speaking?" (i'm doing the speaking, "whom" is the object of my speech)

i didn't bother looking this up though, so i might be wrong.

Is towards a real word?

yeah, i think you can use either toward or towards. both are acceptable.

I had learned from some source that towards was not a real word, but then I noticed that C.S. Lewis uses it constantly. If he does it, it's good enough for me.

i looked it up and apparently it's pretty much just based on dialect. the british tend to use towards, and americans tend to use toward. personally, i use either one depending on mood and what i think sounds better in any given situation.

there was a really good article on slate recently (which i don't particularly agree with) about the use of the word "literally".

http://www.slate.com/id/2129105/

if you read the article, i'm with ambrose bierce on this one:

"It is bad enough to exaggerate, but to affirm the truth of the exaggeration is intolerable."

My apologies for the use of "old school Dodger fan" in my rant. I consider myself an old school Dodger fan and have been a fan for 40 years. I needed a category for the paragraph that followed and I mistakenly picked a heading that couldn't have been more wrong and evidently offended some posters that I have the greatest respect for. I just can't come up with a good category for those who blindly believe whatever the LA Times tells them.

I should just stick to providing info and leave the editorializing to those who are better at it but my nature doesn't allow it.

No offense was taken what-so-ever.

172- I'd like to put this delicately: I'm having trouble believing that you've memorized your Amex number. Could be true, but unless you reproduce it here, complete with expiration date, I'm afraid I'm going to have to call you a liar. Now, nobody wants that; I don't want that. But it's really the only way, I think.

166
It concerns me greatly, but it just seems to me if that we were so upset that Depo only got two years, why don't the McCourt's get the same pass.

[166]/[172] i don't think it really means anything, because as we know from religion, sometimes even recent converts can be the most zealous, but i've been a fan of the dodgers since my tee-ball days (age 5 or 6?). and i guess i'm also a fan of modern baseball thought, as i've been exposed to it over the past few years. i don't know what "school" that places me in, but i definitely get really offended when anyone tries to suggest that i am more a "philosophy fan" than a dodger fan. anyway, i don't know if i speak for anyone else, but i suspected from the outset, when he bought the team, that mccourt was at least a little bit on the clueless and underaffluent side, but as long as he was willing to give depodesta, who seemed to have a decent plan, the time, resources, and rope to do the job, i was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. the way he the organization has been acting since before the season began, and up to and including the tracy mess, the bradley mess, and the depodesta mess and since, has all but removed that doubt. it's pretty plain that the organization is in a constant state of chaos and is rudderless in the wind. if they get fortunate and find some way to stay on course, great. but my level of trust is at an all time low.

[187] what would reproducing it prove? this is the internet. he could just whip the card out and type them in by looking. either way you'd have to take him at his word. :)

188 I understand where you are coming from.

If many of the DePo supporters (myself included) were willing to cut DePo a bit of slack for his "mistakes", then they should afford the same courtesy to the McCourts.

Honestly, I am disappointed in the firing of DePo. I'm more concerned (to rip off 166) that the decision to fire DePo was hasty without a solid plan in place to replace him.

molokai, come on now : ) With Depo we at least knew what he was doing. We saw the players that came in, we saw which players left, we saw the prospects remain untouched, and we saw that we were improving in most aspects except DL time by the players.

With the McCourts, there hasn't been any evidence of a plan other than knee-jerk reactions. Now if Depo had fired Logan White, then fired the replacement within two years, and fired secretaries left and right, and dabbled with double-speak, and had absolutely no baseball-related success on his resume, then we could wonder what the difference between the two is.

190- Good point. Mr. Nacarrato, please send my your credit cards, then, once I recieve them, publish the numbers, from memory, here.

The last sentence is probably my main point Eric. When Depo made questionable moves ("the trade", extending Perez) we at least knew what the thought process was, even if we didn't agree.

But not only do we not know what the thought process is with the McCourts, the scarier thing is that it honestly seems like there may not be a cognizant one.

But not only do we not know what the thought process is with the McCourts, the scarier thing is that it honestly seems like there may not be a cognizant one.

I think that is the thread tying everyone together.

Naccarato, though. Sorry about that. By the way, are you Steve's dentist? Because if so, then I totally understand where he's coming from.

188 Very simply, it's how he did it.

Up until the Saturday Afternoon Massacre, the main weird thing I noticed about McCourt was all the PR people coming and going. That's generally a bad sign in any exec, but since it had nothing to do with baseball, I minimized it. But when that same tendency bit the baseball side of the business, then I had to pay attention.

From the clueless, platitude-spouting press conference, to the misdirection on DePodesta's successor, to the shameless sucking up of Lasorda, to the sense that the move was dictated by a yearning to please the shallowest commentators in the media, I judge the McCourts' character to be weak, insecure, narcissistic and passive-aggressive.

Plus, they are unqualified; as that great "Management by Baseball" series said, they are trying to transfer the culture and practices of one business into another, entirely different kind of business. That just seems dumb.

Then you look back at things that others complained about, but I just let slide, like the overleveraging of the purchase of the team in the first place. The unceremonious dumping of not just Dan Evans, but also Bob Graziano and Kris Rone, who were "heart and soul" people for the Dodgers, and incidentally very good at their jobs. At the time, sure, "they have a right to put in their own people." I bought that. But basically Graziano's been replaced by Mrs. McCourt, and Rone by a guy McCourt fired in less than a year, and then by his astrophysicist son. That's not a step down in quality. That's falling into a mine shaft.

In reviewing all of this, quite frankly, I can't come up with anything McCourt's done right. DePodesta, by comparison, was far from perfect, but he did some things right, and surely gets at least a little of the credit for '04, and also for not trading away the future. His record warranted more time. McCourt's does not; but since he can't fire himself, he'll fire everybody else. That's why all the PR firms and personnel. That revolving door ain't about to stop. And that's why Gerry Hunsicker would rather work for Tampa Bay than LA.

197 I agree with you and others who take issue with the way McCourt fired Depo and otherwise mismanaged the club. McCourt's procedural errors are numerous.

But I'm more concerned about the substance – Depo. I'm a stats/moneyball/new school (pick your cliché) baseball fan (even though I've been a Dodger fan for over 30 years). I have a lot of faith in Depo. He did a decent job as GM so far and, with experience, I think he would have done better. Unfortunately we will see this with a different club rather than the Dodgers. Most of the potential replacements are big steps down, and some are even worse.

I know I'm a couple days late on the weird movie discussion, but has anybody on here seen "The Skeleton Key"? I went out to see that movie this evening and CANNOT stop thinking about the way it ended...

197 - Don't you have to give him some credit for eating the Green salary, taking on $$ for Finley et al (possibly including the Unit and Charles Johnson) at the deadline last year, and the signings of Lowe, Drew, and Kent? The team could have just gone into all-out fire sale mode (see 2001, Kansas City Royals) but those moves were definitely made with an eye on winning in '05-07, no?

199-
I have not seen it but when it came out in theaters and my friend saw it and I was able to predict the ending based off the commercials so I know the ending.

Dan Evans reads PECOTA that sabr-loving bastard.

I enjoyed the concert immensely! As a bonus, it was the first time I ever heard "This Land is Your Land" sung with the rarely heard "Commie" verse.

But not only do we not know what the thought process is with the McCourts, the scarier thing is that it honestly seems like there may not be a cognizant one.

Not that I would have been happy with the firing, but I think even a "Paul and I didn't see eye to eye on the managerial search" statement would have made the medicine go down a little easier.

I know the horse has beaten to death on here, but the "results" statement still boggles my mind.

And that's why Gerry Hunsicker would rather work for Tampa Bay than LA.

Even worse, Hunsicker decided to work as the #2 guy in Tampa Bay rather than running the show in LA (though, who knows how much he would actually run the show here). After resigning in Houston because of problems with the owner, he probably wasn't willing to walk into a similar situation in LA.

In 62, JW thought the Dodgers aren't undervalued, and McCourt would only sell if he needs the money or the business starts losing money. Actually, to consider selling he only needs to believe that the business will be worth less in the future, as in "Sheesh, I'd better get out now." I think there's a good chance the revenue streams and valuation could drop big time due to increased competition from the Angels as well as reduced fan association with the Dodgers due to brand damage. He may want to think hard about the date of Vin Scully's retirement too, and sell before then. When he departs (Please God keep him healthy), it will hurt any owner's value alot.

I think McCourt has shown consistency since day one here, and it's been about personnel cost reductions. Bringing in Depodesta was mostly to have a Moneyball cover theme supporting a drastically lower payroll. The recent search for a celebrity g.m. has been hypocritical in that he probably hasn't offered any market rate contracts (no hard data for this; must make me an old school Dodger fan. I think I'd refer Molokai more to a King Lear rant than Henry V). I hope McCourt hires Ng, and he can triumphantly claim he has searched the world, and a Dodger Family member is tops. Although it's really about her own inexpensiveness, another available cover theme, and her commitment to keeping a low payroll. If we're lucky, she'll actually be good at the job.

I don't know if this is old news, but it seems to me that the main reason for trading Bradley is to let Drew play cf, which would take stop and start stress off of Drew's knee:

Outfielder Johnny Damon is now on the Dodgers radar screen, says the Riverside Press Enterprise.

Talented and troubled Milton Bradley has drawn trade interest from the A's, Cubs, Nationals, Pirates and Tigers, says the New York Daily News.

tony jackson says 1)the frontrunner is now colletti, 2) it will probably be either ng or colletti 3) we should know "no later than tuesday".

http://www.dailynews.com/sports/ci_3210465

i don't know anything about colletti. should i be upset?

206
Probably.

Why waste the energy in being upset until a decision is made. Then you'll have plenty of time to learn about the choice and make an informed decision to be upset or not.

The Times' love-hate relationship with Frank McCourt continues. It says that "Frank McCourt's Latest Memoir is His Best."

Just curious - for those who think the Glaus contract is terrible and don't want the Dodgers to take on his contract do you also feel the JD Drew contract is sensible and your happy he is already under contract to the Dodgers? They are both high risk, high reward at a high price.
FYI - Glaus pulled in 23 win shares in 2005. Aybar in a month and 1/2 pulled in 6. Konerko the man about to sign the 4 year 50 million deal with somebody pulled in 24. JD's high was 31 in his walk year.

204
I don't understand comments like that. McCourt wouldn't have approved the silly money contracts of Drew/Lowe/O Perez and the 20 million extension to Gagne and the extension to Penny if he wanted a moneyball cover as he cut payroll. The facts fly in the face of the hyperbole.

Yeah molokai, I'm not too sure why the Glaus contract is scaring people off so much. Although honestly I can't imagine McCourt dishing out the much money.

Paying Glaus an average of $11 million over the next 3 years (or possibly less depending on the market and if AZ sends cash along) for a consistent .850 OPS can't be the end of the world.
-He averaged 157 games a season outside his two injured years in Anaheim.
-At 29 he wouldn't project as a decline candidate.
-While LaRoche should make it to Los Angeles by 2007, he likely won't be a differnce maker until 2008 when Glaus' contract expires. -Glaus could be traded by L.A. by then.
-There's nothing close at 3B in the free agent market to Glaus' hitting talent.
-As a salary dump the DBacks might not ask for that much.

All that said, it would seem strange for Arizona and their new economist GM to make a deal like this within their own division.

If Kent is traded for pitching, then Perez / Aybar learn to play middle IF and a big bat at 3B should be obtained.

How bad do those two guys project at 2B / SS? Someone else had a better view of them the last few years I'm sure.

206 -

Colletti is the definite front runner because he spent a long time in the Cubs PR department before going to the Giants. We all know how McCourt loves a good PR guy.

Depo fired because of personality, not moves???

"The dysfunctional Dodgers still don't have a manager or GM, as owner Frank McCourt is much more adept at firing than hiring. The problem, Dodgers people say, is that his wife, Jamie, is ruining, er, running things.

"McCourt is telling folks that Paul DePodesta was axed not because he didn't like his moves but because McCourt's personality coach couldn't mold DePodesta. When McCourt noticed DePodesta interacting with only two Dodgers employees out of 70 at a recent organization function, that was it. And oh, yes - as reported weeks ago here, Mrs. McCourt disliked DePodesta."

http://tinyurl.com/9cxr9

215 Gee, lots of fascinating tidbits in that Newsday column. If any of them are true.

First: McCourt made DePodesta work with a "personality coach"? Whoah. Is that a well-paying profession? Kudos to the MSM reporter who 'outs' the personality coach.

Second: McCourt alienated Valentine--no surprise there--but by giving him a detailed baseball quiz, which included questions about 'when to hit and run'???? And Lasorda let this happen without blabbing to Plaschke?

Third: If Ng is hired, her first choice for manager is Terry Collins?

Fourth: "If Victor Diaz...worked like Jose Reyes, he'd be another Manny Ramirez"?

Anyway, caveat emptor.

P.S. 199 Do you mean by "him" McCourt? Those were DePodesta's decisions to make. Obviously, McCourt had to be consulted; he has the checkbook. I guess I was referring to decisions clearly in McCourt's in-basket, not one of his subordinates'.

I don't even want to know if that story is true. Why does it have to be my team? Just hire Ng, take the hit, and move on. Though taking the hit is what they're trying to avoid, so I doubt they'll hire someone that isn't a complete 180 from Depo.

If only the A's played in a nicer stadium.

197. dzzrtRatt
I judge the McCourts' character to be weak, insecure, narcissistic and passive-aggressive.

That seems pretty accurate to me too. Maybe add bold but weak, self conscious.

You have to ask yourself what kind of person would allow themselves to get pumped up by Lasorda? The McCourts like to have their egos fed and their is no one better than Tommy to do that. I'm sure that when they come out of a meeting together that they are not only covered with BS, they have also digested it.

216
Regarding the "personality coach": I wasn't sure if there really WAS a personality coach, or if the author was being somewhat facetious.

We're supposed to believe that McCourt knows when it's a good time to hit and run and when it isn't? Is he running this quiz through Depo's stolen software?

206 Not to suggest I'm the king of PC, but it seems like if your only two candidates are Ng and Colletti, you hire Ng. The fact that (as Tony Jackson suggests) Colletti once signed Orel Hershiser isn't really a added qualification. (Hershiser, according to this piece, is already selected as manager.)

Nor is Colletti's supposed history with a mid-size budget. Where has Ng earned a reputation as a free-spender? Is it her shoes?

One question I'd ask Colletti is: Was it your idea to start the 2005 season with the oldest outfield in baseball history?

ah, the plot thickens. this is growing more hilarious by the day.

202 What concert was that? Paul McCartney?