If stirring the pot was what she was after, Jamie McCourt put in quite a performance as she spoke in a stream-of-consciousness way about the balance between her team's player payroll and the money it doles to the community for charity.
Since it took place, great scorn has been heaped upon McCourt -- and by extension, her team -- from corners far and wide.
But instead of unabashed scorn, I say she deserves praise.
Why?
First, McCourt and the Dodgers deserve kudos for their good work in the community, which isn't exactly novel for a pro franchise, but should be heralded nonetheless.
As important, Jamie McCourt should be thanked for opening up a box brimming with hard questions about the economy and sports, about players and owners and fans. Even if she did so unwittingly.
With the country in the midst of a recession, now is a good time to start wondering about the pillars of the sports marketplace.
Time to start wondering more about the ungodly salaries paid to adults who play kids games, about the money-hungry owners who gouge the faithful everywhere from the parking lot to the turnstiles.
Time for fans to realize they've got the real power: They can vote with their feet.
For those who missed what McCourt said, last week the Dodgers president stood at a Boyle Heights field, heralding her team's pledge to dole out a load of cash to re-model 42 urban baseball diamonds.
Speaking about her team, free-agent players and the downtrodden economy, McCourt also said this: "If you bring somebody in to play and pay them, pick a number, $30 million, does that seem a little weird to you? That's what we're trying to figure out. We're really trying to see it through the eyes of our fans. We're really trying to understand, would they rather have 50 fields?"
She kept going -- at this event and later -- musing about player contracts and the bottom line. With every explanation of intent she seemed to dig a deeper hole for herself, largely because the money the team spends on player payroll -- cash from the turnstiles a main ingredient -- comes from a different pot than the money spent on charity. In short, this shouldn't really be an either/or decision, but she presented it as one.
Make no mistake, what she said came out jumbled, but what she said also raised important questions.
