batmagadanleadoff

="Edgy DC":dwhmitdm]This just seems so counterproductive for everybody. It's nice to think that the Mets may end up with an un-sponsored field, but I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:dwhmitdm] It's apropos. Wilpon's a cheeseball. Get ready for Cheesy Stadium. batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2009 08:52 AM ="metsmarathon":2jggnqoz]if citi backs out of that contract, i would think that the mets should sue them to recoup not only some of the short term income, but also the cost to replace all of the signage and merchandise. no fucking way citi should get off the hook just because the politicians whined[/quote:2jggnqoz] If Citi doesn't have a contractual out, why wouldn't the Mets Sioux City to recoup every single penny of the deal? G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 08:56 AM Darren Rovell's story from CNBC: ]Despite all the noise, including a front page story in the Wall Street Journal today, the Mets just sent us this statement. "In conversations this morning, Citi reinforced that they will honor our legally binding agreement." MFS62 Feb 03 2009 08:59 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 03 2009 09:01 AM I'm thinking of taking up a collection to buy the naming rights. I'll name it "Cranepool Forum Field". If you're interested in contributing ($1 million minimum. No pikers, pease.) PM me, and I'll give you the number of my off shore account to which you can wire the money. Later metirish Feb 03 2009 08:59 AM ] "In conversations this morning, Citi reinforced that they will honor our legally binding agreement." Sounds like the Mets reinforced the legally binding thing. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 09:04 AM The Mets, I would guess, don't give a damn what it's called (within reason). They do give a damn they get paid (which is reasonable). batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2009 09:54 AM ="G-Fafif":1gap197h]The Mets, I would guess, don't give a damn what it's called (within reason). They do give a damn they get paid (which is reasonable).[/quote:1gap197h] That's my Wilpon! metirish Feb 04 2009 10:26 AM Daniel Gross argues that the name should stay. http://www.slate.com/id/2210442/ ] Three Strikes and You're Bailed Out Why Citi shouldn't cancel its $400 million purchase of naming rights for the Mets new stadium. By Daniel Gross Posted Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2009, at 6:00 PM ET Almost every taxpayer who isn't a New York Mets fan is outraged by Citi's $400 million, 20-year deal for naming rights to the new Mets stadium, known as Citi Field. It's true that shelling out that kind of money at a time when taxpayers are bankrolling the company and backstopping hundreds of billions of dollars worth of its assets may seem tone-deaf and stupid, even for a bank. And, historically, naming rights have been a classic vanity move. Corporations tend to make grandiose civic/corporate statements right when they are about to implode. If you had shorted Citi's stock when it announced the sponsorship deal in November 2006, you would have made a lot of money. But there's a reasonable case to be made for preserving the deal, especially if Citi could get the Mets to extend the deal to 30 or 40 years. In order for Citi to weather the storm, recover, and pay back taxpayers (and insulate them from further losses), the company must invest for both the short- and long-term. For companies in highly competitive consumer markets, marketing and advertising are essential, entirely justifiable expenses. Companies�even companies getting bailed out by the feds�need to attract customers and to build their brand image. It's difficult to measure the value of any specific campaign or ad. But there's reason to think that for this company, at this stadium, in this location, a naming-rights deal might not be such a bad long term move. The cost is high�$400 million over 20 years. But the present-day cost isn't quite as high as you think, especially if, as Darren Rovell of CNBC suggests, it is paid out in annual installments. In 2029, $20 million will be worth a lot less than $20 million is today. And any type of advertising that reaches a lot of people is expensive. In this economy, NBC was able to charge $3 million for a 30-second spot during the Super Bowl. Though the audience size for Mets games won't approach that of the Super Bowl, the location of the stadium guarantees that the Citi logo will be visible to hundreds of millions of people each year. Citi Field is a giant billboard that will be visible not just to the 4 million-plus people who attend Mets games each year but to the tens of millions of people who drive past it on the Grand Central Parkway, the Van Wyck Expressway, and other roadways and the 25 million or so passengers who fly into and out of LaGuardia Airport each year. And stadium naming deals generate a huge amount of free advertising. On the broadcasts of the team's 81 home games (and, sponsors hope, post-season games), announcers will repeatedly refer to the company's name in a nonadvertising context: "Welcome back to Citi Field." Likewise, newspaper, Internet, and television coverage will produce hundreds of millions of impressions of the company's name per year. Naming-rights deals are most justifiable when the product or company doing the naming has an intuitive connection to the people who visit the stadium. The Montreal Canadiens used to play in the Molson Center, which made sense since hockey fans drink a lot of beer. Ditto for the Colorado Rockies, who play in Coors Field. (When Internet company PSInet planted its name on the Baltimore Ravens' stadium, it didn't make quite as much sense.) Citi would seem to be something of a natural for the New York Mets. It's a New York-based bank. The Mets are based in New York City. Baseball stadiums tend to attract a prosperous, heavily male clientele, including professionals, small-business owners, and corporate executives. Many companies use Mets games to entertain and schmooze prospective clients. In short, a lot of the sorts of people who are likely to utilize Citi's services will be attending games at Citi Field. Of course, people who read about games at Citi Field on ESPN.com won't be learning much about Citi's mortgage rates. But naming rights, especially if they endure, can perform another vital function for brands. It can help make them part of the vernacular. The greatest desire of any marketer is for her product's name to work its way into conversations. When I was growing up, it was common to say, "I want a Coke" when you were referring to any kind of soda. People ask for a Kleenex when they mean a tissue, say they're going to Xerox a document even if they're using a Ricoh copier, and speak of Googling when they refer to an Internet search. Stadium naming rights can help products and brands gain that sort of status. Since 1926, baseball fans on the north side of Chicago have spoken about going to games at Wrigley Field. Does that make fans more likely to buy Wrigley's gum products? It can't hurt. "Meet me at Citi," doesn't quite have the same ring as "Meet me at Shea." But after 20 or 30 years, it might. Edgy DC Feb 04 2009 10:29 AM Seriously, as a taxpayer, do you think Citi is going to recover faster by taking away their ability to market themselves professionally or humiliating them for attempting to do so? Nymr83 Feb 04 2009 10:34 AM ="Edgy DC":37gbfrv1]Seriously, as a taxpayer, do you think Citi is going to recover faster by taking away their ability to market themselves professionally or humiliating them for attempting to do so?[/quote:37gbfrv1] Nope. I also think there isn't a worse thing they can do right now than take their name off a stadium where it already is, thats not a great way to inspire confidence that your business is (now) sound and here to stay. Edgy DC Feb 04 2009 10:58 AM So, do you think that Dennis Kucinich, who bills himself as "America's Congressman" is maybe using this as a means of self-promotion? I understand being against these rescue plans, but imposing terms on the corporations after the fact is crap. Lookit me, I'm castrating Citibank and everybody hates them. Eh, shaddup. (off soapbox) Nymr83 Feb 04 2009 11:25 AM ="Edgy DC":c8pm0iyy]So, do you think that Dennis Kucinich, who bills himself as "America's Congressman" is maybe using this as a means of self-promotion?[/quote:c8pm0iyy] No, really? Frayed Knot Feb 04 2009 11:31 AM Kucinich was doing the same thing with the land valuation question of the area around YSIII -- basically acting as a self-appointed over-seer for what is essentially a local issue far from his particular locality. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 12:22 PM ]...the location of the stadium guarantees that the Citi logo will be visible to hundreds of millions of people each year. Citi Field is a giant billboard that will be visible not just to the 4 million-plus people who attend Mets games each year but to the tens of millions of people who drive past it on the Grand Central Parkway, the Van Wyck Expressway, and other roadways and the 25 million or so passengers who fly into and out of LaGuardia Airport each year. I wouldn't mind Gross coming on for Delgado in the ninth for defense. He can really stretch. Citigroup could also buy a few actual billboards and accomplish much the same goal as the author describes. While I agree that this company, if it is to survive, has to (and is entitled to) market itself, reading Gross' article tells me that he has no idea why having the company's name on a ballpark accomplishes that. "Well, people will see it...people who might use their product." If anything, spelling out the reasons as he does, with the "I want a Coke" example and such, makes the whole thing sound more like a vanity-driven sham than I thought before. ]Many companies use Mets games to entertain and schmooze prospective clients. If they used the games from the last two late Septembers, those companies must have been recruiters from Guantanamo Bay. metsguyinmichigan Feb 04 2009 02:16 PM I don't mind the banks buying these things as much as the utilities. Why does a monopoly need to advertise? Especially since they just pass their costs on to the consumer, who has no choice but to use their electricity or natural gas? G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 02:26 PM ="metsguyinmichigan":1nrfin6h]I don't mind the banks buying these things as much as the utilities. Why does a monopoly need to advertise? Especially since they just pass their costs on to the consumer, who has no choice but to use their electricity or natural gas?[/quote:1nrfin6h] To take up lots of space[/url:1nrfin6h], of course. metsmarathon Feb 04 2009 02:48 PM ]Citi Field, of course, will always be known as Citi Field. of course. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 03:11 PM Should Citi Field never actually be Citi Field, it would be accessible via a number of appropriate thoroughfares, listed here[/url:qvhcvi31]. Benjamin Grimm Feb 04 2009 04:25 PM They should call it by Shea's original name: Flushing Meadows Stadium. Or since "stadium" is out of vogue, they can replace it with Park or Field. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 05:00 PM More and more, Citi Field, its plainly visible structure notwithstanding, is beginning to remind me of this outstanding historical marker[/url:2p1f2s91] to which TMF introduced Mrs. Fafif and me recently. Citi Field...did it really land? G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 05:01 PM Whoops, impatient double post. themetfairy Feb 04 2009 05:22 PM LOL OlerudOwned Feb 04 2009 05:32 PM In a span of of two paragraphs, he called the naming rights "a classic vanity move" and an "essential, entirely justifiable expense." Kong76 Feb 04 2009 08:25 PM I'm kinda fickle on this subject now that it's become fodder for some folks. What's 20 million a year for twenty years when ya really boil it all down? dgwphotography Feb 05 2009 04:36 AM ="Kong76":2tla5kgq]I'm kinda fickle on this subject now that it's become fodder for some folks. What's 20 million a year for twenty years when ya really boil it all down?[/quote:2tla5kgq] Right now, it wouldn't even pay for Manny. 20 years from now, it wouldn't even pay for a utility infielder.. Edgy DC Feb 05 2009 05:50 AM ="OlerudOwned":1hwowprl]In a span of of two paragraphs, he called the naming rights "a classic vanity move" and an "essential, entirely justifiable expense."[/quote:1hwowprl] Well, he was distinguishing some deals from others. Vic Sage Feb 05 2009 10:34 AM ]But naming rights, especially if they endure, can perform another vital function for brands. It can help make them part of the vernacular. The greatest desire of any marketer is for her product's name to work its way into conversations. When I was growing up, it was common to say, "I want a Coke" when you were referring to any kind of soda. People ask for a Kleenex when they mean a tissue, say they're going to Xerox a document even if they're using a Ricoh copier, and speak of Googling when they refer to an Internet search. Stadium naming rights can help products and brands gain that sort of status. um... while those that control corporate brands want their brands to be ubiquitous, they do NOT want their trademarks to become generic. That's called "genericide", a sort of "public domain" status for trademarks, and thus costs the owner exclusive control over their mark. Of course, the naming of a stadium isn't likely to cause this phenomenon (oh look at that new Citi they're building in Montreal! I bet that'll bring baseball back!), so the point is not only incorrect, it's irrelevant. Now that's journalism! batmagadanleadoff Apr 16 2009 09:56 AM ="batmagadanleadoff":2ibvgs3w] I'll probably refer to the new park as Shea Stadium.[/quote:2ibvgs3w] Making money off my idea. Drats. Edgy DC Apr 16 2009 10:15 AM A good re-read. Here's Soupy with the Turning Point of the Thread: ="soupcan"]="Ashie62"] It seems like Citifield is a Brooklyn Dodger sandwich being shoved down Met pants. Oooh! A sandwich shoved into my pants!

="metirish":e0gp3ri2]Hasn't Manny already turned down more than that from the Dodgers way back in FA , 2 years and $45 million IIRC.[/quote:e0gp3ri2] Probably. We were only "what iffing" on Manny's price. Frayed Knot Feb 02 2009 10:21 AM ="metirish":3ko8tdnw]Hasn't Manny already turned down more than that from the Dodgers way back in FA , 2 years and $45 million IIRC.[/quote:3ko8tdnw] Yes, LA put that deal out there early on and is waiting for a counter-offer from Boras but hasn't heard anything. And word leaked out the other day that Manny supposedly let it slip via his buddy A. Pujols that he hasn't received an offer other than that one. The Giants showed some brief interest and continue to stick their nose in every once in a while but that now seems to be more in making sure the Dodgers don't get him cheaply than it is in snagging him for themselves. Presumably that same Dodger offer is still on the table although they might just reduce it themselves. Meanwhile Boras is still talking about wanting 4 years. Frayed Knot Feb 02 2009 08:35 PM From Jayson Stark - espn.com: A two-year, $45 million offer three months ago didn't get it done. So on Monday, the Los Angeles Dodgers made a new offer to Manny Ramirez -- for one year and $25 million, according to a major league source. Dodgers GM Ned Colletti confirmed to ESPN.com that he met with Ramirez's agent, Scott Boras, on Monday and presented the new offer in person. Colletti declined to confirm any details of the offer. But the offer was confirmed by another source with knowledge of the discussions. It's believed that Ramirez and Boras were given a 48-hour deadline to accept the offer. John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 02 2009 09:00 PM They stole my idea! metsguyinmichigan Feb 02 2009 09:35 PM That's more than the entire Marlins payroll. Number 6 Feb 02 2009 11:31 PM Of course, he could be referring to talks that happened a while ago, were not substantial, or are dead due to the Perez signing and/or Castillo, but Hudson is still name-dropping the Mets. http://mlb.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200902023793126 Frayed Knot Feb 03 2009 06:46 AM Manny/Boras turn down the Dodger proposal ... and the beat goes on. Benjamin Grimm Feb 03 2009 07:34 AM Report this morning that the White Sox have offered Abreu one year, $8 million. John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 03 2009 07:45 AM Take it, Bobby.

="Edgy DC":qq882pog]The idea that the team makes decisions based on the loudest howling of the galoots is a fantasy of the loudest galoots.[/quote:qq882pog] Galoots? Were you watching TCM last night? Paul Muni's character's favorite word was "galoots". Benjamin Grimm Feb 02 2009 11:11 AM ="Edgy DC":241ookcj]The idea that the team makes decisions based on the loudest howling of the galoots is a fantasy of the loudest galoots.[/quote:241ookcj] Well, yes, but you often mention that, for example, we (the fans) share in the responsibility for Shea's destruction because we didn't advocate strongly enough or loudly enough for its continued existence. These guys, whether you agree with them or not, are trying to wield whatever influence they may have in order to get their desired result. They may be a bunch of loudmouth goofballs, and you may not agree with their position, but aren't they doing what they ought to be doing? Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 11:18 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 02 2009 11:48 AM I'm all for advocating, it's true. But there's got to be some real responsiblity. I'm against the jungle advocacy or street rallies around such slogans as "Do It, Omar!" and calling hang-up radio shows. I'm also against the sort of two-faced advocacy that allows you to demand the same sort of moves that the advocate is ripping them for making in the past. (See: Waaaa[/url:t7bvepsr]!) G-Fafif Feb 02 2009 11:44 AM ="Edgy DC":qsnlyp29]I'm all for advocating, it's true. But there's got to be some real responsiblity. I'm against the jungle advocacy or street rallies around such slogans as "Do It, Omar!" and calling hang-up radio shows.[/quote:qsnlyp29] Appoint yourself their spiritual guide. "Hey fellas, instead of waving the signs, you should..." What? Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 11:46 AM Post on a website that nobody reads, of course. G-Fafif Feb 02 2009 11:47 AM Do that, and Manny signs, you can always take credit. Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 12:05 PM And to be fair, my frustration with the end of Shea is the lamentations of people who did advocate for its destruction. Just as my frustration with rallyers who push for an aggressive spending-spree pursuit of veterans portrayed as prima donnas tend also to have pushed for that in the past, only to rip the Mets when those moves haven't worked out, and go on to portray those failed veteran imports as prima donnas that the Mets should have been smart enough to avoid. G-Fafif Feb 02 2009 12:12 PM Consistency in philosophy is always going to take it to whatever might work best at any given moment within the realm of a pastime measured in wins and losses. The Mets shouldn't spend a lot of money on old players who are bad fits, unless it seems like a really good idea right now and we need a power-hitting leftfielder, cost, age and potential personality conflicts be damned. The Mets shouldn't replace the ballpark that defines their character and soul, but they've got to get a new ballpark that doesn't form puddles just by staring at it. Fans want results and gratification. Relatively few get hung up on how to get both or why either is elusive. Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 12:15 PM It's that last sentence that gets to me. G-Fafif Feb 02 2009 12:21 PM WE WANT MANNY!!! G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:35 AM ]Relatively few get hung up on how to get both or why either is elusive. ]It's that last sentence that gets to me. Rooting for a baseball team isn't math class. You're not required to show your work. That said, here's Casey Stengel's 10-80-10 formula as related by Don Rowe in William Ryczek's sublime The Amazin' Mets 1962-1969, best history I've ever read of that period (if you're going to read two books about the Mets this year, make this your second...after you've secured a copy of your first, he said crassly). ]Ten percent of the people in this stadium knew what was going on. Eighty percent think they knew what was going on but they don't. See those drunks out in centerfield who are beating on each other? That ten percent don't know and don't care. If you use that philosophy, the fans will never bother you because you'll be able to put them in whatever category you want. The Manny marchers, incidentally, are probably descended from the placard wavers who populated the Polo Grounds. They may have distracted Casey. They probably won't distract Omar. RealityChuck Feb 03 2009 07:41 AM The team might end up losing $20 million a year of income if the Citi Field naming rights thing falls apart (and it's looking more likely it will). They'll have to pony up at least that much a year for Manny, so the bottom line is they're probably out $40+ million. Are the people rallying for Manny also rallying for keeping the Citi Field naming rights (and payments)? Because if they're not, they're being delusional. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:45 AM ="RealityChuck":1wjua3of]Are the people rallying for Manny also rallying for keeping the Citi Field naming rights (and payments)? Because if they're not, they're being delusional.[/quote:1wjua3of] My guess is they're as delusional as those chanting "Let's Go Mets" in 1963. Probably more so. Edgy DC Feb 03 2009 07:58 AM Can we glean anything from the fact that the Red Sox --- the rich, smart, informed team we hope ours will one day be, employing Bill James and all and defending a championship --- traded Ramirez in the heat of a race? That shouldn't kill the notion, but shouldn't it humble folks a bit in their demands that this is a no-brainer? G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 08:05 AM ]Can we glean anything from the fact that the Red Sox --- the rich, smart, informed team we hope ours will one day be, employing Bill James and all and defending a championship --- traded Ramirez in the heat of a race? That shouldn't kill the notion, but shouldn't it humble folks a bit in their demands that this is a no-brainer? The team that traded Manny got to the LCS. So did the team that acquired Manny. It's the Manny who went to L.A. people remember, not the Manny who got himself run out of Boston. Every time you see a clip package of Manny highlights, there's nothing sullen from his last days with the Red Sox. It's all home runs and smiles with the Dodgers. That's the part of the fan brain that's working this cold winter. Centerfield Feb 03 2009 08:06 AM I think we may have set some sort of record for assumptions in a single thread. ="SteveJRogers":a9e7kszf]Not only that, how about when all the things that caused him to be persona non grata in Boston rear it's ugly head. You can only take "Manny being Manny" so much.[/quote:a9e7kszf] Manny reared his ugly head in Boston to the tune of a .927 OPS, which would have led all Mets. In July, he quit on the Red Sox by bumping that to 1.060. Afterwards, he got hot. ="SteveJRogers":a9e7kszf]Well there is truth to [Francesa and Russo being responsible for delivering Piazza].[/quote:a9e7kszf] No. There may be truth. It is all based upon speculation created by callers of the show who wanted to pat themselves on the back. ="Edgy DC":a9e7kszf]I'm all for advocating, it's true. But there's got to be some real responsiblity.[/quote:a9e7kszf] There is nothing here indicating that any of the street rallyers lack responsibility. They might all have legitimate plans. ="Edgy DC":a9e7kszf]I'm against the jungle advocacy or street rallies around such slogans as "Do It, Omar!" and calling hang-up radio shows. [/quote:a9e7kszf] This is not an assumption, but I'm just wondering why you would prefer one form of advocacy over another. ="Edgy DC":a9e7kszf]I'm also against the sort of two-faced advocacy that allows you to demand the same sort of moves that the advocate is ripping them for making in the past. (See: Waaaa!) [/quote:a9e7kszf] Nothing here suggests any of the rallyers are that type of fan. ="Edgy DC":a9e7kszf]Just as my frustration with rallyers who push for an aggressive spending-spree pursuit of veterans portrayed as prima donnas tend also to have pushed for that in the past, only to rip the Mets when those moves haven't worked out, and go on to portray those failed veteran imports as prima donnas that the Mets should have been smart enough to avoid.[/quote:a9e7kszf] Again, it is faulty to undermine the rallyers' credibility by unfairly associating with hypocritical thinking. There is nothing to suggest these rallyers think in that manner. ="RealityChuck":a9e7kszf]Are the people rallying for Manny also rallying for keeping the Citi Field naming rights (and payments)? Because if they're not, they're being delusional.[/quote:a9e7kszf] Are you aware of any out clause in the contract? Because my understanding of contracts is that if Citifield tries to back out, they are subject to damages. Centerfield Feb 03 2009 08:09 AM ="Edgy DC":1p7alcyl]Can we glean anything from the fact that the Red Sox --- the rich, smart, informed team we hope ours will one day be, employing Bill James and all and defending a championship --- traded Ramirez in the heat of a race? That shouldn't kill the notion, but shouldn't it humble folks a bit in their demands that this is a no-brainer?[/quote:1p7alcyl] I think the LCS demonstrated how much they missed Manny's bat. Especially if you turned the channel and watched what he was doing wearing blue. Also throw in the two World Series titles they won with him anchoring the lineup. Edgy DC Feb 03 2009 08:30 AM I'm aware of that and if louts were being loutish in killing the idea I'd feel similarly. It's a delicate choice, and no no-brainer by any stretch. Wasn't it your wife who said that we'd get David Ortiz when his weight hit 300 and his knees were shot? Edgy DC Feb 06 2009 08:28 AM ="Newsday"]Million Manny March only brings 10-15 Mets fans BY KATIE STRANG | caitlin.strang@newsday.com February 6, 2009 Compared to last week, the smattering of Mets fans willing to brave the cold outside SNY studios in Manhattan for the second "Million Manny March" accurately reflected the team's likelihood of landing Manny Ramirez - rapidly dwindling. About 50 fans gathered to chant and implore Mets management to sign the free-agent slugger last week, but only 10 to 15 people appeared for the second rally. "I wanted to promote the cause and get Manny over here, plain and simple," said Gustavo Medina, 20, of Ridgewood, Queens. "If we have a power bat like Manny, and you plug him between Carlos Beltran and Carlos Delgado, you're gonna have a respected lineup and an outstanding New York Mets club in 2009." Even though general manager Omar Minaya has been emphatic in dismissing fans' hopes of signing Ramirez, Medina thinks it remains a possibility. "Omar Minaya has coveted that man since high school," Medina said. Holding up the other end of Medina's sign was Cliff Korn, 38, of Manhattan, who said the acquisition still could happen even though Minaya has ruled it out. "Minaya likes to make the big splash," Korn said, citing previous players who ended up in Flushing when it initially looked unlikely. "I think it's possible." Medina said they won't be deterred until adding Manny no longer is possible. When will they stop congregating? "When he signs somewhere else," Medina said. Added Korn, "And then we'll start rallying for Matt Holliday." John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 06 2009 08:31 AM Katie Strang, bringin it strong. Edgy DC Feb 06 2009 08:35 AM Great cub reporter assignment. Hey, Katie, go out in the cold and talk to some quixotic mooks. seawolf17 Feb 06 2009 09:13 AM For a quick second, I read that as Gustavo Molina. Frayed Knot Feb 06 2009 10:34 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":1v6ar1zc]Katie Strang, bringin it strong.[/quote:1v6ar1zc] Considering that the only other time I've seen her name in Newsday sports is when she's covering human cockfighti ... I mean the "Mixed Martial Arts" scene, I suppose that talking to idiot Met fans in sub-freezing weather isn't so bad. Or maybe she's an MMA groupie and enjoys that stuff, who knows.

="SteveJRogers":1jsdgsxe]There is apparantly a second rally this week.[/quote:1jsdgsxe] That's great. Maybe they can get Piazza to unretire. I hope someone there remembers to rally for better tasting hot dogs, too. Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 10:06 AM The idea that the team makes decisions based on the loudest howling of the galoots is a fantasy of the loudest galoots. batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2009 10:08 AM ="Edgy DC":qq882pog]The idea that the team makes decisions based on the loudest howling of the galoots is a fantasy of the loudest galoots.[/quote:qq882pog] Galoots? Were you watching TCM last night? Paul Muni's character's favorite word was "galoots". Benjamin Grimm Feb 02 2009 11:11 AM ="Edgy DC":241ookcj]The idea that the team makes decisions based on the loudest howling of the galoots is a fantasy of the loudest galoots.[/quote:241ookcj] Well, yes, but you often mention that, for example, we (the fans) share in the responsibility for Shea's destruction because we didn't advocate strongly enough or loudly enough for its continued existence. These guys, whether you agree with them or not, are trying to wield whatever influence they may have in order to get their desired result. They may be a bunch of loudmouth goofballs, and you may not agree with their position, but aren't they doing what they ought to be doing? Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 11:18 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 02 2009 11:48 AM I'm all for advocating, it's true. But there's got to be some real responsiblity. I'm against the jungle advocacy or street rallies around such slogans as "Do It, Omar!" and calling hang-up radio shows. I'm also against the sort of two-faced advocacy that allows you to demand the same sort of moves that the advocate is ripping them for making in the past. (See: Waaaa[/url:t7bvepsr]!) G-Fafif Feb 02 2009 11:44 AM ="Edgy DC":qsnlyp29]I'm all for advocating, it's true. But there's got to be some real responsiblity. I'm against the jungle advocacy or street rallies around such slogans as "Do It, Omar!" and calling hang-up radio shows.[/quote:qsnlyp29] Appoint yourself their spiritual guide. "Hey fellas, instead of waving the signs, you should..." What? Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 11:46 AM Post on a website that nobody reads, of course. G-Fafif Feb 02 2009 11:47 AM Do that, and Manny signs, you can always take credit. Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 12:05 PM And to be fair, my frustration with the end of Shea is the lamentations of people who did advocate for its destruction. Just as my frustration with rallyers who push for an aggressive spending-spree pursuit of veterans portrayed as prima donnas tend also to have pushed for that in the past, only to rip the Mets when those moves haven't worked out, and go on to portray those failed veteran imports as prima donnas that the Mets should have been smart enough to avoid. G-Fafif Feb 02 2009 12:12 PM Consistency in philosophy is always going to take it to whatever might work best at any given moment within the realm of a pastime measured in wins and losses. The Mets shouldn't spend a lot of money on old players who are bad fits, unless it seems like a really good idea right now and we need a power-hitting leftfielder, cost, age and potential personality conflicts be damned. The Mets shouldn't replace the ballpark that defines their character and soul, but they've got to get a new ballpark that doesn't form puddles just by staring at it. Fans want results and gratification. Relatively few get hung up on how to get both or why either is elusive. Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 12:15 PM It's that last sentence that gets to me. G-Fafif Feb 02 2009 12:21 PM WE WANT MANNY!!! G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:35 AM ]Relatively few get hung up on how to get both or why either is elusive. ]It's that last sentence that gets to me. Rooting for a baseball team isn't math class. You're not required to show your work. That said, here's Casey Stengel's 10-80-10 formula as related by Don Rowe in William Ryczek's sublime The Amazin' Mets 1962-1969, best history I've ever read of that period (if you're going to read two books about the Mets this year, make this your second...after you've secured a copy of your first, he said crassly). ]Ten percent of the people in this stadium knew what was going on. Eighty percent think they knew what was going on but they don't. See those drunks out in centerfield who are beating on each other? That ten percent don't know and don't care. If you use that philosophy, the fans will never bother you because you'll be able to put them in whatever category you want. The Manny marchers, incidentally, are probably descended from the placard wavers who populated the Polo Grounds. They may have distracted Casey. They probably won't distract Omar. RealityChuck Feb 03 2009 07:41 AM The team might end up losing $20 million a year of income if the Citi Field naming rights thing falls apart (and it's looking more likely it will). They'll have to pony up at least that much a year for Manny, so the bottom line is they're probably out $40+ million. Are the people rallying for Manny also rallying for keeping the Citi Field naming rights (and payments)? Because if they're not, they're being delusional. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:45 AM ="RealityChuck":1wjua3of]Are the people rallying for Manny also rallying for keeping the Citi Field naming rights (and payments)? Because if they're not, they're being delusional.[/quote:1wjua3of] My guess is they're as delusional as those chanting "Let's Go Mets" in 1963. Probably more so. Edgy DC Feb 03 2009 07:58 AM Can we glean anything from the fact that the Red Sox --- the rich, smart, informed team we hope ours will one day be, employing Bill James and all and defending a championship --- traded Ramirez in the heat of a race? That shouldn't kill the notion, but shouldn't it humble folks a bit in their demands that this is a no-brainer? G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 08:05 AM ]Can we glean anything from the fact that the Red Sox --- the rich, smart, informed team we hope ours will one day be, employing Bill James and all and defending a championship --- traded Ramirez in the heat of a race? That shouldn't kill the notion, but shouldn't it humble folks a bit in their demands that this is a no-brainer? The team that traded Manny got to the LCS. So did the team that acquired Manny. It's the Manny who went to L.A. people remember, not the Manny who got himself run out of Boston. Every time you see a clip package of Manny highlights, there's nothing sullen from his last days with the Red Sox. It's all home runs and smiles with the Dodgers. That's the part of the fan brain that's working this cold winter. Centerfield Feb 03 2009 08:06 AM I think we may have set some sort of record for assumptions in a single thread. ="SteveJRogers":a9e7kszf]Not only that, how about when all the things that caused him to be persona non grata in Boston rear it's ugly head. You can only take "Manny being Manny" so much.[/quote:a9e7kszf] Manny reared his ugly head in Boston to the tune of a .927 OPS, which would have led all Mets. In July, he quit on the Red Sox by bumping that to 1.060. Afterwards, he got hot. ="SteveJRogers":a9e7kszf]Well there is truth to [Francesa and Russo being responsible for delivering Piazza].[/quote:a9e7kszf] No. There may be truth. It is all based upon speculation created by callers of the show who wanted to pat themselves on the back. ="Edgy DC":a9e7kszf]I'm all for advocating, it's true. But there's got to be some real responsiblity.[/quote:a9e7kszf] There is nothing here indicating that any of the street rallyers lack responsibility. They might all have legitimate plans. ="Edgy DC":a9e7kszf]I'm against the jungle advocacy or street rallies around such slogans as "Do It, Omar!" and calling hang-up radio shows. [/quote:a9e7kszf] This is not an assumption, but I'm just wondering why you would prefer one form of advocacy over another. ="Edgy DC":a9e7kszf]I'm also against the sort of two-faced advocacy that allows you to demand the same sort of moves that the advocate is ripping them for making in the past. (See: Waaaa!) [/quote:a9e7kszf] Nothing here suggests any of the rallyers are that type of fan. ="Edgy DC":a9e7kszf]Just as my frustration with rallyers who push for an aggressive spending-spree pursuit of veterans portrayed as prima donnas tend also to have pushed for that in the past, only to rip the Mets when those moves haven't worked out, and go on to portray those failed veteran imports as prima donnas that the Mets should have been smart enough to avoid.[/quote:a9e7kszf] Again, it is faulty to undermine the rallyers' credibility by unfairly associating with hypocritical thinking. There is nothing to suggest these rallyers think in that manner. ="RealityChuck":a9e7kszf]Are the people rallying for Manny also rallying for keeping the Citi Field naming rights (and payments)? Because if they're not, they're being delusional.[/quote:a9e7kszf] Are you aware of any out clause in the contract? Because my understanding of contracts is that if Citifield tries to back out, they are subject to damages. Centerfield Feb 03 2009 08:09 AM ="Edgy DC":1p7alcyl]Can we glean anything from the fact that the Red Sox --- the rich, smart, informed team we hope ours will one day be, employing Bill James and all and defending a championship --- traded Ramirez in the heat of a race? That shouldn't kill the notion, but shouldn't it humble folks a bit in their demands that this is a no-brainer?[/quote:1p7alcyl] I think the LCS demonstrated how much they missed Manny's bat. Especially if you turned the channel and watched what he was doing wearing blue. Also throw in the two World Series titles they won with him anchoring the lineup. Edgy DC Feb 03 2009 08:30 AM I'm aware of that and if louts were being loutish in killing the idea I'd feel similarly. It's a delicate choice, and no no-brainer by any stretch. Wasn't it your wife who said that we'd get David Ortiz when his weight hit 300 and his knees were shot? Edgy DC Feb 06 2009 08:28 AM ="Newsday"]Million Manny March only brings 10-15 Mets fans BY KATIE STRANG | caitlin.strang@newsday.com February 6, 2009 Compared to last week, the smattering of Mets fans willing to brave the cold outside SNY studios in Manhattan for the second "Million Manny March" accurately reflected the team's likelihood of landing Manny Ramirez - rapidly dwindling. About 50 fans gathered to chant and implore Mets management to sign the free-agent slugger last week, but only 10 to 15 people appeared for the second rally. "I wanted to promote the cause and get Manny over here, plain and simple," said Gustavo Medina, 20, of Ridgewood, Queens. "If we have a power bat like Manny, and you plug him between Carlos Beltran and Carlos Delgado, you're gonna have a respected lineup and an outstanding New York Mets club in 2009." Even though general manager Omar Minaya has been emphatic in dismissing fans' hopes of signing Ramirez, Medina thinks it remains a possibility. "Omar Minaya has coveted that man since high school," Medina said. Holding up the other end of Medina's sign was Cliff Korn, 38, of Manhattan, who said the acquisition still could happen even though Minaya has ruled it out. "Minaya likes to make the big splash," Korn said, citing previous players who ended up in Flushing when it initially looked unlikely. "I think it's possible." Medina said they won't be deterred until adding Manny no longer is possible. When will they stop congregating? "When he signs somewhere else," Medina said. Added Korn, "And then we'll start rallying for Matt Holliday." John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 06 2009 08:31 AM Katie Strang, bringin it strong. Edgy DC Feb 06 2009 08:35 AM Great cub reporter assignment. Hey, Katie, go out in the cold and talk to some quixotic mooks. seawolf17 Feb 06 2009 09:13 AM For a quick second, I read that as Gustavo Molina. Frayed Knot Feb 06 2009 10:34 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":1v6ar1zc]Katie Strang, bringin it strong.[/quote:1v6ar1zc] Considering that the only other time I've seen her name in Newsday sports is when she's covering human cockfighti ... I mean the "Mixed Martial Arts" scene, I suppose that talking to idiot Met fans in sub-freezing weather isn't so bad. Or maybe she's an MMA groupie and enjoys that stuff, who knows.

="Nymr83":2s7x82mb]Whatever the economic situation, the Mets can outbid the Royals (or any other hypothetic bidder.) If the Mets are truly at a point where they can't offer 2 years 20 million...[/quote:2s7x82mb] This'll probably fall into that vast category of things I believe are true but can't prove, but if Manny can't get more than a two year $20M deal, I'd be very suspicious of a lot of other things besides the economy. And if a team's offering Manny $10M a year, then it can hardly be said that his price has dropped to $7M. metirish Feb 02 2009 09:37 AM Hasn't Manny already turned down more than that from the Dodgers way back in FA , 2 years and $45 million IIRC. batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2009 10:15 AM ="metirish":e0gp3ri2]Hasn't Manny already turned down more than that from the Dodgers way back in FA , 2 years and $45 million IIRC.[/quote:e0gp3ri2] Probably. We were only "what iffing" on Manny's price. Frayed Knot Feb 02 2009 10:21 AM ="metirish":3ko8tdnw]Hasn't Manny already turned down more than that from the Dodgers way back in FA , 2 years and $45 million IIRC.[/quote:3ko8tdnw] Yes, LA put that deal out there early on and is waiting for a counter-offer from Boras but hasn't heard anything. And word leaked out the other day that Manny supposedly let it slip via his buddy A. Pujols that he hasn't received an offer other than that one. The Giants showed some brief interest and continue to stick their nose in every once in a while but that now seems to be more in making sure the Dodgers don't get him cheaply than it is in snagging him for themselves. Presumably that same Dodger offer is still on the table although they might just reduce it themselves. Meanwhile Boras is still talking about wanting 4 years. Frayed Knot Feb 02 2009 08:35 PM From Jayson Stark - espn.com: A two-year, $45 million offer three months ago didn't get it done. So on Monday, the Los Angeles Dodgers made a new offer to Manny Ramirez -- for one year and $25 million, according to a major league source. Dodgers GM Ned Colletti confirmed to ESPN.com that he met with Ramirez's agent, Scott Boras, on Monday and presented the new offer in person. Colletti declined to confirm any details of the offer. But the offer was confirmed by another source with knowledge of the discussions. It's believed that Ramirez and Boras were given a 48-hour deadline to accept the offer. John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 02 2009 09:00 PM They stole my idea! metsguyinmichigan Feb 02 2009 09:35 PM That's more than the entire Marlins payroll. Number 6 Feb 02 2009 11:31 PM Of course, he could be referring to talks that happened a while ago, were not substantial, or are dead due to the Perez signing and/or Castillo, but Hudson is still name-dropping the Mets. http://mlb.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200902023793126 Frayed Knot Feb 03 2009 06:46 AM Manny/Boras turn down the Dodger proposal ... and the beat goes on. Benjamin Grimm Feb 03 2009 07:34 AM Report this morning that the White Sox have offered Abreu one year, $8 million. John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 03 2009 07:45 AM Take it, Bobby.

It would be nice to acquire Manny's next two seasons without having to pay for the two after that. But Manny and Dunn want long term deals. And if the price for either of those two drops low enough, then the Mets advantage in being one of baseball's wealthiest teams might be squandered, because at some point, even the Royals will put in a bid.

="SteveJRogers":2p4dcmq4]="metsmarathon":2p4dcmq4]or the fact that, if you listen to him tell it, he's the reason the mets got piazza way back when.[/quote:2p4dcmq4] Well there is truth to that. Apparently Wilpon and Phillips were both okay with not going after Piazza and sticking with Hundley, even with him on the shelf. Then Nelson Doubleday just happened to hear the show while both Mike and Chris were ranting about the Mets getting the guy. Next thing you know, Nelson tells Phillips to make the move. That story became so well known that when Mike Piazza first appeared on with Mike & Chris he says "Oh yeah, just wanted to say thanks for getting me here!"[/quote:2p4dcmq4] I believe this story. Well, not really. But it is consistent with my low perception of our owner, Fred Wilpon. Frayed Knot Feb 01 2009 08:14 AM ]Well there is truth to that. Well there is speculation about that. Phillips' line of thing was that with a catcher already under contract the "chips" might be best spent elsewhere or maybe saved for another day. But then the boss whispered (asked?, pleaded?, demanded?) in his ear he changed his tune and started looking into things. Whether Doubleday's action was as the result of the M&MD scream-a-thon is up to interpretation and even the duo never claimed that they were anything other than a small part in it. Centerfield Feb 02 2009 08:29 AM The Piazza rumor is what I was alluding to. I didn't think anyone really believed that rumor except the die-hard listeners of that show, but you learn something new every day. metsmarathon Feb 02 2009 08:33 AM well, it is steve. Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 08:50 AM I think this should be called the "We Want Attention" rally. SteveJRogers Feb 02 2009 09:55 AM ="Centerfield":1okcvwit]The Piazza rumor is what I was alluding to. I didn't think anyone really believed that rumor except the die-hard listeners of that show, but you learn something new every day.[/quote:1okcvwit] Actually it is more of the anti-Wilpon/Phillips and/or pro-Doubleday faction of Met fans that believe that rumor more so than any WFAN listener. As Frayed said, even Mike & Chris have down played it over the years. SteveJRogers Feb 02 2009 09:56 AM There is apparantly a second rally this week. batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2009 10:05 AM ="SteveJRogers":1jsdgsxe]There is apparantly a second rally this week.[/quote:1jsdgsxe] That's great. Maybe they can get Piazza to unretire. I hope someone there remembers to rally for better tasting hot dogs, too. Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 10:06 AM The idea that the team makes decisions based on the loudest howling of the galoots is a fantasy of the loudest galoots. batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2009 10:08 AM ="Edgy DC":qq882pog]The idea that the team makes decisions based on the loudest howling of the galoots is a fantasy of the loudest galoots.[/quote:qq882pog] Galoots? Were you watching TCM last night? Paul Muni's character's favorite word was "galoots". Benjamin Grimm Feb 02 2009 11:11 AM ="Edgy DC":241ookcj]The idea that the team makes decisions based on the loudest howling of the galoots is a fantasy of the loudest galoots.[/quote:241ookcj] Well, yes, but you often mention that, for example, we (the fans) share in the responsibility for Shea's destruction because we didn't advocate strongly enough or loudly enough for its continued existence. These guys, whether you agree with them or not, are trying to wield whatever influence they may have in order to get their desired result. They may be a bunch of loudmouth goofballs, and you may not agree with their position, but aren't they doing what they ought to be doing? Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 11:18 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 02 2009 11:48 AM I'm all for advocating, it's true. But there's got to be some real responsiblity. I'm against the jungle advocacy or street rallies around such slogans as "Do It, Omar!" and calling hang-up radio shows. I'm also against the sort of two-faced advocacy that allows you to demand the same sort of moves that the advocate is ripping them for making in the past. (See: Waaaa[/url:t7bvepsr]!) G-Fafif Feb 02 2009 11:44 AM ="Edgy DC":qsnlyp29]I'm all for advocating, it's true. But there's got to be some real responsiblity. I'm against the jungle advocacy or street rallies around such slogans as "Do It, Omar!" and calling hang-up radio shows.[/quote:qsnlyp29] Appoint yourself their spiritual guide. "Hey fellas, instead of waving the signs, you should..." What? Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 11:46 AM Post on a website that nobody reads, of course. G-Fafif Feb 02 2009 11:47 AM Do that, and Manny signs, you can always take credit. Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 12:05 PM And to be fair, my frustration with the end of Shea is the lamentations of people who did advocate for its destruction. Just as my frustration with rallyers who push for an aggressive spending-spree pursuit of veterans portrayed as prima donnas tend also to have pushed for that in the past, only to rip the Mets when those moves haven't worked out, and go on to portray those failed veteran imports as prima donnas that the Mets should have been smart enough to avoid. G-Fafif Feb 02 2009 12:12 PM Consistency in philosophy is always going to take it to whatever might work best at any given moment within the realm of a pastime measured in wins and losses. The Mets shouldn't spend a lot of money on old players who are bad fits, unless it seems like a really good idea right now and we need a power-hitting leftfielder, cost, age and potential personality conflicts be damned. The Mets shouldn't replace the ballpark that defines their character and soul, but they've got to get a new ballpark that doesn't form puddles just by staring at it. Fans want results and gratification. Relatively few get hung up on how to get both or why either is elusive. Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 12:15 PM It's that last sentence that gets to me. G-Fafif Feb 02 2009 12:21 PM WE WANT MANNY!!! G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:35 AM ]Relatively few get hung up on how to get both or why either is elusive. ]It's that last sentence that gets to me. Rooting for a baseball team isn't math class. You're not required to show your work. That said, here's Casey Stengel's 10-80-10 formula as related by Don Rowe in William Ryczek's sublime The Amazin' Mets 1962-1969, best history I've ever read of that period (if you're going to read two books about the Mets this year, make this your second...after you've secured a copy of your first, he said crassly). ]Ten percent of the people in this stadium knew what was going on. Eighty percent think they knew what was going on but they don't. See those drunks out in centerfield who are beating on each other? That ten percent don't know and don't care. If you use that philosophy, the fans will never bother you because you'll be able to put them in whatever category you want. The Manny marchers, incidentally, are probably descended from the placard wavers who populated the Polo Grounds. They may have distracted Casey. They probably won't distract Omar. RealityChuck Feb 03 2009 07:41 AM The team might end up losing $20 million a year of income if the Citi Field naming rights thing falls apart (and it's looking more likely it will). They'll have to pony up at least that much a year for Manny, so the bottom line is they're probably out $40+ million. Are the people rallying for Manny also rallying for keeping the Citi Field naming rights (and payments)? Because if they're not, they're being delusional. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:45 AM ="RealityChuck":1wjua3of]Are the people rallying for Manny also rallying for keeping the Citi Field naming rights (and payments)? Because if they're not, they're being delusional.[/quote:1wjua3of] My guess is they're as delusional as those chanting "Let's Go Mets" in 1963. Probably more so. Edgy DC Feb 03 2009 07:58 AM Can we glean anything from the fact that the Red Sox --- the rich, smart, informed team we hope ours will one day be, employing Bill James and all and defending a championship --- traded Ramirez in the heat of a race? That shouldn't kill the notion, but shouldn't it humble folks a bit in their demands that this is a no-brainer? G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 08:05 AM ]Can we glean anything from the fact that the Red Sox --- the rich, smart, informed team we hope ours will one day be, employing Bill James and all and defending a championship --- traded Ramirez in the heat of a race? That shouldn't kill the notion, but shouldn't it humble folks a bit in their demands that this is a no-brainer? The team that traded Manny got to the LCS. So did the team that acquired Manny. It's the Manny who went to L.A. people remember, not the Manny who got himself run out of Boston. Every time you see a clip package of Manny highlights, there's nothing sullen from his last days with the Red Sox. It's all home runs and smiles with the Dodgers. That's the part of the fan brain that's working this cold winter. Centerfield Feb 03 2009 08:06 AM I think we may have set some sort of record for assumptions in a single thread. ="SteveJRogers":a9e7kszf]Not only that, how about when all the things that caused him to be persona non grata in Boston rear it's ugly head. You can only take "Manny being Manny" so much.[/quote:a9e7kszf] Manny reared his ugly head in Boston to the tune of a .927 OPS, which would have led all Mets. In July, he quit on the Red Sox by bumping that to 1.060. Afterwards, he got hot. ="SteveJRogers":a9e7kszf]Well there is truth to [Francesa and Russo being responsible for delivering Piazza].[/quote:a9e7kszf] No. There may be truth. It is all based upon speculation created by callers of the show who wanted to pat themselves on the back. ="Edgy DC":a9e7kszf]I'm all for advocating, it's true. But there's got to be some real responsiblity.[/quote:a9e7kszf] There is nothing here indicating that any of the street rallyers lack responsibility. They might all have legitimate plans. ="Edgy DC":a9e7kszf]I'm against the jungle advocacy or street rallies around such slogans as "Do It, Omar!" and calling hang-up radio shows. [/quote:a9e7kszf] This is not an assumption, but I'm just wondering why you would prefer one form of advocacy over another. ="Edgy DC":a9e7kszf]I'm also against the sort of two-faced advocacy that allows you to demand the same sort of moves that the advocate is ripping them for making in the past. (See: Waaaa!) [/quote:a9e7kszf] Nothing here suggests any of the rallyers are that type of fan. ="Edgy DC":a9e7kszf]Just as my frustration with rallyers who push for an aggressive spending-spree pursuit of veterans portrayed as prima donnas tend also to have pushed for that in the past, only to rip the Mets when those moves haven't worked out, and go on to portray those failed veteran imports as prima donnas that the Mets should have been smart enough to avoid.[/quote:a9e7kszf] Again, it is faulty to undermine the rallyers' credibility by unfairly associating with hypocritical thinking. There is nothing to suggest these rallyers think in that manner. ="RealityChuck":a9e7kszf]Are the people rallying for Manny also rallying for keeping the Citi Field naming rights (and payments)? Because if they're not, they're being delusional.[/quote:a9e7kszf] Are you aware of any out clause in the contract? Because my understanding of contracts is that if Citifield tries to back out, they are subject to damages. Centerfield Feb 03 2009 08:09 AM ="Edgy DC":1p7alcyl]Can we glean anything from the fact that the Red Sox --- the rich, smart, informed team we hope ours will one day be, employing Bill James and all and defending a championship --- traded Ramirez in the heat of a race? That shouldn't kill the notion, but shouldn't it humble folks a bit in their demands that this is a no-brainer?[/quote:1p7alcyl] I think the LCS demonstrated how much they missed Manny's bat. Especially if you turned the channel and watched what he was doing wearing blue. Also throw in the two World Series titles they won with him anchoring the lineup. Edgy DC Feb 03 2009 08:30 AM I'm aware of that and if louts were being loutish in killing the idea I'd feel similarly. It's a delicate choice, and no no-brainer by any stretch. Wasn't it your wife who said that we'd get David Ortiz when his weight hit 300 and his knees were shot? Edgy DC Feb 06 2009 08:28 AM ="Newsday"]Million Manny March only brings 10-15 Mets fans BY KATIE STRANG | caitlin.strang@newsday.com February 6, 2009 Compared to last week, the smattering of Mets fans willing to brave the cold outside SNY studios in Manhattan for the second "Million Manny March" accurately reflected the team's likelihood of landing Manny Ramirez - rapidly dwindling. About 50 fans gathered to chant and implore Mets management to sign the free-agent slugger last week, but only 10 to 15 people appeared for the second rally. "I wanted to promote the cause and get Manny over here, plain and simple," said Gustavo Medina, 20, of Ridgewood, Queens. "If we have a power bat like Manny, and you plug him between Carlos Beltran and Carlos Delgado, you're gonna have a respected lineup and an outstanding New York Mets club in 2009." Even though general manager Omar Minaya has been emphatic in dismissing fans' hopes of signing Ramirez, Medina thinks it remains a possibility. "Omar Minaya has coveted that man since high school," Medina said. Holding up the other end of Medina's sign was Cliff Korn, 38, of Manhattan, who said the acquisition still could happen even though Minaya has ruled it out. "Minaya likes to make the big splash," Korn said, citing previous players who ended up in Flushing when it initially looked unlikely. "I think it's possible." Medina said they won't be deterred until adding Manny no longer is possible. When will they stop congregating? "When he signs somewhere else," Medina said. Added Korn, "And then we'll start rallying for Matt Holliday." John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 06 2009 08:31 AM Katie Strang, bringin it strong. Edgy DC Feb 06 2009 08:35 AM Great cub reporter assignment. Hey, Katie, go out in the cold and talk to some quixotic mooks. seawolf17 Feb 06 2009 09:13 AM For a quick second, I read that as Gustavo Molina. Frayed Knot Feb 06 2009 10:34 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":1v6ar1zc]Katie Strang, bringin it strong.[/quote:1v6ar1zc] Considering that the only other time I've seen her name in Newsday sports is when she's covering human cockfighti ... I mean the "Mixed Martial Arts" scene, I suppose that talking to idiot Met fans in sub-freezing weather isn't so bad. Or maybe she's an MMA groupie and enjoys that stuff, who knows.

I'm guessing that the picture has something to do with the Statue Liberty finale in Planet of.... But that picture never came up on my browser. Not today. Not yesterday.

="Kong76":1gdgi6hg] and the new stadium was going to be named (I'm certain it won't be Citi Field come opening day)....[/quote:1gdgi6hg] I'll probably refer to the new park as Shea Stadium. For years, I bet. To me, the 49ers play in Candlestick. And so do the baseball Giants. MFS62 Jan 29 2009 07:49 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":zgx7tsoo] To me, the 49ers play in Candlestick. And so do the baseball Giants.[/quote:zgx7tsoo] Gee, I remember the football team playing in Kezar Stadium (with sea gulls flying in front of the tv cameras) and the baseball team playing in Seals Stadium. Later Frayed Knot Jan 29 2009 08:18 PM ] ... jeez on some level I can't help but grin to myself and think, "this could only happen to the freakin' Mets." Astros fans forced to deal with 'Enron Field' might disagree there. Kong76 Jan 30 2009 04:47 AM Uey, they can't even get that right. Edgy DC Jan 30 2009 07:25 AM ]Cleveland Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich teamed up with Texas GOP Rep. Ted Poe This isn't exaclty Chris Van Hollen and John Boehner. It wouldn't be the first time I've been caught with my head in the sand, but I'm not sure this is anything more than a symbolic statment. I mean, that's what Kucinich's presidential run was. Under any circumstances, I'm highly distrustful of scapegoating maneuvers. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 30 2009 07:26 AM President Kucinich would move the Mets to Havana, prolly. Ashie62 Feb 03 2009 07:06 AM This mornings Wall Street Journal has an article the Citi is reconsidering the 400 million dollar naming rights deal. I don't have the online link but its in the Journal. Citi is being "directed" by the Treasury not to spend taxpayer dollars on this. It may not be fair but the Mets have no say on the contract and at best will receive some money as a walk away fee. Good thing the Patch is bare...Probably best to take the TARP stink off our new stadium...Lotta remodeling to do if Citi is knocked out. Royal Crown Cola field anyone? Ashie62 Feb 03 2009 07:07 AM Ooh! George Thomas Seaver! Do I get a bottle o Wine for this? I don't mean Wild Irish Rose Peach. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:10 AM Get a New Patch While You're At It The wheels are reportedly in motion to deCitify Citi Field. From WSJ: ]Citi Explores Breaking Mets Deal Bank That Got Bailout Cash Revisits $400 Million Pact to Put Name on Stadium By DAVID ENRICH, MATTHEW FUTTERMAN and DAMIAN PALETTA Citigroup Inc., eager to quell the controversy over how lenders are using government bailout money, is exploring the possibility of backing out of a nearly $400 million marketing deal with the New York Mets, say people familiar with the matter. Officials at Citigroup have made no final decision about whether to try to void the 20-year agreement, which includes naming the Mets' new baseball stadium after the bank, say these people. In a statement Monday, Citigroup said that "no TARP capital will be used" for the stadium -- referring to government funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program. But as it revisits the pact, Citigroup is essentially acknowledging that the volatile political climate could make it untenable for the bank to proceed with the deal. Citigroup, which has had total net losses of $28.5 billion since 2007, received $45 billion in bailout aid from the federal TARP program last fall. The government also agreed to shoulder most losses on a $301 billion pool of Citigroup's loans and other assets. Next week, Citigroup Chief Executive Vikram Pandit and other bank CEOs are scheduled to appear before a House committee, where they are likely to be pressed for answers about their use of taxpayer-funded capital through TARP. The Mets deal was attacked last week as an example of misplaced spending by financial institutions that needed bailout funds. Reps. Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio) and Ted Poe (R., Texas) wrote to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Wednesday, asking him to push Citigroup to dissolve the Mets deal. "Citigroup is now dependent on the support of the federal government for its survival as an institution," the letter said. "As such, we do not believe Citigroup ought to spend $400 million to name a stadium at the same time that they accept over $350 billion in taxpayer support and guarantees." A re-examination of the Mets deal comes just days after President Barack Obama called it "shameful" that Wall Street firms doled out billions of dollars in bonuses even as Washington was spending taxpayer dollars to help bail them out. The Treasury Department hasn't been pushing the bank to break the contract, according to people with knowledge of the government's stance. Anger also is rising over signs that the massive capital infusion to U.S. banks hasn't resulted in a surge in lending. In a survey of banks released Monday, the Federal Reserve said about two-thirds of banks' loan officers reported that they tightened terms for business loans over the past three months. Under terms of the Mets deal, Citigroup has the right to plaster its name and logo around the arena, dubbed Citi Field, which is largely built and set to open in April in the New York City borough of Queens. Citigroup's contract with the Mets calls for the bank to pay the team roughly $20 million a year over two decades. The arrangement helped cover the costs of building Citi Field because it served as an asset the Mets could tout as they tried to lure private capital. While the Mets didn't receive direct taxpayer financing for the ballpark, the team did benefit from free land, infrastructure investments and tax-free bonds from the city government. Citigroup underwrote more than $600 million in bonds for the stadium. The bank's name and logo already adorn the stadium's walls. Citi Field is adjacent to Shea Stadium, the former home of the Mets, now being torn down. If Citigroup backs out of its agreement with the Mets, it likely wouldn't happen immediately and could involve the bank paying a breakup penalty to the Mets, people familiar with the situation said. "The Mets are fully committed to our contract with Citi," said Mets spokesman Jay Horwitz. A Citigroup spokesman said the bank "signed a legally binding agreement with the New York Mets in 2006." Within Citigroup, some officials believe the company should try to void the Mets pact in order to distance itself from unnecessary controversy. But other executives argue that trying to wiggle out of the contract will set a bad precedent. "If we cave for political reasons, it will have enormous implications for our ability to contract with third parties," said an executive who has been briefed on the discussions. When Citigroup and the Mets unveiled their pact in 2006, it was the richest naming-rights deal in baseball. Top executives including then-Chief Executive Charles Prince and Lewis Kaden, the Citigroup vice chairman who negotiated the deal, attended a groundbreaking ceremony with Mets players and officials. Citigroup has a number of other sports-marketing arrangements. Last month, it was the main sponsor of college football's Rose Bowl game. The company is sponsoring the 2010 national championship game. Citibank Park, which opened in 2000 in Central Islip, N.Y., is home to the Long Island Ducks minor-league baseball team. While some Citigroup executives are urging the company to scale back its advertising expenses to avoid public controversy, the company recently has been buying full-page ads in some major newspapers, touting its stability and lending. Last week, Citigroup stirred more controversy when the New York Post reported that the bank was planning to buy an expensive new luxury jet. The implication was that Citigroup was using a portion of its TARP funds to pay for the new jet. In response, Citigroup initially defended its plans, arguing that it placed the jet order in 2005 and that canceling the purchase would result in millions of dollars of penalties. The new jet also was supposed to replace two aging planes that Citigroup had put up for sale. Citigroup ultimately nixed the order under pressure from Treasury officials. By then, though, the bank had been publicly lashed by President Obama. "We shouldn't have to do that," he said, referring to the administration's suggestion that Citigroup not go through with the corporate-jet order, "because they should know better." If Citigroup parts ways with the Mets, other financial institutions may find themselves under pressure to reconsider sports-marketing deals. Bank of America Corp., which got $45 billion in government capital, signed a deal in 2004 for naming rights for the Carolina Panthers football stadium in Charlotte, N.C. Bank of America's 20-year deal calls for the bank to pay the Panthers $7.5 million a year, making it one of the National Football League's most expensive naming-rights deals. The Houston Texans receive $10 million a year from Reliant Energy Inc. Bank of America has been in talks with the New York Yankees about a major sponsorship deal for the new Yankee Stadium, though the company's name wouldn't be on the building. That deal appeared near complete in the fall, but neither side has discussed the matter since then. Larry DiRita, a Bank of America spokesman, declined to comment on the company's specific marketing arrangements. "These are normal banking relationships," he said, noting that they are profitable for the bank. Frayed Knot Feb 03 2009 07:11 AM Citigroup Inc. is considering the possibility of backing out of its $400 million naming-rights deal for the New York Mets' new stadium, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal. The report cited "people familiar with the matter." Ahh yes, the always popular "people familiar" source. What it sounds like is that Citi is feeling outside pressure and is at least looking into what it might take to break thinking that maybe this would stem the tide of criticism. Never mind that they still sponsor a host of other sports stuff, this deal seems to be the center of the bullseye right now. The team has every intention of continuing with the deal (of course, because they'd never get another nearly as large) and I'm thinking they'd probably put up a legal fight to keep it. oe: cross-post G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:18 AM If my thread on the WSJ story gets folded in or deleted, the essentials: ]Citigroup Inc., eager to quell the controversy over how lenders are using government bailout money, is exploring the possibility of backing out of a nearly $400 million marketing deal with the New York Mets, say people familiar with the matter. Officials at Citigroup have made no final decision about whether to try to void the 20-year agreement, which includes naming the Mets' new baseball stadium after the bank, say these people. In a statement Monday, Citigroup said that "no TARP capital will be used" for the stadium -- referring to government funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program. But as it revisits the pact, Citigroup is essentially acknowledging that the volatile political climate could make it untenable for the bank to proceed with the deal. Citigroup, which has had total net losses of $28.5 billion since 2007, received $45 billion in bailout aid from the federal TARP program last fall. The government also agreed to shoulder most losses on a $301 billion pool of Citigroup's loans and other assets. Next week, Citigroup Chief Executive Vikram Pandit and other bank CEOs are scheduled to appear before a House committee, where they are likely to be pressed for answers about their use of taxpayer-funded capital through TARP. ]Citigroup's contract with the Mets calls for the bank to pay the team roughly $20 million a year over two decades. The arrangement helped cover the costs of building Citi Field because it served as an asset the Mets could tout as they tried to lure private capital. While the Mets didn't receive direct taxpayer financing for the ballpark, the team did benefit from free land, infrastructure investments and tax-free bonds from the city government. Citigroup underwrote more than $600 million in bonds for the stadium. The bank's name and logo already adorn the stadium's walls. Citi Field is adjacent to Shea Stadium, the former home of the Mets, now being torn down. If Citigroup backs out of its agreement with the Mets, it likely wouldn't happen immediately and could involve the bank paying a breakup penalty to the Mets, people familiar with the situation said. metirish Feb 03 2009 07:24 AM I bet by the end of the day Wally will have a "Jackie Robinson Field" article up. Edgy DC Feb 03 2009 07:31 AM This just seems so counterproductive for everybody. It's nice to think that the Mets may end up with an un-sponsored field, but I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:36 AM ="Edgy DC":3tltbewg]I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:3tltbewg] The Mets could use some more crunch in their lineup. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:37 AM ="Edgy DC":i7xp23vg]I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:i7xp23vg] The Mets could use some more crunch in their lineup. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:40 AM ="metirish"]I bet by the end of the day Wally will have a "Jackie Robinson Field" article up. Wally, if they actually did that: ]Branch Rickey famously told Jackie Robinson not to fight back when harassed. The Mets similarly don't fight back when their opponents tar them not with epithets but runs. The Mets have unwittingly chosen the wrong role model. But when do the Mets ever use their wits? soupcan Feb 03 2009 07:41 AM ="Edgy DC":6bqs5c70]It's nice to think that the Mets may end up with an un-sponsored field, but I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:6bqs5c70] Most definitely. Its not like Enron Field is now Astro Stadium. I would like it if there does happen to be another sponsor that its a one-name company so I can pretend it's sort of un-sponsored. You know like Miller Park or Busch Stadium. If not, then I'd like Met Life please. Centerfield Feb 03 2009 07:43 AM Considering they have a signed contract, I don't see why the Mets would let Citi out of the deal until they had a more lucrative (or equally lucrative) deal in place. metirish Feb 03 2009 07:43 AM Jeff IIRC is quite fond of WISE potato chips. WISE FIELD metsmarathon Feb 03 2009 08:35 AM if citi backs out of that contract, i would think that the mets should sue them to recoup not only some of the short term income, but also the cost to replace all of the signage and merchandise. no fucking way citi should get off the hook just because the politicians whined MFS62 Feb 03 2009 08:46 AM Per Metsblog Update, 8:56 am: Michael Espo, a long-time and trusted reader of MetsBlog.com, just sent in the following e-mail: �Moments ago on CNBC, Doug Kass, a noted investor and short seller, who is a member of the country club where Bernie Madoff solicited many of his investors, said, �scuttlebutt around town says that Fred Wilpon and Mets ownership may be forced to sell a minority interest in the team due to their exposure to the Madoff fraud.�� Consider the source. EDIT: Hmmmm Now that is gone from that website. I wonder what happened. Later batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2009 08:46 AM ="Edgy DC":dwhmitdm]This just seems so counterproductive for everybody. It's nice to think that the Mets may end up with an un-sponsored field, but I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:dwhmitdm] It's apropos. Wilpon's a cheeseball. Get ready for Cheesy Stadium. batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2009 08:52 AM ="metsmarathon":2jggnqoz]if citi backs out of that contract, i would think that the mets should sue them to recoup not only some of the short term income, but also the cost to replace all of the signage and merchandise. no fucking way citi should get off the hook just because the politicians whined[/quote:2jggnqoz] If Citi doesn't have a contractual out, why wouldn't the Mets Sioux City to recoup every single penny of the deal? G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 08:56 AM Darren Rovell's story from CNBC: ]Despite all the noise, including a front page story in the Wall Street Journal today, the Mets just sent us this statement. "In conversations this morning, Citi reinforced that they will honor our legally binding agreement." MFS62 Feb 03 2009 08:59 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 03 2009 09:01 AM I'm thinking of taking up a collection to buy the naming rights. I'll name it "Cranepool Forum Field". If you're interested in contributing ($1 million minimum. No pikers, pease.) PM me, and I'll give you the number of my off shore account to which you can wire the money. Later metirish Feb 03 2009 08:59 AM ] "In conversations this morning, Citi reinforced that they will honor our legally binding agreement." Sounds like the Mets reinforced the legally binding thing. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 09:04 AM The Mets, I would guess, don't give a damn what it's called (within reason). They do give a damn they get paid (which is reasonable). batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2009 09:54 AM ="G-Fafif":1gap197h]The Mets, I would guess, don't give a damn what it's called (within reason). They do give a damn they get paid (which is reasonable).[/quote:1gap197h] That's my Wilpon! metirish Feb 04 2009 10:26 AM Daniel Gross argues that the name should stay. http://www.slate.com/id/2210442/ ] Three Strikes and You're Bailed Out Why Citi shouldn't cancel its $400 million purchase of naming rights for the Mets new stadium. By Daniel Gross Posted Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2009, at 6:00 PM ET Almost every taxpayer who isn't a New York Mets fan is outraged by Citi's $400 million, 20-year deal for naming rights to the new Mets stadium, known as Citi Field. It's true that shelling out that kind of money at a time when taxpayers are bankrolling the company and backstopping hundreds of billions of dollars worth of its assets may seem tone-deaf and stupid, even for a bank. And, historically, naming rights have been a classic vanity move. Corporations tend to make grandiose civic/corporate statements right when they are about to implode. If you had shorted Citi's stock when it announced the sponsorship deal in November 2006, you would have made a lot of money. But there's a reasonable case to be made for preserving the deal, especially if Citi could get the Mets to extend the deal to 30 or 40 years. In order for Citi to weather the storm, recover, and pay back taxpayers (and insulate them from further losses), the company must invest for both the short- and long-term. For companies in highly competitive consumer markets, marketing and advertising are essential, entirely justifiable expenses. Companies�even companies getting bailed out by the feds�need to attract customers and to build their brand image. It's difficult to measure the value of any specific campaign or ad. But there's reason to think that for this company, at this stadium, in this location, a naming-rights deal might not be such a bad long term move. The cost is high�$400 million over 20 years. But the present-day cost isn't quite as high as you think, especially if, as Darren Rovell of CNBC suggests, it is paid out in annual installments. In 2029, $20 million will be worth a lot less than $20 million is today. And any type of advertising that reaches a lot of people is expensive. In this economy, NBC was able to charge $3 million for a 30-second spot during the Super Bowl. Though the audience size for Mets games won't approach that of the Super Bowl, the location of the stadium guarantees that the Citi logo will be visible to hundreds of millions of people each year. Citi Field is a giant billboard that will be visible not just to the 4 million-plus people who attend Mets games each year but to the tens of millions of people who drive past it on the Grand Central Parkway, the Van Wyck Expressway, and other roadways and the 25 million or so passengers who fly into and out of LaGuardia Airport each year. And stadium naming deals generate a huge amount of free advertising. On the broadcasts of the team's 81 home games (and, sponsors hope, post-season games), announcers will repeatedly refer to the company's name in a nonadvertising context: "Welcome back to Citi Field." Likewise, newspaper, Internet, and television coverage will produce hundreds of millions of impressions of the company's name per year. Naming-rights deals are most justifiable when the product or company doing the naming has an intuitive connection to the people who visit the stadium. The Montreal Canadiens used to play in the Molson Center, which made sense since hockey fans drink a lot of beer. Ditto for the Colorado Rockies, who play in Coors Field. (When Internet company PSInet planted its name on the Baltimore Ravens' stadium, it didn't make quite as much sense.) Citi would seem to be something of a natural for the New York Mets. It's a New York-based bank. The Mets are based in New York City. Baseball stadiums tend to attract a prosperous, heavily male clientele, including professionals, small-business owners, and corporate executives. Many companies use Mets games to entertain and schmooze prospective clients. In short, a lot of the sorts of people who are likely to utilize Citi's services will be attending games at Citi Field. Of course, people who read about games at Citi Field on ESPN.com won't be learning much about Citi's mortgage rates. But naming rights, especially if they endure, can perform another vital function for brands. It can help make them part of the vernacular. The greatest desire of any marketer is for her product's name to work its way into conversations. When I was growing up, it was common to say, "I want a Coke" when you were referring to any kind of soda. People ask for a Kleenex when they mean a tissue, say they're going to Xerox a document even if they're using a Ricoh copier, and speak of Googling when they refer to an Internet search. Stadium naming rights can help products and brands gain that sort of status. Since 1926, baseball fans on the north side of Chicago have spoken about going to games at Wrigley Field. Does that make fans more likely to buy Wrigley's gum products? It can't hurt. "Meet me at Citi," doesn't quite have the same ring as "Meet me at Shea." But after 20 or 30 years, it might. Edgy DC Feb 04 2009 10:29 AM Seriously, as a taxpayer, do you think Citi is going to recover faster by taking away their ability to market themselves professionally or humiliating them for attempting to do so? Nymr83 Feb 04 2009 10:34 AM ="Edgy DC":37gbfrv1]Seriously, as a taxpayer, do you think Citi is going to recover faster by taking away their ability to market themselves professionally or humiliating them for attempting to do so?[/quote:37gbfrv1] Nope. I also think there isn't a worse thing they can do right now than take their name off a stadium where it already is, thats not a great way to inspire confidence that your business is (now) sound and here to stay. Edgy DC Feb 04 2009 10:58 AM So, do you think that Dennis Kucinich, who bills himself as "America's Congressman" is maybe using this as a means of self-promotion? I understand being against these rescue plans, but imposing terms on the corporations after the fact is crap. Lookit me, I'm castrating Citibank and everybody hates them. Eh, shaddup. (off soapbox) Nymr83 Feb 04 2009 11:25 AM ="Edgy DC":c8pm0iyy]So, do you think that Dennis Kucinich, who bills himself as "America's Congressman" is maybe using this as a means of self-promotion?[/quote:c8pm0iyy] No, really? Frayed Knot Feb 04 2009 11:31 AM Kucinich was doing the same thing with the land valuation question of the area around YSIII -- basically acting as a self-appointed over-seer for what is essentially a local issue far from his particular locality. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 12:22 PM ]...the location of the stadium guarantees that the Citi logo will be visible to hundreds of millions of people each year. Citi Field is a giant billboard that will be visible not just to the 4 million-plus people who attend Mets games each year but to the tens of millions of people who drive past it on the Grand Central Parkway, the Van Wyck Expressway, and other roadways and the 25 million or so passengers who fly into and out of LaGuardia Airport each year. I wouldn't mind Gross coming on for Delgado in the ninth for defense. He can really stretch. Citigroup could also buy a few actual billboards and accomplish much the same goal as the author describes. While I agree that this company, if it is to survive, has to (and is entitled to) market itself, reading Gross' article tells me that he has no idea why having the company's name on a ballpark accomplishes that. "Well, people will see it...people who might use their product." If anything, spelling out the reasons as he does, with the "I want a Coke" example and such, makes the whole thing sound more like a vanity-driven sham than I thought before. ]Many companies use Mets games to entertain and schmooze prospective clients. If they used the games from the last two late Septembers, those companies must have been recruiters from Guantanamo Bay. metsguyinmichigan Feb 04 2009 02:16 PM I don't mind the banks buying these things as much as the utilities. Why does a monopoly need to advertise? Especially since they just pass their costs on to the consumer, who has no choice but to use their electricity or natural gas? G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 02:26 PM ="metsguyinmichigan":1nrfin6h]I don't mind the banks buying these things as much as the utilities. Why does a monopoly need to advertise? Especially since they just pass their costs on to the consumer, who has no choice but to use their electricity or natural gas?[/quote:1nrfin6h] To take up lots of space[/url:1nrfin6h], of course. metsmarathon Feb 04 2009 02:48 PM ]Citi Field, of course, will always be known as Citi Field. of course. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 03:11 PM Should Citi Field never actually be Citi Field, it would be accessible via a number of appropriate thoroughfares, listed here[/url:qvhcvi31]. Benjamin Grimm Feb 04 2009 04:25 PM They should call it by Shea's original name: Flushing Meadows Stadium. Or since "stadium" is out of vogue, they can replace it with Park or Field. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 05:00 PM More and more, Citi Field, its plainly visible structure notwithstanding, is beginning to remind me of this outstanding historical marker[/url:2p1f2s91] to which TMF introduced Mrs. Fafif and me recently. Citi Field...did it really land? G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 05:01 PM Whoops, impatient double post. themetfairy Feb 04 2009 05:22 PM LOL OlerudOwned Feb 04 2009 05:32 PM In a span of of two paragraphs, he called the naming rights "a classic vanity move" and an "essential, entirely justifiable expense." Kong76 Feb 04 2009 08:25 PM I'm kinda fickle on this subject now that it's become fodder for some folks. What's 20 million a year for twenty years when ya really boil it all down? dgwphotography Feb 05 2009 04:36 AM ="Kong76":2tla5kgq]I'm kinda fickle on this subject now that it's become fodder for some folks. What's 20 million a year for twenty years when ya really boil it all down?[/quote:2tla5kgq] Right now, it wouldn't even pay for Manny. 20 years from now, it wouldn't even pay for a utility infielder.. Edgy DC Feb 05 2009 05:50 AM ="OlerudOwned":1hwowprl]In a span of of two paragraphs, he called the naming rights "a classic vanity move" and an "essential, entirely justifiable expense."[/quote:1hwowprl] Well, he was distinguishing some deals from others. Vic Sage Feb 05 2009 10:34 AM ]But naming rights, especially if they endure, can perform another vital function for brands. It can help make them part of the vernacular. The greatest desire of any marketer is for her product's name to work its way into conversations. When I was growing up, it was common to say, "I want a Coke" when you were referring to any kind of soda. People ask for a Kleenex when they mean a tissue, say they're going to Xerox a document even if they're using a Ricoh copier, and speak of Googling when they refer to an Internet search. Stadium naming rights can help products and brands gain that sort of status. um... while those that control corporate brands want their brands to be ubiquitous, they do NOT want their trademarks to become generic. That's called "genericide", a sort of "public domain" status for trademarks, and thus costs the owner exclusive control over their mark. Of course, the naming of a stadium isn't likely to cause this phenomenon (oh look at that new Citi they're building in Montreal! I bet that'll bring baseball back!), so the point is not only incorrect, it's irrelevant. Now that's journalism! batmagadanleadoff Apr 16 2009 09:56 AM ="batmagadanleadoff":2ibvgs3w] I'll probably refer to the new park as Shea Stadium.[/quote:2ibvgs3w] Making money off my idea. Drats. Edgy DC Apr 16 2009 10:15 AM A good re-read. Here's Soupy with the Turning Point of the Thread: ="soupcan"]="Ashie62"] It seems like Citifield is a Brooklyn Dodger sandwich being shoved down Met pants. Oooh! A sandwich shoved into my pants!

I always rate Foster as the most dissapointing Met acqusition. Foster's last Reds season ('81) was MVP caliber. At the time the Mets got him, Foster would've been on anyone's short list of the half dozen or so best hitters in baseball.

="John Cougar Lunchbucket":3gi4tcwe]This question is a little weird in that for many guys "primes" "superstar-ness" and "Free agency" don't necessarily align. Like, Pedro Martinez for example.[/quote:3gi4tcwe] Sure, not everyone's prime occurs at the same chronological point in time. And then there are some primes that are not worth having, no matter when they happen. Like the prime of Tom Hausman. I was going for superstars in their prime based on the consensus thinking at the time of the player's free agency. This would increase the likelihood of intense competitive bidding. This is just one crude way of measuring how the Mets fared historically in obtaining the marquee free agents. Benjamin Grimm Jan 29 2009 02:00 PM Bonilla was the first time they got the big number one most-coveted free agent. Beltran was probably the second time. It would be interesting, perhaps, to go season-by-season and see who got the big guy. I'm sure the Yankees would win this contest, but there might be some surprises among the results. Edgy DC Jan 29 2009 02:07 PM Two wins for the Royals might be David Cone and Mark Davis. I think it's unfair to not count re-signings of players in the open market place like Piazza, though. Frayed Knot Jan 29 2009 02:11 PM Plus, one can't discount something like the Glavine signing because he wasn't in his prime in support of a piece that whines about not signing Lowe. Benjamin Grimm Jan 29 2009 02:12 PM Piazza never got into the open marketplace. The Mets signed him before other teams were eligible to talk to him. The Mets first big-money acquisition, by the way, was George Foster, who the Mets traded for prior to the 1982 season and signed to a whopping $2 million-per-year contract. Even though he wasn't a free agent signing, he was a very high profile, very coveted player. It was the first time the Mets jumped in and played with the big boys. Since it turned out so poorly it can be easy to forget just how big and exciting that deal was. seawolf17 Jan 29 2009 02:14 PM ="Edgy DC":10i03g5o]I tried to post something long, but it limits you to like 350 characters, so you have to post it one paragraph at a time.[/quote:10i03g5o] Post a link to my post; I don't feel like creating another account I'm never going to use. batmagadanleadoff Jan 29 2009 02:16 PM I always rate Foster as the most dissapointing Met acqusition. Foster's last Reds season ('81) was MVP caliber. At the time the Mets got him, Foster would've been on anyone's short list of the half dozen or so best hitters in baseball. Edgy DC Jan 29 2009 02:17 PM You can just click the facebook button and your account is automatically set up. Edgy DC Jan 29 2009 02:19 PM I've got no problem seeing trade-and-sign deals as just as smoove a move as a free-agent signing. Willets Point Jan 29 2009 02:50 PM Nothing in that article that I haven't seen here on the Crane Pool as well. The only thing he misses is saying how much Jose Reyes sucks. seawolf17 Jan 30 2009 08:38 AM I was just about to log on and post that, but you beat me to it. Thanks. Edgy DC Jan 30 2009 08:47 AM I tried. I think my first post, crediting you, was killed. As things have slowed down here, I've gone elsewhere on the internet to be a pain in the ass. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 30 2009 08:49 AM Yeah this place is dead, man.

="Edgy DC":17iq19qw]The guy wasn't distinguishing between trades and free agent siginings, or past and present or fact and fantasy, for that matter. The Mets wouldn't have gotten him if the Yankees hadn't pulled out can be said of every acqusition, no?[/quote:17iq19qw] I see your point and you're right. It's just that when I think of the Beltran acquisition, I'm still surprised (pleasantly) that the MFY's didn't get him. They were getting everyone they wanted in those days. metsmarathon Jan 29 2009 01:28 PM i guess billy wagner would be on the downside, like pedro? what about kaz? batmagadanleadoff Jan 29 2009 01:34 PM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":3gi4tcwe]This question is a little weird in that for many guys "primes" "superstar-ness" and "Free agency" don't necessarily align. Like, Pedro Martinez for example.[/quote:3gi4tcwe] Sure, not everyone's prime occurs at the same chronological point in time. And then there are some primes that are not worth having, no matter when they happen. Like the prime of Tom Hausman. I was going for superstars in their prime based on the consensus thinking at the time of the player's free agency. This would increase the likelihood of intense competitive bidding. This is just one crude way of measuring how the Mets fared historically in obtaining the marquee free agents. Benjamin Grimm Jan 29 2009 02:00 PM Bonilla was the first time they got the big number one most-coveted free agent. Beltran was probably the second time. It would be interesting, perhaps, to go season-by-season and see who got the big guy. I'm sure the Yankees would win this contest, but there might be some surprises among the results. Edgy DC Jan 29 2009 02:07 PM Two wins for the Royals might be David Cone and Mark Davis. I think it's unfair to not count re-signings of players in the open market place like Piazza, though. Frayed Knot Jan 29 2009 02:11 PM Plus, one can't discount something like the Glavine signing because he wasn't in his prime in support of a piece that whines about not signing Lowe. Benjamin Grimm Jan 29 2009 02:12 PM Piazza never got into the open marketplace. The Mets signed him before other teams were eligible to talk to him. The Mets first big-money acquisition, by the way, was George Foster, who the Mets traded for prior to the 1982 season and signed to a whopping $2 million-per-year contract. Even though he wasn't a free agent signing, he was a very high profile, very coveted player. It was the first time the Mets jumped in and played with the big boys. Since it turned out so poorly it can be easy to forget just how big and exciting that deal was. seawolf17 Jan 29 2009 02:14 PM ="Edgy DC":10i03g5o]I tried to post something long, but it limits you to like 350 characters, so you have to post it one paragraph at a time.[/quote:10i03g5o] Post a link to my post; I don't feel like creating another account I'm never going to use. batmagadanleadoff Jan 29 2009 02:16 PM I always rate Foster as the most dissapointing Met acqusition. Foster's last Reds season ('81) was MVP caliber. At the time the Mets got him, Foster would've been on anyone's short list of the half dozen or so best hitters in baseball. Edgy DC Jan 29 2009 02:17 PM You can just click the facebook button and your account is automatically set up. Edgy DC Jan 29 2009 02:19 PM I've got no problem seeing trade-and-sign deals as just as smoove a move as a free-agent signing. Willets Point Jan 29 2009 02:50 PM Nothing in that article that I haven't seen here on the Crane Pool as well. The only thing he misses is saying how much Jose Reyes sucks. seawolf17 Jan 30 2009 08:38 AM I was just about to log on and post that, but you beat me to it. Thanks. Edgy DC Jan 30 2009 08:47 AM I tried. I think my first post, crediting you, was killed. As things have slowed down here, I've gone elsewhere on the internet to be a pain in the ass. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 30 2009 08:49 AM Yeah this place is dead, man.

="Centerfield":sz7qrzkj]I don't know if Piazza fulfills your criteria or not. I don't remember if he actually filed for free agency after 1998. Bobby Bonilla. Johan was technically a trade, but a trade that was about as close to a free agent signing as possible.[/quote:sz7qrzkj] Piazza never filed for free agency. I'd rule out Johan also. You're not a free agent until you file, thus allowing other teams to contact you without fear of tampering. metsmarathon Jan 29 2009 01:21 PM robin ventura John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 29 2009 01:25 PM This question is a little weird in that for many guys "primes" "superstar-ness" and "Free agency" don't necessarily align. Like, Pedro Martinez for example. batmagadanleadoff Jan 29 2009 01:26 PM ="Edgy DC":17iq19qw]The guy wasn't distinguishing between trades and free agent siginings, or past and present or fact and fantasy, for that matter. The Mets wouldn't have gotten him if the Yankees hadn't pulled out can be said of every acqusition, no?[/quote:17iq19qw] I see your point and you're right. It's just that when I think of the Beltran acquisition, I'm still surprised (pleasantly) that the MFY's didn't get him. They were getting everyone they wanted in those days. metsmarathon Jan 29 2009 01:28 PM i guess billy wagner would be on the downside, like pedro? what about kaz? batmagadanleadoff Jan 29 2009 01:34 PM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":3gi4tcwe]This question is a little weird in that for many guys "primes" "superstar-ness" and "Free agency" don't necessarily align. Like, Pedro Martinez for example.[/quote:3gi4tcwe] Sure, not everyone's prime occurs at the same chronological point in time. And then there are some primes that are not worth having, no matter when they happen. Like the prime of Tom Hausman. I was going for superstars in their prime based on the consensus thinking at the time of the player's free agency. This would increase the likelihood of intense competitive bidding. This is just one crude way of measuring how the Mets fared historically in obtaining the marquee free agents. Benjamin Grimm Jan 29 2009 02:00 PM Bonilla was the first time they got the big number one most-coveted free agent. Beltran was probably the second time. It would be interesting, perhaps, to go season-by-season and see who got the big guy. I'm sure the Yankees would win this contest, but there might be some surprises among the results. Edgy DC Jan 29 2009 02:07 PM Two wins for the Royals might be David Cone and Mark Davis. I think it's unfair to not count re-signings of players in the open market place like Piazza, though. Frayed Knot Jan 29 2009 02:11 PM Plus, one can't discount something like the Glavine signing because he wasn't in his prime in support of a piece that whines about not signing Lowe. Benjamin Grimm Jan 29 2009 02:12 PM Piazza never got into the open marketplace. The Mets signed him before other teams were eligible to talk to him. The Mets first big-money acquisition, by the way, was George Foster, who the Mets traded for prior to the 1982 season and signed to a whopping $2 million-per-year contract. Even though he wasn't a free agent signing, he was a very high profile, very coveted player. It was the first time the Mets jumped in and played with the big boys. Since it turned out so poorly it can be easy to forget just how big and exciting that deal was. seawolf17 Jan 29 2009 02:14 PM ="Edgy DC":10i03g5o]I tried to post something long, but it limits you to like 350 characters, so you have to post it one paragraph at a time.[/quote:10i03g5o] Post a link to my post; I don't feel like creating another account I'm never going to use. batmagadanleadoff Jan 29 2009 02:16 PM I always rate Foster as the most dissapointing Met acqusition. Foster's last Reds season ('81) was MVP caliber. At the time the Mets got him, Foster would've been on anyone's short list of the half dozen or so best hitters in baseball. Edgy DC Jan 29 2009 02:17 PM You can just click the facebook button and your account is automatically set up. Edgy DC Jan 29 2009 02:19 PM I've got no problem seeing trade-and-sign deals as just as smoove a move as a free-agent signing. Willets Point Jan 29 2009 02:50 PM Nothing in that article that I haven't seen here on the Crane Pool as well. The only thing he misses is saying how much Jose Reyes sucks. seawolf17 Jan 30 2009 08:38 AM I was just about to log on and post that, but you beat me to it. Thanks. Edgy DC Jan 30 2009 08:47 AM I tried. I think my first post, crediting you, was killed. As things have slowed down here, I've gone elsewhere on the internet to be a pain in the ass. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 30 2009 08:49 AM Yeah this place is dead, man.

="Benjamin Grimm":3a68wdc6]Bobby Bonilla.[/quote:3a68wdc6] Good one. Bonilla's first Met contract was the highest ever at that time. Edgy DC Jan 29 2009 01:13 PM The guy wasn't distinguishing between trades and free agent siginings, or past and present or fact and fantasy, for that matter. The Mets wouldn't have gotten him if the Yankees hadn't pulled out can be said of every acqusition, no? batmagadanleadoff Jan 29 2009 01:13 PM ="Centerfield":sz7qrzkj]I don't know if Piazza fulfills your criteria or not. I don't remember if he actually filed for free agency after 1998. Bobby Bonilla. Johan was technically a trade, but a trade that was about as close to a free agent signing as possible.[/quote:sz7qrzkj] Piazza never filed for free agency. I'd rule out Johan also. You're not a free agent until you file, thus allowing other teams to contact you without fear of tampering. metsmarathon Jan 29 2009 01:21 PM robin ventura John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 29 2009 01:25 PM This question is a little weird in that for many guys "primes" "superstar-ness" and "Free agency" don't necessarily align. Like, Pedro Martinez for example. batmagadanleadoff Jan 29 2009 01:26 PM ="Edgy DC":17iq19qw]The guy wasn't distinguishing between trades and free agent siginings, or past and present or fact and fantasy, for that matter. The Mets wouldn't have gotten him if the Yankees hadn't pulled out can be said of every acqusition, no?[/quote:17iq19qw] I see your point and you're right. It's just that when I think of the Beltran acquisition, I'm still surprised (pleasantly) that the MFY's didn't get him. They were getting everyone they wanted in those days. metsmarathon Jan 29 2009 01:28 PM i guess billy wagner would be on the downside, like pedro? what about kaz? batmagadanleadoff Jan 29 2009 01:34 PM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":3gi4tcwe]This question is a little weird in that for many guys "primes" "superstar-ness" and "Free agency" don't necessarily align. Like, Pedro Martinez for example.[/quote:3gi4tcwe] Sure, not everyone's prime occurs at the same chronological point in time. And then there are some primes that are not worth having, no matter when they happen. Like the prime of Tom Hausman. I was going for superstars in their prime based on the consensus thinking at the time of the player's free agency. This would increase the likelihood of intense competitive bidding. This is just one crude way of measuring how the Mets fared historically in obtaining the marquee free agents. Benjamin Grimm Jan 29 2009 02:00 PM Bonilla was the first time they got the big number one most-coveted free agent. Beltran was probably the second time. It would be interesting, perhaps, to go season-by-season and see who got the big guy. I'm sure the Yankees would win this contest, but there might be some surprises among the results. Edgy DC Jan 29 2009 02:07 PM Two wins for the Royals might be David Cone and Mark Davis. I think it's unfair to not count re-signings of players in the open market place like Piazza, though. Frayed Knot Jan 29 2009 02:11 PM Plus, one can't discount something like the Glavine signing because he wasn't in his prime in support of a piece that whines about not signing Lowe. Benjamin Grimm Jan 29 2009 02:12 PM Piazza never got into the open marketplace. The Mets signed him before other teams were eligible to talk to him. The Mets first big-money acquisition, by the way, was George Foster, who the Mets traded for prior to the 1982 season and signed to a whopping $2 million-per-year contract. Even though he wasn't a free agent signing, he was a very high profile, very coveted player. It was the first time the Mets jumped in and played with the big boys. Since it turned out so poorly it can be easy to forget just how big and exciting that deal was. seawolf17 Jan 29 2009 02:14 PM ="Edgy DC":10i03g5o]I tried to post something long, but it limits you to like 350 characters, so you have to post it one paragraph at a time.[/quote:10i03g5o] Post a link to my post; I don't feel like creating another account I'm never going to use. batmagadanleadoff Jan 29 2009 02:16 PM I always rate Foster as the most dissapointing Met acqusition. Foster's last Reds season ('81) was MVP caliber. At the time the Mets got him, Foster would've been on anyone's short list of the half dozen or so best hitters in baseball. Edgy DC Jan 29 2009 02:17 PM You can just click the facebook button and your account is automatically set up. Edgy DC Jan 29 2009 02:19 PM I've got no problem seeing trade-and-sign deals as just as smoove a move as a free-agent signing. Willets Point Jan 29 2009 02:50 PM Nothing in that article that I haven't seen here on the Crane Pool as well. The only thing he misses is saying how much Jose Reyes sucks. seawolf17 Jan 30 2009 08:38 AM I was just about to log on and post that, but you beat me to it. Thanks. Edgy DC Jan 30 2009 08:47 AM I tried. I think my first post, crediting you, was killed. As things have slowed down here, I've gone elsewhere on the internet to be a pain in the ass. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 30 2009 08:49 AM Yeah this place is dead, man.

So who were the free agent Met signees that were considered superstars in their prime at the time of signing? I'm talking pure free agent signees, where the player acquired wasn't part of a trade and had actually filed for free-agency prior to the Mets acquiring that player? Beltran - but only because the Yankees dropped out. If the Yankees so much as matched the Mets offer, Beltran would be wearing Bronx style pinstripes. The Yankees were Beltran's first choice. Anybody else? OE-- Actually, the part about being acquired for a trade is superfluous. So, I'm asking for players signed from that season's free agent pool. A free agent is still a free agent, even if his uni just prior to signing as a free agent was a Mets uniform.

="G-Fafif":s111v9tq]="batmagadanleadoff":s111v9tq]I'm still trying to figure out this beer-belt thing.[/quote:s111v9tq] It may have been more of a flexible tube than a belt....[/quote:s111v9tq] I was about to question the whole wholesomeness of that promotion, especially given Baseball's traditional connection with children of all ages. But then I remembered the huge Budweiser ads that have been swallowing up Shea's scoreboard for the past 20 years or so. Maybe the Mets'll give one of those away for borscht in 2009.

I accept the crown. Deservedly so.

="Edgy DC":1by4pahk]Well, I'm throwing one out there anyhow. The answer is: Jim Kern and Ron Guidry.[/quote:1by4pahk] Who are the two pitchers Lee Mazzilli reached base against in the 1979 AS Game? Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 12:44 PM Well, the judges were looking for "Who are the pitchers who yielded Lee Mazzilli's game-tying homer and go-ahead walk, respectively, in the 1979 All Star Game?" but they've been instructed to be more generous. You. batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2009 12:53 PM I accept the crown. Deservedly so.

="Edgy DC":2jrfxict]Who were the two former Yankee champions on the 1962 Mets?[/quote:2jrfxict] An acceptable response would have been: "Name the only two players on the '62 Mets to have played for the Yankees prior to 1962". You were very close and obviously on the right track. But your response, as phrased, could also include Casey Stengel (mgr.), Red Ruffing (coach) and George Weiss (front-office). The answer was just Woodling & Throneberry. Actually, "prior to 1962" is superfluous (but still technically correct) because no 1962 Met ever played for the Yankees after leaving the Mets. Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 12:25 PM I'd have accepted my answer. Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 12:29 PM Well, I'm throwing one out there anyhow. The answer is: Jim Kern and Ron Guidry. batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2009 12:39 PM ="Edgy DC":1by4pahk]Well, I'm throwing one out there anyhow. The answer is: Jim Kern and Ron Guidry.[/quote:1by4pahk] Who are the two pitchers Lee Mazzilli reached base against in the 1979 AS Game? Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 12:44 PM Well, the judges were looking for "Who are the pitchers who yielded Lee Mazzilli's game-tying homer and go-ahead walk, respectively, in the 1979 All Star Game?" but they've been instructed to be more generous. You. batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2009 12:53 PM I accept the crown. Deservedly so.

="Edgy DC":342gxm8d]I never understood the limited resources angle ....?[/quote:342gxm8d] I'm still trying to figure out this beer-belt thing. G-Fafif Jan 28 2009 11:33 AM They used to, I gather, order enough to satisfy what they believed the crowd would be. Then along would come a game where the sale outpaced the forecast and it was raincheck time. The "first 25,000" bit took care of that. I'd have to delve into yearbooks and pocket schedule archives to figure out when these things began to become routinely sponsored. In ye olde days, Batting Helmet Day was just Batting Helmet Day, not Investors Consolidated Batting Helmet Day. I remember reading an article about sponsored giveaways in the WSJ a long time ago that said even something that seemed kinda ritzy (like a transistor radio that the MFYs gave out) was pretty cheap and the sponsor picked up the cost. seawolf17 Jan 28 2009 11:34 AM I think it's advance ordering and advance showing up, so you can buy more concessions once you're there. G-Fafif Jan 28 2009 11:36 AM ="batmagadanleadoff":3h29wbsh]I'm still trying to figure out this beer-belt thing.[/quote:3h29wbsh] It may have been more of a flexible tube than a belt. It was white and canvassy, Lite logo on one side, Mets script on the other. And it had a zipper. I've yet to figure its real world utility. When offered a beer, is it like, "No thanks, brought my own!"? Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 11:40 AM I'm guessing 83-88 as when spornsorship of giveaway days took over. Around that time that every Sunday became a giveaway day. I got a Mets sports bag around 83 that was really a cheap Glad logoed thingie. Tee shirt day around 1985 was a fugly v-neck with "Mets" in script on the left breast and "All-Channel Satellite" in print on the right. Since satellite dishes were prohibitively expensive then, I imagine if the promotion netted three or four sales, they covered their nut. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 28 2009 11:44 AM Gotta love the SI Vault: July 18, 1977 ] Beer Is Out, Halters In Larry Keith Take me out to the ball game, Take me out to the crowd. Give me some jackets and baseball caps, Free photo albums and sweatbands and bats. Yes, it's step right up for the freebies. If they run out it's a shame. For it's one, two, three giveaways At the new ball game. There was a time when the only pleasures baseball offered were its modest own. Dodgers vs. Reds, Yankees vs. Red Sox. It was all in the game itself. In recent years, though, baseball has decided that the marketplace demands more than hits, runs and errors. Management feels compelled to give you something else. It wants you to leave the stadium with a smile on your face, a song in your heart and a souvenir sweatband on your wrist. Baseball promotions are a means of winning at the gate even if the home team is losing on the field. At times they have all the taste and sophistication of a TV game show. But whether what is offered is a free gift or a cheap thrill, promotions are good business. The payoff comes in increased revenues from attendance, concessions and parking, plus thousands of people walking around town showing off the team logo. "Financially speaking, we just about have to have giveaway days if we're going to make it," says Baltimore Promotions Director Don Shaver. Bill Veeck's Chicago White Sox had 25 promotion or giveaway dates last season. Business Manager Rudie Schaffer says, "The thing you're trying to accomplish is to bring a fresh person into the ball park. Once you get him there, you give him a good show." Most teams enjoy the benefits of giveaway days without having to pay the full cost of the items they are handing out. Because 25,000 bats and jackets at 75? and $1.50 each add up, the expense is often shared by local cosponsors. Businesses also participate by buying up blocks of tickets for their employees. Boeing Aircraft set a major league group-sales record this year by purchasing 65,432 tickets for Seattle's two-game Boeing Weekend. The key to a successful promotion is to turn a profit even while giving something away. Philadelphia was outsmarted a few years ago when cagey Little Leaguers entered Veterans Stadium for the kids' cut-rate 50?, collected a jacket, went outside, returned with another four-bit ticket, collected another jacket, went outside.... "They were starting their own sporting goods store," says the Phillies' executive vice-president. Bill Giles. "Our policy now is that kids have to pay a normal $2.25 for a ticket on special promotion days." But at that price, a ball club better deliver. A team caught short of advertised items usually hands out IOUs. In many ball parks, you have to be 14 or under to get, say, a free jacket. In Kansas City members of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes make the age decisions. No team is foolish enough to give sticky chewing gum to the masses, and most take special precautions when handing out bats to kids and beer to adults. Three years ago, a sudsed-up crowd in Cleveland stormed onto the field during a game with Texas, forcing a forfeit, only the eighth in major league history. But it is the Rangers, not the Indians, who have plugged up the keg. Texas discontinued its beer promotions at the request of the Arlington city fathers, who objected to fights in the stands and automobile accidents around the park after the game. The Dodgers do not give away bats because they noticed that constant pounding on the cement stands was creating a potential "structural problem." Montreal discontinued Bat Day after incidents in 1969 and 1974. The first involved empty-handed (and headed) customers who tried to overturn the depleted supply truck. Five years later bat swingers took aim at the windshields of parked cars. Local custom and interest dictate the nature of some promotions. Toronto and Montreal hand out ski caps. Cincinnati schedules a Farmers' Night (farmer/Pitcher Woodie Fryman is favored to win this year's cow-milking contest) and Texas has a combination Farm and Ranch Night. The egg-throwing contest is a messy highlight of both events. Houston attracts thousands for its Louisiana Weekend, which includes a gumbo-cooking contest. On Texas Weekend the featured events are beer-can crushing and cow-chip throwing. Philadelphia and Atlanta lead the majors in all-round originality and sophomoric high jinks. The Phillies set the mood on Opening Day when someone arrives by kite, parachute or cannon to throw out the first ball. Fans cannot wait for Halter Top Night on Aug. 19 when halters will be given away. "If they can fill 'em. they can have 'em." reports SI Correspondent Charlie Frush. Each halter will sport the slogan of the cosponsor Tastykake: ALL THE GOOD THINGS WRAPPED UP IN ONE. Slightly more sophisticated is Music Night, when anyone bringing a musical instrument can join in the playing of Take Me Out to the Ball Game and will receive a certificate authenticating his or her performance in the "world's largest orchestra." Atlanta schedules a promotion of some sort for every game. On Wedlock and Headlock Day 15 couples will be married at home plate before the game, and five professional wrestling matches will take place afterward. The Braves have already held their version of Ladies Night, in which every woman received a cigar (You've come a long way, baby, since the first Ladies Day in 1876). The big winner in the team's $25,000 cash scramble picked up $4,000 in 90 seconds of scurrying after bills scattered all over the field. Which proved once again that in baseball, promotion really does pay. Frayed Knot Jan 28 2009 01:53 PM I remember when Imus used to say that 'Hand-gun Night' was coming up a Yankee Stadium. All those over 15 got a freebie but only if accompanied by their parole officer. Funny how give-away promotions have increased during a time when stadiums are closer to their capacity than ever in many cases, theoretically making the need for a come-on less necessary. Benjamin Grimm Jan 28 2009 01:55 PM It's probably less about filling empty seats than it is about promoting the sponsor. Frayed Knot Jan 28 2009 02:13 PM Egg-zactly In the old days it was about selling tickets so they figured that having them too often would spoil the novelty and fans would no longer plan their ticket buying around them. Now they don't need them to fill seats so it's all about making money via the underwriting. They'd probably have them 81 times a year if they could find enough gizmos and sponsors. Ashie62 Jan 28 2009 02:46 PM I've still got my blond Ron Swoboda model Bat Day Bat from a late sixties promo where they ask everyone to wave their bats at the same time. Quite a sight! batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2009 03:27 PM ="G-Fafif":s111v9tq]="batmagadanleadoff":s111v9tq]I'm still trying to figure out this beer-belt thing.[/quote:s111v9tq] It may have been more of a flexible tube than a belt....[/quote:s111v9tq] I was about to question the whole wholesomeness of that promotion, especially given Baseball's traditional connection with children of all ages. But then I remembered the huge Budweiser ads that have been swallowing up Shea's scoreboard for the past 20 years or so. Maybe the Mets'll give one of those away for borscht in 2009.

="John Cougar Lunchbucket":q4dmjolh]I think Dunn is a longer shot than Sheets, Manny and any of the other names talked about. He's just, the complete opposite of an Omar guy.[/quote:q4dmjolh] I agree with you. But is it good or bad to be an "Omar guy"? John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 28 2009 11:15 AM Well, I'd hold out more hope for Orlando Hudson, f'rinstance. Ashie62 Jan 28 2009 11:20 AM Well..K Rod & Putz are in the house. I just hope Krod's arm is OK Omar seems to be happy with the OF. I would like to see a power hitting LF but Manny, Dunn, Abreu. Not gonna happen.. attgig Jan 28 2009 12:10 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 28 2009 12:21 PM yeah, I don't understand how he likes the OF that much. they're saying Dunn for 1 year at 5 mil. How is that not a steal? I was never a huge fan of Dunn cuz of his SO rate, but 1 year 5 mil for 40hr, 100+rbi, >350obp... heck, sign him for 3 years for 15 mil at that price Omar, for some reason, loves church, and has this idea that after signing a bench full of guys at 2 mil per season, one of them will pan out in LF. I don't get it. Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 12:21 PM I'm guessing Opposite of an Omar Guy = not particlurly athletic for a professional athlete; limited number of skills but impressive showing in the skills he has; sabermetrically appealing; American-born whitey; no history of employment at Omar's previous stops in Montreal or Texas, or his first tenure with the Mets; a satisfyingly known quantity, rather than droolingly full of not-yet-realized potential; has a galootey-nickname like "Big Donkey" instead of something exotic and xexy like "El Matador." Nymr83 Jan 28 2009 01:19 PM ]Omar, for some reason, loves church his solid production might have something to do with it. I'm all in favor of Dunn, he'd be replacing the left field platoon, not church. Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 01:24 PM I thought it was the music, meaningful sermons, and the sense of belonging. attgig Jan 28 2009 01:28 PM ="Nymr83"]]Omar, for some reason, loves church his solid production might have something to do with it. I'm all in favor of Dunn, he'd be replacing the left field platoon, not church. decent BA/OBP, OPS ~ 800, ~15 hrs a year for a corner outfielder? that's solid production? his best year was 07, after which Omar bought him high, and while he was on track to be a good fill-in in RF this past year before he got hurt, by no means was he a starting RF'er in a championship caliber club. Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 01:48 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 28 2009 01:48 PM Sheesh, before getting hurt, he was .316 / .385 / .469 // .855 in April and .299 / .364 / .612 // .976 in May. Can't ask for much more from a guy. Benjamin Grimm Jan 28 2009 01:48 PM Well, he was very solid before his concussion. Whether he would have sustained it over a full season remains to be seen. And so does whether or not he'll ever be healthy again. Church is certainly a question mark. He could be really good in 2009, or he could be really mediocre. If it's the latter, the rest of the lineup probably isn't deep enough to cover for him. Nymr83 Jan 28 2009 02:19 PM ]decent BA/OBP, OPS ~ 800, ~15 hrs a year for a corner outfielder? that's solid production? Career OPS+ 111. Yes that is in fact solid production. ]his best year was 07, after which Omar bought him high 07 was the first time he got to play every day, but his 05 and 06 stats supported 07 as not being a any kind of fluke. ]and while he was on track to be a good fill-in in RF this past year before he got hurt, by no means was he a starting RF'er in a championship caliber club Ryan Church (29) has a career 111 OPS+ and his in his prime, thus you can expect around that number out of him. the last 10 champions and their "championship caliber RFer" (with age and OPS+ for the year they won) 2008 PHI (Werth 29 121) 2007 BOS (Drew 31 105) 2006 STL (Encarnacion 30 93) 2005 CHW (Dye 31 118) 2004 BOS (Kapler 28 77) 2003 FLA (Encarnacion 27 97) 2002 ANH (Salmon 33 133) 2001 ARZ (Sanders 33 117) 2000 NYY (O'Neil 37 92) 1999 NYY (O'Neil 36 97) conclusion: a concussion-free Ryan Church is as good or better than "championship caliber" rightfielders. Ashie62 Jan 28 2009 02:44 PM conclusion: a concussion-free Ryan Church is as good or better than "championship caliber" rightfielders. You have to be kidding..Church concussion or not has not come remotely closed to any of the referenced numbers You say a concussion free Church IS as good or better...That can't be backed up now. He MAY be as good or better. Personally I doubt. but even just staying healthy is probably good enough. Yeah Adam Dunn strikes out too much, plays bad D..however.he is a legitimate power threat, comes cheap, and allows Murphy to season up at OF & 2B. We still have no real read on what Church can do. I have been impressed so far but you can't bank on it... smg58 Jan 28 2009 05:18 PM My one real concern about Church is his ability to hit lefthanders. Right now the team has nobody to spell either him or Delgado against a lefty, and if Tatis is starting the only righty on the bench will be the backup catcher. (I suppose Nick Evans has a chance of beating out all the lefty outfielders Minaya has brought in, but I'd much rather see him get full-time AB's at first base in AAA than warm the bench for the Mets.) I would consider another righthanded bat to be an imperative. Otherwise, like nymr says an OPS+ between 110 and 120 for Church would be perfectly consistent with his numbers for the Nats and his pre-concussion numbers with us last year. That, combined with ++ defense, would make him an asset. I realize the concussion still makes him a question mark, but given the much higher probability of inadequacy we currently have at second base, I'd direct my resources there. MFS62 Jan 28 2009 05:53 PM ="Edgy DC":22p77pkg] has a galootey-nickname like "Big Donkey" instead of something exotic and sexy like "El Matador."[/quote:22p77pkg] (I corrected "xexy" for ya'.) IIRC the first Met to be nicknamed "Big donkey" was Frank Thomas. LAter Nymr83 Jan 28 2009 06:09 PM ]You have to be kidding..Church concussion or not has not come remotely closed to any of the referenced numbers you've proven that you can't read and compare simple 2 and 3 digit numbers. i'm done with you. Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 06:27 PM Must be baseball argot for "big slow slugger." Tom Seaver welcomes Donn Clendenon to the Mets. TS: Donn, guess who the first guy I struck out in the big leagues was? DC: Who? TS: You, you big donkey! DC: Well, you didn't get a virgin. A lot of guys have gotten me. I've gotten a lot of guys also. MFS62 Jan 28 2009 06:50 PM LOL! Guess it must be. And, I can just hear Donn saying that. Later Edgy DC Jan 29 2009 06:58 AM Donn, though, was fast as the wind as a young player. He still ran pretty fast for a thumper by the time he reached the Mets. Frayed Knot Jan 29 2009 07:38 AM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jan 29 2009 08:19 AM WARP Speed Captain! Just for kicks; the 'WARP' projections (Wins above Replacement Player) from BP for 2009 FA LFers: Manny = 4.3 Dunn = 3.8 Abreu = 3.2 And, yes, WARP does take defense into account as well as hitting. IOW, Manny's projected 2009 season (using BP's system) would add approx 4-1/2 wins to your team over and above what using a "replacement" player (a readily available waiver pick-up) would bring. Dunn would add about half a win less, Abreu another half-win less. They mention that Manny WARP projection is only [u:11e8s8cy]a bit more than half[/u:11e8s8cy] what he provided in 2008 (7.8) but the system takes into account that he's probably unlikely to repeat his stunning 2nd-half rampage and even more unlikely to avoid turning 37. Frayed Knot Jan 29 2009 07:38 AM ="Edgy DC":3z4h1v4l]Donn, though, was fast as the wind as a young player. He still ran pretty fast for a thumper by the time he reached the Mets.[/quote:3z4h1v4l] So you're saying that you'd rather have Donn than Dunn? Edgy DC Jan 29 2009 07:56 AM Hard to vote against Donn, dead though he is, at the present time. Vic Sage Jan 29 2009 01:30 PM smg58: ]According to the Fielding Bible, Church's defense in RF was superior, Murphy's glove in left was above average (and far better than most people realize), and Dunn's glove was well below average no matter where he was put. I'm not sure Dunn would give the Mets anything with the bat that he wouldn't take away with the glove, especially in a more spacious park. The same applies to Abreu, and would have applied to Burrell, Ibanez, or Jermaine Dye. This kind of horsehockey makes my shorts steam. you're worried about corner of defense, when you've got a guy who averages 40hr/100+rbi/100+BB /year? Get Ollie & Dunn and be done! Nymr83 Jan 31 2009 11:56 PM come on Omar, slip it under the radar on superbowl sunday... Adam Dunn is a NYM. SteveJRogers Feb 01 2009 06:43 AM ="Nymr83":16qb9hum]come on Omar, slip it under the radar on superbowl sunday... Adam Dunn is a NYM.[/quote:16qb9hum] That will piss off the "We Want Manny" fanboys! Then again, they'll probably want Omar to act like the Yankees and say "Hey, why not get both!" Nymr83 Feb 01 2009 09:59 PM I'd rather have Dunn than Ramirez given their respective ages and attitudes. Dunn also has the added ability to play 1B, meaning that at the end of next season we can look to replace Delgado OR shift Dunn to 1B and find an outfielder. If we sign Manny we are locked in to replacing Delgado with a firstbaseman, and options are good to have. I admit that Ramirez's stats are more impressive and wouldn't fault anyone for preffering him. Number 6 Feb 01 2009 10:32 PM The biggest issue regarding Dunn would be the risk in a long-term deal (he's got a healthy dose of the dreaded "old-person skills"). None of the models available like his chances for maintaining his skill-set over the length of a 4-year contract. If he's available for 1 on the cheap though, somebody is getting a bargain. To me, this still all goes back to Perez. It seems like the Mets are not going to shoot their payroll far beyond $135 million, and if that's the case I'd much rather see them pick up Dunn and a pitcher, preferably Sheets on an incentive-laden "prove-it" contract, for a price possibly a few million more than what they'd pay for Perez. They'd do that without the risk inherent in doling out longer-term deals. If Sheets has a dynamite year - which he is clearly capable of provided he pitches - and meets his incentives, then you're quite possibly getting a positive return on investment anyway. I like Church a lot, but you just can't count on him to stay on the field. Right now, left field is stitched together with wishes and dreams. It's nice that we have 3 huge producers and 1 with potential, but that might not mean much if our offense is significantly below league-average in the other 4 lineup slots. Nymr83 Feb 02 2009 12:21 AM ="Number 6":2lro33xa]The biggest issue regarding Dunn would be the risk in a long-term deal (he's got a healthy dose of the dreaded "old-person skills"). None of the models available like his chances for maintaining his skill-set over the length of a 4-year contract. If he's available for 1 on the cheap though, somebody is getting a bargain. To me, this still all goes back to Perez. It seems like the Mets are not going to shoot their payroll far beyond $135 million, and if that's the case I'd much rather see them pick up Dunn and a pitcher, preferably Sheets on an incentive-laden "prove-it" contract, for a price possibly a few million more than what they'd pay for Perez. They'd do that without the risk inherent in doling out longer-term deals. If Sheets has a dynamite year - which he is clearly capable of provided he pitches - and meets his incentives, then you're quite possibly getting a positive return on investment anyway. I like Church a lot, but you just can't count on him to stay on the field. Right now, left field is stitched together with wishes and dreams. It's nice that we have 3 huge producers and 1 with potential, but that might not mean much if our offense is significantly below league-average in the other 4 lineup slots.[/quote:2lro33xa] "3 huge producers" is a bit optimistic as well. heres what i would consider a reasonable range of OPS+ numbers from our projected lineup, though of course you're free to disagree: SS Reyes (100-120) RF Church (100-135) 3B Wright (130-155) CF Beltran (120-140) 1B Delgado (100-140) LF Tatis/Murphy (90-120 from the LF spot combined) 2B Castillo (75-95) C Schneider/Castro (75-95 from the spot) obviously thats alot of range, but i think only 2 guys (Wright, Beltran) are capable of having a truly huge year, while 3 more (Delgado, Reyes, Church) are at least likely to be a positive force in the lineup. But you've got LF which is really a wild guess at this point, and C and 2B where you can pretty much expect a drag on the lineup. I realize that C is pretty much unaddressable at this point (look whose out there), but LF could be very easily addressed with players who would hit in the top 5 of any lineup (Ramirez, Dunn, Abreu) and 2B could at least be made into a great defensive strength with better offensive production than Castillo (Hudson) Number 6 Feb 02 2009 01:09 AM Yeah, the word "huge" was a bad choice, for several reasons. My fear is that we get significantly less from RF when we're playing back-ups due to injury, and I think we can reasonably expect less than the range you project for LF. Personally, I'd be surprised if the OPS+ we get from our LF platoon, as currently cast, approaches 100. Combine that with 2 other slots which I think you have pretty accurately down as offensive black holes, and it could get ugly. Yeah, it's a bad-case scenario, but I'd argue it's at least as likely as other probable outcomes. Even if we assume that Delgado, Wright, Reyes and Beltran are nearer to the upper bound of your ranges, can we expect that production to carry what could be some pretty hideous drag? Meanwhile, Dunn has averaged an OPS+ of 133 for the past 5 seasons. If it winds up being true that his price could come down to 1 year and $7 million or so, that's value, and it keeps us from needing to bank on the improbable. batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2009 01:57 AM It would be nice to acquire Manny's next two seasons without having to pay for the two after that. But Manny and Dunn want long term deals. And if the price for either of those two drops low enough, then the Mets advantage in being one of baseball's wealthiest teams might be squandered, because at some point, even the Royals will put in a bid. Nymr83 Feb 02 2009 02:47 AM Whatever the economic situation, the Mets can outbid the Royals (or any other hypothetic bidder.) If the Mets are truly at a point where they can't offer 2 years 20 million (assuming they wanted to) then the Royals sure can't offer 2 years and 20 million either. Right now the Mets have an advantage because there are at least 3 reasonable hitting alternatives out there (Ramirez, Dunn, and Abreu) and it is very unlikely that all 3 of those players find a 3rd year somewhere, the Mets should be able to get one of them, even if its not their first choice, for 2 years. Theres also the pitchers that are still out there... Perez and Sheets are getting nothing right now from what i can tell of the rumor mill, its time the Mets made a "who can jump first" offer to the both of them. It really looks like the bargains are there to be had and now is the time to lock them in for a smart GM. A few teams will be patting themselves on the back next offseason when prices are higher and they've got these guys at cheaper rates for another year. Frayed Knot Feb 02 2009 07:09 AM And if all else fails ... Get Wiggy With It!!! batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2009 09:32 AM ="Nymr83":2s7x82mb]Whatever the economic situation, the Mets can outbid the Royals (or any other hypothetic bidder.) If the Mets are truly at a point where they can't offer 2 years 20 million...[/quote:2s7x82mb] This'll probably fall into that vast category of things I believe are true but can't prove, but if Manny can't get more than a two year $20M deal, I'd be very suspicious of a lot of other things besides the economy. And if a team's offering Manny $10M a year, then it can hardly be said that his price has dropped to $7M. metirish Feb 02 2009 09:37 AM Hasn't Manny already turned down more than that from the Dodgers way back in FA , 2 years and $45 million IIRC. batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2009 10:15 AM ="metirish":e0gp3ri2]Hasn't Manny already turned down more than that from the Dodgers way back in FA , 2 years and $45 million IIRC.[/quote:e0gp3ri2] Probably. We were only "what iffing" on Manny's price. Frayed Knot Feb 02 2009 10:21 AM ="metirish":3ko8tdnw]Hasn't Manny already turned down more than that from the Dodgers way back in FA , 2 years and $45 million IIRC.[/quote:3ko8tdnw] Yes, LA put that deal out there early on and is waiting for a counter-offer from Boras but hasn't heard anything. And word leaked out the other day that Manny supposedly let it slip via his buddy A. Pujols that he hasn't received an offer other than that one. The Giants showed some brief interest and continue to stick their nose in every once in a while but that now seems to be more in making sure the Dodgers don't get him cheaply than it is in snagging him for themselves. Presumably that same Dodger offer is still on the table although they might just reduce it themselves. Meanwhile Boras is still talking about wanting 4 years. Frayed Knot Feb 02 2009 08:35 PM From Jayson Stark - espn.com: A two-year, $45 million offer three months ago didn't get it done. So on Monday, the Los Angeles Dodgers made a new offer to Manny Ramirez -- for one year and $25 million, according to a major league source. Dodgers GM Ned Colletti confirmed to ESPN.com that he met with Ramirez's agent, Scott Boras, on Monday and presented the new offer in person. Colletti declined to confirm any details of the offer. But the offer was confirmed by another source with knowledge of the discussions. It's believed that Ramirez and Boras were given a 48-hour deadline to accept the offer. John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 02 2009 09:00 PM They stole my idea! metsguyinmichigan Feb 02 2009 09:35 PM That's more than the entire Marlins payroll. Number 6 Feb 02 2009 11:31 PM Of course, he could be referring to talks that happened a while ago, were not substantial, or are dead due to the Perez signing and/or Castillo, but Hudson is still name-dropping the Mets. http://mlb.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200902023793126 Frayed Knot Feb 03 2009 06:46 AM Manny/Boras turn down the Dodger proposal ... and the beat goes on. Benjamin Grimm Feb 03 2009 07:34 AM Report this morning that the White Sox have offered Abreu one year, $8 million. John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 03 2009 07:45 AM Take it, Bobby.

="G-Fafif"]Mel Rojas? Yes. Bullpen's Failures Underscore Need for Rojas By BUSTER OLNEY Published: August 11, 1997 Until he shuts a team down, until he holds a lead, Mel Rojas will be treated as the Mets' version of Hideki Irabu. Months of talk about the Mets' need for a late-inning reliever preceded Rojas's arrival to fill that crucial role. And, like Irabu, Rojas needed only one poor outing before earning long and loud jeers from the home crowd. Mets Manager Bobby Valentine said he is sure Rojas, who was the losing pitcher Saturday night in his first game for the Mets, will rebound to pitch well. Yesterday, in a sloppy 11-8 loss to the Houston Astros, the Mets learned again why they needed Rojas in the first place. The Mets, slipping three games behind the Florida Marlins in the race for the National League wild card berth, committed three errors and received seven generally awful innings from their bullpen, which allowed six runs, nine hits and six walks. Juan Acevedo allowed a homer in two innings -- before being optioned to Class AAA Norfolk -- and Cory Lidle gave up five runs in three innings. Rojas merely watched from the bullpen on the other side of the right-field fence at Shea Stadium and, in his mind, reviewed his performance Saturday night, when he gave up five runs in the ninth inning in an 8-3 defeat. Unlike the Yankees' Irabu, Rojas, who was obtained Friday in a six-player trade with the Chicago Cubs, was still in the big leagues. When he strolled into the Mets' clubhouse and began pulling on his uniform before yesterday's game, Valentine walked over and shook his hand. ''You're back,'' Valentine said, jokingly, as if the fans' unfriendly greeting Saturday night might have driven Rojas away. Given his first chance to see Rojas firsthand Saturday night, the bullpen coach Randy Niemann was impressed: big upper body, long arms, good fastball, great split-fingered fastball. Rojas retired the Astros in order in the eighth inning. But Bob Apodaca, the pitching coach, had the same concerns about Rojas as he did about Pete Harnisch last week: that he might get a little too excited and try too hard. Harnisch handled his emotions in pitching six solid innings; Rojas did not, Apodaca thought. ''The trouble wasn't mechanical,'' Apodaca said. ''He was up for the game. He's with a new team, trying to do too much. It's not that uncommon, and it's something that you have to guard against. He was trying to impress, and that's human nature.'' Rojas said he felt comfortable in his first inning. ''And then I lost my concentration,'' he admitted. Apodaca chatted with Rojas about this briefly yesterday, though he felt his advice was almost unnecessary. ''He's aware of it,'' Apodaca said. ''He's a veteran.'' Important to the Mets' hopes for the playoffs, Rojas is bearing a great deal of pressure. Like Irabu. The bullpen was pivotal again yesterday in a game the Mets never led. The Astros pounded Mets starter Rick Reed -- who had been wearing an electrical stimulation apparatus on his right biceps and forearm in recent days and seems to be going through a dead-arm period -- for five runs in the first inning before Reed was taken out for a pinch-hitter in the second. Fighting back against the Houston right-hander Darryl Kile and his vicious curveball, the Mets scored three runs in the second inning and reduced the lead to 5-4 in the third inning on John Olerud's first homer since July 16. Acevedo and Lidle surrendered six runs over the next four innings; Houston's lead was 11-4. Olerud hit his second homer as part of a four-run rally in the seventh. The Mets had a couple of more chances, but all in all, it was the sort of game which, after the first inning, they never really gave themselves a chance to win. ''A real sloppy game, there's no doubt about it,'' Valentine said. INSIDE PITCH Before yesterday's game, CARL EVERETT visited his children SHAWNA, 5, and CARL, 4, who are in the custody of the city child welfare agency because of allegations of child abuse against Everett. A fact-finding hearing in Family Court is scheduled for today. . . . After the game, BOBBY VALENTINE and the Houston hitting coach, TOM McCRAW, engaged in a brief and heated argument over a comment one allegedly made about the other. ''It's dead,'' McCraw said, declining to elaborate. McCraw used to be the hitting coach for the Mets, until Valentine became manager. . . . BERNARD GILKEY's last hit came on July 30. He has no hits in his last 22 at-bats and his average has shriveled to .210.

="TheOldMole":nba0wf13]Who pinch-ran for Joe DiMaggio?[/quote:nba0wf13] That might be a correct response. But I wouldn't know. Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 09:58 AM ="TheOldMole":nclxk085]Who pinch-ran for Joe DiMaggio?[/quote:nclxk085] Is that euphemism for making it with Marilyn Monroe? batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2009 12:18 PM ="Edgy DC":2jrfxict]Who were the two former Yankee champions on the 1962 Mets?[/quote:2jrfxict] An acceptable response would have been: "Name the only two players on the '62 Mets to have played for the Yankees prior to 1962". You were very close and obviously on the right track. But your response, as phrased, could also include Casey Stengel (mgr.), Red Ruffing (coach) and George Weiss (front-office). The answer was just Woodling & Throneberry. Actually, "prior to 1962" is superfluous (but still technically correct) because no 1962 Met ever played for the Yankees after leaving the Mets. Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 12:25 PM I'd have accepted my answer. Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 12:29 PM Well, I'm throwing one out there anyhow. The answer is: Jim Kern and Ron Guidry. batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2009 12:39 PM ="Edgy DC":1by4pahk]Well, I'm throwing one out there anyhow. The answer is: Jim Kern and Ron Guidry.[/quote:1by4pahk] Who are the two pitchers Lee Mazzilli reached base against in the 1979 AS Game? Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 12:44 PM Well, the judges were looking for "Who are the pitchers who yielded Lee Mazzilli's game-tying homer and go-ahead walk, respectively, in the 1979 All Star Game?" but they've been instructed to be more generous. You. batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2009 12:53 PM I accept the crown. Deservedly so.

="Benjamin Grimm":3qwophn8]...who are dead at the present time?[/quote:3qwophn8] No. TheOldMole Jan 28 2009 09:52 AM Who pinch-ran for Joe DiMaggio? batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2009 09:53 AM ="TheOldMole":nba0wf13]Who pinch-ran for Joe DiMaggio?[/quote:nba0wf13] That might be a correct response. But I wouldn't know. Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 09:58 AM ="TheOldMole":nclxk085]Who pinch-ran for Joe DiMaggio?[/quote:nclxk085] Is that euphemism for making it with Marilyn Monroe? batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2009 12:18 PM ="Edgy DC":2jrfxict]Who were the two former Yankee champions on the 1962 Mets?[/quote:2jrfxict] An acceptable response would have been: "Name the only two players on the '62 Mets to have played for the Yankees prior to 1962". You were very close and obviously on the right track. But your response, as phrased, could also include Casey Stengel (mgr.), Red Ruffing (coach) and George Weiss (front-office). The answer was just Woodling & Throneberry. Actually, "prior to 1962" is superfluous (but still technically correct) because no 1962 Met ever played for the Yankees after leaving the Mets. Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 12:25 PM I'd have accepted my answer. Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 12:29 PM Well, I'm throwing one out there anyhow. The answer is: Jim Kern and Ron Guidry. batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2009 12:39 PM ="Edgy DC":1by4pahk]Well, I'm throwing one out there anyhow. The answer is: Jim Kern and Ron Guidry.[/quote:1by4pahk] Who are the two pitchers Lee Mazzilli reached base against in the 1979 AS Game? Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 12:44 PM Well, the judges were looking for "Who are the pitchers who yielded Lee Mazzilli's game-tying homer and go-ahead walk, respectively, in the 1979 All Star Game?" but they've been instructed to be more generous. You. batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2009 12:53 PM I accept the crown. Deservedly so.

="Edgy DC":2lhxrwrv]Who were the two former Yankee champions on the 1962 Mets?[/quote:2lhxrwrv] No. Now you're getting colder. Benjamin Grimm Jan 28 2009 09:30 AM ...who are dead at the present time? batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2009 09:34 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":3qwophn8]...who are dead at the present time?[/quote:3qwophn8] No. TheOldMole Jan 28 2009 09:52 AM Who pinch-ran for Joe DiMaggio? batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2009 09:53 AM ="TheOldMole":nba0wf13]Who pinch-ran for Joe DiMaggio?[/quote:nba0wf13] That might be a correct response. But I wouldn't know. Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 09:58 AM ="TheOldMole":nclxk085]Who pinch-ran for Joe DiMaggio?[/quote:nclxk085] Is that euphemism for making it with Marilyn Monroe? batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2009 12:18 PM ="Edgy DC":2jrfxict]Who were the two former Yankee champions on the 1962 Mets?[/quote:2jrfxict] An acceptable response would have been: "Name the only two players on the '62 Mets to have played for the Yankees prior to 1962". You were very close and obviously on the right track. But your response, as phrased, could also include Casey Stengel (mgr.), Red Ruffing (coach) and George Weiss (front-office). The answer was just Woodling & Throneberry. Actually, "prior to 1962" is superfluous (but still technically correct) because no 1962 Met ever played for the Yankees after leaving the Mets. Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 12:25 PM I'd have accepted my answer. Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 12:29 PM Well, I'm throwing one out there anyhow. The answer is: Jim Kern and Ron Guidry. batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2009 12:39 PM ="Edgy DC":1by4pahk]Well, I'm throwing one out there anyhow. The answer is: Jim Kern and Ron Guidry.[/quote:1by4pahk] Who are the two pitchers Lee Mazzilli reached base against in the 1979 AS Game? Edgy DC Jan 28 2009 12:44 PM Well, the judges were looking for "Who are the pitchers who yielded Lee Mazzilli's game-tying homer and go-ahead walk, respectively, in the 1979 All Star Game?" but they've been instructed to be more generous. You. batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2009 12:53 PM I accept the crown. Deservedly so.