CitiField gets all Metty n' shit

[Guest Edgy DC]

Well, somebody is always the last person to take up a populist cause, without fully realizing the zeitgeist has shifted while you've been cross-checking your sources. The Wall Street Journal, who looks into sports occassionally --- and when they do, deeply, but not always expertly, taking a refreshing look at the good-business-practice angle but capable of sometimes missing the evidence right in front of their noses that a daily baseball fan would spot right off --- is a pretty good candidate for that. (Run-on, I know.)

It's like the folks just now getting on the "Those urban-culture-oriented youth need to pull up their pants!" bandwagon who don't seem to know the trend is actually on the wane.

[Fman99]

Edgy DC wrote: It's like the folks just now getting on the "Those urban-culture-oriented youth need to pull up their pants!" bandwagon who don't seem to know the trend is actually on the wane.

As long as I'm around, the "walking around with your pants down low and your goods showing" will have a home. But not for fashion. I do it the right way, for obscenity. I'm old school.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I'd like to pretend that the WSJ piece is a protest: People will continue to complain about this aspect of Mets management so long as the rotunda's named after Jackie Robinson.


BTW, this particular quote is consistent with every bad hunch I harbor about the Wilpons:

"When we're back there, we truly enjoy it," said Jim McAndrew, a starting pitcher for the '69 Mets, who flew in for the reunion from his home in Fountain Hills, Ariz. "It's just that you get the feeling that they know these are things that you want to do, but then when you walk away, you kind of feel used.''

[seawolf17]

metsguyinmichigan wrote: So, if I'm reading that correctly, a newsletter and a Facebook page would make everything OK?

Jeff Wilpon is opening up a Farmville account as we speak.

[nymr83]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I'd like to pretend that the WSJ piece is a protest: People will continue to complain about this aspect of Mets management so long as the rotunda's named after Jackie Robinson. BTW, this particular quote is consistent with every bad hunch I harbor about the Wilpons: "When we're back there, we truly enjoy it," said Jim McAndrew, a starting pitcher for the '69 Mets, who flew in for the reunion from his home in Fountain Hills, Ariz. "It's just that you get the feeling that they know these are things that you want to do, but then when you walk away, you kind of feel used.''

Don't worry Jim, we feel the same way every time we buy a ticket.

[Guest themetfairy]

The WSJ just introduced its New York section this week. Someone was probably working on that story for a while, like Edgy surmised.

In the long run, it's a good thing that there's now another newspaper that's going to start paying attention to the Mets; they may need a little time to get up to speed with their coverage, though.

[Gwreck]

The author of that article is supposedly the new "beat writer" that the Wall Street Journal hired to cover the Mets. It's not clear to me exactly how much he is covering the team, when he drops gems like this:

"On a miserable night Sunday, the 1-0 rain-shortened win over the Braves drew an announced 27,623, probably about 20,000 more than the number of people at Citi Field."

Uh, Mike? Did you poke your head out of the pressbox to check? Were you even there?
There weren't 27k people there but there were a lot more than 7,000...

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

So, if I'm reading that correctly, a newsletter and a Facebook page would make everything OK? Jeff Wilpon is opening up a Farmville account as we speak.

Mafia Wars Jeff Wilpon needs a Winter Classic at Citi Field, Eminent Domain-Iron Triangle and a Pee Wee Reese Kosher Pork Pavilion. Help Jeff reach his goals! Join Mafia Wars today! =#404000]April 27 at 11:46am * Share

[Guest Edgy DC]

Gwreck wrote: The author of that article is supposedly the new "beat writer" that the Wall Street Journal hired to cover the Mets. It's not clear to me exactly how much he is covering the team, when he drops gems like this: "On a miserable night Sunday, the 1-0 rain-shortened win over the Braves drew an announced 27,623, probably about 20,000 more than the number of people at Citi Field." Uh, Mike? Did you poke your head out of the pressbox to check? Were you even there? There weren't 27k people there but there were a lot more than 7,000...

I'm reading multiple times here, but you and he seem to be saying the same thing.

[Benjamin Grimm]

"On a miserable night Sunday, the 1-0 rain-shortened win over the Braves drew an announced 27,623, probably about 20,000 more than the number of people at Citi Field."

This implies that there were about 7,000 people in the stands. Gwreck is saying that there were a lot more than that.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Well, wait, I need to read six or seven more times.