Jamie McCourt to the Dodgers: "Get out of my divorce"

Leave a comment

Jamie McCourt still wants to own the Dodgers, she just doesn’t want them filing legal briefs in which the team accuses her of cheating on her husband:

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 think she has a good point here, because if anyone should be allowed to “gratuitously attack” her for messing around with her bodyguard (or whatever he is), it shouldn’t be the Dodgers, who actually made the filing she’s complaining about. It should be her husband Frank, and so far he’s been missing from this affair.  At least technically so. Fact is that the “Dodgers'” papers were written and filed by Frank’s own divorce lawyer, which means that Frank is trying to use the team’s good name to advance legal arguments he doesn’t necessarily want to make himself. 

In reality, the Dodgers probably have a place in the lawsuit insofar as Jamie has asked to be reinstated, and the Dodgers, as an entity, probably have a right to say that they do not want to be forced to re-hire a terminated employee. They should not, however, be used as Frank’s sock puppet to accuse their former employee of being an unfaithful hussy who shouldn’t have her job back.  If Frank wants to accuse his wife of stuff, he should man up and say it himself in his own legal papers. Businesses are generally well-advised to not publicly comment on the reasons why someone gets fired.

Bonus reason for kicking the Dodgers out of the suit: it will prevent these overpaid children from further dragging a once proud and respectable  brand name into the muck.

Free agent market slow, but players who have signed have exceeded expectations

Ralph Freso/Getty Images
1 Comment

The winter meetings are near the end — many execs are leaving Vegas tonight — and once again, the free agent market has moved rather slowly. Last year’s free agent market was perhaps the slowest in recent memory. This offseason, only 11 multi-year contracts have been signed by free agents to date. Six have been for two years, three have been for three years, one for four years, and one for six years.

Despite another slowly-moving free agent market, the players are optimistic because those that have signed contracts have exceeded expectations in terms of total value, per Jared Diamond of The Wall Street Journal. Patrick Corbin got $140 million, Nathan Eovaldi got $68 million, Andrew McCutchen got $50 million. Heck, even Lance Lynn coming off of a bad year got $30 million from the Rangers.

For comparison, as the offseason began, Fancred’s insider Jon Heyman (and an unnamed “expert”) made predictions about what the various free agent markets would get. Heyman and the expert predicted $100 million and $85 million, respectively, for Corbin, who got $140 million. They predicted $45 million and $64 million, respectively, for Eovaldi, who got $68 million. And they foresaw $39 million and $60 million for McCutchen, who got $50 million. Heyman predicted Charlie Morton would take the $17.9 million qualifying offer and the expert predicted he’d sign a one-year, $17 million deal. Morton got two years and $30 million. Heyman predicted 2/$16M for Lance Lynn and the expert only went a million higher at 2/$17M. He got 3/$30M.

Heyman isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, so let’s also glance at the predictions from MLB Trade Rumors. 6/$129M for Corbin, 4/$60M for Eovaldi, 3/$45M for McCutchen, 2/$32M for Morton, and 2/$16M for Lynn. MLBTR hit a lot closer to the center of the dartboard, so to speak, but generally the players still got a bit more than anticipated, which is good, and justifies the optimism. Hopefully the trend continues over the coming two or three months.

Going forward, though, we probably should adjust our expectations of the winter meetings. Andy McCullough of the Los Angeles Times brought up a great point, tweeting, “One problem with the Winter Meetings is they are still marketed as a news-making event at a time when executives no longer feel urgency to make news at said event.” All of the execs and journalists have access to one another via cell phones, so it’s become more of a hobnobbing event than a place to wheel and deal. These days, a deal could just as easily happen in the days leading up to or following the winter meetings. Maybe it’s just the new normal that we’ll be going into February with handfuls of free agents still looking for a new home.