Mets News Roundup

by Eric Simon on Nov 11, 2006 5:47 PM EST Comment 17 comments

Manny Acta to replace Frank Robinson as Nationals' manager
Third base coach Manny Acta, who managed the Dominican Republic in this year's World Baseball Classic, is set to leave the Mets' hot corner to manage the Washington Nationals. An announcement is expected this week. It's not yet clear who will replace Acta at third base, be it first base coach Sandy Alomar, bench coach Jerry Manual, someone else from within the Mets' organization (Ken Oberkfell, Howard Johnson) or someone outside the organization entirely. It's a great opportunity for Acta, who seemed a genuinely nice guy and was well regarded in his time with the Mets.
New Mets ballpark to be called "CitiField"
The Mets have announced a 20-year partnership with CitiCorp which will include naming rights for their new ballpark, slated to open in 2009. News of the agreement was first leaked by Anthony De Rosa of Hot Foot Blog, a report that was subsequently mentioned in Newsday and the New York Post. Big win for blogging on that front.
I give the Mets credit for somehow extracing $20 million big ones per year simply to affix "Citi" to the front of their park. The Phillies only netted $95 million over 25 years to call their home Citizen's Bank park, and that includes advertising; only $2.3 million of that was for the stadium naming rights. That the Mets' didn't have to include "Bank" in the name is a big win for themselves and for the fans, in my estimation at least. It's hard to turn down $20 million a year for anything, and the fact that the ballpark will still be somewhat respectably-monikered is a welcome sight.
Still nothing concrete on Matsuzaka
Despite reports that the Red Sox may have bid upwards of $45 million for Daisuke Matsuzaka, or subsequent theories that have him possibly traded to the Mets, there has apparently been no confirmation from Seibu as to whether they have accepted the highest bid, nor has the amount of that bid been confirmed. The deadline for accepting or rejecting that deal is Tuesday, so we'll know for sure the likely fate of Matsuzaka within a few days.

0 recs | Comment 17 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

As For The New Mets' Stadium....

being called "Citi": Another one bites the dust.

"We praise or blame as one or the other affords more opportunity for exhibiting our power of judgement." Friedrich Nietzsche, "All Too Human" (1878)

by wgarrett on Nov 12, 2006 7:09 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

CitiField

Perhaps unreasonably, I really was hoping the Mets would stay classy and not sell the naming rights.

I have to say that I find the name "CitiField" somewhat perverse.

I see what you mean that it might be a win to not have "bank" in the name, but to me this really sounds like another Citicorp product. Check it: CitiCards, CitiMortgage, CitiGroup, Citibank, CitiGold (whatever the hell that is), CitiField.

I might actually have preferred "Citibank Park." To me, that at least puts some distance between the corporation and the team. Something about melding the bank's name with the name of the field rubs me the wrong way. Next thing you know, we will be fans of the JPMorgan New York Mets, who play their home games at CitiField.

But $20 million a year should buy a lot of talent. I guess that's what it comes down to.

We've got ourselves a ball club, the Mets of New York town!

by kingcritical on Nov 12, 2006 1:02 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

it is forgone

conclusion in my mind that we will eventually have Soccer style sponsorship in all sports. Red Bull New York. Ads all over the uni. Its just a matter of time. It sucks, but so much of our world works on this idea of getting people to spend money on your product and immersing them in it.

its a ground ball...trickling... its a fair ball, its by Buckner, rounding third Knight, the Mets will win the ballgame, the Mets win

by DoctorK16 on Nov 12, 2006 5:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

soccer

style sponsorship would be okay with me. one corporate sponsor per team isn't the end of the world. what would be pathetic would be nascar-style sponsorship with 25 different logos and patches and crap all over.

citibank is actually quite a good choice for the mets. the "first metropolitan bank of new york city" or whatever it is officially has been called "city bank" or "citibank" since the 1800s. it has always been a major part of New York's banking industry since it was founded in like 1810 or something and was owned by the Rockerfellers for a while.

Best of all, unlike other banks, it has been called Citibank or City Bank and has been around forever so the name probably won't change like other stadiums' names have.

"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman

by hugo on Nov 13, 2006 1:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I would have preferred Bob Murphy Park

...where it's always a beautiful day for Mets baseball.

The butcher and the baker and the people on the street, where did they go? To meet the Mets!

by Rod Gaspar Fan Club on Nov 13, 2006 4:58 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

"CitiField"

Intercapping makes me a sad panda.

"It's Father's Day today at Shea, so to all you fathers out there, Happy Birthday." -- Ralph Kiner

by dissento on Nov 13, 2006 5:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

It makes sense on the computer

and face it, the nerds won.

by peeder on Nov 13, 2006 6:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The Matsuzuka deal is wrong for all of baseball

Whether it's speculative interference with the Yankees signing him (i.e. Boston does not sign him for 2007, whatever the stated reason) or not, this is crazy. We're only talking about ONE YEAR of a player's services. After a year, Matzusuka (I'm not bothered to learn how to spell it) would be a free agent anyway. And so the Redsox paid nearly double Arod's salary JUST TO BE ABLE TO SIGN HIM. Not even to sign him!

This means that other teams and agents will try the same goddamn thing. And you and me, dear fan, are going to be paying (via tickets and cable ads and the lot) for it.

MLB screwed up regardless of what happens now.

by peeder on Nov 13, 2006 10:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

huh?

What makes you think Boston will only sign him to a one-year deal? That would hardly be in their best interest financially -- with all the money they sunk in the posting fee, they'll want to keep him around for a good few years. (Also, you are aware that the posting fee is only paid upon completion of a contract with the player, and isn't paid at all if a deal can't be agreed on, right?)

by anonymous on Nov 13, 2006 11:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The $45M goes to Seibu, NOT Matsuzaka

If Boston (and MLB) waits a year, they don't have to pay any money to Seibu, just to Matzusaka. That's what I meant. All this money does is bring his availability to MLB forward one measly year.

by peeder on Nov 14, 2006 2:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It's Not Just

about moving his availability one year. It's also about control. When the Red Sox acquire him this way, they're paying a premium on the one extra year, but also exclusive negotiating rights, which is a very valuable thing. If teams here could pay a sum to impending free agents, just for their exclusive signing rights, you'd see similar amounts thrown around.

Quite simply, having control over a situation is worth an amount to all teams, and the Red Sox decided that amount was 42 million dollars.

by Alex Nelson on Nov 14, 2006 8:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And therein lies the question

Should we set this precedent, at this scale, that I can sell the just the rights to negotiate with a player I've signed, and if you don't work out a deal, then I keep my player anyway and give back the dough? This means it's more valuable to a team to sell negotiating rights to the richest teams than it is to sign the goddamn player or play the goddamn game.

Awful situation. Awful. Selig has truly fucked up.

by peeder on Nov 14, 2006 2:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

process

And yes, the posting process is nuts and not in the best interest of fans, but there are few palatable alternatives -- all I can think of that would really improve matters is the sometimes-talked-about worldwide draft system. And even that would mix experienced, older foreign players in with 17-year-old kids, which the players' union would not exactly love. If you're going to complain about the posting process (I agree, as I said), what's the way you'd like to see it work?

by anonymous on Nov 14, 2006 12:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You can only negotiate with free agents

or there is a specific compensation fee negotiable (I might say $5M MAX), and if there is more than one team willing to pay it it's a lottery plain & simple.

Do you understand the specifics of this deal? It doesn't sound so.

by peeder on Nov 14, 2006 2:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

reply

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here, but if you think I've misunderstood something, by all means, correct it. No need to get personal.

Are you really suggesting that having a 26-year-old star pitcher sit out a year in order to establish his free agency would be a better thing for baseball than posting? I think this would be a worse thing than simply giving the Yankees automatic negotiating rights to every Japanese star. The best players should always be playing the game.

And anyway, one consequence of doing away with the posting windfall for the Japanese-league teams would be that we'd see a lot fewer players making the move in mid-career. Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with players acquiring Sadaharu Oh-like stardom by playing in Japan when they could easily be MLB stars, but it would complicate MLB's claim to absolute superiority.

by anonymous on Nov 14, 2006 9:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs