Skip to content

“Life in Frank McCourt’s ghost town”

Jun 22, 2011, 1:30 PM EDT

Empty Dodger Stadium

In what is becoming something of a series over at the Los Angeles Times, Bill Plaschke writes a column today about what it’s like to go to a Dodgers game now that the McCourt fan boycott is in full swing.  Those who have been to Dodger Stadium before will not recognize Plaschke’s description:

We put our feet up on the seat in front of us. We spread our arms across the seats between us. There were no heads to block our view. There was little sound to distract our attention. Down below, the Dodgers and Reds battled each other as if they were Little Leaguers playing for a handful of parents. It was actually pretty cool. Life in Frank McCourt’s Ghost Town is eerie, but it has its advantages.

Doin’ a heckuva a job there, Frankie!

  1. Kevin S. - Jun 22, 2011 at 1:34 PM

    When you’ve got us nodding our heads at something Bill fucking Plaschke wrote, you know you’ve done something wrong.

  2. royalsfaninfargo - Jun 22, 2011 at 1:39 PM

    Plaschke is one of the biggest sanctimonious blowhards in “sports media”, but he nailed this. The best line is when he described a Reds fan in “full regalia” being there and not getting “disturbed”. Guess there is a euphemism for everything!

  3. halladaysbicepts - Jun 22, 2011 at 1:43 PM

    The more I hear about this Frank McCourt and people trashing him, I now hope he fights and keeps the franchise just to piss people off. I’ve changed my opinion. I think Selig and crew are as bad as this guy.

    Frank McCourt, I hope you find a way to put the screws to Selig and MLB. Regardless of your indiscretions, Selig and his cronies deserve someone to put the screws to them, especially with how they like to screw the game of baseball.

    • paperlions - Jun 22, 2011 at 1:52 PM

      You mean, like Scott Boras? He’s about the only one (besides the players union) that ever tries to challenge the owners. Fans seem to always side with the owners in these fights.

      • halladaysbicepts - Jun 22, 2011 at 1:59 PM

        You know what is is, paperlions, is that I find that the almighty Bud Selig, who has next to zero credibility when it comes to making the right decisions when it comes to baseball, has all of the sudden a claim to morality when it comes to doing “the right thing” when it comes to how the Dodgers are ran. McCourt had a deal with Fox in place to meet his payroll obligations, and then some. But, the “moral, let’s do the right thing for baseball” Selig nixes it. All he should care about is if they can make payroll and meet their league obligations. Period.

        Bud Selig is the biggest hypocrite.

      • mrfloydpink - Jun 22, 2011 at 6:19 PM

        @bicepts: You have brought valid points to the table? Can you show me where, because I would like to see them. Oh, wait, I bet they are kept in the same room with Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Marlins fans, unicorns and other things that don’t really exist.

      • halladaysbicepts - Jun 22, 2011 at 6:25 PM

        Are you close with the Fairy? Sounds like it, pink.

      • mrfloydpink - Jun 22, 2011 at 7:14 PM

        Wait a minute, bicepts. I see what you did there. You implied that I am gay! Ho, ho! What a delightful and witty remark.

    • klbader - Jun 22, 2011 at 1:55 PM

      That’s exactly how I feel about slavery and the Holocaust. The more people say something is bad, the more I know it must be good! Or maybe, just maybe, everyone is piling on Frank McCourt because he has mismanaged one of the most lucrative teams in professional sports and stripped it of its value. No, that can’t be the reason, could it?

      • halladaysbicepts - Jun 22, 2011 at 2:04 PM

        If MLB owners had any backbone, they would replace the disgrace known as Bud Selig before worrying about a guy that can still meet his payroll because he had a corporate loan in place. If this owner goes bankrupt, then deal with it. He looses the asset and it’s sold. That’s the law of economics. This holier than thou Selig has no morality.

      • klbader - Jun 22, 2011 at 2:24 PM

        The fact that Selig is “holier than thou” and “has no morality” doesn’t mean that he is wrong in this instance. It isn’t Selig’s fault that McCourt mortgaged the Dodgers’ franchise to the hilt. It’s not Selig’s fault that McCourt can’t make payroll. Sure, Selig refused to allow the Dodgers to enter into the television deal with Fox, but honestly, how good of a deal do you think that was? If you were handling negotiations for Fox, and you were negotiating with a man desperate for cash, how good of a deal would you give him? If McCourt can’t make payroll at the end of the month, the rest of the baseball owners will end up subsidizing the Dodgers. Do you really think they aren’t with Bud Selig on this one? Even if the owners actually hated Selig, which they don’t, they would be 100% on board with MLB taking over the Dodgers.

      • halladaysbicepts - Jun 22, 2011 at 2:34 PM


        This man is the legal owner of the Dodgers. Instead of working with him, throughout the divorce and such, Selig has chosen the easy way out and is trying to cut his legs out under him. Work with the guy. Let him get his loan from Fox and formulate a plan going forward.

        The point I am trying to make is this edict is coming from a commisioner that has always had dubious designs towards baseball. It’s almost that he wants to make McCourt another footnote in his legacy.

        Instead, McCourt has become a lightning rod for the fans and national media in regards to a team that is average on the field. Everyone wants to sensationalize this story.

        Work with the guy. He is the legal owner. If not, I hope McCourt does everything in his legal power to drag this out in the court system. I actually hope that this leads to the courts re-opening baseball’s anti-trust exemption. If McCourt can accomplish that alone, he will be my hero.

      • klbader - Jun 22, 2011 at 2:44 PM


        I don’t know what you are talking about when you say that Bud has had “dubious designs towards baseball.” I think Bud is a pretty boring guy, but it is hard to argue that under his leadership, baseball has become more popular, and the owners are making lots more money. Not everything he has done has been perfect — I don’t love inter-league play or the all-star game winner getting home field in the WS — but his decision don’t seem to be a part of some dark, dubious conspiracy to hurt the game. And I don’t think anyone could argue that Bud doesn’t passionately love baseball.

        Also, the public record demonstrates clearly that both the McCourts took money out of the Dodgers organization for their own personal use. The franchise has been devalued. Why would anyone want to stick with the guy who is doing that? If you invite a guy into your house and he starts stealing from you, do you keep letting him back in?

      • trevorb06 - Jun 22, 2011 at 2:51 PM

        I think somebody voted for Nixon… after Watergate.


      • halladaysbicepts - Jun 22, 2011 at 2:59 PM


        You said “Also, the public record demonstrates clearly that both the McCourts took money out of the Dodgers organization for their own personal use”

        Guess what? He’s the owner. It’s his franchise. He can take whatever money he wants. All he has to do is (1) meet the team’s payroll and (2) meet his financial obligation to the league. His loan by Fox would have met this criteria.

        You also said “And I don’t think anyone could argue that Bud doesn’t passionately love baseball.”.

        If the guy loved baseball so much, why has more bad and drastic changes to the game of baseball occured during his watch than in the history of baseball? Because he’s a money whore that is the mouthpiece for the rest of the baseball whores. After all, he owned the Brewers for so many years. The owners elected one of their own. $$$$$$$$$

        Why do you think they ran out a good man by the name of Fay Vincent? Because, he had a conscious.

      • halladaysbicepts - Jun 22, 2011 at 3:27 PM


        Did you just learn about Nixon and Watergate in history class today? If so, I’m glad these highschools are still teaching American history.

      • trevorb06 - Jun 22, 2011 at 3:54 PM


        It’s funny with all the immature, petty, even sexual insults you throw out you’re the one who acts like a little 17 year old lashing out because his parents didn’t give him enough attention. I may only be in my 20’s but I guarantee you I’m already 3 times the man you’ll ever be in your life. I have a feeling that you’re just looking for attention therefore you’re just throwing out the most ridiculous ideas you can think up. Did your parents not give you enough attention when you were a child? Why don’t you lash out at them and leave the big boys here to have their baseball blog. I think people are starting to catch on that you’re just looking for attention. I know you’ve figured out that really nobody likes you, so now you’re angry and want to try to destroy everybody else’s good time reading baseball blogs and having good, clean, responsible discussion with your foul garbage and inuendo. We really don’t give two craps about you though bicepTs. You’re nothing but an immature manchild and a nozzle.

      • klbader - Jun 22, 2011 at 4:06 PM


        As you said, one of the things that Frank McCourt has to do is make payroll, and all evidence indicates that he will not be able to do so. Had he not used the Dodgers as his own personal expense account, had he not mortgaged all of the teams assets, he may have been able to make payroll without having to accept what is likely a less-than-market rate deal from Fox. That being said, he cannot now make payroll, so MLB has to take over. By your own logic, this fact seems inarguable.

        I also don’t understand why you seem to support a “money whore” like Frank McCourt while at the same time disliking a “money whore” like Bud Selig and all the rest of the owners in baseball. Is McCourt just your type of money whore?

      • halladaysbicepts - Jun 22, 2011 at 4:06 PM


        You said “I know you’ve figured out that really nobody likes you, so now you’re angry and want to try to destroy everybody else’s good time reading baseball blogs and having good, clean, responsible discussion with your foul garbage and inuendo.”

        See, the reason that people respond to me is because I bring a valid point to the table and people want to debate it. If they didn’t, they would not reply. They don’t reply to you because you bring nothing to the baseball conversation.

        What happen this past week, little guy, did you get turned down by your first girl? You have a lot of pent-up anger. My advise is to see your high school councillor. They may be able to help you.

      • trevorb06 - Jun 22, 2011 at 4:34 PM


        People argue you because you’re so far off that it’s ridiculous.

        I stand by my statement that even though I’m still in my 20’s I’m still 3 times the man you’ll ever be. I think I’ve proven my point. Done with this post. :-)

      • dwishinsky - Jun 22, 2011 at 7:25 PM

        Thank you so much trevorb06 –

        Everyday when I see the most out there an asinine comment that there is on this great blog, it always belongs to “halldaysbicepts”. I am glad you highlighted the “T” and how it should not be there. Because for so long I have thought, should I highlight it? Does the opinion of someone who can’t spell a simple word like that really carry any weight? It really can’t. Thank you for highlighting it when I didn’t want to, you’ve done us all a service.

        Maybe he can start posting as leesobleeks or maybe victorinosgroyn

    • koufaxmitzvah - Jun 22, 2011 at 1:55 PM

      You see who your friends are, Frank?

      Stay classy.

    • Mr. Jason "El Bravo" Heyward - Jun 22, 2011 at 3:36 PM

      Bicepts, stop switching your position just so you can get a rise out of people by taking the dissenting, minority opinion. Instead why don’t you attempt to grow a backbone and stick to what you say? You clearly changed your mind b/c a bunch of folks trashed McCourt unanimously (and rightly so), thus you felt the need to take the opposing view. It once again proves you don’t base your opinions on any sort of factual evidence. You come to argue and that’s all. Your game is f’ing weak. WEAK!

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

        No, I changed my opinion because it seems like there is a crusade by some to run this guy out of legal ownership of the franchise, especially after the recent developments that he secured a loan and this Selig prick doesn’t want to work with the man.

        Even I can change my opinion in regards to a subject. The bottom line is that he wants to remain owner, has a loan to pay his players and meet MLB financial obligations, and is not allowed to do so.

        I find myself now pulling for this guy, regardless of what I said about him in the past.

      • Mr. Jason "El Bravo" Heyward - Jun 22, 2011 at 3:51 PM

        I respect the fact that you can change your opinion, but I still don’t buy it. MLB has every right to do what they’re doing and I can’t imagine you can argue that Mr. McCourt has done a good job or even marginally deserves to own any part of the Dodgers. But then again, you may surprise me.

      • trevorb06 - Jun 22, 2011 at 3:56 PM

        Add him to the nozzle list right behind McCourt. :-)

      • halladaysbicepts - Jun 22, 2011 at 3:57 PM

        El Bravo,

        Never said McCourt was a good man or owner. Probably a piece of sh*t. All I’m saying is that he legally owns the Dodgers, has a deal in place with Fox sports to bring in additional income to support the team and is being stonewalled by a commisioner that doesn’t like the TV deal because it doesn’t bring in enough money. Because, all this dirtbag Selig cares about is how much money is being kicked back to MLB.

      • Mr. Jason "El Bravo" Heyward - Jun 22, 2011 at 4:13 PM

        no can do trevorb06, that list is reserved for actual people, not trolls. that’s not true, dykstra is a troll. i just refuse to ok?

        “that doesn’t like the TV deal because it doesn’t bring in enough money”
        Bicepts, please fact check that one mmmkay?

      • halladaysbicepts - Jun 22, 2011 at 4:31 PM

        El Bravo,

        You said “just so you can get a rise out of people by taking the dissenting, minority opinion.”

        Since when is it about what other people think? Why do I have to always agree with the majority? Is that bad? It’s because I have a mind and can think independently. I don’t need a newspaper or blog to tell me how to think. And I don’t need to see thumbs up/thumbs down crap to alter my opinion. My opinion is my own opinion and I don’t need your blessing.

        I’ve told you this before. Call it “trolling” all you want. I call it telling it like I see it and not being a drone to everything I read.

      • Mr. Jason "El Bravo" Heyward - Jun 22, 2011 at 4:41 PM

        Relax Bicepts, I was joking about the troll comment. It’s not about what others think, it’s the fact that you up and flip-flopped on this issue AFTER people ganged up on McCourt. Your eagerness to argue any point is more apparent than ever. No one is telling you what to think. Although, I’m now telling you to try thinking in general.

      • halladaysbicepts - Jun 22, 2011 at 4:54 PM

        El Bravo,

        I am relaxed. It just amazes me that people take my comments or anyone elses as gospel.

        To me it simple: This is a blog and the writers comb the world for interesting baseball stories. They then repost the article, with their opinion on the matter and there is a comments section to each entry. You read the entry and can comment with your own opinion, which I do. Sometimes, I throw in ridiculous/joking comments for the thread. Other times, I will get more serious and put my real opinion out there. If people don’t agree or think it’s crap, fine. No problem. Respond to me why you agree/disagree and we can have a legitamate conversation.

        Obviously, not all the comments that I make are not without merit or else everyone would just dismiss me without even thinking about it. No one would reply to me. What I don’t understand at this point is people that bring nothing to any conversation continue to goad me on. And don’t give me the reason that the bicepts was initially not endearing to people. I got off that stuff and moved on.

      • Mr. Jason "El Bravo" Heyward - Jun 22, 2011 at 5:41 PM

        Fair enough Mr. Cepts. We shall see each other at the next debate in the HBT universe, where I shall throw some jabs, but all-in-all keep it civil. At least that’s the plan, but you know, shit happens. Cheers

    • JBerardi - Jun 23, 2011 at 10:37 AM

      “The more I hear about this Frank McCourt and people trashing him, I now hope he fights and keeps the franchise just to piss people off.”

      You know, at the very least, you could respect the internet tradition of maintaining the pretext that you’re not just a pure troll.

  4. FC - Jun 22, 2011 at 2:30 PM

    Problem with that TV deal is that from what little I’ve read FOX is ripping off the Dodgers. The deal is worth far far more but McCourt won’t get more from FOX because FOX knows McCourt is SCREWED so they’re trying to get a deal for (relatively speaking) pennies. McCourt doesn’t care of course.

    • FC - Jun 22, 2011 at 2:33 PM

      I know the Deal is similar to the Texas deal, but the Dodgers are a larger market frnachise compared to Texas. You can’t tell me it’s worth twice as much at the very least.

      • halladaysbicepts - Jun 22, 2011 at 2:37 PM

        Honestly, I don’t care if it’s for less money based on the market. Frank McCout is the legal owner and has within his right to make the deal. Bud Selig has decided to invoke his commisioner clause to nix it. McCourt will see him in court to deal with it.

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

        I believe that by stating that Selig invoked his commissioner clause you are conceding that there is such a clause that can in fact be invoked, and that therefor Selig is well within his rights to make such a decision. When McCourt bought the team he did so knowing that he wasn’t buying into a free market where he could do whatever he wanted, but rather he was buying into a collective entity where he had a lot of freedom but that there were certain guidelines that he had to abide by. It’s no different than buying a house with a neighborhood association that doesn’t let you park a rusty car in your front yard….you own the house and can do whatever you want with it, unless you cross the lines that you knew were in place at the time of your purchase.

      • klbader - Jun 22, 2011 at 4:25 PM


        Let’s also try to remember that McCourt agreed to MLB’s terms when he purchased the Dodgers. He is not the owner of the Dodgers, free and clear of any and all restrictions. He owns the Dodgers subject to the terms of the sale agreement. It’s like if you buy a house in a housing development. You might own the house, but you can only paint it white or beige. You might own your yard, but you can’t park your RV in the driveway. You might own the grass, but you better cut it every weekend. Owning something doesn’t mean absolute power within the constraints of the law. It means absolute power within the constraints of the sale agreement.

      • craigbhill - Jun 25, 2011 at 10:14 AM

        LA the #2 market with a team that far outshadows the Rangers in their market has a chance to own its own stand-alone Dodger Channel vs Fox’ deal, which quickly promised F***k enough money to save the org F***kie stripped so bare, he canceled adequate security and is now faced with a suit from the family of the Giant fan who’s just coming out of a friggin coma, THAT’S how bad F***k f**ked the franchise. Had he not been in such a rush to get the first installment from Fox he could’ve been playing Fox off against Time-Warner, nail down the Dodger Channel, and reap a contract that would have given him AND the team TENS of BILLION$, instead of the puny deal he negotiated under duress. That deal will now be recouped by the next owner and the dumb f**k is SOL.

        The family of Brian Stow is also suing Bud and MLB for not making F***k provide adequate security, which ALONE is reason for MLB to strip the team from him, but he also defrauded MLB from revenue-sharing by creating 20 shell organizations to lower Dodger profits, which he then plundered, with such schemes as charging his own team rent for playing in his own stadium. Betcha can’t come up with a worse steward of a team and a bigger crook in sports history.

  5. bigyankeemike - Jun 22, 2011 at 3:05 PM

    HBicepts, you couldn’t be more wrong.

    The owner of a MLB franchise can NOT run it as he sees fit, he must run it within the guidelines of Major League Baseball. That’s what he signed up for. One of those guidelines is that he cannot engage in business decisions that will devalue the franchise (and, by extension, the value of MLB itself).

    McCourt wanted that Fox deal, KNOWING it was a bad deal, because he got at least $150 mil up front, which he needed for personal reasons. It’s a 17 year deal which no sane owner would have done.

    What happens when he burns through that 150 million and STILL can’t meet his payroll in 2 or 3 years, THEN he has to sell the franchise at a steep discount because he has a piece of sh-t TV deal?

    A McDonald’s franchise owner may own the local McDonald’s, but he can’t start selling hot dogs without Ronald’s approval.

    • halladaysbicepts - Jun 22, 2011 at 3:15 PM


      I keep on hearing this famous phrase “devalue the franchise”. I’m certainly no economics guru, but this is, without question, subjective, and therefore is not applicable. No one can put a specific price on a major league franchise. It’s always what the market will bare.

      You said “What happens when he burns through that 150 million and STILL can’t meet his payroll in 2 or 3 years, THEN he has to sell the franchise at a steep discount because he has a piece of sh-t TV deal?”

      If it happens, he will declare bankruptcy and MLB will in turn find another owner that will pay through the teeth to own a franchise in the second larget market in the country. Belive me, they will not lose money, regardless. This is a cop out.

      • bigyankeemike - Jun 22, 2011 at 3:26 PM

        Wrong, wrong, wrong.

        In one paragraph you state your point and then contradict yourself in another paragraph.

        If you put a franchise up for sale, and with it comes a 17 year TV deal that pays next to nothing, you will GET next-to-nothing for that franchise. This is ESPECIALLY true for, as you put it, “a franchise in the second-largest market in the country”.

        Whether he deserves it or not, your bias and hatred for all-things-Bud-Selig are making your points look very foolish.

    • halladaysbicepts - Jun 22, 2011 at 3:31 PM


      “If you put a franchise up for sale, and with it comes a 17 year TV deal ”

      What? That’s absolute BS. Any TV deal is exclusively done between the ownership and the local TV network. I’ve never heard of that in my life. There is no way that MLB would have ever negotiated that because it’s out of their jurisdiction. MLB does not get involved with individual teams and their local affiliates. EVER.

      • bigyankeemike - Jun 22, 2011 at 3:37 PM


        It’s clear you don’t know what you’re talking about. The Dodgers-Fox deal for LOCAL TV rights is for 17 years. It doesn’t end if McCourt sells the team. The stink of that contract, stays, with the exception of the now-gone upfront money that McCourt took.

        Because of that, a buyer will pay less for the Dodger franchise, which is why the franchise becomes devalued, and for the #2 market, that can’t happen, and as long as Selig has the ability to do something about it, he should.

      • halladaysbicepts - Jun 22, 2011 at 3:51 PM


        The way you states the 17 year TV deal, it sounded like this was the case across the board with any MLB franchise. You are talking about the Dodgers, specifically. OK, Mike, lets deal with that.

        As far as his choice to sign this 17 year contract, you have solidified my side. He is the legal owner of the franchise. He has every right to sign this contract and obtain funds that he needs to operate the Dodgers. You don’t agree with this, fine. I know, Bud Selig is the patron saint of baseball and truely is looking at the best interest of baseball.

        Just don’t bring me any more devalue of franchise crap. Even with the deal he signed, the Dodgers will still have money to field a quality product on the field. How dare Selig decide the value of the deal. BUD SELIG DOES NOT OWN THE DODGERS!

      • klbader - Jun 22, 2011 at 4:34 PM

        He clearly does not have an absolute right to agree to the sell the broadcast rights to Fox. If that were so, then he would not have had to submit the contract to MLB for its approval. You are arguing that MLB has stood in the way of McCourt’s right to enter into this contract. But McCourt agreed to allow MLB to do exactly that when he purchased the Dodgers. McCourt has no absolute right to do anything.

      • craigbhill - Jun 25, 2011 at 10:46 AM

        MLB has had the right to approve every local tv contract negotiated by its FRANCHISES since at least 1964, when the Phils’ local tv contract disallowed any of the team’s regular season games from appearing, then on a national network. This, too, stinks, by lowering the value for MLB of all future tv deals.

        There is a general confusion with many tough guy capitalists between private property and a franchise. Any franchise owner of KFC who sells McDonalds hamburgers in his restaurant would be stripped of his ownership, no differently. MLB is the private business, the Dodgers are the franchise subject to following the business’ rules. When F***k breaks the rules, he loses the franchise. Arguements against Bud Selig are ridiculously irrelevant. Seeee?!

  6. oikosjeremy - Jun 22, 2011 at 3:11 PM

    So halladaysbicepts, you think since the team is Frank’s property he should for instance be able to just wind up the business and shut the team down? Or get rid of the players, hire some florists, and change the business from “major league baseball team” to “wedding planning”? He’d be free to do either of those things if the Dodgers were an ordinary private business (assuming he had the money to do those things, etc.). But he’s not free to do those things, or to do many other things he’d be free to do if the Dodgers were an ordinary private business. When you buy a major league team you’re not buying an ordinary private business and you agree to abide by major league rules, which includes a rule giving the Commissioner wide latitude to act in the best interests of the game.

    • oikosjeremy - Jun 22, 2011 at 3:13 PM

      Whoops, bigyankeemike hit “post” before I did…

    • halladaysbicepts - Jun 22, 2011 at 3:19 PM

      You’re really reaching there with the wedding planning analogy. You miss my point that the guy is willing to meet his financial obligations and this sorry excuse of a commisioner will not even work with him.

      • bigyankeemike - Jun 22, 2011 at 3:33 PM

        It sounds like you’re buying McCourt-flavored Kool Aid. He’s NOT “willing to meet his financial obligations”, he needs the money to buy out his wife and pay off legal expenses. He’s not going to be in a position to meet his BASEBALL obligations. And you can’t do that in Los Angeles.

    • Richard In Big D - Jun 22, 2011 at 7:08 PM

      McCourt doesn’t really “own” the Dodgers. He “owns” the right to operate an outlet of Major League Baseball in Los Angeles that is currently known as the LA Dodgers. He must do so under the rules of the parent otrganization (MLB), and if he is not compliant with their rules, he may forfiet the right to operate that franchise. If you “own” a McDonald’s franchise, and insist on selling hot dogs, how long do you think it would be before a crane showed up from Chicago to take down “your” golden arches?

      • halladaysbicepts - Jun 22, 2011 at 7:12 PM

        No, McCourt is the owner. Get a clue and get back to me, OK?

      • dwishinsky - Jun 22, 2011 at 7:30 PM

        Bicepts – your ship is sinking. Just jump off.

      • Richard In Big D - Jun 22, 2011 at 7:32 PM

        Bicepts – I wasn’t going to say anything about your butchering of the English language, but it speaks to your ignorance and stupidity. Your misinformation is obviously derived from your inability to comprehend what you have read.

  7. takemytalentstosoutheuclid - Jun 22, 2011 at 3:14 PM

    Perhaps Dodger fans would like McCourt better if his stripped the team of talent and payroll, ala Larry Dolan, Indians owner. Dolan has no problem meeting payroll in this small market town because he never signs any free agents of note, and never EVER keeps the ones we have. He also owns the TV station, STO, that airs the Tribe games, so is in effect, paying himself. This is a short, incomplete of the players that have gone on to fatter contracts elsewhere since he became owner in 2000, either via trade or free agency:

    Manny Ramirez
    Jim Thome
    CC Sabathia
    Cliff Lee
    Omar Vizquel
    Victor Martinez
    Kerry Wood
    Brandon Philips

    If he had paid market value for these guys, the Tribe would have contended for the entire last decade, would have sold out games, drastically increasing revenue.

    And let’s not even mention the drafting, and unwillingness to pay, of Tim Lincecum, sending him on to be drafted later by the Giants.

    I know the grass is always greener, Dodger fan, but in some respects, I’d trade owners with you in a heartbeat.

    • takemytalentstosoutheuclid - Jun 22, 2011 at 3:15 PM

      So, explain to me how the owner of the Indians has not devalued the franchise by letting all of the players mentioned above, walk?

      • bigyankeemike - Jun 22, 2011 at 3:30 PM

        If Dolan sold the Indians today, he’d get far more than he paid for it.

        Bad baseball decisions do not devalue a franchise nearly as much as bad business decisions. Witness Tampa Bay, a team with perhaps the most talent-laden team in the MLB and one of the lowest valued franchises because of that iron-clad lease they have a Trop Field.

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

      Though you make a good point (and I feel your pain) I don’t think that is the same thing. The 17 year TV contract, at way below market value, will kill the value of the team when it is sold b/c it decreases possible future earnings. If you buy the Indians today and start to build a winning team, you can translate that into a more lucrative TV contract down the road. 17 years in sports is an eternity.

      • bigyankeemike - Jun 22, 2011 at 4:36 PM

        Thank you, bigxrob,

        Evidently Hallidaysbicepts failed Franchising 101. You obviously passed.

      • craigbhill - Jun 25, 2011 at 1:31 PM

        You mean, bigxrob, McCourt’s bad tv deal WOULD kill, or hurt, the value of the Dodgers. But it is not going ever to be instituted. Selig has said No; not to make payroll this week, McCourt’s default will allow MLB to sell the Dodgers to a new owner who will negotiate his own much better deal; Jamie McCourt will ask the judge again to sell the team to get her bigger stake out of it without the bad tv deal negotiated by her dumb ex, knowing that the better deal will hugely increase her 50%. The judge must comply, having seen by then F***k will have nearly bankrupted her portion of her investment in the team, per California community property divorce law. That will bring in deeper pockets than a sale by MLB would, MLB much prefering a crony buying it cheaper. That richer new owner will have to pay a much higher amount in his winning bid, because the value of the team will be that much greater once he negotiates a tv deal on his own.

    • tolbuck - Jun 22, 2011 at 3:43 PM

      Do you really believe the Tribe was going to outbid Boston for Manny and Philly for Thome? Please. You may as well as Sabathia to this list. There was no way the Yanks were getting outbid for his services. He was as good as gone. Don’t blame the Dolans here.

      Was Vizquel really that big of a loss? Peralta wasn’t Vizquel’s equal with the glove, but he put up offensive years an old Vizquel could only dream of – 2005, last half of ’07.

      When Phillips was traded, his career OPS+ was 48 and didn’t get along with the manager. Is there any evidence he develops if he stays? The Tribe gave up on him too early, but I think Phillips deserves some of the blame for the circumstances that led to his departure.

      What did Kerry Wood ever give the Tribe? Do you really want him as the closer instead of C Perez?

      Martinez was never going to be the catcher this season, so what is the harm in trading him for prospects? Can you imagine the Tribe’s rotation this season without Masterson? Are you willing to take an aging Martinez over Masterson, especially when Martinez would have required an overpayment to sign?

      Lincecum was a 43rd round draft pick who was asking for a $1 million dollar bonus. Tell me one team who pays a $1 million to a 43rd round draft pick.

      The Dolans are not perfect owners, but they are not nearly as bad as many Tribe fans claim they are. They neglected player development far too long (though they have taken steps to correct this the past couple of years.) Anyone who prefers McCourt over the Dolans needs his head examined.

      • takemytalentstosoutheuclid - Jun 22, 2011 at 4:26 PM

        I believe they should have made competitive bids for Manny, Thome, CC, and Cliff Lee. Period. If you put a quality, competitive product on the field, the revenue will follow,. This has been proven repeatedly in Cleveland sports history. Dolan has taken the inexpensive (cheap) route at almost every available opportunity since taking over ownership of this team. Keeping Vizquel here would have been the right move not only from a PR standpoint, but from a baseball one as well. If you think Peralta’s couple of above average offensive spurts outweigh Omar’s Gold Glove defense, positive clubhouse influence, and still, at age 44, decent offensive production, than you need your head examined. Peralta, was, and is, a solid utility player, nothing more. Hardly deserves mentioning in the same breath with a future hall of famer.

        As for Kerry Wood, he didn’t do much here, because we weren’t doing much. he has looked great last year with the Yankees and so far this year with the Cubs.

        The “aging” 32 year old Victor Martinez would look much better catching for the Tribe than our division rival. He is currently batting about 100 points higher than Santana is, and I’d take him back in a heartbeat. And, I think the Tribe would look fine without Masterson if we still had our 2 former Cy young winners pitching here…

        Philips and Lincecum, I see your point, but we can agree to disagree on Dloan. Worst owner in the league, except maybe for that d-bag in Florida.

      • dwishinsky - Jun 22, 2011 at 7:33 PM

        I am an A’s fan. They A’s play in an aging garbage stadium. The Indians play in one of the most beautiful stadiums in the country. In 2010 the A’s beat Cleveland in attendance – the Indians are in a terrible market. It is a small market with SERIOUS economic problems. There is no way they could make a competitive offer to keep those guys. How did those competitive offers work out to Sizemore, Hafner and Carmona?

  8. ditto65 - Jun 22, 2011 at 4:17 PM

    I think ‘bicepts started the “I support Frank McCourt” fan club because he was not getting enough attention (thumbs up or down) being a nice guy.

    • halladaysbicepts - Jun 22, 2011 at 4:35 PM

      You know what, I may go to my local sports store tomorrow and order a Dodgers jersey with “McCourt” on the back with the number “100”.

      This guy is legally being shafted and the rest of the sheep don’t even know it.

      • bigyankeemike - Jun 22, 2011 at 4:39 PM

        In HalladayBiceptLand, you might be right. It’s a land where there are no franchising agreements or contracts.

        But to everyone else here in the real world, we understand that when you buy a team, you abide by its rules and accept that all major deals must be approved by MLB.

      • Mr. Jason "El Bravo" Heyward - Jun 22, 2011 at 4:43 PM

        Actually that’s not a bad jersey idea. Although, I’d go with #69 b/c he’s clearly f@cking the Dodger’s upside-down.

  9. bigxrob - Jun 22, 2011 at 4:57 PM

    Mr. Bicepts, peoples issues with you aren’t that you support McCourt, or that you don’t have a right to your opinion, it’s that your arguements are factually wrong.

    • halladaysbicepts - Jun 22, 2011 at 5:06 PM

      They are not factually wrong. Selig is not allowing McCourt to make the Fox deal because MLB will not get a bigger cut of the pie, money-wise? Disagree?

      • bigyankeemike - Jun 22, 2011 at 5:20 PM

        “Selig is not allowing McCourt to make the Fox deal because MLB will not get a bigger cut of the pie, money-wise? Disagree?”

        Factually wrong. By a mile.

        Once again…and I’ll type slower this time…

        The deal is disallowed because it’s a crap deal. Two of the many reasons it’s bad for baseball:

        1. All of the upfront money will go towards McCourt’s legal fees and expenses ie., to his pocket, in a time when he can’t make payroll as it is.

        2. When the time comes where he must sell the team, said deal will bring such a cheap price for the franchise that it devalues other franchises.

        It has nothing to do with the “piece of the pie” that MLB may or may not get out of the local deal with the FOX Los Angeles affiliate.

        Since you don’t understand Franchising 101, you can’t comprehend what, as a franchise, you can or cannot do.

        If you stopped hating Selig long enough to look at the facts of the case, you’ll realize how wrong you are.

      • gammagammahey - Jun 22, 2011 at 5:21 PM

        Disagree. Selig is not allowing McCourt to make the Fox deal because it will further devalue and destabilize an MLB franchise. McCourt is pushing for the deal to help bail him out of his own financial problems. If nothing else, his tentative divorce agreement that was contingent on the deal being approved should make that abundantly clear. The Dodgers are a franchise of Major League Baseball, not a completely independent business. As such, the commissioner retains certain business controls over the team.

      • cosanostra71 - Jun 22, 2011 at 5:42 PM

        One hundred percent wrong. You clearly do not understand how major league teams in the United States work.

        Using your logic, McCourt could move the Dodgers to Sioux Falls South Dakota to play in the 4,500 seat Sioux Falls Stadium without needing the commissioner’s approval.

        You can’t use money from the team for personal expenses. I’m going to assume by your posts that you are not old enough to remember the Tyco scandal back in the early-2000s.

      • nakedbootlegs - Jun 22, 2011 at 7:17 PM

        What’s a “bicept”?

  10. spudchukar - Jun 22, 2011 at 5:13 PM

    This is my favorite all-time ‘Cepts quote “Not all of the comments I make are not without merit”.

    • bigxrob - Jun 22, 2011 at 5:30 PM

      My favorite all-time ‘Cepts position on a topic was when he stated the drunk driving is not a big deal.

      • halladaysbicepts - Jun 22, 2011 at 5:59 PM

        Drunk driving is not a big deal if you realize that it happens thousands of times a day. However, some people think that athletes think are no different than the rest of us and should be penalized by their teams in addition to the punishment that they receive by the law.

        Don’t try and take my comments out of text…

      • spudchukar - Jun 22, 2011 at 6:48 PM

        OK, here it is in its entirety “Obviously, not all of the comments I make are not without merit or else everyone else would just dismiss me without even thinking about it”.

      • halladaysbicepts - Jun 22, 2011 at 7:01 PM


        You quoted me “are not without merit “.

        Are not = not.

        Without = not.

        Double not. I get it. Is that the best you got with this discussion?

  11. SmackSaw - Jun 22, 2011 at 5:18 PM

    McCourt doesn’t “own” the Dodgers. He bought into the club (using debt and refinancing, but that’s another story). He actually a custodian of the franchise, but members of the club don’t like to be referred as that.

    I know you’ll give me a snarky reply and say that I’m wrong, so I’ll wait for it.

    • bigyankeemike - Jun 22, 2011 at 5:40 PM

      SmackSaw, I assume you read this, but it’s a GREAT synopsis of what the McCourts did to the Dodger franchise:

  12. Mr. Jason "El Bravo" Heyward - Jun 22, 2011 at 5:46 PM

    Yo Bicepts! You gots to read this! Mark Cuban is talkin’ sense! He is worth listening to I would say given recent events…

  13. raysfan1 - Jun 22, 2011 at 7:46 PM

    Here’s hoping that the courts find that all Dodgers-related properties are in fact community property. Force that sale, Mr Judge!

  14. motorcitykitty80 - Jun 22, 2011 at 8:45 PM

    I don’t know all the particulars, but I do know that I watched/listened to the Tigers v. Dodgers series this week on both radio and TV and the emptiness of Dodgers Stadium is shocking. It was startling to see the “ghost town” and it was a hot topic of conversation for the announcers. Obviously someone somewhere is failing this club and their fans. For the sake of this historic franchise I hope they figure it out soon.

  15. cur68 - Jun 22, 2011 at 8:51 PM

    Ok folks; mea culpa. Its all my fault. I’m sorry. Lemme ‘splain;

    On June 14 I posted the following comment;

    “You know what I’ve noticed on this blog? No one loves McCourt. No one. When we get into a good session of Wilpon bashing we can semi-count on a certain apologist to turn up and point out in excruciating detail how wrong we are (LOL etc) and go on like he invented the law, editing, grammar, biochemistry, share trading and advanced economics; it’s like the Professor from Gilligan’s Island has joined us or something. But no one does that for poor old Frank.

    Frank needs that guy. Anyone want to volunteer? These posts are so much livelier when a Professor turns up…”

    Here’s the link;

    It looks like ‘cepts has taken up the mantle, much to everyone’s annoyance. I was kinda hoping to have one of those situations where Craig gets drawn into the middle of it to the point that he forgets to post any other articles and he gets all lawyerly and goes all jurisprudence on someone. This discussion, though is the antithesis of that. I just hope you can all forgive me for it.

    • raysfan1 - Jun 22, 2011 at 9:02 PM

      All will be forgiven as soon as you send us Shania.

      (I did think of your post while skimming this thread earlier today.)

      • cur68 - Jun 22, 2011 at 9:09 PM

        You can have Anne Murray. You’d be doing us a favour. Shania is like our potpurri; she keeps the stink of Bieber down.

      • spudchukar - Jun 22, 2011 at 10:46 PM

        Never the Twain shall meet.

      • raysfan1 - Jun 22, 2011 at 10:52 PM

        Anne’s a touch old for me.

        I’ll settle for Rachel McAdams.

  16. ta192 - Jun 22, 2011 at 10:54 PM

    Couldn’t we just all get along…and agree to crucify BOTH these a-holes…(Frank M and Bud light)

    • Panda Claus - Jun 22, 2011 at 11:41 PM

      Ha, when you started to write “BOTH these ….”, I clearly expected to see the names “McCourt” and “Holiday Biceps” following.

      Craig might have to rename the thumbs down icon to bicepts.

  17. cup0pizza - Jun 22, 2011 at 11:59 PM

    Wow…haladayspackageslurper has unquestionably confirmed what a complete idiot he is. You honestly know absolutely nothing. Pathetic.

    • JBerardi - Jun 23, 2011 at 10:44 AM

      • Richard In Big D - Jun 23, 2011 at 12:08 PM

        We give Bicepts FAR TOO MUCH credit for intellectual capability. To be a troll (as per this definition) requires brain activity.

  18. patsandsox - Jun 29, 2011 at 6:00 PM

    You guys are giving him attention and that is what he really craves. Ignore him and he will go plauge some other blog

Leave Comment

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

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. D. Wright (2827)
  2. D. Span (2393)
  3. J. Fernandez (2302)
  4. G. Stanton (2300)
  5. F. Rodney (2135)
  1. G. Springer (2090)
  2. M. Teixeira (2008)
  3. Y. Puig (1973)
  4. G. Perkins (1934)
  5. H. Olivera (1829)