Why is Steve Garvey still employed by Frank McCourt?

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

As great mysteries of the world go, I guess it rates slightly behind Charlie Sheen taking steroids for a baseball movie, or Dioner Navarro, pinch hitter.

Still, I absolutely don’t get why Steve Garvey remains in the employ of a man he is campaigning to replace.

That’s right, kiddies, I’m actually lining up behind Frank McCourt on this one.

Understand, Garvey works for McCourt. Picks up a paycheck from him twice a month, from whatever loan it comes from. He has been a member of the team’s marketing and community relations department for years.

And yet he’s undermining McCourt as an owner by very publicly putting together a group that wants to buy the Dodgers.

It’s crazy. He should have been fired the first moment he went public with such ambitions. I don’t think Peter O’Malley would have stood for it even for a moment.

Or at least Garvey should have had the good grace to resign.

But no, he still works for the Dodgers, though you understandably don’t see him around the stadium much anymore. You really want him representing the team in some suite with a bunch of local deep-pocketed kings of industry? Could he lay the groundwork for them to join his group?

Maybe not, but why be put in that situation? For either Garvey or the Dodgers.

It’s not like Garvey is working quietly behind the scenes. He practically has a media campaign underway. This week he went on the “Colin Cowherd Show” on ESPN radio to wave the Garvey-Orel Hershiser flag (and why Hershiser would join Garvey is a whole other story).

Garvey, as always, was very smooth and careful to say the Dodgers were not currently for sale but “if and when” they do go up, his group of unknown investors hoped to be seriously considered. Yeah, well, not if McCourt is picking the next owner. Doubt if Major League Baseball will be anymore sympathetic either, given Garvey’s own sketchy financial past.

But he told Cowherd that one of the reasons his group should be a favorite is “we will have the trust of the fans.” Which, of course, means his current boss does not. Which is absolutely true, but not for an employee to say, even if he is trying to usurp his boss.

Garvey also told Cowherd: “I’ve always been steadfast for the Dodgers and the McCourt family.”

Can’t you just feel that support? Must be breaking new ground for dysfunctional families.

A week ago he did a sit down video interview on Fox on a segment with Mark Kriegel. It was the same stuff. Very sympathetic to the McCourts’ divorce, while declaring “owning a franchise may be my destiny.”

I think being unemployed by the Dodgers should be his destiny.

Look, I don’t have any special relationship with Garvey, but I have known him for more than 30 years. He’s never been anything but polite, respectful, friendly. Whatever your expectations are of him, they would likely be met. This is hardly personal.

I just do not get it. The only logical reason for McCourt not having fired him a long time ago is he just doesn’t want to deal with anymore negative publicity. Hey, at this point, what’s a tad more?

At this point, Garvey just needs to tender his letter of resignation.

ALSO:

Rubby De La Rosa gem doesn’t shine bright enough in 1-0 loss to Twins

Caution, attorneys at work: MLB and Frank McCourt begin courtroom dance

-- Steve Dilbeck