Digby

I think the "V" logo just let it down a little bit. Not sure that I have a better idea necessarily, but it just felt kind of lost, especially lined up against the rightly beloved "S" of the Kraken.

I believe the term is "copyright troll", and I'm glad the NHL didn't let this dork hold them for ransom.

Local games don't have to leave it blank, but most teams have their own sponsors for local-only games that they've been putting there. I guess the Rockets haven't sold that so they can drop in "Houston" and appear less greedy than the rest, for now.

Big Red Sox/Braves transaction today. Says a lot about the current state of the Red Sox that they'd rather light $17 million on fire and commit their medium-term future middle infield to be doomed to replacement level, over paying for one last year of mysterious Chris Sale injuries. Oh well, good riddance.

18 hours ago, kimball said:

I don't mind a one-off jersey, save that it's not ridiculous (or sleeved). But, with that said, I did like the Green/Red matchups teams have done in the past ...

 

The problem with red/green matchups is that they're the most likely to be exceptionally difficult for colorblind viewers, which is why color v color matchups have generally shied away from those two colors in recent years.

Not sure I knew of a single Celtics fan who went into that Pistons game expecting anything other than what happened. Classic.

I think marquee dates are the time to keep it traditional and showcase your best and most solid look, which I was pleasantly surprised they went back to this year (except for Miami and Philly being backwards). The Celtics wearing all the red accessories with a green jersey was a clever nod to the holiday while still looking like their normal selves, and not like the Seattle Sonics or the silly Christmas card script or whatever. It's not the time to see the Miami Viceheat or whatever mystery color Golden State's doing this year and so on. Much like how the NFL doesn't throw out Thanksgiving-theme alternates; it's just the usual look or, maybe, an appropriate throwback. The whole spectacle of the NHL Winter Classic makes that one a little different, but the core idea is the same and the way the early Stadium Series cookie-cutter uniforms fell flat kinda proves the rule.

10 minutes ago, TaylorMade said:

They also claim that Miami's third kit will be inspired by the Miami Dolphins

 

This should be good. Seems hard to believe that's quite accurate given the history with Stephen Ross and MLS, but I've always thought teal would be a smart tertiary color for the Inter Miami palette -- still got fingers crossed for Adidas to just rip this off:

I never fully trust Footy Headlines but they're claiming that Miami, LAFC, LA Galaxy, Portland and Sporting KC are all going to get third kits this year.

Combined with the four teams who got them last year, it does seem to suggest that 1) third kits will also operate on two-year cycles and not just get tossed aside after one year, and 2) it seems unlikely that the old "meet a sales threshold" rule is still in effect.

33 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

-No Columbus Crew vs Austin games AGAIN. I know people don't like to have these two on the field at the same time, but why keep putting this off? Are Garber and Precourt that scared of the game getting out of hand? In fact, they're not in Texas at all this year!

 

It's a Very MLS thing that there's no set formula for cross-conference matchups and they're arbitrarily set every year. I saw a Reddit comment that Chicago has still never played Austin, and hasn't played someone else (LAFC maybe?) since 2019.

I'm just shocked that USSF actually had enough spine for this. I thought the incestuousness of the suits that run the game here would be too much to overcome. I still don't have a lot of faith that this will ultimately resolve in a way that benefits the American soccer fan, because these things rarely do, but I'm at least interested to see the fight.

Maybe MLS is finally running into the limits of incorporating the worst of Big 4 N. American sports with the worst of the modern global game!

Alexi Lalas will well-actually anything.

I'm sure there's a kernel of truth insofar as MLS Next Pro looks like glorified training scrimmages or junior-varsity most of the time. But of course it's about the money.

It's true that the USOC has been amateur-hour, but it was amateur-hour when MLS/SUM was marketing it too. Doesn't pass the smell test that it suddenly becomes a problem for Garber only after the contract's up. Crow about the crappy livestreams and poor-quality fields all you want, but even if you fixed that tomorrow, Garber and the owners see the Open Cup as an imposition. This was always going to happen and I'd put money on the next move being Leagues Cup inviting some non-US/MEX teams in exchange for kneecapping the CCL.

It's shameful stuff from MLS, though nothing new there. USOC has always represented a very unique competition relative to Big Four leagues, would've been nice to not screw it up. I like leaning into the history, the cross-divisional matchups, the opportunities to move home venues and barnstorm a little bit (at least for teams where it makes sense to do so). But anything that doesn't directly relate to seeing how much money we can squeeze out of Messi-mania seems to be tossed aside.

MLS is increasingly taking all the wrong lessons from the European game of the last 20 years.

On 2023-12-12 at 5:41 PM, Marlins93 said:

I was in that store not long ago myself while I was on a business trip and saw those items you mentioned. The hat I believe has been for sale online for awhile now. So I don't think it's a new item. I don't see the shirt for sale online, though.

 

I will also point out that I recall the MLB flagship store had a ton of the regular red and blue City Connect stuff too. I didn't get the impression that this teal reimagining was replacing it. I'd chalk it up to the "fashion" category that provides alternatives to the field worn stuff, but that's just my hunch.

Yeah, I think this is just a thing that the merch people have been doing. Can't find it now on a quick Google, but I've definitely seen some Red Sox merch using the City stencil wordmark, just recolored in classic navy and red.

I just had pigs in a blanket at a Christmas party last week. They were good! Worth it as a vehicle for the gourmet mustard. Before that, couldn't tell you the last time, it was a real throwback.

12 hours ago, BBTV said:

I'm not sure why the player wouldn't want the $46M and simply put it into safe investments, other than this puts the risk of weird things - like a global pandemic - on the team, not him.

I think it's a mix of that and most jocks not being able to be trusted with making smart investments. In fairness, that applies to most people in general, as the response to this deal illustrates. I guess the tax situation is real too -- if you can defer that money and get it fully paid as a resident of anywhere but California, and I wonder if that also means the deferred money is free of the jock taxes paid to 20 other states or whatever?

Also wasn't part of the weird/hilarious Freddie Freeman guilt-ridden saga about leaving Atlanta that he felt his agents misled him about the value of his LA deal, not realizing the deferrals meant he was getting about the same deal as Atlanta offered anyway?

In general I think the details were so scarce and not clear that I understand why fans initially thought this was nefarious work on the Dodgers' part, but I don't get the yelling about a loophole, if the CBA between the league and the players union has specificially addressed all this stuff.

Apparently it's a 1% sales tax that the city ALREADY has to fund upgrades to the arena that will soon be obsoleted; this vote just extends the duration of that sales tax and redirects to Arena Number Two. (Clay Bennett, generous as ever, will kick in only $50 million to this construction project.) 

I am tempted to dunk on people who voted for this but doing this in a special election with teeny-tiny turnout is not exactly democracy in action.

Okay, sorta kinda have this figured out. I was mostly right! Always knew I should've went into finance.

Per https://www.latimes.com/sports/dodgers/story/2023-12-12/shohei-ohtani-contract-cost-dodgers-next-10-years

Quote

 

In 2024, Ohtani will “earn” $2 million in salary, and $68 million in deferred payments. By July 1, 2026, the Dodgers will also have to show the league how they plan to fund the $68 million that will come due in 2034.
 

The CBA requires only that the “present value” be funded within that two-year period. According to a person with knowledge of how the league calculates such contracts, the present value of that $68 million payment in 2034 is worth about $46 million in today’s money (since money in the present, because of inflation, is worth more than money in the future). Also, funding mechanisms can include cash or “readily marketable securities.”

 

and also per https://apnews.com/article/ohtani-dodgers-deferred-27aa3212bac2c454d4ef814d7fea0291

Quote

 

Ohtani’s record-setting deal, agreed to Saturday, calls for annual salaries of $70 million, according to details obtained by The Associated Press. Of each year’s salary, $68 million is deferred with no interest, payable in equal installments each July 1 from 2034-43.
 

For purposes of baseball’s luxury tax, the contract is valued as a yearly addition to the Dodgers’ payroll of about $46 million. Under the collective bargaining agreement, for the calculation of a team’s tax payroll the value of deferred money is discounted at the federal mid-term rate. For all agreements this offseason, the discounting will be at the October 2023 rate of 4.43%.

 

So the $700 million figure is a future number, adjusted for inflation and interest. Out of the proverbial Dodgers wallet, it's really a $480 million deal, and the average annual value -- while still a record -- is not a massive departure from the current record. (Plus you have to remember that inflation 10-20 years from now will somewhat eat into the spending power of the final number, so that, too, somewhat tempers down the extreme-ness of the number.)

It doesn't seem like the CBA "discount" formula, and the literal amount the Dodgers put into escrow, are exactly the same numbers. But they're functionally the same as I imagine that federal rate is also what's determining the rate on the escrow account and is what gets us from 46m to 68m from now to payday.

I'm curious if the escrow account doesn't have a fixed interest rate, if the Dodgers would get a further discount by getting to keep any extra interest on top of what's needed to make Ohtani whole in years 10-20 -- or if what the backstop is if we enter a Great Recession-type of period where interest rates collapse again. (I'm assuming the CBA at least includes enough detail that this sort of money can't be held in escrow in a shady crypto exchange or otherwise invested stupidly. But it would be hilarious if there wasn't.)

On 2023-12-11 at 8:48 PM, BBTV said:

* this line: "teams have to set aside the present-day value of the deferred money -- in Ohtani's case, around $44 million in cash each year -- into an escrow account" doesn't make sense... UNLESS his deal is NOT for $700M in today's money, but actually much less, and the $700M is what he'll get total by 2044.  Adjusting for present value, that's actually way less than it seems.  If that's the case, which I'm not sure of, but would explain the $44M in escrow part.

 

I think this is it, and you're right that it's NOT $700m in today money.

Very back-of-envelope calculations here, but $44 million dropped into an account right now, and given 10 years to accrue interest at the fed's current mid-term rate, gets you to the $68 million in annual salary that's deferred.

I keep seeing that the luxury tax hit for this deal stems from a $46 million AAV, and not knowing anything about the CBA rules otherwise, this is the only explanation for that number that I can think of.

On 2023-12-10 at 1:23 AM, DG_ThenNowForever said:

Can you imagine, however, a couple of earlier lucky bounces this season with Messi in the final?

Miami already made two finals in a couple of months, isn't that enough for now? He can try again with everyone else next year.

Pretty sure the Play-In Rounds have already fulfilled the five-year quota for screwing around with the NBA playoffs as it is, no thanks!

1 minute ago, Dilbert said:

USL League One is now jumping on the in season tournament bandwagon.

Kind of strange to me to have it League One only, but wonder if it's a trial run for some kind of all-USL equivalent to a League (not Leagues) Cup. Especially if MLS fully breaks away from the Open Cup.

4 hours ago, WJMorris3 said:

Dean Smith coaching a soccer team in North Carolina. Wow.

I know Apple TV wants more content with this whole deal, but installing a real-life Ted Lasso in MLS is a little much!

18 hours ago, CitizenTino said:

A thought: Although the league didn’t explicitly say it, was the reason they didn’t want teams wearing uniforms too similar to the color of the floor was to avoid having problems with the digital court ads on the TV broadcast? That was why the Bucks’ cream uniforms got nixed a few years ago, right? 

This is kinda what I suspected... I thought the chromekeying or whatever technology has improved and it doesn't awkwardly make light-skinned dudes disappear when they run across the digital ad zone as much anymore, not like 2020/21 anyway. I don't know why that tech would be worse on a dark court, but that makes more sense than claiming viewers can't tell black from indigo blue after their recent years approach to uniform design.

23 hours ago, ORLMagic86 said:

It's funny you mention this because I know a couple of higher-ups at Del's. According to what I was told, Del's reached out to the team a few times to express interest in sponsorship but never received a response.

Everything about RIFC's ownership and their attempts to build a still-vaporware stadium in Pawtucket has suggested baaaaaad vibes. But, nothing screams Rhode Island like stupid decisions.