Imagine this scenario. You ask the really hot girl to go to the prom with you. She hasn’t been asked by anybody else yet, and she doesn’t really want to go with you, so she says “I will let you know later”. In the meantime, the attractive girl who is good in bed asks you to go with her. Any other time you would say yes. But right now, you are pinning your hopes on the Hot Girl, and you tell the attractive, good in bed girl, thanks but no thanks. So as you wait for an answer from the Hot Girl, the attractive, good in bed girl, asks your friend to go, and he says yes. Then the Hot Girl finally gets asked by someone else to go to the prom with him, and she says yes. So now, to save face, you are forced to go with the pimpled faced, dweeby girl, while the Hot Girl is now enjoying the prom with someone she really wanted to go with, and your friend is enjoying his time with the attractive girl that is good in bed. And you are stuck with a last resort choice that is just happy to be invited to the dance.
That basically is the current, sorry state of my favorite baseball team, the New York Mets. They make an offer to Jason Bay. He says that he will let the team know soon his decision. That was over three weeks ago. They also have an offer to Benji Molina to be their catcher, but he wants more years than the Mets are offering. In the mean time, Jason Marquis is on the market. He says he wants to be a Met. The Mets basically tell him, thanks, but until we find out about Bay and Molina, we can’t do anything else. So Marquis signs with the Nationals for $15M, an amount the Mets easily could have afforded. And with the best pitcher on the Market (Lackey) signing with Boston, the Mets are shutting them selves out of any chance to get a good starter to fill in as a #2 after Johann Santana. Philadelphia went out and traded for Roy Halladay, arguably the best pitcher in baseball.
That move didn’t upset me because the Mets didn’t have the chips to trade for him, so they had to focus on free agents. And they don’t even talk to Lackey. They say they were concerned about his arm. But Boston, who has an abundance of pitchers, felt they needed more, had no problem with Lackey. And they way Boston has performed lately, both on the field and their off-field moves, I would trust their evaluation more than the Mets.
The Mets stated that they would be making big moves to shore up the team, coming off of the disastrous year they just had. Their focus was, according to the team, was first pitching then the field. And they wanted to get faster and more defensive. So what do they do? They make an offer for the older, less mobile outfielder with so-so defense (Jason Bay compared to Matt Holiday) and do not even make an offer to the best free agent pitcher on the market. They are stuck in limbo waiting on an answer from bay, who doesn’t really want to be a Met, and Molina because it seems the Mets can’t do multiple things at a time.
In the meantime, the Yankees (who I do not like), after coming off of a World Series victory, go right out and make the team better. They trade for Curtis Granderson, a young outfielder whose swing should benefit by the smallish outfield of Yankee Stadium. They let go of Damon and Matsui because they don’t really fit into there plans, and it is always better to get rid of someone 1 year too early than 1 year too late. Then they go out and trade an average outfielder, who was the 4th outfielder on the team, for Javier Vasquez, the 4th runner up in the NL CY Young Award last year. An absolute steal. And I would be surprised if they swoop in and sign Jason Bay, giving him the chance to NOT sign with the Mets. And they are positioning themselves to be big buyers in next year’s free agent class, which is expected to be one of the best classes in a LONG time.
This offseason actually made me respect the way the Yankees do business, though I would NEVER switch allegiances to them. They have an eye for the future as well as making moves to win now. When they need something, they get it and usually on good terms. The Mets, total opposite. They panic, make stupid moves and bad financial signings. When they do sign someone big, they do not make any other big signings for a couple of years, so they do not back up their previous signings. They sign Santana, but do not bring in a legitimate # 2 starter.
I never thought I would say this, but my wish is for people to stop going to the games and for people to cancel their season tickets (which from the sounds of it on sports radio, a lot are canceling). The Mets ownership sees this and finally decides they have to change philosophy. They get rid of Omar and Manuel and bring in people who know what they are doing and let them do the job with no interference. The owners need to stay way in the background. My personal hope is to bring back Bobby V to manage the team. He gets the most out of his players (look at who the outfield was in the 2000 World Series against the Yankees) and he is at least entertaining.

Custom Search
Showing posts with label NY Mets. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NY Mets. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Friday, February 6, 2009
NY Mets and Citi Field Naming Rights Hubbub
I do not understand the short sightedness of these politicians that say Citigroup and the New York Mets must dissolve their 20 year, $400M naming rights agreement or Citigroup should have to return the $45B Citi received from the TARP money.
To arbitrarily say that they should cancel the agreement is preposterous. First, find out if any of the taxpayer money is going to the Mets. Any company, regardless if they received gov’t help, has a right, a necessity, to advertise. Having its name on a stadium in the largest market in the country gives them a great deal of exposure. Especially in the first year of the new stadium. It will be all over TV. Its signs are all over the stadium. And I guarantee that with the agreement, Citibank is now the official bank of the New York Mets, and they have exclusive rights to install ATM’s within the stadium. (Why would they NOT put that into the contract).
Having the agreement dissolved would, in my opinion, make Citigroup look even worse off. It shows that they can’t even advertise nor have the money to spend on advertising. The Gov’t is not telling them to stop other advertising, so why should the Gov’t pick and choose which advertising strategies to kill. Historically, banks have been one of the few industries where naming rights make sense. Banks are pretty much all the same. Naming rights help differentiate banks. Giving them the TARP money and saying that they can’t market themselves does not make sense.
Also, the agreement is a legally binding contract. The Mets and Citigroup signed the contract in 2006. If it was voided, there is no way, in this market, that the Mets can find another partner who would pay close to the same amount. So, besides punishing Citi for there past deeds, you in turn punish the New York Mets. If Citi is forced to break the contract, or looks to get out of it by itself, the Mets are sure to sue for damages. Say, in the current economy, the Mets can only negotiate a $250M, 20 yr agreement with another partner, they would probably sue for the other $150M in damages. Now what would make sense, Citi paying $400M for naming rights and advertising for 20 years, or $150M for nothing.
And why is the conversation only about Citigroup and the New York Mets. If Citi is forced out of the contract by the Gov’t, they HAVE to also force any company that receives Gov’t bailout money out of their naming agreements: Bank of America recived $45B and has their name on teh Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte, NC, and are negotiating a major sponsorship rights agreemnet with the NY Yankees (though not for the name of the stadium): JP Morgan Chase, recipiant of $25B has Chase Field in Phoenix, AZ; Wells Fargo also received $25B and has various arena's named for them around the west coast, as well as The Wachovia Center in Philadelphia, arising from its purchase of Wachovia. They are sure to change the name to Wells Fargo Center, or something similar.
On a lighter note, if the Mets do lose the sponsorship and name of Citified (which is a perfect name, doesn’t sound commercial for NYC), another PERFECT sponsorship would be with Met Life, for Met Life Park.
And for the new stadium being built for the NY Jets and the NY Giants, a perfect sponsorship would be with JetBlue. Makes total sense (for those who don’t know: fits for the Jets and Big Blue)
To arbitrarily say that they should cancel the agreement is preposterous. First, find out if any of the taxpayer money is going to the Mets. Any company, regardless if they received gov’t help, has a right, a necessity, to advertise. Having its name on a stadium in the largest market in the country gives them a great deal of exposure. Especially in the first year of the new stadium. It will be all over TV. Its signs are all over the stadium. And I guarantee that with the agreement, Citibank is now the official bank of the New York Mets, and they have exclusive rights to install ATM’s within the stadium. (Why would they NOT put that into the contract).
Having the agreement dissolved would, in my opinion, make Citigroup look even worse off. It shows that they can’t even advertise nor have the money to spend on advertising. The Gov’t is not telling them to stop other advertising, so why should the Gov’t pick and choose which advertising strategies to kill. Historically, banks have been one of the few industries where naming rights make sense. Banks are pretty much all the same. Naming rights help differentiate banks. Giving them the TARP money and saying that they can’t market themselves does not make sense.
Also, the agreement is a legally binding contract. The Mets and Citigroup signed the contract in 2006. If it was voided, there is no way, in this market, that the Mets can find another partner who would pay close to the same amount. So, besides punishing Citi for there past deeds, you in turn punish the New York Mets. If Citi is forced to break the contract, or looks to get out of it by itself, the Mets are sure to sue for damages. Say, in the current economy, the Mets can only negotiate a $250M, 20 yr agreement with another partner, they would probably sue for the other $150M in damages. Now what would make sense, Citi paying $400M for naming rights and advertising for 20 years, or $150M for nothing.
And why is the conversation only about Citigroup and the New York Mets. If Citi is forced out of the contract by the Gov’t, they HAVE to also force any company that receives Gov’t bailout money out of their naming agreements: Bank of America recived $45B and has their name on teh Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte, NC, and are negotiating a major sponsorship rights agreemnet with the NY Yankees (though not for the name of the stadium): JP Morgan Chase, recipiant of $25B has Chase Field in Phoenix, AZ; Wells Fargo also received $25B and has various arena's named for them around the west coast, as well as The Wachovia Center in Philadelphia, arising from its purchase of Wachovia. They are sure to change the name to Wells Fargo Center, or something similar.
On a lighter note, if the Mets do lose the sponsorship and name of Citified (which is a perfect name, doesn’t sound commercial for NYC), another PERFECT sponsorship would be with Met Life, for Met Life Park.
And for the new stadium being built for the NY Jets and the NY Giants, a perfect sponsorship would be with JetBlue. Makes total sense (for those who don’t know: fits for the Jets and Big Blue)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)