A more nuanced approach to "what if?"

---
I've been very hesitant to engage in too much speculation over what might have happened had the McCourts trimmed their personal expenses even a little. I don't buy the notion that, if not for Jamie's jet-setting, Cliff Lee would be leading the Dodgers to their first World Series title since 1988. I have a natural distrust for conclusions drawn from single incidents. But patterns...patterns grab my attention right quick. Shaikin:

Colletti might have gotten Lee if he had Carlos Santana to offer. Santana, a catcher, is a more advanced prospect. Yet the Cleveland Indians already had him, because Colletti had to sacrifice him last year in order to get the Indians to pay the [$2 million] balance of Casey Blake's contract.

[snip]

The Dodgers have paid $8.5 million in signing bonuses for draft picks over the last two years -- the lowest figure among all major league teams, according to Baseball America. 

The Dodgers, so proud of their heritage in Asia and Latin America, today are a non-factor in bidding for top amateur players abroad. In 2008, according to Baseball America, major league clubs combined to sign 115 such players for bonuses of more than $100,000. The Dodgers did not sign one.

Shaikin offers higher-profile examples as well, like the failure to offer C.C. Sabathia a contract or the nondisclosure of what happened to the money saved via Schmidt's insurance coverage and Ramirez's suspension. Maybe it's the new-school in me, but I am far, far more concerned about a reluctance to part with a million here and a million there in order to strengthen the farm system. The Sabathia contract will probably end up being a bad one. And Colletti hasn't even had an offseason to dispose of the Schmidt and Ramirez money. I won't kill him on that yet.


But the pattern of requiring other teams to kick in cash (as long as the Dodgers kick in talent)? That really starts to bother me. How nice would it be to have an in-house option in case Martin's struggles are real? How about shifting Andy LaRoche to second this winter? 


I try to avoid playing the what-if game, because it never ends. And so I'll try to quit speculating there. But I can say that the Dodgers' neglect of the farm system over the last couple years puts an enormous burden on the Kemp/Kershaw/Billingsley/Ethier/Broxton core to win very, very soon. When those guys get just a little too expensive, there might not be a ton of help in the wings.


It's impossible to say with any certainty that the McCourts' indulgent lifestyle led to tighter pursestrings which led to restraints on organizational spending. I ask you to consider, though, how much of the McCourts' take came in the form of Dodgers-paid benefits and perquisites. If, in the grand scheme of things, a $2 million payment from the Indians balances a $2 million Net Jets bill, I can assure you that Al Davis, Marge Schott, and Art Modell need to make room at the table for Frank and Jamie McCourt.
---

Jamie to the Dodgers: keep out.

---
It's becoming clear that the LA Times' Bill Shaikin is the go-to guy for developing news regarding the court proceedings surrounding the divorce. Shaikin's reporting has been simply indispensable thus far. He writes today:

Jamie McCourt argued in a motion Monday that the Dodgers should not be a party in a divorce hearing, asking the court to throw out papers filed in the team's name that "unnecessarily and gratuitously attack" her.

The motion is expected to be considered Thursday in Los Angeles Superior Court as part of a hearing to determine the validity of McCourt's demand for immediate reinstatement as the Dodgers' chief executive.

I can certainly sympathize with Jamie's desire that the court exclude the Dodgers' filings, which suggest she had a relatively pointless job and--oh yeah--is actively engaged in an affair with a subordinate employee. But Jamie's argument here is a little silly. She's bringing the Dodgers into this. If she didn't want the Dodgers to be involved in the process, she shouldn't have asked the court to reinstate her. If she didn't want details regarding her role with the Dodgers to surface, she shouldn't have made a big deal about getting her benefits and perquisites back.

I haven't seen nearly enough to evaluate either side's strategy here, but from the outside it sure looks like there was some significant commingling of Dodgers funds and McCourt funds. Essentially, in a well-run business, it should be easy for an outside auditor to separate business expenses from payments to employees, directors, or shareholders. Given what we've seen from Jamie's filings, that's not the case with the Dodgers. Jamie identifies Dodgers-paid benefits and perquisites as both compensation and lifestyle items she seeks to maintain through the divorce.

This brings us back to the relationship between the Dodgers' spending on the organization and the club's expenses regarding the owners. We might disagree with how much the owners of a baseball team should make or how aggressively a general manager should spend. But I doubt that we very seriously disagree that such spending should be separate. I'd have much less of a problem with identifiable distributions to the owners of even obscene amounts--$25 million annually, fine--than I do with the nebulous, hazy compensation structure we have in front of us. In addition to their discrete draws--Frank's of approximately $5-6 million and Jamie's annual salary of $2 million--we have simply no idea how much the Dodgers have spent indulging the McCourts' lifestyle demands.

At the heart of it all, you have the reality that it's getting awfully expensive to take your family to a Dodger game. We can understand why prices go up as the payroll grows and the stadium gets nicer. And, I really believe, we can understand that the owners are going to be well-compensated and live lifestyles well beyond our reach. But at least we can look out toward left field and evaluate Manny Ramirez's performance against his compensation. It's a shame that we can't look up to the owner's box to do the same.
---

Instant replay.

---
I re-read that last post a couple times and remain very unhappy with how it turned out. Unlike the umpires tonight, I have the opportunity to revisit what went down and decide how to move forward. I'm going to leave the old post there, because I know a few of you want the details. The important part, though is this:

Based on a close look at the McCourts' financial position and the financing mechanisms which allowed them to purchase the Dodgers, I have concluded that the McCourts are not worth close to the $1.2 billion suggested by Jamie in her application for divorce. The Dodgers, as an asset, might be worth $800 million, but given the most recent information available, 58% of the asset's worth is tied up in debt.

With respect to the $400 million Jamie lists in "other assets" of the marriage, I do not believe that figure to reflect net worth. For instance, although the couple owns residential assets worth (at the time of purchase) approximately $123 million, those combined residences secure $60 million of debt. I assume that "other assets" includes various business ventures of the couple, many or all of which are encumbered to a similar degree as the Dodgers and the residences.

Therefore, it is my conclusion that should the Dodgers be regarded as a community asset, each of the McCourts stands to emerge from the divorce with a net worth of something like $225-$300 million, not quite the $800 million Jamie's filing might lead you to believe. If this is indeed the case, it would be extremely difficult for one person to buy out the other's interest in the Dodgers without leveraging the purchase to a considerable degree. If the two decide (or are told) to sell the team to a third party, expect the purchase to be at a discount, damaging their takes even further.

If the asset-transfer agreement (or post-nup) is upheld, Frank wins big time. He would walk out with something like $450-$500 million in net worth, compared to Jamie's $100-$150 million. Her demands for a healthy support package should surprise no one, as she stands to lose the most given unfavorable judicial treatment.

The bottom line, and the most important thing for Dodger fans to understand, is that the Dodgers--as an organization--are in a really rough spot here. If Frank wins the post-nup battle, the Dodgers are stuck with an owner the fans no longer trust. If Jamie wins on the post-nup and one party buys out the other, the organization is back in the hands of a leveraged owner with potentially limited resources. And, of course, the fans no longer respect either McCourt. Finally, if the Dodgers are sold to a third party, the fans will have to endure their third ownership change in a little more than a decade.

From 1954 to 1996, the Dodgers were owned by one family and employed two managers. By the opening of spring training in 2011, the Dodgers might have been owned by four groups and helmed by seven skippers in the last 15 years. As a business-minded kind of guy, I am terrified at what that frequent turnover and instability means from an organizational standpoint. As a fan, I must admit to feeling a loss of connection to the club I grew up cheering because of the blurry, disjointed facsimile I see today.
---

How the McCourts came to own the Dodgers.

---
(Or: Why this divorce is gonna be a beast to get through)

The purchase of an asset the size of a major league baseball team is not nearly as simple as you or I buying our morning Diet Coke.* For that matter, it's many, many times more complex than buying our houses or even our own businesses. Even among the cadre of super-wealthy folks, it's just not that easy to drum up $421 million in cash. The McCourts didn't simply hand the O'Malley family News Corp. a check drawn on the family's WaMu account. The process behind financing this purchase is especially interesting in the McCourt case, and is particularly relevant for the upcoming battle for the Dodgers.

*Yes, I'm one of those people who order a Diet Coke with their Supersized Value Meal. Deal with it.

Now, I'll warn you in advance: this stuff is neither easy nor particularly interesting for most folks. However, this sort of thing is my bag, baby, and I want to explore it. If at any point you're not feeling it, the safety word is "Broxton."* Say it, and you'll be whisked off to the usual world of snarky posts about Jamie's demands for a big-enough swimming pool. If you care to dive further down the rabbit hole, I think you'll be pleased with how popular you are when office holiday party conversation turns to the McCourt divorce. You'll be the envy of all your friends!

*He was awesome this year, and he's gonna be great for a while. I know he had a couple high-profile blowups, but we're not talking about Brad Lidge here. This guy is a stud. Treat him as such.

The McCourts amassed their considerable pre-Dodgers wealth primarily through the development of 24 acres of real estate in Frank's native Boston. I use the term "development" very loosely, as the land is primarily used for surface parking lots. You know, the kind in or near downtown areas where it costs more to park than to buy your lunch. As you can imagine, these things are cash cows of investments in robust economic times, because they double-pop: as the land value increases, you can raise parking prices while growing equity in the property itself. This 24-acre parcel of real estate was the McCourts' primary asset heading into the purchase of the Dodgers.

The McCourts bought the Dodgers from the O'Malley family News Corp. in 2003 for $421 million. This sum was assembled through a series of financial instruments ranging from the mundane to the very complex. We'll take it chunk by chunk until we've reached the purchase price.

• $150 million (Bank of America commercial loan). This piece is pretty straightforward. B of A loaned one or both McCourts $150 million and took a security interest in the club and its real estate. From the bank's perspective, this was a fine deal, because the bank was significantly over-secured. This means that if everything went terribly wrong, there would still be enough value in the collateral to cover the loan.


• Current status: taken out. See below.


• $125 million (Fox Sports [News Corp.] two-year note) Fox, in a testament to how desperate it was to get out of the Dodgers, financed nearly half of the purchase price itself. In exchange for the $125 million short-term loan, The McCourt Company granted Fox a security interest in the 24 acres of Boston land. If McCourt defaulted on the terms of its note to Fox, Fox could take the Boston property.


• Current status: In February of 2006, McCourt transferred the property to Fox (a foreclosure for tax/legal purposes), with Fox taking possession in exchange for forgiving the $145 remaining on the note. Evidently, the revenue generated by the property wasn't sufficient to cover the interest on the note. At or near the time of foreclosure, Fox discovered over $58 million in previously unreported obligations owed by the property. In further evidence of Fox's determination to be done with the Dodgers and McCourt, Fox assumed that extra debt. 


• $75 million (MLB revolving note) This piece is a fairly standard revolving line of credit from MLB's fund for team owners. It is likely to require only interest payments.


• Current status: unknown.


• $40 million (Fox four-year note) This loan, another concession from Fox, was secured by McCourt personal assets. Presumably, this does not include the family residences, which were supposedly not offered as collateral in the Dodgers purchase.


• Current status: Taken out. See below.


• $31 million (Fox three-year convertible note) Like the last chunk, another Fox loan secured by McCourt personal assets.


• Current status: Taken out. See below.

Under the terms of the agreement, Fox was also obligated to kick in rebates of $50 million over the first two years of the financing, effectively reducing the purchase price to $371 million.

So, if you're counting at home, the above adds up to $421 million in financing...for a $371 million purchase. That, friends, is a little scary. And there's more. In May 2005, McCourt announced a new, $250 million 25-year note which took out B of A and $71 million of the Fox debt. This left a known debt load of $499 million.* This new financing, known as a private placement, was provided by an unidentified group of institutional investors, such as pension funds and insurance companies. The terms of the loan--5.66% fixed for 25 years--are relatively favorable to McCourt. The collateral for this new loan was reportedly the 300 acres of real estate surrounding Dodger Stadium--not the club itself. Importantly, one of the provisions of the private placement was that control of the Dodgers would not change hands.

*At the time of the private placement, McCourt refused to acknowledge remaining debts secured by the franchise or Dodger Stadium. There is a $69 million gap between known facilities as of May 2005 and Forbes-reported debt load.


As noted above, in February 2006, McCourt transferred the Boston property to Fox, erasing the last $145 million due Fox while reducing McCourt's holdings by $115-$200 million--reported estimates of the actual worth of the property.

In April 2009, Forbes estimated the value of the franchise (including surrounding land) as $722 million with a debt total a little shy of $420 million. Where does that $420 million come from? I've been told the $75 million to Major League Baseball is mostly gone, which leaves quite a difference between the $250 million private placement we know about and the $420 million Forbes reported. My guess? The private placement facility was expanded considerably as the real estate bubble grew and everyone thought our property would appreciate forever.

The McCourts' equity in the Dodgers is likely somewhere in the $250-350 million range. Assuming Jamie's $400 million estimate of the couple's other assets is correct, that makes the couple's net worth approximately $700 million, not quite the $1.2 billion suggested by Jamie. And is it that unreasonable to think that her $400 million "other assets" figure might have omitted debt, just as the $800 million Dodgers figure did? It's entirely possible the couple's net worth is much closer to $500 million--still a very healthy amount, but one that poses significant problems for either of the two to own the Dodgers without the other. We don't know nearly enough about the McCourts' other personal assets to draw any hard conclusions, but all of the significant residential assets are mortgaged or otherwise pledged in various financing facilities.

And don't forget that provision of the private placement that requires control of the Dodgers to stay the same. If the Dodgers are sold to a third party, that debt might not be able to travel with the team. Furthermore, depending on a judicial determination of whether the team is jointly owned by the McCourts or solely owned by Frank himself, the unidentified investors may be able to call the balance of their loan immediately.

Conclusion: so what do we know?

We know that the McCourts aren't worth anything close to the $1.2 billion Jamie suggests. At most, the couple seems to have something approaching $750 million in total net worth ($400 million in "other assets plus ~$350 million in equity in the Dodgers). However, it is my guess, based on the loan balances due on the residences and their history of operating heavily-leveraged businesses, that the couple's net worth is under $600 million.

If the team is determined to be an asset of the marriage, either partner would have to become heavily leveraged to take the other out. If no agreement can be reached and the court orders the Dodgers to be sold to a third party, expect a bit of a discount on the purchase price, leaving both McCourts with even less.

If the court upholds the asset-transfer agreement (or post-nup) purporting to transfer the Dodgers to Frank and the residences to Jamie, expect her to walk away with a net worth of well-under $100 million. Is it any wonder she wants a half-mil a month now?

I started this post with the intent of better understanding the financial position of the McCourts. I think that, by accident, I have succeeded. I am certainly more confused now than I was two hours ago. The takeaway here is that unwinding this marriage is going to be messy, and we won't run out of content any time soon. I feel I've done a poor job articulating what I've learned, so if you have any questions, feel free to hit me up in the comments or at DodgerDivorce@gmail.com.

What I really want to emphasize is that the McCourts aren't worth as much as you think, and breaking up this marriage is going to cost them both dearly.

Is the divorce delaying stadium improvements?

---
This offseason's scheduled improvements under Next 50, a renovation initiative designed to make Dodger Stadium a suitable home for the next half-century, have been put on hold for another year. The plans to upgrade the second, or "Loge," level were first shelved last winter due to the unusually short offseason for the Stadium. Recall that the venue hosted the NLCS in mid-October and the World Baseball Classic in late March. Is the second winter's delay due to the McCourt Divorce? Daniel Miller of the Los Angeles Business Journal answers with a resounding "maybe." He explains:

It is unclear how the divorce proceedings or potential ownership change would affect the longer-term Next 50 plans.

[snip]

“One claim could be made that the cost of improvements is a devaluing factor. Another claim is that the investment is an escalating valuation factor. It really does place in center stage the cost and value of the improvements,” [Larry Kosmont, an L.A. economic development consultant] said. “It’s very hard to get a clear picture so it makes it harder to move forward with things.”

As we've discussed before, significant capital expenditures are difficult to make in this market no matter what, but that problem will be compounded many times over by the divorce. While few would argue that Next 50's $60 million price tag is necessary for the long term viability of Dodger Stadium, the question will be: is it necessary now? 


My guess is that once the court begins to exercise its mechanisms of control over the Dodgers (as the McCourt's primary marital asset), any cosmetic or superfluous expenditures will be in jeopardy. Necessary infrastructure, security, or accessibility improvements are much more likely to be allowed. But for those who call the Loge level their Chavez Ravine home, the expanded concourses, fancier restrooms, and cushier amenities available to the Field-level basement-dwellers might be at least one more season away.
---

A conversation I've been avoiding.

---
Jamie's asking for a whole lot of money. We're going to temporarily adopt $487,634 monthly as her goal, because there's no way she'll be reinstated as Dodgers CEO. This, as we've discussed, also seems unreasonable, as Frank claims she's been paid her salary through December--making the higher figure unjustifiable during the time for which she's been paid.

Randy Youngman of the Orange County Register has a problem with Jamie's demands. Representing a growing sentiment out there amongst journalists and fans, Youngman writes:

So it's not the zeros and dollar signs in Jamie's court filing that are so repugnant; it's her attempt to justify why she "needs" an allowance of a half-million a month. According to documents obtained and published by The Associated Press, Jamie told the court the money would cover unlimited travel expenses, access to Net Jets private planes, security while traveling to dangerous locations (Dodger Stadium?), five-star hotel accommodations, business dinners five nights per week, business lunches five days per week, flowers in the office (what office?), hair and makeup for Dodgers events …

Makeup? Why didn't she just say that at the beginning? We all know how expensive that can be. I have to pay my monthly mascara (I mean football eyeblack) tab in installments.

In this economy, it's outrageous and embarrassing for her to publicly declare she requires such perks, especially when so many Dodgers fans are struggling to scrape up the money to buy single-game tickets. 

As fairness and justice go, Youngman's right. I dream of one day making in a year what Jamie asks for per month. But life isn't fair. One of the benefits of amassing unbelievable wealth in this country is that you can live a pretty outrageous lifestyle. Fair or not, that's what it is. A divorce in a community property state should, in theory, leave each person in approximately the same financial position alone as if the two were combined. While it is easy to criticize Jamie for begging the court to allow her such luxuries, what is the alternative? That Frank essentially double his net worth at the expense of his ex-wife, who, by many accounts, played a huge role in the family's accession to wealth? 


There's something else behind Jamie's demands, as well. From a PR perspective, it's horrible for her to be making such demands of the court. But from a legal perspective, it's absolutely necessary. In negotiations, whether within or without a court room, concessions are forever. Realistically, Jamie has no hope of getting anything she doesn't ask for right now. This being the case, her demands at this stage must border on the absurd. 


While I have a bit of fun joking about Jamie's need for a sufficiently-sized swimming pool--the one at the $27 million Malibu beach house just won't do!--I'm not going to crush Jamie for seeking the resources necessary to enjoy the lifestyle she and Frank spent 29.96 years achieving. I can understand how her demands could be offensive to some, and I fully recognize our collective right to think her lifestyle unnecessary, wasteful, and inappropriate given our current plight. But she's doing what she has to do in her demands, and, in this little corner of the internet, I can respect that.
---

And then there was Plaschke.

---
Wikipedia puts so much information at my fingertips. It affirms my recollection that Bill Plaschke is a four-time AP National Sports Columnist of the Year award-winner. It points me toward places helpful in reminding me that he really, really hates steroids. I like to verify things outside of Wikipedia, though. And sometimes, there are helpful footnotes, so I feel comfortable treating the information as fact and providing analysis based on it. There was no citation for this, though, so I'll let you folks come to your own conclusions about "Bill's" given name.

William Homer Plaschke opines in the LA Times:

By the time Frank and Jamie McCourt chose to publicly level their marriage, their ownership legacy had already been disintegrating.

[snip]

By the time the McCourts started one divorce, another was already being finalized, between the team and the values that once made it so special.

[snip]

At the same time the McCourts were scrimping on players, they were raising some of their highest ticket prices, using video messages to foster an unsettling street feeling in some parts of the stands, and, oh yeah, after one playoff game, I counted a full hour before the parking lot could empty.

Divorced or not, understand that when it comes to their fans, the McCourts have long since lost that loving feeling.

I really struggled with what to cut out. The video messages fostering "an unsettling street feeling" were recordings of "celebrated stoner Snoop Dogg [promoting] the team on the video board." For all his vitriol, Plaschke never notes the irony that, like it or not, the sport of baseball as a whole celebrates drug users. Plaschke doesn't completely miss the opportunity to lob grenades at Manny Ramirez, though.

According to Plaschke, the foundering McCourts doomed the 2009 Dodgers in two principal ways: they coddled Ramirez and failed to acquire Cliff Lee. Plaschke says that by not forcing Ramirez to fess up and make good with the public, the McCourts created a "huge hole in the middle of their lineup." On Lee, Plaschke suggests that the Dodgers declined to pursue the ace lefty over salary concerns.


Leaving aside the number of teams that would have been much better off with such a "huge hole" in their lineups, and the complete uncertainty over what the Phillies might have sought from the Dodgers, it's fair to ask if the McCourts' personal problems affected this season. Certainly, some moves the Dodgers made were on the cheap--the club got some help in the Thome and Garland deals, for instance. But the team also acquired George Sherrill, due the remaining portion of his $2.75 million contract and eligible for a raise in arbitration. They also paid what was left on Belliard's $1.9 million deal.


Cliff Lee was owed $5.75 million this season and his team holds an $8 million option for next season (with a $1 million buyout). If the Dodgers acquired Thome, Garland, Sherrill, Belliard, and Padilla--but didn't pursue Lee over financial concerns--I think it's fair to say that would be baseball operations malpractice of the highest order. I don't believe money was the obstacle to a Cliff Lee deal. Cleveland already had Carlos Santana, the Orioles were on the verge of acquring Josh Bell, and the Dodgers just didn't have many premium pieces left. Plaschke can wring his hands all he wants, but giving up Kershaw to get Lee would have been an overpay.


The point here is that it's awfully easy to connect dots when you're not worried about ending up with that cute duck holding a flower in its bill. Drawing lines between tenuously-related points and calling what is left "art" is certainly worthy of a spot on Mom and Dad's fridge. Earlier, I noted that Dodger fans should remember the amenities enjoyed by the McCourts when cost concerns influence a roster move. I'm just not ready to say that the McCourts are why the Dodgers didn't get Lee. Not without more.

The narrow focus of this little corner of the internet is the McCourt divorce and how it will affect the Dodgers moving forward. I'm not convinced that the non-trade for Lee is a relevant data point to that analysis.
---

Get ready, guys, there will be lots of this.

---
I think we can all agree that the McCourt divorce could have a devastating effect on the medium-term outlook of the franchise. Especially if the club becomes a ward of the court for any length of time, organizational development could be set back quite a ways. But I think extending the doom and gloom over next season is a little much.

John Shea of the San Francisco Chronicle offered his take:

When a guy fires his estranged wife/CEO, as Frank did to Jamie, it speaks volumes about a franchise's stability. The best-case scenario is that the ma-and-pa power struggle doesn't immediately impact the payroll, either Clayton Kershaw or [Chad] Billingsley becomes Tim Lincecum and [Manny] Ramirez's goofiness doesn't wreck the team as it nearly did in Boston.

If that's the case, the Giants could be looking up at the Dodgers for another year. But if the McCourt divorce has an effect anything like the Moores divorce, which crippled the Padres, the Dodgers are in a heap of trouble.

Shea's points, generally, are well-taken. But even if the Dodgers, as Shea predicts, can't play in the Lackey-Figgins sandbox of this year's free agent class, we're not looking at an uncompetitive team. Whether signed to long-term deals or kept through arbitration, the Dodgers aren't losing Billingsley, Martin, Kemp, Loney, Ethier, Kuo, or Broxton. Yes, those guys will get expensive, but the club is not going to be so severely handcuffed it can't bring those guys back, raises in hand.

The Dodgers will also return the core members of the team outside of the arbitration-eligibles. Kershaw, Elbert, Troncoso, McDonald, and Belisario are all cheap. Ramirez, Blake, Kuroda, Furcal, and Pierre are all under contract. Here's what the Dodgers return without dipping into free agency at all:

C Martin
1B Loney
2B (Hu? DeWitt?)
SS Furcal
3B Blake
LF Ramirez
CF Kemp
RF Ethier

OF Pierre

SP Kershaw (LH)
SP Billingsley
SP Kuroda

SP/RP McDonald
SP/RP Elbert (LH)

RP Kuo (LH)
RP Sherrill (LH)
RP Troncoso
RP Belisario

CP Broxton

I'm not going to go into an extensive offseason plan for the rest of the spots. Mike Scoscia's Tragic Illness took a fine stab at that already. I just want you to look at how good that roster is already. According to the guesses made by Jon Weisman at Dodger Thoughts, the above core will cost about $98.5 million. It includes some serious firepower, including 10 players worth 2 or more wins last season according to Fangraphs. Kemp (5.1 wins) and Kershaw (4.2) are bonafide stars now, Ethier (2.6)* isn't far behind, and Billingsley (3.1)* is much, much better than you might think.

*How bad is Ethier's defense? Dismal. And on Billingsley, remember he was pretty darned good this year--and he was hurt. He's still a star-in-the-waiting.

What I'm getting at is that even if you can't spend a ton of money filling out the rotation or finding a better second baseman, that's a competitive core as-is. Will the Dodgers be the best team in the National League again without dipping into free agency? Probably not. But will they be strong competitors for October baseball? Absolutely.
---

We've gone international.

---
George Kimball of the Irish Times discusses Jamie's indulgent tendencies and pokes fun at her pool-access demands. He then writes:

None of this is likely to go down well with Dodgers fans already disgruntled by the McCourts’ history of penury with respect to the free agent market.

And the truth is, by the time this convoluted case is resolved Jamie may well be as capable of buying out Frank as Frank is of buying out Jamie.

Isn't that just delightful? Kimball, evidently familiar with California divorce law, concludes that the court will ignore the asset-transfer agreement and that the club's value will be split. He also wonders how Jamie can make herself out to be an integral part of the Dodgers while seeking unfettered lap pool access from 8am-2pm daily. 

The first court date, November 5, is to hear Jamie's petition to be reinstated as CEO of the Dodgers. Let's be real here, people: the judge ain't gonna do it. And that's probably fine with Jamie, too. She doesn't want to deal with Frank and Dennis Mannion and the rest. But she absolutely had to ask for it, as painting herself as a key member of the organization might be tremendously valuable to her case.

Well, that and she's been relatively fortunate so far in that the maintenance figure widely discussed now is the if-she's-reinstated $320,967 monthly allowance. What she really wants is $487,634, justified by the loss of income suffered by her firing. 

If Frank's lawyers have any idea what they're doing, however, they'll quickly note that she's already been paid her salary through the end of the year, making the higher maintenance figure Jamie seeks pretty damn ridiculous. I don't know what the timing of all this was--it's very possible Frank didn't pay her salary until after she filed. But I do know that if she asked for money she had already been given once, she'll be off to a tough start with the judge. We'll just have to stay tuned to "As the McCourts Turn." 
---

It's on.

---
As promised, a closer look at Shaikin's piece, which is just loaded.

• Jamie says she's got the financing to take Frank out. 


• We know that she'd met with several luminaries inside and outside of the Dodger family. Her claims must be dependent, though, on a judicial determination that she does co-own the team with Frank. That hasn't happened, to this point, so it's tough to take her all that seriously.


• Frank's not taking offers.


• His position here will be that, as the sole owner of the team, he has no intention of selling. Like Jamie's "ready to buy" statement, Frank is relying on a favorable ruling regarding ownership of the team.


• Jamie's lawyer, the semi-legendary Bert Fields, believes his client's position is not affected by the question of ownership. He says that even if the court finds Frank to be the sole owner of the Dodgers, the club would be treated as community property and the value would be split.


• I'm not a divorce lawyer, but I do know this: courts like agreements. If there's a valid document out there, executed during the marriage, which purports to divvy up assets, I'm inclined to believe it would be followed. Yes, California's a community property state, but the 50/50 split is not absolute. An asset-transfer agreement might be treated like a post-nup, in which case it would control. Clever posturing here by Fields, but it's not conclusive.


• Frank and the Dodgers are trying to paint Jamie's position with the team as strictly ornamental, claiming she rarely showed up to work and didn't perform many standard duties at all.


• Ironically, this line of argument is going to make people like Frank even less. Remember that, in her filing, Jamie wanted to be restored to her position mainly to get the money and perks back. If it turns out that she didn't actually, you know, do anything for the Dodgers, all that cash sent down Benefits and Perquisites Alley is gonna seem even worse.


• Jamie's still seeing Jeff Fuller, her lover/bodyguard/driver, but her lawyer says that relationship didn't begin until well after Frank tried to cut her out.


• Even if true, it has to be wondered at this point if Fuller's the only one. It's entirely possible he is, I suppose, as the McCourts seemed to have their stuff together for a long, long time. But if Jamie, given her education and professional background, would make such a grievous error on the eve of major litigation...well, I'd lose a little bit of respect for her intelligence.


• The Dodgers' President, Dennis Mannion, slams Jamie further, saying that when she did show up for work, it was to pursue projects designed to garner positive press for her at the expense of the club.


• All you Dodger fans out there must be thinking the same thing that I am: Mannion is at least a little full of crap here. Whatever Jamie did to promote her own public image to the team's detriment, Frank was right there on board. Pumping up Jamie's role with the Dodgers was a team effort.


• Jamie's lawyer, Fields, counters Mannion, saying: "When people find out what she did as opposed to what he did, they're all going to want her to run the team."


• I think I speak for all of us: I'm not sure I want any of these clowns running the team. Frank, Jamie, Mannion, Fields. This sucks.

Dates of note coming up...on November 5, the family law court will hear Jamie's petition for reinstatement as CEO of the Dodgers. On December 1, the court will entertain Jamie's request for spousal maintenance.