batmagadanleadoff

Next week, Marlon intends to reveal his blueprint for the 2009 season, in which Anderson is named NL MVP and the Mets beat the Brewers in the 7th game of the NLCS after substitute Manager Willie Randolph calls for a sac bunt with two outs in the bottom of the ninth and nobody on base.

="Frayed Knot":3h1soavs]="batmagadanleadoff":3h1soavs]I'd bet there's a lot of apocryphalness to this whole Berra discussion ... but the numbers are the numbers. Williams was the better hitter of the two. And there's no reasonable way to spin it otherwise.[/quote:3h1soavs] And I don't think anyone's trying to do that.[/quote:3h1soavs] And that's a good thing!

="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":2ab86e70]This apple business gets one to thinking... has there been any talk at all of where Mets HOF displays might be?[/quote:2ab86e70] Behind the 20 foot high Jackie Robinson statue, and slightly to the left of the world's biggest collection of Johnny Podres memorabilia. Space permitting. ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":2ab86e70]This apple business gets one to thinking... has there been any talk at all of where Mets HOF displays might be?[/quote:2ab86e70] What Mets HOF display? Everything was sold. The only thing left is an old Joe Frazier jock strap. metirish Feb 18 2009 01:06 PM The original Home Run Apple from Shea Stadium is installed in the Bullpen Plaza (an area open to the public behind the bullpens) at Citi Field. (New York Mets / February 13, 2009) The original Home Run Apple from Shea Stadium is installed in the Bullpen Plaza (an area open to the public behind the bullpens) at Citi Field. A new Home Run Apple will be in place in centerfield at Citi Field. (New York Mets / February 13, 2009) these go along with the picture Edgy posted. John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 18 2009 01:13 PM I was reading that baseball fever thread and apparently a few of the posters there have photos showing dozens of seats with obstructed views due to railings and so forth, mainly in the front-row promenade area. They are agitating the papers to do an expose on it, etc. Does this photo post? Gwreck Feb 18 2009 01:20 PM That photo posts fine, but that's not the real problem. The photo posted is taken from mid-section in the Promenade Infield Reserved. That's a $25 seat, and a railing in front of you is certainly a small obstruction but not the end of the world. The real problem is the first two rows of the Promenade Club and Promenade Box seats, the best of which are $75 seats. In those seats, if you are sitting down/are short, a LED board will apparently block your view of a good part of the field closest to you. There are also some key obstructions in the aisle seats in the low rows of the Promenade Reserved/Promenade Reserved Infield, because their are staircases at the front of the section that will be blocked with people and unfortunately-placed railings. John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 18 2009 01:20 PM oops Gwreck Feb 18 2009 01:22 PM Yep, those are more of those staircase obstructions. If you're in the lowest couple of rows of the Promenade Reserved or Promenade Reserved Infield, you can count on being obstructed either from the railings or the flow of people on the stairs. metirish Feb 18 2009 01:25 PM If your view is obstructed just go into one of the fine restaurants and drink some expensive wine . John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 18 2009 01:36 PM ="Gwreck":9shv8h7q]Yep, those are more of those staircase obstructions. If you're in the lowest couple of rows of the Promenade Reserved or Promenade Reserved Infield, you can count on being obstructed either from the railings or the flow of people on the stairs.[/quote:9shv8h7q] That's a fucking disaster Kong76 Feb 18 2009 01:45 PM Guess I'll reserve judgment until I actually sit down and see if I'm obstructed. I'm further out than that shot, but I hope I don't have to look at the infield through Plexiglas or whatever that is. metirish Feb 18 2009 01:47 PM Are those bottle holders on the iron railings in the last picture? Gwreck Feb 18 2009 02:12 PM Yes. Gwreck Feb 18 2009 02:19 PM ="Kong76":2l1n755i]Guess I'll reserve judgment until I actually sit down and see if I'm obstructed. I'm further out than that shot, but I hope I don't have to look at the infield through Plexiglas or whatever that is.[/quote:2l1n755i] My guess is that it'll only affect the first couple of seats in off the aisle in the first couple of rows. But that really sucks for what would otherwise be really good seats becoming really crappy ones. Kong76 Feb 18 2009 02:24 PM Yeah, I got 5-6 in row one of some section way out in left field. I'm going to have nightmares tonight. Gwreck Feb 18 2009 02:26 PM Which partial plan are you doing? We wanted to be on the infield so we wound up in row 14, but right behind the plate... Kong76 Feb 18 2009 02:31 PM Sunday plus five or whatever they call it. I guess I'll call the talking heads in the ticket office tomorrow and see if I can find anything out. Gwreck Feb 20 2009 07:41 PM Scoreboard being tested: Edgy DC Feb 20 2009 08:02 PM side effects of quirky angles = bad. John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 20 2009 08:42 PM I hope Wright can get the cycle. metsguyinmichigan Feb 20 2009 09:02 PM I'm glad we're winning! Gwreck Feb 20 2009 09:48 PM Notice the absence of Castillo in the lineup... Edgy DC Feb 20 2009 10:39 PM Yeah, Murph looks like he's at second there. dgwphotography Feb 21 2009 05:03 AM These obstructed view pictures aren't exactly making me miss Shea any less... Nymr83 Feb 21 2009 05:27 AM ="metsguyinmichigan":3q5f8l8q]I'm glad we're winning![/quote:3q5f8l8q] I'm digging the new scoreboard, what kind of team wouldn't be winning in their own ad? maybe the knicks? scoreboard lineup: 7 Reyes 28 Murphy 5 Wright 21 Delgado 15 Beltran 19 Church 17 Tatis 23 Schneider 57 Santana soupcan Mar 05 2009 08:33 AM Who has a guess as to what these circles in front of the rotunda are going to be...? More pics. John Cougar Lunchbucket Mar 05 2009 08:37 AM I thought they were gonna bury the apple in one of them. Now I think maybe they are lightpole-holes or something. soupcan Mar 05 2009 08:39 AM Too big for lights, no? I was thinking statues but that middle one seems way too big for that. metsguyinmichigan Mar 05 2009 08:50 AM The Times has a story about Citi . I put some of the most stupid comments in bold. THE METS� NEW HOME: CALL IT THE ANTI-SHEA By KEN BELSON and RICHARD SANDOMIR c.2009 New York Times News Service NEW YORK � For those fans who hated Shea Stadium, fear not: Citi Field is nothing like its predecessor, the last bits of which lie in ruins a few hundreds yards away. The Mets� new park, which will open its doors for a Georgetown-St. John�s baseball game March 29, is far more intimate than Shea and corrects some of the old stadium�s worst faults. Citi Field will hold about 42,000 fans, 15,000 fewer than Shea. The park is enclosed and many seats wrap around the outfield, so it feels much cozier than Shea�s open-ended bowl, which favored watching football. �� During an extensive tour of Citi Field on Tuesday, Jeff Wilpon, the team�s chief operating officer, spoke in the Acela Club, a restaurant in left field that will have 550 seats, table service, a bar and wine cabinets for frequent patrons. �� �There�s all this light and air, and then you�re looking back at the field,� Wilpon said. �We want to make people feel they�re in a living room.� �� The seats throughout the stadium are angled toward the center of the infield, reducing the need for fans, particularly on the field level, to crane their necks toward home plate. �� Sitting in their seats, few fans will see the chop shops in Willets Point, the cars roaring past on the Van Wyck Expressway, the subway yards to the south or the U-Haul sign. They will still get a crystal-clear view of the planes on their final approach to La Guardia Airport. Some things never change. �� Citi Field has many nooks and crannies that are nothing like Shea�s tired symmetry. The grandstand that hangs over right field, for instance, was inspired by the old Tiger Stadium, which Wilpon visited with his grandparents as a child. Fans in center field will get a bull�s-eye view of the bullpens, with Aaron Heilman only in the visitors� half, which is on a slightly raised level, with some protection from fan saliva. �� The 16-foot wall that rings much of the outfield means a Endy Chavez-like catch to save a home run is unlikely, though. �� Going for food or a bathroom break will be a lot easier. The concourses are far wider, bathrooms are more numerous and beer drinkers will not have to wander far for a microbrew. Gabila�s knishes will return thanks to convection ovens. (The old knishes were fried, which helps explain the heartburn they generated.) �� The chance of a plumbing malfunction has also been reduced: The Mets have installed waterless urinals, an eco-friendly touch. �� The walk from the subway station to Citi Field�s front entrance will take about as long as it took to reach Gate E at Shea, but an acre of planters, trees and other landscaping will usher fans to the new park�s brick exterior and ornate rotunda named for Jackie Robinson. Bricks embedded in the capacious plaza include inscriptions from fans who paid $195 to $345 for the privilege. Several applications were rejected because the language was deemed insulting of New York�s other baseball team. �� Citi Field�s exterior is a splendid architectural response to the dullness of Shea, while the inner bowl is muted. Shea�s candy-colored plastic seats are gone (along with generations of chipped paint on the handrails) in favor of dark green seats everywhere. �� �Dark green is the color of a classic ballpark,� said Dave Howard, the team�s executive vice president for business operations, as he stood ankle deep in snow. �And we thought the other team in town would use blue.� �� Citi Field, with 28 different seating categories, also feels more fragmented than Shea, which had sections of box and reserved seats that stretched from one foul pole to the other. The collection of far smaller blocks of luxury suites, party rooms, restaurants and exclusive box seats spells exclusivity or exclusion, depending on your point of view. �� Everything has a new name, as well. There�s the Ebbets Club, the Delta Sky360 Club and the Caesars Club. Seaver, Hodges and Stengel have their names on three of the five party suites. The name game is not done, either. �� �In this economy, you don�t turn down sponsors,� Wilpon said. �Anyone who�s willing to pay � hellip � .� �� The suites, apparently, will not be just for baseball. Howard said that the club had already booked bar mitzvahs in the Caesars Club. A 150-seat auditorium could host corporate events. �� While all the major construction is finished, many little touches remain. The kitchens are filled with refrigerators and even French fry baskets, but much of the equipment is unplugged, out of position and covered with layers of dust. �� The much-improved sound system and scoreboards were getting a workout. A version of Johnny Nash�s �I Can See Clearly Now� played loud and clear. The LED scoreboards that line the facades were ready for June. One read: �David Wright .320 AVG 15 HR 66 RBI.� �� Wilpon said the team had not decided who would throw out the first pitch on opening day April 13. But he said it would be great if President Barack Obama did it on Jackie Robinson Day two nights later. �� With the sun setting, dozens of employees were waiting in the parking lot next to the park before their orientation sessions. Gary Brown, who worked at a concession stand for two years at Shea, said he and his friend Faruk Stokes were looking forward to their new workplace. �� �Any type of progress is a good thing,� said Brown, who lives in Corona, Queens. �It�s a beautiful facility. I just hope the team is more successful here.� metsguyinmichigan Mar 05 2009 08:51 AM ="soupcan":28vgfpu9]Too big for lights, no? I was thinking statues but that middle one seems way too big for that.[/quote:28vgfpu9] Fountains and plants? metirish Mar 05 2009 09:38 AM Crop circles? SteveJRogers Mar 05 2009 09:53 AM ="metsguyinmichigan":1150e6ur]="soupcan":1150e6ur]Too big for lights, no? I was thinking statues but that middle one seems way too big for that.[/quote:1150e6ur] Fountains and plants?[/quote:1150e6ur] That is the word according to those who post on the Baseball-Fever.com Citi thread. The holes are for floral arrangements and a fountain. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 13 2009 10:29 AM http://www.flickr.com/photos/14504460@N02/sets/72157615165829740/ Apparently, some Met history might make it into the new place, in a nifty way: silhouettes above each CitiField entrance commemorating corresponding memorable moments in Mets history-- Left Field gets Endy's catch, Right Field gets Swoboda's, etc. The bullpen gate is as yet unadorned (if not Tug or Jesse, post-'86, may I suggest a David Cone "warming up" silhouette?), although it's possible that the lonely Seaver sil (in the middle of the linked set) ends up there. A subtle and well-executed (and, sadly, all-too-rare) note of tribute, methinks. John Cougar Lunchbucket Mar 13 2009 10:36 AM Very nice. Wasn't that easy? Edgy DC Mar 13 2009 10:41 AM I'd have to see it in poyson, but Rocky's sihouette seems mostly obscured behind the letters. Raise it up 18 inches or so, say I. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 13 2009 10:51 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 13 2009 11:09 AM Rocky diving under/in front of the sign, and Endy reeling in Rolen right in front (sign-as-wall) would have been the tits, no? But, hey, minor quibble. I like Orosco's Post-WS Daily News cover for the Bullpen Gate. soupcan Mar 13 2009 10:53 AM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":1391jq7m]I like Orosco's Post-WS Daily News cover for the Bullpen Gate.[/quote:1391jq7m] Oooh, good call. MFS62 Mar 13 2009 12:25 PM One guy's opinion about the new stadium. I can see how he feels about Mays and the Giants being left out. http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/03/13/2009-03-13_why_did_the_mets_build_a_shrine_to_the_d.html Later Edgy DC Mar 13 2009 12:35 PM That article is pure hackery. G-Fafif Mar 13 2009 12:38 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":3qghjbcz]I like Orosco's Post-WS Daily News cover for the Bullpen Gate.[/quote:3qghjbcz] You'd have to clearly mark it as Jesse and his moment of triumph. Otherwise, the sight of a Mets reliever down on his knees conjures visions of 2008 and all the saves that were blown. G-Fafif Mar 13 2009 12:43 PM ="Edgy DC":384aoame]That article is pure hackery.[/quote:384aoame] I don't mind this narrative, to a certain extent, for my own Polo Grounds-loving reasons, but does the author (or the News' editorial page editor) think this is a startlingly new observation? Also, Mays played for the Mets in '72 and '73. Being too young to remember 1969 is no excuse for not getting that much straight. Edgy DC Mar 13 2009 12:49 PM No, his position is fine, but it's late in the day, cherry picked, and his always-has-been, always-will-be tone as if his position is so self evident is weak. I also have a dislike for columnists who ask questions out loud and then provide their own answers. You're a journalist. If you have questions, direct them at people and find some answers. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 13 2009 12:49 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 13 2009 12:59 PM ="G-Fafif"]="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]I like Orosco's Post-WS Daily News cover for the Bullpen Gate. You'd have to clearly mark it as Jesse and his moment of triumph. Otherwise, the sight of a Mets reliever down on his knees conjures visions of 2008 and all the saves that were blown. Fists raised to the heavens wouldn't mark it clearly enough? (Am not sure any of the 2008ers had the arm strength left by season's end to raise 'em above his head.) soupcan Mar 13 2009 12:58 PM Met fans would certainly recognize a silhouette of Jesse in that pose. No question. SteveJRogers Mar 15 2009 06:53 PM From Baseball-Fever, well, FINALLY a familiar face appears! Edgy DC Mar 15 2009 06:59 PM I'm guessing Johnson and the '86ers will go in next to that. seawolf17 Mar 15 2009 07:35 PM ="Edgy DC":okbu00pg]I'm guessing Johnson and the '86ers will go in next to that.[/quote:okbu00pg] Or maybe Alston and the '55ers. metirish Mar 15 2009 08:04 PM I like it , who is that.......I'm kidding , I'm kidding. John Cougar Lunchbucket Mar 15 2009 08:09 PM Up there until they can sell the space a la the lizard above, prolly. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 15 2009 08:14 PM Enjoy it now for free; take it home in 30 years for $690,000 as CitiField gives way to People's Republic of China presents Shamwow! Park. seawolf17 Mar 15 2009 08:38 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":h17a01f9]People's Republic of China presents Shamwow! Park.[/quote:h17a01f9] That was excellent. metsguyinmichigan Mar 15 2009 08:53 PM ="seawolf17":31zy52xl]="Edgy DC":31zy52xl]I'm guessing Johnson and the '86ers will go in next to that.[/quote:31zy52xl] Or maybe Alston and the '55ers.[/quote:31zy52xl] Badass! SteveJRogers Mar 18 2009 04:59 PM Mural is complete Both off of Baseball-Fever.com And it looks like Shea's ghosts have moved over already metsguyinmichigan Mar 21 2009 02:25 PM The skyline lives! I'm glad to see that it made the trip over to Citi Field. John Cougar Lunchbucket Mar 21 2009 04:02 PM Nice photos and an enthusiastically positive review here: [url:3bkz11bv]http://metsgrrl.com/index.php/site/comments/the-metsgrrl-citi-field-preview/[/url:3bkz11bv] LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 21 2009 11:22 PM Caryn's work is a friggin' public service. I feel like I did as a 5-year-old, waiting for the Millennium Falcon I'd get on Christmas. themetfairy Mar 22 2009 06:59 AM It does look lovely - I'm looking forward to seeing it. Benjamin Grimm Mar 22 2009 07:34 AM I'm having doubts as to whether I'll get there in 2009. I just pretended to be a ticket buyer for seats for a weekend game in May. No Promenade seats seem to be available. They instead redirect me to 100 level seats in left field, which seem okay, and at not-too-awful a price. But That's six weeks from now. My standard approach has been to wait until three or four days before to buy tickets. (I want to see what the weather will be.) I don't think I'll have that luxury anymore. G-Fafif Mar 22 2009 08:43 AM I can feel the psychic barrier that has kept me from embracing this new place beginning to seriously crack. Probably has something to do with this is where the Mets are going to play in their home uniforms, and that there is no other physical option in the immediate vicinity available for that activity. seawolf17 Mar 22 2009 11:14 AM ="G-Fafif":16qx2n7l]I can feel the psychic barrier that has kept me from embracing this new place beginning to seriously crack. Probably has something to do with this is where the Mets are going to play in their home uniforms, and that there is no other physical option in the immediate vicinity available for that activity.[/quote:16qx2n7l] Yep, me too. Benjamin Grimm Mar 22 2009 11:21 AM Not me. That won't happen until I actually see that I'll be able to go a couple of times per year. I don't have any bad feelings about the place, but I also don't have any connection to it either. At least, not yet. metirish Mar 24 2009 08:29 AM Some great looking shots here , I'm excited about this place. > soupcan Mar 24 2009 08:56 AM The grass looks nice. I'll now go on record as saying I approve of the new apple. Mainly because its not coming out of a ridiculous top hat. An apple is easily recognizable as a symbol of NYC. If it simply has a Mets logo on it or says 'Let's Go Mets' when it pops up, I'm very cool with that. However, if says something like 'Citi - the core of banking in the Big Apple' or some other stupid ad, I'm out baby. metsmarathon Mar 24 2009 09:07 AM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Mar 24 2009 09:11 AM they're just shoving the citi-branding all up in our faces with every opportunity, those bastards! i mean, look at that repeated arc in the outfield grass, and tell me you don't see the affront of yet another little red rainbow. how fitting that this arc is painted in glorious shades of green, echoing the fields of taxpayer cash funneled into citibank and, therefore, citifield, from the ground, up. it sickens me. really, it doesn't. i just wanted to be the first to mention the similitude between the arcing turf and the citi logo, whether its intentional or just a logical extension of the border between infield and out. metsguyinmichigan Mar 24 2009 09:09 AM ="soupcan":30e9w3y7]The grass looks nice. I'll now go on record as saying I approve of the new apple. Mainly because its not coming out of a ridiculous top hat. An apple is easily recognizable as a symbol of NYC. If it simply has a Mets logo on it or says 'Let's Go Mets' when it pops up, I'm very cool with that. However, if says something like 'Citi - the core of banking in the Big Apple' or some other stupid ad, I'm out baby.[/quote:30e9w3y7] Aw Soup, I never even considered they'd do something like that. Now I'm worried! G-Fafif Mar 24 2009 09:49 AM ="soupcan":303y480g]I'll now go on record as saying I approve of the new apple. Mainly because its not coming out of a ridiculous top hat.[/quote:303y480g] I think I liked the hat more than the apple a) because it brought me back to the Magic Is Back season that inspired its construction and because once they went from Mets Magic to HOME RUN, I got a continuing kick out of the incongruity of it. The relocated original apple is good to have on the premises, but I'm a touch disappointed that its new top hat is so small. More of a straw hat now. Alas, men haven't worn either since JFK decided the look wasn't for him. G-Fafif Mar 24 2009 09:50 AM ="metsmarathon":ws77e5n1]they're just shoving the citi-branding all up in our faces with every opportunity, those bastards! i mean, look at that repeated arc in the outfield grass, and tell me you don't see the affront of yet another little red rainbow. how fitting that this arc is painted in glorious shades of green, echoing the fields of taxpayer cash funneled into citibank and, therefore, citifield, from the ground, up.[/quote:ws77e5n1] And every mention of insurance runs is surely a thinly veiled bonus payment to the former AIG. metirish Mar 24 2009 09:57 AM And every Bill Webb shot of the NYC skyline from now on will be greeted by Gary with " great Citi shot". G-Fafif Mar 24 2009 10:05 AM "Good group of bench players Jerry Manuel has" will be a telltale sop to Citigroup. Pitchers who are automatic will be no more than plugs for Citi's network of ATMs. And when Delgado deposits one over the right field wall... metirish Mar 24 2009 10:27 AM Pitching changes will now be known as withdrawals - " Manuel goes to the mound to make a withdrawal , hey folks you too can make withdrawals all over Citi Field" G-Fafif Mar 24 2009 11:01 AM First reliever to get sent down for giving up a key hit will be written off as a toxic asset. SteveJRogers Mar 24 2009 07:08 PM From a Baseball-Fever.com poster, the Left Field Gate's mural is complete! One more banner space left around the corner, inbetween Casey and Gil. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 24 2009 07:45 PM ="SteveJRogers":1ddnwx4v] One more banner space left around the corner, inbetween Casey and Gil.[/quote:1ddnwx4v] Ah, yes... the Bobby Bo spot, you mean? batmagadanleadoff Mar 24 2009 08:01 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Mar 24 2009 08:14 PM ="SteveJRogers"]From a Baseball-Fever.com poster, the Left Field Gate's mural is complete! One more banner space left around the corner, inbetween Casey and Gil. The detail in the Stengel banner (your lower right) appears to be the Grote/Koosman embrace , Game 5, 1969 WS, yada yada, although it's not the iconic angle that includes Ed Charles' dance of joy. batmagadanleadoff Mar 24 2009 08:12 PM G-Fafif Mar 27 2009 06:08 AM Jeff Wilpon impresses Len Berman. soupcan Mar 27 2009 11:42 AM Hey, lookie who showed up to the party... I believe this is behind leftfield. On edit: Scooped! ="metsguyinmichigan"] The skyline lives! I'm glad to see that it made the trip over to Citi Field. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 27 2009 01:34 PM The scoreboard-topper's going to be in center; that concession-plex is the Danny Meyer street-food fantasia (mmm.... elote!). metsguyinmichigan Mar 27 2009 02:16 PM I like it! Too bad they couldn't find a wall somewhere to hang replicas of the blue and orange tiles that used to hang outside Shea, or one of the neon players -- though apparently they are incorporated into the carpet design in the clubhouse. apmorris Mar 29 2009 03:08 PM Opening day beta (from the webs) Farmer Ted Mar 29 2009 04:05 PM Yup, always one douchebag that opens an umbrella the size of Rhode Island inside the stadium. That effing thing hangs over three rows. metirish Mar 29 2009 04:13 PM saw on ABC News highlights from the game today , looks spacious , one punter complained that the area around the apple is very plain looking. The report mentioned that Bernie Madoff had season tickets in the platinum section behind home plate , valued at $40,000. The Mets say they will not go unused but didn't say how. batmagadanleadoff Mar 29 2009 04:28 PM If Wilpon followed his heart, he'd donate the seats to Hilda Chester's family. But Fred loves money even more than he loves the Dodgers. I wonder if the Mets make his top five. Edgy DC Mar 29 2009 04:50 PM Come on. We're indicting him for what you imagine he'd like to do? batmagadanleadoff Mar 29 2009 05:23 PM ="Edgy DC":z4d7oe86]Come on. We're indicting him for what you imagine he'd like to do?[/quote:z4d7oe86] We? You don't have to join me, but Fred opened the door for this kind of abuse -- yes, it's a straw man, or straw woman argument-- when he built a Mets Stadium in the image of Ebbets Field and then decided to tack on a rotunda, -- one of its most prominent features -- in honor of a Dodger. I don't mind the Ebbets reference so much. But that and a Jackie Robinson Routnda? Enough's enough. It's inappropriate, in my opinion. A Mets stadium is not the right place to honor a Dodger on a permanent basis -- any Dodger. Edgy DC Mar 29 2009 05:28 PM He was actually under intense public pressure to name the stadium after Robinson. That the rotunda --- and has anybody ever cared before what a rotunda was called --- was named after Robinson was him throwing a bone to the public, not sticking it to the public in his self-interest. batmagadanleadoff Mar 29 2009 05:32 PM ="Edgy DC":3662lti7]He was actually under intense public pressure to name the stadium after Robinson. That the rotunda --- and has anybody ever cared before what a rotunda was called --- was named after Robinson was him throwing a bone to the public, not sticking it to the public in his self-interest.[/quote:3662lti7] Why? And did George Steinbrenner face that same pressure? Or what about the owners of the St. Louis Cardinals and their new stadium? Philadelphia Phillies? Where's the Philadelphia version of the Jackie Robinson rotunda? And was Wilpon also under the same intense pressure to eliminate 10,000 seats from the new stadium and raise the prices of some tickets almost tenfold? Edgy DC Mar 29 2009 05:34 PM In order, Why is irrelevant. The point is that he was. No. No. Nothing that I don't know of. You're changing the subject. batmagadanleadoff Mar 29 2009 05:36 PM ="Edgy DC":jm0mylax]He was actually under intense public pressure to name the stadium after Robinson. That the rotunda --- and has anybody ever cared before what a rotunda was called --- was named after Robinson was him throwing a bone to the public, not sticking it to the public in his self-interest.[/quote:jm0mylax] By the way, Wilpon has been sticking it to the public in his self-interest throughout his entire tenure. The evidence is everywhere, in all the details, small and large. Crappy hot dogs. Mesh trucker caps for the old-timers. A parade of car dealers pulling numbers off the outfield wall. Edgy DC Mar 29 2009 05:37 PM Get some rest. batmagadanleadoff Mar 29 2009 05:41 PM I wasn't trying to change the subject. I just think that these baseball owners are powerful enough to do whatever they want to do, for the most part. Wilpon doesn't strike me as the kind of guy that would cave in to public pressure over the rotunda. I believe that he created the Jackie Robinson rotunda because he wanted to, and any explanation slightly inconsistent is just spin so as to rationalize the event in a way that would appeal to the largest number of people. In other words, his explanation has more to do with political correctness than sincerity. SteveJRogers Mar 29 2009 05:42 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":131szgo8]="Edgy DC":131szgo8]He was actually under intense public pressure to name the stadium after Robinson. That the rotunda --- and has anybody ever cared before what a rotunda was called --- was named after Robinson was him throwing a bone to the public, not sticking it to the public in his self-interest.[/quote:131szgo8] Why? And did George Steinbrenner face that same pressure? Or what about the owners of the St. Louis Cardinals and their new stadium? Philadelphia Phillies? Where's the Philadelphia version of the Jackie Robinson rotunda? And was Wilpon also under the same intense pressure to eliminate 10,000 seats from the new stadium and raise the prices of some tickets almost tenfold?[/quote:131szgo8] Because of Wilpon's ties to the Dodgers as a fan which made the Mets the "torch bearers" of the Dodger-Giant legacy. Well it did start with day one when the Met roster would feature ex-Dodgers and ex-Giants. It would continue on during Old Timers Day festivities during the '60s and '70s when Dodgers and Giants were trotted out and so on. Because it was at Shea where Bill Clinton and Bud Selig stood and made the pronouncement that 42 would be retired in perpetuity. Hell, because it was at Shea that they actually honored the 40th anniversary of Robinson's debut in 1987, check out the 1988 yearbook for a photo of that festivity. So, where were you in 1987 decrying why were the Mets honoring Robinson? batmagadanleadoff Mar 29 2009 05:51 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Mar 29 2009 05:53 PM ="SteveJRogers":37juno6t]="batmagadanleadoff":37juno6t]="Edgy DC":37juno6t]He was actually under intense public pressure to name the stadium after Robinson. That the rotunda --- and has anybody ever cared before what a rotunda was called --- was named after Robinson was him throwing a bone to the public, not sticking it to the public in his self-interest.[/quote:37juno6t] Why? And did George Steinbrenner face that same pressure? Or what about the owners of the St. Louis Cardinals and their new stadium? Philadelphia Phillies? Where's the Philadelphia version of the Jackie Robinson rotunda? And was Wilpon also under the same intense pressure to eliminate 10,000 seats from the new stadium and raise the prices of some tickets almost tenfold?[/quote:37juno6t] Because of Wilpon's ties to the Dodgers as a fan which made the Mets the "torch bearers" of the Dodger-Giant legacy. Well it did start with day one when the Met roster would feature ex-Dodgers and ex-Giants. It would continue on during Old Timers Day festivities during the '60s and '70s when Dodgers and Giants were trotted out and so on. Because it was at Shea where Bill Clinton and Bud Selig stood and made the pronouncement that 42 would be retired in perpetuity. Hell, because it was at Shea that they actually honored the 40th anniversary of Robinson's debut in 1987, check out the 1988 yearbook for a photo of that festivity. So, where were you in 1987 decrying why were the Mets honoring Robinson?[/quote:37juno6t] Wilpon's ties to the Dodgers are no greater than your ties to the Mets. He's a fan. OK ... a fan who was friends with Sandy Koufax before Koufax was anybody, but still, just a fan. There's nothing wrong with on-field festivities honoring opponents. Stan Musial was honored at the Polo Grounds. Lou Brock was honored on his last visit to Shea. Willie Stargell, too. Honoring is a time-honored baseball tradition probably employed by every team. Naming a part of your stadium after a member of the opposition? I don't agree. The Mets aren't, and shouldn't be the torch-bearers of the Dodgiant legacy, just as, likewise, the Dodgers need not erect a statute of Californian Tom Seaver. Edgy DC Mar 29 2009 05:51 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":213hxw3s]I wasn't trying to change the subject. I just think that these baseball owners are powerful enough to do whatever they want to do, for the most part. Wilpon doesn't strike me as the kind of guy that would cave in to public pressure over the rotunda. I believe that he created the Jackie Robinson rotunda because he wanted to, and any explanation slightly inconsistent is just spin so as to rationalize the event in a way that would appeal to the largest number of people. In other words, his explanation has more to do with political correctness than sincerity.[/quote:213hxw3s] Well, you just keep believing then. And "these baseball owners," of course, continues to change the subject. Anything that deviates from your hard-headed position is a "rationalization"? Nobody using mesh caps to broadly indict a billionnaire is positioning himself to talk about who is being rational. A rich guy runs his business to make money. And that pisses you off. Except when he doesn't. And that pisses you off. Come on. Just stop. Gwreck Mar 29 2009 05:54 PM ="batmagadanleadoff"] when he built a Mets Stadium in the image of Ebbets Field and then decided to tack on a rotunda, -- one of its most prominent features -- in honor of a Dodger. You've got things a little mixed up. The rotunda wasn't tacked on; it was deliberately planned to be the part of the stadium that is built in the image of Ebbets Field. Nowhere else in the park is reminiscent of Ebbets. Yes, Robinson was a Dodger. A perfunctory look inside the rotunda indicates that Robinson is being honored for much more than that. ]A Mets stadium is not the right place to honor a Dodger on a permanent basis -- any Dodger. Sorry, this Dodger's special. batmagadanleadoff Mar 29 2009 05:57 PM ="Edgy DC":2us8tl51]="batmagadanleadoff":2us8tl51]I wasn't trying to change the subject. I just think that these baseball owners are powerful enough to do whatever they want to do, for the most part. Wilpon doesn't strike me as the kind of guy that would cave in to public pressure over the rotunda. I believe that he created the Jackie Robinson rotunda because he wanted to, and any explanation slightly inconsistent is just spin so as to rationalize the event in a way that would appeal to the largest number of people. In other words, his explanation has more to do with political correctness than sincerity.[/quote:2us8tl51] Well, you just keep believing then. And "these baseball owners," of course, continues to change the subject. Anything that deviates from your hard-headed position is a "rationalization"? Nobody using mesh caps to broadly indict a billionnaire is positioning himself to talk about who is being rational. A rich guy runs his business to make money. And that pisses you off. Except when he doesn't. And that pisses you off. Come on. Just stop.[/quote:2us8tl51] I doubt that getting the old-timers decent baseball caps, or uniforms that resembled the ones they actually wore during their playing days would've made much of a dent to the bottom-line. How much money did Wilpon save on that deal -- one, maybe two thousand dollars? Edgy DC Mar 29 2009 05:58 PM I doubt that Fred Wilpon has any idea what you're talking about or which employee of an employee of an employee of his ordered the hats. I beg you. batmagadanleadoff Mar 29 2009 06:01 PM ="Gwreck"]="batmagadanleadoff"] when he built a Mets Stadium in the image of Ebbets Field and then decided to tack on a rotunda, -- one of its most prominent features -- in honor of a Dodger. You've got things a little mixed up. The rotunda wasn't tacked on; it was deliberately planned to be the part of the stadium that is built in the image of Ebbets Field. Nowhere else in the park is reminiscent of Ebbets. Yes, Robinson was a Dodger. A perfunctory look inside the rotunda indicates that Robinson is being honored for much more than that. ]A Mets stadium is not the right place to honor a Dodger on a permanent basis -- any Dodger. Sorry, this Dodger's special. I was using the phrase "tack on" as a term of art, not literally. I understand that the rotunda wasn't a last minute afterthought but rather, a key design element of the new stadium. But my point remains the same, even if it was tacked on. Yes, Jackie Robinson was very special. I agree. But let the Dodgers erect a Jackie Robinson rotunda. We'll just have to disagree on this one. When I buy the Mets, and build my own stadium to replace Citi Field, things are gonna change. SteveJRogers Mar 29 2009 06:26 PM ="batmagadanleadoff"] The Mets aren't, and shouldn't be the torch-bearers of the Dodgiant legacy, just as, likewise, the Dodgers need not erect a statute of Californian Tom Seaver. So, the Braves should take down the statue at The Ted honoring Georgian Ty Cobb? apmorris Mar 29 2009 06:33 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":b4so81jp] We'll just have to disagree on this one. When I buy the Mets, and build my own stadium to replace Citi Field, things are gonna change.[/quote:b4so81jp] Please name it Shea. I think CitiField looks like a Good Ol' Timey Baseball Themed Amusement Park. Maybe great for a game but it has nothing to do the Modern Post-War New York that the Worlds Fair and the Mets (and Shea) were born out of, you know - the future they promised us that never happened? The Mets are NOT the History of Baseball team and that stadium would look a lot better in the middle of a strip mall in New Jersey - between Flinger's and Chotchkie's - than in the middle of a parking lot in Flushing Meadows. It is way too backward looking and not forward looking enough. I think. batmagadanleadoff Mar 29 2009 06:35 PM ="SteveJRogers"]="batmagadanleadoff"] The Mets aren't, and shouldn't be the torch-bearers of the Dodgiant legacy, just as, likewise, the Dodgers need not erect a statute of Californian Tom Seaver. So, the Braves should take down the statue at The Ted honoring Georgian Ty Cobb? Not if they don't want to. Plus, the Hank Aaron and Warren Spahn statues are mitigating factors. ________________________ **Photo widths edited by admin on 3/29** apmorris Mar 29 2009 07:56 PM ] the Hank Aaron and Warren Spahn statues they both have BRAVES on their jerseys (and statues) - just thought I'd point that out. soupcan Mar 30 2009 07:10 AM ="apmorris"] ="Farmer Ted"]Yup, always one douchebag that opens an umbrella the size of Rhode Island inside the stadium. That effing thing hangs over three rows. I believe that there are some stadia that do not allow people to bring umbrellas inside. Now that's a good rule. metirish Mar 30 2009 07:13 AM See , I would be embarrassed to open one that size , or if the person I was with opened one like that.Is that even an umbrella , looks like something that one would use on the beach for shade. Benjamin Grimm Mar 30 2009 07:15 AM I'm no fan of ads, but I kinda like that big Pepsi Cola sign. It's as much "advertising art" as it is advertising. Isn't it very similar to the vintage sign in Queens that can be seen from across the East River in Manhattan? soupcan Mar 30 2009 07:16 AM Shit like that always amazes me. You're in a stadium watching a game with people behind and next to you. You know you'll be blocking people's views. Why do some people feel so entitled to doing stuff like that? Do they just not think? Are they stupid? Selfish? All of the above? I just don't understand that kind of behavior. Pack a fucking poncho. Edgy DC Mar 30 2009 07:25 AM Douchebag neighbors. Story of Soupy's life. soupcan Mar 30 2009 07:28 AM So true. metirish Mar 30 2009 07:51 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":1v08570j]I'm no fan of ads, but I kinda like that big Pepsi Cola sign. It's as much "advertising art" as it is advertising. Isn't it very similar to the vintage sign in Queens that can be seen from across the East River in Manhattan?[/quote:1v08570j] Good call , the sign was one of the first things that jumped out at me when they were showing highlights on the News.I am trying to remember what other stadium has a similar sign , Fenway? soupcan Mar 30 2009 08:01 AM Comerica in Detroit... SteveJRogers Mar 30 2009 08:32 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":2n7rxdgz]I'm no fan of ads, but I kinda like that big Pepsi Cola sign. It's as much "advertising art" as it is advertising. Isn't it very similar to the vintage sign in Queens that can be seen from across the East River in Manhattan?[/quote:2n7rxdgz] An exact replica actually. Well except the recent Pepsi "dot" replaces the vintage Pepsi bottle from that iconic signage. soupcan Mar 30 2009 08:44 AM ="SteveJRogers"]="Benjamin Grimm"]I'm no fan of ads, but I kinda like that big Pepsi Cola sign. It's as much "advertising art" as it is advertising. Isn't it very similar to the vintage sign in Queens that can be seen from across the East River in Manhattan? An exact replica actually. Well except the recent Pepsi "dot" replaces the vintage Pepsi bottle from that iconic signage. Close but not 'exact'. G-Fafif Mar 30 2009 11:01 AM Company-issued release: ]Pepsi gains branding rights to the name-entitled "Pepsi Porch," the 1,284-seat area in right field that extends over the playing field. This interactive brand showcase at the Pepsi Porch will immerse fans in a Mets and Pepsi experience with special entertainment programming broadcast to those in attendance and watching Mets games on SNY, the television home of the Mets. A 37-foot by 89-foot Pepsi sign, evocative of the iconic Pepsi-Cola sign facing Manhattan from Long Island City, will sit atop the Pepsi Porch. The sign will face into the ballpark and be visible from downtown Flushing and nearby highways and mass transit lines. Benjamin Grimm Mar 30 2009 11:12 AM I don't imagine that most fans will want to be "immersed in a Mets and Pepsi experience" while at the ballgame. I know I wouldn't. I just want to watch the game, without any immersion at all. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 30 2009 11:13 AM Like the signage... mildly-- very mildly-- put off by the modern-Pepsi-dot-with-vintage-Pepsi-lettering juxtaposition of ad styles. From the woulda-coulda-shoulda department: making the outfield "bridges" a little more evocative of the Triboro/Queensboro/Whitestone trifecta (not sure I buy the supposed Hell-Gate connection) would have made for a nice little architectural curlicue. OlerudOwned Mar 30 2009 11:35 AM Wouldn't have minded immersing my eyes in Pepsi at the ends of the last two seasons. metirish Mar 30 2009 11:41 AM The language of such releases are all the same , jeez sounds like I'll have the expreince of my life if only I was sitting in the Pepsi porch. I do like Pepsi though Farmer Ted Mar 30 2009 01:13 PM The Pepsi sign is a big FUCK YOU to Atlanta and Ted Turner's phallic Coke Bottle. metirish Apr 02 2009 01:24 PM Head groundskeeper Pete Flynn marks the baselines and grooms home plate at Citi Field. (Newsday / Audrey C. Tiernan / March 25, 2009) Pinball machines in the Mets' new clubhouse at Citi Field. (Newsday / Audrey C. Tiernan / March 25, 2009) Pepsi porch I like the detail in the carpet. John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 02 2009 01:31 PM Those pinball machines are too close to the wall, and one another, to be playable. However, I think can whip Jose Reyes' butt on either table. themetfairy Apr 02 2009 01:39 PM I love the pool table! DocTee Apr 02 2009 01:41 PM The pool table is coin operated? You can buy any of these items in 35 years when the Mets move to a new stadium. I call dibs on the leather recliners. soupcan Apr 02 2009 01:59 PM This carpet is god-awful. Benjamin Grimm Apr 02 2009 02:23 PM I agree. It's garish. It's nice that they're honoring Shea with the neon players, but those big grey baseballs are hideous. The first thing I'd do is replace that carpet with something with a blue-and-orange 1960's Shea Stadium shingle pattern. Edgy DC Apr 02 2009 02:27 PM I'd do a pattern based on an acne-covered back. soupcan Apr 03 2009 10:44 AM Delgado, last night. Cool, huh? Edgy DC Apr 03 2009 10:51 AM How does the warning track soil/clay stay packed like that? Fman99 Apr 03 2009 10:53 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":29ka38qg]I don't imagine that most fans will want to be "immersed in a Mets and Pepsi experience" while at the ballgame. I know I wouldn't. I just want to watch the game, without any immersion at all.[/quote:29ka38qg] Little known fact, the Jimi Hendrix Experience was originally known as the Mets and Pepsi Experience. metirish Apr 03 2009 01:04 PM ="soupcan"]Delgado, last night. Cool, huh? Beautiful picture , one for the mantle I should think. This story went with that picture in the NY Times ] Mets Get a Late-Night Sneak Preview of Citi Field By BEN SHPIGEL Published: April 3, 2009 Out from the buses they spilled, marching through a gate, down a corridor and around a corner until, finally, there it was. Home. The Mets� shiny, new clubhouse awaited. And as Carlos Delgado poked his head inside at about 10:55 p.m. Thursday, he surveyed the sheer size of it all and said, �Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the big leagues.� His teammates, arriving at Citi Field fresh off a flight from Florida that landed two and a half hours late, followed suit, each more mesmerized than the next. After locating his locker, Jos� Reyes opened a cabinet and wondered aloud how much clothes he could fit inside. Pedro Feliciano plopped into his ergonomic chair. Shaking his head, Razor Shines could manage only a �Wow.� Then he said it again. �I�m overwhelmed,� Bobby Parnell said. �The other guys, they�re used to this.� Their curiosity piqued, players wheeled their hand luggage to their lockers and started to explore. John Maine and Mike Pelfrey bounded down the steps, past the sprint track. �Mainer, you want to race?� Pelfrey said. Ascending another set of stairs, they funneled into the dugout, joining Delgado and Carlos Beltr�n. Everyone looked up, almost instinctively, and then out, to the fences, scoping out the dimensions. Ryan Church, pointing toward the 415-foot marker in right-center field, told Delgado, �I don�t think they made it deep enough.� For the occasion, the lights had been turned on � �I should have brought sunscreen,� Darren O�Day said � and the grass glistened. But with rain in the forecast for Friday, when the Mets are scheduled to play Boston in an exhibition game, a tarp lay over the infield, preventing Johan Santana and friends from climbing the mound. Undeterred, many of the pitchers walked in the grass toward right-center, toward the bullpen, as quickly as their suits and dress shoes would allow them. Every few feet, J. J. Putz stopped, pointed the camera on his cellphone and snapped. The Mets occupy the bottom level of the two-tiered bullpen � just as the Phillies do in their ballpark � and the bullpen catcher Dave Racaniello wandered in. Assessing where the plate will be, he got into a crouch for a few seconds. As �In My Life� by the Beatles played, the lights suddenly went out. All part of the plan, explained Jeff Wilpon, the team�s chief operating officer, as a montage of highlights, player introductions and construction footage played on the video screen. Luis Alicea, the first-base coach, spotted Wilpon and thanked him. �Beautiful,� Alicea told him. �Absolutely beautiful.� When it ended, Wilpon escorted everyone into a tunnel behind the plate that led to the Jackie Robinson Rotunda. As workers took a break from polishing the terrazzo floors, Jerry Manuel and Sandy Alomar Sr. walked slowly, taking time to read each of Robinson�s nine values, which are inscribed in the floor. Behind them, Putz slipped his feet into Robinson�s footprints. They matched. �Size 14,� Putz said. On the way back inside, Howard Johnson took a detour to show two of his apt pupils, Nick Evans and Daniel Murphy, the video room and the batting cage. Murphy gazed through the window. The door was locked. �Tomorrow,� Murphy said. soupcan Apr 03 2009 02:28 PM Stole this from baseball-fever.com... metirish Apr 03 2009 02:30 PM That needs a lot of dents in it.....too shiny. Edgy DC Apr 03 2009 02:38 PM Needs a top hat is what it needs. Strikes me that a cool reverence to the polo grounds could have been done by putting a recess in the wall out there.

I'd bet there's a lot of apocryphalness to this whole Berra discussion and that over time, people tended to have forgotten those instances where Berra grounded out weakly to second base on a pitch that was easily ball four. I didn't see either of these two All-time greats play, but the numbers are the numbers. Williams was the better hitter of the two. And there's no reasonable way to spin it otherwise.

Tis better to have cheated and lost than never to have cheated at all.

="SteveJRogers"]="batmagadanleadoff"]="SteveJRogers"]The way things have gone for the guy since being traded to the MFY, got to put Alex Rodriguez close to Hampton as well. I dunno Steve. If superscrub Rey Ordonez ever gave us season after season of MVP caliber, 45 HR a year numbers, I might agree with you. A certain revelation this past week kind of led me to put Rodriguez on this list. To say nothing about how Met Nation would have had a field day over his "lack of clutchness" You're Rey Ordonez! <------- Ha Ha!

="SteveJRogers":ceecb9d1]The way things have gone for the guy since being traded to the MFY, got to put Alex Rodriguez close to Hampton as well.[/quote:ceecb9d1] I dunno Steve. If superscrub Rey Ordonez ever gave us season after season of MVP caliber, 45 HR a year numbers, I might agree with you. SteveJRogers Feb 16 2009 06:35 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":2of2zzzd]="SteveJRogers":2of2zzzd]The way things have gone for the guy since being traded to the MFY, got to put Alex Rodriguez close to Hampton as well.[/quote:2of2zzzd] I dunno Steve. If superscrub Rey Ordonez ever gave us season after season of MVP caliber, 45 HR a year numbers, I might agree with you.[/quote:2of2zzzd] A certain revelation this past week kind of led me to put Rodriguez on this list. To say nothing about how Met Nation would have had a field day over his "lack of clutchness" metsguyinmichigan Feb 16 2009 06:36 PM ="SteveJRogers":2hugbuw0]The way things have gone for the guy since being traded to the MFY, got to put Alex Rodriguez close to Hampton as well.[/quote:2hugbuw0] Steve, I have to tease you for making your first comment on this matter a Yankee-centric statement. batmagadanleadoff Feb 16 2009 07:01 PM ="SteveJRogers"]="batmagadanleadoff"]="SteveJRogers"]The way things have gone for the guy since being traded to the MFY, got to put Alex Rodriguez close to Hampton as well. I dunno Steve. If superscrub Rey Ordonez ever gave us season after season of MVP caliber, 45 HR a year numbers, I might agree with you. A certain revelation this past week kind of led me to put Rodriguez on this list. To say nothing about how Met Nation would have had a field day over his "lack of clutchness" You're Rey Ordonez! <------- Ha Ha! Edgy DC Feb 16 2009 07:32 PM The idea that it's good that the Mets didn't sign Alex Rodriguez, because fans would abuse him over his alleged non-clutchness, is such a defeatest argument that I need to tear all my hair out. There, now I am completely bald. Also, the ten minute thing is in Hell, and beyond saving. Fman99 Feb 16 2009 07:46 PM Zito is the correct answer. We were looking for Zito, Barry Zito. Thanks for playing. SteveJRogers Feb 16 2009 08:12 PM ="Edgy DC":1h4grzv1]The idea that it's good that the Mets didn't sign Alex Rodriguez, because fans would abuse him over his alleged non-clutchness, is such a defeatest argument that I need to tear all my hair out. There, now I am completely bald. Also, the ten minute thing is in Hell, and beyond saving.[/quote:1h4grzv1] No, it is more the idea of the pussy little POS that ARod has acted like in his 5 years in the Bronx being why it was best that the Mets ended up not signing him. That and the fact that he roided up supposedly to live up to a contract. SteveJRogers Feb 16 2009 08:15 PM Hampton is joined by Ray Knight in the list of Best Free Agents The Mets Didn't Bring Back. Also Edgardo Alfonzo, and Al Leiter. Edgy DC Feb 16 2009 09:29 PM This is getting stupid ugly fast. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 16 2009 10:59 PM ="SteveJRogers":10f809cw] No, it is more the idea of the pussy little POS that ARod has acted like in his 5 years in the Bronx being why it was best that the Mets ended up not signing him. That and the fact that he roided up supposedly to live up to a contract.[/quote:10f809cw] If you ever rooted for Mikey Piazza (or, hell, Todd Hundley, or {as-yet-unnamed Met member of the 103}), I would advise you to tread a bit lightly in how you denigrate A-Rod, sirrah, lest you get pulled over by the hypocrisy police. (Not that you shouldn't denigrate A-Rod, mind you... you just might want to be more careful about exactly HOW.) Edgy DC Feb 17 2009 05:46 AM Don't worry. Steve is the Hypocrisy Police. And he's a cop on the edge. SteveJRogers Feb 17 2009 06:12 AM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":1gwkibti]="SteveJRogers":1gwkibti] No, it is more the idea of the pussy little POS that ARod has acted like in his 5 years in the Bronx being why it was best that the Mets ended up not signing him. That and the fact that he roided up supposedly to live up to a contract.[/quote:1gwkibti] If you ever rooted for Mikey Piazza (or, hell, Todd Hundley, or {as-yet-unnamed Met member of the 103}), I would advise you to tread a bit lightly in how you denigrate A-Rod, sirrah, lest you get pulled over by the hypocrisy police. (Not that you shouldn't denigrate A-Rod, mind you... you just might want to be more careful about exactly HOW.)[/quote:1gwkibti] I tend not to root for players in particular, and yeah I know the day of reckoning is coming for Piazza, Alfonzo, Hampton, Ventura, Leiter and the rest of those scums on the 1999-2000 squads. SteveJRogers Feb 17 2009 06:17 AM Look, all I was saying with the steriods is that the Mets dodged one big bullet with not having AFraud on their watch. Sure that sounds naive, and as I said Piazza's name is probably on that list, but in terms of what this thread is, the Mets look better for not getting Mr. 24 and 1, and therefore exscape the scorn of having a mega cheater on their roster as a major free agent signing. batmagadanleadoff Feb 17 2009 07:30 AM Tis better to have cheated and lost than never to have cheated at all. metsmarathon Feb 17 2009 07:58 AM honestly, i don't really think the yankees brand is suffering one bit from the collective stink of giambi, pettitte, arod, et. al. SteveJRogers Feb 17 2009 10:06 AM ="metsmarathon":5gy7w2om]honestly, i don't really think the yankees brand is suffering one bit from the collective stink of giambi, pettitte, arod, et. al.[/quote:5gy7w2om] I'll give you that. But I'm talking about how big of a PR hit it would be for the Mets. I mean they can't even get the naming rights on the stadium done without some controversy brewing and every bank hating, Wall Street hating and NYC hating blogger, reporter and government official blasting the Mets for not even changing the name to "Tax Payer Field" or breaking the contract. The Mets have had PR nightmare after PR nightmare for so long now, something like being the team that signed ARod and having him claim that it was during that team's tenure that he did the roids (yeaa right of course) would be yet another reason to wonder when the franchise will ever shake its joke label that has been on it since 1987. Edgy DC Feb 17 2009 10:14 AM "Every" is a ridiculous word to pull out --- "every bank hating, Wall Street hating and NYC hating blogger, reporter and government official." Por favor. Haters can suck it. Frayed Knot Feb 17 2009 11:23 AM The funny thing about the original ARod signing is that while most suspect the infamous Steve Phillips pronouncement of "24 and 1" was code for "we don't want to pay the money", not only did it turn out to be pretty damn accurate but the contract the Mets turned away from turned out to be too rich for the team who signed it; was only accepted in trade upon a huge discount; and then only extended at similar rates due to the anticipation of smashing career records which now is put in jeopardy because of his whole "24 and 1" attitude. Irony can be so ironic at times. Frayed Knot Feb 17 2009 11:39 AM And as they get ready to do the big ARod press conference it's official ... the team has set Alex up with his own tent. smg58 Feb 17 2009 01:35 PM What bugs me about the fallout from not signing A-Rod way back when is that when Phillips claims that Scott Boras made an unreasonable list of demands -- which is perfectly consistent with what we know about Boras -- all the beat writers assume he is full of it, but when Cashman suggests that Boras offered Beltran to the Yankees at a discount -- which is completely inconsistent with what we know about Boras -- these same writers take him at his word. Following up on what FK said, I think there's a good chance we would have had to do what Texas ultimately did, only it would have been particularly humiliating to us. That being said, I have to vote for Zito as the best free agent non-signing. A-Rod rubbed me wrong then as much as he does now, but at least his on-field performance would have approached what we paid him to do. MFS62 Feb 17 2009 04:33 PM Taking the title of the thread literally, the best free agent the Mets never signed was Vlad. Later SteveJRogers Feb 17 2009 06:13 PM ="MFS62":1u6ynk3p]Taking the title of the thread literally, the best free agent the Mets never signed was Vlad. Later[/quote:1u6ynk3p] Bullet of Cool nominee. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 17 2009 09:36 PM ]I tend not to root for players in particular, and yeah I know the day of reckoning is coming for Piazza, Alfonzo, Hampton, Ventura, Leiter and the rest of those scums on the 1999-2000 squads. Alfonzo, Ventura... scums? So... y'like anyone, Steve? Seaver? That adorable pouting child over there? Your mother, bringing you soup and a birthday present? Centerfield Feb 18 2009 07:58 AM ="MFS62":1yup58la]Taking the title of the thread literally, the best free agent the Mets never signed was Vlad. Later[/quote:1yup58la] If you are to take the title of the thread literally, the best free agent the Mets never signed was, again, Alex Rodriguez. Benjamin Grimm Feb 18 2009 08:10 AM I remember, in the 1976-77 offseason, actually thinking the Mets might sign Reggie Jackson. How na�ve I was! Vince Coleman Firecracker Feb 18 2009 11:19 AM ="Centerfield":izn8lv6l]="MFS62":izn8lv6l]Taking the title of the thread literally, the best free agent the Mets never signed was Vlad. Later[/quote:izn8lv6l] If you are to take the title of the thread literally, the best free agent the Mets never signed was, again, Alex Rodriguez.[/quote:izn8lv6l] Or, if you want to split hairs, Barry Bonds in 93. SteveJRogers Feb 18 2009 04:19 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]]I tend not to root for players in particular, and yeah I know the day of reckoning is coming for Piazza, Alfonzo, Hampton, Ventura, Leiter and the rest of those scums on the 1999-2000 squads. Alfonzo, Ventura... scums? So... y'like anyone, Steve? Seaver? That adorable pouting child over there? Your mother, bringing you soup and a birthday present? Okay, overboard hyperbole I know, just letting you know that I'm fully aware that chances are the Mets of that era were filled with steroid users. Kong76 Feb 18 2009 05:23 PM What would really be funny is that if it comes out that Rey Ordonez was on steroids and still couldn't hit .... LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 18 2009 06:37 PM ="Kong76"]What would really be funny is that if it comes out that Rey Ordonez was on steroids and still couldn't hit .... Heh. Baby Rey + Season of Primabolin cycles = 500 Hardest-hit 1-3 groundouts in ML history

Davey digged the offense. Do you remember Hojo at shortstop?

..... (I tried to edit my post, just above this one, but quoted it instead, thus generating a duplicate, since deleted).

I like the idea of Castillo batting ahead of Reyes, so long as Castillo doesn't decline. His ability to get on base has always been a strength and even at diminishined capacity, his OBA is at least comparable, if not still better than Reyes'. Bases on balls make up a larger percentage of Castillo's offense than Reyes'. This would tend to justify having Castillo ahead of Reyes because conversely, Reyes can advance runners already on base better than Castillo can. This idea also supports my notion of Manuel as an intelligent manager who values getting on base more than stealing a base. I say this because Reyes' opportunity to steal bases would almost certainly decrease if he were to bat anywhere else in the lineup other than the leadoff spot. Willie Randolph - married to the idea of the leadoff hitter as a stolen base guy - would never have had the balls to contemplate this strategy; in fact, Willie hurt the Mets chances of post-season play in 2005 by letting Reyes bat leadoff all season long, despite the overwhelming visual and statistical evidence that Reyes wasn't even then ready for prime time and was one of the worst everyday players of 2005 all season long. In 2005, Reyes was hardly ever on base, (.300 OBA) - Randolph permitted this incompetence from the leadoff spot to go for over 700 plate appearances, all with the Mets within striking distance of a Wild Card spot until season's end - a stunning display of stubbornness and dumbness. I'm not so hot on the idea of Reyes batting 3rd, right behind Beltran, though. I think that this arrangement would waste a lof of Beltran's power. But who knows? Maybe Reyes is ready to mature into a 25 HR guy and Manuel senses this based on evidence accessible only to an insider. Manuel's idea also confirms that Randolph's idiotic and all too predictable first inning sac bunt is dead. I kinda knew this anyway, because post-Willie (good fucking riddance!) I have to think very hard to remember Manuel ever employing this nonsense.

="Nymr83":3ag6hx9v]Met Management's official position should be that they're fine at 2nd and everywhere else, but that shouldnt stop the fans from saying otherwise.[/quote:3ag6hx9v] Didn't I just say the same thing? ="Nymr83":3ag6hx9v]Your post seemed like a serious (and in my opinion, unwarranted) jab at Wilpon's payroll[/quote:3ag6hx9v] Oooooooooooooh! A serious jab. Even after I clarified? metsmarathon Feb 11 2009 08:57 AM abreu reportedly signs[/url:3esa5z9t] with the angels, $5M + incentives, per mlb. Nymr83 Feb 11 2009 09:11 AM ]Even after I clarified? No, but by then I had already commented HahnSolo Feb 11 2009 09:14 AM So who is your DH, Vlad or Abreu? smg58 Feb 11 2009 12:41 PM And Milton Bradley got three and 30? What a strange offseason. As long as Vlad's knee is OK, Abreu shouldn't see the outfield. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 11 2009 02:12 PM So does that mean that Anaheim's going four-wide and playing a beer league OF? Does Abreu play short center? After last year's injury travails in the OF, 2B and C, it would be nice to have solidified or improved, you know, ONE of those everyday positions. (The truly weird thing? We're hoping for no/minimized regression-to-the-mean to cover one of those cases-- Tatis/Murph-- and banking on DEFINITE regression-to-the-mean-- at least-- with Ol' Man Castillo.) MFS62 Feb 11 2009 02:16 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStronge":1xa7r3li]So does that mean that Anaheim's going four-wide and playing a beer league OF? Does Abreu play short center? After last year's injury travails in the OF, 2B and C, it would be nice to have solidified or improved, you know, ONE of those everyday positions. (The truly weird thing? We're hoping for no/minimized regression-to-the-mean to cover one of those cases-- Tatis/Murph-- and banking on DEFINITE regression-to-the-mean-- at least-- with Ol' Man Castillo.)[/quote:1xa7r3li] Haven't seen you around here before. Welcome aBordick. Later LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 11 2009 02:26 PM First-time, long-time. Glad to meet'cha.

="Nymr83"]]But on the basis that a $4M deal is all fantasy and no reality, why doesn't Wilpon simply announce that he's not interested in Abreu? Why should Wilpon (or any other gm/owner) announce his intentions with regard to personnel moves? I didn't literally expect Fred to telegraph his super duper secret war plans to the public. That's why I wrote my original post flippantly. (Freddie Coupon's back). I thought we were all smug Met elitists smart enough to see through all the bullshit. Is this any diffeent than criticizing Castillo even though Met management's public stance is that the team is fine at second base?

="Nymr83"]]Freddie Coupon's back. Must be a real shitty coupon to still have one of the top payrolls in the sport, does he get $1 off every million spent? I'm not sure I understand your post so I'll clarify mine. I believe that it's unlikely that Abreu won't do better than one year at $4M. Of course, this is only opinion and as such, the possibility does exist that Abreu can be had for $4M. (And at $4M, Abreu really would get had). But on the basis that a $4M deal is all fantasy and no reality, why doesn't Wilpon simply announce that he's not interested in Abreu?

Freddie Coupon's back.

2) I could fuck Kathy Bates. If I wanted to. I just don't want to.

30) I like to drive Mets fans crazy. One way I accomplish this is by secretly posting on the Crane Pool Forum under the alias of SteveJRogers.

="MFS62":1vreyywl]="batmagadanleadoff":1vreyywl]26) C-Rod says I'm better.[/quote:1vreyywl] No fair. The thread title says 25. Replay Ref, we need a ruling on this. Later[/quote:1vreyywl] Hi. I'm Derek Jeter. Did you really think I'd be able to limit myself to just 25 things? 28) This morning, I was cleaning the inside of my belly button and I found two million dollars in there. I can't wait to get into my asshole. 29) I will personally bail out Citigroup if the new stadium is named Jeter Field. It's only lunch money to me. batmagadanleadoff Feb 04 2009 09:50 AM 30) I like to drive Mets fans crazy. One way I accomplish this is by secretly posting on the Crane Pool Forum under the alias of SteveJRogers. Edgy DC Feb 04 2009 10:23 AM OK move on to Hank Steinbrenner's essay. 1) I tried to rock the turtleneck and blue blazer look like though old man. I really did. Some things just can't be imitated though. batmagadanleadoff Feb 04 2009 10:36 AM 2) I could fuck Kathy Bates. If I wanted to. I just don't want to. John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 04 2009 11:03 AM 3) I was considered less qualified to run the Yankees than my alcoholic ex-brother-in-law by my own father, but don't be alarmed. He's an asshole ttoo! Edgy DC Feb 04 2009 11:05 AM ="Centerfield":3qzzr4t4]For some reason, Derek Jeter seems to be having trouble coming up with number 27.[/quote:3qzzr4t4] I think maybe I'll suddenly get this in the shower tomorrow morning. metirish Feb 04 2009 11:14 AM 4) Like Barney I fucked Selma Edgy DC Feb 05 2009 09:09 AM 5) I have standing fucking order with the fucking Doobie Brothers. They go back out on the road, they call me and let me know. Met Hunter Feb 05 2009 03:51 PM 6) I have no idea what I'm doing. But my name is Steinbrenner, so the Yankee fans will worship me no matter what I do. I'll probably have to beat the fans off with a stick, because anything Yankees is so damn important and valuable. Burp. 7) I think we need to trade ARod. Not because of Torre's book. Derek says his ass is killing him. Edgy DC Feb 06 2009 10:04 AM 8) I voted for Squinty. Centerfield Feb 06 2009 10:05 AM Did you get the 27 joke yet? Edgy DC Feb 06 2009 10:07 AM Whoosh. Fman99 Feb 06 2009 10:07 AM 9) My all time favorite movie is Tommy Boy. Centerfield Feb 06 2009 10:22 AM 26 World Championships. 27 has been elusive. Edgy DC Feb 06 2009 10:29 AM I am the dullest of Met fans. Centerfield Feb 06 2009 10:31 AM Um. You're smarter than soupcan. Maybe. John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 06 2009 10:31 AM You mispelled dumbest. A Boy Named Seo Feb 06 2009 10:33 AM ="Fman99"]9) My all time favorite movie is Tommy Boy. Funny because it's probably true. Frayed Knot Feb 06 2009 10:42 AM 10) I honestly believe that installing a standard where future managers will be barred in perpetuity from speaking derisively of the club or any of its employees is totally consistent with an organization run by my father for 35 years. soupcan Feb 06 2009 10:46 AM ="Centerfield"]Um. You're smarter than soupcan. Maybe. What the fuck? At least I got your stupid joke. Centerfield Feb 06 2009 11:15 AM I harbor resentment from when you made me take down my ice rink. I was just trying to be a good dad is all. soupcan Feb 06 2009 11:48 AM Eat me. G-Fafif Feb 06 2009 12:17 PM 11. I think The Joba Rules ruined Return of the Jedi. metirish Feb 06 2009 12:22 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 06 2009 04:49 PM 12 ) I jog like I do because of the biles between my ass cheeks. Doh , I forgot that this was about Hank and not Jetes.... Edgy DC Feb 06 2009 01:03 PM 13) The pope was going to celebrate a mass at at some other stadium. I asked him if he wanted to be remembered as a Yankee or Toledo Mud Hen. Centerfield Feb 06 2009 01:05 PM Fantastic. Kong76 Feb 06 2009 04:45 PM Is Cashbag gonna bring me another Heiny or am I gonna have to go over there and crack some heads? *belch* Edgy DC Mar 03 2009 07:31 AM 14) I used to go the stadium in the eighties and my dad would send me down to the locker room to abuse Henry Cotto. I would mess with his stuff and a call him stuff and he couldn't do anything. He knew where his bread was buttered. That's where I learned.

Neal's batting helmet is flocked.

26) C-Rod says I'm better.

25) I could fuck Madonna. If I wanted to. I just don't want to.

="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!

="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!