Monday, November 9, 2009


Definitely my three favorite letters in Jamie's petition for spousal support. See, the $487,634 monthly Jamie seeks does not include the stuff she's most ridiculed for: the private jets, unlimited travel expense account, pricey lunches and dinners, and even the professional hair and make-up services. Jamie either wants access to the long list of benefits, perquisites, and emoluments she used to enjoy as the obscenely wealthy wife of an owner co-owner of the Dodgers--or further cash payments each month to allow her access to these services. This affords me the occasion to ask: what is the dollar value of access to such Dodger greats as Billy Ashley and Jeff Shaw?

Yeah, it's sort of a slow day in Dodger Divorce land. Sure, there's this Boston Globe piece on the McCourts which describes Jamie telling Frank to shut up in a meeting when the two were trying to buy the Red Sox. The story mostly paints the picture that Frank's the visionary and Jamie's the details person. An attorney who knows Jamie speculated about a topic we've discussed at length, saying he doesn't understand how she could play the "he tricked me" card regarding the post-nup. It's a neat article, but there's not a whole lot there we didn't know already.

There's so much out there we just don't know yet. What did the post-nup do exactly? Did he actively try to deceive her? How much money do they really have? Do they have their tax ducks in a row? Is there any mismanagement of funds which might present a serious legal issue?

We're in the bottom of the first of a game that might go into extras. One thing I'm just dying to know (as I've expressed to a few of you who have e-mailed in): what in the world happened between 2004 and 2008? There couldn't have possibly been bad blood when Jamie signed the post-nup in 2004. She seems smart enough that, if she had any idea Frank was going to make a power play for the Dodgers, she wouldn't have signed away her interest in the club. So...what broke? Was Frank planning this all along? Or did it dawn on him some time after the post-nup that he might be able to cut her out?

I imagine we'll find out in due time.

For now, the day's links:
  • Tim Kurkjian says that if the Dodgers have to trade players to improve their pitching, that "has to start with Chad Billingsley." I was going to respond here with how terribly, awfully, magnificently bad that idea is, but...
  • Jon Weisman has that covered. Jon also has some terrific advice for keeping a clear head through the hot stove season, and many of his guidelines will be helpful around here, too.
  • Bob Dutton of the Kansas City Star offers a rumor that the Royals and Dodgers are considering an Alberto Callaspo for A.J. Ellis swap. I know how Dutton works; he wouldn't print that if he didn't have reason.
  • Tim Dierkes projects the Dodgers to end up with Felipe Lopez and Erik Bedard in free agency. MLBTR also notes via Shaikin and Hernandez that the Dodgers will not pursue Aroldis Chapman.
  • The Times' Bill Shaikin has notes from an e-mail conversation with Mark Cuban, in which the outspoken NBA owner says he'd be interested in purchasing the Dodgers as the controlling shareholder in an ownership group. Cuban would not be interested in the type of debt-driven acquisition which enabled the McCourts to purchase the Dodgers.
Back with more later, as events warrant...


  1. It occurs to me that Frank really got started on his career as an ersatz magnate once he got to LA. How much did he learn about book-cooking after he got his hands on what Fox did with the Dodgers? Yes, he had some pretty expensive real estate in Boston, but good grief, four, seven houses in LA?

  2. Rob,

    Looking through Jamie's filings, there are multiple companies in which Frank has an ownership interest that were started in Boston. My guess is he's been as savvy as anyone else out there about funneling money through a number of organizations for all sorts of different reasons.

  3. People who are at odds, connects power cable. Break it with one hand, completely changed his attitude to the man, not automatically change the attitude of this man to himself. No matter where he was;