The McCourt trial: my gut is that Jamie is going to win, even if she shouldn't

8 Comments

The McCourt trial ended yesterday, with closing statements offered by the attorneys. Lots of different attorneys, according to the L.A. Times summary. Each side had, like, three people making arguments. What was this, a tag team match?  I understand multiple lawyers taking stabs at different parts of closing if it’s a complicated case, but this is a bench trial in which, basically, a single fact was at issue.  And people wonder how the McCourts could have run up $8 million in attorneys fees.

Anyway, here’s an insight that may appeal to, like, six of you who care about such things, but I just can’t shake it: Frank McCourt’s lawyers keep arguing that the business with his lawyer switching out versions of the agreement that was to decide who owns the Dodgers was no big deal.  A clerical error. A “scrivener’s error.”  Of no consequence at all. But tell me: if Jamie wins, and Frank has to give her hundreds of millions of dollars, how much time will elapse between the judgment coming down and the malpractice suit Frank files against his “scrivener”?  I’m guessing he may let a day go by, but not two, and when he does he will characterize it as the most egregious case of professional misconduct in the history of Anglo-American jurisprudence. That’ll be fun.

As for the outcome, I don’t really know what to think.  Based on everything I’ve read, I am of the opinion that Jamie McCourt’s story that she always thought she was going to own half the team is self-serving post-facto baloney. I don’t buy that she didn’t read the documents and understand what she was signing. I don’t buy that Frank was truly going to give her every one of their houses AND the Dodgers.  It just doesn’t make sense to me based on the things we’ve heard about their respective appetites for risk, their history and all of that. I simply don’t find her side of the story credible.

At the same time, I do find the scrivener’s story credible. I bet there was an error in the documents and that — as the man who made the error — the lawyer did just go back and try to substitute the correct document in there and hope no one ever figured it out.  I used to do a lot of professional responsibility defense work, and I’ve seen lots of lawyers do this. It’s always, always, always the wrong thing to do, but I’ve seen them do it.

But just because I find it credible doesn’t mean it’s defensible. There’s too much at stake in the legal system — not just for rich people like the McCourts but for everyone — for courts to overlook lawyer misconduct and make assumptions about what was really going on. Yes, in this case taking a hard line may reward Jamie’s post-facto baloney and may, in the end, cost Frank the Dodgers. But it’s going to be hard for a judge to essentially validate the document switcheroo.

We’ll find out for sure in 90 days, when a decision comes out.

Mets trade Curtis Granderson to the Dodgers

Getty Images
4 Comments

The Mets traded centerfielder Curtis Granderson to the Dodgers for cash considerations or a player to be named later, the teams announced late Friday night. Granderson was rumored to be drawing interest from teams earlier in the week, and found a landing place after slashing .256/.360/.721 since the start of the month. In a corresponding move, the Dodgers designated right-hander Dylan Floro for assignment to clear roster space for the outfielder.

As a whole, the 36-year-old’s 2017 campaign has been a tad underwhelming. Granderson entered Saturday batting .228/.334/.481 with 19 home runs and an .815 OPS through 395 PA, and accrued 1.7 fWAR to the 5.1 fWAR he produced during his pennant-winning, MVP-contending season in 2015. Still, with under $4 million remaining on his contract, another 20+ homer season around the corner and the defensive chops to man center field, it looks like a prudent deal for the Dodgers as they continue to bulldoze their way to the playoffs this fall.

The club has yet to outline their plans for Granderson, but his addition to a crowded outfield could displace centerfielder Joc Pederson, who turned in a meager .214/.329/.415 batting line through 292 PA in 2017. It could also have ramifications for fellow veteran Andre Ethier, assuming he’s healthy enough to compete for a starting role when he comes off the 60-day disabled list in September. The Mets, meanwhile, are expected to lean more heavily on rookie outfielder Brandon Nimmo, who’s made just five starts this season after struggling to get consistent playing time on the field.

Corey Kluber exits game with right ankle sprain

Getty Images
Leave a comment

Indians’ right-hander Corey Kluber was removed from the sixth inning of his start on Friday night, bringing a streak of 14 starts with 8+ strikeouts to an unfortunate end after he sprained his right ankle. Kluber stumbled off the mound while trying to field a base hit from Eric Hosmer and was seen visibly limping as he moved to cover first base. He was allowed to stay in the game for one more batter, but quickly yielded a three-pitch single to Melky Cabrera and left the mound with head athletic trainer James Quinlan.

It was a poor ending to another strong outing by the right-hander, who delivered 5 1/3 innings of one-run, four-strikeout ball and took his 12th win of the season after the Indians amassed a nine-run lead. Postgame comments by Cleveland skipper Terry Francona suggest that Kluber isn’t facing a serious setback after sustaining the sprain, however, and might even be good to go by the time his next start comes around on Wednesday.

While the Royals escaped Friday’s loss without injury, the 10-1 drubbing pushed them 6.5 games back of the division lead and half a game behind the Twins and Angels for the second AL wild card berth. They’ll host a rematch on Saturday at 7:15 ET, with left-hander Jason Vargas set to face off against Indians’ righty Trevor Bauer.