G-Fafif

="RealityChuck":1wjua3of]Are the people rallying for Manny also rallying for keeping the Citi Field naming rights (and payments)? Because if they're not, they're being delusional.[/quote:1wjua3of] My guess is they're as delusional as those chanting "Let's Go Mets" in 1963. Probably more so. Edgy DC Feb 03 2009 07:58 AM Can we glean anything from the fact that the Red Sox --- the rich, smart, informed team we hope ours will one day be, employing Bill James and all and defending a championship --- traded Ramirez in the heat of a race? That shouldn't kill the notion, but shouldn't it humble folks a bit in their demands that this is a no-brainer? G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 08:05 AM ]Can we glean anything from the fact that the Red Sox --- the rich, smart, informed team we hope ours will one day be, employing Bill James and all and defending a championship --- traded Ramirez in the heat of a race? That shouldn't kill the notion, but shouldn't it humble folks a bit in their demands that this is a no-brainer? The team that traded Manny got to the LCS. So did the team that acquired Manny. It's the Manny who went to L.A. people remember, not the Manny who got himself run out of Boston. Every time you see a clip package of Manny highlights, there's nothing sullen from his last days with the Red Sox. It's all home runs and smiles with the Dodgers. That's the part of the fan brain that's working this cold winter. Centerfield Feb 03 2009 08:06 AM I think we may have set some sort of record for assumptions in a single thread. ="SteveJRogers":a9e7kszf]Not only that, how about when all the things that caused him to be persona non grata in Boston rear it's ugly head. You can only take "Manny being Manny" so much.[/quote:a9e7kszf] Manny reared his ugly head in Boston to the tune of a .927 OPS, which would have led all Mets. In July, he quit on the Red Sox by bumping that to 1.060. Afterwards, he got hot. ="SteveJRogers":a9e7kszf]Well there is truth to [Francesa and Russo being responsible for delivering Piazza].[/quote:a9e7kszf] No. There may be truth. It is all based upon speculation created by callers of the show who wanted to pat themselves on the back. ="Edgy DC":a9e7kszf]I'm all for advocating, it's true. But there's got to be some real responsiblity.[/quote:a9e7kszf] There is nothing here indicating that any of the street rallyers lack responsibility. They might all have legitimate plans. ="Edgy DC":a9e7kszf]I'm against the jungle advocacy or street rallies around such slogans as "Do It, Omar!" and calling hang-up radio shows. [/quote:a9e7kszf] This is not an assumption, but I'm just wondering why you would prefer one form of advocacy over another. ="Edgy DC":a9e7kszf]I'm also against the sort of two-faced advocacy that allows you to demand the same sort of moves that the advocate is ripping them for making in the past. (See: Waaaa!) [/quote:a9e7kszf] Nothing here suggests any of the rallyers are that type of fan. ="Edgy DC":a9e7kszf]Just as my frustration with rallyers who push for an aggressive spending-spree pursuit of veterans portrayed as prima donnas tend also to have pushed for that in the past, only to rip the Mets when those moves haven't worked out, and go on to portray those failed veteran imports as prima donnas that the Mets should have been smart enough to avoid.[/quote:a9e7kszf] Again, it is faulty to undermine the rallyers' credibility by unfairly associating with hypocritical thinking. There is nothing to suggest these rallyers think in that manner. ="RealityChuck":a9e7kszf]Are the people rallying for Manny also rallying for keeping the Citi Field naming rights (and payments)? Because if they're not, they're being delusional.[/quote:a9e7kszf] Are you aware of any out clause in the contract? Because my understanding of contracts is that if Citifield tries to back out, they are subject to damages. Centerfield Feb 03 2009 08:09 AM ="Edgy DC":1p7alcyl]Can we glean anything from the fact that the Red Sox --- the rich, smart, informed team we hope ours will one day be, employing Bill James and all and defending a championship --- traded Ramirez in the heat of a race? That shouldn't kill the notion, but shouldn't it humble folks a bit in their demands that this is a no-brainer?[/quote:1p7alcyl] I think the LCS demonstrated how much they missed Manny's bat. Especially if you turned the channel and watched what he was doing wearing blue. Also throw in the two World Series titles they won with him anchoring the lineup. Edgy DC Feb 03 2009 08:30 AM I'm aware of that and if louts were being loutish in killing the idea I'd feel similarly. It's a delicate choice, and no no-brainer by any stretch. Wasn't it your wife who said that we'd get David Ortiz when his weight hit 300 and his knees were shot? Edgy DC Feb 06 2009 08:28 AM ="Newsday"]Million Manny March only brings 10-15 Mets fans BY KATIE STRANG | caitlin.strang@newsday.com February 6, 2009 Compared to last week, the smattering of Mets fans willing to brave the cold outside SNY studios in Manhattan for the second "Million Manny March" accurately reflected the team's likelihood of landing Manny Ramirez - rapidly dwindling. About 50 fans gathered to chant and implore Mets management to sign the free-agent slugger last week, but only 10 to 15 people appeared for the second rally. "I wanted to promote the cause and get Manny over here, plain and simple," said Gustavo Medina, 20, of Ridgewood, Queens. "If we have a power bat like Manny, and you plug him between Carlos Beltran and Carlos Delgado, you're gonna have a respected lineup and an outstanding New York Mets club in 2009." Even though general manager Omar Minaya has been emphatic in dismissing fans' hopes of signing Ramirez, Medina thinks it remains a possibility. "Omar Minaya has coveted that man since high school," Medina said. Holding up the other end of Medina's sign was Cliff Korn, 38, of Manhattan, who said the acquisition still could happen even though Minaya has ruled it out. "Minaya likes to make the big splash," Korn said, citing previous players who ended up in Flushing when it initially looked unlikely. "I think it's possible." Medina said they won't be deterred until adding Manny no longer is possible. When will they stop congregating? "When he signs somewhere else," Medina said. Added Korn, "And then we'll start rallying for Matt Holliday." John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 06 2009 08:31 AM Katie Strang, bringin it strong. Edgy DC Feb 06 2009 08:35 AM Great cub reporter assignment. Hey, Katie, go out in the cold and talk to some quixotic mooks. seawolf17 Feb 06 2009 09:13 AM For a quick second, I read that as Gustavo Molina. Frayed Knot Feb 06 2009 10:34 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":1v6ar1zc]Katie Strang, bringin it strong.[/quote:1v6ar1zc] Considering that the only other time I've seen her name in Newsday sports is when she's covering human cockfighti ... I mean the "Mixed Martial Arts" scene, I suppose that talking to idiot Met fans in sub-freezing weather isn't so bad. Or maybe she's an MMA groupie and enjoys that stuff, who knows.

="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?

="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!

="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!

]Relatively few get hung up on how to get both or why either is elusive. ]It's that last sentence that gets to me. Rooting for a baseball team isn't math class. You're not required to show your work. That said, here's Casey Stengel's 10-80-10 formula as related by Don Rowe in William Ryczek's sublime The Amazin' Mets 1962-1969, best history I've ever read of that period (if you're going to read two books about the Mets this year, make this your second...after you've secured a copy of your first, he said crassly). ]Ten percent of the people in this stadium knew what was going on. Eighty percent think they knew what was going on but they don't. See those drunks out in centerfield who are beating on each other? That ten percent don't know and don't care. If you use that philosophy, the fans will never bother you because you'll be able to put them in whatever category you want. The Manny marchers, incidentally, are probably descended from the placard wavers who populated the Polo Grounds. They may have distracted Casey. They probably won't distract Omar.

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.

Two things about Bradley: 1) I snapped a picture of him in St. Petersburg just before a Mets-MFY game was rained out. 2) Howie Rose tells the story of Bradley flubbing and lollygagging a fly ball when he was pitching in San Fran. When the play was over, Seaver stood on the mound, hands on hips and glared in his direction. When asked about it upon his election to the Hall, Seaver said he didn't remember it, but if he did that, he shouldn't have shown up a teammate. None of this answers the question about what happened to him.

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.

10. I call A-Rod A-Fraud. I came up with that.

"WFAN has learned..." WFAN just said after reading what JCL posted. Three years and a physical.

WE WANT MANNY!!!

4. The tailpipe on my Ford Explorer is beginning to look good to me.

Consistency in philosophy is always going to take it to whatever might work best at any given moment within the realm of a pastime measured in wins and losses. The Mets shouldn't spend a lot of money on old players who are bad fits, unless it seems like a really good idea right now and we need a power-hitting leftfielder, cost, age and potential personality conflicts be damned. The Mets shouldn't replace the ballpark that defines their character and soul, but they've got to get a new ballpark that doesn't form puddles just by staring at it. Fans want results and gratification. Relatively few get hung up on how to get both or why either is elusive.

Do that, and Manny signs, you can always take credit.

="Edgy DC":qsnlyp29]I'm all for advocating, it's true. But there's got to be some real responsiblity. I'm against the jungle advocacy or street rallies around such slogans as "Do It, Omar!" and calling hang-up radio shows.[/quote:qsnlyp29] Appoint yourself their spiritual guide. "Hey fellas, instead of waving the signs, you should..." What? Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 11:46 AM Post on a website that nobody reads, of course. G-Fafif Feb 02 2009 11:47 AM Do that, and Manny signs, you can always take credit. Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 12:05 PM And to be fair, my frustration with the end of Shea is the lamentations of people who did advocate for its destruction. Just as my frustration with rallyers who push for an aggressive spending-spree pursuit of veterans portrayed as prima donnas tend also to have pushed for that in the past, only to rip the Mets when those moves haven't worked out, and go on to portray those failed veteran imports as prima donnas that the Mets should have been smart enough to avoid. G-Fafif Feb 02 2009 12:12 PM Consistency in philosophy is always going to take it to whatever might work best at any given moment within the realm of a pastime measured in wins and losses. The Mets shouldn't spend a lot of money on old players who are bad fits, unless it seems like a really good idea right now and we need a power-hitting leftfielder, cost, age and potential personality conflicts be damned. The Mets shouldn't replace the ballpark that defines their character and soul, but they've got to get a new ballpark that doesn't form puddles just by staring at it. Fans want results and gratification. Relatively few get hung up on how to get both or why either is elusive. Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 12:15 PM It's that last sentence that gets to me. G-Fafif Feb 02 2009 12:21 PM WE WANT MANNY!!! G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:35 AM ]Relatively few get hung up on how to get both or why either is elusive. ]It's that last sentence that gets to me. Rooting for a baseball team isn't math class. You're not required to show your work. That said, here's Casey Stengel's 10-80-10 formula as related by Don Rowe in William Ryczek's sublime The Amazin' Mets 1962-1969, best history I've ever read of that period (if you're going to read two books about the Mets this year, make this your second...after you've secured a copy of your first, he said crassly). ]Ten percent of the people in this stadium knew what was going on. Eighty percent think they knew what was going on but they don't. See those drunks out in centerfield who are beating on each other? That ten percent don't know and don't care. If you use that philosophy, the fans will never bother you because you'll be able to put them in whatever category you want. The Manny marchers, incidentally, are probably descended from the placard wavers who populated the Polo Grounds. They may have distracted Casey. They probably won't distract Omar. RealityChuck Feb 03 2009 07:41 AM The team might end up losing $20 million a year of income if the Citi Field naming rights thing falls apart (and it's looking more likely it will). They'll have to pony up at least that much a year for Manny, so the bottom line is they're probably out $40+ million. Are the people rallying for Manny also rallying for keeping the Citi Field naming rights (and payments)? Because if they're not, they're being delusional. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:45 AM ="RealityChuck":1wjua3of]Are the people rallying for Manny also rallying for keeping the Citi Field naming rights (and payments)? Because if they're not, they're being delusional.[/quote:1wjua3of] My guess is they're as delusional as those chanting "Let's Go Mets" in 1963. Probably more so. Edgy DC Feb 03 2009 07:58 AM Can we glean anything from the fact that the Red Sox --- the rich, smart, informed team we hope ours will one day be, employing Bill James and all and defending a championship --- traded Ramirez in the heat of a race? That shouldn't kill the notion, but shouldn't it humble folks a bit in their demands that this is a no-brainer? G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 08:05 AM ]Can we glean anything from the fact that the Red Sox --- the rich, smart, informed team we hope ours will one day be, employing Bill James and all and defending a championship --- traded Ramirez in the heat of a race? That shouldn't kill the notion, but shouldn't it humble folks a bit in their demands that this is a no-brainer? The team that traded Manny got to the LCS. So did the team that acquired Manny. It's the Manny who went to L.A. people remember, not the Manny who got himself run out of Boston. Every time you see a clip package of Manny highlights, there's nothing sullen from his last days with the Red Sox. It's all home runs and smiles with the Dodgers. That's the part of the fan brain that's working this cold winter. Centerfield Feb 03 2009 08:06 AM I think we may have set some sort of record for assumptions in a single thread. ="SteveJRogers":a9e7kszf]Not only that, how about when all the things that caused him to be persona non grata in Boston rear it's ugly head. You can only take "Manny being Manny" so much.[/quote:a9e7kszf] Manny reared his ugly head in Boston to the tune of a .927 OPS, which would have led all Mets. In July, he quit on the Red Sox by bumping that to 1.060. Afterwards, he got hot. ="SteveJRogers":a9e7kszf]Well there is truth to [Francesa and Russo being responsible for delivering Piazza].[/quote:a9e7kszf] No. There may be truth. It is all based upon speculation created by callers of the show who wanted to pat themselves on the back. ="Edgy DC":a9e7kszf]I'm all for advocating, it's true. But there's got to be some real responsiblity.[/quote:a9e7kszf] There is nothing here indicating that any of the street rallyers lack responsibility. They might all have legitimate plans. ="Edgy DC":a9e7kszf]I'm against the jungle advocacy or street rallies around such slogans as "Do It, Omar!" and calling hang-up radio shows. [/quote:a9e7kszf] This is not an assumption, but I'm just wondering why you would prefer one form of advocacy over another. ="Edgy DC":a9e7kszf]I'm also against the sort of two-faced advocacy that allows you to demand the same sort of moves that the advocate is ripping them for making in the past. (See: Waaaa!) [/quote:a9e7kszf] Nothing here suggests any of the rallyers are that type of fan. ="Edgy DC":a9e7kszf]Just as my frustration with rallyers who push for an aggressive spending-spree pursuit of veterans portrayed as prima donnas tend also to have pushed for that in the past, only to rip the Mets when those moves haven't worked out, and go on to portray those failed veteran imports as prima donnas that the Mets should have been smart enough to avoid.[/quote:a9e7kszf] Again, it is faulty to undermine the rallyers' credibility by unfairly associating with hypocritical thinking. There is nothing to suggest these rallyers think in that manner. ="RealityChuck":a9e7kszf]Are the people rallying for Manny also rallying for keeping the Citi Field naming rights (and payments)? Because if they're not, they're being delusional.[/quote:a9e7kszf] Are you aware of any out clause in the contract? Because my understanding of contracts is that if Citifield tries to back out, they are subject to damages. Centerfield Feb 03 2009 08:09 AM ="Edgy DC":1p7alcyl]Can we glean anything from the fact that the Red Sox --- the rich, smart, informed team we hope ours will one day be, employing Bill James and all and defending a championship --- traded Ramirez in the heat of a race? That shouldn't kill the notion, but shouldn't it humble folks a bit in their demands that this is a no-brainer?[/quote:1p7alcyl] I think the LCS demonstrated how much they missed Manny's bat. Especially if you turned the channel and watched what he was doing wearing blue. Also throw in the two World Series titles they won with him anchoring the lineup. Edgy DC Feb 03 2009 08:30 AM I'm aware of that and if louts were being loutish in killing the idea I'd feel similarly. It's a delicate choice, and no no-brainer by any stretch. Wasn't it your wife who said that we'd get David Ortiz when his weight hit 300 and his knees were shot? Edgy DC Feb 06 2009 08:28 AM ="Newsday"]Million Manny March only brings 10-15 Mets fans BY KATIE STRANG | caitlin.strang@newsday.com February 6, 2009 Compared to last week, the smattering of Mets fans willing to brave the cold outside SNY studios in Manhattan for the second "Million Manny March" accurately reflected the team's likelihood of landing Manny Ramirez - rapidly dwindling. About 50 fans gathered to chant and implore Mets management to sign the free-agent slugger last week, but only 10 to 15 people appeared for the second rally. "I wanted to promote the cause and get Manny over here, plain and simple," said Gustavo Medina, 20, of Ridgewood, Queens. "If we have a power bat like Manny, and you plug him between Carlos Beltran and Carlos Delgado, you're gonna have a respected lineup and an outstanding New York Mets club in 2009." Even though general manager Omar Minaya has been emphatic in dismissing fans' hopes of signing Ramirez, Medina thinks it remains a possibility. "Omar Minaya has coveted that man since high school," Medina said. Holding up the other end of Medina's sign was Cliff Korn, 38, of Manhattan, who said the acquisition still could happen even though Minaya has ruled it out. "Minaya likes to make the big splash," Korn said, citing previous players who ended up in Flushing when it initially looked unlikely. "I think it's possible." Medina said they won't be deterred until adding Manny no longer is possible. When will they stop congregating? "When he signs somewhere else," Medina said. Added Korn, "And then we'll start rallying for Matt Holliday." John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 06 2009 08:31 AM Katie Strang, bringin it strong. Edgy DC Feb 06 2009 08:35 AM Great cub reporter assignment. Hey, Katie, go out in the cold and talk to some quixotic mooks. seawolf17 Feb 06 2009 09:13 AM For a quick second, I read that as Gustavo Molina. Frayed Knot Feb 06 2009 10:34 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":1v6ar1zc]Katie Strang, bringin it strong.[/quote:1v6ar1zc] Considering that the only other time I've seen her name in Newsday sports is when she's covering human cockfighti ... I mean the "Mixed Martial Arts" scene, I suppose that talking to idiot Met fans in sub-freezing weather isn't so bad. Or maybe she's an MMA groupie and enjoys that stuff, who knows.

Damn, dirty apes...

"I want to thank the Good Lord for giving me a straight face so as to pretend all this nonsense is meaningful, thus extending my earning power." --Any Yankee

="TheOldMole":2d6gz115]Torre never seemed like the kiss and tell type.[/quote:2d6gz115] Who exactly would want to kiss Torre? Frayed Knot Jan 29 2009 06:01 PM ]The proposed clause is intended to ensure that future books about the Yankees are "positive in tone," and "do not breach the sanctity of our clubhouse." It's modeled after the same plan the CIA uses. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 29 2009 06:47 PM I dunno. At some point, Torre to me became one of the guys I tolerated and even grudgingly admired if only for his ability to bring those bastards into 1st place year after year, despite what reprehensible assholes they hired and the relentless bullshit marketing that has made everything Yankee so very disgusting. I mean, if it was easy to win with the best team, it would happen more often. I predict another season of Girardi will teach the fans bitching about betrayal to change their tune in a hurry. MFS62 Jan 29 2009 06:53 PM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":wjni94jm]I dunno. At some point, Torre to me became one of the guys I tolerated and even grudgingly admired if only for his ability to bring those bastards into 1st place year after year, despite what reprehensible assholes they hired and the relentless bullshit marketing that has made everything Yankee so very disgusting. [/quote:wjni94jm] Don't be wishy-washy. Tell us how you really feel about them. Later Willets Point Jan 29 2009 08:19 PM Crying like a Yankee pitcher. Frayed Knot Jan 29 2009 08:24 PM "Serial tough man Roger Clemens? Uncontrollable sobbing in the clubhouse during a game he was pitching in the World Series! This after his got all macho and threw a shard of bat in the direction of nemesis Mike Piazza." Good thing steroids haven't been linked to wild mood swings. Oh wait! DocTee Jan 29 2009 08:34 PM Funny stuff. The line about Kei Igawa's underwhelming bp session ("I hope he's hurt or hungover..") is an instant classic. MFS62 Jan 30 2009 11:12 AM ="DocTee":3amcqdu9]Funny stuff. The line about Kei Igawa's underwhelming bp session ("I hope he's hurt or hungover..") is an instant classic.[/quote:3amcqdu9] If that was what he said after seeing him in batting practice, I wonder what he said when he saw him in a game. Later

He feels petty! Oh so petty!

I'll bet Jon Chattman didn't know he was providing a Mad Libs form.

]I'd be OK with this if the Bronx neighbors didn't get all the good players or if the Mets couldn't afford to land players like Derek Lowe and Manny Ramirez. He would? Doesn't sound like it.

="Frayed Knot":2hut7jgx]There were two pitching circles (not raised mounds, just a dirt area) to either side of home plate towards the batting circles with extra plates back near the backstop. Those were intended as warmup areas although I don't think I ever saw anyone actually warm up from there. They eventually got erased and the backstop moved up to make it impossible anyway but I don't specifically remember when. An overhead shot of the field from the early days would show the marks.[/quote:2hut7jgx] If you have the Shea Essential DVD set and watch Game Four of the '69 Series, you'll see Mike Cuellar warming up from those circles on the third base side. It's like watching a World Series film from the '30s, albeit in color. Centerfield Jan 29 2009 11:44 AM I had never thought about this before, but next season is going to be pretty special. It will be, for the majority of us, the only time we will see a new stadium in our lifetimes. (Not counting other sports/teams etc) vtmet Feb 02 2009 05:38 PM ="cooby":20liq39t]As sad as it is for us, it's got to be worse for the guys that played the first games there. There are plenty of them that aren't so old that they can't still remember it well, but I'll bet tearing down a 40 year old stadium cos it's "outdated" makes them feel old.[/quote:20liq39t] I find it even more bizarre how many stadiums were built after Shea that have already been replaced...for example, the Seattle Kingdome opened in 1976, and had been replaced during the '99 season and was imploded prior to the '00 season... metsguyinmichigan Feb 02 2009 06:24 PM ="cooby":36afwqax]As sad as it is for us, it's got to be worse for the guys that played the first games there. There are plenty of them that aren't so old that they can't still remember it well, but I'll bet tearing down a 40 year old stadium cos it's "outdated" makes them feel old.[/quote:36afwqax] Heck, I was born a week before Shea's first game. Now I feel old! Of course, when my parents say, "He's a dump, but he's our dump."....

="batmagadanleadoff":3h29wbsh]I'm still trying to figure out this beer-belt thing.[/quote:3h29wbsh] It may have been more of a flexible tube than a belt. It was white and canvassy, Lite logo on one side, Mets script on the other. And it had a zipper. I've yet to figure its real world utility. When offered a beer, is it like, "No thanks, brought my own!"? Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 11:40 AM I'm guessing 83-88 as when spornsorship of giveaway days took over. Around that time that every Sunday became a giveaway day. I got a Mets sports bag around 83 that was really a cheap Glad logoed thingie. Tee shirt day around 1985 was a fugly v-neck with "Mets" in script on the left breast and "All-Channel Satellite" in print on the right. Since satellite dishes were prohibitively expensive then, I imagine if the promotion netted three or four sales, they covered their nut. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 28 2009 11:44 AM Gotta love the SI Vault: July 18, 1977 ] Beer Is Out, Halters In Larry Keith Take me out to the ball game, Take me out to the crowd. Give me some jackets and baseball caps, Free photo albums and sweatbands and bats. Yes, it's step right up for the freebies. If they run out it's a shame. For it's one, two, three giveaways At the new ball game. There was a time when the only pleasures baseball offered were its modest own. Dodgers vs. Reds, Yankees vs. Red Sox. It was all in the game itself. In recent years, though, baseball has decided that the marketplace demands more than hits, runs and errors. Management feels compelled to give you something else. It wants you to leave the stadium with a smile on your face, a song in your heart and a souvenir sweatband on your wrist. Baseball promotions are a means of winning at the gate even if the home team is losing on the field. At times they have all the taste and sophistication of a TV game show. But whether what is offered is a free gift or a cheap thrill, promotions are good business. The payoff comes in increased revenues from attendance, concessions and parking, plus thousands of people walking around town showing off the team logo. "Financially speaking, we just about have to have giveaway days if we're going to make it," says Baltimore Promotions Director Don Shaver. Bill Veeck's Chicago White Sox had 25 promotion or giveaway dates last season. Business Manager Rudie Schaffer says, "The thing you're trying to accomplish is to bring a fresh person into the ball park. Once you get him there, you give him a good show." Most teams enjoy the benefits of giveaway days without having to pay the full cost of the items they are handing out. Because 25,000 bats and jackets at 75? and $1.50 each add up, the expense is often shared by local cosponsors. Businesses also participate by buying up blocks of tickets for their employees. Boeing Aircraft set a major league group-sales record this year by purchasing 65,432 tickets for Seattle's two-game Boeing Weekend. The key to a successful promotion is to turn a profit even while giving something away. Philadelphia was outsmarted a few years ago when cagey Little Leaguers entered Veterans Stadium for the kids' cut-rate 50?, collected a jacket, went outside, returned with another four-bit ticket, collected another jacket, went outside.... "They were starting their own sporting goods store," says the Phillies' executive vice-president. Bill Giles. "Our policy now is that kids have to pay a normal $2.25 for a ticket on special promotion days." But at that price, a ball club better deliver. A team caught short of advertised items usually hands out IOUs. In many ball parks, you have to be 14 or under to get, say, a free jacket. In Kansas City members of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes make the age decisions. No team is foolish enough to give sticky chewing gum to the masses, and most take special precautions when handing out bats to kids and beer to adults. Three years ago, a sudsed-up crowd in Cleveland stormed onto the field during a game with Texas, forcing a forfeit, only the eighth in major league history. But it is the Rangers, not the Indians, who have plugged up the keg. Texas discontinued its beer promotions at the request of the Arlington city fathers, who objected to fights in the stands and automobile accidents around the park after the game. The Dodgers do not give away bats because they noticed that constant pounding on the cement stands was creating a potential "structural problem." Montreal discontinued Bat Day after incidents in 1969 and 1974. The first involved empty-handed (and headed) customers who tried to overturn the depleted supply truck. Five years later bat swingers took aim at the windshields of parked cars. Local custom and interest dictate the nature of some promotions. Toronto and Montreal hand out ski caps. Cincinnati schedules a Farmers' Night (farmer/Pitcher Woodie Fryman is favored to win this year's cow-milking contest) and Texas has a combination Farm and Ranch Night. The egg-throwing contest is a messy highlight of both events. Houston attracts thousands for its Louisiana Weekend, which includes a gumbo-cooking contest. On Texas Weekend the featured events are beer-can crushing and cow-chip throwing. Philadelphia and Atlanta lead the majors in all-round originality and sophomoric high jinks. The Phillies set the mood on Opening Day when someone arrives by kite, parachute or cannon to throw out the first ball. Fans cannot wait for Halter Top Night on Aug. 19 when halters will be given away. "If they can fill 'em. they can have 'em." reports SI Correspondent Charlie Frush. Each halter will sport the slogan of the cosponsor Tastykake: ALL THE GOOD THINGS WRAPPED UP IN ONE. Slightly more sophisticated is Music Night, when anyone bringing a musical instrument can join in the playing of Take Me Out to the Ball Game and will receive a certificate authenticating his or her performance in the "world's largest orchestra." Atlanta schedules a promotion of some sort for every game. On Wedlock and Headlock Day 15 couples will be married at home plate before the game, and five professional wrestling matches will take place afterward. The Braves have already held their version of Ladies Night, in which every woman received a cigar (You've come a long way, baby, since the first Ladies Day in 1876). The big winner in the team's $25,000 cash scramble picked up $4,000 in 90 seconds of scurrying after bills scattered all over the field. Which proved once again that in baseball, promotion really does pay. Frayed Knot Jan 28 2009 01:53 PM I remember when Imus used to say that 'Hand-gun Night' was coming up a Yankee Stadium. All those over 15 got a freebie but only if accompanied by their parole officer. Funny how give-away promotions have increased during a time when stadiums are closer to their capacity than ever in many cases, theoretically making the need for a come-on less necessary. Benjamin Grimm Jan 28 2009 01:55 PM It's probably less about filling empty seats than it is about promoting the sponsor. Frayed Knot Jan 28 2009 02:13 PM Egg-zactly In the old days it was about selling tickets so they figured that having them too often would spoil the novelty and fans would no longer plan their ticket buying around them. Now they don't need them to fill seats so it's all about making money via the underwriting. They'd probably have them 81 times a year if they could find enough gizmos and sponsors. Ashie62 Jan 28 2009 02:46 PM I've still got my blond Ron Swoboda model Bat Day Bat from a late sixties promo where they ask everyone to wave their bats at the same time. Quite a sight! batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2009 03:27 PM ="G-Fafif":s111v9tq]="batmagadanleadoff":s111v9tq]I'm still trying to figure out this beer-belt thing.[/quote:s111v9tq] It may have been more of a flexible tube than a belt....[/quote:s111v9tq] I was about to question the whole wholesomeness of that promotion, especially given Baseball's traditional connection with children of all ages. But then I remembered the huge Budweiser ads that have been swallowing up Shea's scoreboard for the past 20 years or so. Maybe the Mets'll give one of those away for borscht in 2009.

They used to, I gather, order enough to satisfy what they believed the crowd would be. Then along would come a game where the sale outpaced the forecast and it was raincheck time. The "first 25,000" bit took care of that. I'd have to delve into yearbooks and pocket schedule archives to figure out when these things began to become routinely sponsored. In ye olde days, Batting Helmet Day was just Batting Helmet Day, not Investors Consolidated Batting Helmet Day. I remember reading an article about sponsored giveaways in the WSJ a long time ago that said even something that seemed kinda ritzy (like a transistor radio that the MFYs gave out) was pretty cheap and the sponsor picked up the cost.

I was at that game, a birthday present to a friend who was born on August 10, fittingly enough. The Mets gave away, besides eleven runs, the strangest of premiums: a Miller Lite can belt, adults only. It fit three cans of beer (beer not included) inside it and you could strap it around your waist, lest you forget where you put 75% of your four-pack. They actually ran out of them and provided rainchecks. My friend was late in showing up, so I picked his up for him on the final day of the season. I think it was the following year the Mets instituted "first 25,000" and such, as ordering up extra Miller Lite can belts must have struck somebody in promotions as something less than the best use of resources.