That was the question posed by Dodgers President Jamie McCourt as she made an appearance with her husband, team owner Frank McCourt, Tuesday at an event where it was announced the club’s charitable foundation would help build 42 youth fields around Southern California.
“If you bring somebody in to play and pay them, pick a number, $30 million, does that seem a little weird to you?” Jamie McCourt asked in an interview at the Evergreen Recreation Center in East Los Angeles. “That’s what we’re trying to figure out. We’re really trying to see it through the eyes of our fans. We’re really trying to understand, would they rather have the 50 fields?”
The Dodgers recently made a two-year, $45-million offer to slugger Manny Ramirez that they later withdrew, and the McCourts seemed to be hedging against lavish spending during a time of such great economic uncertainty.
Jamie McCourt said the fact that the majority of contracts were guaranteed was a significant issue.
“I think, oddly enough, maybe if things weren’t guaranteed, then we could pay for it,” she said. “If people can’t play anymore, it’s like, ‘Oh well, see ya.’ Different story. Whatever money they are guaranteed could be money that we could otherwise have given to community.”
The cost of the project to build youth fields is unknown, but the Friedman Foundation has committed to donating as much as $5 million, matching every dollar spent on the endeavor by the Dodgers Dream Foundation up to that amount.
Tripon
Posted: November 26, 2008 at 08:43 AM |
31 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags:
dodgers
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Flynn Posted: November 26, 2008 at 01:39 PM (#3016164)Wow. They are in the wrong business. Also, they are completely full of sh!t. Or at least she is.
Maybe I'm just not smart enough to follow it, but is a "non-guaranteed" contract even a contract in any sense of the word? We see this in the NFL from time to time, if a guy stinks he is just released, no big deal, but if he is playing great and decides to hold out for more money he's a greedy S.O.B. To me a contract has to be guaranteed otherwise it's just an employment-at-will situation. Both sides take some risk when they sign the deal but it seems that the general consensus is that owners are the only ones who should be able to bail out if things go the wrong way.
I suppose, but an owner in MLB complaining about guaranteed contracts is like a West Virginia mine owner complaining they can hire 12 year old anymore. That fight is so long in the past, it's not even worth bringing up anymore. And who wants to hear an MLB owner whine about it? The more irritating part is the idea that if they sign Manny Ramirez or the fiasco of the Andruw Jones contract is somehow keeping them from giving to charity. I suppose they could a field a team of all minimum contracts and solve the problem of hunger or homlessness in the Greater L.A. area. Who wouldn't want that? C'mon Dodger fans, suck it up for the greater good!
That's pretty much it. In the NFL, rather than hearing all the whining about guaranteed contracts, you hear whining about how ridiculous the signing bonuses are becoming, and whether or not a guy will be cut before a roster bonus has to be paid.
mccourt has bought the L.A. marathon and has p1ssed off just about everybody by moving the race day twice, the second time to the last weekend in may. think about that. that's the same thing as summer.
their tone-deaf manner is a joke.
Angela's Ashes is in fact the sad tale of a poor ash-tree farmer in Ireland devastated by the switchover to maple.
McCourt is putting together a big push to be seen as a philanthropist (as an excuse to not spend on his team) in a time when he has no money.
He could get swallowed by the recession if he goes out on a spending ledge in any way and is obviously holding back - so less dough will be spent on promoting a "nicest guy in town" image.
Reading it made me want to throw rotten vegetables at my monitor.
A guaranty is an elemental part of the nature of contracts. Any contract can be written to void or limit this guaranty, but the NFLPA screwed its members by agreeing to non-guaranteed contracts. As mentioned above, the market has adjusted to the teams right to cut players, but the NFL situation has fostered a mentality among observers that all professional contracts should be non-guaranteed so that those malingering athletes would be put in line. These people never consider the other side of the argument and never consider that they enter into guaranteed contracts very often. Bill Simmons stated that non-guaranteed contracts were what made NFL great. How would he like his contract to be voidable by ESPN at any time?
The McCourts are hopelessly afraid of bad PR. They live in fear of the likes of Bill Plaschke and T.J. Simers.
The McCourts cannot tell the difference between good PR and bad PR... just as their front office can't tell the difference between good players and bad.
Exactly. You only consider lying when the lie will play better than the truth. And even standing completely outside moral judgment, part of the value of a lie is determined by how likely it is to be believed. If Jamie McCourt thinks any reasonable percentage of people who care actually believe that she and Frank sat around discussing "Manny Ramirez or donate $50 million", she's a lunatic.
"We need to build these fields because African Americans are disappearing from baseball. Here in LA, we need youth fields so young children can learn to play baseball and be represented in MLB. Keeping kids out of gangs and in the classroom is our first priority as not just baseball fans, but as citizens. Nay, patriots. If baseball is to truly be our 'national pastime', it has to reflect the nation, and we're just doing our small part."
Does that really come off any more phony than what she said? Why not go full-bore?
"Ladies and gentlemen, I'll be brief. The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our female party guests... we did. But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few sick, perverted individuals. For if you do... then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? ... And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg: Isn't this an indictment of our entire American society?
Well,you can do what you want to us... but we're not going to sit here and let you badmouth The United States Of America! Gentlemen!"
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main