Craig Calcaterra

Getty Images

John Kruk out, Jessica Mendoza, Aaron Boone in on ESPN’s “Sunday Night Baseball”


ESPN has announced that Jessica Mendoza is now a permanent member of the “Sunday Night Baseball” broadcast team. What’s more, John Kruk is out — he’ll be on “Baseball Tonight” still — and Aaron Boone is in.  The play-by-play man remains Dan Shulman.

The Mendoza part is not terribly surprising. She replaced Curt Schilling last year following his suspension over his social media habits and received good reviews. More surprising is Kruk leaving. While he was never a super popular member of the broadcast team, his quality as an analyst seemed to improve after Schilling left. Like, he sort of played to the level of his peers in some respects and just did better when the lame banter he and Schilling engaged in went away.

Still, I understand ESPN’s desire to clean the slate from last year and to take away the notion of the two analysts being junior and senior on the Sunday Night broadcast, as it were. And of course, Boone does a pretty good job as it is and he should be a good addition to ESPN’s flagship baseball show.

The only downside to all of this is that it’s going to bring out the small group of deadenders who are just angry that a woman is calling baseball games. They flared up and embarrassed themselves when Mendoza was first put on the air and they’ll get all angry again now. They’ll claim it isn’t because they hate women in roles men have traditionally filled. They’ll claim that it’s really because Mendoza never played Major League Baseball and somehow is unqualified. Of course they never lodged this complaint at, say, Tom Verducci when he was calling the World Series, but don’t expect intellectual consistency from this bunch.

Congrats to Mendoza and Boone. Condolences to Kruk, but c’est la vie.

Great Moments in Chutzpah: Ex-Dodgers co-owner Jamie McCourt plays the victim

FILE - In this Sept. 14, 2011 file photo, Jamie McCourt leaves Los Angeles Superior Court. Judge Scott Gordon has denied a motion by former Dodgers CEO Jamie McCourt to throw out a $131 million divorce settlement she believes was invalid because she was misled about the team's value. The judge ruled Monday, Sept. 9, 2013, that Jamie McCourt isn't entitled to more than she received in the settlement reached with former husband and ex-Dodgers owner Frank McCourt. Jamie McCourt contended her ex-husband short-changed her $770 million by misrepresenting the Dodgers' assets during their divorce. The team was later sold for $2 billion. (AP Photo/Jason Redmond, File)
Associated Press

There is a profile of former Dodgers co-owner Jamie McCourt in today’s Boston Globe. The upshot: McCourt is making a public comeback, going on the lecture circuit explaining to women how they need to be aware of their financial situation so they don’t “learn the hard way about [their] relationship with money,” the way Jamie McCourt said she did due to her ignorance and naïveté back when she and her husband got divorced and the Dodgers were sold.

Except the story is so divorced from reality that I’m having trouble gathering myself. If I were reading this in hard copy and not on my computer I’d throw the newspaper across the room.

Let’s take a trip back in the wayback machine to 2010 and 2011 to see why this article and Jamie McCourt’s claims therein are pure ridiculousness.

In those days the Dodgers ownership situation was a raging tire fire. Co-owners Frank McCourt and his wife Jamie were in the middle of ugly divorce proceedings and, as they broke up, their personal and financial life was splashed all over the newspapers. It was a sordid mess. At least one extramarital affair and restraining orders. Financially, there were stories of real estate binges resulting in multiple houses in the same city, including a couple next door to each other, with one to do extra laundry (seriously). Thousands of dollars on fresh flowers a day, clothes, vacations and excess that would make Robin Leach say “that’s a bit much, you guys.”  All the while the Dodgers were being used as a personal piggy bank for McCourt family expenses and the team was saddled with debt, debt, debt as far as the eye could see.

This was not, however, a case of financial morons irresponsibly spending money. It was a story of sophisticated and knowledgable businesspeople irresponsibly spending money. Frank McCourt was a Georgetown-educated head of a family real estate and development business which has existed for nearly a century. For her part, Jamie McCourt was both a partner in that business and an international securities lawyer with an MBA from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to boot. In addition to their ownership interest in the Dodgers, they were each active members of team management. Frank was the MLB-designated control person, but Jamie ran many aspects of the club and was involved in matters relating to broadcasting and regional sports network negotiations. In short, they knew what the hell they were doing and she was no babe in the woods when it came to the family business.

Their dispute over ownership of the Dodgers was resolved in October of 2011. At the time it seemed like Jamie got a great deal. She got $131 million out of it despite the fact that her claims to true joint ownership of the team were somewhat tenuous and despite the fact that, at the time, all of Frank’s debts and the Dodgers’ debts — something on the order of $800 million worth — looked like a sale of the team wouldn’t bring anything close to a windfall. Heck, McCourt looked like he’d maybe — maybe — break even. Most observers felt that Jamie made a savvy deal to extricate herself from a possible ruinous sale of the team. A tip of the cap to the sharp MBA/JD and her legal team which consisted of Bert Fields, perhaps the most famous divorce lawyer on the planet, and a no doubt large cadre of financial and business advisors.

But then something crazy happened: Frank McCourt sold the Dodgers to Mark Walter’s ownership group for an astounding $2 billion and made out like a bandit. It was shocking even to people who followed sports business closely and represented a windfall for Frank McCourt that should’ve shaken anyone with a belief in cosmic justice to their senses. Jamie, realizing that her once apparently savvy deal no longer looked so great, tried to reopen the case and get a bigger cut of the Dodgers windfall. The court told her “sorry” however. She made a deal and she was stuck with it. The end.

Except now she’s peddling a story — and likely a hefty speaking fee — to “proselytize why women should care about money” and to warn women about what could happen to them if they are ignorant of their personal finances. Which is an important topic, to be sure. Just not one for which Jamie McCourt’s personal story is any sort of applicable example. She had every advantage that women who truly are placed in perilous financial (and often personal) situations following a divorce do not have. She is holding herself out as a cautionary tale when, in reality, there are women whose lives were actually and utterly destroyed as a result of the financial, emotional and physical manipulation of men and a legal system which is often complicit in such ugliness. The message is a good one. The messenger is wildly inappropriate.

It’d be one thing if this story appeared on the society page. In that case it’d be more about someone’s public profile and it’d be easier to accept the story Jamie McCourt is telling herself and others at face value. But this appears in the business section. How, then, there is essentially zero scrutiny of McCourt’s agency in what “befell” her a few years back is rather astounding.

With the NFL’s move to Los Angeles, the Oakland Athletics are losers too


It must stink to be a Rams fan, losing your football team like that to some city that, with the complicity of the NFL, lured your rooting interest away with the almighty dollar and without a care for your years of loyalty. I mean, really, St. Louis taking away Los Angeles’ team was just WRONG. We’ll miss you Flipper Anderson and Tommy Maddox!

— oops, sorry. We just had a glitch and that 1995 article auto-populated in my WordPress window. I’ll try to fix it later. I hope you get the idea though.

Anyway, with the NFL’s decision to move the Rams and, potentially, the Chargers to Los Angeles yesterday, there is one additional loser in all of this: the Oakland Athletics.

That’s because the Athletics’ stadium mates, the Raiders, were bidding to move back to L.A. themselves and lost out on that bid. Had they gone it would’ve made the redevelopment of the Oakland Coliseum site as a baseball-only site far more straightforward or, less likely, freed up possibilities with the city and with other sites given that they need not worry about what happen to the Raiders anymore. Now, at least for a while, the Athletics and the Raiders will continue to share the Coliseum in an arrangement that makes baseball harder in terms of both scheduling and in terms of wear and tear on an already disaster area of a stadium.

All is not lost, however. Just a lot more uncertain. That’s because, as part of the L.A. deal, the Raiders will receive a consolation prize in the form of loan money earmarked for a future stadium in Oakland. That could make it more likely that the Raiders build themselves a new stadium there. If they do — and if it interferes with the A’s playing in the Coliseum — the A’s are entitled two a two-year notice to get out of their current 10-year lease. If this has either bothered or encouraged the A’s, they’re playing it close to the vest. Owner Lew Wolff issued this statement last night:

This could also all result in the Raiders moving elsewhere, including possibly San Diego if the Chargers go up to L.A., which could leave the A’s in the Coliseum even longer. Ultimately, that would have the same effect that the Raiders moving to L.A. would, just delayed by a year or two or three.

So, there we are. The NFL’s decision, though essentially keeping the status quo for the A’s, did take away an immediate form of potential relief for them. For now, the overburdened Coliseum will continue to be overburdened.