Mets Likely to Offer Wright a Long-Term Deal

[nymr83]

Gwreck wrote: The downward trend of attendance is due to a confluence of factors, including: 1. Poor overall team performance for three consecutive seasons (following two seasons of "collapses"); 2. (Over)pricing problems; 3. Fan apathy/anger at Wilpons.

4. The novelty of Citi Field has worn off and despite the food it just doesn't have the FEELINGS of Shea, so people don't go.

[Edgy MD]

5. The narrative around this team, right or wrong, has been so negative, that even when positive things happen, many potential customers respond cautiously.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

The downward trend of attendance is due to a confluence of factors, including: 1. Poor overall team performance for three consecutive seasons (following two seasons of "collapses"); 2. (Over)pricing problems; 3. Fan apathy/anger at Wilpons. 4. The novelty of Citi Field has worn off and despite the food it just doesn't have the FEELINGS of Shea, so people don't go.

With all due respect (to you and everyone else here with the "it isn't Shea" business), until 2008, people didn't come to Shea for Shea.

[Vic Sage]

just to clarify: i hated Shea. But when given a clean slate to create a whole new park, they did more wrong than right, as far as I'm concerned. So Citi doesn't excite me, even in comparison to the crap palace it replaced.

[Gwreck]

Vic Sage wrote: - he could get traded or otherwise purged in more Wilponian cost-cutting;

Note that a trade this season voids the 2013 option.

[MFS62]

Ashie62 wrote: Then again, no predicting what Wilpon wants to do, probably wait too long and blow it.

(Channeling fMan) If he does that, then he can just blow me.

Somebody has to smack Jeffie up side of the head.

http://espn.go.com/espnw/mlb/7989832/jeff-wilpon-wants-extension-david-wright-due-time

Later

[Benjamin Grimm]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: With all due respect (to you and everyone else here with the "it isn't Shea" business), until 2008, people didn't come to Shea for Shea.

I did. (At least, partially.)

[nymr83]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: With all due respect (to you and everyone else here with the "it isn't Shea" business), until 2008, people didn't come to Shea for Shea. I did. (At least, partially.)

I feel if they were still at Shea I would have been to a game already this year, which I haven't been. Maybe its just a shift in my priorities, going out to the game isn't as important as it used to be, but I think that shift happened right when the Mets moved, I can't really say for sure if that's a coincidence or not.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I've probably posted this analogy before, but I'll do it again anyway.

When my parents still lived in the house that I grew up in, when I'd visit them I felt like I was going home. Now they live in a different house. When I visit them, I'm going to a familiar, comfortable, and friendly place, but it's not home.

I don't live in New York anymore, and I'll never go to as many games at Citi Field as I went to at Shea. Citi Field, at best, will be like my parents' current house. In the later years, a big part of the draw for me in going to Shea was that feeling of connection to my past. I can understand that those of you who haven't left New York probably don't feel that way, but for me, yes, Shea became part of the draw. A fairly big part.

[seawolf17]

Yes and yes to both nymr's and Grimm's points.

[Edgy MD]

Sure, but we need to come around to the idea that our feelings of familiarity were never going to float this franchise for very long. They need to make new connections with a new audience, and they saw a new park as the way to do it. I disagreed with that. I was in the minority.

[Ceetar]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I've probably posted this analogy before, but I'll do it again anyway. When my parents still lived in the house that I grew up in, when I'd visit them I felt like I was going home. Now they live in a different house. When I visit them, I'm going to a familiar, comfortable, and friendly place, but it's not home. I don't live in New York anymore, and I'll never go to as many games at Citi Field as I went to at Shea. Citi Field, at best, will be like my parents' current house. In the later years, a big part of the draw for me in going to Shea was that feeling of connection to my past. I can understand that those of you who haven't left New York probably don't feel that way, but for me, yes, Shea became part of the draw. A fairly big part.

I think i've posted my analogy too, but anyway..

My parents still live in the house I grew up in. I had fond memories of living there. But I'm so so glad to be in the new place, and couldn't wait to get out. And this was nothing against the people living there, because it was always pleasant.

[Gwreck]

Objectively, the reasons for replacing Shea all made sense, whether it was seat comfort, aesthetics or financial potential.

Most people probably would have embraced the new stadium had the Mets not screwed up so many things with the transition in one way or another. If it wasn't the lack of Mets' history in the park, or the way ticket plans were handled, or the offensive name, it was the lack of affordable seating, or the obstructed view seats. Add in the teams' extremely poor performance on the field, and they reaped what they sowed.

I am curious what the new place will be like when (if) the Mets start winning consistently.

[TransMonk]

Gwreck wrote: I am curious what the new place will be like when (if) the Mets start winning consistently.

Yup.

[Ceetar]

Gwreck wrote: I am curious what the new place will be like when (if) the Mets start winning consistently.

packed, loud, busy with long lines and more complaints about things like lines, bathrooms and getting around.

[Guest The Second Spitter]

Nymr83 wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: With all due respect (to you and everyone else here with the "it isn't Shea" business), until 2008, people didn't come to Shea for Shea. I did. (At least, partially.) I feel if they were still at Shea I would have been to a game already this year, which I haven't been. Maybe its just a shift in my priorities, going out to the game isn't as important as it used to be, but I think that shift happened right when the Mets moved, I can't really say for sure if that's a coincidence or not.

Shea had ghosts that kept you entertained when the team on the field wasn't doing so well.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I don't like CitiField. Yes, its pretty and the food is better, but the view from the cheaper seats suck worse than Shea and the good seats are too expensive (not to mention overpriced parking/merch/food). - I don't like the Wilpons and their management; their shady dealings cast a shadow over the franchise and their Dodgerphilia taints their perception of team history; just to clarify: i hated Shea. But when given a clean slate to create a whole new park, they did more wrong than right, as far as I'm concerned. So Citi doesn't excite me, even in comparison to the crap palace it replaced.

"But our dividerless urinals are a modern upgrade over the standard piss trough."



"And on the field, the bases are precisely 90 feet apart from each other. That was especially my idea."

[MFS62]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: "But our dividerless urinals are a modern upgrade over the standard piss trough." "And on the field, the bases are precisely 90 feet apart from each other. That was especially my idea."

They could make a lot of fans happy by putting Jeff's picture at the bottom of those dividerless urinals.
They could make a lot more fans happy by putting Jeff's head at the bottom of one of those dividerless urinals.

Later

[ashie62]

Home is where the heart is >>>>> Shea...

[Edgy MD]

They could make a lot of fans happy by putting Jeff's picture at the bottom of those dividerless urinals. They could make a lot more fans happy by putting Jeff's head at the bottom of one of those dividerless urinals.

Catering to the hate ain't going to work.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Gwreck wrote: Objectively, the reasons for replacing Shea all made sense, whether it was seat comfort, aesthetics or financial potential. Most people probably would have embraced the new stadium had the Mets not screwed up so many things with the transition in one way or another. If it wasn't the lack of Mets' history in the park, or the way ticket plans were handled, or the offensive name, it was the lack of affordable seating, or the obstructed view seats. Add in the teams' extremely poor performance on the field, and they reaped what they sowed. I am curious what the new place will be like when (if) the Mets start winning consistently.

All this. It's really astonishing how stupidly they handled the whole thing, not only alienating the fans in almost every way, but how they dared to defy the recession right in the thick of it. As always, they had no Plan B.

[Ceetar]

did anyone have a plan B for the recession? would a plan B even have worked considering they also got 'hit' with Madoff and a crazy amount of injuries at the same time. Didn't have a plan D.

[Frayed Knot]

Well the building and stuff was all on-going as the recession hit so there was nothing anyone was going to do about that.
The problem was that all these teams w/new buildings -- including, at the same time, the Yanx, and, later on, the Giants & Jets with their PSL plans -- had worked some sort of super-pricing plan for the prime seats into their budgets and were (and, you could claim, still are) super-slow in backing off those plans as the recession first hit and then lingered.

[Edgy MD]

As for "extremely poor" performance, isn't it more fair to call the showing "disappointing," "uninspiring" or maybe "lackluster"?

The team has eight straight years of over seventy wins. If they make it a ninth this year (and it certainly looks like they will), that'll tie them for the longest such streak in team history.

In itself, that's no big deal. If folks don't want to support such a team, that's great. But it helps to keep perspective.

[Vic Sage]

70 wins is a pretty low threshold for "lackluster".
I'd say 80 wins is "lackluster" or "disappointing"; I'd refer to 70 wins as "playing like shit".

[Benjamin Grimm]

I put my threshold at 73 wins. Losing fewer than 90 games makes the season at least a little bit less than horrible.

[Edgy MD]

Yeah, that's all fine. As I said, you're perfectly entitled to reject them for their play. But as I said, it's on the verge of tying the longest streak in their history. If that's "extremely poor" then the definition of extreme has changed. Winning percentage wise, I'd imagine the Wilpon-Katz-Wilpon team has been more successful than any managing ownership group in the team's history.

It's not saying much, and that's fine, but this endless cycle of fan revolts popping up on site after site and thread after thread. If that's what folks want, great. Baseball rips your heart out. There's no denying it. But perspective is warped enough all over the internet without stretching the facts to fuel our outrage. Somebody's gonna get hurt.

[Edgy MD]

Vic Sage wrote: 70 wins is a pretty low threshold for "lackluster". I'd say 80 wins is "lackluster" or "disappointing"; I'd refer to 70 wins as "playing like shit".

It's not as if they've won 70 games every year, either. But rather 71, 83, 97, 88, 89, 70, 79, 77, and (if their pace holds) 89.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Ceetar wrote: did anyone have a plan B for the recession?

Yes. Lots of businesses found a way to thrive in the recession, especially they were prepared to offer value. The Mets couldn't be bothered to offer their fans anything in the way of value, the business model simply didn't account for it -- and that goes for everything from the lazy way they ran the team to the ticket prices to the stunning lack of awareness for what their own fans wished to see in the new park.

I'd argue if they'd been more sensitive to fans' wallets and their sensibilities from the get-go they might not be giving away tickets they way they did last year.

would a plan B even have worked considering they also got 'hit' with Madoff and a crazy amount of injuries at the same time. Didn't have a plan D.

The recession was bad timing but let's not excuse the Mets for being so dumb that their only financial strategy was investing with a crook.

[batmagadanleadoff]

This is about the most contrived piece of dreck I ever heard. We should love the Wilpons because the Mets win more than 69 games a season? What's next? Rey Ordonez for Cooperstown because he hit more than five doubles every season?