This is the same article that was posted earlier, but I will say, if anyone didn't click through the last time, they should now.

Whoever was responsible for selecting the photos of Loria, Selig and McCourt for the piece should take pride in a job well done.

Loria looks suitably shifty, Selig is stunningly backfeifengesicht, and McCourt looks ... well, like he always looks, like some misshapen golem hastily constructed from random bits of "flesh"-colored putty.

Kudos, sir!

The judge might decide he wants to limit the proceedings to the Dodgers. When McCourt's attorneys wanted to explore why MLB would offer a bankruptcy loan at 7% interest to the Dodgers this year after extending a bankruptcy loan at 1.6% interest to the Texas Rangers last year, Gross ruled that he did not need to hear about the Rangers case.

completely irrelevant wrt to the DIP financing issue, all MLB had to do was offer a DIP loan that was better than what McCourt could find otherwise- and MLB did

whether or not MLB is selectively enforcing its own rules is another issue entirely- and one that the judge may decide warrants some discovery- I for one hope to god that the Judge lets McCourt poke around the Marlins' finances- not because I'm on McCourt's side, but anything that makes Bud & Loria squirm has got to be good for baseball.

whether or not MLB is selectively enforcing its own rules is another issue entirely- and one that the judge may decide warrants some discovery- I for one hope to god that the Judge lets McCourt poke around the Marlins' finances- not because I'm on McCourt's side, but anything that makes Bud & Loria squirm has got to be good for baseball.

Yeah, exactly.

I suppose the best outcome in this is for McCourt to drag out plenty of Bud's dirty laundry, but for MLB to ultimately prevail.

My apologies. This was a victim of a Firefox browser upgrade gone crazy. I was so giddy watching all the unexpected craziness in baseball last night that I never completed the submission after I got distracted.

When the browser restarted, the submission page must have been sitting there from last night and got submitted. I didn't realize it until it was too late. I e-mailed Repoz to warn him, but it's too late now I guess. Sorry, guys.

I suppose the best outcome in this is for McCourt to drag out plenty of Bud's dirty laundry

Will anyone care? How much of an outcry was there when it was revealed that Temporary Commissioner Bud was getting a secret under-the-table loan from Twins owner Carl Pohlad?

It's apparent Selig's main goal a decade ago was to make Henry owner of the Red Sox in order to hold the Yankees in check, and he didn't care how he got it done. Now McCourt -- who had wanted to buy the Bosox, but was rejected (largely for the reasons he should not have been allowed to buy the Dodgers) -- is going to use that to bring Selig (and Henry, who somehow has never been tainted by all this) down with him. What perverse fun.

Will anyone care?

Uh, we *are* talking about the American Public in the 21st Century, of course no one will care.

Unless it involves raising their taxes, in which case, they'll pretend they were paying attention all along ...

Didn't Sherman's March succeed at it's aims?

And wasn't it supporting a better cause?

Uh, we *are* talking about the American Public in the 21st Century, of course no one will care.

Unless it involves raising their taxes, in which case, they'll pretend they were paying attention all along ...

Or unless it somehow involves an attractive young woman gone missing. Better yet, found dead. Then we're all over it.

Didn't Sherman's March succeed at it's aims?

Yep, it is not easy to say what was basically a demonstration that the North could move an army uncontested through the enemy's heartland has to do with McCourt.

And wasn't it supporting a better cause?

What can possibly be more noble than helping McCourt to keep living the dream?

Or unless it somehow involves an attractive young woman gone missing. Better yet, found dead. Then we're all over it.

Or her kids. Then it's a book and movie series.

Didn't Sherman's March succeed at it's aims?

yes

And wasn't it supporting a better cause?

yes

I suppose boteman was going for the "scorched earth" parallel...

It's apparent Selig's main goal a decade ago was to make Henry owner of the Red Sox in order to hold the Yankees in check

Oh no no no, not Honest Bud, he's a straight-shooter free of any bias. You'd have to be a paranoid lunatic to think otherwise! How does that tinfoil hat fit, hippie?

I suppose boteman was going for the "scorched earth" parallel...

Correct. I find it easier to read between the lines that I write than others do. I'll have to work on that.

a demonstration that the North could move an army uncontested through the enemy's heartland

I am intrigued by your use of the word "demonstration" here. I didn't think they were trying to make a point of what they could do. I though they were trying to devastate the South by destroying everything in their path, and thereby bring the War to an end.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "demonstrations", in the sense of "surrender or we turn your whole island into a cinder."

Didn't Sherman's March succeed at it's aims?

One of its aims was to destroy the South's railroad infrastructure, including a major junction at Atlanta. Look like McCourt has been very successful at destroying the railroad in LA. He must be, it is hard to find any.

McCourt begins Sherman’s march

Quiet, you.

This was a victim of a Firefox browser upgrade gone crazy.

Firefox used to put out a new version about every 18-24 months... but in the last six months, they have gone from version 3, to 4, to 5, to 6, and now 7.

What the heck is going on?? Do they think the world is ending next year?

Yep, it is not easy to say what was basically a demonstration that the North could move an army uncontested through the enemy's heartland has to do with McCourt.

It wasn't "uncontested" and wasn't intended as a "demonstration."

Its goals, as a continuation of the The Atlanta campaign were to destroy the last significant Southern Army (aside form Lee's which was being besieged outside Richomond), cut the Confederacy in half and destroy its economic infrastructure- specifically transportation, but other stuff as well.

It wasn't "uncontested" and wasn't intended as a "demonstration."

For all practical purposes it was uncontested, now it might not have been anticipated that Hood would go on the offensive instead and mount an invasion against superior numbers. But there was no credible opposition forces before they got to Savannah, and that was outnumbered by more than five to one.

And if Hood had turned against Sherman, then they would have had Thomas army free to strike against any strategic target.

As for demonstration, marching a field army to tear up railroad tracks is a very, very inefficient use of resources. If you just wanted to do that, you could do it by cavalry raiding, the Union cavalry forces were fully capable of that by the end of the war.

Its goals, as a continuation of the The Atlanta campaign were to destroy the last significant Southern Army (aside form Lee's which was being besieged outside Richomond), cut the Confederacy in half and destroy its economic infrastructure- specifically transportation, but other stuff as well.

Then it failed for the first two points, they engaged no army, and the Confederacy remained uncut after Sherman had passed through.

Firefox used to put out a new version about every 18-24 months... but in the last six months, they have gone from version 3, to 4, to 5, to 6, and now 7.

What the heck is going on?? Do they think the world is ending next year?

They just switched to a new development schedule. Instead of every update bringing major changes, each new version bring a few minor changes.

Maybe it's just me, but I see a difference between what McCourt did and what Loria is doing. Loria, for better or worse, never put his team in a position where it couldn't meet its financial obligations and was at risk of bankruptcy unless it mortgaged its future TV revenues (as it had mortgaged all its other revenues). Not to mention that the team wasn't going to be the sole beneficiary of the loan from Fox, the McCourts were going to take money out for their divorce settlement as well. Loria takes money from operations and other teams but I don't think he overleveraged the team for his own personal gain the way the McCourts did.

The use of "cash cow" is unfortunate here as that does describe what Loria and likely some other owners are doing, but there's nothing necessarily wrong with that -- the real issue is when you use the team like a piggy bank or worse.

Maybe it's just me, but I see a difference [...] Loria takes money from operations and other teams but I don't think he overleveraged the team for his own personal gain the way the McCourts did.

But for purposes of this discussion, isn't over-leveraging simply the ugly cousin of underspending? McCourt did the former, while also paying into rev. sharing, while Loria has done the latter, while receiving rev. sharing money.

Make no mistake: I hope McCourt gets the boot from L.A. I'm just saying that some of his claims/defenses don't appear totally meritless. There's something fundamentally distasteful about the lowest-revenue and often worst-performing teams banking the biggest profits. (I'm not talking about the Marlins specifically; they seem to be in spending mode now with the new stadium opening.)

FTA, the MLB position is:

The Marlins needed to keep payroll down to show the positive cash flow necessary for ballpark construction financing, according to a high-ranking baseball official who could not be identified because of the litigation with the Dodgers.

"It had nothing to do with homes in Holmby Hills or Malibu, or private jets, or salaries for the owners' kids," the official said. "What makes the Dodgers different is the stripping of club assets and the violations of baseball rules."

FTA, the MLB position is: ...

MLB's explanation makes sense, but it doesn't explain why MLB publicly slapped the Marlins with regard to payroll and bb ops spending.

it's a poor argument hat McCourt is trying to make. Just because the MLB gave special dispension to him to buy the team when underfinanced, doesn't mean he should be allowed to keep it after he doesn't work to stabilize it's finances, but instead diverts funds from it to make things far worse than when he started.