Sep 22, 2010, 8:50 AM EST
Between Jamie McCourt’s dumb act — at least I hope it’s an act — and the testimony that lawyers working on the critical post-nuptial agreement substituted exhibits to the thing all willy-nilly, it’s safe to say that no one has any idea what the judge might ultimately do with the Dodgers. Jamie could get half the team. Or she could be made a ward of the state so as to prevent her from harming herself or others for that matter. Frank McCourt could walk away free and clear or he could have to pay the ex millions and then spend the next five years suing his old law firm. Chaos, really.
Which makes the news that the McCourts are going to resume settlement discussions the most sensible thing I’ve heard from these knuckleheads in a long, long time. Any settlement would almost certainly involve Frank paying Jamie a significant amount of cash to go away, but it beats the alternatives if he were to lose: a forced team sale or an even larger buyout.
Of course, a settlement usually requires that both parties (a) be wary of the risks of pressing on; and (b) swallow their pride and walk away with a less-than-fulfilling result. Whether these deluded, self-centered, materialistic Boomer poster children are capable of reaching a sensible, relatively unselfish solution is an open question, however, so let’s not declare this thing over quite yet.
- Ian Kinsler hopes Rangers go 0-162, calls GM a “sleazeball” (132)
- Albert Pujols was insulted when someone asked him if he can put up Mike Trout numbers (101)
- The politics of “The Cardinal Way” (67)
- Robinson Cano wants the Mariners to bring in Kendrys Morales and Ervin Santana (64)
- Reporter calls Ian Kinsler as self-absorbed as A-Rod (60)