Fman99

Ugh, half our lineup projects to be below average. And that's if Delgado can repeat his '08 numbers in '09. Second, catcher, left, right. Me no likee. So I'll pick RF as that's the spot least likely to get upgraded before March.

Now I am once again depressed that they chose Buffalo over Syracuse.

="John Cougar Lunchbucket":3p5qotfb]I could not have been any more tuned out to what was happening to the Mets while they went through this period. I really thought I had broken up with baseball for good.[/quote:3p5qotfb] Yep. Same here, though I dropped out before the strike, when the Mets went in the tank in '92-93. I was in college, they weren't on TV up there and I had other priorities. Picked it up again for real in '96-97 when I moved to Watertown. There really isn't anything else to do up there besides watch baseball.

ESPN reporting[/url:2m21u055] that Rafael Furcal close to a deal to go back to Atlanta.

="John Cougar Lunchbucket":2wijd3xl]="Frayed Knot":2wijd3xl]The Pettitte camp (acc to WFAN) says it has a 3-year/$36mil offer from ... well, they're not saying, but I don't think it's the Yanx who are supposedly sticking w/1 year. I hope it's not us either.[/quote:2wijd3xl] Go, Theo, go.[/quote:2wijd3xl] I would not be surprised if Houston was the team not being mentioned. He pitched well down there for them and they don't have a whole lot of starting pitching depth after Oswalt. Edgy DC Dec 16 2008 06:46 AM I'm OK with Pedro. I said it. Just, you know, sign a bunch of other guys also. Farmer Ted Dec 16 2008 08:51 AM I have no problem with Petey in the #5 slot to start the season. I'm more worried with the durability of Maine and whether the other teams catch up with Pelfry's stuff. metsguyinmichigan Dec 16 2008 09:28 AM Any day the Phils resign Jamie Moyer and add Chan Ho Park is a good day for us! Edgy DC Dec 16 2008 09:31 AM The Phils trying to get two more years out of an ancient lefty strikes me as one more good reason for us to Burrell up. DocTee Dec 19 2008 09:14 AM Knucksie in Dixie: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/18/SPMQ14QQMI.DTL John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 19 2008 09:31 AM Never made any sense to me that Lance Neikro wasn't a knuckleballer to begin with. IIRC, he had a big hit vs. the Mets (was it a game-winning HR or something?) when he first came up with the Giants and I naturally assumed he was on his way to major stardom. Fman99 Dec 21 2008 10:55 AM Fireballer Daniel Cabrera goes to the Nats, 1 year, 2.6 million. Valadius Dec 21 2008 10:55 AM Ha, good luck with that. Guy's a head case. Fman99 Dec 21 2008 10:57 AM ="Valadius":2pz740g9]Ha, good luck with that. Guy's a head case.[/quote:2pz740g9] I think people were saying that about Ollie Perez before the Pirates sent him to us. Talented, strikeout pitcher, control issues, high ERA, etc. metsguyinmichigan Dec 21 2008 10:29 PM OK, now both the Angels and the Red Sox say they're not going after Texiera anymore. Has Boras finall pushed people over the edge, or is this all just negotiating ploys? Frayed Knot Dec 22 2008 07:05 AM The Angels are claiming that their offer is "off the table" and that there'll be no further negotiating - which at least doesn't sound like a ploy. Boston, for its part, isn't claiming that, only that they think they're not going to be his choice due to other teams raising their offers beyond where they're willing to go. That leaves Teixeira in the position of either taking Boston's "low" offer or going the Baltimore/Washington route which kind of flies in the face of his 'I wanna be a contendah' pledge. Supposedly this was going to be wrapped up by Xmas but it wouldn't be the first time Boras has over-played his hand. Benjamin Grimm Dec 22 2008 07:07 AM There's still Baltimore and Washington. Boras isn't quite out of options yet. metsguyinmichigan Dec 22 2008 07:19 AM Speaking of Boras... Murray Chass MurrayChass.com Now that CC Sabathia and A.J. Burnett have signed, other pitchers on the free-agent list are expected to follow. Derek Lowe is probably next on the list in terms of interest, but the interest has been all talk and no offers. His agent's asking price is said to be the reason. Scott Boras has told clubs he wants Barry Zito money for the 35-year-old Lowe, which means $18 million a year. Clubs interested in Lowe have not rushed forward with such offers. The slow-moving market may be just what the Mets want. ...Barry Zito isn't worth Barry Zito money. But Derek Lowe? Is he nuts? Edgy DC Dec 22 2008 01:44 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 22 2008 02:20 PM I'm not sure I'd support the Mets spending $18 million a year for two Derek Lowes. Valadius Dec 22 2008 02:04 PM The MOST I'd spend on Derek Lowe is $8 million a year. $18 million is beyond rationality. Willets Point Dec 22 2008 03:01 PM Oh man, Lowe needs $10 million just for booze alone. MFS62 Dec 23 2008 07:36 AM ="Willets Point":2bf2t6s1]Oh man, Lowe needs $10 million just for booze alone.[/quote:2bf2t6s1] Are you saying this because he associates with Scott Boras? Or is there something else you know about him? Later smg58 Dec 23 2008 11:23 AM Guys who can consistently give you 200+ IP with 15 wins and a sub-4 ERA are worth plenty more than 8 million. I wouldn't go four years with Lowe, on account of his age, but I'd much rather have him than Ollie. Willets Point Dec 23 2008 03:04 PM ="MFS62":3rvs0psj]="Willets Point":3rvs0psj]Oh man, Lowe needs $10 million just for booze alone.[/quote:3rvs0psj] Are you saying this because he associates with Scott Boras? Or is there something else you know about him? Later[/quote:3rvs0psj] Just a joke about Lowe's rumored love of the drink. Valadius Dec 26 2008 09:01 PM Randy Johnson will pursue his 300th win as a San Francisco Giant. Nymr83 Dec 27 2008 01:15 AM he could it be cutting it close with the type of run support the giants give their starters. he needs 5 wins, it took Matt Cain all year to get 8 wins for the Giants with an ERA+ the same as Johnson's last year. Frayed Knot Dec 27 2008 05:08 AM 'Randy Johnson is a Giant' is somewhat of a redundant headline. He's probably been called that since he was in the 4th grade. On the other hand, there must have been plenty in in the Castro district of SF who were excited to hear that someone called 'The Big Unit' was coming to their city. DocTee Dec 27 2008 09:16 AM FK with a late entry for post o' the year. The Giants have had a nice offseason (Renteria, Affeldt, Howry, Johnson) and if local rumors of them adding Adam Dunn are correct, they could be players in a weak West. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 27 2008 09:19 AM I agree. You can definitely quibble with the wisdom of a team's particular moves but I like to see franchises who've had bad years making a bunch of moves in the offseason, whether they are effective or not. Like the Giants... and the MFYs... Frayed Knot Dec 27 2008 03:49 PM X-Rockie, X-Astro OFer Wily Tavarez signs a two-year deal with Cincy. He's good at stealing bases and also .... ummmm, I'll think of something. And Kevin Mensch heads for Japan. The Japanese just might get a look at his monsterously huge head and add a second rising sun to their flag. I think that thing has its own gravitational pull. Frayed Knot Dec 29 2008 07:20 AM Penny for your Sox ... Brad Penny to Boston for 1 yr/$5mil -- pending a physical which could yet throw a wrench into the works. As mentioned elsewhere, this could keep them from chasing the likes of Lowe, Wolf, Ollie, etc. thus reducing the demand pool by one more team. Benjamin Grimm Dec 31 2008 11:20 AM This just in: Brian Fuentes to sign a two-year deal with the Angels. smg58 Dec 31 2008 12:29 PM The Cubs sign Aaron Miles for two years, then trade DeRosa to the Indians for three low level (not even top 20) prospects. At least it's not the Phillies, but that's one mild upgrade over Castillo and one significant upgrade who found takers at prices we could have afforded. Frayed Knot Dec 31 2008 12:30 PM Cubs 2B Mark DeRosa - long rumored as part of a Jake Peavy trade - dealt to Cleveland for a trio of minor league pitchers. smg58 Dec 31 2008 12:36 PM Fuentes got two years at $17.5M, plus a club option. Rotoworld says "Fuentes almost certainly took less money to play close to home," but I'm not sure who was competing with the Angels. Frayed Knot Jan 02 2009 05:47 AM Good news folks, Barry Bonds says that he should be fully recovered from the hip surgery he needs in time for opening day! Nymr83 Jan 02 2009 06:41 AM ="Frayed Knot":1xejc7ja]Good news folks, Barry Bonds says that he should be fully recovered from the hip surgery he needs in time for opening day![/quote:1xejc7ja] Better news- nobody really cares about him anymore, including it seems the GMs of all 30 teams. DocTee Jan 02 2009 04:46 PM Tony Clark returns to D-Baggs: 1 year, 800K. metirish Jan 02 2009 05:34 PM Watching MLB Network Hot Stove and they are reporting that San Francisco have offered Manny Ramirez a four year deal. Dodgers and A Jones have agreed to defer most of his money owed likely leading to him playing elsewhere. Scott Proctor to the Marlins for one year. Ashie62 Jan 03 2009 12:33 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":2ytj1poh]This just in: Brian Fuentes to sign a two-year deal with the Angels.[/quote:2ytj1poh] This just in: Mets do nothing Although the Metsies may be sewing Andruw Jones a jersey and importing steroids for his locker metsmarathon Jan 03 2009 12:40 PM ="Ashie62":hblnrkgs]Although the Metsies may be sewing Andruw Jones a jersey and importing steroids for his locker[/quote:hblnrkgs] i don't believe that for a second. Edgy DC Jan 03 2009 12:58 PM ="Ashie62"]="Benjamin Grimm"]This just in: Brian Fuentes to sign a two-year deal with the Angels. This just in: Mets do nothing Although the Metsies may be sewing Andruw Jones a jersey and importing steroids for his locker Yeah, the Mets by not getting a third closer, are doing nothing. Kong76 Jan 03 2009 01:36 PM Maybe the three closer thing is the way to go after the last two seasons. Ashie62 Jan 05 2009 02:37 PM ="Edgy DC"]="Ashie62"]="Benjamin Grimm"]This just in: Brian Fuentes to sign a two-year deal with the Angels. This just in: Mets do nothing Although the Metsies may be sewing Andruw Jones a jersey and importing steroids for his locker Yeah, the Mets by not getting a third closer, are doing nothing. True..my impatience caused me to jump over Krod & Putz KP DOOTY...I'm just frustrated that the odds of landing a power corner and a decent SP , Sheets, Garland, Lowe..are diminishing and pray the Mets are not newly cash short Burrell has a rep for being a prick but if the Rays can land him at 16 million for 2 years I then wonder why the Mets wouldn't top that and not have to expect 150 games from Murphy and even let Murphy learn 2B at AAA as an experiment. smg58 Jan 05 2009 03:15 PM The Cubs apparently are giving 3 years and $30M to Milton Bradley. They expect him to play right field full time, even though he has had trouble staying in the lineup when he's been the DH. Given Burrell's deal and the fact that Abreu would have made much more sense for them, I really don't get this one. MFS62 Jan 05 2009 04:20 PM ="smg58":1gnuo0ct]The Cubs apparently are giving 3 years and $30M to Milton Bradley. They expect him to play right field full time, even though he has had trouble staying in the lineup when he's been the DH. Given Burrell's deal and the fact that Abreu would have made much more sense for them, I really don't get this one.[/quote:1gnuo0ct] Can't wait to see him go head-to-head with Pinella. Later smg58 Jan 07 2009 05:51 AM And the bargains continue. Jason Giambi returns to Oakland for a year and an option, and Jerry Hairston stays in Cincinnatti for a year and $2M. I don't get the Mets' lack of interest in Hairston at that price. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 07 2009 06:20 AM ="smg58":162h2ehz]And the bargains continue. Jason Giambi returns to Oakland for a year and an option, and Jerry Hairston stays in Cincinnatti for a year and $2M. I don't get the Mets' lack of interest in Hairston at that price.[/quote:162h2ehz] Makes ya crazy. Geez. I mean, about Hairston. Frayed Knot Jan 07 2009 07:18 AM Maybe Hairston gets a chance to start in Cincy and couldn't be sure of that here. Never did even hear a rumor of them looking at him though. Also: - Pavano to Cleveland for a year at a low base with lotsa IP incentives - Cubs deal Jason Marquis (de Sade) to Colorado for LH reliever Luis Vizcaino Edgy DC Jan 07 2009 07:42 AM Andy Pettitte turns down one year and $10 million from the Yanks in a declining market. Edgy DC Jan 07 2009 10:10 AM Yomiuri Giant Koji Uehara signs with Bal'more for two years. Reports say that he's the team's first Japanese player, but they forget Nippo-Hawaiian Len Sakata. Centerfield Jan 07 2009 10:41 AM Len was American. smg58 Jan 07 2009 10:58 AM ="Frayed Knot":2gsb44fr]- Pavano to Cleveland for a year at a low base with lotsa IP incentives - Cubs deal Jason Marquis (de Sade) to Colorado for LH reliever Luis Vizcaino[/quote:2gsb44fr] I'll laugh if Pavano gives the Indians 27 starts (i.e., more starts than he gave the MFY's in four years). The Marquis deal appears to leave Jorge de la Rosa out of the rotation in Colorado. I'd see what the asking price for him is; he finished very strongly last year, and he's at least as good as Tim Redding. Edgy DC Jan 07 2009 11:01 AM ="Centerfield":biqnwx39]Len was American.[/quote:biqnwx39] As I said. Frayed Knot Jan 07 2009 12:00 PM From the; 'How the (somewhat) mighty have fallen' department: 2B Marcus Giles signs a minor league deal with Philly MFS62 Jan 07 2009 12:14 PM ="Frayed Knot":3hnipcdi]From the; 'How the (somewhat) mighty have fallen' department: 2B Marcus Giles signs a minor league deal with Philly[/quote:3hnipcdi] Pure insurance with Utley out for the early part of the year due to surgery. Later metirish Jan 07 2009 08:04 PM From MetsBlog Mike Fitzpatrick of the Associated Press believes the Mets have made an offer to free-agent RHP Tim Redding, who was 3-1 with a 3.41 ERA in five starts against the Phillies last season Edgy DC Jan 07 2009 08:56 PM I'll give Redding this: with one inning and six runs, he may be the worst performing Yankee ever. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 07 2009 09:06 PM Bocco Radelli to the Sed Rox. Rockin' Doc Jan 07 2009 10:03 PM If Rocco Baldelli can be reasonably healthy, he could be a great pick up for the Red Sox. I hope he is healthy and has a great season for the Sox. Frayed Knot Jan 08 2009 07:39 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":3gx2svou]Bocco Radelli to the Sed Rox.[/quote:3gx2svou] And quite possibly Smoltz too! Not official yet but several outlets are reporting it's 'bout a done deal. I guess they're promising him a starting job - don't think he would have jumped otherwise. Other reports have Trevor Hoffman going to the Brews ... although this is only one day after others had him headed to the Dodgers. Benjamin Grimm Jan 08 2009 07:46 AM Sort of a homecoming for Smoltz. Didn't he start his career with the Braves when they were still playing in Boston? John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 08 2009 07:50 AM No, the Tigers. Anywhoo, oughta soitenly remove Boston from the list of potential Lowe suitors (and cause me some concern too: Why don't any of Lowe's former employers want him back?) smg58 Jan 08 2009 07:50 AM The additions of Smoltz and Brad Penny probably take the Sox out of the discussions for Derek Lowe. Assuming Baldelli gets something like what Hairston got, I'd be a little annoyed that we didn't give him a look. We do need another righthanded bat. Frayed Knot Jan 08 2009 07:57 AM Yeah, I was half-hoping for Baldelli too. He's not a great player and has played fewer games in the last two seasons than Alou had in the two before we got him. But if this problem of his has finally been diagnosed correctly he could be a useful guy to have around. But Omar seems to be on this 'one problem at a time' schedule where nothing can even be talked about until the starter question is answered. metirish Jan 08 2009 08:01 AM Did bucket mis-read Ben's post? John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 08 2009 08:02 AM Yes. Yes I did. Frayed Knot Jan 08 2009 08:14 AM I almost did too because I sometimes confuse the Smoltz trade with the Bagwell one from Boston. The Smoltz from Detroit for Denny Alexander trade happened around the same era as Bagwell for Larry Anderson. Both were done for pennant push help and in each case the minor leaguers were home-town guys (Smoltz is from Mich, Bags from Conn) who turned into HoF possibilities. Edgy DC Jan 08 2009 08:17 AM Doyle Alexander. Now Denny McLain or somebody is getting into the conflation. metirish Jan 08 2009 10:25 AM Looking at a potential nightmare with outfield defense the MFY's are apparently looking to trade Swisher and Nady. Yankees fielding offers for Nady, Swisher Posted by: Jon Heyman The Yankees are fielding trade offers for corner outfielders Xavier Nady and Nick Swisher. There's been some speculation they might consider trading Hideki Matsui, too, but he has a full no-trade clause and is coming off knee surgery, so there's really no way to trade him. A logjam at the corners was created when the Yankees surprised a lot of folks and signed Mark Teixeira to an eight-year, $180 million contract. Swisher previously had been penciled in as the Yankees' first baseman but now becomes part of a crowded mix of accomplished corner outfielders. Swisher is a versatile player and can play some center field, as well. Some National League teams may be interested. However, Nady's trade value is higher after a better offensive season, so he may be just as likely to be dealt. Nady, acquired by the Yankees in a midseason trade with the Pirates, combined to hit .305 with 25 home runs and 97 RBIs for the year, while Swisher finished at .219 with 24 home runs and 69 RBIs for the White Sox before being dealt to the Yankees after the season Vic Sage Jan 08 2009 02:09 PM i'd sure take Nady back, to split time with Church, Murphy and Delgado. But no way the Yanx trade him cross town. Edgy DC Jan 08 2009 02:30 PM You leave Tatis out of that mix. Nady gives you what Tatis gives you, only more and probably better and definitely younger. Tatis' only advantage is playing third. I'd love a Nady around because I think the best way to get something like last year's productivity out of Tatis is to make him earn every at-bat. Benjamin Grimm Jan 08 2009 02:43 PM Maybe Murphy will do that, but I'm not counting on it. Edgy DC Jan 08 2009 02:46 PM What's going down, and I think a lot of us feel it, is that a lot of things went kind of right in Omar's offense that could have easily gone wronger, and he's kind of seeming to kind of be counting on a lot of those same thingies to go right again. Fans be pessemistic creatures, of course. Vic Sage Jan 08 2009 03:21 PM Last year, i think we got about as much as we can reasonably expect this year from 1b, ss, 3b and CF. We got nothing from 2b and C, and RF was a mixed bag. But Murphy/Tatis in LF certainly outperformed all expectations and i do not believe for a minute we'll get similar production from that combo again this year. So, we either upgrade at 2b, c, and/or Rf to compensate, or replace the LF combo before it blows up in our faces. Or we go into the season with 1/2 the lineup very well likely to suck, to one degree or another, even as Omar whistles past the graveyard. attgig Jan 08 2009 03:29 PM ="Vic Sage":37m9y64n]Last year, i think we got about as much as we can reasonably expect this year from 1b, ss, 3b and CF. We got nothing from 2b and C, and RF was a mixed bag. But Murphy/Tatis in LF certainly outperformed all expectations and i do not believe for a minute we'll get similar production from that combo again this year. So, we either upgrade at 2b, c, and/or Rf to compensate, or replace the LF combo before it blows up in our faces. Or we go into the season with 1/2 the lineup very well likely to suck, to one degree or another, even as Omar whistles past the graveyard.[/quote:37m9y64n] and you have a wild card at 1b, so it's not even half a lineup. nobody has faith in schnied to produce offensively, and while castro COULD provide some pop, he just gets hurt too often (he must be the worst backup catcher in the league). 2b, nobody has faith in castillo, except he's saying all the right things. and Church... will his head be screwed on straight? it'll be an interesting few more weeks before spring training. Benjamin Grimm Jan 08 2009 03:35 PM I agree with Vic, including about left field, but I'd be okay with giving Murphy/Tatis a chance to shine again. But in doing that, you have to protect yourself by beefing up some of the other positions. And as yet, the Mets haven't done anything towards that end. Edgy DC Jan 08 2009 07:12 PM Ramon Castro, not the worst backup catcher in the league. DocTee Jan 09 2009 09:42 AM John Smoltz, Red Sock. metirish Jan 09 2009 12:35 PM Swisher the Yanks' preferred candidate over Nady BY KEN DAVIDOFF | ken.davidoff@newsday.com January 9, 2009 In their current roster logjam, the Yankees would strongly prefer to trade Xavier Nady and retain Nick Swisher, a person familiar with the club's thinking said yesterday. General manager Brian Cashman has received more requests for Swisher than for Nady. With spring training more than a month away and the season opener just about three months away, however, there is no imperative to execute a quick trade. The Mets enjoyed having Nady on their club for the first four months of the 2006 season, and they inquired about him last July, when the Yankees wound up getting him from Pittsburgh. For now, however, the Mets are focused on their starting rotation and are not looking to acquire a bat either through free agency or through a trade. Frayed Knot Jan 09 2009 01:54 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 09 2009 02:02 PM Swisher switch-hits, and is better and more versatile defensively. He's also signed for the next few years which could be either good or bad depending on whether he regains his hitting from last season's off year. Nady is more likely to hit better (though walk less) and would only be for one year at a price to be determined by arbitration then would be a FA after that. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 09 2009 01:59 PM If we weren't already loaded with lefthanded hitting outfielders, I'd take Godzilla as a LH bench masher in the Franco/Staub mold. Frayed Knot Jan 09 2009 02:04 PM As long as the Cranks would pay 90% of the freight and expect nothing back in return, sure. (OK, maybe 70% with a throw-in going the other way would do) Ashie62 Jan 09 2009 05:10 PM I feel safe to say Tatis has had his middle aged career year..I wouldn't put too high a ceiling there. Daniel Murphy needs more seasoning and I still advocate a year at AAA to learn 2B Mr. Nady..wasn't he a Met who know has Yankee cooties? metirish Jan 11 2009 03:46 PM Source: Martinez talking to Marlins By Enrique Rojas ESPNdeportes.com SANTO DOMINGO, Domican Republic -- Pedro Martinez and the Florida Marlins are believed to be in the beginning stages of negotiating a contract and could meet next week, a source told ESPNdeportes.com Saturday night. The Marlins have spoken with Martinez's agent. Martinez, 37, has won three Cy Young awards and has a career record of 214-99, with a 2.91 ERA and 3,117 strikeouts in 17 seasons with Los Angeles, Montreal, Boston and the New York Mets. Martinez struggled last season to a 5-6 record with a 5.61 ERA with the Mets, after battling injuries and dealing with the death of his father. In his first year with the Mets, Martinez won 15 games and struck out 208 batters in 217 innings. But he has been 17-15 in the last three seasons. Martinez owns a house in Miami. Fman99 Jan 11 2009 07:52 PM ="metirish"]Source: Martinez talking to Marlins By Enrique Rojas ESPNdeportes.com SANTO DOMINGO, Domican Republic -- Pedro Martinez and the Florida Marlins are believed to be in the beginning stages of negotiating a contract and could meet next week, a source told ESPNdeportes.com Saturday night. The Marlins have spoken with Martinez's agent. Martinez, 37, has won three Cy Young awards and has a career record of 214-99, with a 2.91 ERA and 3,117 strikeouts in 17 seasons with Los Angeles, Montreal, Boston and the New York Mets. Martinez struggled last season to a 5-6 record with a 5.61 ERA with the Mets, after battling injuries and dealing with the death of his father. In his first year with the Mets, Martinez won 15 games and struck out 208 batters in 217 innings. But he has been 17-15 in the last three seasons. Martinez owns a house in Miami. Pedro really looked spent in 2008, after having a respectable September prior. I don't think he has much in the tank and I would not miss all the drama. Rockin' Doc Jan 11 2009 09:29 PM Marlins not interested in signing Pedro By Joe Frisaro / MLB.com MIAMI -- Don't look for Pedro Martinez to wind up with the Marlins. A day after a report stated the Marlins were in the mix for the 37-year-old right-hander, a league source confirmed to MLB.com on Sunday that Florida has zero interest. Reports in the Miami Herald, Palm Beach Post and SunSentinel also ruled out the possibility of Martinez joining the club. On Saturday night, a report on ESPNdeportes.com stated the Marlins had discussions with agent Fernando Cuza regarding Martinez. The report added Florida may have begun preliminary contract talks, and that the two sides were expected to continue talking this week. As of late Sunday afternoon, the Marlins were not considered a possible fit. Martinez has a home in Miami, and he has expressed privately a desire to pitch for the Marlins. On Monday, Cuza is expected to have discussions with the Mets about a possible return to New York. The right-hander also is expected to test the free-agent market. Hampered by injuries last year, Martinez was 5-6 with a 5.61 ERA in 20 starts. He threw 109 innings. Working with minimal financial resources, the Marlins are looking for affordable free agents. The team did explore adding veteran Carl Pavano, who signed with the Indians. The Marlins are prepared to head into Spring Training with a rotation that includes Josh Johnson, Ricky Nolasco, Chris Volstad, Andrew Miller and Anibal Sanchez. Nolasco, eliglbe for arbitration, still has not signed. Florida continues to explore depth at catcher. The team is looking for low-priced options there. A free agent that could be a fit is Ivan Rodriguez, but only if his price tag continues to drop this month. Frayed Knot Jan 12 2009 07:01 AM IOW, the earlier story was an agent plant. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 08:20 AM Yeah, use the threat of the Daddy Warbucks Marlins to trigger a false bidding war. That's the ticket. Rockin' Doc Jan 12 2009 11:09 AM I think that Pedro had far more interest in the Marlins than they had in him. I believe that Pedro is desperate to play another season, but I don't think teams throughout the league are very interested in signing him. Pedro was once a dominant, HOF caliber pitcher, but he seems to be the one person that doesn't see how far removed from his former greatness he now is. metirish Jan 12 2009 11:17 AM If Pedro Martinez retired tomorrow he would surely be in the HOF at first ballot , wouldn't he? Rockin' Doc Jan 12 2009 11:21 AM I was not inferring that Pedro Martinez was not worthy of enshrinement in Coopperstown. He has had a tremendous career and was arguably one of the top 2 or 3 pitchers in MLB for several seasons. I would vote for him (if I had a vote) when his name comes up on the HOF ballot. I was simply stating that he is not nearly the dominant pitcher he once was. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 11:22 AM I think he's pretty aware of what happened last year. If he didn't still believe he could turn it around, he wouldn't be the great pitcher he is. What's more, I believe he could turn it around. In his prime, he had an unprecedented four killer pitches, so it's not like he was fastball-reliant. It's a matter of finding what he can do with what's left of his fastball and using it to complement the rest of his arsenal. That's a far ways from saying he will return to a productive level, but I'm certain he can. Glavine continued to pitch effectively with a powder puff fastball and a change. While his control was still very good, Pedro's has always been even better. And if I'm the Mets, I'm willing to spend some change to find out. Giving him Redding's money with an automatically vesting bonus year of $9 million if he gets 180 innings? Yeah, go for it. I'm certain he can do as well as Redding in 2009, and a damn fine bet to do better. The only thing Redding has over him is a better doctor's report. metirish Jan 12 2009 05:05 PM Michael Young wants out of Texas , can play 2nd base. I should add that Heyman just said on the Hot stove that he has %62 million left on his big contract. smg58 Jan 12 2009 05:22 PM Young's expensive, and the dropoff in his numbers over the past three years has been precipitous. Even if they took Castillo it would still be a $10M payroll hit, and he's just not that good anymore. Frayed Knot Jan 15 2009 01:14 PM Dodgers reportedly to release Andruw before today is out Benjamin Grimm Jan 15 2009 01:52 PM Wow. He's horrendously overpaid, but they're going to have to eat that contract anyway. Is there no hope of him having a bounceback year? Someone will be able to pick him up for minimum wage, and they may get a hell of a bargain at the Dodgers expense. metirish Jan 15 2009 01:56 PM Jones was on MLB Network the other night talking about how he would love to go back to the Braves. Edgy DC Jan 15 2009 02:01 PM No doubt. metsmarathon Jan 15 2009 02:28 PM i'd give andruw a shot, for minimum wage... Frayed Knot Jan 15 2009 05:45 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":2v9kwf3v]Wow. He's horrendously overpaid, but they're going to have to eat that contract anyway. Is there no hope of him having a bounceback year?[/quote:2v9kwf3v] I guess not enough of a chance in their minds to make carrying him all year worth it. They restructured his deal last week with a release in mind so I assume they're going to do similar thing to what we did with Bonilla (only on a much bigger scale): pay out the remainder over a long period to avoid getting hit with it all at once. Benjamin Grimm Jan 23 2009 08:34 AM The Philadelphia Inquirer is reporting today that the Phillies are aggressively trying to sign Moises Alou. metirish Jan 23 2009 08:36 AM Would Alou be a starter there or would he be in a limited role , who's in the outfield there along with Ibanez?...Dobbs?....Victorino? John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 23 2009 08:37 AM Watch him hit .500 and stay healthy all year. Bastard. Frayed Knot Jan 23 2009 08:44 AM He wouldn't start there - but he'd be a potentially good RH bat off the bench for a predominately lefty hitting squad. Benjamin Grimm Jan 23 2009 08:51 AM The three options (Perez, Wolf, and Sheets) may be soon reduced to two: ="MLB.com":2t16pb69]The deep freeze that's been the Major League free-agent market this winter has shown indications a thaw is coming -- at least for starting pitchers. On the heels of the Mets reaching an apparent agreement on a Minor League deal with right-hander Freddy Garcia, it looks like the Dodgers have taken the inside track in the competition for lefty starter Randy Wolf's services. According to sources for FoxSports.com, Wolf could most likely be signed to a one or two-year deal. Wolf previously pitched for Los Angeles in 2007 and was 12-12 with a 4.30 ERA in a combined 33 starts last season for the Padres and Astros. FoxSports.com said Wolf would get less than the three-year, $28 million offer the pitcher turned down from Houston earlier this winter. [/quote:2t16pb69] metsguyinmichigan Jan 23 2009 08:57 AM Supposedly, Sheets is meeting with the Rangers. metirish Jan 23 2009 08:58 AM Wolf turned down an offer for that much? , and I was thinking he could be had for a song on a one year deal. sharpie Jan 23 2009 08:58 AM Fine. I actually saw Wolf pitch twice last year, at the only game I attended at MFY Stadium and at the game I attended at Petco. Both time he got shellacked. smg58 Jan 23 2009 09:34 AM There are a number of available starters who can give you at least a league average ERA, several of whom have the upside to do significantly better. Randy Wolf is not one of them. I see no point in pursuing a demonstrably inferior pitcher just because he's a lefty. Edgy DC Jan 23 2009 09:59 AM I don't think anybody but Wally Matthews is arguing that his leftiness is important, and Wally is only throwing that pitch to drum up "Mets Gotta Steal Pettitte" angles. Who do you have your eye on? metirish Jan 23 2009 08:11 PM Just turned over to MLB Network after watching "What Not To Wear" and heard Tom Verducci say that Perez is moving closer to signing with the Mets. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 23 2009 08:59 PM Here's the source: Jon "Boras Boy" Heyman ]Mets extend offer to Perez, their top target The Mets have placed an offer on the table for free-agent lefthander Oliver Perez, SI.com has learned, and are hopeful to have an answer in coming days regarding their prime pitching target. The Mets are believed to have improved their original thought, which was for about $30 million over three years. But it isn't certain what their latest offer is. Perez remains the Mets' top choice for the final spot in their rotation, though the team has remained in contact with three other free-agent pitchers -- Randy Wolf, Jon Garland and Ben Sheets. They know they'd have competition for Wolf (Dodgers), Garland (Diamondbacks) and Sheets (Rangers, possibly Yankees) but aren't sure what other teams are competing for Perez. The Mets had been hopeful to land free agent Derek Lowe earlier but were surprised when the rival Braves outbid them by $24 million, landing Lowe with a $60-million, four-year contract. Perez, 27, is eight years younger than Lowe, though not quite as consistent. Mets GM Omar Minaya would love to import Perez, so the Mets are not likely to take one of the other pitchers unless he feels his chances for Perez are gone. Nymr83 Jan 24 2009 12:14 PM I hope "the mystery team" comes and raises perez's price too high so we can sign Sheets. Then Boras and Perez can admit there was no mystery team and we get both at a reduced rate! MFS62 Jan 24 2009 01:21 PM If money is the issue, I'd like to see the Mets sign Sheets and with any Ollie Perez money left over, go out and sign Odalis Perez. His ERA was only .10 worse than Ollie's last year, is still only 32 years old, and probably be signed for far less money than any of the other names that have been in the press lately. Later MFS62 Jan 24 2009 01:21 PM Oops. Dupe Sorry Later seawolf17 Jan 30 2009 01:00 PM Varitek back to Boston for one year, $5 million. Frayed Knot Jan 30 2009 02:36 PM Varitek's (read: Boras's) threat to sit out the season and/or retire didn't get the Sox to budge I see. Tek is one of several who turned down arbitration offers this winter only to wind up not only with a much smaller deal than arb would have snagged him but didn't get the multi-year deal either. Now it's hope you play well and the economy improves when you can do the same dance next year. Ashie62 Feb 02 2009 03:56 PM Anyone for Varitek via trade and a pay raise? Fman99 Feb 02 2009 07:27 PM ="Ashie62":2t5ssjz6]Anyone for Varitek via trade and a pay raise?[/quote:2t5ssjz6] .220 metirish Feb 02 2009 07:43 PM Is that his weight or his average? , sucks either way though. metirish Feb 04 2009 11:35 AM ]Left-hander Chase Wright was traded by the New York Yankees to the Milwaukee Brewers on Wednesday for outfielder-catcher Eric Fryer. metirish Feb 07 2009 02:23 PM Andruw Jones turns down non-roster spring training invite from the MFY's. Rockin' Doc Feb 07 2009 05:10 PM metirish - "Andruw Jones turns down non-roster spring training invite from the MFY's." Good to see that Jones has his pride. Better to go unsigned than sell one's soul by possibly donning a Yankee uniform. I suddenly have a new sense of respect for Jones. MFS62 Feb 08 2009 07:35 AM ="Rockin' Doc":2e2xwbch]metirish - "Andruw Jones turns down non-roster spring training invite from the MFY's." Good to see that Jones has his pride. Better to go unsigned than sell one's soul by possibly donning a Yankee uniform. I suddenly have a new sense of respect for Jones.[/quote:2e2xwbch] B'sides, they couldn't have the signing photo op soon anyhow. They'd first have to send out Cecil Fielder's uni to have the seams let out to fit Jones. Later Frayed Knot Feb 08 2009 08:45 PM Andruw to the Rangers - apparently gets a ML deal for low-end money (500K) plus incentives. 15mil to practically minimum wage in one year is tough to do. Fman99 Feb 09 2009 06:44 AM ="Frayed Knot":1zv55w66]Andruw to the Rangers - apparently gets a ML deal for low-end money (500K) plus incentives. 15mil to practically minimum wage in one year is tough to do.[/quote:1zv55w66] Yeah, poor guy. My heart breaks for him. /sarcasm Edgy DC Feb 09 2009 07:07 AM It's not like he doesn't get to keep the 15 miills. Vic Sage Feb 09 2009 09:08 AM yeah, i mean basically he just got a raise! Frayed Knot Feb 09 2009 09:26 AM Sure, it just shows a helluva difference between what someone thought he was worth last year vs what they think he's worth barely a year later. How the mighty (and fat) have fallen.

Wow, you're crossing the streams.

Good. I'd like to see Sanchez and Feliciano go too, after all the duds they put up last year. But that seems increasingly unlikely. Especially Feliciano who is the last lefty standing out there.

Over the course of the reception I bet he varies the arm angle he uses while drinking his champagne.

Ugh. I'd trade 100 years of this pablum for one inning of actual baseball. Stupid winter. (Merged from Antics, Part II, 12/23/2008)

Gave up that fucking HR to Yadier and sent our asses home in '06. The fans never really forgave him IMHO.

The catch. I remember jumping up and down in my living room and scaring Fboy who was just 18 months or so old at the time.

Less appealing if Smith goes. Green has been very pedestrian in his MLB time and Reed, while touted as a future leadoff hitter a few years back, plays like a white Endy Chavez.

="TransMonk":362fdcoq]SNY Blog has Joe Smith also rumored to be involved in the deal. Losing Heilman, Chavez, Carp and Smith would be a bit much for a setup guy.[/quote:362fdcoq] I'd really rather that Smith came back... Heyman is on SNY and throwing out six Mets that might go: Chavez, Heilman, Carp ugh and then the sound cuts out on the interview. Frayed Knot Dec 10 2008 08:07 PM Joseph Jason Putz 32 y/o in February. 6'5" 250 - from Trenton, Michigan and U Michigan. signed for 09 @ $5mil + option for '10 at a whopping $8.6/$1mil buyout. That's a lot of cash for a set-up man/emergency closer - although if things work out maybe they buy him out and try to work out a longer deal for less per year (but we're getting ahead of ourselves here). Great '06 & '07 as mentioned above. Barely pitched this year in April, June & July - not sure if that was one lingering injury or several smaller problems. Had a good Aug & Sept. Walks spiked this year. I think those 5 or 6 names being mentioned are among those who might be involved, not that they would all go for one guy. Valadius Dec 10 2008 08:32 PM He's a little old to send that much for him. I'd part with Heilman, Carp, and Chavez, but that's my limit. TransMonk Dec 10 2008 08:36 PM Jeremy Reed and Sean Green now rumored to come along with Putz to the Mets while Smith would go to Cleveland. http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/reedje03.shtml http://www.baseball-reference.com/g/greense01.shtml metirish Dec 10 2008 08:37 PM UPDATED 10:19 p.m. � Mets working to acquire Putz The Mets are working to acquire a setup man for new closer Francisco Rodriguez � and that setup man would be another closer from the American League West. J.J. Putz could be headed to the Mets in a three-team trade with the Mariners and Indians, according to major-league sources. Under terms of the deal, the Mets would get Putz, outfielder Jeremy Reed and reliever Sean Green from Seattle. The Mariners would receive reliever Aaron Heilman, outfielder Endy Chavez and first baseman Mike Carp from the Mets. They'd also get Franklin Gutierrez from the Indians and minor leaguers. The Indians would get reliever Joe Smith from the Mets and infielder Luis Valbuena from Seattle. From the Mets' perspective, the deal would be Heilman and Smith for Putz. Chavez and Reed would be an exchange of backup outfielders, Smith and Green an exchange of right-handed groundball specialists. Valadius Dec 10 2008 08:37 PM Yuck. Methead Dec 10 2008 08:45 PM I don't like the Joe Smith / Sean Green part of it... other than that, bring it on. Fman99 Dec 10 2008 08:45 PM Less appealing if Smith goes. Green has been very pedestrian in his MLB time and Reed, while touted as a future leadoff hitter a few years back, plays like a white Endy Chavez. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 10 2008 09:08 PM Green is an extreme groundball guy, he replaces Bazooka Joe. RealityChuck Dec 10 2008 09:13 PM Interesting, but I'm always skeptical of rumors of trades with more than two teams. They happen, but it's just too easy for them to fall apart. When was the last one the Mets pulled off? Was it the Armando Benitez trade? Gwreck Dec 10 2008 09:16 PM I think it was in February of 2002, when we shipped out Todd Zeile and Benny Agbayani to Colorado and got Jeromy Burnitz and Jeff D'Amico from Milwaukee. There were some other players involved in that too -- Mark Johnson and Lou Collier, probably. Also Lenny Harris, although I don't remember if he was coming or going in that deal. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 10 2008 09:21 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 10 2008 09:31 PM Don't forget the Immortal Ross Peeples and Craig House. Edit it was Ross Gload and Craig House. Peeples came in the Alomar trade. That trade was crazy because it included an ex-Met, Alex Ochoa and two players making their second appearances as Mets (Harris leaving and Burnitz arriving). From MIL to NY: D'Amico, Burnitz, Lou Collier, Mark Sweeney, cash From NY to MIL: Glendon Rusch, Lenny Harris From NY to COL: Benny Agbayani, Todd Zeile From COL to NY: Ross Gload, Craig House From COL to MIL: Alex Ochoa Could be the largest, most pointless trade ever. Valadius Dec 10 2008 09:22 PM It was Ross Gload. Peeples was in the Alomar trade. Frayed Knot Dec 10 2008 09:36 PM Putz apparently a reality -- Omar to talk to media "in about an hour" (sez S. Somers on WFAN). The devil (or not) is in the to-be-released details. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 10 2008 09:36 PM Apparently a done deal. Reed replaces Chavy as the shitty hitting CF backup Green is the new Joe Smith Putz is the new Heilman The loss here is Carp. Bam. Valadius Dec 10 2008 09:52 PM Meh. I liked Joe Smith. And how's Reed's defense? metsguyinmichigan Dec 10 2008 09:55 PM We wanted Omar to blow up the bullpen, and he sure did! Two closers? Sweet! Part of me is surprised that Schoenweis is the one to stick around. I don't know if they ever had plans for Carp. Both Murphy and Evans were promoted ahead of him last year, no? DocTee Dec 10 2008 10:04 PM Putz, Rodriguez>>>>>Heilman, Smith This is a major step in the right direction. Now, let's add some bats. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 10 2008 10:09 PM ="Valadius":3ngz5ntx]Meh. I liked Joe Smith. And how's Reed's defense?[/quote:3ngz5ntx] Prolly not as spectacular as Chavez (who is) but he's played CF as a big leaguer so he can't suck that much. A former high draft pick who was once in the top 10 lists IIRC. To me he's just what Chavez was when he arrived -- a 20-something failed starter with a lousy bat who's best chance to hang is now as a reserve. I like that much of it. Green is Smith: Pounded by LH hitters, death on righties, groundball machine. Gwreck Dec 10 2008 10:10 PM Final tally: We are giving up: Heilman Smith Chavez Jason Vargas Mike Carp Ezequiel Carera Maikel Cleto Getting: Putz Reed Green seawolf17 Dec 10 2008 10:11 PM Think of the money they'll save on jersey name letters alone. I don't like giving up Smith, but whatever. What's Putz's contract status? Gwreck Dec 10 2008 10:13 PM $5 M for 09 Club option of ~$8 Million for 10 ($1 M buyout). Edgy DC Dec 10 2008 10:19 PM He's kind of lost in the shuffle there, but, as of this morning, Vargas was our number four starter. OlerudOwned Dec 10 2008 10:56 PM I like Bazooka Joe, I really like him, but I don't think he was as good as we want to believe he was. I like the trade. attgig Dec 10 2008 11:03 PM ="Gwreck":135jdcb3]$5 M for 09 Club option of ~$8 Million for 10 ($1 M buyout).[/quote:135jdcb3] so he's a free agent when mariano rivera's contract is done. TransMonk Dec 10 2008 11:13 PM Went searching for some Mariner boards to gauge their reaction. Most boards don't have any posts since October...but the few I did find had posters that thought any trade where you were getting 7 players couldn't be all that bad. More than a few posts talked about Putz not being the same last year while injured, but they all seemed to agree that if September of 2008 where any indication of his future health that he would be pretty awesome. More than one poster on separate boards said that if healthy, Putz is better than Rodriguez. They both enter to Thunderstruck. batmagadanleadoff Dec 10 2008 11:57 PM It looks like at least one of these newly acquired marguee relievers, or both, are going to have to accept appearing in less Save situations. Personally, I'm fine with this dynamic and in fact, have been waiting for something like this to develop for a while. Perhaps next year's Mets might now be flexible enough to start using a star reliever when the game really does seem to be on the line, irrespective of the inning, instead of robotically saving their best reliever for the Save. Wouldn't it be something if Wagner heals ahead of schedule and joins the Mets in August? Or September, when the rosters expand? Nymr83 Dec 11 2008 01:21 AM ]Part of me is surprised that Schoenweis is the one to stick around i think nobody wanted to take his contract on bmfc1 Dec 11 2008 05:16 AM The Mets got two big guys: Putz is 6'5, 250 Green is 6'6, 230. metirish Dec 11 2008 05:47 AM The sports guy on CBS this morning pronounced Putz as Pootz , is that it? smg58 Dec 11 2008 05:52 AM I'm not sure what Reed and Green do for us. Like I said yesterday, the Mets could use another righty reserve outfielder, and Reed is left-handed. Green can give innings, but he's not that good. I'd have said no dice to those two and either kept Vargas or Smith, or tried to get Seattle to send more players to Cleveland so that we could get Asdrubal Cabrera or one of their catching prospects. But K-Rod and a healthy JJ Putz on top of our pen make for a nice haul. Both are better than Wagner, much less the rest of our sorry staff from last year. Chavez is making $2M, and Heilman would likely get $1.5M in arbitration, so we're not really taking on that much (at least not this year) with Putz. bmfc1 Dec 11 2008 05:57 AM Intel on Reed and Green from Keith Law: The Mets also pick up extra outfielder Jeremy Reed, a defensive specialist who makes a lot of contact but lacks power or patience; and right-handed ground-ball machine Sean Green, who should benefit from the left side of the Mets' infield as long as manager Jerry Manuel keeps him away from too many lefties. bmfc1 Dec 11 2008 06:22 AM Kurjian on Mike & Mike this morning... a few years ago, Peter Schmuck went to J.J. Putz and said "my name is Schmuck and your name is Putts and he said it's Poots" and that was the end of that conversation. TransMonk Dec 11 2008 07:43 AM I've always thought it was like PUTS, as in "It puts the lotion in the basket." Vince Coleman Firecracker Dec 11 2008 07:50 AM ="TransMonk":raawcub4]Went searching for some Mariner boards to gauge their reaction. Most boards don't have any posts since October...but the few I did find had posters that thought any trade where you were getting 7 players couldn't be all that bad..[/quote:raawcub4] Dave Cameron of the USS Mariner (which is a pretty awesome blog, btw) likes[/url:raawcub4] the trade for the M's, but I think that has more to do with Gutierrez than anyone else. Vince Coleman Firecracker Dec 11 2008 07:53 AM Check out Jeremy Reed[/url:1l9kzq28]'s most comparable at age 25 and 6th most comparable at 27. bmfc1 Dec 11 2008 07:56 AM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Dec 11 2008 07:58 AM More on the trade here: http://www.metsminorleagueblog.com/2008/12/11/on-putz-and-friends/ Hyde also has it that Reed is a younger version of Endy. Thanks for the link, JCF. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 11 2008 07:57 AM Bruce Boisclair No. 7 most similar overall. If this cat wasn't born to be a Met I dunno who was. Serioiusly, I have no idea if he has any shot at being good again, but I like getting bench guys in their 20s for bench guys in their 30s. Good idea at any rate. Benjamin Grimm Dec 11 2008 08:02 AM Reed, I assume, competes with Evans for the fifth outfielder spot. Barring further deals, the outfield looks like Beltran, Church, Tatis, Murphy and Evans or Reed. Vince Coleman Firecracker Dec 11 2008 08:03 AM Sean Green (wasn't he our right fielder a few years ago?) doesn't help the LOOGY/ROOGY situation[/url:2zfs2xm9]: lefties basically become Derrek Lee against him, but he's off the charts on the GB/FB ratio and does a good job against righties. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 11 2008 08:08 AM He's Joe Smith with a more common name (in Met terms). Benjamin Grimm Dec 11 2008 08:21 AM The Mets made a trade where they picked up three guys, none of whom are Hispanic. Omar's critics who think he's racist won't take note of this, of course. Vic Sage Dec 11 2008 09:12 AM ="Gwreck":gb33zp1i]Final tally: We are giving up: Heilman Smith Chavez Jason Vargas Mike Carp Ezequiel Carera Maikel Cleto Getting: Putz Reed Green[/quote:gb33zp1i] - Chavez and Smith for Reed and Green is a wash, more or less. - Putz for Heilman is a major upgrade, at a cost of 4 non-key prospects that were not going to have any role on the major league level for a few years (if ever). The TiTTS say "yea, verily, yea" Gwreck Dec 11 2008 09:20 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":2d1mi4lq]The Mets made a trade where they picked up three guys, none of whom are Hispanic. Omar's critics who think he's racist won't take note of this, of course.[/quote:2d1mi4lq] I didn't think we had any of those "critics" here. Vince Coleman Firecracker Dec 11 2008 09:23 AM I like this move more the more I think about it. Now, if they'd only use Putz as a relief ace instead of the 8th inning guy... John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 11 2008 09:54 AM I'd love it if they'd be more fluid, if not as a McDowell-Orosco kinda swappy closer thing than maybe Putz gets actual "fireman" status -- use him whenever the game is on the line -- with Rodriguez getting the more glamourous but easier assignment as the "closer" to protect leads. But I'm pretty sure the Mets will use them 8th, 9th like that. DocTee Dec 11 2008 09:56 AM With the Mets nabbing the two most attractive closers on the market, asking prices for Fuentes, Valverde, Lyon and others just exploded. Benjamin Grimm Dec 11 2008 10:04 AM Putz is likely a one-year Met. Apparently his contract contains an option for 2010 at over $9 million. The Mets probably won't want to pay that much for a setup guy. Perhaps they'll trade him to someone who'll let him close, but more likely he'll be a free agent after the 2009 season. TransMonk Dec 11 2008 10:11 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":3rsmur6s]Putz is likely a one-year Met.[/quote:3rsmur6s] Agreed, although factoring the money going to Wagner in 2009, the 8th and 9th innings will still be cheaper for them in 2010 if they kept Putz. Wagner + KRod + Putz = $24 million in 2009. Prolly more than the Marlins payroll will be. Gwreck Dec 11 2008 11:05 AM ="Benjamin Grimm"]Apparently his contract contains an option for 2010 at over $9 million. $8.6 Million club option. The buyout is $1 Million. ]The Mets probably won't want to pay that much for a setup guy. Probably not, but I think they wait and see how 2009 goes first. Centerfield Dec 11 2008 11:08 AM ="TransMonk":1ajjkucg]="Benjamin Grimm":1ajjkucg]Putz is likely a one-year Met.[/quote:1ajjkucg] Agreed, although factoring the money going to Wagner in 2009, the 8th and 9th innings will still be cheaper for them in 2010 if they kept Putz. Wagner + KRod + Putz = $24 million in 2009. Prolly more than the Marlins payroll will be.[/quote:1ajjkucg] The Wagner money really gets under my skin. I really wonder if they had to go four years to get him in the first place. I wish they could find some use for him in 2009 and save money somewhere else. Can he make copies? File papers? Maybe he could work a ticket booth or something. Edgy DC Dec 11 2008 11:17 AM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Dec 11 2008 11:51 AM ="Centerfield":7x6t2mcj]The Wagner money really gets under my skin. I really wonder if they had to go four years to get him in the first place.[/quote:7x6t2mcj] It's a little late to get too animated about that, but the Wagner deal came shortly after the O's gobbled up B.J. Ryan for five years and $47 million. It's not a cheap game to play. Just be happy that the money dropped on him in this fourth year didn't prevent the Mets from reloading with Rodriguez and Putz. Benjamin Grimm Dec 11 2008 11:19 AM Well, obviously they'll see how 2009 goes first. As for Wagner, there was a report out the other day that his recovery is going well and he may actually be able to pitch in September of 2009. Vic Sage Dec 11 2008 11:42 AM I'm sure he'll want to, to prove he can and set the stage for a new contract ... from somebody. However, if the mets actually need him to pitch in September, that may be a bad sign as to how the new pen had done. Gwreck Dec 11 2008 11:48 AM ="Vic Sage":3roqbbwa]However, if the mets actually need him to pitch in September, that may be a bad sign as to how the new pen had done.[/quote:3roqbbwa] You wouldn't want Wagner as your situational lefty pitcher instead of Feliciano or Schoeneweis? 86-Dreamer Dec 11 2008 03:19 PM I like the trade. But I am a bit scared by the fact that Putz actually had worse WHIP in 2008 (1.597) than the man he is replacing (1.592). But then I look at his 2006 & 2007 seasons and get excited again. Lets hope he is healthy. metsmarathon Dec 11 2008 04:10 PM of course, how was heilman's '06 and '07? i'm just sayin... but overall i like the trade. and i'm surprised we don't yet have a poll asking me that question. metirish Dec 11 2008 06:27 PM ] "It's a new challenge and I'm excited about it," Putz told the Seattle Times. "I'm going to a new team that's going to be very competitive. Frankie's a great closer and with Sean Green going as well, we should have a great bullpen." Willets Point Dec 11 2008 06:58 PM Putz is perhaps the first Mets relief pitcher to come with a built-in derogatory nickname for when he blows a save. Edgy DC Dec 11 2008 08:17 PM Ah, but you're too young to recall Alain LeDouche. Those were ze days, mon ami. metirish Dec 14 2008 11:25 AM ] Mets now have terrific twosome in 'pen By Jayson Stark ESPN.com LAS VEGAS -- The New York Mets of 2008 didn't just have a closer problem. They had a bullpen problem. The Mets of 2008 didn't just have a ninth-inning problem. They had a how-the-heck-do-we-get-to-the-ninth-inning problem. Well, not anymore. Now, after a stunning 12-player, three-team, winter meetings megadeal Wednesday night, the Mets have transformed their bullpen and transformed themselves. J.J. Putz and Francisco Rodriguez aren't merely an upgrade on Luis Ayala and Duaner Sanchez/Aaron Heilman/Scott Schoeneweis/insert your favorite other Mets setup villain here. J.J. Putz and K-Rod are an upgrade on everybody's eighth-and-ninth-inning bullpen-assassin combo. Who beats that tag team? "Nobody," said one longtime talent evaluator Wednesday night. "To me, they're the best. And they're not just a great duo. They're a strikeout duo, too. There won't be many balls in play when those two guys are out there. As big as strikeouts are in the ninth inning, sometimes they're even bigger in the eighth." True facts: K-Rod averaged 10.14 strikeouts per nine innings this season. Putz, even in a down year, averaged 10.88 whiffs per nine innings. And that was in the American League, where the lineups run nine deep. Only two National League teams had a closer-setup combo in which each pitcher racked up that high a punch-out rate in 2008 -- the Cubs (Kerry Wood/Carlos Marmol) and the Dodgers (Takashi Saito/Jonathan Broxton/Hong-Chih Kuo). Not coincidentally, those staffs ranked third and first, respectively, in the league in bullpen ERA. But now Wood is gone in Chicago. Saito is hurt in L.A. And it's the Mets who have assumed the throne. We asked around Wednesday night in a lobby packed with baseball people. Nobody could come up with an eighth-inning/ninth-inning combo as formidable as the Mets' new twosome. The reason is simple. As long as these two are healthy, there isn't a better tandem. "They can play a 21-out game now," the same evaluator said of the Mets. "I give them a lot of credit. They just made a $13 million investment [in K-Rod], and now they've bolstered it with a character guy whose character is so good, he'll be willing to pitch the eighth inning." Putz, of course, will have to be healthier than he was in 2008, when his 3.88 ERA was nearly triple his 1.38 mark in '07. But if he is, he changes the Mets' whole persona. Just consider the bullpen disaster that did in this team this season: The Mets were 13th in the league in ERA from the seventh inning on and 13th in bullpen ERA overall. They blew 29 saves -- second most in the National League, behind St. Louis. They gave up 61 home runs from the seventh inning on, tied with the Giants for the most in the league. And those aren't even the most devastating numbers that defined the Mets' season. Consider these numbers: If all games had ended after six innings this season, the Mets would have finished the year 11 games ahead of the Phillies (aka, the team that won the World Series). If all games had ended after seven innings, the Mets would have finished six games ahead of the Phillies. And if all games had even been just eight innings long instead of nine, the Mets would have finished five games ahead of the Phillies. But the rules are the rules. And the rules say they had to play all nine. And it was those final innings that crushed the Mets. The Phillies lost no games they led after eight innings. The Mets lost seven of them -- and lost 13 games they led after seven innings. That's how seasons slip away. That's how one fatal flaw can undermine everyone and everything. That was the story of the 2008 Mets. So one miraculous trade later, this doesn't just look like a whole new bullpen. It looks like a whole new team. Rockin' Doc Dec 14 2008 11:38 AM "If all games had ended after six innings this season, the Mets would have finished the year 11 games ahead of the Phillies (aka, the team that won the World Series). If all games had ended after seven innings, the Mets would have finished six games ahead of the Phillies. And if all games had even been just eight innings long instead of nine, the Mets would have finished five games ahead of the Phillies." Wow, those are pretty telling stats. I knew the bullpen was costly last season, but those facts really point out just how costly the bullpen actually was. Valadius Dec 14 2008 02:28 PM I warned about the bullpen all last offseason. I figured it would happen again. Frayed Knot Dec 14 2008 02:37 PM ="Rockin' Doc":2m19qgyh]"If all games had ended after six innings this season, the Mets would have finished the year 11 games ahead of the Phillies (aka, the team that won the World Series). If all games had ended after seven innings, the Mets would have finished six games ahead of the Phillies. And if all games had even been just eight innings long instead of nine, the Mets would have finished five games ahead of the Phillies."[/quote:2m19qgyh] The pen was obviously the biggest culprit in those above scenarios although the offense's habit of scoring more early than late contributed as well. The net effect was to make the pen look even worse than it really was by removing any margin of error and turning every run given up into a disaster. metirish Dec 14 2008 02:51 PM Yet Miniya thinks the offense was fine last season From the Hot Stove December 11th ] Minaya on getting more offense. Quote: "Before I start moving my dollars to offense, I have to move my dollars to pitching," the GM said."Last year was very simple guys. We had 20 blown saves. We scored the runs." Edgy DC Dec 14 2008 05:13 PM In general, it was fine. It was just disproportionately better in the front end of games, contributing to some of those numbers. Ashie62 Dec 14 2008 06:27 PM I remeber several years ago the Mets were dumoing on the Rockies Mike DeJean and McCarver said "well this inning is in De Jean" TransMonk Dec 18 2008 12:40 PM I have to say, the more I hear from J.J., the more I like him. And, I was pretty impressed to begin with. Frayed Knot Dec 19 2008 12:16 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 19 2008 12:30 PM How do you solve a problem like Putz? John Branch (never heard of him) at the NYTimes looks into the origin, Hungarian; proper pronunciation, 'Puts'; and the potential pitfalls for headline writers concerning the new set-up man. The Mets solved the problem of his introduction by boldly printing on the scoreboard: 'Mets Welcome J.J.' metirish Dec 19 2008 12:24 PM Putz said yesterday that he might ask Hojo for #20. metirish Dec 19 2008 12:59 PM ="Frayed Knot"]How do you solve a problem like Putz? John Branch (never heard of him) at the NYTimes looks into the origin, Hungarian; proper pronunciation, 'Puts'; and the potential pitfalls for headline writers concerning the new set-up man. The Mets solved the problem of his introduction by boldly printing on the scoreboard: 'Mets Welcome J.J.' Interesting that Bill Sweeney the headline writer over at the Snooze is not looking at Putz as a headline opportunity. metsguyinmichigan Dec 19 2008 01:17 PM They're probably not going to sell too many t-shirts with "Putz" on the back. And I don't like the wide soul patch. But I have to tell you, dude is saying all the right things. This might up being Omar's best move of the off-season. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 19 2008 01:31 PM What's encouraging is to hear some good things about Sean Green who came along with Putzy in the deal. Putz in the Snooze today called Green "a machine" and sincerely sounded like a strong endorsement, and Keith Law of ESPN called him the 4th most important acquisition of the winter in all of bb (behind CC, K-Rod and JJ, saying he'd be to the Mets as valuable as Bradford in 06. Benjamin Grimm Dec 19 2008 02:06 PM That would be good if Sean Green ends up being a solid bullpenner. I am glad the Mets got Putz, but I do regret losing Joe Smith for one year of Putz. So I do hope Green can contribute in 2010 and beyond. A Boy Named Seo Dec 19 2008 02:38 PM That 70/30 talk seemed kind of unecessary. Like a bone that didn't need to be thrown Putz's way. But now it's out there and expectations are kind of attached to it. Hope it doesn't bite Jerry's arse down the road. smg58 Dec 19 2008 03:02 PM If the Mets get 100 save opportunities, a 70/30 split will work out to everybody's satisfaction. Green was terrific for the first four months last year, but 58 innings in four months was more than he could handle and he imploded in August and September. If his arm has recovered and they pace him for 65 or so innings, he could have a really good year. A Boy Named Seo Dec 19 2008 03:33 PM If we get 100 save opps, we're winning like 115 games anyway, so none of this will matter.

="Benjamin Grimm":ti8ow5qk]="Adam Rubin":ti8ow5qk]Las Vegas - Francisco Rodriguez was at the Hospital for Special Surgery in Manhattan Wednesday morning, undergoing a physical. There was no official word on K-Rod passing the physical, though the Mets hope to make an announcement within hours that he's cleared the medical hurdle. A press conference is expected to be held next Wednesday in New York. With Citi Field not ready to host press conferences, the location of next week's event is unclear. Rodriguez agreed to a three-year, $37 million deal Tuesday with a fourth-year vesting option based on games finished.[/quote:ti8ow5qk] They should all put on hardhats and have the press conference at what's left of Shea Stadium.[/quote:ti8ow5qk] You were close. Frank et al. were at the new park, but donning the Mets hardhats, which are damn foolish looking if you're not welding something. Big "Mets welcome K-Rod" sign at CitiField. They apparently aren't reading this thread. SteveJRogers Dec 10 2008 08:39 PM =Adam Rubin]A press conference is expected to be held next Wednesday in New York. With Citi Field not ready to host press conferences, the location of next week's event is unclear. Interesting. They can not host press conferences, but last September advertisements in the Mets program suggested that starting this winter, i.e. now, Citi Field would ready to be hosting "events" (corporate, weddings, whatever the heck they did at Shea) and were soliciting reservations. batmagadanleadoff Dec 11 2008 09:45 AM It's still Autumn. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 11 2008 09:50 AM May also have to do with communication-type stuff and broadcasting abilities coming in later than banquet rooms. Benjamin Grimm Dec 11 2008 09:53 AM I'm guessing they have to wait until Citi Field is no longer a hard-hat zone. metirish Dec 13 2008 12:46 PM K-Rod jumps right into Mets-Phillies rivalry BY KEN DAVIDOFF | ken.davidoff@newsday.com 12:53 PM EST, December 13, 2008 Francisco Rodriguez didn't even wait for his first save to jump into the war of words between the Mets and Phillies. In a telephone news conference today, K-Rod's first interaction with the New York media, the Mets' new closer proclaimed his confidence in his new teammates. "Of course we're going to be the frontrunner," Rodriguez told reporters. "Of course were going to be the team to beat. "I don't want there to be a controversy. I don't want the other team to take it personally, or take it in a bad way. But I'm a really competitive guy. I like to win. "If they ask me, "Who's going to be the ball club that will win the National League East, it'll be the Mets." "Team to beat" has become a well-known phrase in the Mets-Phillies rivalry. Phillies shortstop Jimmy Rollins first used the words to describe his team prior to the 2007 season, and Rollins proceeded to win the National League Most Valuable Player award as his team lived up to that proclamation. This past season, during spring training, the Mets' Carlos Beltran, usually soft-spoken, declared his club as the team to beat. The Mets couldn't quite make Beltran look good, giving up a mid-September divisional lead. On Thursday, Phillies ace Cole Hamels upped the ante when, on an interview with WFAN, he referred to the Mets as "choke artists." Rodriguez said that his velocity did drop in 2008, as many scouts and opponents observed, but that it happened because he was working in a new pitch, a changeup that proved effective. In 2009, he said, his velocity should return to the mid-90s now that he's more comfortable with the arm action needed to make his fastball and changeup look identical out of his hand. Ashie62 Dec 14 2008 06:25 PM On Thursday, Phillies ace Cole Hamels upped the ante when, on an interview with WFAN, he referred to the Mets as "choke artists." Well..he's not totally off base But I signed up for phillienation under a bogus ID and sent Chase Utley a less than friendly "get well" email. metirish Dec 17 2008 11:29 AM Looks like Barry Bonds. Mets introduce Rodriguez. metirish Dec 17 2008 01:56 PM > Benjamin Grimm Dec 17 2008 02:03 PM He has "K-ROD" monogrammed into his shirts? Oh, brother. I'm afraid that nickname isn't going to go away any time soon. But, wow, don't Jeff and Jerry seem thrilled? You'd think a faulty bullpen caused them to miss the playoffs last season. metirish Dec 17 2008 02:08 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":1i00hhby]He has "K-ROD" monogrammed into his shirts? Oh, brother. I'm afraid that nickname isn't going to go away any time soon. But, wow, don't Jeff and Jerry seem thrilled? You'd think a faulty bullpen caused them to miss the playoffs last season.[/quote:1i00hhby] That Jeff can smile like that after Dad got taken to the cleaners is admirable. I admire you Jeffy Wilpon , nothing stands in this mans way. Centerfield Dec 17 2008 02:08 PM Meanwhile Omar has a look that seems to say "This shit had better work or I'm gonna end up bantering with Kruk on Baseball Tonight." Benjamin Grimm Dec 17 2008 02:12 PM Ain't dat the troof! My concern is that Omar is fixing last year's problem, which is well and good, but not addressing next year's problem. I don't like how he's standing pat on the offense. Sure, they scored a lot of runs last year, but guys like Delgado and Tatis are both one year older (actually, everyone is, but it's more of an issue with the old guys!) and we might also see decline from guys like Church and Castillo. themetfairy Mar 30 2009 10:58 AM I couldn't find the thread where we were discussing possible nicknames for our new closer. However, I was at the Modell's in Herald Square yesterday, and there was a lot of K-Rod 75 merchandise on display. metirish Mar 30 2009 11:01 AM One of the TV guys said that Rodriguez does not like or want to be called K-Rod...I think it was keith who said it....goes by Frankie..

Nice to see this one on TV -- first time I had seen it since attending the game. This was Fboy's first ever Mets/MLB game and one worth remembering.

Wow, Putz and Frankie would be a nice 8-9 combo. Putz was as good as anyone pre-injury in 2006-7. 2006 4-1, 36 saves, 2.30 ERA, 0.92 WHIP, 104 K in 78 1/3 IP 2007 6-1, 40 saves, 1.38, 0.70, 82 K in 71 2/3 IP

I have absolutely no problem with it. They are playing a game and having fun. Let them high five, dance, butt-slap, I could care less, as long as they are winning games.

Whoops double post.

="metirish":3kn98oo4]It will cost the Mets draft picks as you know , with the very easy vesting option this might as well be a four year deal.[/quote:3kn98oo4] True -- I was thinking more of the guys currently in their system that keep coming up in trade rumors - Evans, Parnell, Martinez, etc. Benjamin Grimm Dec 10 2008 07:26 AM Back page of the Daily News: K TO THE CITI. Sign of how things have changed. A year ago it would have probably been "SHEA K" I voted that I like the deal. I know you need good arms in the bullpen, so therefore this will help. But I think the importance of celebrity closers is overrated, so I don't see this as having the kind of impact they got from getting Santana. willpie Dec 10 2008 08:51 AM I went for Like. I'm on the verge of Love, especially for that amount of money. I'm worried about his arm, though. Between his antics and Reyes's, we ought to see some good fights this year. Benjamin Grimm Dec 10 2008 08:57 AM His antics really are a bit much. I don't think I've ever seen him pitch, (the Mets games in Anaheim this year were well past my bedtime) but I saw some clips last night in the opening montage of Mets Hot Stove Report. batmagadanleadoff Dec 10 2008 10:12 AM I voted "Love It". The Mets obtained one of baseball's best relievers. I don't see how any Met fan could not love this acquisition. I understand that FR might underperform, or even flop in 2009. But so could Beltran. Or Wright. Today, no one knows for sure, either way. By the way, this Mets pickup is hardly back-page headline worthy any more: Edgy DC Dec 10 2008 11:23 AM Pass the physical! Physical! You gotta pass the physical! Come on pass the physical Let me hear the trainer talk! Trainer talk! Let me hear the trainer talk! Valadius Dec 10 2008 11:39 AM C.C. Sabathia and Mo Vaughn having dinner - how much food would be consumed? Frayed Knot Dec 10 2008 11:41 AM All of it metirish Dec 10 2008 01:29 PM Some nuggets here from David Lennon. ] The Mets will the announce the signing of Francisco Rodriguez here at the Bellagio later Wednesday afternoon when GM Omar Minaya steps to the podium. Rodriguez completed his physical in New York earlier Wednesday to clear the way to make the three-year, $37-million deal official. Also, new details emerged Wednesday about the speedy negotiations with the free-agent closer: -- When K-Rod and his agent, Paul Kinzer, had dinner with the Mets on Sunday night, they were pleasantly surprised when the team executives got a call from Johan Santana, who had no idea they were meeting with Rodriguez. K-Rod, a fellow Venezuelan, idolizes Santana and was thrilled that he called. The Mets handed the phone to K-Rod and the two talked. In retrospect, it was a turning point as Santana expressed his excitement that K-Rod could be closing games for him. The Mets blew seven saves for Santana last season. -- After the Mets' initial offer of two years, $24 million, the two sides had marathon negotiating sessions on Monday that stretched until 5 a.m. Tuesday morning in Omar Minaya's suite. The clock was ticking because COO Jeff Wilpon was leaving Las Vegas on his private jet at 7:40 a.m.Tuesday and both sides wanted a deal done before then. Kinzer even brought in K-Rod for the final two hours of those talks just so he could see the urgency and stress involved. -- Just as the Mets badly needed K-Rod, he needed them too, and both sides seemed to realize that. Kinzer stressed that K-Rod is best on the big stage and that's why New York is perfect for him. A few other teams were involved with K-Rod, but not the Cardinals -- as was reported -- or the Angels, despite the bottom falling out of the closer market. -- So what number will K-Rod wear? His first choice is 57, but that's taken by Santana. Next is 37, but that once belonged to Casey Stengel and is retired. So that leaves his next favorite, the No. 17, which Fernando Tatis wore last season and was famously owned by Keith Hernandez. It's safe to say that K-Rod may be able to wrangle the No. 17 from Tatis -- perhaps with a new Rolex or some other token of appreciation. Benjamin Grimm Dec 10 2008 01:42 PM So he likes the number seven, but seems to not want an even number in the tens column. 17, 37, 57, 77, 97. 97 would be a cool number. seawolf17 Dec 10 2008 01:49 PM Fucking hell, Frod. 17 is Keith Fucking Hernandez's number. Take 77 and like it. Benjamin Grimm Dec 10 2008 01:56 PM ="Adam Rubin":1imbkppa]Las Vegas - Francisco Rodriguez was at the Hospital for Special Surgery in Manhattan Wednesday morning, undergoing a physical. There was no official word on K-Rod passing the physical, though the Mets hope to make an announcement within hours that he's cleared the medical hurdle. A press conference is expected to be held next Wednesday in New York. With Citi Field not ready to host press conferences, the location of next week's event is unclear. Rodriguez agreed to a three-year, $37 million deal Tuesday with a fourth-year vesting option based on games finished.[/quote:1imbkppa] They should all put on hardhats and have the press conference at what's left of Shea Stadium. Valadius Dec 10 2008 02:03 PM ="seawolf17":19bv4xds]Fucking hell, Frod. 17 is Keith Fucking Hernandez's number. Take 77 and like it.[/quote:19bv4xds] This is why we retire numbers. Centerfield Dec 10 2008 02:14 PM ="seawolf17":30mm7xcs]Fucking hell, Frod. 17 is Keith Fucking Hernandez's number. Take 77 and like it.[/quote:30mm7xcs] DAE. SUNG. KOO. metirish Dec 10 2008 02:18 PM Mr. Koo did that number proud. Zvon Dec 10 2008 02:59 PM I like this. Can't feel the love for it until I see what he does for us. I learned a long time ago not to throw my heart around like that. Landing a real closer was my number one concern, and its been addressed. The deal is at a nice price and length. So I'm really liking this. G-Fafif Dec 10 2008 04:24 PM E-mail from mets.com says K-Rod goes for No. 75. Fman99 Dec 10 2008 08:04 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":ti8ow5qk]="Adam Rubin":ti8ow5qk]Las Vegas - Francisco Rodriguez was at the Hospital for Special Surgery in Manhattan Wednesday morning, undergoing a physical. There was no official word on K-Rod passing the physical, though the Mets hope to make an announcement within hours that he's cleared the medical hurdle. A press conference is expected to be held next Wednesday in New York. With Citi Field not ready to host press conferences, the location of next week's event is unclear. Rodriguez agreed to a three-year, $37 million deal Tuesday with a fourth-year vesting option based on games finished.[/quote:ti8ow5qk] They should all put on hardhats and have the press conference at what's left of Shea Stadium.[/quote:ti8ow5qk] You were close. Frank et al. were at the new park, but donning the Mets hardhats, which are damn foolish looking if you're not welding something. Big "Mets welcome K-Rod" sign at CitiField. They apparently aren't reading this thread. SteveJRogers Dec 10 2008 08:39 PM =Adam Rubin]A press conference is expected to be held next Wednesday in New York. With Citi Field not ready to host press conferences, the location of next week's event is unclear. Interesting. They can not host press conferences, but last September advertisements in the Mets program suggested that starting this winter, i.e. now, Citi Field would ready to be hosting "events" (corporate, weddings, whatever the heck they did at Shea) and were soliciting reservations. batmagadanleadoff Dec 11 2008 09:45 AM It's still Autumn. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 11 2008 09:50 AM May also have to do with communication-type stuff and broadcasting abilities coming in later than banquet rooms. Benjamin Grimm Dec 11 2008 09:53 AM I'm guessing they have to wait until Citi Field is no longer a hard-hat zone. metirish Dec 13 2008 12:46 PM K-Rod jumps right into Mets-Phillies rivalry BY KEN DAVIDOFF | ken.davidoff@newsday.com 12:53 PM EST, December 13, 2008 Francisco Rodriguez didn't even wait for his first save to jump into the war of words between the Mets and Phillies. In a telephone news conference today, K-Rod's first interaction with the New York media, the Mets' new closer proclaimed his confidence in his new teammates. "Of course we're going to be the frontrunner," Rodriguez told reporters. "Of course were going to be the team to beat. "I don't want there to be a controversy. I don't want the other team to take it personally, or take it in a bad way. But I'm a really competitive guy. I like to win. "If they ask me, "Who's going to be the ball club that will win the National League East, it'll be the Mets." "Team to beat" has become a well-known phrase in the Mets-Phillies rivalry. Phillies shortstop Jimmy Rollins first used the words to describe his team prior to the 2007 season, and Rollins proceeded to win the National League Most Valuable Player award as his team lived up to that proclamation. This past season, during spring training, the Mets' Carlos Beltran, usually soft-spoken, declared his club as the team to beat. The Mets couldn't quite make Beltran look good, giving up a mid-September divisional lead. On Thursday, Phillies ace Cole Hamels upped the ante when, on an interview with WFAN, he referred to the Mets as "choke artists." Rodriguez said that his velocity did drop in 2008, as many scouts and opponents observed, but that it happened because he was working in a new pitch, a changeup that proved effective. In 2009, he said, his velocity should return to the mid-90s now that he's more comfortable with the arm action needed to make his fastball and changeup look identical out of his hand. Ashie62 Dec 14 2008 06:25 PM On Thursday, Phillies ace Cole Hamels upped the ante when, on an interview with WFAN, he referred to the Mets as "choke artists." Well..he's not totally off base But I signed up for phillienation under a bogus ID and sent Chase Utley a less than friendly "get well" email. metirish Dec 17 2008 11:29 AM Looks like Barry Bonds. Mets introduce Rodriguez. metirish Dec 17 2008 01:56 PM > Benjamin Grimm Dec 17 2008 02:03 PM He has "K-ROD" monogrammed into his shirts? Oh, brother. I'm afraid that nickname isn't going to go away any time soon. But, wow, don't Jeff and Jerry seem thrilled? You'd think a faulty bullpen caused them to miss the playoffs last season. metirish Dec 17 2008 02:08 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":1i00hhby]He has "K-ROD" monogrammed into his shirts? Oh, brother. I'm afraid that nickname isn't going to go away any time soon. But, wow, don't Jeff and Jerry seem thrilled? You'd think a faulty bullpen caused them to miss the playoffs last season.[/quote:1i00hhby] That Jeff can smile like that after Dad got taken to the cleaners is admirable. I admire you Jeffy Wilpon , nothing stands in this mans way. Centerfield Dec 17 2008 02:08 PM Meanwhile Omar has a look that seems to say "This shit had better work or I'm gonna end up bantering with Kruk on Baseball Tonight." Benjamin Grimm Dec 17 2008 02:12 PM Ain't dat the troof! My concern is that Omar is fixing last year's problem, which is well and good, but not addressing next year's problem. I don't like how he's standing pat on the offense. Sure, they scored a lot of runs last year, but guys like Delgado and Tatis are both one year older (actually, everyone is, but it's more of an issue with the old guys!) and we might also see decline from guys like Church and Castillo. themetfairy Mar 30 2009 10:58 AM I couldn't find the thread where we were discussing possible nicknames for our new closer. However, I was at the Modell's in Herald Square yesterday, and there was a lot of K-Rod 75 merchandise on display. metirish Mar 30 2009 11:01 AM One of the TV guys said that Rodriguez does not like or want to be called K-Rod...I think it was keith who said it....goes by Frankie..

I heart Frankie. This guy was the best closer on the market and it didn't cost any young talent.

Bleh. DON'T DO IT OMAR. Varitek hit .220 last year. Pudge hit .219 in New York. They are both 36 and many years past their all-star primes. Just put down the checkbook and walk away. Take a gander on someone younger, please please please.

Tap. This time it is by merit of their great appearance on "The Simpsons," and also the scene in the film where they all have herpes. That shit kills me.

I'm just mad that this guy is wearing my pubic mane on his face. I need that back.

I have trouble reading this! How much coffee has he had today?!?! My brain hurts!

="Benjamin Grimm":140ramoh]They'd name it "Wilpon Field" before they'd name it "Payson Field."[/quote:140ramoh] Sorry Mr. Wilpon, the name "Dodger Stadium" is already taken. metirish Nov 21 2008 10:44 AM Citi were/are one of the banks bailed out by the taxpayer , as a taxpayer I would ask the treasury to void the Citigroup contract with the Mets. not that they will listen to me. Valadius Nov 21 2008 11:33 AM You all know how I feel on this. Ashie62 Nov 21 2008 01:46 PM Citi Press Release onnaming rights banking giant Citigroup Inc (C.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) for the baseball team's new ballpark remains in place. The 20-year deal, announced two years ago, was reported to be a record $400 million and entailed naming the new stadium Citi Field after it opened in 2009 in the New York borough of Queens, adjacent to the team's old home, Shea Stadium. "There is no change in regard to Citi's commitment to the new ballpark," Mets spokesman Jay Horowitz said in an email. Citigroup officials did not immediately return phone calls seeking comment on the matter. Citigroup shares tumbled for the fifth straight day on Friday as Chief Executive Vikram Pandit tried to downplay speculation the second largest U.S. bank by assets may sell major businesses to restore its health and investor confidence. The company's shares have lost more than half their value this week, and investors widely wonder if the government will have to offer some form of additional assistance to what was once the largest bank in the world. Earlier in the week, Citigroup set plans to shed 52,000 of its 352,000 jobs by early 2009 and move tens of billions of dollars in troubled securities onto its balance sheet. A person familiar with the matter told Reuters on Thursday that Citigroup was weighing options, including a sale of parts of the company or a merger with another company. The financial sector, a big investor in the sports industry through naming rights deals, sponsorships and the purchase of stadium suites and season tickets, has been battered by exposure to toxic mortgage debt and the fast weakening U.S. economy. Many sports have begun to feel the economic pinch, resulting in layoffs and other cost-cutting measures. Major League Baseball froze its budget for 2009 and several teams have maintained or even cut ticket prices for next season amid signs of worry. DHL Express, a sponsor for both Major League Baseball and several teams, has approached at least one club to request the early termination of its sponsorship agreement. DHL's parent, Deutsche Post AG (DPWGn.DE: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), said on Nov. 10 it would slash 9,500 jobs and halt U.S. domestic services at DHL. (Reporting by Ben Klayman, editing by Leslie Gevirtz) � Thomson Reuters 2008 All rights reserved Ashie62 Nov 21 2008 01:49 PM I f need be for names.. David & Jose's Most excellent Stadium Hooverville 9/11 Memorial field Tom Seaver Stadium Thads Steakhouse field Royal Crown Cola field Shea Stadium Hi all..nice site.. metirish Nov 21 2008 01:53 PM Ashburn Alley Edgy DC Nov 21 2008 01:55 PM Welcome abordick, Ashie. Maybe they pay off their obligation by giving Sterling Enterprises a pile of devalued stock. Benjamin Grimm Nov 21 2008 01:55 PM ="metirish":18ja53nr]Ashburn Alley[/quote:18ja53nr] Yeah, let's name our ballpark after a Phillie legend. themetfairy Nov 21 2008 01:56 PM Hi Ashie - Welcome A-Bordick! Centerfield Nov 21 2008 02:00 PM Let's pass the hat and make a bid for Crane Pool Stadium. dgwphotography Nov 21 2008 08:17 PM ] -Jackie Robinson Park If we're going to name it after a former Dodger, I say Gil Hodges Field. Nymr83 Nov 22 2008 02:25 AM how bout stop naming things and doing things for a team that skipped town 50 years ago, the Mets have their own history should they choose to honor someone/something Benjamin Grimm Nov 22 2008 05:11 AM I'm really not inclined to name it after anyone. I'd prefer a name like Flushing Meadows Field. DocTee Nov 22 2008 07:25 AM ]I'd prefer a name like Flushing Meadows Field. Are you crazy??? Flushing MF? I can hear it now...jokes about shitty play, crappy facilities..it will never stop. SteveJRogers Nov 22 2008 08:43 AM ="Nymr83":209i7anv]how bout stop naming things and doing things for a team that skipped town 50 years ago, the Mets have their own history should they choose to honor someone/something[/quote:209i7anv]\ Wait, I got it, and it is a corporate one, "GTS Vineyards Stadium!" THAT would be cool actually! Edgy DC Nov 22 2008 01:21 PM I don't know why this keeps coming up, but naming something for Gil Hodges or Jackie Robinson isn't naming something "for a team that skipped town 50 years ago." SteveJRogers Nov 22 2008 01:46 PM To be fair, Robinson does have the whole argument of "Why are we honoring a man who was never even ASSOCIATED with the Met franchise" and while yes Hodges is a huge part of Met history to some it would reek of Wilpon loving the Dodgers and their history more than he loves the team he owns and its history. It would be that way, sorry Greg, if the Mets did something to honor Willie Mays or any New York Giant as well. Ashie62 Nov 22 2008 02:18 PM ="Edgy DC":3n3ku55k]I don't know why this keeps coming up, but naming something for Gil Hodges or Jackie Robinson isn't naming something "for a team that skipped town 50 years ago."[/quote:3n3ku55k] I would agree. We are the New York Mets with our own unique Heritage..I don't see that either Jackie Robinson, Gil Hodges, or Carl Furillo for example...have enough or place in NY Mets 1962-present Heritage to have a stadium named for them. Yes..Hodges played abit and managed but he is largly remebered as a Brooklyn Dodger. It seems like Citifield is a Brooklyn Dodger sandwich being shoved down Met pants. hey, I'd go for Ed Kranepool Stadium before any of the above names. Benjamin Grimm Nov 22 2008 02:20 PM I can only think of one stadium that was ever named, albeit briefly, for a broadcaster. None that were named for players. One that was named for a manager, but he was a manager/owner. Before corporate naming, ballparks were named for the teams that played in them, or for their owners, or for the city, or for the neighborhood in which the ballpark was built. Kong76 Nov 22 2008 02:31 PM Wow, Ashie's been posting here since 1969! Welcome to the pool. Nymr83 Nov 22 2008 02:32 PM ="KC":3b0t2n16]Wow, Ashie's been posting here since 1969! [/quote:3b0t2n16] According to Joe Biden, the internet existed then. RealityChuck Nov 22 2008 03:25 PM Stengel Stadium. Yes, he was known for the MFY, but also managed in Brooklyn. And he was instrumental in making the team a success in 1962 (it certainly wasn't the players on the field) by the way he charmed the press and the fans. Other options: Chan Ho Park Sell the naming rights to Field Enterprises and call it Field Field. Prince Fielder has a lot of money. Why not Fielder Field? Edgy DC Nov 22 2008 04:45 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 23 2008 10:27 AM The idea of naming something in honor of Hodges or Robinson --- neither of which is going to happen --- is not to advance the Mets brand or the Dodgers brand, but to honor somebody worthy of honor. Kong76 Nov 22 2008 05:36 PM The whole Brooklyn Fred thing got old like six years ago. Met Hunter Nov 22 2008 10:18 PM Banco Popular Stadium. Zvon Nov 23 2008 05:27 AM Metropolitan Park Edgy DC Nov 23 2008 06:28 AM ="Met Hunter":3jxqxslt]Banco Popular Stadium.[/quote:3jxqxslt] Estadio Popular. MFS62 Nov 23 2008 08:10 AM ="DocTee"]Are you crazy??? Flushing MF? I can hear it now...jokes about shitty play, crappy facilities..it will never stop. HEY! I resemble that remark! Later soupcan Nov 23 2008 11:12 AM ="Ashie62":268xwysm] It seems like Citifield is a Brooklyn Dodger sandwich being shoved down Met pants.[/quote:268xwysm] Oooh! A sandwich shoved into my pants! metirish Nov 23 2008 04:42 PM Just watched a report on NBC Evening News that Citi are right now in talks with the Government to"save the bank ", that's the term the financial expert used . Valadius Nov 23 2008 07:49 PM I would hope that one of their first moves is to terminate their naming rights agreement to save capital. Edgy DC Nov 23 2008 08:49 PM By all accounts, they don't intend to do that. Valadius Nov 23 2008 09:29 PM Well, if I were in Congress, and I were negotiating a bailout deal with Citigroup, that would be the first condition I would make them agree to. Ashie62 Nov 23 2008 10:16 PM It appears Citigroup will belong to the taxpayers before the open tomorrow. I don't think the Treasury would allow funding of naming rights. Those Citi signs kinda looked like Dominos logos anyway. Enron Park became Minute Maid park..Life will go on I only hope Wilpons Real Estate Empire isn't in the tank Only the Mets could be unlucky enough to have the U.S. Treasury cut payroll to pay back naming rights money..Thats a joke..I hope Nymr83 Nov 23 2008 10:37 PM you don't know that the government will force them to try and cancel any naming deals (can they even get out of the contract sahort of filing for bankruptcy? i dont know.) its entirely possible that the naming deal constitutes a bargain as far as advertising goes. Edgy DC Nov 23 2008 10:48 PM ="Valadius":2zpn40f1]Well, if I were in Congress, and I were negotiating a bailout deal with Citigroup, that would be the first condition I would make them agree to.[/quote:2zpn40f1] Should they zero out their marketing budget entirely? Nymr83 Nov 24 2008 12:21 AM thats pretty much the point i was trying to make, naming a stadium after your company isn't the same as the Executive Yacht, its advertising just like any other. Whether or not it is sound advertising strategy I'm no expert. seawolf17 Nov 24 2008 07:22 AM I'd bet that at least some chunk of that money is already spent, so I don't know that it matters. Either way, I'd guess the name stays. SteveJRogers Nov 24 2008 09:29 AM Should they also cancel out the deal with the Ducks and CitiBank Park out on Long Island and other buildings that the name is on. Which also includes a retail center in mid-town. Benjamin Grimm Nov 24 2008 09:41 AM I suspect that the Citi name will remain, and that's okay. It's better than a lot of other corporate names would have been. (We can just pretend that it's "City Field" which has a nice 19th Century sound to it.) But I also wouldn't mind if the place somehow ended up with a non-corporate name for just the 2009 season until a new sponsor was found. That would give us a real name for the park, one that we could continue to use for years to come. I don't want the name of the place to change every few years as one bank takes over another and then we don't know what to call it. Maybe we should just think of it as "Ebbets Field II" Edgy DC Nov 24 2008 09:45 AM It would take a bank the size of --- well, the US government --- to take over Citi. Benjamin Grimm Nov 24 2008 09:50 AM Treasury Department Field. metirish Nov 24 2008 09:57 AM This article is in Newsday today. ] Citigroup sheds workers, keeps Mets deal Anthony Rieber 10:32 AM EST, November 24, 2008 You might have missed the news because it came on Friday, but Citigroup announced it was not planning to back out of the naming rights deal for the Mets' new stadium, Citi Field. That's the 20-year, $400-million naming rights deal. From a company that: -- Earlier in the week announced it was going to let go of 52,000 workers by early next year. Anthony Rieber Anthony Rieber Bio | E-mail | Recent columns Related links * Citi Field construction Citi Field construction Photos * Free agency forecast What do you expect from the Mets when free agency begins? A huge splash and a big name closer (K-Rod?) They'll make a trade and maybe one or two bullpen signings They'll make some additions to the bullpen, but not much else They'll try to go with cheap options and hope for the best -- Saw its shares on the stock market lose more than half their value. -- May have to sell parts of the company or merge with another company. -- May require a massive government bailout to stay in business. But that $20 million per year check to the Mets to keep the Citi Field sign up (yes, it's already up)? That check is in the mail, don't worry. And the Mets can count on $20 million more just like it each of the next 19 years. Uh-huh. We've heard that one before. Heck, some of us have probably said it. Sure, we can afford that new sofa. The big flat-screen. The i-Phone. Don't worry ... we're a little cash-poor now, but we're good for it. Let's hope the Mets aren't banking their winter free-agent plans on getting that $20 million from Citigroup, or whatever the company will be called by April 13, when the new ballpark opens. Francisco Rodriguez or Brian Fuentes or whoever else the Mets have on their shopping list expect to be paid in cash, not IOUs. I'd say the Mets should be sweating the arrival of that money, but the Mets have to be smart enough to know the naming rights deal is never going to survive the full 20 years, or maybe the next 20 minutes. Here's what the Citigroup spokesman told Reuters on Friday: "We remain committed to our relationship with the Mets. It's an important marketing priority for us." Well, by all means, don't scrimp on that marketing budget. I mean, 52,000 people are going to get pink-slipped between now and Opening Day -- want to bet that spokesman has updated his own resume in the last week or so? -- but Citigroup remains committed to giving the Mets nearly a half a billion dollars to see its name in lights on a baseball stadium. Seriously, with decisions like that, it's not hard to see why Citigroup is in such trouble. You have to wonder if the whole naming-rights thing is just an ego trip for the company executives. Are you more likely to put your money in a Citibank account because your Mets' tickets say "Citi Field" on them? (Actually, that's a trick question. In the current economy, you don't have any money to put in the bank, and you can't afford tickets to Citi Field.) Or maybe naming rights deals really are good business. Maybe Citi Field will become a shining beacon of sports/business synergy, just like Enron Field and Bank One Ballpark and Pacific Bell Park and SBC Park and Ameriquest Field and Edison International Field and Network Associates Coliseum and McAfee Coliseum. All of those are past names of current baseball stadiums. Some have been renamed more than once. The naming rights deals either changed hands when the parent companies were sold or merged, or the deals were not renewed for one reason or another, or the deal went belly-up when the company when kaput and took all of its employees with it. That one was Enron Field in Houston, now Minute Maid Park. Good thing people still drink orange juice. We're not saying Citigroup is going to go the way of Enron, but wouldn't that $400 million help even a little? Maybe the Citigroup spokesman and some of the 52,000 can keep their jobs? And do the Mets really need that $20 million? Maybe they'd make better decisions if they had less money to spend. They spent $19.9 million in 2008 on this: Moises Alou ($7.5 million), Luis Castillo ($6.2 million), Scott Schoenweis ($3.6 million), Aaron Heilman ($1.2 million), Marlon Anderson ($1 million) and Ambiorix Burgos ($400,000). The Yankees, who have turned their new stadium into an ATM even more than the Mets have, did not sell naming rights. It will be called Yankee Stadium. Good for them. Which got us to thinking ... sure, the Mets can probably get another company to pony up the dough if Citigroup backs out. Maybe by Opening Day they'll be playing in Taco Bell Field or Staples Stadium or Enzo's Pizza Park. We've got the perfect name for the new ballpark, though. One that won't cost a dime and won't have to be changed with every hiccup in the corporate world. Shea Stadium. G-Fafif Nov 24 2008 10:06 AM ="metirish"]This article is in Newsday today. ] Citigroup sheds workers, keeps Mets deal Anthony Rieber 10:32 AM EST, November 24, 2008 You might have missed the news because it came on Friday, but Citigroup announced it was not planning to back out of the naming rights deal for the Mets' new stadium, Citi Field. That's the 20-year, $400-million naming rights deal. From a company that: -- Earlier in the week announced it was going to let go of 52,000 workers by early next year. Anthony Rieber Anthony Rieber Bio | E-mail | Recent columns Related links * Citi Field construction Citi Field construction Photos * Free agency forecast What do you expect from the Mets when free agency begins? A huge splash and a big name closer (K-Rod?) They'll make a trade and maybe one or two bullpen signings They'll make some additions to the bullpen, but not much else They'll try to go with cheap options and hope for the best -- Saw its shares on the stock market lose more than half their value. -- May have to sell parts of the company or merge with another company. -- May require a massive government bailout to stay in business. But that $20 million per year check to the Mets to keep the Citi Field sign up (yes, it's already up)? That check is in the mail, don't worry. And the Mets can count on $20 million more just like it each of the next 19 years. Uh-huh. We've heard that one before. Heck, some of us have probably said it. Sure, we can afford that new sofa. The big flat-screen. The i-Phone. Don't worry ... we're a little cash-poor now, but we're good for it. Let's hope the Mets aren't banking their winter free-agent plans on getting that $20 million from Citigroup, or whatever the company will be called by April 13, when the new ballpark opens. Francisco Rodriguez or Brian Fuentes or whoever else the Mets have on their shopping list expect to be paid in cash, not IOUs. I'd say the Mets should be sweating the arrival of that money, but the Mets have to be smart enough to know the naming rights deal is never going to survive the full 20 years, or maybe the next 20 minutes. Here's what the Citigroup spokesman told Reuters on Friday: "We remain committed to our relationship with the Mets. It's an important marketing priority for us." Well, by all means, don't scrimp on that marketing budget. I mean, 52,000 people are going to get pink-slipped between now and Opening Day -- want to bet that spokesman has updated his own resume in the last week or so? -- but Citigroup remains committed to giving the Mets nearly a half a billion dollars to see its name in lights on a baseball stadium. Seriously, with decisions like that, it's not hard to see why Citigroup is in such trouble. You have to wonder if the whole naming-rights thing is just an ego trip for the company executives. Are you more likely to put your money in a Citibank account because your Mets' tickets say "Citi Field" on them? (Actually, that's a trick question. In the current economy, you don't have any money to put in the bank, and you can't afford tickets to Citi Field.) Or maybe naming rights deals really are good business. Maybe Citi Field will become a shining beacon of sports/business synergy, just like Enron Field and Bank One Ballpark and Pacific Bell Park and SBC Park and Ameriquest Field and Edison International Field and Network Associates Coliseum and McAfee Coliseum. All of those are past names of current baseball stadiums. Some have been renamed more than once. The naming rights deals either changed hands when the parent companies were sold or merged, or the deals were not renewed for one reason or another, or the deal went belly-up when the company when kaput and took all of its employees with it. That one was Enron Field in Houston, now Minute Maid Park. Good thing people still drink orange juice. We're not saying Citigroup is going to go the way of Enron, but wouldn't that $400 million help even a little? Maybe the Citigroup spokesman and some of the 52,000 can keep their jobs? And do the Mets really need that $20 million? Maybe they'd make better decisions if they had less money to spend. They spent $19.9 million in 2008 on this: Moises Alou ($7.5 million), Luis Castillo ($6.2 million), Scott Schoenweis ($3.6 million), Aaron Heilman ($1.2 million), Marlon Anderson ($1 million) and Ambiorix Burgos ($400,000). The Yankees, who have turned their new stadium into an ATM even more than the Mets have, did not sell naming rights. It will be called Yankee Stadium. Good for them. Which got us to thinking ... sure, the Mets can probably get another company to pony up the dough if Citigroup backs out. Maybe by Opening Day they'll be playing in Taco Bell Field or Staples Stadium or Enzo's Pizza Park. We've got the perfect name for the new ballpark, though. One that won't cost a dime and won't have to be changed with every hiccup in the corporate world. Shea Stadium. Sports columnist equivalent of a weak-hitting utilityman snarks it up way out of his pay grade. Maybe they should rename the park after Anthony Rieber and the entire pathetic Newsday sports department. Call it The Tool Shed. Edgy DC Nov 24 2008 10:37 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 24 2008 11:52 AM That's not an article. It's an editorial. And, as you see, way out of his league. G-Fafif Nov 24 2008 11:49 AM You can make a reasoned, insightful, informative case for avoiding naming rights entanglements or at least entering them with great care. You can analyze such situations in light of recent events and strive for a fresh take on a well-worn topic. At best, you can introduce some ideas that might morph into solutions for all involved. Or you can be Anthony Rieber of Newsday and write your column while brushing your teeth. ]You might have missed the news because it came on Friday, but Citigroup announced it was not planning to back out of the naming rights deal for the Mets' new stadium, Citi Field. Watch out, reader. Anthony Rieber is about to inform you. ]That's the 20-year, $400-million naming rights deal. Lot of numbers. Must be more than the columnist can comprehend. ]From a company that: -- Earlier in the week announced it was going to let go of 52,000 workers by early next year. -- Saw its shares on the stock market lose more than half their value. -- May have to sell parts of the company or merge with another company. -- May require a massive government bailout to stay in business. Anybody wanna bet Anthony Rieber never read a financial story before whichever one he cribbed from so he could take a whack at the principals in this one? ]But that $20 million per year check to the Mets to keep the Citi Field sign up (yes, it's already up)? That check is in the mail, don't worry. And the Mets can count on $20 million more just like it each of the next 19 years. Ha! "It's already up." What a card. It's been up since August, as hundreds of thousands if not millions have seen for themselves. And there is a contract. It might very well have provisions for this sort of calamity. Or it might not. You could ask around. Or you could go for an easy laugh (and fail). ]Uh-huh. We've heard that one before. Heck, some of us have probably said it. Sure, we can afford that new sofa. The big flat-screen. The i-Phone. Don't worry ... we're a little cash-poor now, but we're good for it. This recession is hilarious. Companies are just like us. Equivalency is a graspable concept. ]Let's hope the Mets aren't banking their winter free-agent plans on getting that $20 million from Citigroup, or whatever the company will be called by April 13, when the new ballpark opens. They probably aren't. If I recall correctly, the $20 million per annum was framed as helping to pay down the debt on the ballpark. Again, a reporter might dig into the archives or ask somebody familiar with these sorts of deals if, in fact, neither the Mets nor Citigroup (which has higher priorities today, I'm guessin) is talking. ]Francisco Rodriguez or Brian Fuentes or whoever else the Mets have on their shopping list expect to be paid in cash, not IOUs. I'd say the Mets should be sweating the arrival of that money, but the Mets have to be smart enough to know the naming rights deal is never going to survive the full 20 years, or maybe the next 20 minutes. Lord knows the Mets have no source of income with which to meet payroll except for that naming rights fee. Was Johan Santana paid throughout 2008 with "IOUs"? And Mets: listen to Rieber. He's been giving this thought since his editor sent him an e-mail last night telling him to whip something up ASAP. ]Here's what the Citigroup spokesman told Reuters on Friday: "We remain committed to our relationship with the Mets. It's an important marketing priority for us." A bland, cautious statement in uncertain times hewing to a signed contract. Rieber probably presents this as a fair counterbalance to his sarcasm. ]Well, by all means, don't scrimp on that marketing budget. I mean, 52,000 people are going to get pink-slipped between now and Opening Day -- want to bet that spokesman has updated his own resume in the last week or so? -- but Citigroup remains committed to giving the Mets nearly a half a billion dollars to see its name in lights on a baseball stadium. Whoa, don't know how I misread the writer's intention. Maybe that spokesman should have issued a release alluding to the risky nature of the deal he was commenting on and come out against it, whatever his employer's instructions. As for "nearly half a billion dollars," that's a lot of money. Therefore, it must be outlandish and outrageous that Citi, two years ago, planned a long-term marketing budget. What do you want from these Johnny-come-lately high-tech startups anyway? Obviously the same person who came up with sponsoring Citi Field is the same person who screwed everything else up. ]Seriously, with decisions like that, it's not hard to see why Citigroup is in such trouble. You have to wonder if the whole naming-rights thing is just an ego trip for the company executives. Are you more likely to put your money in a Citibank account because your Mets' tickets say "Citi Field" on them? Attention reader: Anthony Rieber is being serious. And philosophical, since "you have to wonder" about the ego trip angle. Yes, that was probably it. There aren't enough places in the New York area where the Citi logo was plastered. By the way, was I more likely to read Newsday because they hired Gary Carter as their pitchman in the mid-'80s? Has Anthony Rieber ever done any actual investigation into how marketing plans are hatched, what's their upside, why so many companies go for naming rights? Since Citi didn't invent the concept last week, it might have served him well to have, again, asked somebody who had. ](Actually, that's a trick question. In the current economy, you don't have any money to put in the bank, and you can't afford tickets to Citi Field.) He's irrepressible! "You" are screwed. Anthony Rieber is on Your side. ]Or maybe naming rights deals really are good business. Maybe Citi Field will become a shining beacon of sports/business synergy, just like Enron Field and Bank One Ballpark and Pacific Bell Park and SBC Park and Ameriquest Field and Edison International Field and Network Associates Coliseum and McAfee Coliseum. Hey, did you guys know that sometimes these things DON'T work out? That companies change names and therefore the stadiums do, too? Rieber's got an exclusive. Doesn't mention that PNC Park, Citizens Bank Park, Great American Ball Park, Raymond James Stadium have remained intact for five or more years, nor bothered to find out if those sponsors are getting their money's worth, if the teams feel they are well served, if it's really made a difference, if it's likely that eventually they too will change their names. But I didn't know that about Enron. AR: Looking out for YOU. ]All of those are past names of current baseball stadiums. Some have been renamed more than once. Thanks for clearing that up, big guy. ]The naming rights deals either changed hands when the parent companies were sold or merged, or the deals were not renewed for one reason or another, or the deal went belly-up when the company when kaput and took all of its employees with it. And certainly every one of those companies experienced the same circumstances and Citi, in 2006, loomed as exactly that sort of textbook case study. ]That one was Enron Field in Houston, now Minute Maid Park. Good thing people still drink orange juice. Ho-ho! If Minute Maid has a product recall tomorrow, Anthony Rieber will have OJ on his face! And did you hear that the Enron alliance backfired on the Astros? ]We're not saying Citigroup is going to go the way of Enron, but wouldn't that $400 million help even a little? Maybe the Citigroup spokesman and some of the 52,000 can keep their jobs? What you mean "we," sports man? No doubt 52,000 jobs could be saved a lot of ways. Nobody wouldn't prefer every one of those people stay employed over the Mets' ballpark having the name Citi Field. Please explain how money committed against a baseball stadium in 2017 would automatically be dedicated to those jobs. Better yet, have somebody attempt to explain it. ]And do the Mets really need that $20 million? Maybe they'd make better decisions if they had less money to spend. They spent $19.9 million in 2008 on this: Moises Alou ($7.5 million), Luis Castillo ($6.2 million), Scott Schoenweis ($3.6 million), Aaron Heilman ($1.2 million), Marlon Anderson ($1 million) and Ambiorix Burgos ($400,000). Ha! The Mets are dolts! They pay bad and unproductive players lots of money! They are the only team in the majors to do that, FYI. Rieber prefers teams pay money to good players only. Somebody pass it on to Omar Minaya. ]The Yankees, who have turned their new stadium into an ATM even more than the Mets have, did not sell naming rights. It will be called Yankee Stadium. Good for them. New Yankee Stadium opens in 2009. Citi Field (or whatever it's called) opens in 2009. Yankee Stadium is more successful. Their fans will afford those pricey tickets. "You," as previously explained by Prof. Rieber, won't be able to deposit money in the bank or buy Mets tickets. Good for the Yankees! They do everything right, the Mets do everything wrong. ]Which got us to thinking ... sure, the Mets can probably get another company to pony up the dough if Citigroup backs out. Maybe by Opening Day they'll be playing in Taco Bell Field or Staples Stadium or Enzo's Pizza Park. After all this, something got Rieber & Co. ("us") to thinking? Watch out, reader! His thought is the Mets could be playing in a ballpark not named for Citi Field...that they'll be playing in one with preposterous names (though he might have ramped up from Staples to Taco Bell to Enzo's Pizza for maximum effect). Bet you didn't know Rieber had that trick up his sleeve. ]We've got the perfect name for the new ballpark, though. One that won't cost a dime and won't have to be changed with every hiccup in the corporate world. The Mets can't be trusted with $20 million anyhows, so we'll want something that "won't cost a dime," whoever's dime that might be. Rieber has a fresh solution, I can feel it. Wait, let me guess... ]Shea Stadium. Did NOT see that coming! Rieber you genius, it's steak and Lowenbrau for you. metirish Nov 24 2008 11:53 AM That's some funny stuff right there G-Fafif Edgy DC Nov 24 2008 12:00 PM Hit send NOW!!!! G-Fafif Nov 24 2008 03:40 PM ABC News story finds financial institutions with their names on stadiums see no conflict between their sports marketing investments and whatever they're getting from me and you and an uncle named Sam. ]Citi, AIG Won't Drop Big Sports Sponsorships Critics Slam Bailed-Out Firms' Pricey Deals for Naming Rights, Logo Placement By JUSTIN ROOD November 24, 2008� AIG, Citibank and a number of other federally bailed-out financial institutions have no plans to cancel hundreds of millions of dollars in sports team sponsorships, even as they take billions in taxpayer support, ABC News has found. In boom times, the sponsorships were seen as a way to advertise the firms' "brands" and appeal to potential customers. Even today, at least one bank told ABC News that a naming deal was increasing its revenue. But critics, including a member of Congress, say the decision to continue them now is hard to defend. Struggling Citibank just sealed a multi-billion-dollar emergency "backstop" deal with the U.S. government. The financial behemoth, suffering with billions in bad mortgage-related assets on its books, recently shed 53,000 workers and saw its stock price lose over half its value. Yet it's in a 20-year contract to pay the New York Mets $400 million to name the team's new stadium "Citi Field." "This type of spending is indefensible and unacceptable to Citigroup's new partner and largest investor: the American taxpayer," said Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., in a statement Monday. Citi isn't alone: Imploding insurance giant AIG is paying the British soccer team Manchester United $125 million for the privilege of having its logo appear on Man U's uniforms. That, despite the fact the firm is standing largely thanks to a $150 billion lifeline from the U.S. Treasury. "A friend of mine joked they should put 'US Treasury' on the front of their uniforms," said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington, D.C.-based nonpartisan watchdog group which is outraged by the expenditures. In boom times it was fine for AIG, Citi and others to spend millions on naming rights and other promotional arrangements with professional sports teams, critics say even if they're a waste of money, as some marketing experts believe. But when the economy teeters on the brink of collapse and firms are using American taxpayers' money to keep lending or just keep their doors open those critics are making a stink about the expensive deals. "Up until now they were businesses who could invest or waste their money as they see fit," said Taxpayers for Common Sense's Ellis. "But now we're the shareholders. And frittering their money away with naming rights and ties to sports teams isn't a really good investment of taxpayers' money -- particularly when credit markets are collapsed." AIG Responds to Manchester United Deal A spokesman for AIG confirmed that its sponsorship deal with Manchester United remains in place, but that the company is "reviewing all sponsorships to identify any relationship that might be essential, to maintain the value of the business and service customers, so we can repay the [government] loan." Citicorp is not reviewing its deal with the Mets, chief financial officer Gary Crittenden said in an interview Monday. Crittenden told CNBC the contract was "legal and binding" and "not an issue." Last week, a bank spokesman defended the arrangement, saying that "there is absolutely no relationship between our sports marketing expenses, including Citi Field," and the government funds it had already received. That's not enough for Rep. Cummings. "I strongly urge Citigroup to find a way out of this contract and instead spend that $400 million on retaining its employees and restoring confidence in its operations," he said. AIG and Citibank are just two examples TCS cites of institutions who are taking federal money with one hand, and paying hefty sums to sports sponsorships and naming deals with the other. Many are banks which are not perceived as financially faltering, who have taken money from the Treasury's Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) to boost their anemic lending. Bank of America (TARP take: $25 billion) is reportedly poised to ink a $20 million-a-year sponsorship with the New York Yankees a team that is hardly hurting for cash. They are already in a reported 20-year, $140 million deal with the Carolina Panthers football team to call the team's arena "Bank of America Stadium." Bank of America spokesman Joseph Goode said his bank's deal with the Panthers is making the bank money. "Any investments we make in sponsorship marketing are directly linked to driving revenue growth for the bank," he said, noting the deal also allowed Bank of America to market debit cards with the Panthers logo. He would not comment on the reported pending deal with the Yankees. Even before the crisis, some marketers believed the naming and sponsor deals were idiotic. "It's pretty clear that it's a complete and utter waste of money, ego-driven," said Seth Godin, a marketing guru and bestselling author. Other Firms Take Public Support, Keep Sponsorship Deals It's time for banks to re-evaluate these deals, says Ellis. U.S. taxpayers ponied up billions to these to lend because they wouldn't do it with their own money, said Ellis. But now, "Just as Americans all over the country are having to decide, 'what am I going to do without?' companies are going to have to make those decisions," he said. "At the end of the day, they've got to look at the taxpayers and say, 'Yeah, we'll take your money and spend some of our assets on [naming] a stadium, or a college bowl,'" said Ellis. "That's a hard sell to the public, obviously." Who else is taking public support while holding pricey naming deals? It's not a short list. Among the biggest: PNC Bank ($7.7 billion in TARP funds pledged) is locked in a 20-year, $30 million deal to keep the home of the Pittsburgh Pirates named "PNC Park." A spokesman there said the bank did not use TARP funds to make payments on the deal. J.P. Morgan Chase ($25 billion from TARP) has a 30-year, $66 million contract for the Arizona Diamondbacks to call their stadium "Chase Field." "That was an agreement that was signed 11 years ago," by a bank that was bought by Chase, said bank spokesman Tom Kelley. "Tell me what 2008 has to do with 1997? That's a contractual obligation." Comerica ($2.3 billion in TARP funds pledged) has an identical deal with the Detroit Tigers to refer to their home field as "Comerica Park." Both expire in 2028. "From our perspective, they're not connected," said Comerica's Wayne Mielke of the stadium deal and the bank's anticipated receipt of bailout funds. "Why should it be reviewed?" The cost of the naming rights, said Mielke, "does not inhibit our ability to lend." Capital One famous for their tagline, "What's in your wallet?" and a recipient of $2.3 billion in TARP money are the proud and paying sponsor of the Capital One Bowl, formerly known as the Florida Citrus Bowl. The bank did not respond to requests for comment. Naming deals are "a big gamble," said Steve Hall, a marketing industry veteran who writes a popular advertising blog, AdRants.com. "My whole issue with the naming rights is, in a lot of cases it just sounds stupid. 'Staples Center'. . . It's sort of taken away the good old glory days of sports." That said, Hall noted that buying a stadium gets a company's name repeated an awful lot. "When a stadium gets named after a company, it gets mentioned millions of times," he said. Spend Money on Customer Service Not Naming Rights, Says Critic Instead of spending millions on naming rights, marketing guru Godin says, why not invest in something that will really improve the credibility and public opinion of banks: customer service. "Instead of spending $400 million to put your name on the side of a stadium, how about hiring enough people so that every time someone calls you on the phone it would be answered by someone who knew your name and was delighted to hear from you?" Despite the criticism from watchdogs like Taxpayers for Common Sense, given the current crisis Godin said banks would be right to follow through with these costly sponsorships. The economic collapse is being fueled by a lack of confidence in what tomorrow will bring, he said, and banks' changing their behavior would signal that fear is justified. "When banks walk around. . . wasting money on sports sponsorships," said Godin, "it sends a message of profligate spending and confidence." G-Fafif Nov 24 2008 03:45 PM Misleading headline aside, Star-Ledger story says the Mets are determined to get their money, whatever name it comes by. ]Citi Field name change a possibility, New York Mets say November 24, 2008 15:14 PM Citigroup is the latest financial institution in line for a federal buyout, but the Mets say their new stadium will still be named Citi Field, at least for the time being. According to an article on the Mets' web site: ]The naming-rights agreement between the Mets and Citi, said to be worth $400 million over 20 years, is not in jeopardy, the Mets say. But they understand a takeover is possible and that a name change probably would follow. As much as the club favors the current name -- it considers it far less corporate-sounding than most of the new names for stadiums and sports arenas, it is much more conscious of the revenue connected to it. And the deal is not an issue. G-Fafif Nov 24 2008 04:00 PM The Mets may have poor timing on the final days of seasons, but they hit their marks (and dollars) perfectly in November 2006, according to Darren Rovell of CNBC. ]The New York Mets theme song for the 2009 season is "We built this Citi." The question is whether the Citi will stand. Questions about whether the humungous 20-year, $400 million naming rights deal that the bank agreed to two years ago for the new Mets stadium would stand up, began when the global financial crisis started. Then the 53,000 jobs cut at Citi, the second largest single job cuts in terms of volume in history. And last night, the government injecting $20 billion into Citigroup. Sure, the $20 million a year is a drop in the bucket, but the important point to make here is that the folks at Citi are at least behaving as if the Mets made this contract so locked up, that they couldn't get out of it no matter what the financial situation was. "You know, those (naming rights) decisions were made in a different time and a different place and we have a legal and binding agreement around that and so I never heard it discussed," Citi's CFO Gary Crittenden told Erin Burnett on our "Squawk on the Street" this morning. "I don't think it's an issue." As far as the Mets are concerned, good for them. No other company, in this environment, would give them $20 million a year. I don't even think they could get $12 million at this point, to be frank. As far as Citi is concerned, it's definitely going to be uncomfortable. Whether it's rational or not, they're going to hear people asking how many employees they could have had back for that $20 million annual investment. The right question to ask, and I don't know the answer to this is, what's a better investment for the company, the people you could have working for those dollars or the naming rights to the stadium? Things of course get doubly uncomfortable now that it's taxpayer dollars on the line. No one expects that AIG sponsorship of Manchester United to stick now that the government is involved. Sure, the AIG bailout is much bigger, but that doesn't take away from the fact that a high profile sports sponsorship doesn't seem as necessary as it once did. Doesn't sound like the Mets and Citi will be walking hand-in-hand as partners, does it? More like, "just try and get our hands out of your pockets." Blogger Phil Wahba at Reuters seconds Rovell's "drop in the bucket" line -- $400 mil over 20 years in the face of a bailout worth $326 billion ($20 bil in capital injection, $306 bil in losses assumed) -- and attempts to "follow the money": ]The government gives funds to Citigroup, who is now better able to make an annual payment to the Mets. Sounds a bit like a new taxpayer subsidy for the Mets, who are already receiving government subsidies for building their stadium. Probably an oversimplification, no matter what it sounds a bit like. But yeah, kind of. G-Fafif Nov 24 2008 04:34 PM One more for your evening reading, from Newsweek, on the need to strike a balance between effective cost-cutting and symbolic cost-cutting. ]Citi Field is also a tough one. In 2006, Citi signed a $400 million, 20-year deal to name the Mets' new stadium after the company. It's hard to walk away from signed contracts. And if Citi manages to stick around for the next 20 years, this could turn out to be a very good deal. The company's name will be mentioned millions of times in a range of media - online, television, radio, newspapers - over the next two decades. Edgy DC Nov 25 2008 09:12 AM GM has cut ties to Tiger Woods, which strikes me as more symbolic than effective. On the other hand, with him re-habbing instead of winning tournaments, it may be a shrewd move. G-Fafif Nov 25 2008 10:11 AM Grandstanding Rep. Elijah Cummings is on top of the Met Zeitgeist more than he could possibly understand. ]One would think that the Mets would be open to finding a new sponsor, as well. Why would any team want its new stadium, the symbol of a new era of victories, to be named after and symbolized by a company claiming to be on the brink of collapse? A proposal on Huffington Post from Chris Weigant in response: ]And finally, there will be a brand-new federal tax on stadium naming rights. It will be at the rate of 100%. So if you pay $400 million to name the Mets' stadium after yourselves, then you now owe a further $400 million to the federal government. We'll even be reasonable about it, OK? The first four hundred million dollars you can write off as "advertising," just like in the past. But the $400 billion "naming tax" will come out of your profits, and is not deductible -- and is over and above what taxes you will pay on that profit. It's a separate tax, in other words. If this causes naming rights to become too expensive, then you know what? I bet nobody would mind if we went back to naming stadiums after soldiers, dead heroes, or veterans. They, it seems to me, have already "paid" for their naming rights. Edgy DC Nov 25 2008 10:43 AM ="Rep. Elijah Cummings":28a0e0uw]Why would any team want its new stadium, the symbol of a new era of victories, to be named after and symbolized by a company claiming to be on the brink of collapse?[/quote:28a0e0uw] Maybe if I think I can come up with a reason. Or two. Or 400 million. ="Chris Weigant":28a0e0uw]And finally, there will be a brand-new federal tax on stadium naming rights. It will be at the rate of 100%.[/quote:28a0e0uw] Snarking is like the new American past time. Willets Point Nov 25 2008 11:47 AM ="Edgy DC":2n3vvg1n]Snarking is like the new American past time.[/quote:2n3vvg1n] New? Edgy DC Nov 25 2008 12:10 PM Stark off, Mr. Snarky! Willets Point Nov 25 2008 02:21 PM ="Edgy DC":10l4j6wf]Stark off, Mr. Snarky![/quote:10l4j6wf] Didn't intend to be snarky. Just meant that I've seen evidence of great American snark dating back to colonial times. Nymr83 Nov 25 2008 02:28 PM i know people showed otherwise with those diagrams but it still looks like the foul line runs into the stands Edgy DC Nov 25 2008 02:31 PM ="Willets Point":337e67ef]="Edgy DC":337e67ef]Stark off, Mr. Snarky![/quote:337e67ef] Didn't intend to be snarky. Just meant that I've seen evidence of great American snark dating back to colonial times.[/quote:337e67ef] Would you say Abigail is being snarky? Benjamin Grimm Nov 25 2008 06:47 PM ="Associated Press":2cb2g6t7]NEW YORK - Two New York City Council members say that Citigroup should show its thanks for a federal bailout by sharing the naming rights to the new Mets ballpark in Queens. The struggling bank is slated to pay $400 million over the next 20 years to name the stadium Citi Field. The bank made the commitment years ago, when it was flush with cash. Now that Citigroup is getting billions of dollars in federal aid, Staten Island Republicans Vincent Ignizio and James Oddo say the ballpark�s name should be changed to Citi/Taxpayer Field. Citigroup and Mets chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon have been saying that they have no plan to alter the naming-rights deal for the ballpark, which hosts its regular-season opener April 13. Wilpon and Citigroup spokesman Steve Silverman said they had no comment on the proposal.[/quote:2cb2g6t7] Edgy DC Nov 25 2008 07:55 PM I think Ignizio and Otto should change their names to former City Councilmembers. Nymr83 Nov 25 2008 07:59 PM I like the Taxpayer Field idea, not because of this Citi-bailout thing but because of all the money the City is contributing to these stadiums in the first place. Frayed Knot Nov 25 2008 09:51 PM ="Edgy DC":1zzwm5k9]GM has cut ties to Tiger Woods, which strikes me as more symbolic than effective. On the other hand, with him re-habbing instead of winning tournaments, it may be a shrewd move.[/quote:1zzwm5k9] A bit more than symbolic since GM (through their Buick division) not only had this arrangment with Tiger that they're not renewing when it runs out but they also atttach their name to several tournaments each year -- not coincidently those were tourneys that Tiger usually played. Be interesting to see if they also pull out of backing those tourneys seeing as how they're already less valuable if Tiger decides not to show. metirish Nov 26 2008 06:57 AM I was wondering when Wally would write his piece. ] Welcome to Bailout Ballpark Wallace Matthews November 26, 2008 So what will that new stadium in Flushing be called next year, anyway? How about John Q. Taxpayer Field? Or Joe Sixpack Park, in honor of all the people paying for it who have no chance of ever sitting in one of its 40,000 high-priced seats? Bailout Ballpark, anyone? The one thing it should not be called, under any circumstances, is Citi Field. As my colleague Anthony Rieber so ably pointed out earlier this week, while the rest of their toxic-mortgage laden house of cards comes tumbling down around them, executives of the disgraced Citigroup are sticking with their plan of paying the Mets $400 million over the next 20 years for the ego pop of seeing their name up in lights above the new ballpark. But the truth is, they're not paying for it at all. You are. That $20 million per year - which, by the way, the Mets don't seem all that eager to invest in the free-agent market despite another dismal late-season collapse - is coming out of your paycheck and mine, funneled through the federal government to the failed executives of Citigroup, and ultimately winds up in Fred Wilpon's pocket. This amounts to not only the worst kind of corporate welfare, with no punishments meted out and no strings attached, it also adds up to 20 years of free advertising for a bank with nothing to brag about but a vault full of fail. The Mets should be embarrassed to emblazon their new park with the name of an outfit whose players performed even worse than the team did last year. They should be ashamed of using your money to advertise their (worthless) services. If they had any ethics, they would cancel the deal now and start looking for a sponsor that can actually pay its own bills. But they don't, and they won't. This is just the latest chapter in two sorry histories, the first being that of the U.S. banking industry and the second being that of the New York Mets. For all the hand-wringing about the way the Yankees go about their business, it is really the Mets, the "little brothers" in town, who are the most fan-hostile organization in New York sports. All last season, they used scare tactics on their partial-plan holders - people who weren't part of some corrupt and tax-sheltered corporation, people who couldn't afford to shell out for 81 games but could scrape together enough to come 15 times a year, or 20, or every weekend. The Mets told those people, many of whom had been coming faithfully since Shea Stadium opened in 1964, that there would be no partial-plans at Citi Field, that only full season-ticket holders would be welcome in the new park. They compounded the insult by offering "season-ticket plans," along with the much-coveted priority status to buy tickets for 2009 at the new park, when there were fewer than 10 games to go in the season. Translation: If you had a 15 game partial plan, you were out, but if you bought a "full-season plan" for the last 10 games, you were in. Then, economic reality slapped them in the face. The Mets missed the playoffs again. The recession apparently put a dent in their grand all-season-ticket plan for Citi Field. Suddenly, last month, the Mets told their partial-plan holders that there would be room at the inn for them after all, although they have yet to specify how many games, in which seats, at what prices. What it has done, however, is allow them to hold on to all the money sent for playoff tickets that were never used, a sum that could be as much as $50 million. That's a $50-million, interest-free loan, courtesy of the National Bank of You. So why should an organization like that have any qualms about playing footsie with an outfit like Citigroup, which thinks the multimillion-dollar, interest-free, no strings attached loan from the working stiffs they, like the Mets, would rather not have in their building is a fine idea indeed. These two deserve one another, but they don't deserve to divvy up your money in order to publicly flaunt their unholy marriage. The Mets are getting their new stadium, all right, and it will have big light-up signs on three sides proclaiming its name for all to see. How about Field of Schemes? Next up Wally writes a piece about how Cablevision( now owns Newsday) has been getting a real sweet tax exemption to the tune of over $10 million a year on MSG. Benjamin Grimm Nov 26 2008 07:10 AM ="Wallace Matthews":cph97irz]The one thing it should not be called, under any circumstances, is Citi Field.[/quote:cph97irz] Under ANY circumstances? Wow. ="Wallace Matthews":cph97irz]That $20 million per year - which, by the way, the Mets don't seem all that eager to invest in the free-agent market despite another dismal late-season collapse...[/quote:cph97irz] How stupid is this comment? The free agent season only opened about a week ago. All that being said, the drumbeat against the Citi name is getting louder and louder. I'm still not at all certain that it will reach that tipping point that will result in a name change, but I think it is getting more likely. I just think that if the name does end up changing, it will be one that we (except for Val) will like less than Citi Field. It's NOT gonna be Bob Murphy Field. (Anyway, as much as we all loved Bob Murphy, I think naming a stadium for him is a bit over the top.) seawolf17 Nov 26 2008 07:13 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":276m8e6t]It's NOT gonna be Bob Murphy Field. (Anyway, as much as we all loved Bob Murphy, I think naming a stadium for him is a bit over the top.)[/quote:276m8e6t] Booooooooooo. Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 07:16 AM ="Wally":4po31fbp]As my colleague Anthony Rieber so ably pointed out earlier this week...[/quote:4po31fbp] This was the surprising part, that he read someone else's work. Then I realized he read it so he could just re-arrange it. Stick a sock in this guy. Frayed Knot Nov 26 2008 07:28 AM I think the best chance for name change would come if/when CitiGroup undergoes a name change - at which point the renamed/acquiring (and possibly more clumsily-named) company would inherit the deal (see Bell, Pac and all its successors). G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 08:35 AM ]t is really the Mets, the "little brothers" in town, who are the most fan-hostile organization in New York sports. All last season, they used scare tactics on their partial-plan holders - people who weren't part of some corrupt and tax-sheltered corporation, people who couldn't afford to shell out for 81 games but could scrape together enough to come 15 times a year, or 20, or every weekend. I'm not in the frame of mind to go beat by beat with Wally Matthews, but why is it necessary to demagogue this issue when there are sound points to be made against the way the Mets do business as well as the generally distasteful modern naming of stadiums (and the way it backfires)? Matthews sits in the press box when he deigns to go to a game. He has no idea who buys the seats down below, season-ticketed or otherwise (it's either the evil corporation or the blue collar wretch, in Matthews' black and white world). It never occurs to him that some season tickets are scraped together by small businesses who are not riding the TARP train. Again, as with Rieber the other day, instead of maybe asking somebody or citing some study, he just indicts everybody with the same brush. Benjamin Grimm Nov 26 2008 08:38 AM When I was a partial season ticket holder back in the 80's, I didn't have to "scrape" to be able to afford it. It may have been hard for me to afford a full plan (I'm not sure because I never even looked into it) but the main reason I didn't do it was because it wasn't practical. Living on Long Island, working five days per week, there was no way I would have been able to attend most of the weekday games. Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 08:44 AM Tabloids demagogue. It's what they do. Is there any reason at all to buy a tabloid any more except that when you pass by the newstand on the way to the train, they are screaming out that evil/greedy/crazy people are undemining your life? Sound points? Sound doesn't sell. Sexy sells. G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 08:45 AM Referring to full plans only here. They're not all owned by Citi types, at least they weren't at Shea. And not every entity known as a company in this world is Wally Matthews' prototypical Evil Inc. I'm not a corporate apologist by nature (far, far from it), but it doesn't help the discussion at large to brainlessly lump everybody who has a payroll to meet under one nefarious umbrella. It is amazing how out of their depth most sportswriters get when they wander into the parts of the world that are tangentially related to sports. And in Matthews' case, he's not so hot with sports. G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 08:52 AM ="Edgy DC"]Tabloids demagogue. It's what they do. Is there any reason at all to buy a tabloid any more except that when you pass by the newstand on the way to the train, they are screaming out that evil/greedy/crazy people are undemining your life? Some do it better than others. I think Lupica does it brilliantly. I think Mushnick, though he listens a little too intently to the voices in his head at times, does it very well. I think Matthews is worse than a hack (which is most of what Newsday employs). He's a loose-cannon grudgemeister. It's not that the writing is lame. It's that the thought process is shoddy. All he has left is to spit out some outrageous assertions and feel good about himself. He is detestable, but in a different way from the hack army. Rieber, Baumbach, Powell...Newsday is hack central. It and Long Island, to borrow from Tom Kean, are perfect together. Gwreck Nov 26 2008 09:37 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":1yacqado]When I was a partial season ticket holder back in the 80's, I didn't have to "scrape" to be able to afford it.[/quote:1yacqado] Speaking as someone who *does* have to "scrape" (so to speak -- it's not like I'm foregoing food to go the game) I wind up agreeing with much of what Matthews says. The 6 paragraphs starting with "All last season..." are 100% accurate, dead-on-the-money. Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 09:51 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 26 2008 10:38 AM But those are bleeding with demagoguery as well. Is the world really just fat cats and working stiffs? Are the Mets really so perverse as to be doing anything like "playing footsie" or are they doing business the way virtually everybody else did it? My cousin was VP of personnel with a securities firm. They made her fire a ton of people and then they fired her. I know what's going on. There's a good chance I'm going to be posing in my pajamas soon. I don't blame the Mets. G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 10:19 AM The Mets sucked at dealing with their fans on tickets for the long term, but the equivalency -- they suck therefore they and Citi are essentially the same -- is what weighs Wally down. Ticket policy mishandling and naming rights hijinks are not the same issue and they're not necessarily symptomatic of a mindset, which is Matthews' implication. "The Mets waited two hours to call the game -- and they traded Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano: what a bunch of losers." That's what Matthews' column feels like. This is the wrong week to be promoting a stadium named Citi Field, that's for sure. The Mets will have to decide (if market forces don't do it for them) whether it will always be the wrong week for promoting a stadium with that name. The City Bank of New York was founded in 1812. Over the years, it became known as the First National City Bank of New York, First National City Bank and, eventually, Citibank, en route to becoming part of something called Citigroup. Might all remnants of that name be eradicated after 196 years? Could be. Might all the goodwill, whatever goodwill there was, associated with that name be gone in the wake of recent developments? Could be. Do we know the forever answer to either question? Not just yet. Citi looks very bad right now. This ballpark deal feels uncomfortable right now, to say the least. The Mets, by being in this naming venture with Citi, don't look good right now. Is "right now" what's always going to be? Hard to tell. I can't blame the Mets for trying to figure out how to maintain a deal that looked pretty lucrative and airtight (in the context of these things) two years ago. If the uproar continues as the season approaches, I imagine they won't want the name on their building. But even if, as a couple of business writers put it, $20 million a year for twenty years is a "drop in the bucket" to Citi (making this a worthwhile long-term investment in their view, assuming they stick around as Citi), it's pretty significant to a baseball team. Remember what Darren Rovell wrote on CNBC's site: they'd be lucky to get $12 million a year now from anybody. The Mets want the money. They'll always want the money. What entity in their spot wouldn't be looking for a way to get the money they signed for? If/when it becomes untenable (if the PR aspects of this do not blow over), the Mets will suddenly realize they don't want to play in Citi Field. Even if they do suck at ticket plans. Even if they wait too long to call rainouts. Even if they traded Kazmir for Zambrano. And this is coming from someone who has loathed almost everything about Citi Field, name included, from the day it was announced. Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 10:41 AM What he said. seawolf17 Nov 26 2008 10:47 AM While they're at it, can Citi cancel my credit card debt? That'd make my life a lot easier. G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 10:50 AM ="seawolf17":1jq5wyqz]While they're at it, can Citi cancel my credit card debt? That'd make my life a lot easier.[/quote:1jq5wyqz] You'd figure in all this there'd be some Mets Fan Interest Forgiveness Clause, wouldn't you? Vince Coleman Firecracker Nov 26 2008 10:57 AM ="seawolf17":2jtn576x]While they're at it, can Citi cancel my credit card debt? That'd make my life a lot easier.[/quote:2jtn576x] I'll change my name to "Citi" if they'll negate my student loans. HahnSolo Nov 26 2008 11:32 AM Mike Francesa has spoken. The Mets "must" return Citibank's money. He will elaborate later. Benjamin Grimm Nov 26 2008 11:33 AM That settles it then. soupcan Nov 26 2008 11:35 AM I'm going to go out on a limb and say that by this time next year nobody's going to care. metirish Nov 26 2008 11:52 AM Found this in the comments section responding to Wally. ] Ron Darling Hey Moron, the mets likely have a contract with Citi for the naming rights. If Citi doesn't want to back out, there's probably little the mets can do. Aside from that, the company looks at citifield as an extension of their advertising, which is required to attract attention and bring in new business. So, as they try to avoid going under, it's really not stupid to keep the naming rights if they estimate that the Return On Investment will be higher with this advertising than with other ads they may cut. Nice job rewriting your colleague's article just to get a few jabs in at the mets. you're a worthless piece of trash, you no talent hack. seawolf17 Nov 26 2008 12:33 PM ="metirish"]Found this in the comments section responding to Wally. ] Ron Darling Hey Moron, the mets likely have a contract with Citi for the naming rights. If Citi doesn't want to back out, there's probably little the mets can do. Aside from that, the company looks at citifield as an extension of their advertising, which is required to attract attention and bring in new business. So, as they try to avoid going under, it's really not stupid to keep the naming rights if they estimate that the Return On Investment will be higher with this advertising than with other ads they may cut. Nice job rewriting your colleague's article just to get a few jabs in at the mets. you're a worthless piece of trash, you no talent hack. That's why I like Ronnie... he pulls no punches. MadDog Nov 26 2008 12:34 PM ="HahnSolo":7y9z3mzz]Mike Francesa has spoken. The Mets "must" return Citibank's money. He will elaborate later.[/quote:7y9z3mzz] AH, COME ON, MIKE! YOU CAN'T JUST BE GIVING BACK THAT MONEY! THAT'S JEFF WILPON'S MONEY, MIKE! THAT WAS NEGOTIATED! FAIR AND SQUARE! Willets Point Nov 26 2008 01:14 PM ="soupcan":1wa54pzc]I'm going to go out on a limb and say that by this time next year nobody's going to care.[/quote:1wa54pzc] I already don't care. metsmarathon Nov 26 2008 01:34 PM honestly, with all the buckets of taxpayer money, both given to or not collected from the mets (and nearly every other major pro sports team), why is this spectre of $20 million/year so terribly abhorrent? i mean, its not like the bailout is going, specifically, to fund these dollars which were fairly agreed to prior to federal involvement. the mets are right to expect their money. i mean, i'd really like to see them not sell the naming rights to their building, personally, but given their choice to use it as a revenue stream, and citigroup's choice to use it as an advertisement, i see no problems. will the federal government look into all of citi's contractual obligations and force them to break those fairly negotiated contracts that have arguable ROI? ... if i were the mets, i think i would have to consider offering a buyout, though. enough to cover the expected $20 million this year, plus the cost of replacing the voluminous signage, plus a few million on top, for the trouble. but the wally mathews and mike francessas out there will only complain, unless hte mets give up the name for no cost whatsoever to citi, and then those same voices will criticize the mets for getting nothing in return. holychicken Nov 26 2008 01:51 PM ="MadDog":2lvkg2so]AH, COME ON, MIKE! YOU CAN'T JUST BE GIVING BACK THAT MONEY! THAT'S JEFF WILPON'S MONEY, MIKE! THAT WAS NEGOTIATED! FAIR AND SQUARE![/quote:2lvkg2so] You always crack me up. I love you maddog! But seriously, the show was much less terrible with Maddog. I used to listen to it on my commute home and now I just can't. Vince Coleman Firecracker Nov 26 2008 02:02 PM The last time I tuned into Francessa (I'd put the (sp?) here, but I don't really care to learn to spell his name correctly) was a few months back, after the story came out that the Yankees had been getting favorable assesments on their property so they could pay less taxes. Francesca dismissed a caller who brought this up, saying that no one cares about the relationship between the government, the taxpayers and the team. Now, (big surprise) he's up in arms because of the Mets' relationship to a third party's relationship to the government and taxpayers. Can't he catch that disease the guy from the Spin Doctors was rumored to have? The one where you can't speak for several years? Frayed Knot Nov 26 2008 06:21 PM ="HahnSolo":1fcl1b69]Mike Francesa has spoken. The Mets "must" return Citibank's money. He will elaborate later.[/quote:1fcl1b69] Only caught a minute or two of his reasoning, but the logic was along the lines of CitiGroup is now a forever tainted brand and therfore the Mets need to disassociate themselves from it. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this isn't exactly an Enron situation where the bulprit was blatantly criminal activities by the heads of the company leading to complete destruction of the business. This was bad mgmt which may or may not be fixable but, otherwise, I don't get the parallel here. Chrysler, after all, was on the receiving end of gov't assistance several decades ago (late '70s?) and yet managed to rebound and go on to sponsor sports tourneys and other stuff without leaving a scarlet letter on everything they were attached to. metirish Nov 26 2008 06:24 PM Francesa just hung up on you. SteveJRogers Nov 26 2008 06:29 PM ="metirish":1lbnh8b8]Francesa just hung up on you.[/quote:1lbnh8b8] Irish, come on, The Great Francesa would never hang up on a caller! NO! He might give a big wave of his hand to let his board op know to cut the call off, but hang up? NEVAH! In fact, this thread deserves a giant handwave! Ashie62 Nov 26 2008 06:51 PM ="metirish":27odyq9t]Francesa just hung up on you.[/quote:27odyq9t] I wish I had that luck Irish...nice Ireland addition to the Avatar! soupcan Nov 26 2008 09:52 PM ="metirish":1hzpv5si]Francesa just hung up on you.[/quote:1hzpv5si] Made me laugh irish. metirish Nov 30 2008 07:00 PM Driving back from JFK tonight I saw the sign on that side of the stadium reading as " I FI LD" . SteveJRogers Nov 30 2008 07:19 PM ="metirish":1xy3j2m8]Driving back from JFK tonight I saw the sign on that side of the stadium reading as " I FI LD" .[/quote:1xy3j2m8] Better that the lights go out now then during the season! Ashie62 Dec 01 2008 10:09 PM They say root for the hat..but I think at this point I would be embarrased to sit in a structure named after Citigroup.. Then again my sorry ass can't afford to go anyway.. Omar..now go sign somebody!! metirish Dec 02 2008 01:42 PM Jeff speaks. ] THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 3:25 PM EST, December 2, 2008 The New York Mets say the name Citi Field will remain on their new ballpark and believe the struggling bank will survive its current economic crisis following a government bailout. Citigroup is paying the Mets $400 million over 20 years for naming rights to the stadium, scheduled to open next year. Two New York City councilmen said last week that the ballpark's name should be changed to Citi/Taxpayer Field. "We think we can bring the right people to help them market their product so that they can be a going concern," Mets chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon said Tuesday. "It's not really Citi's fault that they're in this problem. They're a lot of other banks in the same situation." metsguyinmichigan Dec 02 2008 03:06 PM I can see the point about the taxpayers. It seems stange to me when utilities who have monopolies spend money on naming rights. Why does DTE Energry here in Michigan and Keyspan need to advertise like that when eveyone gets their bill each month? We know who they are. (Naturally the Citi isn't a utility and didn't have the public money until this fall) Kong76 Dec 02 2008 03:31 PM AP: Mets chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon said Tuesday. "It's not really Citi's fault that they're in this problem. <=== Oh jeez. Valadius Dec 02 2008 04:29 PM Well Jeff Wilpon is a moron. That's not news. Nymr83 Dec 02 2008 05:04 PM Repeat after me idiot Wilpon: "it's not our fault that they are in this mess, we signed a contract and we'd be expected to perform our end of it even if it became a bad deal for us." Kong76 Dec 02 2008 05:04 PM I wasn't reporting anything, I quoted from a previous post, and oh jeezin' instead of commenting that the guy is a walking mic magnet for oh jeezable quotes and should avoid speaking at all. Edgy DC Dec 02 2008 05:20 PM You know --- in the names of Bobby Bonilla, Vince Coleman, Mel Rojas, Jeromy Burnitz, and Mo Vaughn --- it's kind of nice to see the Mets finally the one who collect on a long-term, big-dollar contract signed before the market shifted. SteveJRogers Dec 02 2008 06:51 PM ="metirish"]Driving back from JFK tonight I saw the sign on that side of the stadium reading as " I FI LD" . Not sure if this is from today, but here is a neat image of what Irish saw: metirish Dec 02 2008 07:01 PM That's exactly it , good find Steve. Edgy DC Dec 02 2008 07:10 PM Irish drives a dirigible. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 03 2008 09:39 AM Photo gallery from the snooze: [url:1ahhortv]http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/galleries/citi_field__inside__out/citi_field__inside__out.html[/url:1ahhortv] I gotta say, as long as I can get to a few games, I'm excited over a new park. metirish Dec 03 2008 09:52 AM Me too , can't wait really , started saving recently for a game I hope to go to in the summer. More pictures here http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/ny-citifield-pg,0,3740511.photogallery Gwreck Dec 03 2008 10:41 AM ]I gotta say, as long as I can get to a few games, I'm excited over a new park. As a function of schedule or a function of price? We had some long and hard discussions about what to do with this new stadium. Once you get past the fact that it's a minimum of $100/seat to be anywhere on the infield (aside from the upper level)... Still, in the end, I found myself a lot more excited than I thought I would to be buying tickets today. My impression is that after being accustomed to Shea for so long it will take a very long time for the novelty of the new park to wear off. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 03 2008 10:47 AM I'd only go to a small handful of games in either park. I was worried that demand for tixx would be too great to assure even that but I think I got a hookup for the small slate of games I will attend. Willets Point Dec 03 2008 10:52 AM When are they going to sell single-game tickets? Gwreck Dec 03 2008 11:19 AM Probably not until late February/early March. They'll first do the "lottery" for the opening night and games vs. MFYs, then the public sale a week or two later. I think ticket demand is not going to be too bad (economy; 2nd straight year of barely missing playoffs, etc). Benjamin Grimm Dec 06 2008 05:44 AM A clever suggestion from the New York Times: ] Citi Field by Any Other Name, Part II By Andrew Das With a column and a blog post, George Vecsey started a lively debate this week by proposing new names for the Mets� new ballpark, which will for now keep the name of its faltering financial sugar daddy, Citigroup. Some of George�s suggestions � Jackie Robinson Stadium, Gil Hodges Stadium � included homages to the city�s baseball past. Readers tossed out other ideas: Bailout Ballpark, Strawberry Field. WNYC�s Brian Lehrer weighed in when he took reader questions on our City Room blog this week. The name Citi Field is fast becoming a joke. Shall we rename it Taxpayer Field? Federal Reserve Park? Cover the infield with the Henry Paulson TARP? But Lehrer wasn�t done. He continued the discussion when he went on the air at WNYC (Chez Stadium has a nice expense-account flair to it), and that back and forth produced a name that I think appeals to everything from baseball history to the city�s history to fans� shared Citi anger. For now at least, the leader in the clubhouse has to be �. Debits Field. Benjamin Grimm Jan 29 2009 05:23 PM ="Cleveland Plain Dealer":3i00ad19]Cleveland Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich teamed up with Texas GOP Rep. Ted Poe on Thursday to demand that the Treasury Department force Citigroup to give up its $400 million stadium naming deal with the New York Mets baseball team. The congressmen wrote a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner that observed the bank's finanical situation has worsened dramatically since it signed the Mets deal in 2006. Citigroup recently accepted billions of dollars in taxpayer bailout money and announced it's eliminating 50,000 jobs. "The Treasury Department, which forced Citigroup corporate executives to give up their private jet, should also demand that Citigroup cancel its $400 million advertisement at the Mets field and instead being to repay their debt to the taxpayers," Kucinich said in a press statement.[/quote:3i00ad19] John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 29 2009 05:47 PM thwack. metsmarathon Jan 29 2009 05:49 PM where else will they be forced to retract advertising? Nymr83 Jan 29 2009 06:41 PM ="metsmarathon":48x4xa6v]where else will they be forced to retract advertising?[/quote:48x4xa6v] nowhere, they'd rather just use a pro sports team as a scapegoat and ignore that it is advertising like any other. Kong76 Jan 29 2009 07:02 PM Not in response to anything said here, and I'm not big on the whole tortured Mets fan ideology that some fans carry around and like to wound lick about, but jeez on some level I can't help but grin to myself and think, "this could only happen to the freakin' Mets." We get a brand spankin' new park and watch Shea get torn down and the whole country is going to the crapper and the new stadium was going to be named (I'm certain it won't be Citi Field come opening day) by one of the biggest iconic reasons that things are so bad and now it will be fodder for every news outlet until it's named something else and it will be a trivia ques- tion twenty-five years from now and this has become a run-on so I'll stop. batmagadanleadoff Jan 29 2009 07:28 PM ="Kong76":1gdgi6hg] and the new stadium was going to be named (I'm certain it won't be Citi Field come opening day)....[/quote:1gdgi6hg] I'll probably refer to the new park as Shea Stadium. For years, I bet. To me, the 49ers play in Candlestick. And so do the baseball Giants. MFS62 Jan 29 2009 07:49 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":zgx7tsoo] To me, the 49ers play in Candlestick. And so do the baseball Giants.[/quote:zgx7tsoo] Gee, I remember the football team playing in Kezar Stadium (with sea gulls flying in front of the tv cameras) and the baseball team playing in Seals Stadium. Later Frayed Knot Jan 29 2009 08:18 PM ] ... jeez on some level I can't help but grin to myself and think, "this could only happen to the freakin' Mets." Astros fans forced to deal with 'Enron Field' might disagree there. Kong76 Jan 30 2009 04:47 AM Uey, they can't even get that right. Edgy DC Jan 30 2009 07:25 AM ]Cleveland Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich teamed up with Texas GOP Rep. Ted Poe This isn't exaclty Chris Van Hollen and John Boehner. It wouldn't be the first time I've been caught with my head in the sand, but I'm not sure this is anything more than a symbolic statment. I mean, that's what Kucinich's presidential run was. Under any circumstances, I'm highly distrustful of scapegoating maneuvers. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 30 2009 07:26 AM President Kucinich would move the Mets to Havana, prolly. Ashie62 Feb 03 2009 07:06 AM This mornings Wall Street Journal has an article the Citi is reconsidering the 400 million dollar naming rights deal. I don't have the online link but its in the Journal. Citi is being "directed" by the Treasury not to spend taxpayer dollars on this. It may not be fair but the Mets have no say on the contract and at best will receive some money as a walk away fee. Good thing the Patch is bare...Probably best to take the TARP stink off our new stadium...Lotta remodeling to do if Citi is knocked out. Royal Crown Cola field anyone? Ashie62 Feb 03 2009 07:07 AM Ooh! George Thomas Seaver! Do I get a bottle o Wine for this? I don't mean Wild Irish Rose Peach. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:10 AM Get a New Patch While You're At It The wheels are reportedly in motion to deCitify Citi Field. From WSJ: ]Citi Explores Breaking Mets Deal Bank That Got Bailout Cash Revisits $400 Million Pact to Put Name on Stadium By DAVID ENRICH, MATTHEW FUTTERMAN and DAMIAN PALETTA Citigroup Inc., eager to quell the controversy over how lenders are using government bailout money, is exploring the possibility of backing out of a nearly $400 million marketing deal with the New York Mets, say people familiar with the matter. Officials at Citigroup have made no final decision about whether to try to void the 20-year agreement, which includes naming the Mets' new baseball stadium after the bank, say these people. In a statement Monday, Citigroup said that "no TARP capital will be used" for the stadium -- referring to government funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program. But as it revisits the pact, Citigroup is essentially acknowledging that the volatile political climate could make it untenable for the bank to proceed with the deal. Citigroup, which has had total net losses of $28.5 billion since 2007, received $45 billion in bailout aid from the federal TARP program last fall. The government also agreed to shoulder most losses on a $301 billion pool of Citigroup's loans and other assets. Next week, Citigroup Chief Executive Vikram Pandit and other bank CEOs are scheduled to appear before a House committee, where they are likely to be pressed for answers about their use of taxpayer-funded capital through TARP. The Mets deal was attacked last week as an example of misplaced spending by financial institutions that needed bailout funds. Reps. Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio) and Ted Poe (R., Texas) wrote to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Wednesday, asking him to push Citigroup to dissolve the Mets deal. "Citigroup is now dependent on the support of the federal government for its survival as an institution," the letter said. "As such, we do not believe Citigroup ought to spend $400 million to name a stadium at the same time that they accept over $350 billion in taxpayer support and guarantees." A re-examination of the Mets deal comes just days after President Barack Obama called it "shameful" that Wall Street firms doled out billions of dollars in bonuses even as Washington was spending taxpayer dollars to help bail them out. The Treasury Department hasn't been pushing the bank to break the contract, according to people with knowledge of the government's stance. Anger also is rising over signs that the massive capital infusion to U.S. banks hasn't resulted in a surge in lending. In a survey of banks released Monday, the Federal Reserve said about two-thirds of banks' loan officers reported that they tightened terms for business loans over the past three months. Under terms of the Mets deal, Citigroup has the right to plaster its name and logo around the arena, dubbed Citi Field, which is largely built and set to open in April in the New York City borough of Queens. Citigroup's contract with the Mets calls for the bank to pay the team roughly $20 million a year over two decades. The arrangement helped cover the costs of building Citi Field because it served as an asset the Mets could tout as they tried to lure private capital. While the Mets didn't receive direct taxpayer financing for the ballpark, the team did benefit from free land, infrastructure investments and tax-free bonds from the city government. Citigroup underwrote more than $600 million in bonds for the stadium. The bank's name and logo already adorn the stadium's walls. Citi Field is adjacent to Shea Stadium, the former home of the Mets, now being torn down. If Citigroup backs out of its agreement with the Mets, it likely wouldn't happen immediately and could involve the bank paying a breakup penalty to the Mets, people familiar with the situation said. "The Mets are fully committed to our contract with Citi," said Mets spokesman Jay Horwitz. A Citigroup spokesman said the bank "signed a legally binding agreement with the New York Mets in 2006." Within Citigroup, some officials believe the company should try to void the Mets pact in order to distance itself from unnecessary controversy. But other executives argue that trying to wiggle out of the contract will set a bad precedent. "If we cave for political reasons, it will have enormous implications for our ability to contract with third parties," said an executive who has been briefed on the discussions. When Citigroup and the Mets unveiled their pact in 2006, it was the richest naming-rights deal in baseball. Top executives including then-Chief Executive Charles Prince and Lewis Kaden, the Citigroup vice chairman who negotiated the deal, attended a groundbreaking ceremony with Mets players and officials. Citigroup has a number of other sports-marketing arrangements. Last month, it was the main sponsor of college football's Rose Bowl game. The company is sponsoring the 2010 national championship game. Citibank Park, which opened in 2000 in Central Islip, N.Y., is home to the Long Island Ducks minor-league baseball team. While some Citigroup executives are urging the company to scale back its advertising expenses to avoid public controversy, the company recently has been buying full-page ads in some major newspapers, touting its stability and lending. Last week, Citigroup stirred more controversy when the New York Post reported that the bank was planning to buy an expensive new luxury jet. The implication was that Citigroup was using a portion of its TARP funds to pay for the new jet. In response, Citigroup initially defended its plans, arguing that it placed the jet order in 2005 and that canceling the purchase would result in millions of dollars of penalties. The new jet also was supposed to replace two aging planes that Citigroup had put up for sale. Citigroup ultimately nixed the order under pressure from Treasury officials. By then, though, the bank had been publicly lashed by President Obama. "We shouldn't have to do that," he said, referring to the administration's suggestion that Citigroup not go through with the corporate-jet order, "because they should know better." If Citigroup parts ways with the Mets, other financial institutions may find themselves under pressure to reconsider sports-marketing deals. Bank of America Corp., which got $45 billion in government capital, signed a deal in 2004 for naming rights for the Carolina Panthers football stadium in Charlotte, N.C. Bank of America's 20-year deal calls for the bank to pay the Panthers $7.5 million a year, making it one of the National Football League's most expensive naming-rights deals. The Houston Texans receive $10 million a year from Reliant Energy Inc. Bank of America has been in talks with the New York Yankees about a major sponsorship deal for the new Yankee Stadium, though the company's name wouldn't be on the building. That deal appeared near complete in the fall, but neither side has discussed the matter since then. Larry DiRita, a Bank of America spokesman, declined to comment on the company's specific marketing arrangements. "These are normal banking relationships," he said, noting that they are profitable for the bank. Frayed Knot Feb 03 2009 07:11 AM Citigroup Inc. is considering the possibility of backing out of its $400 million naming-rights deal for the New York Mets' new stadium, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal. The report cited "people familiar with the matter." Ahh yes, the always popular "people familiar" source. What it sounds like is that Citi is feeling outside pressure and is at least looking into what it might take to break thinking that maybe this would stem the tide of criticism. Never mind that they still sponsor a host of other sports stuff, this deal seems to be the center of the bullseye right now. The team has every intention of continuing with the deal (of course, because they'd never get another nearly as large) and I'm thinking they'd probably put up a legal fight to keep it. oe: cross-post G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:18 AM If my thread on the WSJ story gets folded in or deleted, the essentials: ]Citigroup Inc., eager to quell the controversy over how lenders are using government bailout money, is exploring the possibility of backing out of a nearly $400 million marketing deal with the New York Mets, say people familiar with the matter. Officials at Citigroup have made no final decision about whether to try to void the 20-year agreement, which includes naming the Mets' new baseball stadium after the bank, say these people. In a statement Monday, Citigroup said that "no TARP capital will be used" for the stadium -- referring to government funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program. But as it revisits the pact, Citigroup is essentially acknowledging that the volatile political climate could make it untenable for the bank to proceed with the deal. Citigroup, which has had total net losses of $28.5 billion since 2007, received $45 billion in bailout aid from the federal TARP program last fall. The government also agreed to shoulder most losses on a $301 billion pool of Citigroup's loans and other assets. Next week, Citigroup Chief Executive Vikram Pandit and other bank CEOs are scheduled to appear before a House committee, where they are likely to be pressed for answers about their use of taxpayer-funded capital through TARP. ]Citigroup's contract with the Mets calls for the bank to pay the team roughly $20 million a year over two decades. The arrangement helped cover the costs of building Citi Field because it served as an asset the Mets could tout as they tried to lure private capital. While the Mets didn't receive direct taxpayer financing for the ballpark, the team did benefit from free land, infrastructure investments and tax-free bonds from the city government. Citigroup underwrote more than $600 million in bonds for the stadium. The bank's name and logo already adorn the stadium's walls. Citi Field is adjacent to Shea Stadium, the former home of the Mets, now being torn down. If Citigroup backs out of its agreement with the Mets, it likely wouldn't happen immediately and could involve the bank paying a breakup penalty to the Mets, people familiar with the situation said. metirish Feb 03 2009 07:24 AM I bet by the end of the day Wally will have a "Jackie Robinson Field" article up. Edgy DC Feb 03 2009 07:31 AM This just seems so counterproductive for everybody. It's nice to think that the Mets may end up with an un-sponsored field, but I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:36 AM ="Edgy DC":3tltbewg]I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:3tltbewg] The Mets could use some more crunch in their lineup. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:37 AM ="Edgy DC":i7xp23vg]I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:i7xp23vg] The Mets could use some more crunch in their lineup. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:40 AM ="metirish"]I bet by the end of the day Wally will have a "Jackie Robinson Field" article up. Wally, if they actually did that: ]Branch Rickey famously told Jackie Robinson not to fight back when harassed. The Mets similarly don't fight back when their opponents tar them not with epithets but runs. The Mets have unwittingly chosen the wrong role model. But when do the Mets ever use their wits? soupcan Feb 03 2009 07:41 AM ="Edgy DC":6bqs5c70]It's nice to think that the Mets may end up with an un-sponsored field, but I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:6bqs5c70] Most definitely. Its not like Enron Field is now Astro Stadium. I would like it if there does happen to be another sponsor that its a one-name company so I can pretend it's sort of un-sponsored. You know like Miller Park or Busch Stadium. If not, then I'd like Met Life please. Centerfield Feb 03 2009 07:43 AM Considering they have a signed contract, I don't see why the Mets would let Citi out of the deal until they had a more lucrative (or equally lucrative) deal in place. metirish Feb 03 2009 07:43 AM Jeff IIRC is quite fond of WISE potato chips. WISE FIELD metsmarathon Feb 03 2009 08:35 AM if citi backs out of that contract, i would think that the mets should sue them to recoup not only some of the short term income, but also the cost to replace all of the signage and merchandise. no fucking way citi should get off the hook just because the politicians whined MFS62 Feb 03 2009 08:46 AM Per Metsblog Update, 8:56 am: Michael Espo, a long-time and trusted reader of MetsBlog.com, just sent in the following e-mail: �Moments ago on CNBC, Doug Kass, a noted investor and short seller, who is a member of the country club where Bernie Madoff solicited many of his investors, said, �scuttlebutt around town says that Fred Wilpon and Mets ownership may be forced to sell a minority interest in the team due to their exposure to the Madoff fraud.�� Consider the source. EDIT: Hmmmm Now that is gone from that website. I wonder what happened. Later batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2009 08:46 AM ="Edgy DC":dwhmitdm]This just seems so counterproductive for everybody. It's nice to think that the Mets may end up with an un-sponsored field, but I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:dwhmitdm] It's apropos. Wilpon's a cheeseball. Get ready for Cheesy Stadium. batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2009 08:52 AM ="metsmarathon":2jggnqoz]if citi backs out of that contract, i would think that the mets should sue them to recoup not only some of the short term income, but also the cost to replace all of the signage and merchandise. no fucking way citi should get off the hook just because the politicians whined[/quote:2jggnqoz] If Citi doesn't have a contractual out, why wouldn't the Mets Sioux City to recoup every single penny of the deal? G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 08:56 AM Darren Rovell's story from CNBC: ]Despite all the noise, including a front page story in the Wall Street Journal today, the Mets just sent us this statement. "In conversations this morning, Citi reinforced that they will honor our legally binding agreement." MFS62 Feb 03 2009 08:59 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 03 2009 09:01 AM I'm thinking of taking up a collection to buy the naming rights. I'll name it "Cranepool Forum Field". If you're interested in contributing ($1 million minimum. No pikers, pease.) PM me, and I'll give you the number of my off shore account to which you can wire the money. Later metirish Feb 03 2009 08:59 AM ] "In conversations this morning, Citi reinforced that they will honor our legally binding agreement." Sounds like the Mets reinforced the legally binding thing. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 09:04 AM The Mets, I would guess, don't give a damn what it's called (within reason). They do give a damn they get paid (which is reasonable). batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2009 09:54 AM ="G-Fafif":1gap197h]The Mets, I would guess, don't give a damn what it's called (within reason). They do give a damn they get paid (which is reasonable).[/quote:1gap197h] That's my Wilpon! metirish Feb 04 2009 10:26 AM Daniel Gross argues that the name should stay. http://www.slate.com/id/2210442/ ] Three Strikes and You're Bailed Out Why Citi shouldn't cancel its $400 million purchase of naming rights for the Mets new stadium. By Daniel Gross Posted Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2009, at 6:00 PM ET Almost every taxpayer who isn't a New York Mets fan is outraged by Citi's $400 million, 20-year deal for naming rights to the new Mets stadium, known as Citi Field. It's true that shelling out that kind of money at a time when taxpayers are bankrolling the company and backstopping hundreds of billions of dollars worth of its assets may seem tone-deaf and stupid, even for a bank. And, historically, naming rights have been a classic vanity move. Corporations tend to make grandiose civic/corporate statements right when they are about to implode. If you had shorted Citi's stock when it announced the sponsorship deal in November 2006, you would have made a lot of money. But there's a reasonable case to be made for preserving the deal, especially if Citi could get the Mets to extend the deal to 30 or 40 years. In order for Citi to weather the storm, recover, and pay back taxpayers (and insulate them from further losses), the company must invest for both the short- and long-term. For companies in highly competitive consumer markets, marketing and advertising are essential, entirely justifiable expenses. Companies�even companies getting bailed out by the feds�need to attract customers and to build their brand image. It's difficult to measure the value of any specific campaign or ad. But there's reason to think that for this company, at this stadium, in this location, a naming-rights deal might not be such a bad long term move. The cost is high�$400 million over 20 years. But the present-day cost isn't quite as high as you think, especially if, as Darren Rovell of CNBC suggests, it is paid out in annual installments. In 2029, $20 million will be worth a lot less than $20 million is today. And any type of advertising that reaches a lot of people is expensive. In this economy, NBC was able to charge $3 million for a 30-second spot during the Super Bowl. Though the audience size for Mets games won't approach that of the Super Bowl, the location of the stadium guarantees that the Citi logo will be visible to hundreds of millions of people each year. Citi Field is a giant billboard that will be visible not just to the 4 million-plus people who attend Mets games each year but to the tens of millions of people who drive past it on the Grand Central Parkway, the Van Wyck Expressway, and other roadways and the 25 million or so passengers who fly into and out of LaGuardia Airport each year. And stadium naming deals generate a huge amount of free advertising. On the broadcasts of the team's 81 home games (and, sponsors hope, post-season games), announcers will repeatedly refer to the company's name in a nonadvertising context: "Welcome back to Citi Field." Likewise, newspaper, Internet, and television coverage will produce hundreds of millions of impressions of the company's name per year. Naming-rights deals are most justifiable when the product or company doing the naming has an intuitive connection to the people who visit the stadium. The Montreal Canadiens used to play in the Molson Center, which made sense since hockey fans drink a lot of beer. Ditto for the Colorado Rockies, who play in Coors Field. (When Internet company PSInet planted its name on the Baltimore Ravens' stadium, it didn't make quite as much sense.) Citi would seem to be something of a natural for the New York Mets. It's a New York-based bank. The Mets are based in New York City. Baseball stadiums tend to attract a prosperous, heavily male clientele, including professionals, small-business owners, and corporate executives. Many companies use Mets games to entertain and schmooze prospective clients. In short, a lot of the sorts of people who are likely to utilize Citi's services will be attending games at Citi Field. Of course, people who read about games at Citi Field on ESPN.com won't be learning much about Citi's mortgage rates. But naming rights, especially if they endure, can perform another vital function for brands. It can help make them part of the vernacular. The greatest desire of any marketer is for her product's name to work its way into conversations. When I was growing up, it was common to say, "I want a Coke" when you were referring to any kind of soda. People ask for a Kleenex when they mean a tissue, say they're going to Xerox a document even if they're using a Ricoh copier, and speak of Googling when they refer to an Internet search. Stadium naming rights can help products and brands gain that sort of status. Since 1926, baseball fans on the north side of Chicago have spoken about going to games at Wrigley Field. Does that make fans more likely to buy Wrigley's gum products? It can't hurt. "Meet me at Citi," doesn't quite have the same ring as "Meet me at Shea." But after 20 or 30 years, it might. Edgy DC Feb 04 2009 10:29 AM Seriously, as a taxpayer, do you think Citi is going to recover faster by taking away their ability to market themselves professionally or humiliating them for attempting to do so? Nymr83 Feb 04 2009 10:34 AM ="Edgy DC":37gbfrv1]Seriously, as a taxpayer, do you think Citi is going to recover faster by taking away their ability to market themselves professionally or humiliating them for attempting to do so?[/quote:37gbfrv1] Nope. I also think there isn't a worse thing they can do right now than take their name off a stadium where it already is, thats not a great way to inspire confidence that your business is (now) sound and here to stay. Edgy DC Feb 04 2009 10:58 AM So, do you think that Dennis Kucinich, who bills himself as "America's Congressman" is maybe using this as a means of self-promotion? I understand being against these rescue plans, but imposing terms on the corporations after the fact is crap. Lookit me, I'm castrating Citibank and everybody hates them. Eh, shaddup. (off soapbox) Nymr83 Feb 04 2009 11:25 AM ="Edgy DC":c8pm0iyy]So, do you think that Dennis Kucinich, who bills himself as "America's Congressman" is maybe using this as a means of self-promotion?[/quote:c8pm0iyy] No, really? Frayed Knot Feb 04 2009 11:31 AM Kucinich was doing the same thing with the land valuation question of the area around YSIII -- basically acting as a self-appointed over-seer for what is essentially a local issue far from his particular locality. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 12:22 PM ]...the location of the stadium guarantees that the Citi logo will be visible to hundreds of millions of people each year. Citi Field is a giant billboard that will be visible not just to the 4 million-plus people who attend Mets games each year but to the tens of millions of people who drive past it on the Grand Central Parkway, the Van Wyck Expressway, and other roadways and the 25 million or so passengers who fly into and out of LaGuardia Airport each year. I wouldn't mind Gross coming on for Delgado in the ninth for defense. He can really stretch. Citigroup could also buy a few actual billboards and accomplish much the same goal as the author describes. While I agree that this company, if it is to survive, has to (and is entitled to) market itself, reading Gross' article tells me that he has no idea why having the company's name on a ballpark accomplishes that. "Well, people will see it...people who might use their product." If anything, spelling out the reasons as he does, with the "I want a Coke" example and such, makes the whole thing sound more like a vanity-driven sham than I thought before. ]Many companies use Mets games to entertain and schmooze prospective clients. If they used the games from the last two late Septembers, those companies must have been recruiters from Guantanamo Bay. metsguyinmichigan Feb 04 2009 02:16 PM I don't mind the banks buying these things as much as the utilities. Why does a monopoly need to advertise? Especially since they just pass their costs on to the consumer, who has no choice but to use their electricity or natural gas? G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 02:26 PM ="metsguyinmichigan":1nrfin6h]I don't mind the banks buying these things as much as the utilities. Why does a monopoly need to advertise? Especially since they just pass their costs on to the consumer, who has no choice but to use their electricity or natural gas?[/quote:1nrfin6h] To take up lots of space[/url:1nrfin6h], of course. metsmarathon Feb 04 2009 02:48 PM ]Citi Field, of course, will always be known as Citi Field. of course. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 03:11 PM Should Citi Field never actually be Citi Field, it would be accessible via a number of appropriate thoroughfares, listed here[/url:qvhcvi31]. Benjamin Grimm Feb 04 2009 04:25 PM They should call it by Shea's original name: Flushing Meadows Stadium. Or since "stadium" is out of vogue, they can replace it with Park or Field. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 05:00 PM More and more, Citi Field, its plainly visible structure notwithstanding, is beginning to remind me of this outstanding historical marker[/url:2p1f2s91] to which TMF introduced Mrs. Fafif and me recently. Citi Field...did it really land? G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 05:01 PM Whoops, impatient double post. themetfairy Feb 04 2009 05:22 PM LOL OlerudOwned Feb 04 2009 05:32 PM In a span of of two paragraphs, he called the naming rights "a classic vanity move" and an "essential, entirely justifiable expense." Kong76 Feb 04 2009 08:25 PM I'm kinda fickle on this subject now that it's become fodder for some folks. What's 20 million a year for twenty years when ya really boil it all down? dgwphotography Feb 05 2009 04:36 AM ="Kong76":2tla5kgq]I'm kinda fickle on this subject now that it's become fodder for some folks. What's 20 million a year for twenty years when ya really boil it all down?[/quote:2tla5kgq] Right now, it wouldn't even pay for Manny. 20 years from now, it wouldn't even pay for a utility infielder.. Edgy DC Feb 05 2009 05:50 AM ="OlerudOwned":1hwowprl]In a span of of two paragraphs, he called the naming rights "a classic vanity move" and an "essential, entirely justifiable expense."[/quote:1hwowprl] Well, he was distinguishing some deals from others. Vic Sage Feb 05 2009 10:34 AM ]But naming rights, especially if they endure, can perform another vital function for brands. It can help make them part of the vernacular. The greatest desire of any marketer is for her product's name to work its way into conversations. When I was growing up, it was common to say, "I want a Coke" when you were referring to any kind of soda. People ask for a Kleenex when they mean a tissue, say they're going to Xerox a document even if they're using a Ricoh copier, and speak of Googling when they refer to an Internet search. Stadium naming rights can help products and brands gain that sort of status. um... while those that control corporate brands want their brands to be ubiquitous, they do NOT want their trademarks to become generic. That's called "genericide", a sort of "public domain" status for trademarks, and thus costs the owner exclusive control over their mark. Of course, the naming of a stadium isn't likely to cause this phenomenon (oh look at that new Citi they're building in Montreal! I bet that'll bring baseball back!), so the point is not only incorrect, it's irrelevant. Now that's journalism! batmagadanleadoff Apr 16 2009 09:56 AM ="batmagadanleadoff":2ibvgs3w] I'll probably refer to the new park as Shea Stadium.[/quote:2ibvgs3w] Making money off my idea. Drats. Edgy DC Apr 16 2009 10:15 AM A good re-read. Here's Soupy with the Turning Point of the Thread: ="soupcan"]="Ashie62"] It seems like Citifield is a Brooklyn Dodger sandwich being shoved down Met pants. Oooh! A sandwich shoved into my pants!