Benjamin Grimm

Yes, I'm very fortunate!

="DocTee":1jzhd02a]Whish side will you display? Or will it hang suspended, to crash in the wind and drive your neighbors crazy? (Mebbe you can lend it to Soupy during a Nor'easter for an outdoor noisemaker)[/quote:1jzhd02a] We're going to hang it above the stairs so that both sides can be seen. From the upstairs hallway you'll see a sign directing you down to Gate B. And from below, you'll be able to look up and see the "Loge Level." DocTee Nov 25 2008 08:13 AM Cool. We could never do that here in Earthquake country, lest it be turned into a guillotine. G-Fafif Nov 25 2008 10:05 AM Beautiful signage. May you and yours enjoy it. themetfairy Nov 25 2008 10:10 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":154pd8q2]="DocTee":154pd8q2]Whish side will you display? Or will it hang suspended, to crash in the wind and drive your neighbors crazy? (Mebbe you can lend it to Soupy during a Nor'easter for an outdoor noisemaker)[/quote:154pd8q2] We're going to hang it above the stairs so that both sides can be seen. From the upstairs hallway you'll see a sign directing you down to Gate B. And from below, you'll be able to look up and see the "Loge Level."[/quote:154pd8q2] Very cool soupcan Nov 25 2008 12:02 PM Your wife is actually going to allow you to hang that inside the house? Wow. She's a keeper. Benjamin Grimm Nov 25 2008 12:06 PM Yes, I'm very fortunate! Benjamin Grimm Nov 25 2008 03:08 PM My boss just sent me a photo that he found online of my Shea Stadium sign in its original location. I can't seem to upload it at the moment, but once I do I'll share it here. It's a great photo that really shows a lot of the interior of Shea. Benjamin Grimm Nov 25 2008 03:34 PM And here it is:

My guess is that it has something to do with the positioning of the sign. R for Ramp. B for Gate B. And 4 as a sequential number. Maybe it was the fourth sign along the ramp leading to Gate B.

The sign (it's just one; I'm showing both sides of it) is 64 inches. I'm 70 inches. (That's 5'10")

Here are the photos. People tell me I look like Tim Allen's neighbor on Home Improvement.

I haven't seen either of these movies in about twenty years, but I remember liking both of them. I remember liking Bull Durham more.

Well, I made my Saturday trip to the MeiGray warehouse in Bridgewater, NJ and retrieved my Shea Stadium ramp sign. The warehouse is near exit 13 of I-287. When I got there my sign was ready for me but I did get a chance to see the inside of the warehouse. It was like a Museum of Shea, except that the exhibits were stacked on metal shelves. I saw one of the Mr. Met "Thanks for being part of the Shea Stadium experience" signs that I coveted but didn't want to spend $1500 for. I also saw some scattered SNY signs and the sign that hung over the Dugout Shop. There were also a lot of the V-shaped signs (I never thought of them as V-shaped until I saw them on the floor of the warehouse) that had hung over the tunnels leading from the interior of the stadium out to the seats. You know what I mean, the signs that would tell you what section the tunnels would lead to. I don't recall having seen those on the price list so I don't know what they were selling for. The one nearest where I was standing was for Mezzanine Section 19. Anyway, my sign is 23 inches tall by 64 inches wide and weighs 32 pounds. It doesn't explicitly say "Shea Stadium" on it anywhere, but for anyone who knows Shea it couldn't be from anywhere else. The part that says "Loge Level" is color-coded blue. It has a picture of the neon catcher from the outside of Shea and says "Gate B" and "Third Base" on each side. The sign is in pretty good condition. There are a couple of scratches on it and some paint drips. The paint is kind of a putty color. My guess is they were painting the wall or ceiling or ramp above where the sign was hanging and some paint dripped down. The sign also has a tiny little hologram sticker on it that has a unique code number. Apparently if I ever decide to sell the sign, the buyer could key in the number on MLB's web site and verify its authenticity. I think they're doing this with most collectibles these days, but other than yearbooks and stuff like that, I don't have much of a memorabilia collection. In fact, this sign is my total collection. I also have a little folder with a certificate of authenticity. I haven't photographed the sign yet, but once I do I'll post the pictures here. We're going to eventually hang it above our front staircase, but we'll have to figure out the best way to do that. For now it's leaning against a wall in our downstairs. I know there are some here who have a principaled objection to buying these pieces of Shea, but not me. I look at that sign and I love it. I just plain love it and I'm so glad I have it. It's truly unique. It could only have hung in a specific part of Shea Stadium. I wish I had known I was getting it when I was last at Shea in September. I would have gone to visit it with my kids, and we could have looked up at it in its original location and pictured it one day in our home. My daughter has already told me that she wants to get the sign after I die. I told her to marry a Mets fan so that her future husband can appreciate it too, and she said she'd try, but that she wouldn't marry a Yankee or Phillie fan. And that she'll move to New York if she has to do that to find a Mets fan.

I find it a little odd to be lusting after someone when all you know is the shape of her nose.

Treasury Department Field.

I suspect that the Citi name will remain, and that's okay. It's better than a lot of other corporate names would have been. (We can just pretend that it's "City Field" which has a nice 19th Century sound to it.) But I also wouldn't mind if the place somehow ended up with a non-corporate name for just the 2009 season until a new sponsor was found. That would give us a real name for the park, one that we could continue to use for years to come. I don't want the name of the place to change every few years as one bank takes over another and then we don't know what to call it. Maybe we should just think of it as "Ebbets Field II"

I don't see any signs of excitement in this thread either. But it IS always fun to be needlessly patronized.

I'm not sure that Furcal is the guy I want, but it's at least encouraging (if true) that they Mets are looking for alternatives to Castillo. I'd be more pleased if this information was coming from a guy named Hudson instead of a guy named Furcal.

I can only think of one stadium that was ever named, albeit briefly, for a broadcaster. None that were named for players. One that was named for a manager, but he was a manager/owner. Before corporate naming, ballparks were named for the teams that played in them, or for their owners, or for the city, or for the neighborhood in which the ballpark was built.

I'm really not inclined to name it after anyone. I'd prefer a name like Flushing Meadows Field.

="metirish":18ja53nr]Ashburn Alley[/quote:18ja53nr] Yeah, let's name our ballpark after a Phillie legend. themetfairy Nov 21 2008 01:56 PM Hi Ashie - Welcome A-Bordick! Centerfield Nov 21 2008 02:00 PM Let's pass the hat and make a bid for Crane Pool Stadium. dgwphotography Nov 21 2008 08:17 PM ] -Jackie Robinson Park If we're going to name it after a former Dodger, I say Gil Hodges Field. Nymr83 Nov 22 2008 02:25 AM how bout stop naming things and doing things for a team that skipped town 50 years ago, the Mets have their own history should they choose to honor someone/something Benjamin Grimm Nov 22 2008 05:11 AM I'm really not inclined to name it after anyone. I'd prefer a name like Flushing Meadows Field. DocTee Nov 22 2008 07:25 AM ]I'd prefer a name like Flushing Meadows Field. Are you crazy??? Flushing MF? I can hear it now...jokes about shitty play, crappy facilities..it will never stop. SteveJRogers Nov 22 2008 08:43 AM ="Nymr83":209i7anv]how bout stop naming things and doing things for a team that skipped town 50 years ago, the Mets have their own history should they choose to honor someone/something[/quote:209i7anv]\ Wait, I got it, and it is a corporate one, "GTS Vineyards Stadium!" THAT would be cool actually! Edgy DC Nov 22 2008 01:21 PM I don't know why this keeps coming up, but naming something for Gil Hodges or Jackie Robinson isn't naming something "for a team that skipped town 50 years ago." SteveJRogers Nov 22 2008 01:46 PM To be fair, Robinson does have the whole argument of "Why are we honoring a man who was never even ASSOCIATED with the Met franchise" and while yes Hodges is a huge part of Met history to some it would reek of Wilpon loving the Dodgers and their history more than he loves the team he owns and its history. It would be that way, sorry Greg, if the Mets did something to honor Willie Mays or any New York Giant as well. Ashie62 Nov 22 2008 02:18 PM ="Edgy DC":3n3ku55k]I don't know why this keeps coming up, but naming something for Gil Hodges or Jackie Robinson isn't naming something "for a team that skipped town 50 years ago."[/quote:3n3ku55k] I would agree. We are the New York Mets with our own unique Heritage..I don't see that either Jackie Robinson, Gil Hodges, or Carl Furillo for example...have enough or place in NY Mets 1962-present Heritage to have a stadium named for them. Yes..Hodges played abit and managed but he is largly remebered as a Brooklyn Dodger. It seems like Citifield is a Brooklyn Dodger sandwich being shoved down Met pants. hey, I'd go for Ed Kranepool Stadium before any of the above names. Benjamin Grimm Nov 22 2008 02:20 PM I can only think of one stadium that was ever named, albeit briefly, for a broadcaster. None that were named for players. One that was named for a manager, but he was a manager/owner. Before corporate naming, ballparks were named for the teams that played in them, or for their owners, or for the city, or for the neighborhood in which the ballpark was built. Kong76 Nov 22 2008 02:31 PM Wow, Ashie's been posting here since 1969! Welcome to the pool. Nymr83 Nov 22 2008 02:32 PM ="KC":3b0t2n16]Wow, Ashie's been posting here since 1969! [/quote:3b0t2n16] According to Joe Biden, the internet existed then. RealityChuck Nov 22 2008 03:25 PM Stengel Stadium. Yes, he was known for the MFY, but also managed in Brooklyn. And he was instrumental in making the team a success in 1962 (it certainly wasn't the players on the field) by the way he charmed the press and the fans. Other options: Chan Ho Park Sell the naming rights to Field Enterprises and call it Field Field. Prince Fielder has a lot of money. Why not Fielder Field? Edgy DC Nov 22 2008 04:45 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 23 2008 10:27 AM The idea of naming something in honor of Hodges or Robinson --- neither of which is going to happen --- is not to advance the Mets brand or the Dodgers brand, but to honor somebody worthy of honor. Kong76 Nov 22 2008 05:36 PM The whole Brooklyn Fred thing got old like six years ago. Met Hunter Nov 22 2008 10:18 PM Banco Popular Stadium. Zvon Nov 23 2008 05:27 AM Metropolitan Park Edgy DC Nov 23 2008 06:28 AM ="Met Hunter":3jxqxslt]Banco Popular Stadium.[/quote:3jxqxslt] Estadio Popular. MFS62 Nov 23 2008 08:10 AM ="DocTee"]Are you crazy??? Flushing MF? I can hear it now...jokes about shitty play, crappy facilities..it will never stop. HEY! I resemble that remark! Later soupcan Nov 23 2008 11:12 AM ="Ashie62":268xwysm] It seems like Citifield is a Brooklyn Dodger sandwich being shoved down Met pants.[/quote:268xwysm] Oooh! A sandwich shoved into my pants! metirish Nov 23 2008 04:42 PM Just watched a report on NBC Evening News that Citi are right now in talks with the Government to"save the bank ", that's the term the financial expert used . Valadius Nov 23 2008 07:49 PM I would hope that one of their first moves is to terminate their naming rights agreement to save capital. Edgy DC Nov 23 2008 08:49 PM By all accounts, they don't intend to do that. Valadius Nov 23 2008 09:29 PM Well, if I were in Congress, and I were negotiating a bailout deal with Citigroup, that would be the first condition I would make them agree to. Ashie62 Nov 23 2008 10:16 PM It appears Citigroup will belong to the taxpayers before the open tomorrow. I don't think the Treasury would allow funding of naming rights. Those Citi signs kinda looked like Dominos logos anyway. Enron Park became Minute Maid park..Life will go on I only hope Wilpons Real Estate Empire isn't in the tank Only the Mets could be unlucky enough to have the U.S. Treasury cut payroll to pay back naming rights money..Thats a joke..I hope Nymr83 Nov 23 2008 10:37 PM you don't know that the government will force them to try and cancel any naming deals (can they even get out of the contract sahort of filing for bankruptcy? i dont know.) its entirely possible that the naming deal constitutes a bargain as far as advertising goes. Edgy DC Nov 23 2008 10:48 PM ="Valadius":2zpn40f1]Well, if I were in Congress, and I were negotiating a bailout deal with Citigroup, that would be the first condition I would make them agree to.[/quote:2zpn40f1] Should they zero out their marketing budget entirely? Nymr83 Nov 24 2008 12:21 AM thats pretty much the point i was trying to make, naming a stadium after your company isn't the same as the Executive Yacht, its advertising just like any other. Whether or not it is sound advertising strategy I'm no expert. seawolf17 Nov 24 2008 07:22 AM I'd bet that at least some chunk of that money is already spent, so I don't know that it matters. Either way, I'd guess the name stays. SteveJRogers Nov 24 2008 09:29 AM Should they also cancel out the deal with the Ducks and CitiBank Park out on Long Island and other buildings that the name is on. Which also includes a retail center in mid-town. Benjamin Grimm Nov 24 2008 09:41 AM I suspect that the Citi name will remain, and that's okay. It's better than a lot of other corporate names would have been. (We can just pretend that it's "City Field" which has a nice 19th Century sound to it.) But I also wouldn't mind if the place somehow ended up with a non-corporate name for just the 2009 season until a new sponsor was found. That would give us a real name for the park, one that we could continue to use for years to come. I don't want the name of the place to change every few years as one bank takes over another and then we don't know what to call it. Maybe we should just think of it as "Ebbets Field II" Edgy DC Nov 24 2008 09:45 AM It would take a bank the size of --- well, the US government --- to take over Citi. Benjamin Grimm Nov 24 2008 09:50 AM Treasury Department Field. metirish Nov 24 2008 09:57 AM This article is in Newsday today. ] Citigroup sheds workers, keeps Mets deal Anthony Rieber 10:32 AM EST, November 24, 2008 You might have missed the news because it came on Friday, but Citigroup announced it was not planning to back out of the naming rights deal for the Mets' new stadium, Citi Field. That's the 20-year, $400-million naming rights deal. From a company that: -- Earlier in the week announced it was going to let go of 52,000 workers by early next year. Anthony Rieber Anthony Rieber Bio | E-mail | Recent columns Related links * Citi Field construction Citi Field construction Photos * Free agency forecast What do you expect from the Mets when free agency begins? A huge splash and a big name closer (K-Rod?) They'll make a trade and maybe one or two bullpen signings They'll make some additions to the bullpen, but not much else They'll try to go with cheap options and hope for the best -- Saw its shares on the stock market lose more than half their value. -- May have to sell parts of the company or merge with another company. -- May require a massive government bailout to stay in business. But that $20 million per year check to the Mets to keep the Citi Field sign up (yes, it's already up)? That check is in the mail, don't worry. And the Mets can count on $20 million more just like it each of the next 19 years. Uh-huh. We've heard that one before. Heck, some of us have probably said it. Sure, we can afford that new sofa. The big flat-screen. The i-Phone. Don't worry ... we're a little cash-poor now, but we're good for it. Let's hope the Mets aren't banking their winter free-agent plans on getting that $20 million from Citigroup, or whatever the company will be called by April 13, when the new ballpark opens. Francisco Rodriguez or Brian Fuentes or whoever else the Mets have on their shopping list expect to be paid in cash, not IOUs. I'd say the Mets should be sweating the arrival of that money, but the Mets have to be smart enough to know the naming rights deal is never going to survive the full 20 years, or maybe the next 20 minutes. Here's what the Citigroup spokesman told Reuters on Friday: "We remain committed to our relationship with the Mets. It's an important marketing priority for us." Well, by all means, don't scrimp on that marketing budget. I mean, 52,000 people are going to get pink-slipped between now and Opening Day -- want to bet that spokesman has updated his own resume in the last week or so? -- but Citigroup remains committed to giving the Mets nearly a half a billion dollars to see its name in lights on a baseball stadium. Seriously, with decisions like that, it's not hard to see why Citigroup is in such trouble. You have to wonder if the whole naming-rights thing is just an ego trip for the company executives. Are you more likely to put your money in a Citibank account because your Mets' tickets say "Citi Field" on them? (Actually, that's a trick question. In the current economy, you don't have any money to put in the bank, and you can't afford tickets to Citi Field.) Or maybe naming rights deals really are good business. Maybe Citi Field will become a shining beacon of sports/business synergy, just like Enron Field and Bank One Ballpark and Pacific Bell Park and SBC Park and Ameriquest Field and Edison International Field and Network Associates Coliseum and McAfee Coliseum. All of those are past names of current baseball stadiums. Some have been renamed more than once. The naming rights deals either changed hands when the parent companies were sold or merged, or the deals were not renewed for one reason or another, or the deal went belly-up when the company when kaput and took all of its employees with it. That one was Enron Field in Houston, now Minute Maid Park. Good thing people still drink orange juice. We're not saying Citigroup is going to go the way of Enron, but wouldn't that $400 million help even a little? Maybe the Citigroup spokesman and some of the 52,000 can keep their jobs? And do the Mets really need that $20 million? Maybe they'd make better decisions if they had less money to spend. They spent $19.9 million in 2008 on this: Moises Alou ($7.5 million), Luis Castillo ($6.2 million), Scott Schoenweis ($3.6 million), Aaron Heilman ($1.2 million), Marlon Anderson ($1 million) and Ambiorix Burgos ($400,000). The Yankees, who have turned their new stadium into an ATM even more than the Mets have, did not sell naming rights. It will be called Yankee Stadium. Good for them. Which got us to thinking ... sure, the Mets can probably get another company to pony up the dough if Citigroup backs out. Maybe by Opening Day they'll be playing in Taco Bell Field or Staples Stadium or Enzo's Pizza Park. We've got the perfect name for the new ballpark, though. One that won't cost a dime and won't have to be changed with every hiccup in the corporate world. Shea Stadium. G-Fafif Nov 24 2008 10:06 AM ="metirish"]This article is in Newsday today. ] Citigroup sheds workers, keeps Mets deal Anthony Rieber 10:32 AM EST, November 24, 2008 You might have missed the news because it came on Friday, but Citigroup announced it was not planning to back out of the naming rights deal for the Mets' new stadium, Citi Field. That's the 20-year, $400-million naming rights deal. From a company that: -- Earlier in the week announced it was going to let go of 52,000 workers by early next year. Anthony Rieber Anthony Rieber Bio | E-mail | Recent columns Related links * Citi Field construction Citi Field construction Photos * Free agency forecast What do you expect from the Mets when free agency begins? A huge splash and a big name closer (K-Rod?) They'll make a trade and maybe one or two bullpen signings They'll make some additions to the bullpen, but not much else They'll try to go with cheap options and hope for the best -- Saw its shares on the stock market lose more than half their value. -- May have to sell parts of the company or merge with another company. -- May require a massive government bailout to stay in business. But that $20 million per year check to the Mets to keep the Citi Field sign up (yes, it's already up)? That check is in the mail, don't worry. And the Mets can count on $20 million more just like it each of the next 19 years. Uh-huh. We've heard that one before. Heck, some of us have probably said it. Sure, we can afford that new sofa. The big flat-screen. The i-Phone. Don't worry ... we're a little cash-poor now, but we're good for it. Let's hope the Mets aren't banking their winter free-agent plans on getting that $20 million from Citigroup, or whatever the company will be called by April 13, when the new ballpark opens. Francisco Rodriguez or Brian Fuentes or whoever else the Mets have on their shopping list expect to be paid in cash, not IOUs. I'd say the Mets should be sweating the arrival of that money, but the Mets have to be smart enough to know the naming rights deal is never going to survive the full 20 years, or maybe the next 20 minutes. Here's what the Citigroup spokesman told Reuters on Friday: "We remain committed to our relationship with the Mets. It's an important marketing priority for us." Well, by all means, don't scrimp on that marketing budget. I mean, 52,000 people are going to get pink-slipped between now and Opening Day -- want to bet that spokesman has updated his own resume in the last week or so? -- but Citigroup remains committed to giving the Mets nearly a half a billion dollars to see its name in lights on a baseball stadium. Seriously, with decisions like that, it's not hard to see why Citigroup is in such trouble. You have to wonder if the whole naming-rights thing is just an ego trip for the company executives. Are you more likely to put your money in a Citibank account because your Mets' tickets say "Citi Field" on them? (Actually, that's a trick question. In the current economy, you don't have any money to put in the bank, and you can't afford tickets to Citi Field.) Or maybe naming rights deals really are good business. Maybe Citi Field will become a shining beacon of sports/business synergy, just like Enron Field and Bank One Ballpark and Pacific Bell Park and SBC Park and Ameriquest Field and Edison International Field and Network Associates Coliseum and McAfee Coliseum. All of those are past names of current baseball stadiums. Some have been renamed more than once. The naming rights deals either changed hands when the parent companies were sold or merged, or the deals were not renewed for one reason or another, or the deal went belly-up when the company when kaput and took all of its employees with it. That one was Enron Field in Houston, now Minute Maid Park. Good thing people still drink orange juice. We're not saying Citigroup is going to go the way of Enron, but wouldn't that $400 million help even a little? Maybe the Citigroup spokesman and some of the 52,000 can keep their jobs? And do the Mets really need that $20 million? Maybe they'd make better decisions if they had less money to spend. They spent $19.9 million in 2008 on this: Moises Alou ($7.5 million), Luis Castillo ($6.2 million), Scott Schoenweis ($3.6 million), Aaron Heilman ($1.2 million), Marlon Anderson ($1 million) and Ambiorix Burgos ($400,000). The Yankees, who have turned their new stadium into an ATM even more than the Mets have, did not sell naming rights. It will be called Yankee Stadium. Good for them. Which got us to thinking ... sure, the Mets can probably get another company to pony up the dough if Citigroup backs out. Maybe by Opening Day they'll be playing in Taco Bell Field or Staples Stadium or Enzo's Pizza Park. We've got the perfect name for the new ballpark, though. One that won't cost a dime and won't have to be changed with every hiccup in the corporate world. Shea Stadium. Sports columnist equivalent of a weak-hitting utilityman snarks it up way out of his pay grade. Maybe they should rename the park after Anthony Rieber and the entire pathetic Newsday sports department. Call it The Tool Shed. Edgy DC Nov 24 2008 10:37 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 24 2008 11:52 AM That's not an article. It's an editorial. And, as you see, way out of his league. G-Fafif Nov 24 2008 11:49 AM You can make a reasoned, insightful, informative case for avoiding naming rights entanglements or at least entering them with great care. You can analyze such situations in light of recent events and strive for a fresh take on a well-worn topic. At best, you can introduce some ideas that might morph into solutions for all involved. Or you can be Anthony Rieber of Newsday and write your column while brushing your teeth. ]You might have missed the news because it came on Friday, but Citigroup announced it was not planning to back out of the naming rights deal for the Mets' new stadium, Citi Field. Watch out, reader. Anthony Rieber is about to inform you. ]That's the 20-year, $400-million naming rights deal. Lot of numbers. Must be more than the columnist can comprehend. ]From a company that: -- Earlier in the week announced it was going to let go of 52,000 workers by early next year. -- Saw its shares on the stock market lose more than half their value. -- May have to sell parts of the company or merge with another company. -- May require a massive government bailout to stay in business. Anybody wanna bet Anthony Rieber never read a financial story before whichever one he cribbed from so he could take a whack at the principals in this one? ]But that $20 million per year check to the Mets to keep the Citi Field sign up (yes, it's already up)? That check is in the mail, don't worry. And the Mets can count on $20 million more just like it each of the next 19 years. Ha! "It's already up." What a card. It's been up since August, as hundreds of thousands if not millions have seen for themselves. And there is a contract. It might very well have provisions for this sort of calamity. Or it might not. You could ask around. Or you could go for an easy laugh (and fail). ]Uh-huh. We've heard that one before. Heck, some of us have probably said it. Sure, we can afford that new sofa. The big flat-screen. The i-Phone. Don't worry ... we're a little cash-poor now, but we're good for it. This recession is hilarious. Companies are just like us. Equivalency is a graspable concept. ]Let's hope the Mets aren't banking their winter free-agent plans on getting that $20 million from Citigroup, or whatever the company will be called by April 13, when the new ballpark opens. They probably aren't. If I recall correctly, the $20 million per annum was framed as helping to pay down the debt on the ballpark. Again, a reporter might dig into the archives or ask somebody familiar with these sorts of deals if, in fact, neither the Mets nor Citigroup (which has higher priorities today, I'm guessin) is talking. ]Francisco Rodriguez or Brian Fuentes or whoever else the Mets have on their shopping list expect to be paid in cash, not IOUs. I'd say the Mets should be sweating the arrival of that money, but the Mets have to be smart enough to know the naming rights deal is never going to survive the full 20 years, or maybe the next 20 minutes. Lord knows the Mets have no source of income with which to meet payroll except for that naming rights fee. Was Johan Santana paid throughout 2008 with "IOUs"? And Mets: listen to Rieber. He's been giving this thought since his editor sent him an e-mail last night telling him to whip something up ASAP. ]Here's what the Citigroup spokesman told Reuters on Friday: "We remain committed to our relationship with the Mets. It's an important marketing priority for us." A bland, cautious statement in uncertain times hewing to a signed contract. Rieber probably presents this as a fair counterbalance to his sarcasm. ]Well, by all means, don't scrimp on that marketing budget. I mean, 52,000 people are going to get pink-slipped between now and Opening Day -- want to bet that spokesman has updated his own resume in the last week or so? -- but Citigroup remains committed to giving the Mets nearly a half a billion dollars to see its name in lights on a baseball stadium. Whoa, don't know how I misread the writer's intention. Maybe that spokesman should have issued a release alluding to the risky nature of the deal he was commenting on and come out against it, whatever his employer's instructions. As for "nearly half a billion dollars," that's a lot of money. Therefore, it must be outlandish and outrageous that Citi, two years ago, planned a long-term marketing budget. What do you want from these Johnny-come-lately high-tech startups anyway? Obviously the same person who came up with sponsoring Citi Field is the same person who screwed everything else up. ]Seriously, with decisions like that, it's not hard to see why Citigroup is in such trouble. You have to wonder if the whole naming-rights thing is just an ego trip for the company executives. Are you more likely to put your money in a Citibank account because your Mets' tickets say "Citi Field" on them? Attention reader: Anthony Rieber is being serious. And philosophical, since "you have to wonder" about the ego trip angle. Yes, that was probably it. There aren't enough places in the New York area where the Citi logo was plastered. By the way, was I more likely to read Newsday because they hired Gary Carter as their pitchman in the mid-'80s? Has Anthony Rieber ever done any actual investigation into how marketing plans are hatched, what's their upside, why so many companies go for naming rights? Since Citi didn't invent the concept last week, it might have served him well to have, again, asked somebody who had. ](Actually, that's a trick question. In the current economy, you don't have any money to put in the bank, and you can't afford tickets to Citi Field.) He's irrepressible! "You" are screwed. Anthony Rieber is on Your side. ]Or maybe naming rights deals really are good business. Maybe Citi Field will become a shining beacon of sports/business synergy, just like Enron Field and Bank One Ballpark and Pacific Bell Park and SBC Park and Ameriquest Field and Edison International Field and Network Associates Coliseum and McAfee Coliseum. Hey, did you guys know that sometimes these things DON'T work out? That companies change names and therefore the stadiums do, too? Rieber's got an exclusive. Doesn't mention that PNC Park, Citizens Bank Park, Great American Ball Park, Raymond James Stadium have remained intact for five or more years, nor bothered to find out if those sponsors are getting their money's worth, if the teams feel they are well served, if it's really made a difference, if it's likely that eventually they too will change their names. But I didn't know that about Enron. AR: Looking out for YOU. ]All of those are past names of current baseball stadiums. Some have been renamed more than once. Thanks for clearing that up, big guy. ]The naming rights deals either changed hands when the parent companies were sold or merged, or the deals were not renewed for one reason or another, or the deal went belly-up when the company when kaput and took all of its employees with it. And certainly every one of those companies experienced the same circumstances and Citi, in 2006, loomed as exactly that sort of textbook case study. ]That one was Enron Field in Houston, now Minute Maid Park. Good thing people still drink orange juice. Ho-ho! If Minute Maid has a product recall tomorrow, Anthony Rieber will have OJ on his face! And did you hear that the Enron alliance backfired on the Astros? ]We're not saying Citigroup is going to go the way of Enron, but wouldn't that $400 million help even a little? Maybe the Citigroup spokesman and some of the 52,000 can keep their jobs? What you mean "we," sports man? No doubt 52,000 jobs could be saved a lot of ways. Nobody wouldn't prefer every one of those people stay employed over the Mets' ballpark having the name Citi Field. Please explain how money committed against a baseball stadium in 2017 would automatically be dedicated to those jobs. Better yet, have somebody attempt to explain it. ]And do the Mets really need that $20 million? Maybe they'd make better decisions if they had less money to spend. They spent $19.9 million in 2008 on this: Moises Alou ($7.5 million), Luis Castillo ($6.2 million), Scott Schoenweis ($3.6 million), Aaron Heilman ($1.2 million), Marlon Anderson ($1 million) and Ambiorix Burgos ($400,000). Ha! The Mets are dolts! They pay bad and unproductive players lots of money! They are the only team in the majors to do that, FYI. Rieber prefers teams pay money to good players only. Somebody pass it on to Omar Minaya. ]The Yankees, who have turned their new stadium into an ATM even more than the Mets have, did not sell naming rights. It will be called Yankee Stadium. Good for them. New Yankee Stadium opens in 2009. Citi Field (or whatever it's called) opens in 2009. Yankee Stadium is more successful. Their fans will afford those pricey tickets. "You," as previously explained by Prof. Rieber, won't be able to deposit money in the bank or buy Mets tickets. Good for the Yankees! They do everything right, the Mets do everything wrong. ]Which got us to thinking ... sure, the Mets can probably get another company to pony up the dough if Citigroup backs out. Maybe by Opening Day they'll be playing in Taco Bell Field or Staples Stadium or Enzo's Pizza Park. After all this, something got Rieber & Co. ("us") to thinking? Watch out, reader! His thought is the Mets could be playing in a ballpark not named for Citi Field...that they'll be playing in one with preposterous names (though he might have ramped up from Staples to Taco Bell to Enzo's Pizza for maximum effect). Bet you didn't know Rieber had that trick up his sleeve. ]We've got the perfect name for the new ballpark, though. One that won't cost a dime and won't have to be changed with every hiccup in the corporate world. The Mets can't be trusted with $20 million anyhows, so we'll want something that "won't cost a dime," whoever's dime that might be. Rieber has a fresh solution, I can feel it. Wait, let me guess... ]Shea Stadium. Did NOT see that coming! Rieber you genius, it's steak and Lowenbrau for you. metirish Nov 24 2008 11:53 AM That's some funny stuff right there G-Fafif Edgy DC Nov 24 2008 12:00 PM Hit send NOW!!!! G-Fafif Nov 24 2008 03:40 PM ABC News story finds financial institutions with their names on stadiums see no conflict between their sports marketing investments and whatever they're getting from me and you and an uncle named Sam. ]Citi, AIG Won't Drop Big Sports Sponsorships Critics Slam Bailed-Out Firms' Pricey Deals for Naming Rights, Logo Placement By JUSTIN ROOD November 24, 2008� AIG, Citibank and a number of other federally bailed-out financial institutions have no plans to cancel hundreds of millions of dollars in sports team sponsorships, even as they take billions in taxpayer support, ABC News has found. In boom times, the sponsorships were seen as a way to advertise the firms' "brands" and appeal to potential customers. Even today, at least one bank told ABC News that a naming deal was increasing its revenue. But critics, including a member of Congress, say the decision to continue them now is hard to defend. Struggling Citibank just sealed a multi-billion-dollar emergency "backstop" deal with the U.S. government. The financial behemoth, suffering with billions in bad mortgage-related assets on its books, recently shed 53,000 workers and saw its stock price lose over half its value. Yet it's in a 20-year contract to pay the New York Mets $400 million to name the team's new stadium "Citi Field." "This type of spending is indefensible and unacceptable to Citigroup's new partner and largest investor: the American taxpayer," said Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., in a statement Monday. Citi isn't alone: Imploding insurance giant AIG is paying the British soccer team Manchester United $125 million for the privilege of having its logo appear on Man U's uniforms. That, despite the fact the firm is standing largely thanks to a $150 billion lifeline from the U.S. Treasury. "A friend of mine joked they should put 'US Treasury' on the front of their uniforms," said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington, D.C.-based nonpartisan watchdog group which is outraged by the expenditures. In boom times it was fine for AIG, Citi and others to spend millions on naming rights and other promotional arrangements with professional sports teams, critics say even if they're a waste of money, as some marketing experts believe. But when the economy teeters on the brink of collapse and firms are using American taxpayers' money to keep lending or just keep their doors open those critics are making a stink about the expensive deals. "Up until now they were businesses who could invest or waste their money as they see fit," said Taxpayers for Common Sense's Ellis. "But now we're the shareholders. And frittering their money away with naming rights and ties to sports teams isn't a really good investment of taxpayers' money -- particularly when credit markets are collapsed." AIG Responds to Manchester United Deal A spokesman for AIG confirmed that its sponsorship deal with Manchester United remains in place, but that the company is "reviewing all sponsorships to identify any relationship that might be essential, to maintain the value of the business and service customers, so we can repay the [government] loan." Citicorp is not reviewing its deal with the Mets, chief financial officer Gary Crittenden said in an interview Monday. Crittenden told CNBC the contract was "legal and binding" and "not an issue." Last week, a bank spokesman defended the arrangement, saying that "there is absolutely no relationship between our sports marketing expenses, including Citi Field," and the government funds it had already received. That's not enough for Rep. Cummings. "I strongly urge Citigroup to find a way out of this contract and instead spend that $400 million on retaining its employees and restoring confidence in its operations," he said. AIG and Citibank are just two examples TCS cites of institutions who are taking federal money with one hand, and paying hefty sums to sports sponsorships and naming deals with the other. Many are banks which are not perceived as financially faltering, who have taken money from the Treasury's Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) to boost their anemic lending. Bank of America (TARP take: $25 billion) is reportedly poised to ink a $20 million-a-year sponsorship with the New York Yankees a team that is hardly hurting for cash. They are already in a reported 20-year, $140 million deal with the Carolina Panthers football team to call the team's arena "Bank of America Stadium." Bank of America spokesman Joseph Goode said his bank's deal with the Panthers is making the bank money. "Any investments we make in sponsorship marketing are directly linked to driving revenue growth for the bank," he said, noting the deal also allowed Bank of America to market debit cards with the Panthers logo. He would not comment on the reported pending deal with the Yankees. Even before the crisis, some marketers believed the naming and sponsor deals were idiotic. "It's pretty clear that it's a complete and utter waste of money, ego-driven," said Seth Godin, a marketing guru and bestselling author. Other Firms Take Public Support, Keep Sponsorship Deals It's time for banks to re-evaluate these deals, says Ellis. U.S. taxpayers ponied up billions to these to lend because they wouldn't do it with their own money, said Ellis. But now, "Just as Americans all over the country are having to decide, 'what am I going to do without?' companies are going to have to make those decisions," he said. "At the end of the day, they've got to look at the taxpayers and say, 'Yeah, we'll take your money and spend some of our assets on [naming] a stadium, or a college bowl,'" said Ellis. "That's a hard sell to the public, obviously." Who else is taking public support while holding pricey naming deals? It's not a short list. Among the biggest: PNC Bank ($7.7 billion in TARP funds pledged) is locked in a 20-year, $30 million deal to keep the home of the Pittsburgh Pirates named "PNC Park." A spokesman there said the bank did not use TARP funds to make payments on the deal. J.P. Morgan Chase ($25 billion from TARP) has a 30-year, $66 million contract for the Arizona Diamondbacks to call their stadium "Chase Field." "That was an agreement that was signed 11 years ago," by a bank that was bought by Chase, said bank spokesman Tom Kelley. "Tell me what 2008 has to do with 1997? That's a contractual obligation." Comerica ($2.3 billion in TARP funds pledged) has an identical deal with the Detroit Tigers to refer to their home field as "Comerica Park." Both expire in 2028. "From our perspective, they're not connected," said Comerica's Wayne Mielke of the stadium deal and the bank's anticipated receipt of bailout funds. "Why should it be reviewed?" The cost of the naming rights, said Mielke, "does not inhibit our ability to lend." Capital One famous for their tagline, "What's in your wallet?" and a recipient of $2.3 billion in TARP money are the proud and paying sponsor of the Capital One Bowl, formerly known as the Florida Citrus Bowl. The bank did not respond to requests for comment. Naming deals are "a big gamble," said Steve Hall, a marketing industry veteran who writes a popular advertising blog, AdRants.com. "My whole issue with the naming rights is, in a lot of cases it just sounds stupid. 'Staples Center'. . . It's sort of taken away the good old glory days of sports." That said, Hall noted that buying a stadium gets a company's name repeated an awful lot. "When a stadium gets named after a company, it gets mentioned millions of times," he said. Spend Money on Customer Service Not Naming Rights, Says Critic Instead of spending millions on naming rights, marketing guru Godin says, why not invest in something that will really improve the credibility and public opinion of banks: customer service. "Instead of spending $400 million to put your name on the side of a stadium, how about hiring enough people so that every time someone calls you on the phone it would be answered by someone who knew your name and was delighted to hear from you?" Despite the criticism from watchdogs like Taxpayers for Common Sense, given the current crisis Godin said banks would be right to follow through with these costly sponsorships. The economic collapse is being fueled by a lack of confidence in what tomorrow will bring, he said, and banks' changing their behavior would signal that fear is justified. "When banks walk around. . . wasting money on sports sponsorships," said Godin, "it sends a message of profligate spending and confidence." G-Fafif Nov 24 2008 03:45 PM Misleading headline aside, Star-Ledger story says the Mets are determined to get their money, whatever name it comes by. ]Citi Field name change a possibility, New York Mets say November 24, 2008 15:14 PM Citigroup is the latest financial institution in line for a federal buyout, but the Mets say their new stadium will still be named Citi Field, at least for the time being. According to an article on the Mets' web site: ]The naming-rights agreement between the Mets and Citi, said to be worth $400 million over 20 years, is not in jeopardy, the Mets say. But they understand a takeover is possible and that a name change probably would follow. As much as the club favors the current name -- it considers it far less corporate-sounding than most of the new names for stadiums and sports arenas, it is much more conscious of the revenue connected to it. And the deal is not an issue. G-Fafif Nov 24 2008 04:00 PM The Mets may have poor timing on the final days of seasons, but they hit their marks (and dollars) perfectly in November 2006, according to Darren Rovell of CNBC. ]The New York Mets theme song for the 2009 season is "We built this Citi." The question is whether the Citi will stand. Questions about whether the humungous 20-year, $400 million naming rights deal that the bank agreed to two years ago for the new Mets stadium would stand up, began when the global financial crisis started. Then the 53,000 jobs cut at Citi, the second largest single job cuts in terms of volume in history. And last night, the government injecting $20 billion into Citigroup. Sure, the $20 million a year is a drop in the bucket, but the important point to make here is that the folks at Citi are at least behaving as if the Mets made this contract so locked up, that they couldn't get out of it no matter what the financial situation was. "You know, those (naming rights) decisions were made in a different time and a different place and we have a legal and binding agreement around that and so I never heard it discussed," Citi's CFO Gary Crittenden told Erin Burnett on our "Squawk on the Street" this morning. "I don't think it's an issue." As far as the Mets are concerned, good for them. No other company, in this environment, would give them $20 million a year. I don't even think they could get $12 million at this point, to be frank. As far as Citi is concerned, it's definitely going to be uncomfortable. Whether it's rational or not, they're going to hear people asking how many employees they could have had back for that $20 million annual investment. The right question to ask, and I don't know the answer to this is, what's a better investment for the company, the people you could have working for those dollars or the naming rights to the stadium? Things of course get doubly uncomfortable now that it's taxpayer dollars on the line. No one expects that AIG sponsorship of Manchester United to stick now that the government is involved. Sure, the AIG bailout is much bigger, but that doesn't take away from the fact that a high profile sports sponsorship doesn't seem as necessary as it once did. Doesn't sound like the Mets and Citi will be walking hand-in-hand as partners, does it? More like, "just try and get our hands out of your pockets." Blogger Phil Wahba at Reuters seconds Rovell's "drop in the bucket" line -- $400 mil over 20 years in the face of a bailout worth $326 billion ($20 bil in capital injection, $306 bil in losses assumed) -- and attempts to "follow the money": ]The government gives funds to Citigroup, who is now better able to make an annual payment to the Mets. Sounds a bit like a new taxpayer subsidy for the Mets, who are already receiving government subsidies for building their stadium. Probably an oversimplification, no matter what it sounds a bit like. But yeah, kind of. G-Fafif Nov 24 2008 04:34 PM One more for your evening reading, from Newsweek, on the need to strike a balance between effective cost-cutting and symbolic cost-cutting. ]Citi Field is also a tough one. In 2006, Citi signed a $400 million, 20-year deal to name the Mets' new stadium after the company. It's hard to walk away from signed contracts. And if Citi manages to stick around for the next 20 years, this could turn out to be a very good deal. The company's name will be mentioned millions of times in a range of media - online, television, radio, newspapers - over the next two decades. Edgy DC Nov 25 2008 09:12 AM GM has cut ties to Tiger Woods, which strikes me as more symbolic than effective. On the other hand, with him re-habbing instead of winning tournaments, it may be a shrewd move. G-Fafif Nov 25 2008 10:11 AM Grandstanding Rep. Elijah Cummings is on top of the Met Zeitgeist more than he could possibly understand. ]One would think that the Mets would be open to finding a new sponsor, as well. Why would any team want its new stadium, the symbol of a new era of victories, to be named after and symbolized by a company claiming to be on the brink of collapse? A proposal on Huffington Post from Chris Weigant in response: ]And finally, there will be a brand-new federal tax on stadium naming rights. It will be at the rate of 100%. So if you pay $400 million to name the Mets' stadium after yourselves, then you now owe a further $400 million to the federal government. We'll even be reasonable about it, OK? The first four hundred million dollars you can write off as "advertising," just like in the past. But the $400 billion "naming tax" will come out of your profits, and is not deductible -- and is over and above what taxes you will pay on that profit. It's a separate tax, in other words. If this causes naming rights to become too expensive, then you know what? I bet nobody would mind if we went back to naming stadiums after soldiers, dead heroes, or veterans. They, it seems to me, have already "paid" for their naming rights. Edgy DC Nov 25 2008 10:43 AM ="Rep. Elijah Cummings":28a0e0uw]Why would any team want its new stadium, the symbol of a new era of victories, to be named after and symbolized by a company claiming to be on the brink of collapse?[/quote:28a0e0uw] Maybe if I think I can come up with a reason. Or two. Or 400 million. ="Chris Weigant":28a0e0uw]And finally, there will be a brand-new federal tax on stadium naming rights. It will be at the rate of 100%.[/quote:28a0e0uw] Snarking is like the new American past time. Willets Point Nov 25 2008 11:47 AM ="Edgy DC":2n3vvg1n]Snarking is like the new American past time.[/quote:2n3vvg1n] New? Edgy DC Nov 25 2008 12:10 PM Stark off, Mr. Snarky! Willets Point Nov 25 2008 02:21 PM ="Edgy DC":10l4j6wf]Stark off, Mr. Snarky![/quote:10l4j6wf] Didn't intend to be snarky. Just meant that I've seen evidence of great American snark dating back to colonial times. Nymr83 Nov 25 2008 02:28 PM i know people showed otherwise with those diagrams but it still looks like the foul line runs into the stands Edgy DC Nov 25 2008 02:31 PM ="Willets Point":337e67ef]="Edgy DC":337e67ef]Stark off, Mr. Snarky![/quote:337e67ef] Didn't intend to be snarky. Just meant that I've seen evidence of great American snark dating back to colonial times.[/quote:337e67ef] Would you say Abigail is being snarky? Benjamin Grimm Nov 25 2008 06:47 PM ="Associated Press":2cb2g6t7]NEW YORK - Two New York City Council members say that Citigroup should show its thanks for a federal bailout by sharing the naming rights to the new Mets ballpark in Queens. The struggling bank is slated to pay $400 million over the next 20 years to name the stadium Citi Field. The bank made the commitment years ago, when it was flush with cash. Now that Citigroup is getting billions of dollars in federal aid, Staten Island Republicans Vincent Ignizio and James Oddo say the ballpark�s name should be changed to Citi/Taxpayer Field. Citigroup and Mets chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon have been saying that they have no plan to alter the naming-rights deal for the ballpark, which hosts its regular-season opener April 13. Wilpon and Citigroup spokesman Steve Silverman said they had no comment on the proposal.[/quote:2cb2g6t7] Edgy DC Nov 25 2008 07:55 PM I think Ignizio and Otto should change their names to former City Councilmembers. Nymr83 Nov 25 2008 07:59 PM I like the Taxpayer Field idea, not because of this Citi-bailout thing but because of all the money the City is contributing to these stadiums in the first place. Frayed Knot Nov 25 2008 09:51 PM ="Edgy DC":1zzwm5k9]GM has cut ties to Tiger Woods, which strikes me as more symbolic than effective. On the other hand, with him re-habbing instead of winning tournaments, it may be a shrewd move.[/quote:1zzwm5k9] A bit more than symbolic since GM (through their Buick division) not only had this arrangment with Tiger that they're not renewing when it runs out but they also atttach their name to several tournaments each year -- not coincidently those were tourneys that Tiger usually played. Be interesting to see if they also pull out of backing those tourneys seeing as how they're already less valuable if Tiger decides not to show. metirish Nov 26 2008 06:57 AM I was wondering when Wally would write his piece. ] Welcome to Bailout Ballpark Wallace Matthews November 26, 2008 So what will that new stadium in Flushing be called next year, anyway? How about John Q. Taxpayer Field? Or Joe Sixpack Park, in honor of all the people paying for it who have no chance of ever sitting in one of its 40,000 high-priced seats? Bailout Ballpark, anyone? The one thing it should not be called, under any circumstances, is Citi Field. As my colleague Anthony Rieber so ably pointed out earlier this week, while the rest of their toxic-mortgage laden house of cards comes tumbling down around them, executives of the disgraced Citigroup are sticking with their plan of paying the Mets $400 million over the next 20 years for the ego pop of seeing their name up in lights above the new ballpark. But the truth is, they're not paying for it at all. You are. That $20 million per year - which, by the way, the Mets don't seem all that eager to invest in the free-agent market despite another dismal late-season collapse - is coming out of your paycheck and mine, funneled through the federal government to the failed executives of Citigroup, and ultimately winds up in Fred Wilpon's pocket. This amounts to not only the worst kind of corporate welfare, with no punishments meted out and no strings attached, it also adds up to 20 years of free advertising for a bank with nothing to brag about but a vault full of fail. The Mets should be embarrassed to emblazon their new park with the name of an outfit whose players performed even worse than the team did last year. They should be ashamed of using your money to advertise their (worthless) services. If they had any ethics, they would cancel the deal now and start looking for a sponsor that can actually pay its own bills. But they don't, and they won't. This is just the latest chapter in two sorry histories, the first being that of the U.S. banking industry and the second being that of the New York Mets. For all the hand-wringing about the way the Yankees go about their business, it is really the Mets, the "little brothers" in town, who are the most fan-hostile organization in New York sports. All last season, they used scare tactics on their partial-plan holders - people who weren't part of some corrupt and tax-sheltered corporation, people who couldn't afford to shell out for 81 games but could scrape together enough to come 15 times a year, or 20, or every weekend. The Mets told those people, many of whom had been coming faithfully since Shea Stadium opened in 1964, that there would be no partial-plans at Citi Field, that only full season-ticket holders would be welcome in the new park. They compounded the insult by offering "season-ticket plans," along with the much-coveted priority status to buy tickets for 2009 at the new park, when there were fewer than 10 games to go in the season. Translation: If you had a 15 game partial plan, you were out, but if you bought a "full-season plan" for the last 10 games, you were in. Then, economic reality slapped them in the face. The Mets missed the playoffs again. The recession apparently put a dent in their grand all-season-ticket plan for Citi Field. Suddenly, last month, the Mets told their partial-plan holders that there would be room at the inn for them after all, although they have yet to specify how many games, in which seats, at what prices. What it has done, however, is allow them to hold on to all the money sent for playoff tickets that were never used, a sum that could be as much as $50 million. That's a $50-million, interest-free loan, courtesy of the National Bank of You. So why should an organization like that have any qualms about playing footsie with an outfit like Citigroup, which thinks the multimillion-dollar, interest-free, no strings attached loan from the working stiffs they, like the Mets, would rather not have in their building is a fine idea indeed. These two deserve one another, but they don't deserve to divvy up your money in order to publicly flaunt their unholy marriage. The Mets are getting their new stadium, all right, and it will have big light-up signs on three sides proclaiming its name for all to see. How about Field of Schemes? Next up Wally writes a piece about how Cablevision( now owns Newsday) has been getting a real sweet tax exemption to the tune of over $10 million a year on MSG. Benjamin Grimm Nov 26 2008 07:10 AM ="Wallace Matthews":cph97irz]The one thing it should not be called, under any circumstances, is Citi Field.[/quote:cph97irz] Under ANY circumstances? Wow. ="Wallace Matthews":cph97irz]That $20 million per year - which, by the way, the Mets don't seem all that eager to invest in the free-agent market despite another dismal late-season collapse...[/quote:cph97irz] How stupid is this comment? The free agent season only opened about a week ago. All that being said, the drumbeat against the Citi name is getting louder and louder. I'm still not at all certain that it will reach that tipping point that will result in a name change, but I think it is getting more likely. I just think that if the name does end up changing, it will be one that we (except for Val) will like less than Citi Field. It's NOT gonna be Bob Murphy Field. (Anyway, as much as we all loved Bob Murphy, I think naming a stadium for him is a bit over the top.) seawolf17 Nov 26 2008 07:13 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":276m8e6t]It's NOT gonna be Bob Murphy Field. (Anyway, as much as we all loved Bob Murphy, I think naming a stadium for him is a bit over the top.)[/quote:276m8e6t] Booooooooooo. Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 07:16 AM ="Wally":4po31fbp]As my colleague Anthony Rieber so ably pointed out earlier this week...[/quote:4po31fbp] This was the surprising part, that he read someone else's work. Then I realized he read it so he could just re-arrange it. Stick a sock in this guy. Frayed Knot Nov 26 2008 07:28 AM I think the best chance for name change would come if/when CitiGroup undergoes a name change - at which point the renamed/acquiring (and possibly more clumsily-named) company would inherit the deal (see Bell, Pac and all its successors). G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 08:35 AM ]t is really the Mets, the "little brothers" in town, who are the most fan-hostile organization in New York sports. All last season, they used scare tactics on their partial-plan holders - people who weren't part of some corrupt and tax-sheltered corporation, people who couldn't afford to shell out for 81 games but could scrape together enough to come 15 times a year, or 20, or every weekend. I'm not in the frame of mind to go beat by beat with Wally Matthews, but why is it necessary to demagogue this issue when there are sound points to be made against the way the Mets do business as well as the generally distasteful modern naming of stadiums (and the way it backfires)? Matthews sits in the press box when he deigns to go to a game. He has no idea who buys the seats down below, season-ticketed or otherwise (it's either the evil corporation or the blue collar wretch, in Matthews' black and white world). It never occurs to him that some season tickets are scraped together by small businesses who are not riding the TARP train. Again, as with Rieber the other day, instead of maybe asking somebody or citing some study, he just indicts everybody with the same brush. Benjamin Grimm Nov 26 2008 08:38 AM When I was a partial season ticket holder back in the 80's, I didn't have to "scrape" to be able to afford it. It may have been hard for me to afford a full plan (I'm not sure because I never even looked into it) but the main reason I didn't do it was because it wasn't practical. Living on Long Island, working five days per week, there was no way I would have been able to attend most of the weekday games. Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 08:44 AM Tabloids demagogue. It's what they do. Is there any reason at all to buy a tabloid any more except that when you pass by the newstand on the way to the train, they are screaming out that evil/greedy/crazy people are undemining your life? Sound points? Sound doesn't sell. Sexy sells. G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 08:45 AM Referring to full plans only here. They're not all owned by Citi types, at least they weren't at Shea. And not every entity known as a company in this world is Wally Matthews' prototypical Evil Inc. I'm not a corporate apologist by nature (far, far from it), but it doesn't help the discussion at large to brainlessly lump everybody who has a payroll to meet under one nefarious umbrella. It is amazing how out of their depth most sportswriters get when they wander into the parts of the world that are tangentially related to sports. And in Matthews' case, he's not so hot with sports. G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 08:52 AM ="Edgy DC"]Tabloids demagogue. It's what they do. Is there any reason at all to buy a tabloid any more except that when you pass by the newstand on the way to the train, they are screaming out that evil/greedy/crazy people are undemining your life? Some do it better than others. I think Lupica does it brilliantly. I think Mushnick, though he listens a little too intently to the voices in his head at times, does it very well. I think Matthews is worse than a hack (which is most of what Newsday employs). He's a loose-cannon grudgemeister. It's not that the writing is lame. It's that the thought process is shoddy. All he has left is to spit out some outrageous assertions and feel good about himself. He is detestable, but in a different way from the hack army. Rieber, Baumbach, Powell...Newsday is hack central. It and Long Island, to borrow from Tom Kean, are perfect together. Gwreck Nov 26 2008 09:37 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":1yacqado]When I was a partial season ticket holder back in the 80's, I didn't have to "scrape" to be able to afford it.[/quote:1yacqado] Speaking as someone who *does* have to "scrape" (so to speak -- it's not like I'm foregoing food to go the game) I wind up agreeing with much of what Matthews says. The 6 paragraphs starting with "All last season..." are 100% accurate, dead-on-the-money. Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 09:51 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 26 2008 10:38 AM But those are bleeding with demagoguery as well. Is the world really just fat cats and working stiffs? Are the Mets really so perverse as to be doing anything like "playing footsie" or are they doing business the way virtually everybody else did it? My cousin was VP of personnel with a securities firm. They made her fire a ton of people and then they fired her. I know what's going on. There's a good chance I'm going to be posing in my pajamas soon. I don't blame the Mets. G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 10:19 AM The Mets sucked at dealing with their fans on tickets for the long term, but the equivalency -- they suck therefore they and Citi are essentially the same -- is what weighs Wally down. Ticket policy mishandling and naming rights hijinks are not the same issue and they're not necessarily symptomatic of a mindset, which is Matthews' implication. "The Mets waited two hours to call the game -- and they traded Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano: what a bunch of losers." That's what Matthews' column feels like. This is the wrong week to be promoting a stadium named Citi Field, that's for sure. The Mets will have to decide (if market forces don't do it for them) whether it will always be the wrong week for promoting a stadium with that name. The City Bank of New York was founded in 1812. Over the years, it became known as the First National City Bank of New York, First National City Bank and, eventually, Citibank, en route to becoming part of something called Citigroup. Might all remnants of that name be eradicated after 196 years? Could be. Might all the goodwill, whatever goodwill there was, associated with that name be gone in the wake of recent developments? Could be. Do we know the forever answer to either question? Not just yet. Citi looks very bad right now. This ballpark deal feels uncomfortable right now, to say the least. The Mets, by being in this naming venture with Citi, don't look good right now. Is "right now" what's always going to be? Hard to tell. I can't blame the Mets for trying to figure out how to maintain a deal that looked pretty lucrative and airtight (in the context of these things) two years ago. If the uproar continues as the season approaches, I imagine they won't want the name on their building. But even if, as a couple of business writers put it, $20 million a year for twenty years is a "drop in the bucket" to Citi (making this a worthwhile long-term investment in their view, assuming they stick around as Citi), it's pretty significant to a baseball team. Remember what Darren Rovell wrote on CNBC's site: they'd be lucky to get $12 million a year now from anybody. The Mets want the money. They'll always want the money. What entity in their spot wouldn't be looking for a way to get the money they signed for? If/when it becomes untenable (if the PR aspects of this do not blow over), the Mets will suddenly realize they don't want to play in Citi Field. Even if they do suck at ticket plans. Even if they wait too long to call rainouts. Even if they traded Kazmir for Zambrano. And this is coming from someone who has loathed almost everything about Citi Field, name included, from the day it was announced. Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 10:41 AM What he said. seawolf17 Nov 26 2008 10:47 AM While they're at it, can Citi cancel my credit card debt? That'd make my life a lot easier. G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 10:50 AM ="seawolf17":1jq5wyqz]While they're at it, can Citi cancel my credit card debt? That'd make my life a lot easier.[/quote:1jq5wyqz] You'd figure in all this there'd be some Mets Fan Interest Forgiveness Clause, wouldn't you? Vince Coleman Firecracker Nov 26 2008 10:57 AM ="seawolf17":2jtn576x]While they're at it, can Citi cancel my credit card debt? That'd make my life a lot easier.[/quote:2jtn576x] I'll change my name to "Citi" if they'll negate my student loans. HahnSolo Nov 26 2008 11:32 AM Mike Francesa has spoken. The Mets "must" return Citibank's money. He will elaborate later. Benjamin Grimm Nov 26 2008 11:33 AM That settles it then. soupcan Nov 26 2008 11:35 AM I'm going to go out on a limb and say that by this time next year nobody's going to care. metirish Nov 26 2008 11:52 AM Found this in the comments section responding to Wally. ] Ron Darling Hey Moron, the mets likely have a contract with Citi for the naming rights. If Citi doesn't want to back out, there's probably little the mets can do. Aside from that, the company looks at citifield as an extension of their advertising, which is required to attract attention and bring in new business. So, as they try to avoid going under, it's really not stupid to keep the naming rights if they estimate that the Return On Investment will be higher with this advertising than with other ads they may cut. Nice job rewriting your colleague's article just to get a few jabs in at the mets. you're a worthless piece of trash, you no talent hack. seawolf17 Nov 26 2008 12:33 PM ="metirish"]Found this in the comments section responding to Wally. ] Ron Darling Hey Moron, the mets likely have a contract with Citi for the naming rights. If Citi doesn't want to back out, there's probably little the mets can do. Aside from that, the company looks at citifield as an extension of their advertising, which is required to attract attention and bring in new business. So, as they try to avoid going under, it's really not stupid to keep the naming rights if they estimate that the Return On Investment will be higher with this advertising than with other ads they may cut. Nice job rewriting your colleague's article just to get a few jabs in at the mets. you're a worthless piece of trash, you no talent hack. That's why I like Ronnie... he pulls no punches. MadDog Nov 26 2008 12:34 PM ="HahnSolo":7y9z3mzz]Mike Francesa has spoken. The Mets "must" return Citibank's money. He will elaborate later.[/quote:7y9z3mzz] AH, COME ON, MIKE! YOU CAN'T JUST BE GIVING BACK THAT MONEY! THAT'S JEFF WILPON'S MONEY, MIKE! THAT WAS NEGOTIATED! FAIR AND SQUARE! Willets Point Nov 26 2008 01:14 PM ="soupcan":1wa54pzc]I'm going to go out on a limb and say that by this time next year nobody's going to care.[/quote:1wa54pzc] I already don't care. metsmarathon Nov 26 2008 01:34 PM honestly, with all the buckets of taxpayer money, both given to or not collected from the mets (and nearly every other major pro sports team), why is this spectre of $20 million/year so terribly abhorrent? i mean, its not like the bailout is going, specifically, to fund these dollars which were fairly agreed to prior to federal involvement. the mets are right to expect their money. i mean, i'd really like to see them not sell the naming rights to their building, personally, but given their choice to use it as a revenue stream, and citigroup's choice to use it as an advertisement, i see no problems. will the federal government look into all of citi's contractual obligations and force them to break those fairly negotiated contracts that have arguable ROI? ... if i were the mets, i think i would have to consider offering a buyout, though. enough to cover the expected $20 million this year, plus the cost of replacing the voluminous signage, plus a few million on top, for the trouble. but the wally mathews and mike francessas out there will only complain, unless hte mets give up the name for no cost whatsoever to citi, and then those same voices will criticize the mets for getting nothing in return. holychicken Nov 26 2008 01:51 PM ="MadDog":2lvkg2so]AH, COME ON, MIKE! YOU CAN'T JUST BE GIVING BACK THAT MONEY! THAT'S JEFF WILPON'S MONEY, MIKE! THAT WAS NEGOTIATED! FAIR AND SQUARE![/quote:2lvkg2so] You always crack me up. I love you maddog! But seriously, the show was much less terrible with Maddog. I used to listen to it on my commute home and now I just can't. Vince Coleman Firecracker Nov 26 2008 02:02 PM The last time I tuned into Francessa (I'd put the (sp?) here, but I don't really care to learn to spell his name correctly) was a few months back, after the story came out that the Yankees had been getting favorable assesments on their property so they could pay less taxes. Francesca dismissed a caller who brought this up, saying that no one cares about the relationship between the government, the taxpayers and the team. Now, (big surprise) he's up in arms because of the Mets' relationship to a third party's relationship to the government and taxpayers. Can't he catch that disease the guy from the Spin Doctors was rumored to have? The one where you can't speak for several years? Frayed Knot Nov 26 2008 06:21 PM ="HahnSolo":1fcl1b69]Mike Francesa has spoken. The Mets "must" return Citibank's money. He will elaborate later.[/quote:1fcl1b69] Only caught a minute or two of his reasoning, but the logic was along the lines of CitiGroup is now a forever tainted brand and therfore the Mets need to disassociate themselves from it. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this isn't exactly an Enron situation where the bulprit was blatantly criminal activities by the heads of the company leading to complete destruction of the business. This was bad mgmt which may or may not be fixable but, otherwise, I don't get the parallel here. Chrysler, after all, was on the receiving end of gov't assistance several decades ago (late '70s?) and yet managed to rebound and go on to sponsor sports tourneys and other stuff without leaving a scarlet letter on everything they were attached to. metirish Nov 26 2008 06:24 PM Francesa just hung up on you. SteveJRogers Nov 26 2008 06:29 PM ="metirish":1lbnh8b8]Francesa just hung up on you.[/quote:1lbnh8b8] Irish, come on, The Great Francesa would never hang up on a caller! NO! He might give a big wave of his hand to let his board op know to cut the call off, but hang up? NEVAH! In fact, this thread deserves a giant handwave! Ashie62 Nov 26 2008 06:51 PM ="metirish":27odyq9t]Francesa just hung up on you.[/quote:27odyq9t] I wish I had that luck Irish...nice Ireland addition to the Avatar! soupcan Nov 26 2008 09:52 PM ="metirish":1hzpv5si]Francesa just hung up on you.[/quote:1hzpv5si] Made me laugh irish. metirish Nov 30 2008 07:00 PM Driving back from JFK tonight I saw the sign on that side of the stadium reading as " I FI LD" . SteveJRogers Nov 30 2008 07:19 PM ="metirish":1xy3j2m8]Driving back from JFK tonight I saw the sign on that side of the stadium reading as " I FI LD" .[/quote:1xy3j2m8] Better that the lights go out now then during the season! Ashie62 Dec 01 2008 10:09 PM They say root for the hat..but I think at this point I would be embarrased to sit in a structure named after Citigroup.. Then again my sorry ass can't afford to go anyway.. Omar..now go sign somebody!! metirish Dec 02 2008 01:42 PM Jeff speaks. ] THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 3:25 PM EST, December 2, 2008 The New York Mets say the name Citi Field will remain on their new ballpark and believe the struggling bank will survive its current economic crisis following a government bailout. Citigroup is paying the Mets $400 million over 20 years for naming rights to the stadium, scheduled to open next year. Two New York City councilmen said last week that the ballpark's name should be changed to Citi/Taxpayer Field. "We think we can bring the right people to help them market their product so that they can be a going concern," Mets chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon said Tuesday. "It's not really Citi's fault that they're in this problem. They're a lot of other banks in the same situation." metsguyinmichigan Dec 02 2008 03:06 PM I can see the point about the taxpayers. It seems stange to me when utilities who have monopolies spend money on naming rights. Why does DTE Energry here in Michigan and Keyspan need to advertise like that when eveyone gets their bill each month? We know who they are. (Naturally the Citi isn't a utility and didn't have the public money until this fall) Kong76 Dec 02 2008 03:31 PM AP: Mets chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon said Tuesday. "It's not really Citi's fault that they're in this problem. <=== Oh jeez. Valadius Dec 02 2008 04:29 PM Well Jeff Wilpon is a moron. That's not news. Nymr83 Dec 02 2008 05:04 PM Repeat after me idiot Wilpon: "it's not our fault that they are in this mess, we signed a contract and we'd be expected to perform our end of it even if it became a bad deal for us." Kong76 Dec 02 2008 05:04 PM I wasn't reporting anything, I quoted from a previous post, and oh jeezin' instead of commenting that the guy is a walking mic magnet for oh jeezable quotes and should avoid speaking at all. Edgy DC Dec 02 2008 05:20 PM You know --- in the names of Bobby Bonilla, Vince Coleman, Mel Rojas, Jeromy Burnitz, and Mo Vaughn --- it's kind of nice to see the Mets finally the one who collect on a long-term, big-dollar contract signed before the market shifted. SteveJRogers Dec 02 2008 06:51 PM ="metirish"]Driving back from JFK tonight I saw the sign on that side of the stadium reading as " I FI LD" . Not sure if this is from today, but here is a neat image of what Irish saw: metirish Dec 02 2008 07:01 PM That's exactly it , good find Steve. Edgy DC Dec 02 2008 07:10 PM Irish drives a dirigible. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 03 2008 09:39 AM Photo gallery from the snooze: [url:1ahhortv]http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/galleries/citi_field__inside__out/citi_field__inside__out.html[/url:1ahhortv] I gotta say, as long as I can get to a few games, I'm excited over a new park. metirish Dec 03 2008 09:52 AM Me too , can't wait really , started saving recently for a game I hope to go to in the summer. More pictures here http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/ny-citifield-pg,0,3740511.photogallery Gwreck Dec 03 2008 10:41 AM ]I gotta say, as long as I can get to a few games, I'm excited over a new park. As a function of schedule or a function of price? We had some long and hard discussions about what to do with this new stadium. Once you get past the fact that it's a minimum of $100/seat to be anywhere on the infield (aside from the upper level)... Still, in the end, I found myself a lot more excited than I thought I would to be buying tickets today. My impression is that after being accustomed to Shea for so long it will take a very long time for the novelty of the new park to wear off. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 03 2008 10:47 AM I'd only go to a small handful of games in either park. I was worried that demand for tixx would be too great to assure even that but I think I got a hookup for the small slate of games I will attend. Willets Point Dec 03 2008 10:52 AM When are they going to sell single-game tickets? Gwreck Dec 03 2008 11:19 AM Probably not until late February/early March. They'll first do the "lottery" for the opening night and games vs. MFYs, then the public sale a week or two later. I think ticket demand is not going to be too bad (economy; 2nd straight year of barely missing playoffs, etc). Benjamin Grimm Dec 06 2008 05:44 AM A clever suggestion from the New York Times: ] Citi Field by Any Other Name, Part II By Andrew Das With a column and a blog post, George Vecsey started a lively debate this week by proposing new names for the Mets� new ballpark, which will for now keep the name of its faltering financial sugar daddy, Citigroup. Some of George�s suggestions � Jackie Robinson Stadium, Gil Hodges Stadium � included homages to the city�s baseball past. Readers tossed out other ideas: Bailout Ballpark, Strawberry Field. WNYC�s Brian Lehrer weighed in when he took reader questions on our City Room blog this week. The name Citi Field is fast becoming a joke. Shall we rename it Taxpayer Field? Federal Reserve Park? Cover the infield with the Henry Paulson TARP? But Lehrer wasn�t done. He continued the discussion when he went on the air at WNYC (Chez Stadium has a nice expense-account flair to it), and that back and forth produced a name that I think appeals to everything from baseball history to the city�s history to fans� shared Citi anger. For now at least, the leader in the clubhouse has to be �. Debits Field. Benjamin Grimm Jan 29 2009 05:23 PM ="Cleveland Plain Dealer":3i00ad19]Cleveland Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich teamed up with Texas GOP Rep. Ted Poe on Thursday to demand that the Treasury Department force Citigroup to give up its $400 million stadium naming deal with the New York Mets baseball team. The congressmen wrote a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner that observed the bank's finanical situation has worsened dramatically since it signed the Mets deal in 2006. Citigroup recently accepted billions of dollars in taxpayer bailout money and announced it's eliminating 50,000 jobs. "The Treasury Department, which forced Citigroup corporate executives to give up their private jet, should also demand that Citigroup cancel its $400 million advertisement at the Mets field and instead being to repay their debt to the taxpayers," Kucinich said in a press statement.[/quote:3i00ad19] John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 29 2009 05:47 PM thwack. metsmarathon Jan 29 2009 05:49 PM where else will they be forced to retract advertising? Nymr83 Jan 29 2009 06:41 PM ="metsmarathon":48x4xa6v]where else will they be forced to retract advertising?[/quote:48x4xa6v] nowhere, they'd rather just use a pro sports team as a scapegoat and ignore that it is advertising like any other. Kong76 Jan 29 2009 07:02 PM Not in response to anything said here, and I'm not big on the whole tortured Mets fan ideology that some fans carry around and like to wound lick about, but jeez on some level I can't help but grin to myself and think, "this could only happen to the freakin' Mets." We get a brand spankin' new park and watch Shea get torn down and the whole country is going to the crapper and the new stadium was going to be named (I'm certain it won't be Citi Field come opening day) by one of the biggest iconic reasons that things are so bad and now it will be fodder for every news outlet until it's named something else and it will be a trivia ques- tion twenty-five years from now and this has become a run-on so I'll stop. batmagadanleadoff Jan 29 2009 07:28 PM ="Kong76":1gdgi6hg] and the new stadium was going to be named (I'm certain it won't be Citi Field come opening day)....[/quote:1gdgi6hg] I'll probably refer to the new park as Shea Stadium. For years, I bet. To me, the 49ers play in Candlestick. And so do the baseball Giants. MFS62 Jan 29 2009 07:49 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":zgx7tsoo] To me, the 49ers play in Candlestick. And so do the baseball Giants.[/quote:zgx7tsoo] Gee, I remember the football team playing in Kezar Stadium (with sea gulls flying in front of the tv cameras) and the baseball team playing in Seals Stadium. Later Frayed Knot Jan 29 2009 08:18 PM ] ... jeez on some level I can't help but grin to myself and think, "this could only happen to the freakin' Mets." Astros fans forced to deal with 'Enron Field' might disagree there. Kong76 Jan 30 2009 04:47 AM Uey, they can't even get that right. Edgy DC Jan 30 2009 07:25 AM ]Cleveland Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich teamed up with Texas GOP Rep. Ted Poe This isn't exaclty Chris Van Hollen and John Boehner. It wouldn't be the first time I've been caught with my head in the sand, but I'm not sure this is anything more than a symbolic statment. I mean, that's what Kucinich's presidential run was. Under any circumstances, I'm highly distrustful of scapegoating maneuvers. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 30 2009 07:26 AM President Kucinich would move the Mets to Havana, prolly. Ashie62 Feb 03 2009 07:06 AM This mornings Wall Street Journal has an article the Citi is reconsidering the 400 million dollar naming rights deal. I don't have the online link but its in the Journal. Citi is being "directed" by the Treasury not to spend taxpayer dollars on this. It may not be fair but the Mets have no say on the contract and at best will receive some money as a walk away fee. Good thing the Patch is bare...Probably best to take the TARP stink off our new stadium...Lotta remodeling to do if Citi is knocked out. Royal Crown Cola field anyone? Ashie62 Feb 03 2009 07:07 AM Ooh! George Thomas Seaver! Do I get a bottle o Wine for this? I don't mean Wild Irish Rose Peach. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:10 AM Get a New Patch While You're At It The wheels are reportedly in motion to deCitify Citi Field. From WSJ: ]Citi Explores Breaking Mets Deal Bank That Got Bailout Cash Revisits $400 Million Pact to Put Name on Stadium By DAVID ENRICH, MATTHEW FUTTERMAN and DAMIAN PALETTA Citigroup Inc., eager to quell the controversy over how lenders are using government bailout money, is exploring the possibility of backing out of a nearly $400 million marketing deal with the New York Mets, say people familiar with the matter. Officials at Citigroup have made no final decision about whether to try to void the 20-year agreement, which includes naming the Mets' new baseball stadium after the bank, say these people. In a statement Monday, Citigroup said that "no TARP capital will be used" for the stadium -- referring to government funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program. But as it revisits the pact, Citigroup is essentially acknowledging that the volatile political climate could make it untenable for the bank to proceed with the deal. Citigroup, which has had total net losses of $28.5 billion since 2007, received $45 billion in bailout aid from the federal TARP program last fall. The government also agreed to shoulder most losses on a $301 billion pool of Citigroup's loans and other assets. Next week, Citigroup Chief Executive Vikram Pandit and other bank CEOs are scheduled to appear before a House committee, where they are likely to be pressed for answers about their use of taxpayer-funded capital through TARP. The Mets deal was attacked last week as an example of misplaced spending by financial institutions that needed bailout funds. Reps. Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio) and Ted Poe (R., Texas) wrote to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Wednesday, asking him to push Citigroup to dissolve the Mets deal. "Citigroup is now dependent on the support of the federal government for its survival as an institution," the letter said. "As such, we do not believe Citigroup ought to spend $400 million to name a stadium at the same time that they accept over $350 billion in taxpayer support and guarantees." A re-examination of the Mets deal comes just days after President Barack Obama called it "shameful" that Wall Street firms doled out billions of dollars in bonuses even as Washington was spending taxpayer dollars to help bail them out. The Treasury Department hasn't been pushing the bank to break the contract, according to people with knowledge of the government's stance. Anger also is rising over signs that the massive capital infusion to U.S. banks hasn't resulted in a surge in lending. In a survey of banks released Monday, the Federal Reserve said about two-thirds of banks' loan officers reported that they tightened terms for business loans over the past three months. Under terms of the Mets deal, Citigroup has the right to plaster its name and logo around the arena, dubbed Citi Field, which is largely built and set to open in April in the New York City borough of Queens. Citigroup's contract with the Mets calls for the bank to pay the team roughly $20 million a year over two decades. The arrangement helped cover the costs of building Citi Field because it served as an asset the Mets could tout as they tried to lure private capital. While the Mets didn't receive direct taxpayer financing for the ballpark, the team did benefit from free land, infrastructure investments and tax-free bonds from the city government. Citigroup underwrote more than $600 million in bonds for the stadium. The bank's name and logo already adorn the stadium's walls. Citi Field is adjacent to Shea Stadium, the former home of the Mets, now being torn down. If Citigroup backs out of its agreement with the Mets, it likely wouldn't happen immediately and could involve the bank paying a breakup penalty to the Mets, people familiar with the situation said. "The Mets are fully committed to our contract with Citi," said Mets spokesman Jay Horwitz. A Citigroup spokesman said the bank "signed a legally binding agreement with the New York Mets in 2006." Within Citigroup, some officials believe the company should try to void the Mets pact in order to distance itself from unnecessary controversy. But other executives argue that trying to wiggle out of the contract will set a bad precedent. "If we cave for political reasons, it will have enormous implications for our ability to contract with third parties," said an executive who has been briefed on the discussions. When Citigroup and the Mets unveiled their pact in 2006, it was the richest naming-rights deal in baseball. Top executives including then-Chief Executive Charles Prince and Lewis Kaden, the Citigroup vice chairman who negotiated the deal, attended a groundbreaking ceremony with Mets players and officials. Citigroup has a number of other sports-marketing arrangements. Last month, it was the main sponsor of college football's Rose Bowl game. The company is sponsoring the 2010 national championship game. Citibank Park, which opened in 2000 in Central Islip, N.Y., is home to the Long Island Ducks minor-league baseball team. While some Citigroup executives are urging the company to scale back its advertising expenses to avoid public controversy, the company recently has been buying full-page ads in some major newspapers, touting its stability and lending. Last week, Citigroup stirred more controversy when the New York Post reported that the bank was planning to buy an expensive new luxury jet. The implication was that Citigroup was using a portion of its TARP funds to pay for the new jet. In response, Citigroup initially defended its plans, arguing that it placed the jet order in 2005 and that canceling the purchase would result in millions of dollars of penalties. The new jet also was supposed to replace two aging planes that Citigroup had put up for sale. Citigroup ultimately nixed the order under pressure from Treasury officials. By then, though, the bank had been publicly lashed by President Obama. "We shouldn't have to do that," he said, referring to the administration's suggestion that Citigroup not go through with the corporate-jet order, "because they should know better." If Citigroup parts ways with the Mets, other financial institutions may find themselves under pressure to reconsider sports-marketing deals. Bank of America Corp., which got $45 billion in government capital, signed a deal in 2004 for naming rights for the Carolina Panthers football stadium in Charlotte, N.C. Bank of America's 20-year deal calls for the bank to pay the Panthers $7.5 million a year, making it one of the National Football League's most expensive naming-rights deals. The Houston Texans receive $10 million a year from Reliant Energy Inc. Bank of America has been in talks with the New York Yankees about a major sponsorship deal for the new Yankee Stadium, though the company's name wouldn't be on the building. That deal appeared near complete in the fall, but neither side has discussed the matter since then. Larry DiRita, a Bank of America spokesman, declined to comment on the company's specific marketing arrangements. "These are normal banking relationships," he said, noting that they are profitable for the bank. Frayed Knot Feb 03 2009 07:11 AM Citigroup Inc. is considering the possibility of backing out of its $400 million naming-rights deal for the New York Mets' new stadium, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal. The report cited "people familiar with the matter." Ahh yes, the always popular "people familiar" source. What it sounds like is that Citi is feeling outside pressure and is at least looking into what it might take to break thinking that maybe this would stem the tide of criticism. Never mind that they still sponsor a host of other sports stuff, this deal seems to be the center of the bullseye right now. The team has every intention of continuing with the deal (of course, because they'd never get another nearly as large) and I'm thinking they'd probably put up a legal fight to keep it. oe: cross-post G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:18 AM If my thread on the WSJ story gets folded in or deleted, the essentials: ]Citigroup Inc., eager to quell the controversy over how lenders are using government bailout money, is exploring the possibility of backing out of a nearly $400 million marketing deal with the New York Mets, say people familiar with the matter. Officials at Citigroup have made no final decision about whether to try to void the 20-year agreement, which includes naming the Mets' new baseball stadium after the bank, say these people. In a statement Monday, Citigroup said that "no TARP capital will be used" for the stadium -- referring to government funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program. But as it revisits the pact, Citigroup is essentially acknowledging that the volatile political climate could make it untenable for the bank to proceed with the deal. Citigroup, which has had total net losses of $28.5 billion since 2007, received $45 billion in bailout aid from the federal TARP program last fall. The government also agreed to shoulder most losses on a $301 billion pool of Citigroup's loans and other assets. Next week, Citigroup Chief Executive Vikram Pandit and other bank CEOs are scheduled to appear before a House committee, where they are likely to be pressed for answers about their use of taxpayer-funded capital through TARP. ]Citigroup's contract with the Mets calls for the bank to pay the team roughly $20 million a year over two decades. The arrangement helped cover the costs of building Citi Field because it served as an asset the Mets could tout as they tried to lure private capital. While the Mets didn't receive direct taxpayer financing for the ballpark, the team did benefit from free land, infrastructure investments and tax-free bonds from the city government. Citigroup underwrote more than $600 million in bonds for the stadium. The bank's name and logo already adorn the stadium's walls. Citi Field is adjacent to Shea Stadium, the former home of the Mets, now being torn down. If Citigroup backs out of its agreement with the Mets, it likely wouldn't happen immediately and could involve the bank paying a breakup penalty to the Mets, people familiar with the situation said. metirish Feb 03 2009 07:24 AM I bet by the end of the day Wally will have a "Jackie Robinson Field" article up. Edgy DC Feb 03 2009 07:31 AM This just seems so counterproductive for everybody. It's nice to think that the Mets may end up with an un-sponsored field, but I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:36 AM ="Edgy DC":3tltbewg]I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:3tltbewg] The Mets could use some more crunch in their lineup. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:37 AM ="Edgy DC":i7xp23vg]I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:i7xp23vg] The Mets could use some more crunch in their lineup. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:40 AM ="metirish"]I bet by the end of the day Wally will have a "Jackie Robinson Field" article up. Wally, if they actually did that: ]Branch Rickey famously told Jackie Robinson not to fight back when harassed. The Mets similarly don't fight back when their opponents tar them not with epithets but runs. The Mets have unwittingly chosen the wrong role model. But when do the Mets ever use their wits? soupcan Feb 03 2009 07:41 AM ="Edgy DC":6bqs5c70]It's nice to think that the Mets may end up with an un-sponsored field, but I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:6bqs5c70] Most definitely. Its not like Enron Field is now Astro Stadium. I would like it if there does happen to be another sponsor that its a one-name company so I can pretend it's sort of un-sponsored. You know like Miller Park or Busch Stadium. If not, then I'd like Met Life please. Centerfield Feb 03 2009 07:43 AM Considering they have a signed contract, I don't see why the Mets would let Citi out of the deal until they had a more lucrative (or equally lucrative) deal in place. metirish Feb 03 2009 07:43 AM Jeff IIRC is quite fond of WISE potato chips. WISE FIELD metsmarathon Feb 03 2009 08:35 AM if citi backs out of that contract, i would think that the mets should sue them to recoup not only some of the short term income, but also the cost to replace all of the signage and merchandise. no fucking way citi should get off the hook just because the politicians whined MFS62 Feb 03 2009 08:46 AM Per Metsblog Update, 8:56 am: Michael Espo, a long-time and trusted reader of MetsBlog.com, just sent in the following e-mail: �Moments ago on CNBC, Doug Kass, a noted investor and short seller, who is a member of the country club where Bernie Madoff solicited many of his investors, said, �scuttlebutt around town says that Fred Wilpon and Mets ownership may be forced to sell a minority interest in the team due to their exposure to the Madoff fraud.�� Consider the source. EDIT: Hmmmm Now that is gone from that website. I wonder what happened. Later batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2009 08:46 AM ="Edgy DC":dwhmitdm]This just seems so counterproductive for everybody. It's nice to think that the Mets may end up with an un-sponsored field, but I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:dwhmitdm] It's apropos. Wilpon's a cheeseball. Get ready for Cheesy Stadium. batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2009 08:52 AM ="metsmarathon":2jggnqoz]if citi backs out of that contract, i would think that the mets should sue them to recoup not only some of the short term income, but also the cost to replace all of the signage and merchandise. no fucking way citi should get off the hook just because the politicians whined[/quote:2jggnqoz] If Citi doesn't have a contractual out, why wouldn't the Mets Sioux City to recoup every single penny of the deal? G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 08:56 AM Darren Rovell's story from CNBC: ]Despite all the noise, including a front page story in the Wall Street Journal today, the Mets just sent us this statement. "In conversations this morning, Citi reinforced that they will honor our legally binding agreement." MFS62 Feb 03 2009 08:59 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 03 2009 09:01 AM I'm thinking of taking up a collection to buy the naming rights. I'll name it "Cranepool Forum Field". If you're interested in contributing ($1 million minimum. No pikers, pease.) PM me, and I'll give you the number of my off shore account to which you can wire the money. Later metirish Feb 03 2009 08:59 AM ] "In conversations this morning, Citi reinforced that they will honor our legally binding agreement." Sounds like the Mets reinforced the legally binding thing. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 09:04 AM The Mets, I would guess, don't give a damn what it's called (within reason). They do give a damn they get paid (which is reasonable). batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2009 09:54 AM ="G-Fafif":1gap197h]The Mets, I would guess, don't give a damn what it's called (within reason). They do give a damn they get paid (which is reasonable).[/quote:1gap197h] That's my Wilpon! metirish Feb 04 2009 10:26 AM Daniel Gross argues that the name should stay. http://www.slate.com/id/2210442/ ] Three Strikes and You're Bailed Out Why Citi shouldn't cancel its $400 million purchase of naming rights for the Mets new stadium. By Daniel Gross Posted Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2009, at 6:00 PM ET Almost every taxpayer who isn't a New York Mets fan is outraged by Citi's $400 million, 20-year deal for naming rights to the new Mets stadium, known as Citi Field. It's true that shelling out that kind of money at a time when taxpayers are bankrolling the company and backstopping hundreds of billions of dollars worth of its assets may seem tone-deaf and stupid, even for a bank. And, historically, naming rights have been a classic vanity move. Corporations tend to make grandiose civic/corporate statements right when they are about to implode. If you had shorted Citi's stock when it announced the sponsorship deal in November 2006, you would have made a lot of money. But there's a reasonable case to be made for preserving the deal, especially if Citi could get the Mets to extend the deal to 30 or 40 years. In order for Citi to weather the storm, recover, and pay back taxpayers (and insulate them from further losses), the company must invest for both the short- and long-term. For companies in highly competitive consumer markets, marketing and advertising are essential, entirely justifiable expenses. Companies�even companies getting bailed out by the feds�need to attract customers and to build their brand image. It's difficult to measure the value of any specific campaign or ad. But there's reason to think that for this company, at this stadium, in this location, a naming-rights deal might not be such a bad long term move. The cost is high�$400 million over 20 years. But the present-day cost isn't quite as high as you think, especially if, as Darren Rovell of CNBC suggests, it is paid out in annual installments. In 2029, $20 million will be worth a lot less than $20 million is today. And any type of advertising that reaches a lot of people is expensive. In this economy, NBC was able to charge $3 million for a 30-second spot during the Super Bowl. Though the audience size for Mets games won't approach that of the Super Bowl, the location of the stadium guarantees that the Citi logo will be visible to hundreds of millions of people each year. Citi Field is a giant billboard that will be visible not just to the 4 million-plus people who attend Mets games each year but to the tens of millions of people who drive past it on the Grand Central Parkway, the Van Wyck Expressway, and other roadways and the 25 million or so passengers who fly into and out of LaGuardia Airport each year. And stadium naming deals generate a huge amount of free advertising. On the broadcasts of the team's 81 home games (and, sponsors hope, post-season games), announcers will repeatedly refer to the company's name in a nonadvertising context: "Welcome back to Citi Field." Likewise, newspaper, Internet, and television coverage will produce hundreds of millions of impressions of the company's name per year. Naming-rights deals are most justifiable when the product or company doing the naming has an intuitive connection to the people who visit the stadium. The Montreal Canadiens used to play in the Molson Center, which made sense since hockey fans drink a lot of beer. Ditto for the Colorado Rockies, who play in Coors Field. (When Internet company PSInet planted its name on the Baltimore Ravens' stadium, it didn't make quite as much sense.) Citi would seem to be something of a natural for the New York Mets. It's a New York-based bank. The Mets are based in New York City. Baseball stadiums tend to attract a prosperous, heavily male clientele, including professionals, small-business owners, and corporate executives. Many companies use Mets games to entertain and schmooze prospective clients. In short, a lot of the sorts of people who are likely to utilize Citi's services will be attending games at Citi Field. Of course, people who read about games at Citi Field on ESPN.com won't be learning much about Citi's mortgage rates. But naming rights, especially if they endure, can perform another vital function for brands. It can help make them part of the vernacular. The greatest desire of any marketer is for her product's name to work its way into conversations. When I was growing up, it was common to say, "I want a Coke" when you were referring to any kind of soda. People ask for a Kleenex when they mean a tissue, say they're going to Xerox a document even if they're using a Ricoh copier, and speak of Googling when they refer to an Internet search. Stadium naming rights can help products and brands gain that sort of status. Since 1926, baseball fans on the north side of Chicago have spoken about going to games at Wrigley Field. Does that make fans more likely to buy Wrigley's gum products? It can't hurt. "Meet me at Citi," doesn't quite have the same ring as "Meet me at Shea." But after 20 or 30 years, it might. Edgy DC Feb 04 2009 10:29 AM Seriously, as a taxpayer, do you think Citi is going to recover faster by taking away their ability to market themselves professionally or humiliating them for attempting to do so? Nymr83 Feb 04 2009 10:34 AM ="Edgy DC":37gbfrv1]Seriously, as a taxpayer, do you think Citi is going to recover faster by taking away their ability to market themselves professionally or humiliating them for attempting to do so?[/quote:37gbfrv1] Nope. I also think there isn't a worse thing they can do right now than take their name off a stadium where it already is, thats not a great way to inspire confidence that your business is (now) sound and here to stay. Edgy DC Feb 04 2009 10:58 AM So, do you think that Dennis Kucinich, who bills himself as "America's Congressman" is maybe using this as a means of self-promotion? I understand being against these rescue plans, but imposing terms on the corporations after the fact is crap. Lookit me, I'm castrating Citibank and everybody hates them. Eh, shaddup. (off soapbox) Nymr83 Feb 04 2009 11:25 AM ="Edgy DC":c8pm0iyy]So, do you think that Dennis Kucinich, who bills himself as "America's Congressman" is maybe using this as a means of self-promotion?[/quote:c8pm0iyy] No, really? Frayed Knot Feb 04 2009 11:31 AM Kucinich was doing the same thing with the land valuation question of the area around YSIII -- basically acting as a self-appointed over-seer for what is essentially a local issue far from his particular locality. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 12:22 PM ]...the location of the stadium guarantees that the Citi logo will be visible to hundreds of millions of people each year. Citi Field is a giant billboard that will be visible not just to the 4 million-plus people who attend Mets games each year but to the tens of millions of people who drive past it on the Grand Central Parkway, the Van Wyck Expressway, and other roadways and the 25 million or so passengers who fly into and out of LaGuardia Airport each year. I wouldn't mind Gross coming on for Delgado in the ninth for defense. He can really stretch. Citigroup could also buy a few actual billboards and accomplish much the same goal as the author describes. While I agree that this company, if it is to survive, has to (and is entitled to) market itself, reading Gross' article tells me that he has no idea why having the company's name on a ballpark accomplishes that. "Well, people will see it...people who might use their product." If anything, spelling out the reasons as he does, with the "I want a Coke" example and such, makes the whole thing sound more like a vanity-driven sham than I thought before. ]Many companies use Mets games to entertain and schmooze prospective clients. If they used the games from the last two late Septembers, those companies must have been recruiters from Guantanamo Bay. metsguyinmichigan Feb 04 2009 02:16 PM I don't mind the banks buying these things as much as the utilities. Why does a monopoly need to advertise? Especially since they just pass their costs on to the consumer, who has no choice but to use their electricity or natural gas? G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 02:26 PM ="metsguyinmichigan":1nrfin6h]I don't mind the banks buying these things as much as the utilities. Why does a monopoly need to advertise? Especially since they just pass their costs on to the consumer, who has no choice but to use their electricity or natural gas?[/quote:1nrfin6h] To take up lots of space[/url:1nrfin6h], of course. metsmarathon Feb 04 2009 02:48 PM ]Citi Field, of course, will always be known as Citi Field. of course. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 03:11 PM Should Citi Field never actually be Citi Field, it would be accessible via a number of appropriate thoroughfares, listed here[/url:qvhcvi31]. Benjamin Grimm Feb 04 2009 04:25 PM They should call it by Shea's original name: Flushing Meadows Stadium. Or since "stadium" is out of vogue, they can replace it with Park or Field. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 05:00 PM More and more, Citi Field, its plainly visible structure notwithstanding, is beginning to remind me of this outstanding historical marker[/url:2p1f2s91] to which TMF introduced Mrs. Fafif and me recently. Citi Field...did it really land? G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 05:01 PM Whoops, impatient double post. themetfairy Feb 04 2009 05:22 PM LOL OlerudOwned Feb 04 2009 05:32 PM In a span of of two paragraphs, he called the naming rights "a classic vanity move" and an "essential, entirely justifiable expense." Kong76 Feb 04 2009 08:25 PM I'm kinda fickle on this subject now that it's become fodder for some folks. What's 20 million a year for twenty years when ya really boil it all down? dgwphotography Feb 05 2009 04:36 AM ="Kong76":2tla5kgq]I'm kinda fickle on this subject now that it's become fodder for some folks. What's 20 million a year for twenty years when ya really boil it all down?[/quote:2tla5kgq] Right now, it wouldn't even pay for Manny. 20 years from now, it wouldn't even pay for a utility infielder.. Edgy DC Feb 05 2009 05:50 AM ="OlerudOwned":1hwowprl]In a span of of two paragraphs, he called the naming rights "a classic vanity move" and an "essential, entirely justifiable expense."[/quote:1hwowprl] Well, he was distinguishing some deals from others. Vic Sage Feb 05 2009 10:34 AM ]But naming rights, especially if they endure, can perform another vital function for brands. It can help make them part of the vernacular. The greatest desire of any marketer is for her product's name to work its way into conversations. When I was growing up, it was common to say, "I want a Coke" when you were referring to any kind of soda. People ask for a Kleenex when they mean a tissue, say they're going to Xerox a document even if they're using a Ricoh copier, and speak of Googling when they refer to an Internet search. Stadium naming rights can help products and brands gain that sort of status. um... while those that control corporate brands want their brands to be ubiquitous, they do NOT want their trademarks to become generic. That's called "genericide", a sort of "public domain" status for trademarks, and thus costs the owner exclusive control over their mark. Of course, the naming of a stadium isn't likely to cause this phenomenon (oh look at that new Citi they're building in Montreal! I bet that'll bring baseball back!), so the point is not only incorrect, it's irrelevant. Now that's journalism! batmagadanleadoff Apr 16 2009 09:56 AM ="batmagadanleadoff":2ibvgs3w] I'll probably refer to the new park as Shea Stadium.[/quote:2ibvgs3w] Making money off my idea. Drats. Edgy DC Apr 16 2009 10:15 AM A good re-read. Here's Soupy with the Turning Point of the Thread: ="soupcan"]="Ashie62"] It seems like Citifield is a Brooklyn Dodger sandwich being shoved down Met pants. Oooh! A sandwich shoved into my pants!

Can they free up a spot by releasing Billy Wagner?

I tried checking the 40 on Mets.com but it kept freezing on me. Maybe someone else will have better luck.

Can't they still add a few more players between now and December 11? Or was yesterday a deadline of some sort?

They'd name it "Wilpon Field" before they'd name it "Payson Field."

As you may have heard, CitiCorp is, like so many other companies, having some financial troubles and will be laying off 53,000 employees. I did some searching on the Internet to see if there's any speculation that their naming sponsorship of the Mets ballpark may be in jeopardy. I did find a few mentions of that, but nothing approaching a groundswell. At least not yet. There was one article where Jay Horwitz was quoted saying that the deal is solid, but I didn't have permission to read the full text. It would be nice if Citi could take back their $20 million and preserve a bunch of the jobs that are being cut, and allow the Mets to give a non-corporate name to their stadium. (I don't expect it will play out that way; they'd probably find another corporate sponsor for less money.) But maybe we're getting to a point where companies won't be interested in naming ballparks, and we'll go back to more non-corporate names. Maybe.

I'd pull that trigger.

="Adam Rubin":h7yml904]There isn't a shortage of teams that want Heilman as a starter, with the Rockies believed to be among at least six teams intrigued.[/quote:h7yml904] If this is true, then then Mets should be able to find a decent deal for Heilman. I think his time in Queens is about played out. If they can get a good player in return for him, they might as well do it. metirish Nov 20 2008 01:07 PM ="attgig":3g1dczwr] n. the title of the thread is pretty misleading, as it depicts him to be an a$$ which he hasn't been. [/quote:3g1dczwr] That wasn't my intention , I thought it was obvious that it was a silly play on the " if I ain't starting I ain't departing' All Star game quote form years ago. Kiner used to tell that story a lot.But maybe it was only obvious to me. Centerfield Nov 20 2008 01:11 PM ="attgig":1h6e4qxm]he's NEVER been a premadonna [/quote:1h6e4qxm] Intentional or not? Frayed Knot Nov 20 2008 01:47 PM I think Cher was a pre-Madonna. I agree that the rep Aaron has for bitching about his bullpen role is vastly overblown is some circles. The topic usually comes up each spring as a result of some scribe asking and then gets dropped almost as quickly. And, up until this year, he's gone on to pitch well despite the fact that he'd rather be starting. This "or trade him" talk from the agent is more proactive than usual as he probably figured to draw some attention to it and maybe prompt the club into action coming off the down year but it's not like he's in position to make anything happen. John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 20 2008 01:49 PM Heilman for Street. What do you say? Benjamin Grimm Nov 20 2008 01:51 PM I'd pull that trigger. Nymr83 Nov 20 2008 03:48 PM Heilman is coming off a terrible year as a reliever. He has a history of being equally terrible as a starter. Anyone can say "I want to start" but he has no credibility to say "I deserve to start." If the Mets can get anyone useful for him they should jump at it. Zvon Nov 20 2008 04:26 PM I agree with Aaron about one thing. He should get out of the bullpen, or at least the role he plays there. Why not make him long man out and a spot starter. At least that puts him in a position to crack the rotation. Personally I feel if Omar ends up short in the rotation dept. and he looks to fill that spot from within, and there is nobody better or as experienced, Heilman should be given that shot. Like Ben said, as of now: "He can't be any worse than the guy we don't have." Or grant his wish and trade him. I'd like to hear the exact reasons why the Mets don't feel like he can be a starter (and I don't mean his starting numbers- which don't exactly help his cause). I remember when I couldn't wait to run Looper out a town on a rail, and giving him an opportunity to start would have been totally insane to me. But he did get that chance with the Cards and he won 24 games over the last two seasons. Ate up 199 innings last year. If there's a spot open come spring I'll be surprised and a bit concerned. But that would be a good time to see what Aaron can do. Nymr83 Nov 20 2008 04:57 PM ]I'd like to hear the exact reasons why the Mets don't feel like he can be a starter (and I don't mean his starting numbers- which don't exactly help his cause). You can't ask for the reasons and then say "oh, but the best evidence we have I don't want to hear about." Heilman sucked as a starter, he sucked as a reliever, why give him another shot at starting? I'd rather see what Jonathan Niese can do. John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 20 2008 05:03 PM N4N, but Heilman had 3 very good years as a reliever including an excellent one in 2007. If I were any team but the Mets I'd be happy to give him a chance in a relief and/or starting role & wouldn't be at all surprised if he's good. I just don't think his brand image gives him a great chance for success here any longer. Frayed Knot Nov 20 2008 06:09 PM Heilman "bad history as a starter" consists mostly of his first year in the majors. His bad history was no more than Pelfrey's was round about 6 months ago. cooby Nov 20 2008 06:23 PM Heilman is a strike out guy and I wish he were a starter too. Frayed Knot Nov 20 2008 06:47 PM ]I'd like to hear the exact reasons why the Mets don't feel like he can be a starter There seem to be two: 1) He's only a two pitch pitcher which is fine for once around the lineup but less so the third or fourth time around 2) His "high elbow" delivery is a recipe for breakdown once you get past 100 innings or so. That was reportedly the sourece of Rick Peterson's "whoever drafted this guy should be fired" comment. I suppose one could take the cynical view that now that he's within 2 years of FA-gency why not use him as much as possible and if he breaks down ah whatthehell he's disposable anyway -- although according to the articles here no one in the heirachry has changed their minds recently. Nymr83 Nov 20 2008 06:51 PM ="Frayed Knot":2oalyv4e]Heilman "bad history as a starter" consists mostly of his first year in the majors. His bad history was no more than Pelfrey's was round about 6 months ago.[/quote:2oalyv4e] Theres no age comparison (Pelfrey stunk up the joint as age 22-23 while Heilman did so at 24-25), Pelfrey has more pitches and a superior minor league track record (despite being rushed through the minors while Heilman was coddled at AAA for 3 years) as well as being a ground-ball machine as opposed to being a homerun-prone mess. Furthermore, even if Heilman may have been suited to starting 3 or 4 years ago he has spent the last 3 years exclusively in the bullpen, including a terrible walk-fest this year, why would you want to waste valuable starts on that next year? Edgy DC Nov 20 2008 07:40 PM Heilman wasn't coddled. He spent one year mixed between AA and AAA and two years mixed between AAA and MLB because he failed to hold down a big-league job. The two track records aren't that different at all, except they gave Pelfrey a big league job to lose and made Heilman earn his. Nymr83 Nov 20 2008 07:47 PM just look at the ages, Pelfrey was forced into the majors 3 years younger and thats why he didnt succeed right away. Pelfrey had about 90 minor league innings when he was asked to make his debut, Heilman had twice that. Edgy DC Nov 20 2008 07:54 PM I don't think Heilman "sucked" in any way that Pelfrey and countless other young pitchers do. You can contextualize Pelfrey's performance, but it won't make it good. Or a-typical. That's how young pitchers trying to find themselves tend to do. You want context? How about three very effective years as a reliever without failing? You just sum that up as "he sucked as a reliever." What does one do with that? Nymr83 Nov 20 2008 07:59 PM ="Edgy DC"]I don't think Heilman "sucked" in any way that Pelfrey and countless other young pitchers do. he sucked at a more advanced age and with more minor league experience, which leads be to believe that suckitude was more indicative of what he can do than it would be with a guy who was younger and/or less exprienced (pelfrey.) ]You want context? How about three very effective years as a reliever without failing? You just sum that up as "he sucked as a reliever." What does one do with that? the most recent season isn't everything, but its more important than older ones, but more importantly my question from the beginning is why should he be given a chance to start coming off this terrible performance? what evidence is there that he would be a more effective option, as a starter, than either a FA acquisition, a trade acquisition, or a minor leaguer currently in the organization? i'd say none. Edgy DC Nov 20 2008 08:05 PM Ask his agent. Edgy DC Nov 20 2008 08:37 PM I really can't see this as anything other than Heilman's agent doing his job and maximizing his client's value. Frayed Knot Nov 20 2008 08:50 PM The point in the Pelfrey comparison is not to say that they're the same pitcher (or are going to be) but that the "failed" part of their starting careers were about the same sample size. metsmarathon Nov 20 2008 09:23 PM 7 starts into 2005, heilman had about a 4.7 era (excluding 3.1 innings of runless relief mixed in) 7 starts into 2008, mike pelfrey had a 5 era. i think we also tend to forget that heilman had a number of good outings for us this year, and turned out to have been nursing a knee injury the whole while. not for nothing, but the schaeffer results do tell us that the sum of his positive outings was greater than any other reliever. he had a number of clunkers, true, but which do you think is more the measure of his worth? the handful of true clunker outings this year, or the three prior years of good to stellar relief? all i'm sayin' is, its freakin' early and inaccurate to write off his career as "he sucked, does suck, and will always suck" we'd be fools to dump him. i hesitate, now, to put him in the rotation as more than a fifth starter, but only because i don't know that he can start having spent so many years in the pen, and i'm concerned enough about maine that i want a reliable fifth guy. but others, such as looper, have made the transition well enough. i would grant him his wish to be traded if the return were suitable to replace him in our pen. i would, hedging my bets here, also think that he could be given the chance to compete for a starting spot in spring training, and if we need to fill in for an injury, open the season with him, or allow it to be a tryout for another club. if it doesn't work out - him having the length to start - put him right back in the pen. Zvon Nov 20 2008 11:16 PM ="Nymr83"] what evidence is there that he would be a more effective option, as a starter, than either a FA acquisition, a trade acquisition, or a minor leaguer currently in the organization? I'm all for an acquisition through market or trade. If it's a proven successful starter, I'd even rather go that route. But if they don't do that and there's a spot open.... I figure Perez and Hernandez are gone, so the way things stand now I consider Niese as part of the rotation. You think they should give the open spot to Brandon Knight? Now I can see why Heilman is insulted. I know this is really not a good point business wise but Heilman has always wanted to be a starter. For this team, he has always done whats been asked of him and he has paid his dues. It's a fact he can pitch at the major league level. He should be given what he requests. A shot at a spot or a trade. If we do acquire a real starter I have no problem with Neise and Heilman trying out for that 5th spot during the spring. And if Aaron gets it Neise can be a nice fallback should he fail. Gwreck Nov 21 2008 12:07 AM I view Heilman as an extremely valuable reliever who had a bad year. His results in 2005-2007 show him to be an excellent-to-outstanding reliever, and I think the point about Heilman having many quality innings in 2008 is a valid one. It's too bad the moronic fans ruined things. Nymr83 Nov 21 2008 12:42 AM too many people to respond to... ]I really can't see this as anything other than Heilman's agent doing his job and maximizing his client's value. thats fine, but i thought we were talking about this from the perspective of what a fan who enjoys winning wants to see the team do about it. ]The point in the Pelfrey comparison is not to say that they're the same pitcher (or are going to be) but that the "failed" part of their starting careers were about the same sample size. the comparison fails because of the different ages and points into their professional careers where they were then. ]not for nothing, but the schaeffer results do tell us that the sum of his positive outings was greater than any other reliever. he had a number of clunkers, true, but which do you think is more the measure of his worth? the handful of true clunker outings this year, or the three prior years of good to stellar relief? or maybe the schaffer results tell us that he pitched well in games where nobody else deserved points while Smith, Stokes, Wagner, whoever pitched well in games where David Wright hit a homerun and John Maine went 7 innings with 1 run, schaffer is hardly a reliable anything its not at all fair to try and pull out his bad outings, they are part of who he was and he walked a hell of alot of batters, thats more indicative than anything else. why should the prior years count more? if i'm projecting a guy for 2009 i'm looking at something like 55% 2008, 30% 2007, 15% 2006 with adjustments made for age, ballpark, injuries, etc. ]I figure Perez and Hernandez are gone, so the way things stand now I consider Niese as part of the rotation. Hernandez wasn't part of the '08 team anyway so whats he got to do with anything? right now you have 1 guy (perez) who needs replacing and 1 more spot (the spot that was filled by Martinez + a managerie of spot starters) ]I know this is really not a good point business wise but Heilman has always wanted to be a starter. For this team, he has always done whats been asked of him and he has paid his dues. It's a fact he can pitch at the major league level. He should be given what he requests. A shot at a spot or a trade. thats not a good point baseball wise forgetting business. i don't believe in "paying your dues" you get "paid your money" so shutup and do as you're told. it's fact that he has never pitched succesfully as a MLB starter and its fact that he's coming off a terrible year. he shouldn't be given what he requests, he should be given precisely what is best for the New York Mets winning as many baseball games as possible in 2009. ]It's too bad the moronic fans ruined things. yeah, its the fans fault that he walks people and gives up homers. thats blaming the victims. duan Nov 21 2008 06:35 AM here's where i stand I hated the line of "he's too important to the bullpen" the fact of the matter is a bullpen arm is a lot less expensive to replace then a starting one. Ryan Dempster's getting a $52 million contract on the basis of last seasons starting stats, not on his bullpen performance of the previous 3 years or so. The best 2/3 relievers in the market will be lucky to get in the that range. So if you will, be Aaron Heillman and compare your career arcs to Mr Dempsters and see whether in two years time you'd prefer to have had a decent run at starting to see whether you could be as good a starter as you were a reliever in 06 & 07 metsmarathon Nov 21 2008 07:09 AM ]why should the prior years count more? if i'm projecting a guy for 2009 i'm looking at something like 55% 2008, 30% 2007, 15% 2006 with adjustments made for age, ballpark, injuries, etc. well, if we give him no credit whatsoever for being injured last year, the above formula gives us the following approximate line: 80.2 IP 74 H 38 ER 9 HR 36 BB 74 SO 4.26 ERA which strikes me as at least serviceable, and definitely not "sucks" Frayed Knot Nov 21 2008 07:34 AM ]the comparison fails because of the different ages and points into their professional careers where they were then It's not perfect, but also not as huge as you're making it out to be. Yes, Heilman was two years older than Pelfrey during his early days as a starter (although Pelfrey was a pro earlier on accout of being drafted as a College Jr. rather than as a Sr.) but the results as a starter over pieces of their first 3 seasons aren't all that dissimilar: AH: 135 IP, 5.85 ERA; 1.49 WHiP MP: 150 IP; 5.34 ERA; 1.71 WHiP And, again, I'm not trying to claim that they're the same pitcher or paint a rosy picture of Heilman's 2008 season (he stunk) but rather I'm against this idea of relying solely on limited data from that early in a career to show that he not only wasn't good at it but also as 'proof' that he never can be. Apply that same standard to Pelfrey or just about any other young pitcher and a big chunk of hurlers in MLB would never have been given the chance to get to where they got. I think the death of Heilman as a starter was more a product of Peterson's reaction to his pitching motion than it was due to his early career struggles. Edgy DC Nov 21 2008 08:14 AM Limited data is limited data whether you're 22 or 32. I'd like to have seen Heilman get a start or two or three last year to see if it helped him make the adjustments he needed to make. If he did modestly well, it might have made him a better releiver. If he did very well, we'd have an opportunity. As it was, he threw the most dis-spiriting ball four since Kenny Rogers.

His name is very similar to the Japanese verb wakarimasu, which means to know or to understand.

It sometimes happens that after a year in which everything goes right, everything suddenly goes wrong. (I'm mainly thinking of the 1987 Mets here.) Maybe Utley's hip kick that off. Like Gooden's rehab did.

He can't be any worse than the guy we don't have.