Ceetar

Irwin died 7! seasons ago. The joke's just dumb and outdated at this point.

Zvon wrote: Wow. Love Bucks catchers mask. Id like to see the other side. Very kool looking. via Metsblog http://metsblog.com/image/photo-johnbuck44s-new-catcher-mask/

Personally I'd like to see Baxter and Nieuwenhuis getting more starts.

Wireless carriers are all old-west cowboys, but T-Mobile dares to be different, dons pink hat. I believe LGTBA is dubbing the same commercial. [youtube:4yx6l0xx]N7_Oiunf1go[/youtube:4yx6l0xx]

Edgy MD wrote: It's a quick trip from "they can use the work" to "they're getting too much work." for the starters too though. Gotta incrementally go longer in the games. I mean, we know they probably won't got much deeper into the game than that with Harvey but I don't think him, or Niese, should jump to 110+ until they've done 100 a couple of times.

Mets � Willets Point wrote: On the one hand, I don't think Shea needed replacing quite yet and I don't approve of public monies to be handed over to sports organizations to build venues for private profit. I also think if they're going to build a new place, they should've gone to a more centrally located neighborhood site rather than the out-of-the-way location in a sea of parking that I thought was the worst thing about Shea. Do "we" as sports fans get too attached to location? The Wilpons at least put a lot of their own money in, enough that you could make the case that a more publicly funded stadium has them more competitive on the field this season. I agree, although I think the city/public should invest some money too, although not towards the stadium but things like train service and parking lots and all that sort of thing that tie the stadium to the community. I cringe at the red tape that would've happened had they seriously considered a different location. Although the Yankees didn't seem to have much issue blowing up parks for theirs. I wonder if we weren't that far off from a Mets/Isles/Nets mega-complex in Brooklyn.

Bang for the Buck.

Edgy MD wrote: There are dozens of tributes to Jackie Robinson. I think the form and the motivation are very meaningful. At their worst, a poorly expressed tribute to a person can detract from or distort the legacy, or coopt it into something very different. I disagree is all. I think the tribute itself is 95% of it or more. And this isn't poorly expressed anyway, simply a difference of opinion on one small aspect of it. maybe a little too MLB press releaseish in using a big number rather than a statue, but I think having a statue would conflict too much with the location, being a Mets location. He's a baseball player, but not our baseball player. The tribute isn't about him playing here. His swing isn't a representation of his presence at the Citi location. Maybe they could've done something other than a 42, but I like that better than a statue. And the Rotunda is so not part of the Citi Field experience when you're there.

It wasn't directed at you Edgy, just in general, and in part to the New Yorker article. but you made a reasonable case, not a reasonable assertion. It's an opinion, not a truth. I just mean that at least there is A tribute, which is more important than the form it takes.

The Mets have appropriated that history since their inception, right down to the '62 roster. Why should they change it now? When MLB hands you Jackie Robinson, self-serving or not, why not run with it? Big corporations are never going to get the benefit of altruism, and certainly they're rarely actually altruistic because with the wealth comes the expectation of giving and charity. But it's still there. Why shouldn't there be a tribute to Jackie? He's important. more than baseball important. Where else? Dodger stadium? It's 3000 miles away from where it all happened. You could, it wouldn't be a horrible idea, but the color barrier he broke was the community and fans and was New York, not the Dodgers. You going to put it at Yankee Stadium? There is no indication that the Yankees wanted that. The Mets have always claimed that NL descendant thing, and there is really no better place in the entire country to put a tribute to the man. You can squabble over the silly 42 thing instead of a statue, but It's something.

the statue of the number ties into the MLB thing. MLB has made the number important. But numbers are important in baseball, so it's an interesting tie-in. It's certainly MLB-advancing first and civil rights second, but that doesn't diminish the civil rights part of it nor does it make it cynical.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I decided at some point last year that I would endeavor never to get a seat in CF that wasn't between the bases. Watching baseball from the outfield just isn't for me. If you're bored one day, or it's a blow out or something, check out the front row of the last section in the Left Field Landing. I don't know if it's because it's basically the view we're accustomed to on TV via the center field camera, but I've always found it an interesting viewpoint. Not sure I'd watch the whole game there, but there's something to be said for watching the fly balls fly AT you. (and laughing when the crowd goes wild for fly balls that are so obviously outs to you)

batmagadanleadoff wrote: G-Fafif wrote: mark against this enterprise. Plus with three video boards available, none was showing balls in play when you needed them to. Anyway, Cowgill's ball was a homer, to my surprise. Which was great (I loved watching him leg it out just in case), but it would've been nice to have seen it from my seat as it was happening, even on a screen. Of course it would've been nice to see it on the field. Otherwise, the point of attending is diminshed. I think this is my only real gripe. They favored close to the action 'on top of the field' stuff instead of full visibility. The game happens in the valley of the stadium, even if you're on the field level, whereas at Shea and some other parks the walls into the outfield stayed pretty low and they added more foul territory so that the field level didn't interfere with the upper deck view (which was probably mostly incidental). It's nice that if you sit in the outfield seats in the promenade you don't feel like you're watching from the Empire State Building (although it's not _close_ by any means) but I'd have rather them moved me back, packed in another 20k seats on top somewhere, and not worry about whether or not the last seat in the last row feels like it's part of the stadium or not. but that's fine too. Very few stadiums, maybe none, have no bad sections. I know where the good features of Citi are and I buy my tickets are stand in the appropriate section. There's very little missing from my experience when I go to a game. (outside of the ..you know..winning..)

it's Read the Apple's slideshow. but yeah, lots of cranepoolers.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Ceetar wrote: I Honestly, if you told me I'd wake up tomorrow and Citi was never built and I'd be going to Shea Stadium..I'd be upset. yabbut that sorta misses the point of the huge opportunity they missed. I don't know if there's a 'huge opportunity' missed though. there's a different opportunity. but different is not better.

I love Citi Field and it has nothing to do with luxury boxes. I love the Shea Bridge, it's a wonderful place and I'm not really sure what there is to knock about it. The Rotunda's nice. It's barely inside the stadium. It's actually one of the few places in the stadium you can't see the game. I don't feel like I'm in Citi Field until I'm through it, when I go in that way at all. Yes, it's overly corporate and expensive and all that. but you know what? So is baseball. If the Mets had kept Shea and kept tickets at the prices people think are right, they'd have a small market budget in truth rather than a temporary layover. I know I don't _need_ to eat and drink 'fancy' food and drink at the ballpark, but I spend so much time there it's nice that I don't have to worry about packing a dinner when I go. Honestly, if you told me I'd wake up tomorrow and Citi was never built and I'd be going to Shea Stadium..I'd be upset.

Gwreck wrote: Ceetar wrote: Especially with Stubhub messing with the fees and introducing a floor as well batmagadanleadoff wrote: Is there a floor on Stubhub? I didn't know this. You mean that I'm not allowed to sell my own ticket on stubhub for as low as I choose? There is no price floor for sellers (or if there is, it might be $1 or 50 cents). Stubhub does charge a minimum "service" and "delivery" fee, however, so you cannot possibly buy a ticket from them for less than $6. I thought it was $6, but it's $3. Factor in the $1.50 MLB transfer fee there, plus fees and it says "Buyer sees $6" payout on that is $2.55 (and that's for selling two tickets at $3)

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ceetar wrote: The Mets don't care that there are empty seats and thousands unsold tickets on StubHub. I'd really like to believe so, but the adult inside of me is telling me that this is a naive thought. It won't surprise me if it turns out that the team sells on stubhub at market and below face value through wholly or mostly owned subsidiaries. Whaddya gonna do if it turns out that this is what's happening? Boycott the Mets? You're an addict. And so am I. And these baseball teams are corporate versions of chronic bullshitting sociopaths. They're corporate Tony Sopranos, but with the law on their side and a legal license to sell the equivalent of crack cocaine to hopelessly addicted fans. Maybe. Obviously I'm an addict, and that's why I don't get up in arms about the price. As much as it pains me to pay $63 (+9) for Opening Day and hell, the second they went on sale in a Dec presale despite knowing I probably didn't have to, I know that any 'fan outrage' at this price is really just bluster. Almost everyone yelling is going to go. These are the die-hards. And even the ones that end up balking, will come back when they even sense a winning streak. Are they selling to Stubhub? It's been vehemently denied so many times. I have no idea myself. I think, at least in previous years, that this wasn't true. the huge volume was due to scalpers thinking to capitalize on a good team and a new stadium and buying packages and plans. and not 'professional' scalpers either. It's so easy to resell that I was tempted to buy one. You can probably fund it solely on Subway Series/Opening Day tickets when you're not at the bottom of popularity like the Mets are now. I think this dynamic pricing thing might be instead of trying to dump below face value seats on StubHub. They've managed to get the cheap seats to mostly match the secondary market. (And $12 is the lowest price tomorrow. walk-up and no fees. Where they might get hurt if there's no demand is the higher priced summer weekend games.) And they seem to be pushing all these deals, free tickets on your birthday, buy one get one, student rush, etc. Seems like they don't really care about not selling a $60 seat by not putting it to $40 and instead work these deals and promotions as the way to get people into the park. Worrying about about just getting them through the door than trying to upsell them on sections. yeah, Stubhub put in a floor this year. think it's $6 or something..plus fees of course. It'll display the price you pay on the website now, which I think is hiding higher fees than in the past. I was going to try to sell an Opener ticket. I think I listed the $63 face ticket that I paid $72 for at ~75 and I think it listed for about 85 and was going to pay me 65.

Chad Ochoseis wrote: Ceetar wrote: I'll do one. feel free to pick for me. ARRR! May 9. Oooh, I'll enjoy skewering those guys.

I'll do one. feel free to pick for me.

Big beer owns the YSIII concourse. "I do not say this lightly: beer snobs might be the worst people in the world. But not even they deserve to be locked in Yankee Stadium for four hours, with the only unconventional option being this dinky and confused beer stand with four drinks on tap, all behemoth-brewed by the MillerCoors conglomerate." I love that that deadspin post gets the price at Citi Field wrong, links to a 2012 post which is basically the press release version of the beer list despite the post mentioning that I have/had more detailed information, and calls it's ridiculously extensive despite it being 95% behemoth-brewed (though by the other conglomerate). But I guess I'm one of the worst people in the world, so whatever.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Which is why there's a floor on dynamic pricing .... If there's a floor, then it's not true dynamic pricing, is it? I don't understand how the Mets expect to sell their excess by taking a hard line and holding to the face value in a declining, or buyer's, market? Why would I spend $100 for a ticket when I can get the same ticket for $40 on stubhub? Personally, I'm skeptical (as always) about the team's claims that they won't sell below the face value floor: they'll either openly renege due to market forces, or surreptitiously (if they aren't doing this already) sell at market on stubhub through some intermediary (next Mets scandal when they get caught). They won't. it's computer generated and hard-coded. It won't go below what a season ticket holder paid for that section, because they did that in 2009 and season ticket holders complained. Now, they've designated sections where they don't sell season tickets. I don't know how they break it up, since it's possible to get packages in every pricing tier, but that's presumably where they give away the free tickets to and what not. The idea being you'll never sit next to someone who's a season ticket holder and paid more for the seat than you did (of course, that's not true, Stub Hub, etc, but not from the Mets). Given that you can't reduce the price dynamically to _just_ 505 instead of the whole Prom Reserved, the dynamic pricing floor exists. But it's sorta 'brilliant' in a way. Even with a high demand for Opening Day (it was still near capacity even if there were empty seats) for the cheaper sections buying directly from the Mets was a better deal than Stubhub in most cases. Especially with Stubhub messing with the fees and introducing a floor as well, the Mets end up selling a new ticket and letting the ones on stubhub go on used, rather than fans buying the already sold ticket on stubhub. The Mets don't care that there are empty seats and thousands unsold tickets on StubHub.

Don't laugh at me. Which song is this? [youtube:3t3pah2f]WSi1_esUXck[/youtube:3t3pah2f]

Hard to rag on them for the 9th inning crowd too much. This is clearly much better, and on the right side of a blowout, but still. It was freaking cold. I was wearing a t-shirt until the second inning and even with my heavier stuff on was really cold by the 8th it was basically winter with a freaking cold wind, and gusting so much people were holding their caps on their heads every time it did.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: This weekend's games? Plenty of [crossout]good[/crossout] seats still available... which makes those of us who, y'know, paid for seats feel great about our investment. Which is why there's a floor on dynamic pricing, because people got upset at the idea of people getting cheaper seats than them. But it's a cold weekend in April against a Triple-A team. There's going to be like 4 people there.