The settlement proposed by the mediator in the McCourt case was interesting

2 Comments

Like I said last week, it’s a bit of sucker’s game to try to predict an ultimate ruling in a case based on what a court-appointed mediator proposes. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t fun to try to predict such things.  And there is one fact in the proposed settlement, reported by Bill Shaikin, that I find to be pretty interesting:

As the mediator in the Dodgers’ divorce case prepared his settlement proposal, he consulted not only with Frank and Jamie McCourt but with representatives from Bingham McCutchen, the firm that employs the lawyer whose actions could determine who owns the team. The mediation process is confidential, but analysts said the mediator likely invited Bingham to help fund a settlement now rather than risk a potentially more costly malpractice suit later.

The malpractice, you’ll recall, is related to Frank’s lawyer switching out the exhibit to the post-nuptial agreement that had Jamie getting the Dodgers and switching in the one that showed her being cut out.  Which, I still believe, is what the parties intended, by the way. Problem is, if you were going to try and unfairly screw Jamie out of her stake in the Dodgers, that would be an excellent, albeit obvious way to do it, and the court is going to have  a hard time overlooking that behavior. If you want to make such clerical changes, you get both parties on the horn and have them re-execute the deal. You don’t pull the old switcheroo.

If the court ultimately rules for Jamie, Frank will have a righteous malpractice suit against the Bingham firm as a result of all of this. By having them kick in money now, as the proposed settlement does, it softens that blow and heads off an ugly litigation in which many of the same issues that happened in the divorce case would be dredged up.  No one wants that.

So the question is this: does the mediator — who is himself a judge, by the way — know that the judge presiding over the case is going to rule for Jamie and wants to try and wrap it all up now? Does he merely suspect it? Or is this just a belt-and-suspenders kind of thing?

I have no idea. I do know this, though: if someone tells me that they want to make my future malpractice case against my lawyers easier, I’m not going to feel very good about the case I actually have pending at the moment.  Frank, I would assume, is not a happy man at the moment.

The Marlins are going to reveal new uniforms today

Getty Images
Leave a comment

The Miami Marlins’ makeover has led them to get rid of the home run sculpture, add a party section in the outfield and paint the green outfield wall blue. As of today it’s going to include new uniforms.

The Marlins Twitter account has been teasing it for a couple of days now:

Based on that it would seem that the primary colors will be black and that, I dunno, royal blue? Dark aqua? I’m not sure what it is, but it’s not the old teal and certainly not a navy. There will be red and white accents too. There will also, apparently, be a new fish logo, a bit different than the old realistic one and the newer stylized one. You can see what that’ll probably look like here.

We’ll reserve final judgment for the overall look when it’s revealed, but for now I’m sorta torn. On the one hand, no, it’s not like the Marlins created any indelible historical moments in the 2012-18 orange and rainbow getup. And, if the stuff was selling like hotcakes or otherwise taking off locally in Miami, they likely wouldn’t be changing it.

On the other hand: we have too much blue — and red and black — in baseball these days. Most teams have it and far fewer teams than ever go off in some new direction. I wrote this seven years ago when the last Marlins uniform was unveiled:

Said it before and I’ll say it again: the hell with the haters. I like ’em. I like that they’re doing something fresh and new. There was a time in this country when we didn’t look backwards all the time. We looked forward and tried stuff and didn’t care all that much if, in a few years, we realized it was a mistake.

Leave the understated block letters to the franchises crushed under the weight of their own history.  If your team is less than 20-years-old, let your freak flag fly.

I stand by that, both with respect to the old Marlins uniforms and with the philosophy in general.

Like I said, I’ll give the Marlins’ new uniforms a chance, but I fear that it’ll be a look backward into some sort of baseball traditionalism that, while a lot of people seem to like it, doesn’t suit a team with such a short history and doesn’t attempt to be terribly creative. I hope I’m wrong.