OFFICIAL 2010 LOS ANGELES DODGERS THREAD [79-82] : The losing season

[ooiron manoo]

It's really only six weeks long.  It just feels long because 1) the games don't count, 2) the players that will actually be on the ML roster don't play that much, 3) you see a lot of developing young players or fringe major leaguers instead of your favorite player.

Season will be here before you know it.  All the equipment arrived from Camelback today and the stadium is being geared up for baseball, so it's already here

.

As a baseball junkie sometimes I wish that the MLB season was as long as the NBA season (8-9 months

), but I will take 6-7 months of nightly games.  Nothing like getting home and having a game on (road games for me), or watching games at the Ravine. 

Spring Training is a cash cow.  Only people that don't like it are the vet's.  I do recommend taking a weekend and heading out to Arizona next season.  It's not expensive and it's a good getaway for a baseball fan.  Plus the players are more accessible.

Pedro Martinez would be a nice addition at mid-season, in fact I thought Padilla and Pedro should've been added last season, but with the penny pinching strategy it was one or the other

Damn, hard to believe, but there will be a game at Dodger Stadium on Thursday

.  I'll be in Vegas

.

Blake DeWitt, the team’s leading hitter this spring, has apparently locked up the starting second baseman’s job.

, I wasn't a fan of having him as our starting second baseman, but the kid has been playing his @%% off and working hard to earn the job.  Belliard looks like he made weight so he will be the backup 2b/1b.  Carroll will be an expensive upgrade over Castro.

 

[mr jordan04]

Originally Posted by ooIRON MANoo

 Belliard looks like he made weight so he will be the backup 2b/1b. 

   Dodgers FYI: Ronnie Belliard weighs in at 208 lbs, finalizes his contract [URL]http://lat.ms/cvvS1L[/url] 

isnt there a dodger game in vegas on wednesday?


http://[h3]

[h3]Martin ahead of schedule[/h3]
11:33AM ET

[h5]Russell Martin | Dodgers [/h5]
Top http:///sendtofriend.espn.go.com/sendtofriend/SendToFriend?URL=http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/features/rumors#5189&title=Martin ahead of schedule">http://sendtofriend.espn.... ahead of schedule', 'sendtofriend', 'noresizable,noscrollbars,width=345,height=470');return false;" href="http://niketalk.yuku.com/editor/view#">Email


Earlier this spring it wasn't looking like Russell Martin could be ready by opening Day, but the veteran caught four innings in a minor league game Thursday and told ESPNLosAngeles.com's Tony Jackson that he feels like he's getting there.

"I'm fairly optimistic about it," Martin said. "I felt like myself today."

Martin caught six innings in a minor league game Friday without any physical setback and appears to be ahead of schedule.

If Martin is unable to start the year on the active roster, A.J. Ellis will likely get the nod.

[/h3]


    

 

[ooiron manoo]

isnt there a dodger game in vegas on wednesday?
Yeah, a split squad game against the Reds.

I arrive on Thursday *shrugs*

 

[Los Angeles]

no buns in a timeshare though ironman

 

[ooiron manoo]

....looking for hookups to XS/Tryst/Tao

.

 

[p mac one]

Originally Posted by frink85

Originally Posted by P MAC ONE

Originally Posted by bright nikes

That's why I don't really give as much hate to Ned due to the fact that we're only as good as our owner. All bad though ... with this $80M payroll and yet he's laughing his +## to the bank.

That's not true.

The system had plenty of talent in it when Ned was hired to be incredibly successful on an $80 Million dollar payroll. And the payroll has been above or near $100 Million all of Ned's tenure.

I've lost all enthusiasm for the Dodgers because of Ned.

We could have Josh Bell, Carlos Santana, Delwyn Young and Tony Abreu all on the ML roster this year making about what Jamey Carroll is going to make this year. And all we have to show for those guys is Sherrill, 2 months of Casey Blake, 6 Jon Garland starts and Eric Krebs.

But those deals were made with those prospects to get the other team to pick up their salaries. 3 Mil on the rest of Casey Blake's contract for Carlos Santana. That falls on the owner not taking on the additional salary.

That logic is incredibly flawed though.

It's not like the entire world hasn't known that Frank is poor/cheap since the day he bought the team. It's not a secret, never has been a secret and never will be a secret. Frank is on the low end of cash for an owner, particularly in a sport with no salary cap.

It's Ned's job to allocate those resources properly, trading away prospects to spend double (well, double doesn't really explain it because the guys we dealt would have been under our control for 6+ seasons at an affordable price, and the veterans we got instead make millions) on veterans who aren't a whole lot better. Or, in the case of a lot of Ned's signings, are a whole lot worse.

Ned has made a huge !+%@ up, or two at each position on the roster, and that outweighs any positive moves he made.

C - Traded Santana.
1B - Kept Loney who was hitting .380 in AAA to pay Nomar and make Loney "earn" the job.
2B - The Jeff Kent extension. $$% was Ned thinking.
SS - Furcal is going to make like 80 Mil over 6 years and to this point he's had one good season. Oh yeah, he has a vesting option for a 7th year that he's guaranteed to reach if he plays 140+ games at leadoff.
3B - Josh Bell for George Sherrill (this one pisses me off the most). Without the prior knowledge of the divorce, this trade made minimal sense considering the age of Casey Blake and the lack of any other 3B prospect of any merit in our system AND the fact that Sherrill isn't that good but was due to make $5 Million this year which is far too much to pay a setup-man. Considering that Ned had to know the divorce was on the horizon and that the strings would be  tighter, this trade is inexcusable and is going to set the organization back years. Because we are either going to have to magically create a third baseman (Blake DeWitt magically developing power would be sick, hey it happened with Chase Utley.Pedro Baez are basically our only other hope right now, and though he has a lot of raw power he has a lot of flaws in his game right now . Bleak at best) or we're going to have to spend millions to find a free agent one who is somewhat capable. Problem is that there aren't any 3B free agents of note until Wright and Zimmerman, and they're not likely to leave.
OF - This idiot Ned gave Juan Pierre 5 years, 44 Million. Andruw Jones, and Juan Pierre were brought in AFTER we knew Matt Kemp was going to be really good (sure, everybody thought he was raw, young, etc. But the talent and minor league production was more than enough to not waste all the money he wasted on the two CFs he brought in)
Pitching - Jon Garland for Tony Abreu, Jason Schmidt. I'm done after typing Schmidt's name, I'm too pissed off and tired now.

Again like I said earlier, Frank being poor is one problem, but it seems like Ned's the only one who doesn't realize that.

I've followed the Dodgers like they're a %%#%+* religion since like 10th grade, but this year I have zero enthusiasm for the season because of Ned. Not because of the McCourts

 

[mr jordan04]

....looking for hookups to XS/Tryst/Tao

.
i always see craigslist las vegas posts from promoters claiming "free" entrance. im assuming they work on tip + get paid on how many heads they bring in. walk through the casino in the morning a lot of places will put you in the guestlist to their club/bar. everything depends on ratio
i havent used it before but check out clubzone.com. a lot of clubs are part of that site and they can put you on the guestlist, but im not sure if being on that guestlist gets you in free/discounted charge
  

but this year I have zero enthusiasm for the season because of Ned Not because of the McCourts
same here. im usually super pumped and optomistic about the season, but this time around im

jamey carroll being our splash offseason acquisition + ticket prices going up again + "we came out even last year"

 

[mr jordan04]

IYN check ur pm

 

[cincoseisdos]

[h2][/h2]

[h2]Dodgers ex-CEO seeks spousal support[/h2]

• http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/news/story?id=5037133&campaign=rss&source=MLBHeadlines#/sendtofriend.espn.go.com/sendtofriend/SendToFriend?URL=http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/news/story?id=5037133&title=Dodgers owner">http://sendtofriend.espn....mp;titl...le,noscrollbars,width=400,height=500');return false;">Email
• Print
• Comments 0
• Share 
• 
  tweet

Associated Press

LOS ANGELES -- Relaxing at five-star hotels. Jet-setting around the world. Eating at top restaurants.

While most people can't comprehend or even dream about that kind of opulence, former Los Angeles Dodgers CEO Jamie McCourt says she wants her first-class lifestyle back and believes it will take nearly $1 million a month to do so.

Whether her estranged husband, Dodgers owner Frank McCourt, will have to pay temporary spousal support could be determined at a hearing Monday in Los Angeles. Both Jamie McCourt and Frank McCourt are expected to attend.

The couple is embroiled in a costly divorce dispute with the Dodgers possibly hanging in the balance. Jamie McCourt maintains she is the team's co-owner, while her husband argues a marital agreement between the two gives him sole possession of the Dodgers.

A trial on that issue was tentatively set for May 24 but a new date may be set on Monday.

In court papers, Jamie McCourt has said she is running out of money since she was fired in October as the team's CEO where she drew a $2 million salary.

She estimated she has about $4 million in savings and roughly $450,000 in cash that will quickly run out due to monthly mortgage payments of about $415,000 on the couple's homes and vacation properties. She believes she shouldn't have to "invade" her savings to pay for her living expenses.

"I request spousal support in an amount to insure that I can continue to live at the same marital standard of living that we enjoyed during our marriage," she said during a deposition.

She also cites a long list of other expenses she and her husband had during their marriage such as trips to Paris and Vietnam, country club memberships and dining at expensive restaurants. She said she enjoys wearing designer clothing and has a hair stylist and makeup artist.

She has said in her court documents that the couple's worth is more than $1.2 billion.

During a deposition earlier this month if there was any amount of money he should give to support his wife of 30 years, Frank McCourt said no and explained why.

"Because I think she has ample resources to take care of herself, which I'm -- I'm very happy about that fact," he said.

He was referring to the couple's seven homes that are worth an estimated $65 million and belong to her as outlined in the martial agreement. His attorneys have argued that she could rent the properties or sell them.

Frank McCourt also said he doesn't draw a salary from the Dodgers and estimates he will earn about $5 million this year from one of his businesses.

Jamie McCourt's attorneys have said Frank McCourt has at least $18 million available. They also hammered him during his deposition about his spending habits that they contend haven't decreased even though he has said he was hit hard by the recession.

Frank McCourt said he did attend this year's Super Bowl and spent between $70,000 and $80,000 on a trip to the Caribbean.

By his own admission, he said things began to spiral downward once the couple moved from Massachusetts to California after purchasing the Dodgers in 2004.

"I think it was a very -- very comfortable, very nice and very family oriented and we had a lot of nice things," Frank McCourt said in court documents. "I think it became an out of -- out-of-control, unsustainable and very uncomfortable lifestyle."

Jamie McCourt filed for divorce in October, citing irreconcilable differences. The McCourts have been married since 1979 and have four grown sons.

She already lost her initial bid to be reinstated as the team's chief executive. But Superior Court Commissioner Scott Gordon hasn't decided whether the Dodgers are considered community or separate property. If he rules the team is community property, Jamie McCourt could argue again that she should get her job back.

Give us a glimmer of hope toward a sale today Judge

 

[p mac one]

[h3]http://www.dodgerdivorce.com/2010/03/were-back-in-court-whats-at-stake.html[/h3]

[h3]We're back in court; what's at stake?[/h3]---
The McCourts are back in...well, court today to determine two keyissues rolled into one question: How much money does Frank need to payJamie to tide her over during the extended litigation over thepost-nup? In deciding this question, a court will have to decide howmuch Frank must pay toward Jamie's professional fees as well as whetherto force Jamie to take actions in compliance with the post-nup.

Frank's take.


Jamie has all the assets she needs in the form of the residential realestate and other property allocated to her by the terms of thepost-nup. Whether it's renting, selling, or borrowing on the realestate, she is perfectly capable of generating cash. What's more, herspending on professional fees--lawyers, accountants, PR, etc.--hasrisen to unreasonable levels. And not only is it inappropriate forFrank to be on the hook for Jamie's several-millions-of-dollars infees, it's impossible. Because of the way Frank's creditors havearranged their lending facilities, Frank's income is capped at a levelwhich makes paying for Jamie's bills and lifestyle a significanthardship.

Jamie's take.


Frank's representations as to his own present liquidity are misleadingand inaccurate. He has access to all the cash required to properlysupport Jamie throughout this process. Because of the enormousdisparity in current earning power, it's only equitable that Frank bearthe majority of costs associated with litigation. And under Californialaw, Jamie is entitled to payments enabling her to life the lifestyleachieved over the course of the couple's nearly-30-year marriage. Asfor monetizing the residential real estate assets, Jamie is not legallyentitled to do so; the post-nup's validity in question, disposing ofthe residences or encumbering them with further debt is not somethingJamie is allowed to do on her own.

So what happens?


I don't have the greatest feel for this issue. I have a difficult timeseeing either side getting exactly what it wants, though I think Jamiemight be more likely to score a thorough victory. From what I've seen,her argument with respect to Frank's income streams is quitepersuasive, and I would understand the court's reluctance to forceJamie to comply with the terms of the post-nup, that neat littledocument causing all this hubbub in the first place.

Still, I can see Frank scoring points on the soaring costs of thisdispute; it projects to cost nearly $20 million in professional feesalone. The court is not obligated to rule on the matter right away, butI don't see a reason a decision couldn't be made fairly quickly. Thekey points of battle--Frank's present liquidity and the extent to whichhe must fund Jamie's representation--shouldn't require much moreanalysis than they've already been given.

What are the big-picture implications for tomorrow?


As Bill Shaikin and a few experts discuss here,days like tomorrow mostly serve to weaken the public's trust in McCourtleadership. Frank is arguing that he's cash-poor, and Jamie is arguingthat Frank's cooked Dodger books. None of this is good, obviously. Andthe pessimistic view of tomorrow is that it is little more thanlitigation about litigation. With respect to the divorce, very littleis actually getting done.

While we might have fun talking about these ancillary issues, the bigtarget is still that post-nup, and it's anyone's guess as to when thatissue will be resolved with finality. The potential for a major blow onthat front coming out of tomorrow's action is small, but real. If thecourt cuts off Jamie completely, she might need to dispose of some ofthe residences, which she doesn't want to do. Moreover, if her cashreserves dip too low, she might need to look harder at settling, whichshe really doesn't want to do.

That's why I'm inclined to like her side a little better tomorrow; anegative outcome is expensive for Frank, but could be devastating toJamie's ability to argue her side of the divorce. Courts are generallyunfavorable to outcomes resulting in an enormous disparity in net worthfor divorcing spouses. Because her case could be so damaged byinadequate representation, and because her potential negative outcomeis the worst in this case, I think she'll be given every protectionpossible on the post-nup issue.

Make a prediction!


This is an easy spot to get into some trouble; it's a soft, gray issue.I'd be surprised if either side gets its way, though I do think thecourt might be more sympathetic to Jamie. I offer the caveat thatnothing would shockme, and if I have this one pegged wrongly, I'll certainly be eager tojump into the why and how. I see Jamie getting a significant cashaward, though some guidance about reasonable spending during thependency of the divorce might come with it.

[h1]Dodgers Divorce - Stadium Standoff[/h1]
Posted Mar 29th 2010 12:50AM by TMZ Staff

UPDATE:Frank's lawyers tell TMZ Jamie was fired six months ago and had allthat time to clear out her office. Instead of going for that purposelast Saturday, she created a spectacle by bringing an entourage. Thelaywers call it a "publicity stunt," which occurred just days beforethis morning's spousal support hearing. Frank's lawyers say they'll behappy to return her stuff.

Former Los Angeles Dodgers CEO Jamie McCourt went to Dodger Stadium to clear out her office Saturday, but she couldn't get past the security gate ... she says thanks to her estranged husband, Frank McCourt.


Jamie and the newest member of her legal team, David Boies,claim Frank wouldn't let her into her office to take her stuff away, sothey threatened to take him to court. Jamie and David say Frank and hislawyers recanted and invited her to show up Saturday at 3 PM for themove.

Jamie and David were there on time, along with a movingvan, but the guard turned them away, saying he was under orders to keepthem out.

The biggest insult of all: The guard wouldn't even letJamie into the Dodgers gift shop ... notwithstanding a loomingbillboard that read, "The World of Dodgertown. All Are Welcome" ...except Jamie ...

We couldn't reach Frank's reps for comment ... but we're sure we'll hear something.

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/#ixzz0jaHidLJ8

 

[Los Angeles]

damn ironman did jamie look that brolic up close and personal?

btw unless you're rolling to those clubs with a 5:1 ratio of females / dudes ... expect to wait in line with the rest of the folks.

$20 shots

$12 beers

I remember when I was at Pure a couple years back, some dude asked me if I wanted to sniff coke with him in the bathroom. The @$#+ this dude thinking

You gotta hit up Boston Pizza though, that's the spot

 

[p mac one]

It's always a fine line in Vegas when pre-gaming.

Gotta get drunk enough to be buzzed enough the whole night without spending $100 on drinks, but not drunk enough so they don't let you in

and come on BN, you know you wanted to hit the slopes. Word to Ron Washington.

 

[ooiron manoo]

damn ironman did jamie look that brolic up close and personal?
Yeah she did, actually looked disgusting 

.

All she does is work out?  *%%!* ain't go no job.

btw unless you're rolling to those clubs with a 5:1 ratio of females / dudes ... expect to wait in line with the rest of the folks.

$20 shots

$12 beers

I remember when I was at Pure a couple years back, some dude asked me if I wanted to sniff coke with him in the bathroom. The @$#+ this dude thinking

I know, but dudes I'm rolling with want to go clubbing.

I've hit up Pure, Rain, Tao...sure there are hot girls but it's still like any other club.

I could understand if you are some dude from Wisconsin, but if you come from a major city like LA or NY, it is nothing special.  At least not to justify the long waits, expensive cover charges and expensive *+* drinks.

Pre-game is a must.

Costco has already been hit up: 1 bottle of Jack, 2 bottles of Goose, 1 bottle of Jaggermeister, 1 bottle of Patron, 2 cases of Dos Equis, 2 cases of Heineken, 1 case of Blue Moon (

). 

So definitely be pre-gaming.

 

[Los Angeles]

JD

where's the crown royal at?

gotta stock up on some redbull for those jagers.

 

[in yo nostril]

no matter how *!@! faced i get pre-gaming, i always end up spending like 100 bucks on drinks. i hate it. and honestly all clubs over there are the same to me, bunch of sluts and thirsty dudes. its fun and all but i dont get how people are waiting like 2 hours to get in somewhere.

and mrjordan, good looking out dude. i was able to get a jersey. crazy price.

 

[ooiron manoo]

Originally Posted by In Yo Nostril

no matter how *!@! faced i get pre-gaming, i always end up spending like 100 bucks on drinks. i hate it. and honestly all clubs over there are the same to me, bunch of sluts and thirsty dudes. its fun and all but i dont get how people are waiting like 2 hours to get in somewhere.

That's what I'm sayin'.  Except, I don't drop that much unless the group decides to go for bottle service.

Drinks in the surrounding bars inside the casino are a fraction of the cost.  

I will probably just hit up Pure since I have a hook up there.  Cover w/ no line.

 

[eyegiantjackpot]

you guys watch that TMZ video? her lawyer says, after talking to the paps about how she is locked out, "this would never have happened at yankee stadium."

do they seriously understand what history they are messing with? This is dodger town man. you dont say you want to be the owner of the dodgers, and say "this would would never have happened at yankee stadium."

that makes me sick man.. i really dont want to boycott my boys in blue. i really dont. but i dont want to support either of these two clowns. its gonna be a crazy year.

 

[in yo nostril]

we must have the same hook up or something because thats where we always end up. when we went a couple weeks back, we tried going to moon at palms and the lines were crazy for some reason. i tried to bribe like 5 people and the only dude who was down wanted 100 bucks a head. it was laughable so we left. i remember when tao first opened, the only way dudes were getting in without bottles was paying that much and they still made them wait in line.

 

[div1lbc]

There really is no such thing as a guest list in Vegas. It's all about $$$ so it's either your getting a table or just paying cover. I'd suggest going to XS, especially if you haven't been there. It's easily the biggest club in Vegas right now and the general admission line moves pretty fast as long as you don't get there too late.

But yeah, drink prices at Vegas clubs are OD. Even if you pre-game in your room, you're more than likely still going to buy a couple drinks once you get inside the club.

 

[sinser13]

[h1]Offseason In Review: Los Angeles Dodgers[/h1]
By Tim Dierkes [March 29 at 10:18am CST]

Next in our Offseason In Review series, the Dodgers.

Major League Signings

• Vicente Padilla, SP: one year, $5.025MM.
• Jamey Carroll, IF: two years, $3.85MM.
• Brad Ausmus, C: one year, $1MM.  Includes $1MM club option with a $150K buyout.
• Ronnie Belliard, IF: one year, $825K.
• Reed Johnson, OF: one year, $800K.
• Total spend: $11.5MM.

Notable Minor League Signings

• Justin Miller, Ramon Ortiz, Russ Ortiz, Josh Towers, Jeff Weaver, Nick Green, Argenis Reyes, Alfredo Amezaga, Garret Anderson, Brian Barton, Luis Ayala

Extensions

• Andre Ethier, RF: two years, $15.25MM.
• Jonathan Broxton, RP: two years, $11MM.
• Matt Kemp, CF: two years, $10.95MM.

Trades and Claims

• Claimed Rule 5 P Armando Zerpa from Red Sox; returned 3/15/10
• Acquired Rule 5 P Carlos Monasterios from Mets for cash
• Acquired P John Ely and P Jon Link from White Sox for OF Juan Pierre and $10.5MM

Notable Losses

• Orlando Hudson, Juan Pierre, Mark Loretta, Juan Castro, Jim Thome, Mitch Jones, Randy Wolf, Guillermo Mota, Jon Garland, Eric Milton, Jason Schmidt, Will Ohman

Summary

GM Ned Colletti chose to let key free agents Wolf, Garland, and Hudson leave, replacing them with cheaper options.  Let's take a look at the team's biggest moves.

Wolf earned $8MM in 2009 and pitched like an ace for the Dodgers.  He'd signed one-year deals three years in a row and was a near-lock to turn down an arbitration offer from the Dodgers.  Colletti reportedly feared a $15MM reward for Wolf, but said, "Our decision was made strictly from a baseball perspective."  The misstep cost the Dodgers a pair of draft picks.  Hudson was also a Type A free agent, but the choice not to offer him arbitration was defensible.  The Dodgers have more than enough options to replace him.

So, Colletti missed out on the #36 and #65 picks in the 2010 draft.  The Dodgers will survive.  Colletti's first big move of the offseason was to shave $3MM off the '10 payroll and $5MM off for '11 by unloading Pierre on the White Sox.  Colletti went on to allocate $11.5MM to free agents, most of which will be paid in '10.

With a million bucks in innings incentives dangling, I think Padilla will have a decent year.  Brett Myers and Jon Garland, who signed for similar dollars, don't seem any better or worse.  Carroll's two-year deal was unnecessary.  The 36-year-old is a useful player, but if you're pinching pennies there are better ways to spend $3.85MM.  Saving the money for midseason acquisitions would've been a better move.

Colletti deserves praise for adding 2011 cost certainty with the Ethier, Broxton, and Kemp deals.  He chose the right players and didn't overpay.

The Dodgers' offense appears respectable, with no clear area for upgrade.  Getting sufficient innings out of the Billingsley-Kershaw-Padilla-Kuroda front four is a concern, though few teams are satisfied with their rotation depth.  Colletti may need to make a deal this summer.

 

[dako akong otin]

hope my boy Reed works out well for you guys as the 4th OF. 

 

[sinser13]

Eric Stults sold to Hiroshima Carp.

 

[Los Angeles]

Sold for how many lbs of fish?

If anyone needs a demonoid invite, lmk.

 

[Los Angeles]

Repko waived.

Just could never stay on the field, can never knock how hard he plays though 

 

[sinser13]

so is Dewitt starting in 2nd base?