I had no doubt that McCourt would fight til the very end. He will sacrifice everything, trading in the health and well-being of the Dodgers, to prove that he belongs. He wants to prove to MLB and the City of Los Angeles that he can be a good steward of the team. I have my doubts, of course, but this had me thinking.
Is there a situation that would cause me to take a second look at the man. Would I be willing to change my view of him and his past ownership of the team?
After a lot of thought, I came up with one scenario that might suffice.
If McCourt were willing to sell a sizable portion of the franchise (not even a controlling stake) to an investor group who would naturally act as an interested outside constituency, then I can see myself singing a different tune.
It kills two birds with one stone. The team would generate the necessary cash to continue operating without mortgaging the future while showing to me his willingness to be accountable to someone other than his own whims. It would show to me that he would allow himself to be regulated by a outside body- a investor group with a desire to maintain and uphold fiduciary management of the club.
Yes, I can forgive and forget, but it won't come without strings. If you show a willingness to be accountable, then I'm willing to compromise on my utter disdain for you.
