MLB 2023 Uniform/Logo Changes

[IceCap]

12 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

That gap between the haves and have nots in baseball is even more reason for a smaller club to want additional streams of revenue. 

The """have nots""" in baseball are teams still owned by billionaires and make more money as operations then you or I will see in a lifetime. 

No. I don't see any of that as justification for ads on uniforms. 

 

12 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

These organizations may have multi-billion-dollar valuations, but in terms of operating revenue they are mid-sized businesses at best.

Oh lord... really? No. Not really. Not at all. 

 

12 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

And I’ll say this for a third time: you don’t have to like it, but...

Oh my good G-d. You don't get it. 

The need to play this holier than though/"Actually...." card is the problem I'm pointing out in the first place. 

 

12 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

And since it bears repeating — again — I don’t care for it either.  But what you or I think about it doesn’t really matter.

If that's the attitude you're taking then I legitimately think you're on the wrong board. It's like when people say "I think Team X should change its look" and someone goes "lol uniforms don't matter, they don't affect the play on the field." 

Like... where do you think you are?

 

12 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

So we’ve gotten to the “my guy” stage, I see. 

If you want to be offended by that go ahead. It was meant as mild snark. 

 

But from where I stand your entire position is, at best, about a need to take a contrarian position to feel smarter than everyone else or at worst it's a case of you defending billionaires who wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire. 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

2 hours ago, WSU151 said:

The luxury tax in baseball is revenue sharing

 

No, it is not.  It is a penalty on the wealthier teams for signing the top players (thereby working as downward pressure on the contracts that players can demand), as well as a powerful incentive for the less wealthy teams to coast. 

Sharing revenue means tallying up all the revenue and dividing it by the number of teams in the league. The various leagues do this to certain extents with rigidly-defined portions of their revenue.  But true revenue sharing would take in all revenue and share it equally amongst the teams, the result being absolutely no difference in the ability of one team versus another to pay the costs that the market for players bears.

 

In that scenario a given team's management might be more willing or less willing to accept risk, in the form of lucrative contracts to free agents, than the management of another team is. That is a matter of strategy, and of the analysis on the part of that team's scouts of the quality of free agent players available at any given moment as compared to the quality of the players coming through the team's farm system. But the point is that the ownership of each team would have the exact same pool of money to use how it sees fit, and there would thus be no free agent whom the Yankees and Mets and Red Sox and Dodgers can afford but whom the other teams cannot afford.

[WSU151]

24 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

No, it is not.  It is a penalty on the wealthier teams for signing the top players (thereby working as downward pressure on the contracts that players can demand), as well as a powerful incentive for the less wealthy teams to coast. 

Sharing revenue means tallying up of all the revenue and dividing it by the number of teams in the league. The various leagues do this to certain extents with rigidly-defined portions of their revenue.  But true revenue sharing would take in all revenue and share it equally amongst the teams, the result being absolutely no difference in the ability of one team versus another to pay the costs that the market for players bears.

 

In that scenario a given team's management might be willing to accept more or less risk, in the form of lucrative contracts to free agents, than the management of another team. That is a matter of strategy, and of the analysis on the part of that team's scouts of the quality of free agent players available at any given moment as compared to the quality of the players coming through the team's farm system. But the point is that the ownership of each team would have the exact same pool of money to use how it sees fit, and there would thus be no free agent whom the Yankees and Mets and Red Sox and Dodgers can afford but whom the other teams cannot afford.

 

The luxury tax literally goes to the smaller teams that aren't spending to the limit. The penalty is teams taking revenue dollars (in all likelihood) and giving it to other teams. The Marlins were notorious for raking in luxury tax dollars while fielding a nickel-and-dime team.  It's almost as if there are multiple definitions of "sharing revenue".

 

It's impossible to have a full revenue sharing system without a salary cap (which puts downward pressure on players salaries).  The NBA's revenue sharing system only works because of the cap. A salary floor helps payroll parity but it creates its own inefficiencies as well. 

[gosioux76]

2 hours ago, IceCap said:

The """have nots""" in baseball are teams still owned by billionaires and make more money as operations then you or I will see in a lifetime. 

No. I don't see any of that as justification for ads on uniforms. 

 

Oh lord... really? No. Not really. Not at all. 

 

Oh my good G-d. You don't get it. 

The need to play this holier than though/"Actually...." card is the problem I'm pointing out in the first place. 

 

If that's the attitude you're taking then I legitimately think you're on the wrong board. It's like when people say "I think Team X should change its look" and someone goes "lol uniforms don't matter, they don't affect the play on the field." 

Like... where do you think you are?

 

If you want to be offended by that go ahead. It was meant as mild snark. 

 

But from where I stand your entire position is, at best, about a need to take a contrarian position to feel smarter than everyone else or at worst it's a case of you defending billionaires who wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire. 

 

Listen, I get it. You and the much of the rest of the world see professional sports franchises as the domains of billionaires whose abundant wealth should preclude them from needing an extra couple of million from jersey ads. I think that's a reasonable expectation.

 

But when I say these are mid-sized businesses, it's not something I'm making up. I shared the link earlier to Forbes' valuations rankings, which includes data on annual revenue and operating income (or, in the case of 1/3 of all MLB teams, an operating loss.) Maybe this is a better example: The St. Louis Cardinals last year generated annual revenue of $287 million, which would place them at No. 67 among the largest privately-held companies in St. Louis.  Sitting right above it on that list is a tire company, and below it is a transportation company.  If you were an employee of one of those companies, would you take issue with finding a way to add another few million in revenue to the total? Of course not, you'd celebrate it.  Just because the owner might already be wealthy doesn't mean you don't want the company to get bigger.  But because of their higher profile, and the role they play in our communities, we hold sports franchises to a different standard. 

 

Also, the economics of baseball just aren't as great as they used to be.  As Forbes noted, most MLB teams are still trying to dig themselves out of the hole created in 2020 by the pandemic. And the revenue from jersey ads will be coming at a time when revenue growth from sponsorships has begun slowing league-wide. Much of the revenue from helmet ads, meanwhile, is likely to be earmarked for a $50-million-a-year player bonus pool created by the new CBA. (You guys should read that Forbes story. Lots of good stuff in there. ) We're approaching an era in which economic pressures will be leading owners to place less value on purist aesthetics, the same way it did a generation ago when ads began reappearing on the outfield walls inside stadiums. 

 

Please don't assume that I'm making some contrarian case just for the sake of it. I think it's important to look at these things not just from the lens of fans, but from the perspective of them as businesses. That doesn't make me a shill for billionaires. It just makes me someone who wants to see it from more than one angle. 

 

And if all you want is someone to agree with you without discussion, then you can scroll past my posts. I'm cool with that. 

[TrueYankee26]

3 hours ago, Brian E said:

 

"so invert the pinstripes and put 'THE BOOGIE DOWN' on the front? DONE!" - a nike exec somewhere, probably

In a graffiti looking font too lol

[Brian E]

1 hour ago, TrueYankee26 said:

In a graffiti looking font too lol

 

dude, you know one of our teams is using 'GOTHAM.' probably mine. they both used neon in their marketing material last year. i wouldn't be surprised if the mets used a neon-type treatment. would be a nice nod to the players that used to be on the exterior of shea.

[YELDARBfield]

14 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

The inexorable increase in franchise values began long before uniform ads. Jeff Smulyan of Emmis bought the Mariners in the late 1980s.  He lost a ton of money for several years, and then made it all back — in vast multiples — when he sold the team to Nintendo, which itself eventually sold the team for more than five times what it had paid for it.  Smulyan liked his experience so much that he wanted to go around again, staging an ultimately unsuccessful bid to buy the Nationals.

 

Broadcast rights fees alone are enough to power the rise in franchise valuations for the forseeable future.  And, for as long as that is the case, losing money in these top leagues is actually impossible.

 

Quote

Plus, in order for a franchise's value to matter, the owner looking to realize that value would need to sell the franchise.

 

That is no obstacle.  There are many, many super-wealthy people who would be willing to buy any of the teams in the big five leagues.  This applies even to MLS, the smallest of the top leagues, the one that has arrived most recently to that stature, and a league in which the teams are not even independent entities.  People sometimes claim that MLS is some kind of Ponzi scheme; but the truth is that the league turns away more suitors than it accepts.

This is all well and good, but one cannot run a business by just buying and selling it. You have to have liquid money to pay your people, make capital improvements, and so forth, a point that you omitted and ignored from my previous post. 

[coco1997]

Not 2023 related but I just stumbled upon this old Rangers poster. Jeez, how has THAT wordmark never been used on a uniform? That "R" is awesome.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

On 12/14/2022 at 2:15 PM, YELDARBfield said:

This is all well and good, but one cannot run a business by just buying and selling it. You have to have liquid money to pay your people, make capital improvements, and so forth, a point that you omitted and ignored from my previous post. 

 

I did not ignore it. Rather, I cited an example of an undercaptialised owner who took a loss for as long as he could, and then sold out, walking away far richer than he was when he got in. And the team wound up in the hands of a much better owner, one that didn't have any cashflow issues. 

[IceCap]

3 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

And if all you want is someone to agree with you without discussion, then you can scroll past my posts. I'm cool with that. 

I told you earlier that projection isn't an admirable quality and this is what I meant. You go on and on and on and on about me wanting an echo chamber, not wanting discussion... but this back and forth between us was started by me calling out the attitude you displayed. I'm quite content to have a discussion. Even an argument. 
But you're the one playing victim because someone is actually challenging their point of view. You're the one asking the other guy to not respond. 

 

So stuff your accusations that I just want an echo chamber. It's clear to me you're the one bothered by an actual argument. 

 

3 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

But when I say these are mid-sized businesses, it's not something I'm making up.

I wouldn't say you're "making it up," no, but selectively choosing facts to suit a narrative. 

These aren't independent businesses. They're parts of larger corporations or the domain of independently wealthy billionaires.

 

I'm from just outside of Toronto. I have seen first hand the sheer size and wealth that MLSE has at their disposal, much less the telecom duopoly that owns them. So forgive me if I balk at the idea that the Leafs and Raptors need jersey ads to help pay the bills. 

 

Which circles back to my main point re: the necessity of ads. 

TV rights fees are at all time highs. 

Merch sales and prices are both at all time highs. 

Ticket and concession prices are at all time highs. 

Broadcast ad fees are at their all time high while their frequency increases. 

And just in general, the gap between rich and poor is higher than its ever been since the end of WWII. 

 

All of which tells me the leagues, teams, and billionaires who own them are richer then ever. Which makes the idea that they suddenly need uni ads now when they didn't twenty years ago ridiculous to me. 

 

4 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

That doesn't make me a shill for billionaires.

Yeah it does. A generous reading of your argument and intent behind it may mean you don't intend to come off like a shill for billionaires, but that's what you're doing. 

 

4 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

Please don't assume that I'm making some contrarian case just for the sake of it. I think it's important to look at these things not just from the lens of fans, but from the perspective of them as businesses.

Part B isn't convincing me of Part A there. 

 

But you know what? If shilling for uniform ads is how you want to spend your time here, go for it. 

 

I'll continue to think it's a weird position at best and intentionally passive aggressive at worst, but you do you. I've said my peace. 

[TrueYankee26]

2 hours ago, Brian E said:

 

dude, you know one of our teams is using 'GOTHAM.' probably mine. they both used neon in their marketing material last year. i wouldn't be surprised if the mets used a neon-type treatment. would be a nice nod to the players that used to be on the exterior of shea.

Neon for the Mets would be a great idea for this reason you brought up

 

 

It's a shame I never got to go to Shea

[gosioux76]

24 minutes ago, IceCap said:

So stuff your accusations that I just want an echo chamber. It's clear to me you're the one bothered by an actual argument. 

 

It's worth pointing out here that this escalated by your questioning how somebody could attempt to justify ads. (I'd argue that there's a difference between "justifying" ads and trying to understand why we've arrived to this point, but I don't think it would do much good.)

 

What I've done since is explain myself, to which you disagreed, which is, by definition, an actual argument that I've willfully entered into, without bother. 

 

My primary point in this argument is that the economics of professional sports are changing for both consumers and billionaire owners. As Forbes notes, MLB franchises combined lost $1.14 billion during the past two years, prompting them to take on $2 billion in debt and inject another $1.5 billion of equity to buoy their balance sheets.

 

While it's true that prices in some markets have increased for tickets, concessions, merch, etc. that point leaves out the increased expenses for salaries (both players and everyone else), inflation, supply chain costs, etc. It's not as if the the extra $10 we pay for a beer is going directly into the owner's wallet.  

 

None of this means uniform ads are necessary, and I've never argued here that they are, particularly because of the blight they add to the uniforms. But billionaire or not, there seems to be this underlying belief that people who own for-profit businesses should turn away revenue opportunities to adhere to aesthetic purity.

 

So why didn't they do this 20 years ago? It's a good question. Perhaps it's because owners weren't coming out of a money-losing pandemic, at a time with skyrocketing payrolls but declining attendance, and didn't realize companies would be willing to fork over $17-20 million a year for a four-inch patch on a sleeve.  

 

If you ran a business, would you turn that down?  And if you wouldn't turn it down, would you call it greed? 

[spartacat_12]

2 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

None of this means uniform ads are necessary, and I've never argued here that they are, particularly because of the blight they add to the uniforms. But billionaire or not, there seems to be this underlying belief that people who own for-profit businesses should turn away revenue opportunities to adhere to aesthetic purity.

 

I mean FIFA is one of the greediest, most corrupt organizations in sports, and even they see value in keeping the World Cup kits ad-free.

[gosioux76]

5 minutes ago, spartacat_12 said:

 

I mean FIFA is one of the greediest, most corrupt organizations in sports, and even they see value in keeping the World Cup kits ad-free.

 

Ha! I can't argue that point. 

[selgy]

9 hours ago, TrueYankee26 said:

Neon for the Mets would be a great idea for this reason you brought up

 

 

It's a shame I never got to go to Shea

It is a shame what they did with the bases from Shea. 

I grew up a Mets fan and went to see the Rays play the Mets in July of 2018. I was so disappointed to see the base locations were just vaguely marked. I had to look hard for them. They were in the middle of the parking lot where unless you came early enough to see them, cars would soon be parked over them. There was no diamond connecting the bases. Not even home to first for the Wilson-Buckner play. Was such a let down. 

Google maps link is for Shea home. You can zoom out to see the pitchers mound and the other bases.  plate https://www.google.com/maps/place/Shea+Stadium+Historical+Markers/@40.7556481,-73.8482859,49m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m12!1m6!3m5!1s0x0:0xf55b95d4f099763b!2sCiti+Field!8m2!3d40.7570877!4d-73.8458213!3m4!1s0x0:0xe5708faaf362080a!8m2!3d40.7556563!4d-73.8483621

[YELDARBfield]

16 hours ago, spartacat_12 said:

 

I mean FIFA is one of the greediest, most corrupt organizations in sports, and even they see value in keeping the World Cup kits ad-free.

I'd bet they do that to keep their FIFA-level sponsors happy. Would hate to piss off Coca-Cola and their massive check by letting Pepsi sponsor the French kit.

[IceCap]

19 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

If you ran a business, would you turn that down?  And if you wouldn't turn it down, would you call it greed? 

A business? Depends. If I ran a minor league outfit sure I'd bring in uniform ads because the profit margins on those are incredibly thin. Ads, theme nights, whatever you gotta do to get people in the building. 

 

But if I was a billionaire who owned a team in a pro league where tv rights fees and profits from ticket, merch, and concession sales are constantly rising?  No. I wouldn't bring ads in. It cheapens the  aesthetic of what should be a top flight team and dirties a brand that's potentially over a hundred years old. If not a few decades old at least. 

@spartacat_12 brought up FIFA. They're the ultimate corporate whores but even they think there's value to be had in not putting ads on national football/soccer team uniforms. Which... look I'm not going to be on the same page as FIFA often... but I am here. You risk long term sullying of your brand chasing short term gain. 

[Guest]

Haven't seen this mentioned, but in addition to the previously announced 25th anniversary logo, the D-Backs are bringing back teal for 2023 (as an alternate).

 

[ptay]

7 hours ago, Seido_Ace said:

Haven't seen this mentioned, but in addition to the previously announced 25th anniversary logo, the D-Backs are bringing back teal for 2023 (as an alternate).

 

 

I pride myself in knowing most MLB uniform changes and quirks but I can't for the life of me keep the D-Backs uni changes straight. Back and forth, back and forth. 

[McCall]

 

18 hours ago, Seido_Ace said:

Haven't seen this mentioned, but in addition to the previously announced 25th anniversary logo, the D-Backs are bringing back teal for 2023 (as an alternate).

 

Bringing it "back"?