Skip to content

Frank McCourt: Shameless

Jun 22, 2011, 8:25 AM EDT

File photo of Los Angeles Dodgers owner Frank McCourt speaking at a news conference about increased security at Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles

Last night, Bob Sacks, a lawyer who represents Frank McCourt, spoke with Bill Shaikin of the Los Angeles Times. The subject: Frank McCourt’s response to Major League Baseball’s rejection of the television deal McCourt sought with Fox and the impending standoff between McCourt and Bud Selig.

Everyone knows this is a difficult time for McCourt and the Dodgers. Everyone knows that the money is tight and the options few.  Moreover, everyone — at least everyone with a lick of sense or intellectual honesty about them — knows how McCourt and the Dodgers got into this mess.

Mr. Sacks and Frank McCourt, however, are choosing to ignore that. They are choosing to eschew any sense of humility and any notion of responsibility and to put their absolute worst foot forward. From Shaikin’s report:

“Bob Sacks, the attorney, also said McCourt would not surrender control of Dodger Stadium, the surrounding land and some ticket revenues even if he loses ownership of the Dodgers. Sacks said the entities controlling those interests are separate from the Dodgers and would remain under McCourt’s control, which would require any new owner to pay tens of millions in revenue each year to McCourt.

“‘There is the possibility of some fairly acrimonious and extreme litigation going forward, which Frank is hopeful will not occur. If baseball were to act precipitously against Frank, which has been threatened, then there will be a showdown on that issue.'”

“Acrimonious and extreme litigation.”  It’s a phrase so ridiculous, oblivious, irresponsible and frankly obnoxious in this context that I don’t even have the stomach to make the easy jokes at Mr. Sacks’ expense. As a lawyer I’m disgusted by this kind of threat. It casts what, on some level, I still consider my profession in the worst light. It justifies the low esteem in which so many people hold the practice of law.

As a baseball fan I’m disgusted by Frank McCourt’s entire operation and everything he’s done to this point, and my disgust grows by the day. Here’s a man who bought this once proud franchise on the back of $421 million of debt and managed to turn it into something even less than the funny paper he threw at it.  He carved it up, mortgaged it to the gills, looted whatever he could loot and shifted around whatever he couldn’t.  He lived a billionaire’s lifestyle on millionaire money that wasn’t even his to begin with and since it became abundantly clear that such a state of affairs was unsustainable, he has borrowed more and cast about madly to salvage whatever he can. At least as long as he hasn’t had to make any sacrifices himself, anyway.

And now, when he is finally being called to task over his irresponsible spendthrift ways, he has the audacity to threaten to scorch the earth with “acrimonious and extreme litigation,” all the while continuing to hold the Dodgers hostage, be it to some sort of injunction that keeps the team his for the time being (my guess) or via a gussied up extortion scheme in which he holds his control over the parking lots, the ballpark and whatever other ancillary assets to which he lays claim over the head of Major League Baseball and whoever it may get to run the Dodgers once McCourt’s slimy fingers are pried away from the controls.

Of course, Frank McCourt is a free actor with free will and such a course of action is his right. It is a course of action that was even enabled to a degree by Major League Baseball, who neglected to properly assess the risks of allowing such a leveraged transaction to such a questionable figure. And while I believe McCourt will ultimately lose, there is nothing to stop him from choosing to fight this fight with every weapon at his disposal, and I don’t doubt Mr. Sacks when he says such a fight will be “acrimonious and extreme.”

But just because one can pursue a course of action doesn’t mean one should.  Frank McCourt could, if he so chooses, stand down, admit that he has reached an untenable position as the Dodgers’ owner, allow Major League Baseball to take the team over and then collect his profits — of which there likely will still be a considerable amount — when the team is ultimately sold.  By doing so he will be paying a price for his incompetence and avarice, but it will be a relatively small one given the sheer scope of his incompetence and avarice.  And of course there would be a psychic benefit too, as by doing so he would limit the the pain felt by millions of Dodgers fans who have had to live through the nightmare he has created these past few years.

But I highly doubt McCourt will do any of that. He won’t because he lives in a world of zero responsibility, zero accountability and he has absolutely no shame. He is no idiot. He knows what he has done to this franchise. He knows that, at this point, saving himself and saving the Los Angeles Dodgers are two different things entirely.  He just doesn’t care. He doesn’t care and he doesn’t — as is clearly evidenced by his actions to date and the stated intentions of his attorney — have any intention of pursuing a course that places the best interests of the Dodgers and the interests of Dodgers fans anywhere on the priority list.

So bring your acrimonious and extreme litigation, Frank. Do your absolute worst. No sense in trying to do something decent for once in your reign as Dodgers’ owner. At this point, why should you change? And how could you do it anyway, given how little capacity for prudence, reflection and contrition you’ve exhibited thus far?

  1. Old Gator - Jun 22, 2011 at 8:41 AM

    Don’t demur, Craig. Let it out. Let’s hear you say scumbag. You know you want to.

  2. mrznyc - Jun 22, 2011 at 8:42 AM

    If Frank McCourt doesn’t love the Dodgers any more there’s still an owner who does – Fred Wilpon has built a monument to the Dodgers out in Queens.

  3. churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jun 22, 2011 at 8:43 AM

    I feel like Denzel Washington in Philadelphia, someone please explain this to me as if I’m a 5 year old. Assuming the reports are true that he won’t be able to pay his 6/30 payroll, can’t we assume he’ll be unable to meet other financial obligations? So if he defaults on his loan payments to the bank, couldn’t they seize these other assets* as debt relief? And the longer he puts up this charade, the more money he’ll spend on lawyer fees, thus losing more and more assets?

    *also, if all these outside assets are owned by the McCourt family, doesn’t that mean that Jamie owns half of them due to the divorce?

  4. koufaxmitzvah - Jun 22, 2011 at 9:09 AM

    As a doomsayer, this solidifies the death of Dodger Stadium. Frank will rake Dodgers fans with exorbitant parking passes for no other reason than he is scum, and the boycott will probably continue because, really, there are so few places to park around Dodgers Stadium, and the walk in is a 200 yard incline up. So, Bud, since you brought us this human POS, it looks like MLB will have to entice the construction of a new stadium in downtown LA for the Dodgers to play in. I know City Council would love for an investment on a lot near the Staples Center to help complete the renovation of former crack and heroin alley to the entertainment mecca of the entertainment capital of the world.

    Frank will bring the wrecking ball to Dodger Stadium and build some stupid looking condos that only East Coast jet setting wannabes would love. And the new stadium will be sponsored by Best Buy or something else terribly cold and corporate. And that will seal the deal on all that I had loved in my childhood.

    Oh well. 40 years is a long time to appreciate what major league baseball brought me. Too bad the next generation won’t pick up on it.

    • Rooster Amaro - Jun 22, 2011 at 10:23 AM

      Look on the bright side. At least your beloved childhood team would only be moving 5 miles away as opposed to across the entire continent.

      • koufaxmitzvah - Jun 22, 2011 at 11:23 AM

        Hey, I’m with you. The whole Dodgers story is one of emotion and woe. Chavez Ravine was developed as Dodger Stadium only after a few thousand families were uprooted via eminent domain.

        From Brooklyn to LA, it’s been heartbreak.

        But, as an Angeleno, I would like Brooklynites to know that I respect the former populace’s devotion to the team. I also understand that the Dodgers may have stayed there if the NY Planning Commissioner would have allowed the O’Malley’s to redevelop Ebbets Field and not force their relocation to Queens.

  5. joshfrancis50 - Jun 22, 2011 at 9:13 AM

    As I read this piece, the voice of Craig Calcaterra in my head rose and rose as I continued until at its peak you began to yell and then I think your head blew up, leaving nothing but smoke rising from your neck with some hipster glasses resting on the stump of your former self.

    Well done.

    • Old Gator - Jun 22, 2011 at 10:37 AM

      They say of Hemingway that there was nothing left from the shotgun blast but his beard and his ears. In Craig’s case, just those….glasses.

  6. megary - Jun 22, 2011 at 9:20 AM

    “No sense in trying to do something decent for once in your reign as Dodgers’ owner.”

    Or as Captain Dudley Smith told Jack Vincennes:
    “Don’t start tryin’ to do the right thing, boy-o. You haven’t the practice.”

  7. twofistedslopper - Jun 22, 2011 at 9:35 AM

    If worse comes to worse, if a new stadium is built downtown, couldn’t the Dodgers temporarily move into the Angels’ stadium? It’s quite a ways away, but anything to deprive McCourt seems like a good idea.

  8. macjacmccoy - Jun 22, 2011 at 9:36 AM

    McCourt might be a low life but I still dont like the fact that MLB can just take a team away from an owner who paid 100’s of millions of dollars for it. They let the guy buy the Dodgers in the first place and just like McCourt should be held responsible so should they. If MLB approves the sale of a team to a new owner then they should have to live with that decision. They have plenty of time to do research on the would be owner before the sale goes through and if they dont do there due diligence and find out after the transfer of power is already complete then its their fault. They shouldnt be able to take a man’s property bc they were to incompetent to do a thorough background check.

    MLB is just as much to blame for the down fall of the Dodgers as is Frank McCourt bc they let him in. And taking the Dodgers from him and selling them to someone else isnt going to make a difference bc they dont know how to screen for guys like Wilpon and McCourt and bc of that they will continue to let men like them become part of the league.

    • dohpey28 - Jun 22, 2011 at 9:54 AM

      So if a couple adopts a baby, pays all the fees and then goes through all the processes, after the adoption is complete they can do whatever they want? They can beat that kid at will, abuse them as they see fit, and there should be no repercussions?

      Part of the purchase agreement when you by a team is that you keep debt levels at certain levels and run the team with the team’s best interest at heart not your own personal interests. He has done the exact opposite. There is no way to know a persons true intentions when they buy a team, but when they become obvious then action needs to be taken. Good for MLB. Selig has been terrible, but I can’t fault him here.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jun 22, 2011 at 10:23 AM

      McCourt might be a low life but I still dont like the fact that MLB can just take a team away from an owner who paid 100′s of millions of dollars for it.

      That’s not the case though. He leveraged a ton of debt to buy the team, and is trying to leverage more debt just to pay his players each month. He’s robbing Peter (and Mark, and Luke, and others) just to pay Paul, which can cause problems for the other MLB owners down the road.

      They have plenty of time to do research on the would be owner before the sale goes through and if they dont do there due diligence and find out after the transfer of power is already complete then its their fault

      Wait what? This isn’t like the subprime mortgage crisis where people were lying about their income to get loans. Read this link I’ll post at the bottom. Essentially Frank split off all the assets of the Dodgers (the stadium, parking, tickets, etc), transferred their ownership to another group (that Frank lead), and used that as collateral to get money to pay the players. As mentioned above, he’s got himself into this situation by doing things like pay his kids, one of whom was in college and the other working for Goldman-Sachs, $2M/year as an employee of the Dodgers. Nevermind paying a Russian mystic $200K/year to project “good vibes” through his TV.

      Put it another way, say someone offers the Steinbrenners $20B for the Yanks. They sell, and the person begins dividing the assets amongst his family, runs the team into the ground and begins defaulting on his loan payments to the city for the new stadium. You think MLB and the other owners should sit back and let this happen?

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jun 22, 2011 at 10:24 AM

        crap forgot the link:
        http://itsaboutthemoney.net/archives/2011/06/21/commissioner-selig-frank-mccourt-must-go-a-petition/

        ^^ must read for everyone, even business morons like myself could fully understand how much of a creep McCourt is.

  9. Chris Fiorentino - Jun 22, 2011 at 10:03 AM

    Craig, I believe that you and other baseball fans like you, will be less irritated by this whole mess when you stop and realize that baseball is first and foremost a BUSINESS. It stopped being a game run by “decent men” a loooooong time ago.

    • Kevin S. - Jun 22, 2011 at 10:12 AM

      Viewing baseball as a business should still leave us incredibly upset, because McCourt has done untold damage to the Dodger brand and to MLB that will take years, if not decades, to unravel.

    • cur68 - Jun 22, 2011 at 10:25 AM

      Chris, the day I as a fan totally give in to that line of thought is the day my interests in sport in general will nose dive. Sure, what you say is true. It’s a business and a damn profitable one at that. The trouble is McCourt is LOUSY at the business. He’s got one of the preeminent teams in MLB. A sure fire money cow and he’s LOST MONEY with it. If this is just a bloodless money gig then he needs to go. He’s hurting the business.

      As fans, he’s hurting us, not only financially (which is the larger counter point to your post) but emotionally (the Dodgers shouldn’t be losers. That club is just too well supported to be loser), and even physically (lax security lead to that horrific assault @ Chavez Ravine) him and that ass clown Colletti. They have no sense of how to run a team, relate to fans, players, the safety of the paying guests or even common decency towards one another (see Jamie and Frank, and Ned v. Kemp). In every way shape and form Frank McCourt and his cronies are bad for baseball; financially, historically, emotionally, physically, and, ultimately, morally.

    • Old Gator - Jun 22, 2011 at 10:39 AM

      Yeah, and what kind of shape would your business be in if you ran it like that? Who are you really, anyway – Hank Greenburg?

    • paperlions - Jun 22, 2011 at 11:01 AM

      Baseball teams have NEVER been owned by “decent men” or at least men any better than the current owners.

    • koufaxmitzvah - Jun 22, 2011 at 11:29 AM

      Using the “It’s only business” routine is what’s wrong with America. Don’t fool yourself into thinking that democracy and capitalism gives corporations the rights to rape, pillage, and thoroughly confuse in the name of the All Mighty Dollar.

  10. Mr. Jason "El Bravo" Heyward - Jun 22, 2011 at 10:29 AM

    I do sincerely apologize for the delay on this issue. For some reason, I had yet to add Mr. McCourt to my list of 2011 douchenozzles. Congrats Frankie, you’re the eighth member of the coveted list. Here’s where we stand:

    1. Luke Scott
    2. Hank Steinbrenner
    3. Lenny Dykstra
    4. Carlos Silva
    5. Richie Whitt – Dallas Observer
    6. Jay Mariotti
    7. Willy Aybar
    8. Frank McCourt

    • Old Gator - Jun 22, 2011 at 10:40 AM

      No Charlie Sheen?

      • Mr. Jason "El Bravo" Heyward - Jun 22, 2011 at 10:51 AM

        I’m trying to keep the list baseball-centric. Granted, there are many arguments where Sheen could fit in with this group, but quite honestly, I find him more amusing than douchenozzle-y.

        If I read some baseball news and sit back and say in my mind something like “man, that [dude/lady] in this article is a f’ing douchenozzle,” then I know for sure that person must be added to the list. For some odd reason, I thought of many other words to call Frank, but only this morning did I say “wow, what a f’ing douchenozzle.” Hence, his late, but most appropriate addition.

  11. craigbhill - Jun 22, 2011 at 10:40 AM

    Craig, if all that’s in this is a scary threat to somehow force MLB to give in to him on the bad Fox deal, that’s not only crazy (Frank is psychotic and i believe dangerous, first to himself, but not only himself) it’s a fraud. It’s just a threat, just more evil oozing out from his craven greed.

    i hope MLB is reading this garbage from the McCourts and is preparing a countersuit that will litigate Frank into the gutter. The suit would aim to undo his dissection of the Dodger properties and restore them into one. As it is, highly unreported, McCourt gave in on this point to his ex in the now-somewhat-defunct divorce agreement last week. He made no gesture that pretended he could keep the asstes separate. All this blathering from the McCourt side will be made moot if the judge decides on Aug 4 every part of the Dodgers is community property.

    One thing i know for certain will come out of this, not that there could ever be another owner as scurrilous as this one, but that any such division of assets in the future will be outlawed by MLB, and quite possibly even by the Congress.

    If i were Frank, and i couldn’t be such an a-hole if i worked at it, i would watch my back. This guy is cruising for his own assassination. If he thinks the anger building all around him throughout SoCal is only directed at unfortunate Giant fans in his soon-to-be-former parking lot, he is even yet more delusional. Can i encourage such a mob? I just did.

  12. jimatkins - Jun 22, 2011 at 10:42 AM

    I’m not a lawyer, but it seems to me that this is a classic case of where the “best interests” clause totally applies. McScum has severely damaged one of the premier franchises in the game, thereby causing damage to the other owners in the National League. Who wants the Dodgers to come to town? They don’t sell out stadiums like desirable opponents do. Watching the Angels-Marlins game last night, I had a sudden realization that the empty stadium I was seeing was the future of Chavez Ravine.

    I think I finally understand the logic behind the anti-trust exemption MLB has; the teams have to depend on each other to conduct business in an effective, competitive-on-the-field manner so that all teams have opponents that will attract ticket buyers to each given game. Therefore, there must be some enforcement authority to ensure the competitive environment. Couldn’t a judge (probably in bankruptcy court) throw out the division of the Dodger empire as sham transactions?

  13. Ted Spradlin - Jun 22, 2011 at 10:43 AM

    Frank McCourt’s actions are eerily similar to our modern TBTF bankers – highly leveraged acquisitions, management looted the cash in what S&L regulator William Black would call a “control fraud,” borrowed the max against newly created assets – parking lots, regulators looked the other way, collapsed under weight of too much debt, and finally – held the baseball world hostage with end of the world threats. He’s the poster child for baseball’s credit bubble era.

    Selling the team and stadium is his best chance at recouping that $9,000,000 down payment he made back in 2004.

  14. tuftsb - Jun 22, 2011 at 10:44 AM

    Craig – what is the status of the IRS and AG investigations regarding the Dodgers Dream Foundation? (It took a long time, but I finally got someone – Michael Schmidt – to print the $400,000 payment story last year).

    Also, are the McCourts still officers of the DDF and ThinkCure? I have contacted the foundation, but get forwarded to PR (no problems with this) and calls to answer thi simple quesation are not retunred.

    If they are still officers (or even only Frank), why would anyone with a modicum of common sense donate to these charities connected to the team?

  15. Mr. Jason "El Bravo" Heyward - Jun 22, 2011 at 10:58 AM

    In case you have nothing to do…I thought of this when I saw the headline….which if Craig was going for, then props to him!

  16. royalsfaninfargo - Jun 22, 2011 at 12:03 PM

    “…justifying the low esteem in which so many people hold the practice of law.”

    Some people dont esteem lawyers and their profession? NO! No I will will not be part of such a society. And a California lawyer, nay even an LA lawyer at that. For all the good that has been wrought by these selfless and courageous beings may we as a society be shamed that they dont get their just reward. What? He’s making $500/hr and threatening “acrimonious and extreme litigation”, you must be jesting sir! Why no man of the law would EVER think of monetary awards or drawing something out to advance said rewards. I am truly shocked sir. Shocked!

  17. foreverchipper10 - Jun 22, 2011 at 12:41 PM

    What’s that? A fire sale on the Dodgers? OK…..if you insist we will begrudingly swap our stud centerfielder Nate McClouth for your semi-decent Matt Kemp. If you insist……

  18. spudchukar - Jun 22, 2011 at 12:42 PM

    Hopefully, this question never becomes a reality, but if Son of Court and tag-team partner Bob Sacks, follow up on their threat of “acrimonious and extreme litigation”, baseball’s anti-trust status might well be brought to the forefront. But, if this does indeed devolve into such action and say it goes all the to the Supreme Court, wouldn’t today’s Conservative Judges most probably rule in favor of maintaining the anti-trust exemption?

    • spudchukar - Jun 22, 2011 at 2:35 PM

      Okay, let me try it this way. If McCourt chose to be a total dickhead, couldn’t he threaten MLB and their anti-trust exemption? And isn’t that implied by “extreme litigation”?

      • purdueman - Jun 22, 2011 at 2:46 PM

        Mc Broke may THINK that he can challenge baseball’s anti-trust exemption in court, but that exemption came about through a legislative act of Congress and as such is more than just an exemption, it’s the law.

        I’d like to see Congress tell Selig though that if the A’s aren’t allowed to move to downtown San Jose due to the totally arbitrary “territorial rights” granted to the Giants (in order to keep them from leaving San Francisco at the time because they wanted out of Candlestick Park), then Congress will repeal the exemption and take it away (which would free up the A’s to move anywhere they wanted to; even across the street from ATT Park in downtown SF).

        After all, if Mc Donalds wants to relocate one of their restaurants from say a blighted crime ridden decaying neighborhood in Oakland to right across the street from a very successful Wendy’s in downtown San Jose you sure wouldn’t see anyone being able to stop them from doing so!

      • jwbiii - Jun 23, 2011 at 12:26 AM

        spudchukar, I think by “extreme litigation” McCourt means to subpoena the financial records of other teams and show that hiding and skimming income through related party transactions is a standard practice. This is “extreme” due to the upcoming CBA negotiations. The other owners are extremely unlikely to want this sort of information made public.

  19. purdueman - Jun 22, 2011 at 12:43 PM

    Mc Broke has two major problems: 1) When you purchase an MLB franchise, one of the contractual stipulations is that you agree to not sue MLB as part of your ownership agreement; and 2) Due to baseballs anti-trust exemption, Mc Broke can’t sue MLB for “restraint of free trade” either.

    What Mc Broke has done by breaking up the Dodgers into somewhere between 26-30 “shell” corporations is akin to a ponzy scheme. In other words, you keep robbing Peter to pay Paul until you accumulate a big old nest egg, then you cut and run, hide your money in a foreign bank account under an assumed name and leave your investors holding the bag Bernie Madoff style.

    In this case Frankie boy’s planned on giant nest egg was the $3B new Fox TV contract. Once Frankie got his greasy little hands on that, all of the money would quickly disappear faster than he could call a tow truck in order to take a kickback for fingering an illegally parked car on the street outside of one of his pay to park lots!!!

    • lanflfan - Jun 22, 2011 at 4:18 PM

      Purdue, I was thinking the same thing regarding the Ponzi scheme and the “sham” companies. All these businesses are related to, and dependent upon, each other to survive. It makes no sense to have a parking lot in the middle of a ravine, or to sell tickets to the middle of a ravine, or buy food in the middle of a ravine (a little sense, but that’s stretching it) without a large MLB stadium there. Each company is dependent on the other, and as such, there really is only one organization. The “shell game” is Ponzi-espe, and hopefully MLB is taking a long, hard look at the books. I just hope Frank gave them the “real” books, I could see him cooking up some crooked numbers with a creative accountant or two.

      Frank needs to take a long walk off Santa Monica Pier, and don’t stop at the edge. Go swimming with the sharks out there, Jaws would love to meet you.

  20. rcali - Jun 22, 2011 at 1:15 PM

    This is going to be fun.

    • purdueman - Jun 22, 2011 at 1:25 PM

      Rumor has it that Selig and MLB as part of their offer to entice Frank Mc Broke to willingly give up the Dodgers and surrender is the guarantee of a $50,000/year job complete with uniform to become the new head of the Dodgers planned stadium valet parking lot service. The only stipulation is that Frankie has to agree to wear the valet uniform, complete with a cute little Dodger beanie on his dome, and learn to drive a stick shift!!! (ROFLMAO!!!!)

  21. iranuke - Jun 22, 2011 at 1:31 PM

    If I understand the threat, he is saying that he will gouge the team on rent, parking etc. If I bought the Dodgers, I would immediately move them to a temp home and watch McCourt go broke on his stadium and parking. The Dodgers played for several years in the Coliseum for a couple of years while they built Dodger Stadium. Move baseball operations and the stadium will be worth the land under it less demo (at a guess less that is owed).

    • purdueman - Jun 22, 2011 at 1:50 PM

      iranu… I’ve heard a lot of talk about this on different LA sports talk radio shows, including interviews with local lawyers. Baseball’s contention is that they are entitled to take back everything that was a part of what constituted the then franchise that the Mc Brokes bought (more like borrowed), when they acquired the franchise.

      What that means is that regardless of how many little people-less shell corporations Mc Broke has broken the team into, baseball should be able to seize all of them except for those who claim the Mc Brokes dozen or so mansions as assets.

      After all, if baseball seized just the shell corporation that is actually the Dodgers the way Mc Broke has things currently structured, all they’d acquire is alot of debt and a big liability and i can’t see any court agreeing to that.

      To your suggestion though, no the ancient Coliseum isn’t a viable option; baseball’s not about to allow left field under the Coliseum baseball configuration to be only 220′ from home plate with a 50′ chain link fence again.

      Anaheim Stadium though is certainly a viable option, as it’s not owned by the Angels but by the City of Anaheim whom I’m sure would welcome the revenues.

      The AEG group who built the Staples Center and LA Live is said to be very interested in buying the club and putting up a new baseball only stadium downtown to keep expanding LA Live, and they have the money to both buy the team, acquire the land and build the stadium without public funding.

  22. jimatkins - Jun 22, 2011 at 1:50 PM

    Hell yeah move the Dodgers! The LA Coliseum commission would drool over the prospect of actual tenants. Put that giant fence up in left- any of you old enough to remember Wally Moon’s moon shots? McScum can sit in his suite and listen to crickets in Elysian Park.

    • spudchukar - Jun 22, 2011 at 2:23 PM

      Not only do I remember Wally Moon’s bombs, I actually played against the team he managed at John Brown University in Arkansas. As a Cards fan he was one of my favorites, and I believe he was moved to the Dodgers for Gino Cimoli, who just passed this Spring.

      • jimatkins - Jun 22, 2011 at 4:19 PM

        Cool! He really knew how to take advantage of park effects about 20 years before anybody knew what park effects were.

      • jwbiii - Jun 23, 2011 at 12:51 AM

        Wally Moon also had the unibrow thing, and it actually looked good on him.

  23. koufaxmitzvah - Jun 22, 2011 at 2:52 PM

    Not that I’m good with family trees, but it wouldn’t surprise me if Bob Sacks is somehow related to Ben Dover.

    • spudchukar - Jun 22, 2011 at 3:34 PM

      Yep, look for McCourt’s attorney to turn up at a Teabagger Rally.

      • purdueman - Jun 22, 2011 at 3:42 PM

        If Sarah Pallin can see Russia from her backyard, I wonder if old Frankie boy can see Hawaii from the deck in his backyard too?!!!

  24. tashkalucy - Jun 22, 2011 at 4:48 PM

    McCourt and his mousy loud-mouthed wife encapsulate every thing wrong with the way Bostonians and New Yorker’s do business. Get in charge of something, leverage it to the hit, rip every cent you can out of it, and then demand public come an bail them out……or else.

    The only thing they’e missing is a bunch of talking heads on CNBC saying how wronged and talented they are and somehow calling it “free markets” and “capitalism”.

    • purdueman - Jun 22, 2011 at 5:42 PM

      Dead on post; too bad the Mc Court’s aren’t Jewish too!

      • tashkalucy - Jun 22, 2011 at 5:46 PM

        Hey,

        When will you be back from the America Nazi Party meeting?

      • purdueman - Jun 22, 2011 at 6:00 PM

        LOL! I knew when I posted that the I’d get jumped by all the left wing bleeding heart liberals, do-gooders and politically correct crowd, but whether you like to read or hear it or not, I’ve been in corporate business all my career and there’s a reason why there’s a stereotype of a “New Yawk Jew”.

        No, I don’t believe in painting any group of people with the same brush, but if the shoe fits, then they have to wear it. You wouldn’t believe how many negotiations I have been involved with over the years with this group of people; they try to nickle and dime you to death and throw nickles around like they’re 350 pound man hole covers.

        By the way, I have some very good Jewish friends, but they aren’t corporate lawyers or business people for New Yawk… that’s an entirely different culture my friend.

      • purdueman - Jun 22, 2011 at 6:14 PM

        I’ll never forget one contract negotiation that I had with a CFO from New Yawk. HIs staff as well as mine had put together a very thorough cost justification proposal that clearly showed that even by taking the numbers conservatively, the ROI on the project was more than double that of any other project the corporation was evaluating.

        After presenting the joint ROI study, which took months of hard work from both his staff and ours to prepare, the first words out of his mouth were: “What’s is gonna cawst? What’s it gonna cawst?”

        The I presented our proposal and without even bothering to look at any of the detail he said: “This cawst is too high; you need to shave this price down”. I held my ground though, and we wound up walking away from the deal because after all that time and effort we weren’t about to get ***ed down.

        My whole point is a follow on to one of the prior posts about how certain business people give Boston and New York (and throw in Philly too), a bad name, but honest to God if it weren’t true, the stereotype would continue to survive and flourish.

        By contrast, when I was growing up a commonly used ethnic slur was to try and demean someone by calling them a “Dumb Polack” (this preceded the next popular ethnic slur that came into vogue which is today known as the “N” word).

        Then a Polish Pope, John Paul II, got elected who spoke 18 languages and became the most universally revered worldwide public figure of the century that book-ended his life and people suddenly realized that just because you may be of Polish heritage, you’re not necessarily dumb, and the once popular ethnic slur totally died away.

        Although the “N” word is still of course dropped from time to time today, it thankfully is no longer a universal slang term for all (or even most), black people. Again, it took Dr. Martin Luther King to enlighten the masses. Point being, the behavior of the class of people of whom I am referring hasn’t changed much, if any over the past 50 years, which is why it still is in common use.

      • koufaxmitzvah - Jun 22, 2011 at 6:14 PM

        Actually, PurdueMan, I have no idea why

        1. You’re ragging on Jews.
        2. You think that only bleeding heart liberals care that you rag on Jews.

        And Jamie is Jewish. And Frank is Irish.

        And you are an absolute race baiting moron.

      • purdueman - Jun 22, 2011 at 6:40 PM

        koufax… you are so-ooooooooooo thin skinned. Get over yourself already and wake up to the realities of the real world out there.

        I simply shared my MANY life experiences in the corporate world when dealing with hi powered Jewish lawyers and CFO’s from New Yawk and Philly, and when you have a bad experience once, you can ignore it and write it off, but not when it happens virtually EVERY time you go to negotiate with this narrow sliver of Jewish people who bring on a lot of disdain among those of us who have to deal with them.

      • tashkalucy - Jun 22, 2011 at 7:24 PM

        In fact, the majority of the bankers that played games bundling peoples mortgages, running a ponzi scheme selling the bundles to one another for more an more money and subsequently voting thousands of employees million dollar bonuses were NOT Jewish.

        Hard as it may be for you to comprehend, there is a way of doing business in Boston and New York (as well as DC) in which to point to to figure out how to get a good percentage of the pile of money into ones own pocket, and in return to give back as little as possible t people that assume hose in charge are handling their futures in a responsible manner.

        Frank McCourt’s ethics fit right in with those that have this countries economy hanging by a fingernail, and I firmly believe it will subsequently end in another Great Depression (after hyperinflation) no later than 2015. Yes, some of these people are Jewish. And some are from other ethnic groups. So?

        The problem in America is that it’s OK not to respect those you do with with and for. It’s killing the country. It goes far beyond one ethnic group of people. And it IS centered in the (old) industrial northeast.

        For a guy that thinks he’s so swift in analyzing situations purdueman, you display zero objectivity and critical thought.

  25. koufaxmitzvah - Jun 22, 2011 at 6:16 PM

    PurdueMan’s shoe is the one skidding dog shit.

    • purdueman - Jun 22, 2011 at 6:41 PM

      Is that where you were? I’m so sorry that I accidentally stepped on you! Now please, pass me a hose and… get over yourself already.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

All the trade deadline news to know
Top 10 MLB Player Searches