garret - i absolutely agree with you. I think there's a lot of pluses that Ng brings and I do appreciate her abilities but she isn't the only person who can negotiate contracts (as I mentioned above, the key point of a GM is an overall management position who can articulate and propagate his/her philosophy). And you won't hear a harsher critic of Ned Colletti than me. I despise him.

The guy who asked ;What is it about Kim Ng that makes her so attractive as a Dodger GM' won me over by his argument, tho i am firmly in the Logan White camp anyway. Here's a guy who drafted everyone in the Dodger system who probably has files on every player in baseball, and we have this doofus Ned who needs to see a shrink about why he loves old broken-down has-beens, because he was never loved by his broken-down has-been father, who Ned killed one night and ever since has tried to bring him back by denying Youth its due and rewarding broken-down has-beens by FILLING THE CLUB WITH THEM. So let us pray it's buhbye to psychotic Ned and hello, Logan.

To each his own Garret but I don't think there has been any bids where the parking lot has been included in the purchase.

Yeah, my wants for the franchise may be "pie in the sky", and as a result I know I'm likely to be devastated. That said, these past few seasons have trained me how to deal with devastation as it relates to the Dodgers, so I guess I could at least thank McCourt for that. I do agree with Mike that hiring Kim Ng wouldn't be an absolute necessity; I just want someone in there like her that will presumably be progressive in their handling of contracts and personnel decisions. Frankly, the parking lot issue is the only true deal-breaker for me. I swear on Tommy's big belly and on Vin's golden throat that I will NEVER so much as step foot in DS so long as McCourt retains any semblance of ownership.

Oh! Ha. Well, now that we all know what's going on. . .

lol, another example of why this commenting system sucking giant monkey nuts; I was responding to Ken as well!

Yeah, I know. I was responding to Ken's question about what a "possibility" is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opossum

Hmm? I assume this is in reference to my reply? I'm not sure I follow. I was simply respond to Garrett and Mike's rather pie in the sky desire that if all their conditions weren't met that they would be devastated.

Sure! It's a small, rodent-like animal with sharp teeth, right?

Do you even know what the word "Possibility" means?

Certainly don't want to speak for Casey but I think he echoes a point that I've made early and often, which is, independent of the origin of the owner, the important metric is whether they 1) care about baseball; 2) care about the Dodgers. . And I most definitely do not mean to imply that Cohen = east coast origin = championship contending (much less winning).

I didn't ask if you thought you could despise him more as I had read your post so I knew what you thought. I asked how. I should have made clear I meant how logically. First of all, you said you would become an Angels fan if Cohen became the Dodgers owner so as a new Angels fan it would be logical for you to be glad if Colletti was retained. i did

Nope, just one of the worst. And yes, I can despise him even more.

Obviously by being responsible for the unnecessary deaths of HUNDREDS of thousands!

did you see him, or a reasonable facsimile, at one of the games that was not rained out?

CH: In one of the latest Bill Shaikin articles on the bids and the bidders this point, that every bid has been made with a side bid on the parking lot, is stated without elaboration. I wouldn’t imagine Shaikin would have written it without specific knowledge it’s so. GH - Must've missed that article. Last I've read was that none of the bids included paying rent on the parking lot. . CH: That’s why he needs the new owner, to ride his credit and act possibly as hidden partner, letting the new owner, who will receive a friendly first impression and hearing from every quarter in LA, carry the message to the authorities he/they need to approve whatever their mutual plan might comprise. If they’re going to do anything to the lot, assuming it stays the property of McCourt, i only hope Kroenke wins the team and brings the Rams to play in a new football stadium in the Ravine, with McCourt part of it or not. Anything else, i wouldn’t like. GH - McCourt's brand is toxic around city hall, sure, his name could be hidden behind shell companies but I highly doubt if any of the bids bought the parking lots from McCourt he would still be allowed to retain a portion, even as a minority. But, stranger things have happened. . CH: Altho, i would think MLB would prefer fractionated ownership to better keep ‘the Dodgers’ (the owners) from agreement on spending the moon on players. MLB does not want another debt-ridden LA ownership, that we know for certain. HOWEVER, lost in all this discussion is the fact McCourt makes the final decision from any number of applicants will be approved by MLB. IOW, McCourt may prefer Magic’s $1.6 over Cohen’s $1.3, and tell MLB to go pound sand. In fact one of the aspects of this that i do not understand is why he would go with a lower bid UNLESS there is an advantage in a side deal with developing the lot, e.g., with Kroenke’s Rams and new NFL stadium, of which theoretically McCourt could become part owner of both! Now, why would he choose Cohen to please a lot of owners he’s stolen from already thru luxury tax avoidance, and who it’s been clear in his fights with MLB he has little beyond contempt for. THERE IS NO REASON for him to pick Cohen just because Rob Manfred wants him to. Why just throw away Magic’s bid of $300 million more than Cohen’s!? I do not get that. GH - Well, any of the bids that are returned for McCourt's final decision, with be in effect, a bid that MLB would find acceptable. So while MLB prefers Cohen's bid b/c of its better debt/equity ratio, I assume the Magic/Kasten/Walter group's debt/equity ratio is still one that MLB finds acceptable. And this is why I don't understand why everybody says Cohen is the favourite, his overall bid value is lower and we know McCourt needs all the cash he can get his hands on. The secret deal scenario is one that I speculated a long while ago and the closer we get to the actual deadline, TBH, the less likely it is to happen, there are just too many moving parts and too many ELECTED officials would need to be involved. The process just seems fraught with risk an could blow up in everybody's face to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. That just seems unlikely to me. . CH: Well, i don’t know what might cause other people’s hearts to go pittypat, if it’s a legacy or a statue or owning the naming rights for Los Angeles (“Soon City”). If i were in Soon’s postion i could not care less what people thought of me, or that people knew my name or that i existed, all that is meaningless, i’d want to do the right thing because i love the Dodgers. I’m hoping that’s what Soon is in this for: Championships. GH - When you have more money than you're able to spend in several lifetimes, priorities start to shift. Look at some local examples, Eli Broad's rebuilt half of Downtown in his image and donates or loans a great portion of his art collection. Bill Gates is trying to cure malaria. I think there's competitiveness, no doubt, Soon-Shiong wouldn't have been successful if he weren't competitive but even he himself has said that he's truly passionate about basketball. I think his desire to have a legacy will lead him down the path that fans want to see: A winning tradition. Or that's the hope at least.

Re >> but not so obvious, apparently, is that yes indeed each of the bids has 2) included the lot in a separate bid so far not added to the reported sum of each bid because McCourt is in control of the release of those numbers and does not want anyone to know how much the bidders are asking for it, so he might better finagle the highest price for it, IF any bid for the lot comes close to knocking his socks off versus what he expects he might get out of keeping and developing it. This is a very interesting and well thought out position. Of course, we’ve not read about this development anywhere else and quite possibly this is the end game McCourt had in mind when he negotiated the terms of the settlement with MLB. It’s fascinating but amounts to simply tea leaf reading on our parts though (unless you have a source that is hereto unmentioned). CH: In one of the latest Bill Shaikin articles on the bids and the bidders this point, that every bid has been made with a side bid on the parking lot, is stated without elaboration. I wouldn't imagine Shaikin would have written it without specific knowledge it's so. >> One of the few silver or platinum linings of the Cohen bid is that, with $15 billion + in the vault, between Cohen and Soon can make a nonviolent offer for the lot McCourt may not be able to refuse. 3) Quite possible because even if McCourt is able to find partners (since he will only be worth several hundred million dollars, not enough to actually develop the land), he will face an extremely hostile city council when he goes for approval to develop Chavez Ravine. Something that I think he is rather unlikely to receive. CH: That's why he needs the new owner, to ride his credit and act possibly as hidden partner, letting the new owner, who will receive a friendly first impression and hearing from every quarter in LA, carry the message to the authorities he/they need to approve whatever their mutual plan might comprise. If they're going to do anything to the lot, assuming it stays the property of McCourt, i only hope Kroenke wins the team and brings the Rams to play in a new football stadium in the Ravine, with McCourt part of it or not. Anything else, i wouldn't like. >> I’m wondering, what with the supposed municipal patriotism Soon holds, if he is doing what he might have done by joining forces with Magic, which is what ever is best for LA and the Dodgers. He may be the moneyman who wants to make sure (a) the lot will be bought, maybe with his money, so that he could stop McCourt’s plans to develop and gouge both the team and the fans (b) the Dodgers will have the payroll they need to rise to championship caliber, which is not the case currently. His awareness of local thought about McCourt, and institutional Dodger concerns, how to make the team rise to what it was, a perennial contender chock full of players that could line up against the richest in the playoffs, may be why he has thrown in with Cohen, who really doesn’t need his money but like a good billionaire isn’t refusing it either. 4) I think your last sentence is the most cogent one. Soon-Shiong figures that the Magic/kasten/Walter group’s bid is too highly leveraged and complicated while with Cohen, in addition to his money, brings local cachet which Cohen actually needs, possibly more than Soon-Shiong’s cash. CH: Yeah, i can't see how Cohen needs a penny of Soon's money. That's my biggest question, what Soon is in it for. I'm hoping it's do what's best for the Dodgers, the fans and LA. . >> which we know is the case because McCourt seems to want the cash in a $1.3 B bid more than he wants the paper in a $1.6 B bid, or the superior attractiveness of Cohen’s bid makes no sense, and that Soon also does not have the cash to add to whatever Magic has that would top Cohen. Makes sense, no? 5) This is the myth that I’ve been trying to debunk for what seems like weeks now. MLB prefers Cohen’s bid and this is probably why he is considered a “front runner”, because in his bid (prior to the addition of Soon-Shiong), he would be 100% owner ($900MM/64% equity & $500MM/37% debt) whereas the Magic/Kasten/Walter group bid is probably more highly leveraged. CH: Altho, i would think MLB would prefer fractionated ownership to better keep 'the Dodgers' (the owners) from agreement on spending the moon on players. MLB does not want another debt-ridden LA ownership, that we know for certain. HOWEVER, lost in all this discussion is the fact McCourt makes the final decision from any number of applicants will be approved by MLB. IOW, McCourt may prefer Magic's $1.6 over Cohen's $1.3, and tell MLB to go pound sand. In fact one of the aspects of this that i do not understand is why he would go with a lower bid UNLESS there is an advantage in a side deal with developing the lot, e.g., with Kroenke's Rams and new NFL stadium, of which theoretically McCourt could become part owner of both! Now, why would he choose Cohen to please a lot of owners he's stolen from already thru luxury tax avoidance, and who it's been clear in his fights with MLB he has little beyond contempt for. THERE IS NO REASON for him to pick Cohen just because Rob Manfred wants him to. Why just throw away Magic's bid of $300 million more than Cohen's!? I do not get that. >> A guess is that Soon might be staking out the territory Magic would have in assuring the city the Dodgers woud rise again and the fanbase made happy. 6) As I pointed out in 4, I think you and I are in agreement. Soon-Shiong is looking after his local legacy. Because let’s be frank now, prior to Magic selling his stake in the Lakers to Soon-Shiong, how many of us really knew who he was? Well, i don't know what might cause other people's hearts to go pittypat, if it's a legacy or a statue or owning the naming rights for Los Angeles ("Soon City"). If i were in Soon's postion i could not care less what people thought of me, or that people knew my name or that i existed, all that is meaningless, i'd want to do the right thing because i love the Dodgers. I'm hoping that's what Soon is in this for: Championships.

craigbhill - first, I want to say that your suppositions above are absolutely fascinating. Let me try to respond best I can. . >> The reason for keeping the lot out of the sale is obvious. 1) Well, as I mentioned above, the reason why the lot was kept out, such as it is, is because the entity which owns the parking lot is not in bankruptcy court and is therefore beyond the reach of bankruptcy court or MLB. In fact, this is part of the reason why McCourt took the Dodgers into bankruptcy, in order to keep MLB away from the parking lots (and whether to put the parking lots up for sale is at the sole discretion of McCourt per his approved settlement with MLB). . >> but not so obvious, apparently, is that yes indeed each of the bids has 2) included the lot in a separate bid so far not added to the reported sum of each bid because McCourt is in control of the release of those numbers and does not want anyone to know how much the bidders are asking for it, so he might better finagle the highest price for it, IF any bid for the lot comes close to knocking his socks off versus what he expects he might get out of keeping and developing it. This is a very interesting and well thought out position. Of course, we've not read about this development anywhere else and quite possibly this is the end game McCourt had in mind when he negotiated the terms of the settlement with MLB. It's fascinating but amounts to simply tea leaf reading on our parts though (unless you have a source that is hereto unmentioned). . >> One of the few silver or platinum linings of the Cohen bid is that, with $15 billion + in the vault, between Cohen and Soon can make a nonviolent offer for the lot McCourt may not be able to refuse. 3) Quite possible because even if McCourt is able to find partners (since he will only be worth several hundred million dollars, not enough to actually develop the land), he will face an extremely hostile city council when he goes for approval to develop Chavez Ravine. Something that I think he is rather unlikely to receive. . >> I’m wondering, what with the supposed municipal patriotism Soon holds, if he is doing what he might have done by joining forces with Magic, which is what is best for LA and the Dodgers. He may be the moneyman who wants to make sure (a) the lot will be bought, maybe with his money, so that he could stop McCourt’s plans to develop and gouge both the team and the fans (b) the Dodgers will have the payroll they need to rise to championship caliber, which is not the case currently. His awareness of local thought about McCourt, and institutional Dodger concerns, how to make the team rise to what it was, a perennial contender chock full of players that could line up against the richest in the playoffs, may be why he has thrown in with Cohen, who really doesn’t need his money but like a good billionaire isn’t refusing it either. 4) I think your last sentence is the most cogent one. Soon-Shiong figures that the Magic/kasten/Walter group's bid is too highly leveraged and complicated while with Cohen, in addition to his money, brings local cachet which Cohen actually needs, possibly more than Soon-Shiong's cash. . >> which we know is the case because McCourt seems to want the cash in a $1.3 B bid more than he wants the paper in a $1.6 B bid, or the superior attractiveness of Cohen’s bid makes no sense, and that Soon also does not have the cash to add to whatever Magic has that would top Cohen. Makes sense, no? 5) This is the myth that I've been trying to debunk for what seems like weeks now. MLB prefers Cohen's bid and this is probably why he is considered a "front runner", because in his bid (prior to the addition of Soon-Shiong), he would be 100% owner ($900MM/64% equity & $500MM/37% debt) whereas the Magic/Kasten/Walter group bid is probably more highly leveraged. But none of this actually matters to Frank McCourt insofar as he will be getting it all in cash. Whether it's equity or debt financing, that's irrelevant to McCourt. Now, if McCourt wants to make sure the Dodgers are levered all the hell, as he did, then yes, he would also prefer the Cohen bid, but I have seen zero indication of this. And in fact, if your supposition is true, then Soon-Shiong should have been able to extract more from the Magic group precisely because he brings cash, which would lower the debt portion of the bid and make their bid more attractive. . >> A guess is that Soon might be staking out the territory Magic would have in assuring the city the Dodgers woud rise again and the fanbase made happy. 6) As I pointed out in 4, I think you and I are in agreement. Soon-Shiong is looking after his local legacy. Because let's be frank now, prior to Magic selling his stake in the Lakers to Soon-Shiong, how many of us really knew who he was?

Greg, The reason for keeping the lot out of the sale is obvious; but not so obvious, apparently, is that yes indeed each of the bids has included the lot in a separate bid so far not added to the reported sum of each bid because McCourt is in control of the release of those numbers and does not want anyone to know how much the bidders are asking for it, so he might better finagle the highest price for it, IF any bid for the lot comes close to knocking his socks off versus what he expects he might get out of keeping and developing it. One of the few silver or platinum linings of the Cohen bid is that, with $15 billion + in the vault, between Cohen and Soon can make a nonviolent offer for the lot McCourt may not be able to refuse. I'm wondering, what with the supposed municipal patriotism Soon holds, if he is doing what he might have done by joining forces with Magic, which is what is best for LA and the Dodgers. He may be the moneyman who wants to make sure (a) the lot will be bought, maybe with his money, so that he could stop McCourt's plans to develop and gouge both the team and the fans (b) the Dodgers will have the payroll they need to rise to championship caliber, which is not the case currently. His awareness of local thought about McCourt, and institutional Dodger concerns, how to make the team rise to what it was, a perennial contender chock full of players that could line up against the richest in the playoffs, may be why he has thrown in with Cohen, who really doesn't need his money but like a good billionaire isn't refusing it either. A guess is that Soon might be staking out the territory Magic would have in assuring the city the Dodgers woud rise again and the fanbase made happy. A reason he did not throw in with Magic may be based on his knowledge that Magic's group's bid never had the available cash to compete with Cohen, which we know is the case because McCourt seems to want the cash in a $1.3 B bid more than he wants the paper in a $1.6 B bid, or the superior attractiveness of Cohen's bid makes no sense, and that Soon also does not have the cash to add to whatever Magic has that would top Cohen. Makes sense, no? Entirely possible none of this will come about with Soon's addition to Cohen's team. Just trying to make sense of what Soon is up to.

@a - if it's a private company, why not? It might be unsavory and not rub you the wrong way, but there's nothing illegal about what you described.

I don't think it is legal to put your kids on your company's payroll deduct that expense and have them do no work.

Paul, why not? The Dodgers Stadium parking lot belongs to a separate corporate entity which is not part of the bankruptcy proceedings. So there was no reason for McCourt to ever include it in the sale. Again, while he may/may not know that Dodgers fans all despise him (trust me, rich people are some of the dirtiest backstabbing bastards I know, who will smile to your face while hurling epithets behind your back), that has no bearing on his BUSINESS decision making process. If we proceed under the assumption that McCourt is acting to place his self interest above all else, that still doesn't mean he is spitting in my eyes. McCourt doesn't want the stadium for $14MM/yr, he wants the property to develop, which could be worth several hundred million dollars if not into the billions (if he remains the developer and leases out the land). Hell, why do you think Alan "Dodgers Stadium is just another 60 year old building" Casden was bidding on in the first place?

Greg, I'm actually with you in that i don't fault McCourt, or anyone, for being selfish. But I don't think selfishness really explains why he's pulling this parking lot stunt. he knows Dodger fans hate him more than anybody hates anything, and he knows that by having any involvement whatsoever with the team, he's pouring salt on our wounds. He plans to lease the lots to the new owner for about 14 million dollars a year, which seems like pocket change compared to the 1.5+ billion he's getting from the team sale. If he's walking away with hundreds of millions of dollars in net profit, why would he destroy any chance of salvaging his reputation for 14 mil a year when he could easily use them to leverage another 2-300 million out of the sale price?

I don't understand all this irrational hatred of Frank McCourt. The guy's a dick, I guess, but how many people AREN'T selfish?McCourt's used the Dodgers as a piggy bank but hey, he owned the entities and didn't actually do anything illegal.And on this whole thing about McCourt doing things out of spite to each of us individually, that's a position that I've never understood. Everything he has done has been to maximize his own advantage, not to intentionally screw other people (except maybe Jaime McCourt but that's somewhat understandable considering she stepped out on him).I can't believe I'm defending McCourt but damn y'all, let's try to keep some perspective.

I think you may be right about that. Wouldn't surprise me if he did some kind of fan survey to see who they want as owner and then deliberately went another direction. The money is going to be the same. . I find it revolting that a miscreant like Frank McCourt can get his Montgomery Burns fingers on a jewel like the Dodgers, run the franchise into the gutter, file bankruptcy and come out the other end with more money than he had going in. I guess that's what happens at the top of the pyramid.

At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if McCourt is just holding onto the parking lots to kick sand in the fans' eyes.

I like this. I am not too keen on Cohen being the winner, if that is the case, but if the upfront cash buys the parking lots as well, then I am all for it. Though, I could do without LaRussa in the front office, but it could be worse I guess. Unless he makes Torre the new GM...

I think we'll all be even happier if this extra money means that the parking lots will come with the team. Otherwise, we're not getting rid of McCourt entirely.