Do the Dodgers have any money at all?

[ThomasDad]

We saw this happen last season, when Ned Colletti picked up Beroa, Blake and Ramirez for $0 each, insisting each team had to pay the salary due for the remainder of the season. The reports in LA and Cleveland said the deal for Blake was supposed to include CC Sabathia and Jamey Carroll, but Colletti insisted the Indians pay the remainder of Sabathia's 2009 salary as well.

We recently saw Jamie McCourt muse openly that the Dodgers could either invest in civic good works, like building baseball fields in underprivileged areas, or spend tens of millions of dollars to sign Manny Ramirez, as if this was a zero-sum game.

This was after the Dodgers floated a deal to Ramirez which was designed to be unacceptable, but to show the fans that an attempt was made.

We know also that McCourt defaulted in 2006 on the $140M two-year loan News Corp (Fox) made to finance his purchase of the team from News Corp, and the result is that the latter became owner of waterfront property McCourt had a parking lots in Boston, as the properties were used as collateral for the loans.

Sabathia, who wants desperately to play on the West Coast and who has expressed a preference to play in the NL--he loves to hit and seems very good at it--has received no offer from the Dodgers at all, according to his agents. General wisdom is that the Dodgers could simply come in higher than Milwaukee's $100M/5 years and wouldn't have to top the reported $140M/6 years from the Yankees to sign the deal. But thus far, nothing.

Now the story is that Colletti was talking with the Pirates about taking Jack Wilson, but only if the Pirates ate a big chunk of the $7.5M owed Wilson for 2009--after shedding Rafael Furcal, who earned $13M/year in 2007 and 2008.

Colletti makes noises that he wants to resign Furcal, who just turned down an offer from Oakland for four years and between $35M and $40 total. But how can he afford a deal like that if he can't assume a smaller salary for Wilson?

Do the Dodgers have any money to spend at all? How did one of the biggest, richest and most influential franchises in all of baseball descend to this?

[ThomasDad]

Casey Blake has a great reputation as a team player, but how is it the Dodgers have seemingly no interest in Ramirez or Sabathia, but can scrounge up $17M for a guaranteed three-year deal for a 35 year old 3B?

BTW, the Daily Breeze reports the Dodgers are suing the insurance company which holds the contract on Jason Schmidt. The team claims it is owed $9M since Schmidt didn't play last season. For those of you keeping score at home, Schmidt's salary for 2008 (as well as 2009) was $12M, which means even if the Dodgers win their suit, they're out $3M plus legal fees for a player who didn't suit up in 2008.

But a guaranteed three-year deal for a 35 year old somehow seemed like a sharp deal to Colletti.

Amazing.

[ThomasDad]

Another bold move by Colletti: $30M over 3 years for 31 year old Rafael Furcal, who has a bad back (they usually don't get better), providing him with a vesting 4th year at $12M.

Manny wants too much, but it apparently makes great sense to sign a pitcher with a known shoulder problem to a 4 year guaranteed deal, a 35 year old 3B to a 3 year deal, an overweight and over the hill CF to nearly $40M over 2 years, and a weak-armed OF to $44M over 5 years. These are deals which gut the budget of the player development department, which clog lineups and prevent talented younger players from advancing, which remove trade flexibility.

It makes me appreciate Reagins and Moreno all the more.

[sbayhills]

I would love to get OCR's take on Simers article.


http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-sim ... 404.column

Dodgers owners Frank and Jamie McCourt.
T.J. Simers

Dodgers are a team run (into ground?) like nobody's business

January 11, 2009
You can imagine Page 2's reaction to the news that the Los Angeles Business Journal recently selected the McCourts the city's "Power Couple of the Year."

Time for Jerry Buss to lock onto one of those 18-year-olds for keeps to become eligible for Power Couple of the Year.

Now it'd be easy to scoff at such acclaim, but the McCourts have always placed a premium on hiring the very best image makers in the business, so finally their money's well spent.

Or, as the Business Journal put it, "the McCourts have re-energized the Dodgers."

And here I thought Manny Ramirez, who cost the McCourts nothing, had done that.

But I also discovered that in so many ways I've been wrong for some time now in almost everything written here, while both the McCourts and Plaschke have it right.

More on that chilling revelation in a few paragraphs.

AS FOR this award, the Business Journal explained that the McCourts won it because "attendance has increased along with the team's winning ways. Last spring, the McCourts unveiled a $500 million plan to transform Dodger Stadium into a year-round retail and entertainment destination."

That's interesting. I know the McCourts improved Dodger Stadium for the rich folks on the first level, which remains off-limits to the unwashed once the game has started.

But as for that $500-million plan, they've put it on hold and are doing nothing this off-season to improve the stadium. Probably wanted to keep their calendar free to accept awards.

"Beyond that," the Business Journal reported, "the McCourts have gotten involved in the community taking seats on some of the most prominent boards in the area."

More kudos to their image consultants.

"Also last year," proclaimed the Business Journal, as if it were a good thing, "they became the lead investors in the purchase of the Los Angeles Marathon.

"That's why the Business Journal has named the McCourts, L.A.'s Power Couple of the Year," concluded staff reporter Joel Russell. Interesting to read in the coming months some of Russell's other conclusions.

The Business Journal also named Stewart & Lynda Resnick and Richard & Daphna Ziman "L.A.'s other Power Couples," getting second billing to the McCourts, and they've probably got to be asking themselves today where they fell short.

Maybe they couldn't afford to own side-by-side houses in Malibu for more than $40 million after already buying side-by-side Holmby Hills homes for more than $30 million.

No indication yet which home will be leveled to make way for a Little League field.

I'VE BEEN so wrong. I'm in the minority here, a fine publication such as the Business Journal taking all the powerful people into account and coming up with the McCourts.

I could have spent the next year, every minute working on this, and would've never come up with them.

And yet it should've been easy, given the pool of viable candidates — maybe a dozen or so after eliminating those in L.A. not divorced. Hard to hype Power Divorced Couple of the Year.

But the important thing here is that some folks think the McCourts are doing well.

I know Plaschke almost always likes what they're doing, and while he was steadfastly against Ramirez's return, now that it looks as if he'll be back, he's fine with signing him — albeit cheaply.

I don't care what the Power Couple spends on Ramirez because it's not my money.

If I had to make the mortgage payments the McCourts make on the four homes the wife wanted, I'd be the Screaming Meanie.

The McCourts are Power Couple of the Year and Plaschke was Associated Press sports columnist of the year, so we're talking heavyweights here, and most of you folks out there are siding with them.

No other way to explain the news earlier this week that the Dodgers expect to sell the same number of season tickets this year as they did last.

You people have spoken with your credit cards. You like what the McCourts are doing and agree with Plaschke it will not be the end of the season if they don't land Ramirez. That's why he writes for Page 1, and some never seem to make it.

I remember what the Dodgers and the Stadium were like before Ramirez arrived, but why argue with the ticket-buying fans of L.A.?

These are tough economic times, and such fan reaction is very impressive, a tribute really to Plaschke & the Power Couple, who have made such a compelling case to accept whatever.

The Dodgers' chief operating officer, Dennis Mannion, told The Times earlier that the pace of sales of season tickets is ahead of last year, so there you go.

The outrage on Page 2 has been wasted, which admittedly for some might not come as a news flash.

Why should the Power Couple worry about losing Ramirez if the fans don't? Why should Plaschke endorse the return of Ramirez when the paying customers have already made it clear it won't affect their economic decision to support the Dodgers?

Funny thing, too, the Dodgers probably will end up with the guy by default, and a year from now the Power Couple will be accepting awards for watching out for the best interest of their fans.

And Plaschke will be writing the story on a job well done, while back on Page 2, only a reminder that when it comes to Dodgers fans — these people live among you.

t.j.simers@latimes.com

[ThomasDad]

I would love to get OCR's take on Simers article.

I'd love to get Plaschke's. Think there might be some interesting conversations in the Sports department around there?

I wonder if McCourt was counting upon Manny getting a better offer elsewhere, which would have taken the Dodgers off the hook? In any case, it appears he's the only game in town for Manny, and while he can posture that he was fiscally prudent, I do also wonder if he's ready to be paying $22.5M a year for a player--why, that's almost half the cost of one of the Malibu homes!

[sbayhills]

I'd love to get Plaschke's. Think there might be some interesting conversations in the Sports department around there?

I wonder if McCourt was counting upon Manny getting a better offer elsewhere, which would have taken the Dodgers off the hook? In any case, it appears he's the only game in town for Manny, and while he can posture that he was fiscally prudent, I do also wonder if he's ready to be paying $22.5M a year for a player--why, that's almost half the cost of one of the Malibu homes!

They also have the reality that if they don't improve their last offer to Manny, he could accept it, but quit on the Dodgers like he did on Boston.

Manny had a great run with the Dodgers because he was auditioning for a new contract.

[Parrotpaul]

Tito Francona on Manny being Manny...

""In '04, when we were playing St. Louis in the World Series, Manny was hitting and he seemed to be jawing back and forth with the catcher [Yadier Molina]," Francona said. "There hadn't even been a pitch thrown. You could kind of see, there was a possible altercation starting. Chuck Meriweather was the umpire and he kind of looked at me so I kind of ran out as fast I can, which isn't very fast.

"But the last thing I wanted was for Manny to get thrown out of the game. I looked at Manny and I looked at the catcher and they're going back and forth in Spanish. Manny looks at me and says, 'Papi, they say I'm stealing their signs.' I look at the umpire and I said, 'Chuck, Manny doesn't even know our signs."'

[sbayhills]

Tito Francona on Manny being Manny...

""In '04, when we were playing St. Louis in the World Series, Manny was hitting and he seemed to be jawing back and forth with the catcher [Yadier Molina]," Francona said. "There hadn't even been a pitch thrown. You could kind of see, there was a possible altercation starting. Chuck Meriweather was the umpire and he kind of looked at me so I kind of ran out as fast I can, which isn't very fast.

"But the last thing I wanted was for Manny to get thrown out of the game. I looked at Manny and I looked at the catcher and they're going back and forth in Spanish. Manny looks at me and says, 'Papi, they say I'm stealing their signs.' I look at the umpire and I said, 'Chuck, Manny doesn't even know our signs."'

That is hilarious, and says a lot about the player. When this guys skills start to deteriorate, does he have enough in the " cabeza " to compensate.

[SuperChargers]

That is hilarious, and says a lot about the player. When this guys skills start to deteriorate, does he have enough in the " cabeza " to compensate.

He is smart enough to want his money up front rather than deferred as the Dodgers have offered. Taxes going up in 2010 with the Obama Plan. He will not see as much money if he has it deferred over 4 years.

[ThomasDad]

He is smart enough to want his money up front rather than deferred as the Dodgers have offered. Taxes going up in 2010 with the Obama Plan. He will not see as much money if he has it deferred over 4 years.

McCourt is a fraud.

[sbayhills]

McCourt is a fraud.

I wonder if he still plans to build his strip mall in the Dodger Stadium parking lot?

[MDDad]

I wonder if he still plans to build his strip mall in the Dodger Stadium parking lot?

I would if I were him. With two NBA teams in town, strip clubs will always bring in the cash. And with a whole mall of them, he can buy any player he wants.

MDD

[MDDad]

Title

Sorry it took almost three months to answer the question in your title.

No.

MDD

[VP_321]

Ned Colleti got my vote for GM of the year last season for his brilliant signing of Andruw Jones

[MDDad]

Ned Colleti got my vote for GM of the year last season for his brilliant signing of Andruw Jones

What a coincidence. Andruw Jones got my vote for GM of the year last season for his brilliant conning of Ned Colleti.

MDD

[VP_321]

What a coincidence. Andruw Jones got my vote for GM of the year last season for his brilliant conning of Ned Colleti.

MDD

:ROFL:

[GOODave]

In deciding which thread to put this article in, I came in here and read TDad's first post. Interestingly, this article underscores the obvious irregularity that Ramirez and the Dodgers have made practically no progress whatsoever since the opening article of this thread.

Is McCourt just a whack, or what?

Is Dodgers owner Frank McCourt souring on Manny?

GLENDALE, Ariz. — Despite seeming to be practically pennies apart in his negotiation with superstar free agent Manny Ramirez, Dodgers owner Frank McCourt suggested again here Sunday that the sides were "starting from scratch." Those are ominous words indeed, if he means them.

McCourt acknowledged that the sides were closer monetarily, and an e-mail from Ramirez's agent Scott Boras suggests they are even closer than believed, as Ramirez apparently has offered to split the difference between his last $45 million proposal and the Dodgers' most recent offer of a contract with a value of about $42 million. There is no good reason for this to fall apart now, not with both sides talking about $25 million for the first year and $20 million for the second on a player option, with the only difference being in the deferrals. However, the Dodgers haven't responded to Ramirez's last three proposals, according to Boras' mass e-mail Sunday. Plus, there are other indications McCourt isn't in the compromising mood.

A person close to McCourt suggested on Sunday there are internal rumblings the emotional owner may either stop negotiating for now, or more drastically, begin "negotiating backward," meaning he might submit a lower offer than his last one. That wouldn't be inconsistent at all with his cryptic and troubling "starting from scratch" remark....

Of course, there is more to the article on Sports Illustrated.

dave

[ThomasDad]

Is McCourt just a whack, or what?

I doubt you'll get many takers for the "what" option. However, not everybody believes McCourt is fronting. Jon Weisman in his Dodger Thoughts blog thinks McCourt is simply being a smart businessman. To wit:

I don't know what the McCourt books look like, but I do know that businessmen regularly operate their businesses in ways independent of what their books look like. Many who are low on funds can be extraordinarily reckless, while tightfisted Scrooge, after all, was hardly hurting for cash.

The McCourts don't have to be in debt to want to defer salary payments. They might, for example, simply believe that it's more prudent to conserve funds in a crisis-riddled economy, while hoping that the outlook will improve in future years. And it's for that reason that I believe that the speculation about their financial situation is a waste of time. In the absence of concrete facts, we just don't know.

And

I believe the McCourts want to sign Manny Ramirez and win a World Series, and I don't believe their bank account is the holdup.

The McCourts have had several opportunities this past offseason to go cheap, and they have turned them down. They could have gone young and cheap at shortstop, but they approved an eight-figure contract for Rafael Furcal. They could have gone young and cheap at second base and third base, but they approved free-agent contracts for Casey Blake and Orlando Hudson. They could have skimped in the back end of their rotation and in their bullpen, but they approved contracts for Guillermo Mota and Randy Wolf.

None of those contracts set records, and some of them had values reduced by the economy. But each contract was an indulgence. A cheap or broke owner would not have inked all of them, maybe not even any of them. Believe me, the McCourts are spending money on the Dodgers more freely than many American families are spending on themselves.

The McCourts are also spending more freely on themselves--witness the his-and-hers adjoining Malibu beachfront homes, bought for $43M a few months ago, a purchase which most likely was secured by the franchise's value--than most American families are doing today.

That said, Weisman doesn't seem to make the necessary distinction between deferred salary (which many contracts on many teams feature) and deferred salary without interest. The latter was the apparent source of friction in negotiations, with the Dodgers posturing that they'd be paying Manny as much as A-Rod in 2010, but paying him over time and not in a single year and not paying interest on the amount deferred.

[WileyWolverine]

News out of Dodgertown: Manny has no other offers. The Dodgers could hold out until May and then try to trade him without ever spending a nickel during his contract. Today, Tommy LaSorda got involved and it's believed that Manny and Dodgers have reached an accord.

[ThomasDad]

News out of Dodgertown: Manny has no other offers.

Sorry, Wiley, but that has never been "news".

Boras has insisted that there were other teams secretly bidding, but with every GM with a budget capable of signing Manny stating that his team wasn't involved, it was clear there were no other teams involved. One of the problems Boras had trying to get Manny the sort of deal he wanted was that only about 6 or so teams were financially capable of writing the contract, and all of those except the Dodgers either had no spot on the roster (Yankees) or declined to spend the money (Mets, Giants). Colletti has known for months that all he had to do was wait.

The Dodgers could hold out until May and then try to trade him without ever spending a nickel during his contract.

¿Que?

Manny is a free agent. How could the Dodgers "trade him" unless the team signed him first, in which case the PBA forbids trading a free agent until mid-season at the earliest? The exclusive rights the Dodgers had to sign Manny expired last November.