G-Fafif

Just before the halfway point of this clip... http://www.vh1classic.com/view/playlist/1575088/191510/7_Ages_of_Rock_We_Are_The_Champions_Stadium_Rock/We_Are_the_Champions_Stadium_Rock_How_To_Rock_100_000_People/index.jhtml ...comes much respect for Shea. Part of VH1 Classic's "Seven Ages of Rock" series, the Stadium Rock episode, no doubt to be repeated often on your digital cable.

HahnSolo wrote: ]But in 1998, the Mets began including black in the team�s home and away uniforms, in various combinations. �The black was added as a style element based on some degree of research of fans in terms of what was popular in the marketplace,� Dave Howard, the Mets� executive vice president of business operations, said on Thursday. A good 7-8 years after the White Sox initially made it popular. Way to keep up that market research up with the times, Dave. What's up for 2009? Segways to bring relievers in from the bullpen? Good one!

Edgy DC wrote: the Princes of Baseball. I nominate my non-cousin Tom who once inscribed a ball for me "great last name!" http://www.baseball-reference.com/p/princto01.shtml

Fman99 wrote: Fifty years from now, when they're all wearing their quasi-futuristic Mercury Mets uniforms, you will all miss the black hats and jerseys. Trust me! Joke would be on us if we found the Mercury Mets fabric contains special longevity fibers.

After a while, everything new is nostalgia. The first sign of the black shirts last April gave me a jolt back to the glory days of '99 and '00, which I'm sure was never the idea behind those hip, contemporary duds. We don't really need 'em but they've kind of become, to my mind anyway, The New Throwbacks (maybe by 2011 they'll be tagged as such in one of the many fine Citi Retail Environments).

Though I understand the post-report wishful thinking surrounding the Mets as default 2000 World Series champs is utterly, utterly nonsensical, I have to admit I had a vision earlier today of that year's N.L. Champions banner above the right field wall being upgraded and became a little verklempt. Like I said, utterly nonsensical. But still.

Never mind then.

I was also under the impression that there was a most favored nations clause to all this, both getting or at least getting offered the same treatment. It's possible both teams were offered this and only the MFYs took it. Remember, their break is half of what the Mets are getting from Citi. Maybe Wilpon declined the money and ran to the banker instead of preserving the sanctity of Shea for the extra 10 mil. (Sanctity used without irony.)

A Faith and Fear reader recently alerted us to this little-reported fact (from the Washington Post in October): ]Starting in 2009, the New York Mets will play in the new Citi Field, ditching the old Shea Stadium name in exchange for $400 million over 20 years from Citibank. The Yankees' new stadium will be named, oddly enough, Yankee Stadium, but only because the city reduced the annual rent from $10 million to $10 to keep corporate sponsors out.

Instructions will be posted/included, yes? As a newcomer (and spiritual equivalent to North Carolina A&T) to this, I'm still a little dim on process.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: They would have torn that down months ago but they were waiting for the last people to squeeze through the turnstyles following the last Met game. ZING! with the ring of truth.

Always a go-to first-inning shot for Mr. Webb.

No more stairs to the extension to the 7 train beyond the right field wall. No more extension for now either: http://sports.webshots.com/photo/2652698070100987497AJjkUp Photographer who has been shooting Citi Field's rise elaborates: http://www.metsrefugees.com/2007/12/08/citi-field-update-12807/

Watched the whole damn thing for the Mets scenes, of which there were two that didn't show up 'til 10:30 or so. Will be blogging about it later, but let's just say Michael Imperioli displayed range not seen at Shea since Mo Vaughn was cashing Sterling Equity checks. Worst sin of this telepic? The half-assed uniform situation. They had Imperioli in something that more or less looked like 1973 home duds except the numbers on the back were rather road-ish (more square than the home tops). And for his Old Timers Day appearance circa 1991, the racing stripe was blue-orange-blue when in real life it was orange-blue-orange. It's something you stare at, know something's wrong, can't put your finger on and then it hits you. And it annoys you more than the movie itself. Which was highly annoying. Also, Imperioli told Sports Illustrated, when asked "is playing a Met heresy for a Yankees fan?" responded, "In acting, everything is O.K. If it's all right that I put someone's head through a window, then I guess it's O.K. to wear a Mets uniform." For the record, M.I. was invited to throw out a first ball at Fenway Park (movie was filmed in Mass.) but "I said I would do it only if I could wear a Yankees uniform." Gracious, too!

Benjamin Grimm wrote: If the baseball stuff is inaccurate, why are you presuming that the neighborhood history is accurate? Excellent question. Probably because most of the neighborhood is highly detailed and reasonably attributed and because the author's bailiwick is Queens history as opposed to baseball (and, to be fair, if he is misstating something happening at the intersection of Main Street and Northern Blvd. as happening in 1937 instead of 1936, I wouldn't know or notice or, my regard for accuracy notwithstanding, be bothered by it much). The Mets stuff isn't exactly shoehorned in there, but he seems less comfortable talking about it. I would normally warn you off a book that misstates a dozen or more Met facts (Mike Piazza being traded by the Dodgers to the Mets is just sloppy but "the team's main supporters are the residents of the two communities bordering the stadium, Flushing and Corona" is almost charming in its lunacy) but the pictures make everything worth the price of admission.

Antos book contains compelling pictures, tortured text, fun factual errors (Seaver won 25 games in 1967; Gooden was traded to the Mets in 1984) but a lot of heart and presumably accurate history about the Valley of Ashes and how it grew up to become an almost-now-defunct ballpark. Once went to a baseball card show at Shea, held inside the Gate A/B entrance in 1978. Bought that year's Topps Seaver for presumably no more than a buck, first card (I guess) in which he was a Red. The irony only just hit me.

Dave (MGIM), Consider me amused... and your position as Klapisch Kop shored up by me.

You care for Elijah Dukes little, dear Audrey Yet your club-switching choice is the one I found tawdry You want your daughter to feel some true local fealty But your own allegiance should have transcended mere realty "Lifetime" and "loyalty" you bandy about But the Mets for the Nats is what you traded out In McLean as in Flushing, you don't turn your back On the team that wears blue... and orange... and black

Well, certainly by referring to something as "silly," you've put me on the defensive, so congratulations. You've already won your argument. But I will elaborate since you more or less asked. I find it an insecure move because who would be interested in watching a visiting Joe Torre emerge from the dugout to hand the umpires a lineup card or make a pitching change (which is all you're going to see of any manager if you're at a game unless there's a disputed call)? Probably not Mets fans, unless it's 1982. This is a Yankee storyline. Highlighting it seems to say, by my postulation, that Yankees fans should come to Shea Stadium and be on the lookout for Joe Torre so you can give him a big ovation and remember the good times, like the end of the 2000 World Series at Shea Stadium. Bringing the Yankees into the Met equation unless absolutely necessary smacks of insecurity. It reminds me of Tino Martinez coming to Shea with the Cardinals after leaving the Yankees or David Wells coming to Shea with the Blue Jays. I don't recall the Mets shining a spotlight on them, but their former fans found them (and it was sickening). It seems as if the Mets are saying "hey, we could probably sell some tickets to Yankees fans with Torre coming in". I think the Mets, their attendance already breaking records, should be past that kind of thinking. It's also reminiscent of the fuss the Mets made over Sammy Sosa when Sosa was a visiting player as well. If the seats are usually empty and you don't care who fills them, well, fine. But the Mets are at a stage where, poor finish notwithstanding, they shouldn't have to single out a Yankee connection to a particular series. Perhaps it says Mets fans should be on the lookout for Torre and boo in reaction to his time with the Yankees, though I think that would be stretching the Mets' thought process. I believe this to be more a misjudgment by the marketing department born of years of hearing nonsense about competing for back pages ("Hey! We've got Torre at Shea!") than it is the work of some lonely "schnook". Baseball's a big business. They have people who approve this stuff twelve months a year. KC, I'll be happy to elaborate here or anywhere with you on any Met topic I broach. It was a quick and passing observation on something that got my attention for a moment and raised a flag -- like dozens of observations that are made here every day by everybody. If it were a much bigger deal to me, I probably would have gone on about it as I did above. It was just My Two Cents, as it were.

="Kid Carsey"]G: >>>But why must the Mets refer to "Torre and the Dodgers" as a home highlight? Can they be a little more insecure?<<< Jeez, some marketing schnook comes up with that in November when every- one of any importance is either vacationing or at meetings regarding personnel and you derive that they're insecure because they mention Mother Torresa? Yes. Yes I did.

Gosh, back on September 30, I didn't think seeing that the Mets would ever play again would make me this happy. Looks like the Nats Park ESPN opener has been tabled. I like the confidence that September 28 is merely the final "regular season" game at Shea. But why must the Mets refer to "Torre and the Dodgers" as a home highlight? Can they be a little more insecure? On the other hand, Tom McCarthy is gone, so it's a great schedule.

Gl@v!ne, Mota and now McCarthy all gone in just over a week. Maybe 2008 won't be so bad after all. True, it could always be worse (or, as bmfc suggests, barely any better if it's Eddie C), but unless the Mets rehire Lorn Brown, probably not.

Fifty, Gracie? Contemporary or all-time?

Nymr83 wrote: the "big red machine" already has the undeserving Tony Perez in the hall. lets not add to the stupidity by inducting a no-bat speed guy with a .322 OBP Concepcion was the top all-around shortstop in the N.L. for most of his lengthy career. He was a key member of one of the best teams in modern baseball history, and there is something to be said for context. He pioneered the artificial turf one-bounce throw to first. It's probably an unpopular statistical argument since it delves into "if he's in, then he should be in," but his candidacy strikes me as in the mold of Reese's and Rizzuto's: mainstays at a crucial position for a powerhouse club who by all accounts played it very well (I saw Concepcion, not the other two). He's going to suffer by comparison to latter-day middle infielders who could hit homers as a matter of course and isn't going to make it anyway, but I don't think it's outlandish to suggest Davey Concepcion had a Hall of Fame-caliber career at his position in his time. I was never hot for Perez in the Hall, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it stupidity that he's in. Phrases like that when applied to a player who drove in 90 or more runs in nine consecutive seasons when hitting wasn't at its peak diminishes the appraisal of actual acts of stupidity.

What were the previous parameters-- that is, how did this work in the past? I was amused by many of the parodies last year but was mystified as to how the topics were arrived at.