Jamie McCourt’s victory didn’t change much

Frank McCourt might be an impact left fielder away from a convincing argument, but he maintained that Tuesday’s court decision would not hinder the Los Angeles Dodgers or his ability to run them.

Through the contrails of Judge Scott Gordon’s decision to tear up the McCourts’ many and varied marital property agreements, a task that would require half-a-day, a McCourt associate went so far as to say, “You shouldn’t be writing an obituary. This is not an obituary.”

As proof, those closest to McCourt – currently lawyers, mostly – offer $72 million worth of player contracts committed to three pitchers and a second baseman, all approved by McCourt while knowing Tuesday’s court outcome was a possibility. The club’s on-field payroll will be close to $100 million, an increase over last season if not exactly becoming of one of baseball’s signature franchises, along with one that finished in fourth place in the NL West and with a losing record. But, if court documents are to be believed, this was the McCourt plan long before the split. That is, payroll reduction followed by profit and citywide affection.

Meantime, his ex-wife is on a bit of a winning streak. Jamie McCourt followed up last week’s decision to reject a mediator’s settlement recommendation with Tuesday’s victory, which if nothing else kept alive her apparent desire to force Frank to sell the Dodgers.

To her.

It’s been more than a year since the franchise’s family ownership ideal went full-blown dysfunctional, splattering Los Angeles and its Dodger fans with too-much information anxieties. The baseball operations department has trudged onward, the fans have grown disillusioned, the court dates have come and gone, and little has changed since the first days of attorney-parsed bickering.

Even the millions spent during Ned Colletti’s October and November siege came with the reality – not at all unexpected – that a club with pitching needs would not bid on Cliff Lee(notes), and that one with corner-outfield frailties would not be signing Carl Crawford(notes) or, for that matter, even Johnny Damon(notes).

Gordon’s ruling simply confirmed the life of the Dodger fan, whose expectations can be neither too hopeful nor too hopeless. It is, in fact, a hardball version of Groundhog Day, one day just like the next, with little promise for change the day after that.

Sifting through Tuesday’s events, then, will satisfy almost no one who had wished for progress. Frank remains head of all things Dodgers. No, Jamie does not get her office back. No, she does not get veto power. No, she is not yet poised at the Dodger Stadium gates with an army of investors and a checkbook. Rich people get divorced different than poor people, after all, meaning community property law becomes complicated, debatable and – to the McCourts – expensive.

For now, I think we can assume Jamie believes it means, well, half. Of everything. Including, and especially, the Dodgers. For Frank, if I have this straight, we’re still talking title, time of purchase, intent of purchase and other lawyer-y stuff.

In short, there’s still a lot to talk about, still a lot of billable hours ahead, still enough rulings, appeals and posturing to carry us all through another baseball season or two.

Jamie’s people hope this means commissioner Bud Selig gets so dismayed and so impatient that he steps in to create a speedier resolution. Smart folks in baseball wonder what grounds Selig would have, so long as the Dodgers were being run with some competence. And while the Dodgers are something less than the picture of stability, they have been on the verge of the World Series twice in the past three years, and they have a representative payroll, and they are not near the embarrassment other teams in other eras have been.

As to Jamie’s plan for a hostile takeover, she – or whomever she chose to head the club – would have to survive baseball’s approval process. She seems serious about it, given she has hired noted investment banker Joe Ravitch to round up prominent L.A. money.

We are, however, a long way from that.

First, Frank has no intention of selling. He hasn’t yet taken on investors of his own or, according to those close to him, even considered it.

Second, he – or his attorneys – seems to believe the marriage of Frank and Dodgers will survive a trip through California’s divorce laws, even with no marital property agreement in play.

In a statement, Frank’s lawyer, Marc Seltzer, said, “Without the agreements in place, it becomes the Court’s job to determine which property is Frank’s and which is Jamie’s based on who holds legal title to the team. The facts are crystal clear on this point. The Dodgers are solely in Frank’s name.

“For Frank, today’s decision means more time at the court house. Nothing changes in terms of the ownership, management, control or the day-to-day business operation of the Dodgers. That’s all firmly in Frank McCourt’s hands.”

The ruling made no finding as to characterization of property. It did not suggest what might happen next.

So, the city, its ballclub and its fans sit in limbo.

Like yesterday. Like tomorrow.