"The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

[Edgy MD]

The Brooklyn Navy Yards was considered.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Really? I don't remember that. At what point in time was that?

[Edgy MD]

It was entertained around the turn of the century. I can't say how extensive the inquiries were, but it was reported as an option they were considering.

Obviously, with all the rights an organization has to secure to build in New York, using the location they already had helped them past a lot of hurdles.

[Ceetar]

The Mets have appropriated that history since their inception, right down to the '62 roster. Why should they change it now? When MLB hands you Jackie Robinson, self-serving or not, why not run with it?

Big corporations are never going to get the benefit of altruism, and certainly they're rarely actually altruistic because with the wealth comes the expectation of giving and charity. But it's still there.

Why shouldn't there be a tribute to Jackie? He's important. more than baseball important. Where else? Dodger stadium? It's 3000 miles away from where it all happened. You could, it wouldn't be a horrible idea, but the color barrier he broke was the community and fans and was New York, not the Dodgers. You going to put it at Yankee Stadium? There is no indication that the Yankees wanted that. The Mets have always claimed that NL descendant thing, and there is really no better place in the entire country to put a tribute to the man. You can squabble over the silly 42 thing instead of a statue, but It's something.

[Benjamin Grimm]

As I said earlier, I don't mind the tribute to Jackie, I just think the rotunda is too much. The Mets are the second best team to host that tribute, right behind the Brooklyn Cyclones. Honoring Jackie Robinson in LA, because that's the current home of the Dodgers, makes as much sense as honoring Connie Mack in Oakland or Walter Johnson in Minneapolis.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I was gooing to respond but I saw it was already responded to:

So, yeah, I'd say cynical is fair tag. While I believe Fred admires and respects Jackie Robinson to a degree, I don't see this as a tribute to or advancement of Robinson's civil rights struggle, so much as the Mets and MLB advancing their own ends by wrapping it in the civil rights struggle.

In a semi-related thought, how bad is this '42' movie gonna suck?

[Guest themetfairy]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I was gooing to respond but I saw it was already responded to: So, yeah, I'd say cynical is fair tag. While I believe Fred admires and respects Jackie Robinson to a degree, I don't see this as a tribute to or advancement of Robinson's civil rights struggle, so much as the Mets and MLB advancing their own ends by wrapping it in the civil rights struggle. In a semi-related thought, how bad is this '42' movie gonna suck?

Big time, I fear.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Why do we think that? I haven't gotten any kind of a vibe one way or the other. (I haven't seen any commercials or trailers.) All I know is that Harrison Ford is playing Branch Rickey, which seems like strange casting. (I would have gone with Stephen Root.)

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: Why shouldn't there be a tribute to Jackie? He's important. more than baseball important. in the entire country to put a tribute to the man. You can squabble over the silly 42 thing instead of a statue, but It's something.

So was Raoul Wallenberg. And Albert Einstein. Why not an Abraham Lincoln Rotunda? And a Horace Mann statue? And a Jonas Salk Museum right off the Earl Warren Rotunda?

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar wrote: The Mets have appropriated that history since their inception, right down to the '62 roster. Why should they change it now? When MLB hands you Jackie Robinson, self-serving or not, why not run with it?

I'm not sure who you are addressing here.

Ceetar wrote: Big corporations are never going to get the benefit of altruism, and certainly they're rarely actually altruistic because with the wealth comes the expectation of giving and charity. But it's still there.

What's still where?

Ceetar wrote: Why shouldn't there be a tribute to Jackie?

I didn't say there shouldn't. I've long supported the notion. You're twisting my argument here and you know it.

Ceetar wrote: He's important. more than baseball important. I've said as much Where else? Dodger stadium? It's 3000 miles away from where it all happened. You could, it wouldn't be a horrible idea, but the color barrier he broke was the community and fans and was New York, not the Dodgers. You going to put it at Yankee Stadium? There is no indication that the Yankees wanted that. The Mets have always claimed that NL descendant thing, and there is really no better place in the entire country to put a tribute to the man.

I've mostly said as much. (I'd dispute the no-better-place-in-the-country business.) You're just throwing slop at me here. Answering statements I never made. Red herrings.

Ceetar wrote: You can squabble over the silly 42 thing instead of a statue, but It's something.

I'm not squabbling. I made a reasonable assertion.

[Ceetar]

It wasn't directed at you Edgy, just in general, and in part to the New Yorker article.

but you made a reasonable case, not a reasonable assertion. It's an opinion, not a truth. I just mean that at least there is A tribute, which is more important than the form it takes.

[Edgy MD]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Why do we think that? I haven't gotten any kind of a vibe one way or the other. (I haven't seen any commercials or trailers.) All I know is that Harrison Ford is playing Branch Rickey, which seems like strange casting. (I would have gone with Stephen Root.)

My suspicions start with them choosing 42 as a title. The continue with the selection of Harrison Ford. And they go right on through the basic reality that most biopics of American icons stink. When it's a subject that you have deep knowledge of and that is close to your heart, one gets... trepadatious.

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar wrote: It wasn't directed at you Edgy, just in general, and in part to the New Yorker article. but you made a reasonable case, not a reasonable assertion. It's an opinion, not a truth. I just mean that at least there is A tribute, which is more important than the form it takes.

Sheesh, a little pedantic. I understand what I did.

There are dozens of tributes to Jackie Robinson. I think the form and the motivation are very meaningful. At their worst, a poorly expressed tribute to a person can detract from or distort the legacy, or coopt it into something very different.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I'd cast as Jackie Robinson.


as Branch Rickey

as Pee Wee Reese

and as Fred Wilpon in the jump to the future where the JR Rotunda is built.

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: There are dozens of tributes to Jackie Robinson. I think the form and the motivation are very meaningful. At their worst, a poorly expressed tribute to a person can detract from or distort the legacy, or coopt it into something very different.

I disagree is all. I think the tribute itself is 95% of it or more. And this isn't poorly expressed anyway, simply a difference of opinion on one small aspect of it. maybe a little too MLB press releaseish in using a big number rather than a statue, but I think having a statue would conflict too much with the location, being a Mets location. He's a baseball player, but not our baseball player. The tribute isn't about him playing here. His swing isn't a representation of his presence at the Citi location. Maybe they could've done something other than a 42, but I like that better than a statue. And the Rotunda is so not part of the Citi Field experience when you're there.

[metirish]

Excellent thread.....very happy to have been to Shea many times and to have taken my son on a few occasions. Having said that Citi Field to me is a far better place for the family to enjoy a game, there is something to be said for all the stuff kids can do there when they can't be arsed to sit through a whole game.

If you swapped out the San Francisco's stadium and placed it where CF is would it be as revered as it is?

[Frayed Knot]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: In a semi-related thought, how bad is this '42' movie gonna suck?

I dunno, the rap soundtrack they're using during the commercials certainly lends an air of authenticity to it.

[G-Fafif]

Speak of the devil: Jason and I generate warts-and-all enthusiasm for Citi Field on Yahoo! Sports Big League Stew here.

Faith and Fear in Flushing welcomes you to our home ballpark, Citi Field. It took us five seasons, but we can now pronounce its corporate moniker without unconsciously (or otherwise) tripping over our tongues and instinctively referring to it as Shea Stadium. Shea � whose former parking lot provided the space for the current facility � will probably always remain psychic headquarters from a New York Mets State of Mind standpoint, but we�re comfortable at last with what this place is called and, more importantly, what this place is. It is indeed our home. Yes, it lays on the Ebbets effect a little too eerily out front. And it did come off upon its opening in 2009 as about a dozen years late to the Camden Yards wannabe party. It has also yet to host anything remotely evocative of 1969 or 1986. But it has grown on us even as its team-in-residence has made us groan over four postseason-less campaigns. We have fun here. You might, too, if you care to act on some of our blog-tested, fan-approved suggestions. [...] And once you�ve been wanded/patted down and your ticket�s been scanned, pause for a moment and consider Mr. Robinson�s contribution to baseball and America, if not the Mets directly...it�s a sore spot for many Mets fans that their signature foyer is dedicated to a Brooklyn Dodger, but we do our best to big-picture this detail.

[Guest Mets � Willets Point]

On the one hand, I don't think Shea needed replacing quite yet and I don't approve of public monies to be handed over to sports organizations to build venues for private profit. I also think if they're going to build a new place, they should've gone to a more centrally located neighborhood site rather than the out-of-the-way location in a sea of parking that I thought was the worst thing about Shea.

On the other hand, Citi Field is an attractive, comfortable and all-around pleasant place to enjoy a ball game. I like the open concourses that allow one to go to the rest rooms or concessions and not miss the games. I like the seating all around the field. I like that one does not feel a gazillion miles away from the action even on the top level.

I dunno, I guess Mets fans can't have nice things. I became a Mets fan because it seemed that Mets fans were the ones who were optimistic about life, who supported a team through thick and thin, who recognized the humanity. The ones who could go to a game in a "dump" and know it was home. It seems in the last 6-7 years the whole mindset of Met fandom has changed to whiny, entitled, never satisfied, and overall just plain unpleasant. It's hard to keep going when all one wants to is have fun and watch baseball.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Mets � Willets Point wrote: On the other hand, Citi Field is an attractive, comfortable and all-around pleasant place to enjoy a ball game. I like the open concourses that allow one to go to the rest rooms or concessions and not miss the games. I like the seating all around the field. I like that one does not feel a gazillion miles away from the action .... It seems in the last 6-7 years the whole mindset of Met fandom has changed to whiny, entitled, never satisfied, and overall just plain unpleasant.....

I agree that CF is roomier, yet more intimate than Shea, more comfortable.... and the food is loads better. But so what? That's the absolute rock bottom least that I expected from the new 21st Century 50 years newer than Shea ballpark. Are we also supposed to heap praise and genuflect to ownership because the toilets flush and because the elevators work properly?

[Lundy]

I was having this discussion at the park with my friends on Monday. I wonder how much of our view of Citi Field is clouded by the fact that our team has sucked every year since they've been there.

I don't have many problems with CF. My kids love the place. I don't know if they'd have the same love for Shea.

[Guest themetfairy]

I started Weight Watchers just before the last game at Shea. I hit goal weight just after the Citi opened. So psychologically, I associate Shea with being fat and the Citi with being in shape.

Obviously that's not going to apply to the rest of you. But I've always felt better about myself at the new place.

[Ceetar]

Mets � Willets Point wrote: On the one hand, I don't think Shea needed replacing quite yet and I don't approve of public monies to be handed over to sports organizations to build venues for private profit. I also think if they're going to build a new place, they should've gone to a more centrally located neighborhood site rather than the out-of-the-way location in a sea of parking that I thought was the worst thing about Shea.

Do "we" as sports fans get too attached to location? The Wilpons at least put a lot of their own money in, enough that you could make the case that a more publicly funded stadium has them more competitive on the field this season. I agree, although I think the city/public should invest some money too, although not towards the stadium but things like train service and parking lots and all that sort of thing that tie the stadium to the community.

I cringe at the red tape that would've happened had they seriously considered a different location. Although the Yankees didn't seem to have much issue blowing up parks for theirs. I wonder if we weren't that far off from a Mets/Isles/Nets mega-complex in Brooklyn.

[Edgy MD]

If you can dream it, it can happen. Throw the Jets in there too, along with some soccer team that's not named after an energy drink, if you're of a mind.

[Guest The Second Spitter]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Don't build an early 20th Century stadium in the 21st Century. Making the stadium look like Ebbets Field was silly.

The Ebbets Field idea made more sense to me when the design still had a the retractable roof (juxtaposing the future with the past), just like Miller Park which was also heavily inspired by Ebbets Field, yet is practically post-modern at CF.

What kills Citi for me is the piss-poor scoreboard, the horrible LF landing, a terrible corporate-to-public seating ratio & the green seats (an aesthetic choice that sterilizes the last remaining vestiges of character of the place).

Benjamin Grimm wrote:

I swear, I thought you just posted a photo of.................

[metirish]

Me too....throw a black Mets jersey on him and it could be..

[Benjamin Grimm]

Who? I feel like I'm missing something.

[G-Fafif]

The author of the "cynical" ballpark piece (which was actually more about Dodger Stadium), returns to Cynic Field and finds the Mets' identity barren.

Tall, blue-eyed, and sabermetrically sound, Matt Harvey is everything you could ask for out of a young pitcher. He has already been on the cover of Sports Illustrated and occupies more than his fair share of column space in the New York tabloid dailies. For the most part, the success or failure of the 2013 Mets will be irrelevant as long as Harvey continues to pitch well. He, like all the other pitching prospects who floated in their own orbit around bad teams, will become the main story line at Citi Field, distracting a jaded fan base from the truly boring mediocrity around him. But Harvey's popularity and success don't mean that the Mets will stay comfortably in a holding pattern until the team around him coalesces. New York is not Minneapolis or Houston or Pittsburgh, where any reason to go to the ballpark � especially the handsome kid who throws in the mid-90s � will suffice. Something has been lost in Flushing, and it's worth wondering if the boisterous, self-deprecating, but ultimately humane crowd that used to fill Shea Stadium will ever fully move over to Citi Field. On the concourse in front of the press box, I watched a woman in her fifties watch the ballgame with her husband. They both fit the bill of longtime season-ticket holders � they had their own Mets seat cushions, weathered canvas caps, and they talked with the ushers with a warm familiarity. In the eighth inning, with both the tying and go-ahead run on base, Ike Davis, whose .532 OPS has pushed the boundaries of the old baseball clich� "mightily struggling," walked to the plate. He, of course, struck out. The woman turned back to the usher and, perhaps to the row of reporters sitting behind her, yelled, "I can't take this shit anymore. I'm trying, but I can't. What is this team? What are they?"

Some interesting thoughts, but a lot of well-trod material that even a non-Mets intensive reader would have heard to near death by now.

[Edgy MD]

Harvey is handsome?

He's awesome, and of course, that lends a certain perfume of attraction to an otherwise unimpressive grill, but he's no Anthony Recker. <>

[G-Fafif]

Recker is terribly good-looking, isn't he? Assuming he doesn't play out of Collins's jealousy over his less trashy Johnny Damon vibe.