What I’d do to mess with the Dodgers if I were Jamie McCourt’s lawyer

11 Comments

I’m still processing the ruling in the McCourt case. One thought occurred to me, however: if I were Jamie McCourt’s lawyer I’d make a point to screw with the Dodgers, starting today, in order to force a favorable settlement.

The judge just issued a ruling that Jamie has an ownership interest in the Dodgers. It’s not actually full ownership yet — the team is merely now presumed to be community property — but she has a much greater interest in the team today than she did under the once-presumed-valid post-nuptial agreement. In light of this, she should try to protect her interest.

How? Oh, by maybe filing for a temporary restraining order preventing the Dodgers from making substantial expenditures without court approval until the case is ultimately resolved.  Make the argument — with tons of purple prose — in which she says that it is now winter, teams hand out millions of dollars in contracts in the winter, and the very future of the Dodgers is at stake. A contract could be signed tomorrow that simply kills the team (see, Rodriguez, Alex)!  Please, judge, do not let Frank do this to OUR asset! Make him take all potential contract offers to you so that you can approve them!

Even if it’s unsuccessful, you could make the pleading up in such a way so that it would play like gangbusters in the press. Frank and Ned Colletti would have to answer questions about it. People would wonder if the team would be able to do anything without 50 lawyers getting involved. It would be a glorious thing. At least that’s what my vestigial lawyer’s evil conscience thinks at the moment. And hey, it could make Frank offer a really favorable settlement to Jamie.

Now, keep in mind that I’m operating from ignorance right now in that we haven’t seen the judge’s actual order. It may preempt all of this and put in place a plan of interim management pending the outcome of the case.  But if it doesn’t, and if it’s a plain jane order in Jamie’s favor, I’d run down to the courthouse and start making Frank McCourt’s life miserable. Like, ten minutes ago.

Javier Baez, D.J. LeMahieu have disagreement about sign-stealing

Jonathan Daniel/Getty Images
19 Comments

Fellow second basemen Javier Baez of the Cubs and D.J. LeMahieu of the Rockies got into a disagreement in the top of the third inning of Sunday’s game at Coors Field over sign-stealing.

LeMahieu reached on a fielder’s choice ground out, then advanced to second base on Charlie Blackmon‘s single. While Nolan Arenado and Trevor Story were batting, Baez was concerned that LeMahieu was relaying the Cubs’ signs to his teammates. Baez decided to stand in front of LeMahieu to block any information he might have been giving to Arenado and Story. LeMahieu got irritated and the two jawed at each other for a bit. Umpires Vic Carapazza and Greg Gibson had to intervene to tell Baez to knock it off.

There has always been a back-and-forth with alleged sign-stealing. As long as teams aren’t using technology to steal signs, it’s fair game for players to relay information to their teammates about the opposing team’s signs. Last year, MLB determined the Red Sox went against the rules and used technology — an Apple watch in this case — to steal signs from the Yankees. Other teams in the past have been accused of using binoculars from the bullpen to steal signs. In this particular case with Baez and LeMahieu, there was no foul play going on, just Baez trying to make the Rockies cede what he perceived to be their slight competitive advantage.

The Cubs went on to beat the Rockies 9-7 on Sunday.