Fire Jim Tracy

Friday, January 28, 2005

Making News on FJT

I wanted to ensure that this comment post was as widely viewed as possible. The author was anonymous, so I have no way of asking permission, but with proper attribution...

Blasting the LAT's twin pair of doofus' is FUN! And it's easy to do!

But off topic: I participated in Frank McCourt's teleconference call this morning. The guy is good on the phone. Most of the questions were about Beltre signing with the Mariners. McCourt said the Dodgers made an initial offer of 6yr/60mil. According to McCourt they were *not* given the opportunity to make a BAFO, much less a counter offer. They found out through Boras he had signed with the M's. McCourt strongly implied that Boras had Beltre sign with the M's because the M's were not going to offer that kind of money to anyone but Beltre AND Beltre signing with the M's drove up Drew's price.

Also, Depodesta's plan all along was to sign Beltre AND Drew. That would've been interesting.
If true, this would make everybody wrong. I was wrong in arguing that the Dodgers had broken off talks in response to the appearance of a bidding war, and the "Dodgers let Beltre go" faction is wrong in its belief that the Dodgers could have either 1) made a matching offer or 2) done something to stop Beltre from leaving or 3) [the Plaschke corollary] that McCourt and DePodesta didn't notice Beltre all season (how could you with Alex Cora playing second with such aplomb?). It appears that "free" agency was in fact aptly named. The only confirmed fact, in fact, is that Boras is oily, but that was confirmed long ago. So you get two things here that you will never get in the L.A. Times. 1) Recognition that I was wrong and 2) information.

Incidentally, why didn't this come out of the phone call Simers interfered with over the weekend?


  • I would take Mr. McCourt's statements with a gain of salt, remember he is defending himself here, and considering that Kent was signed by the Dodgers before Beltre was signed by the M's do you really beleive that their intention was to sign Kent, Belly and Drew?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1/28/2005 02:11:00 PM  

  • Agreed. Everyone has an axe to grind. Which is why I want to know everyone's axes.

    By Blogger Steve, at 1/28/2005 02:15:00 PM  

  • It certainly is possible that McCourt is not lying, and indeed Boras outplayed him and DePodesta. But let's look at McCourt's track record:

    Stated that he made an attempt to sign Guerrero, when in fact he made no attempt.

    Stated that the budget would be 100 million, when it is currently 11 million below that number.

    Beltre also stated that the Dodgers never called him until a few days before he made his decision. So either Beltre is a liar, or McCourt. I'm pretty sure agents are bound by certain laws that prevent them from brokering deals w/o their client's input, much as lawyers do. Or at least that's what the MPRE taught me, maybe it's different in the real world. Anyway, I'm pretty sure the odds are against McCourt telling anything close to the truth.

    By Blogger Rick, at 1/28/2005 03:24:00 PM  

  • Well, its also against the law in certain states like Texas for agents to misrepresent competing offers in negotiations. Boras could be facing fines or worse over the Beltran and ARod lies. Of course, my take is that Boras is awash in conflicts of interest, specifically, with respect to the Beltre deal, the fact that he knew the Dodgers were interested in Drew and would to pay more with Beltre in Seattle. But I still think Drew got signed over Beltre due to the dearth of OF prospects/alternatives and the fact both LaRoche and Guzman will be ready in a year or two at 3B. Of course, had the Green trade gotten done in November, DePo might still have outbid Seattle if the dealing was on the up and up.

    By Blogger lloyd, at 1/28/2005 07:56:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home