OFFICIAL 2009 DODGERS OFFSEASON THREAD: (95-57) NL West Champs --- NLCS Chumps

[cincoseisdos]

That mother %%%% er

how his lazy *@+ sleepy voice gonna put out an album? Is he 1992 snoop?

I'm going to wait until next season maybe for the tickets. When Charlie gives me a ring next week, i'm going to tell him i'll talk to him when themini plan deals are announced, and to tell McC that until everything is situated there will be an empty season ticket holder .

 

[mr jordan04]

Originally Posted by sinser13

from matt's twitter

mattkemp27
http://
In the studio right now working on my album.30 minutes ago from Echofon

he raps now?



http://twitter.com/CincoSeisDos

CincoSeisDos WORK ON THAT F!@#ING SWING YOU PUNK RT @mattkemp27: In the studio right now working on my album.

 

[Los Angeles]

Originally Posted by CincoSeisDos

That mother %%%% er

how his lazy *@+ sleepy voice gonna put out an album? Is he 1992 snoop?

I was thinking the same thing

.

 

[bigmike23]

The fans are left to handle this issue: According to a document filed by Jamie McCourt as part of the divorce proceedings, she and her estranged husband took home between $7 million and $8 million a year "in salary and/or distributions
yo is this common for owners to do this?

 

[in yo nostril]

Originally Posted by Bigmike23

The fans are left to handle this issue: According to a document filed by Jamie McCourt as part of the divorce proceedings, she and her estranged husband took home between $7 million and $8 million a year "in salary and/or distributions

yo is this common for owners to do this?
probably not because most owners actually make money in other businesses and dont have to take a salary from their teams. i dont think its badthough. just shows that they were living off the team.

 

[ooiron manoo]

We'll see if Frank....or Jamie is the owner when all is said and done.

It's not looking good with all the dirty laundry being aired out.

The front office is a mess right now.

I remember the ownership change and I was all for the Broad/Checketts Group, but Bud Selig blocked them,

I still remember that. The Broad group even hadplans of bringing Peter O'Malley back into the fold, how great would that have been? Instead they gave the team to the McCourt's, who bought the teamthrough credit, and the also let Fox bend them over with TV rights.

Yes, Bud Selig blocked the Dodgers bid to get Vladdy.

No, I don't blame the Dodgers or Colletti for not being able to sign CC. CC did say he wanted to be a Dodger, but the Yankees wanted him and they weregoing to do whatever it takes to get him. I don't care how bad CC wanted to stay in California, he wasn't turning down $160 million. No one wasoffering more than $115 (Yanks initially offered $140, and upped their offer just to seal the deal.)

It's a bad situation.

 

[mjshoefanatic]

Our FO is a mess indeed.

 

[p mac one]

Yes, it's common for the owner to pay himself or herself a salary.

Not just in pro baseball, but in any kind business.

 

[cincoseisdos]

Sigh Sigh Sigh

On a good note, that trash bastard Victorino made the last out.

Thank god.

Yes, thank god.

Go Dodgers.

 

[cincoseisdos]

Dodgers will be making front page news again today...

First court hearing at 8:30A...

 

[p mac one]

[h3]http://www.dodgerdivorce.com/2009/11/primer-on-tomorrows-hearing.html[/h3]

[h3]A primer on tomorrow's hearing.[/h3]---
What's happening?

Tomorrow, the McCourts square off for the first time in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The court will hear Jamie's arguments as to why she should be reinstated to her position as Dodgers CEO. Her lawyers will paint her as the "face of the Dodgers," vital to the club's ongoing operations. She may also contend that the Dodgers are being harmed by her absence, and thus the failure to reinstate her might devalue a contested asset in the divorce. Jamie will initially seek to have the Dodgers' filings, including those prepared by Frank's lawyer, excluded from the hearing.

Frank and the Dodgers will do their best to portray Jamie's role with the team as merely ornamental. Moreover, they will suggest that to reinstate her at this time would be detrimental to club operations, as the rift between Jamie and Dodgers brass is just too great to overcome. This side will also oppose Jamie's motion to exclude the Dodgers from the hearing, pointing out that the Dodgers have information relevant to the proceeding and stand to be affected by its outcome.

What's at stake?

In the short term, not a whole lot. While Jamie has to ask to be reinstated, I highly doubt she wants to be. Don't take this to mean tomorrow isn't important, though. There are very significant long-term implications:

• The battle for the Dodgers begins tomorrow. While not vital to Jamie's claim to half the club, persuading the court that she had an actual role in the organization--and an important one at that--sets Jamie up very nicely for the ownership dispute to come. If Frank can establish that Jamie's role was for show, his claim to sole ownership gains momentum.
• The stage will be set for the spousal maintenance fight. Remember that Jamie's demands are dependent on her role with the organization. If she's not reinstated, we'll be poised for a bitter clash on December 1 about whether her maintenance award should include pay for her former position. Incidentally, the court may use tomorrow as an opportunity to admonish Jamie's legal team for asking for money she's already been paid--namely, the $500,000 Frank's given her to cover the remainder of her '09 salary. Then again, it's California, so maybe not.
• The role the Dodgers will play in the divorce might begin to take shape. While a divorce is an inherently personal sort of thing, so much of the acrimony concerns the club. Ownership is contested, wrongful termination is (almost) alleged, and (arguably improper) benefits and perquisites of employment/ownership are sought.

So what's gonna happen?

The Dodger Divorce prediction is that Jamie will not be reinstated. The Dodgers will be allowed to participate in the litigation to a degree. Losing the battle for reinstatement, Jamie will ask for a temporary maintenance award to tide her over until the December 1 hearing. If the court doesn't decide that the half-mil from Frank to cover her salary isn't enough, my guess is that she'll get something at or below the low end of her demands; think $300,000ish.

Then again, this is California we're talking about, and crazy stuff happens.

A final thought.
The McCourts might have more at stake tomorrow than they've considered. As Craig Calcaterra notes, the McCourts' best chance to keep the Dodgers is probably to arrive at "some kind of truce as soon as possible that would keep joint ownership to some degree." If things get as bitter in court tomorrow as they've been in the filings and newspapers thus far, that would seem nearly impossible. If you're a member of the majority (anti-McCourt) party, root for fireworks.

 

[p mac one]

LOS ANGELES (AP) -A court commissioner has denied Jamie McCourt's bid to be reinstated as the chief executive of the Los Angeles Dodgers.

Superior Court Commissioner Scott Gordon ruled Thursday in Los Angeles there is no state law to support her bid.

The ruling came during a divorce hearing between the former chief executive and Dodgers owner Frank McCourt, who fired her for allegedly cheating on him and doing a poor job heading the team.

Jamie McCourt argued she should be given her job back because of her claims that she co-owns the Dodgers. She also wanted more than $300,000 in spousal support and perks such as travel by private jet if she's reinstated.

Jamie McCourt filed for divorce last month. The couple had been married for 30 years.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...n.dodgers.mccourts.3rd.ld.0133/#ixzz0W0oV5IGu
Get a free NFL Team Jacket and Tee with SI Subscription

 

[cincoseisdos]

@%!$ fireworks. give me some resolution and stability. McC or not...

 

[p mac one]

It's my knowledge that the divorce trial won't be until next year.

If they rule that the team is community property, then the team would then be sold right away I'd imagine. In which case we could have an owner by theJanuary of 2011.

If they rule that Frank is the sole owner, it could get interesting. It's unclear right now how much $$ the McCourts really have. If Frank is the soleowner, would have have enough money to run the team? Would he be able to find investors?

My guess is that the court is going to find the team community property. Simply because it was bought with money that both of them earned during the 30 yearperiod, and they earned it together. That, and it's California.

If things move quickly I could see the team hitting the market before the season starts.

 

[sinser13]

[h1]http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/11/dodgers-decline-jon-garlands-2010-option.html[/h1]

[h1]Dodgers Decline Jon Garland's 2010 Option[/h1]
By Mike Axisa [November 5 at 11:20am CST]

According to Dylan Hernandez of The LA Times, the Dodgers have declined Jon Garland's mutual $10MM option for 2010. The Diamondbacks will pay Garland his $2.5MM buyout, as per the terms of August's trade for Tony Abreu.

Garland made 32+ starts for the eighth straight year, putting up a 4.01 ERA, his lowest since 2005. FanGraphs valued his 2009 performance at $10.6MM, but it's hard to see Garland getting eight figures annually on the open market.

 

[mr jordan04]

Damn...I hope new owners don't come in and raise prices for everything like the mc courts did

 

[ooiron manoo]

Originally Posted by sinser13

[h1]http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/11/dodgers-decline-jon-garlands-2010-option.html[/h1]

[h1]Dodgers Decline Jon Garland's 2010 Option[/h1]
By Mike Axisa [November 5 at 11:20am CST]

According to Dylan Hernandez of The LA Times, the Dodgers have declined Jon Garland's mutual $10MM option for 2010. The Diamondbacks will pay Garland his $2.5MM buyout, as per the terms of August's trade for Tony Abreu.

Garland made 32+ starts for the eighth straight year, putting up a 4.01 ERA, his lowest since 2005. FanGraphs valued his 2009 performance at $10.6MM, but it's hard to see Garland getting eight figures annually on the open market.

These are the type of deals I don't like under the McCourt regime. I know baseball ops has their hands tied, hence why they gave up CarlosSantana for Casey Blake when they could've picked up Blake for less. You can add Tony Abreu's name to the list of prospects we will regret trading,and to the Diamondbacks, so we will see plenty of him. All for two months of Jon Garland, and all because they wanted the Diamondbacks to pick up the tab onGarland's remaining salary and buyout.

.

Frankly, I don't see how Frank McCourt could keep and operate the team. It's just not looking good unless he lines up some wealthy investors. However, I don't think we will end up like the Padres, having to sell off players and %#*$. It will be more like the Cubs and their ownership change. TheDodgers are not the Padres, we are a Premiere franchise.

 

[cincoseisdos]

Sell them.

Done.

Do it.

 

[Los Angeles]

Originally Posted by Mr Jordan04

Damn...I hope new owners don't come in and raise prices for everything like the mc courts did

co-%$%++$*-sign.

 

[mr jordan04]

Eventhough they won't ever let mark cuban buy a team, I'd love for him to be the dodgers' owner. At least you know its somebody who'spassionate and isn't just about making money

 

[jbug88]

Originally Posted by Mr Jordan04

Eventhough they won't ever let mark cuban buy a team, I'd love for him to be the dodgers' owner. At least you know its somebody who's passionate and isn't just about making money

Mark Cuban is one of the shrewdest businessmen around. Don't let passion for a sports team could your vision. He'd be all about making money. Especially in the second largest market in the US with arguably the 2nd or 3rd most storied franchise in MLB.
You don't get to be a billionaire and not care about making money...
That being said, as long as he doesn't move my team or change the uniforms, I'd be all for him owning the team.

-J-

 

[sinser13]

[h1]http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/11/manny-ramirez-will-return-to-dodgers-in-2010.html[/h1]

[h1]Manny Ramirez Will Return To Dodgers in 2010[/h1]
By Mike Axisa [November 6, 2009 at 6:19pm CST]

Dylan Hernandez of The LA Times tweets that according to agent Scott Boras, Manny Ramirez will return to the Dodgers next year. Technically, Manny signed a two-year deal last offseason, but he has the ability to opt out of the 2010 portion of his contract within five days after the World Series. He would forfeit $20MM by doing so.

The 37-year-old Ramirez had a tale of two seasons in 2009. He hit .348/.492/.641 in the team's first 29 games, but "just" .269/.389/.492 after returning from a 50-game banned substance suspension. ESPN's Keith Law said that Manny showed the "the loss of bat speed" at the end of the season, and didn't think that any team should invest $20MM in him for 2010.


no surprise here

 

[frenchblue23]

Well, at least that's settled. Don't have to deal with anymore major headaches concerning Manny.

Ned can address the issue at hand, after all this divorce mess is handled.

 

[jbug88]

it's funny that Manny takes his option and will be returning to the Dodgers next year and most people don't care. I've talked to 6 Dodgers fans inthe last couple of hours including my dad and every single one of them is "ehhh".

I admit, that I'm like that too.
He's Manny Friggin Ramirez. One of the greatest right handed hitters of all time. and people really don't care...

even FB up there.
"at least that's settled"
I honestly would have been ok if he didn't take the option.
and that's a sad state of affairs...

-J-

 

[mr jordan04]

Its a trip on how much 1 year difference can make for manny and the fans. 1 year ago every dodger fan was D riding him so much willing to take a bullet formanny, and now 98% of fans are like ehhh he sucks

he did so great last year, that he built a mountain so high for him to reach again and we were spoiled