In Honor Of Daniel Murphy's Big Night

by James Kannengieser on May 28, 2009 11:15 AM EDT

It's been awhile since Hammah went deep, and the luck of the Irish was certainly on his side last night. Well, that or the umpires took a few swigs of whiskey before watching the replay of his blast:

Tweet Comment 23 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Damn

I totally forgot about the Blue Collar Blasts. Here’s hoping Hammer picks up the pace a little bit!

Really, Jerry?

by Prince on May 28, 2009 12:24 PM EDT reply actions

That dude better watch his tall hat

I hear Joe Blanton is trying to acquire one taller than his

by HotChipWillBreakYourLegs on May 28, 2009 12:31 PM EDT reply actions

I've been waiting all morning to see that Blast Count.

well done, sir.

"I used to be legit. I was too legit. I was too legit to quit. but now I'm not legit. I'm unlegit. And for that reason, I must quit."

by jaronson5 on May 28, 2009 12:32 PM EDT reply actions

+1

batting helmets. batting titles. obp.

by Durelo on May 28, 2009 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions

And to think

The Irish Hamma has more long balls than David Wright…wow

by EMSfan9 on May 28, 2009 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions

where's the hardhat?

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

by kingcritical on May 28, 2009 12:49 PM EDT reply actions

Ahh I forgot

about Joe’s addition. I’ll find the thread it was in and issue an updated version when I have some time. Maybe I’ll also add a lunchpail, complete with a $5 footlong from Subway.

by James Kannengieser on May 28, 2009 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions

The Irish Hammer should win a free $5 footlong for hitting that ugly-ass sign.

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

by kingcritical on May 28, 2009 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions

seriously, who puts a sign that bright...

…in a place it could potentially obscure homerun balls from view, in a park that barely makes them possible to begin with. It’s almost as dumb as the arm patch.

by HoJoHeff on May 28, 2009 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions

The subway sign color was an oversight.

The arm patch took a team of men and women working on purpose to make it suck.

by TheBigStapler on May 28, 2009 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions

Granted the inaugural patch is pretty wretched, but did the Mets really deserved to be ripped for it? Citi gave them ridiculous money for naming rights, so in turn they let the folks at Citi design the patch. Corporate logos on uniforms is forbidden, so Citi’s marketing people opted for synergy and created something in the vein of the official Citi Field logo. They could’ve surely done better, but a corporation is always going to do what they feel is in their best interest. The outrage about this was inane and none of the jokes were any funny. It’s not like they’re wearing a phallic symbol or something.

by All Shook Down on May 28, 2009 8:23 PM EDT up reply actions

"It’s not like they’re wearing a phallic symbol or something."

I was THIS close to busting out the MS Paint, but I thought better of it.

"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on May 28, 2009 9:31 PM EDT up reply actions

source?

Where did you hear that it was Citi who designed the wretched patch, and not the Mets? I think that’s a horrible assumption, seeing as how the patch itself has no reference to “Citi” anywhere.

So yeah, let’s continue to rip the Mets. The patch sucks, the Mets blew it.

Also, the Mets are a corporation, FWIW.

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

by kingcritical on May 28, 2009 9:50 PM EDT up reply actions

I'm with this guy

we should collectively commit to making fun of the patch until they replace it next season with our 2009 WS Champs patch. Or maybe a patch touting our unrivaled three-peat of historic collapses.

by HoJoHeff on May 28, 2009 10:32 PM EDT up reply actions

Didn't I just say that corporate logos on uniforms are forbidden?

That’s why it has no mention of Citi.

Here’s your source.

Let’s see. The Mets secured a landmark $400M naming rights deal many months before the economy went into the tank. In exchange, they made some concessions — rightfully so, Citi is paying them $20M/year — and one of them allowed the bank to design the uniform logo. Again what’s there to rip the Mets about?

by All Shook Down on May 28, 2009 11:22 PM EDT up reply actions

I stand corrected to some extent, but I think we're each half right

I admit I was wrong to think that Citi had nothing to do with the general logo. However:

Baseball forbids teams putting corporate names on uniforms, but Citigroup wanted the patch to evoke the company’s general branding. The Mets did not object.

As far as I know, the Mets’ deal with the bank does not require the team putting a horrible patch on the uniform. Sleeve patches are never required for any occasion. The fact that they could not find something more classy to wear is pretty horrible.

Also, don’t forget: the logo on the side of every other row of chairs is different from the logo on every Met’s sleeve: one says “Citi Field,” and the other says “Inaugural Season.”

Essentially: Citi Field logo =/= Inaugural Season logo. So no, I don’t believe it had to be that way, $400M notwithstanding.

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

by kingcritical on May 28, 2009 11:38 PM EDT up reply actions

Why would the Mets object?

Citi was being criticized for the naming rights deal because they were receiving TARP funds and there was no way they could get out of honoring the contract. After taking that kind of beating, how could one wit any business sense honestly protest a stupid patch at the very beginning of an already tenuous twenty year relationship?

by All Shook Down on May 28, 2009 11:57 PM EDT up reply actions

I have no idea what you're even talking about.

I don’t know why you’re bringing up criticism of the bank or TARP funds.

There are two logos: one represents Citi Field and is all over the seats and whatnot, and the other says “Inaugural Season” and is on the Mets uniforms. Yes, the look the same, but they have different words on them and they serve different purposes.

My point is that the Mets’ deal with Citi may require the ads on the seats, but it most likely does not require the heinous sleeve patches, which are really what everyone is complaining about. If the Mets let Citi dictate what’s on the sleeve patches, that’s absurd.

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

by kingcritical on May 29, 2009 12:31 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Mets allowing Citi to design the sleeve patches = preserving a good business relationship.

Bringing up the TARP criticism was to crystallize the reason why the Mets didn’t protest the patch. The Mets are making ridiculous money while Citi is getting beat over the head. It makes sense for the Mets to make that kind of concession because they must work together for two decades. That’s all I’m saying.

Geez, it’s a stupid patch that they’re wearing for 81 games. If you don’t like it, don’t buy a jersey.

by All Shook Down on May 29, 2009 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions

I'm a fan. Is it not OK for me to wish the team wasn't so lame sometimes?*

Your explanation about the Mets’ reasoning is wild conjecture and extremely questionable in terms of “business sense” (which you brought up, not me).

No one sees the Inaugural Season sleeve patch and thinks “Citibank.” Citi’s sponsorship of the ballpark would be no less valuable for the bank had the Mets decided to go the classy route with the sleeves as well as with the hats.

And perhaps it could be even more valuable, if you want to get into grand debates about business/marketing.

*I don’t wear team jerseys, so that has nothing to do with the fact that I dislike the sleeve patch.

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

by kingcritical on May 29, 2009 7:11 PM EDT up reply actions