Comments on: Mets announce changes to Citi Field

By: Samuel Rosenkranz

Samuel Rosenkranz — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 21:08:39 +0000

Your post piqued my interest. Please give us a more indepth post if you get a chance.

By: Spice

Spice — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:41:35 +0000

I am a Yankee fan but I went to Citi three times this year with a friend who has season tickets. It is a beautiful park, well thought out, full of all the amenities that any new park should have. That said, my first reaction, as stated to my friend, was “umm what team plays here, the Dodgers?”
The first thing you see is a homage to a Dodger (Robinson), you have to look long and hard to find the Mets colors and there is a sad absence of Mets anything. There are far more signs for Citi Bank than there are for the Mets.
For the sake of the Mets fans I am glad to see these changes.
When you sell the name of the stadium you really have to make a point of making sure you call out the name of the team and make the place feel like the home of the team. (It would break my heart if the naming rights for YANKEE STADIUM are ever sold). I still don’t know why it couldn’t have been something like Citi Field at Mets Park.
As for the stupid comments about the teams history: The Mets won their first World Series after 7 years in the league. Took the Phillies nearly 100 years to win their first.
In their short history they have won 2 world series, played in 4, and sent Tom Seaver to the hall of fame with the highest vote percentage in HOF history. Not a bad start on history.
In their HOF I am sure you will see Seaver, Hodges, Stengel, Koosman, Hernandez, Carter, Piazza…..
As I said I am a Yankee Fan, but I have to give the devil his due.

By: hop

hop — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:35:59 +0000

Club History? Of what? Losing? They only won 2 WS since 1962 which isnt anything at all to brag about and they have had some of the worse seasons in the history of the game. I wouldnt be too worried about the past, id be hoping the future isnt as bad as the past but it sure looks like its gonna be! hahahahhha

By: Old Gator

Old Gator — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:41:51 +0000

As long as we’re making changes to the inside of the stadium, howsabout stripping off that repulsive, crass Citibank logo and renaming the goddamned stadium after someone who actually deserves it? This noxious practice of naming stadiums for corporations – in effect turning the place into one big ugly architectual billboard – just contributes to the continuing drain of romance and allure from the game in general. I can’t wait to see what they’re going to name the new Marlins stadium – I would suggest we name it for United Fruit Company, but something catchy, like, maybe, “Macondo Banana Massacre Field.”

By: Bob

Bob — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:52:33 +0000

So I guess the qualifications for the Mets HOF will be:
1. minimum .250 batting average for at least 1 year
2. less than 50 errors in any year on the Mets
3. if a pitcher, more wins than losses in any year on the Mets
4. if a coach, winning boxing record with Don Zimmer
Guess no future Mets will ever qualify for the HOF …

By: peteinfla

peteinfla — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:58:25 +0000

This should really turn the franchise around, huh? Any mention of some changes to, well let’s see – the front office, manager or the personnel they are putting out on the field every day? I didn’t think so. It’s gonna be another long year in Flushing!

By: Phils4life

Phils4life — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:39:42 +0000

Who cares…the mets suck anyway

By: GimmeSomeSteel

GimmeSomeSteel — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:38:00 +0000

If they re-institute the team HOF, I hope they set a reasonable minimum time that a given player had to be with the Mets. Five years sounds about right. In Cincinnati, they use a three-year minimum, which is absurd.
As for the physical changes, they all sound reasonable to me–and therefore very unlike the Mets.
A second year of data would be a good idea before making changes to the field itself. One year may be a fluke.