Citi Field

**efin98** · 02-21-2006, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by Elvis9045

There are 2 main things in Oakland's situation that are rubbing some people the wrong way:

1. Working-class folks on a tight budget who used to be able to go to 5 or 10 games a year and get great seats behind home plate will either have to cut down on the number of games they attend, or sit down by the foul pole or in the bleachers.

2. The way the A's are marketing this decision as an attempt to "create intimacy" by tossing some burlap sacks covered with $$$advertising$$$ over the upper deck. The whole "intimacy" thing is donkey poo. The only reason this is being done is to save some money in maintainance costs (It's basically the same reason that teams don't let you spread out to other sections if they're not sold - to not have to go clean up that section after the game) AND increase ad revenues for the huge corporate bilboards that will be on said burlap sacks.

Every action has an equal reaction. Lose a few casual fans but the loss from them is offset by the cut in cleanup cost and an increase in ad revenues.

**efin98** · 02-21-2006, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by Elvis9045

Well, this is the same team that gave us Charlie-o the jack-ass mascot and a wanna-be bugs bunny to deliver baseballs to the ump's, so anything's possible.

Since they don't own the Colliseum did the closure come from the A's or did it come from the city/county?

**Elvis** · 02-21-2006, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by efin98

Every action has an equal reaction. Lose a few casual fans but the loss from them is offset by the cut in cleanup cost and an increase in ad revenues.

Losing some fans is OK as long as you increase your advertising revenues?

I'd expect that from a number cruncher, but not from a baseball fan.

Believe me, when you're ok with replacing fans with ad space you're in trouble. However, if they want to move the club in a few years, this could be just the thing to justify it. Kind of like what Georgia Frontiere did to the Rams in SoCal.

By the way, I hope you don't consider working-class fans like me a "casual" fan, just because we don't have a lot of cash to spend on great seats. I'm as hard-core a fan there is, but I can't afford to go to a ton of games AND pay the big bucks required to sit in the premium sections.

**efin98** · 02-21-2006, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by Elvis9045

Losing some fans is OK as long as you increase your advertising revenues?

I'd expect that from a number cruncher, but not from a baseball fan.

Believe me, when you're ok with replacing fans with ad space you're in trouble.

No I mean losing a few fans is offset by the money you would make from the ads and not having to pay for upkeep. It's a tough choice but would you rather that the fans have to pay through the nose thanks to high costs of maintaining a mostly empty stadium? Or worse- the team pull an Expos and be forced to leave because they can't afford to stay anymore?

However, if they want to move the club in a few years, this could be just the thing to justify it. Kind of like what Georgia Frontiere did to the Rams in SoCal.

Actually I think it's the kind of thing that gets the ball rolling in their new stadium, like the one that was released to the public last year. They justify moving into a smaller venue of their own by showing they can handle the small venue and not the huge hulk they are currently in.

By the way, I hope you don't consider working-class fans like me a "casual" fan, just because we don't have a lot of cash to spend on great seats. I'm as hard-core a fan there is, but I can't afford to go to a ton of games AND pay the big bucks required to sit in the premium sections.

No. I mean the casual fans who only come to a few games like when the team is facing a "big name" club. Unfortunately there are people who are hurt in the situation but sometimes you have no choice but to hurt a few for the greater good.

**penncentralpete** · 07-27-2007, 10:59 AM

This thread contains all of the "Is there too much Dodgers at Citi Field" talk from the Citi Field construction photos thread. Please use this thread for all further discussion on this topic.
Thanks,
nymdan9

i still don't understand that if wilpon has all his $$$$$$$ and loved ebbets field so very much, WHY DOES THIS CITIPARK LOOK NOTHING LIKE EBBETS FIELD??????????? rotunda, roshmunda. the inside of this new park looks anything BUT like ebbets field! why couldn't he have built an EXACT copy of ebbets? damn! pete

**Onemoredayatshea27** · 07-27-2007, 11:23 AM

I don't understand it either. It's like Ebbets Field and Camden Yards had a child with a marketed name slapped on it. I guess... that they wanted it to be "fan-friendly" and innovative in the 21st century but I wish they encorporated more of the ballparks from yesteryear including the Polo Grounds.

I like it as a Mets fan but it's uniqueness is questionable.

**Lafferty Daniel** · 07-27-2007, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by penncentralpete

i still don't understand that if wilpon has all his $$$$$$$ and loved ebbets field so very much, WHY DOES THIS CITIPARK LOOK NOTHING LIKE EBBETS FIELD??????????? rotunda, roshmunda. the inside of this new park looks anything BUT like ebbets field! why couldn't he have built an EXACT copy of ebbets? damn! pete

You'd really want an exact copy of Ebbets? For the Mets?

**Onemoredayatshea27** · 07-27-2007, 12:00 PM

He's a Brooklyn Dodger fan. For the Mets a new "Ebbets" isn't necessary but some creativity when it came to designing it was. I will truly enjoy my time at Citi Field but even though Shea was a cookie cutter it had a personality. Maybe Citi will too- only 2 years left to find out.

**Venti** · 07-27-2007, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by penncentralpete

i still don't understand that if wilpon has all his $$$$$$$ and loved ebbets field so very much, WHY DOES THIS CITIPARK LOOK NOTHING LIKE EBBETS FIELD??????????? rotunda, roshmunda. the inside of this new park looks anything BUT like ebbets field! why couldn't he have built an EXACT copy of ebbets? damn! pete

I hear ya! But c'mon, those old ballparks were so bad as far as seating was concerned. Ebbetts was one of the better ones, but I think parks today are dictated by people and the fans today. They have to be "fan-friendly" having crap all over the stadium for people to do because we live in an ADD society. To ask someone to just sit in their seat and watch baseball is asking too much in today's world. Sure, I'd like to see an old Ebbetts, but there are only so many "old school" fans out there. We're a dying breed. The park schematics are dictated by the average patron.

New York fans are a little different though and that's why Citi Field won't be as ridiculous as some of the other parks out there today. Turner Field for example is a great field, but the stadium might as well be a carnival. There is so much to do in that stadium other than watch baseball, kids don't know how the hell to keep score because they're playing in "Tooner Field." It a crime against humanity if you ask me.

**Lafferty Daniel** · 07-27-2007, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by Venti

New York fans are a little different though and that's why Citi Field won't be as ridiculous as some of the other parks out there today.

Different how? Like more arrogant?

**Onemoredayatshea27** · 07-27-2007, 02:21 PM

Not all New Yorkers are arrogant. Most are knowledgeable, and respectable... but then again there are the spoiled bandwagoners of the New York Yankees who all they care about is 26 rings and Derek Jeter. Let's be honest... all teams and their fans can appear arrogant but saying New York is arrogant is as ignorant as saying that Brooklyn pizza costs more then Upstate pizza.

**Lafferty Daniel** · 07-27-2007, 02:30 PM

I was joking man, I know that not all NY fans are arrogant.

**Onemoredayatshea27** · 07-27-2007, 02:47 PM

Ok... I know I overreacted but hey I'm a New Yorker so lets fugghet about it.

**Venti** · 07-27-2007, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by Lafferty Daniel

Different how? Like more arrogant?

They're different in that they are one of the few fan-bases that actually go to a ballgame to watch baseball.

**Onemoredayatshea27** · 07-27-2007, 03:15 PM

That's not true. There are many fan bases that have loyal fans who would sit for days watching them play. Boston is a great example. People go for the atmosphere yes, but they see their beloved Red Sox play. Same with Wrigley Field, Dodger Stadium, Busch Stadium III, that comment is a bit ignorant to other franchise's fans.

**Elvis** · 08-27-2007, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by Onemoredayatshea27

I like most of the changes, but the baseball ceiling, and the bigger scoreboard should have remained. Otherwise it looks like a good ballpark.

I like the fact that there will be Dodgers uniforms all over the rotunda and no Mets uniforms.

Hopefully this will bring the Dodgers luck when they play there.

**SBBL** · 08-28-2007, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by Elvis

I like the fact that there will be Dodgers uniforms all over the rotunda and no Mets uniforms.

I was'nt aware of that ! Were did you get this info ?

**TJH1923** · 08-28-2007, 10:16 AM

Elvis: I like the fact that there will be Dodgers uniforms all over the rotunda and no Mets uniforms. Hopefully this will bring the Dodgers luck when they play there.

Originally Posted by SBBL

I was'nt aware of that ! Were did you get this info ?

**PeteU** · 08-28-2007, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by nymfan9

From this image, I notice one thing--the area down the left field foul line between the lower and mezzanine decks seems to have a lot of open, structural steel without an exterior wall behind it.

Could this be a possible homage to the rather noticable open gaps between the lower and upper decks at the Polo Grounds?

Clearly, Citi Field derives most of its inspiration from Ebbets, but could this be a subtle inspiration from the Polo Grounds?

**SBBL** · 08-28-2007, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by TJH1923

I like the fact that there will be Dodgers uniforms all over the rotunda and no Mets uniforms.

Umm, hey guys - hate to busrt your bubble but this does not constitute dodger uniforms all over the rotunda. Every New Yorker will be proud to see aphoto of a man WE embraced and is part of OUR baseball and cultural history. We would have been PROUD to attend Jackie Robinson Park had they gone ahead and named it that. Nice job Mets ! Bravo !

HOPE JACKIE'S PICTURES ARE NICE AND BIG !

**Elvis** · 08-28-2007, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by SBBL

Umm, hey guys - hate to busrt your bubble but this does not constitute dodger uniforms all over the rotunda. Every New Yorker will be proud to see aphoto of a man WE embraced and is part of OUR baseball and cultural history.

Jackie is more a part of OUR history, AMERICAN history and AMERICAN culture than New York history and New York culture. And like it or not, there will be plenty of Dodgers photos in YOUR rotunda, and yes, they will be big. Anyway, Los Angeles embraced Jackie long before New York did.

**MSUlaxer27** · 08-28-2007, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by SBBL

Umm, hey guys - hate to busrt your bubble but this does not constitute dodger uniforms all over the rotunda. Every New Yorker will be proud to see aphoto of a man WE embraced and is part of OUR baseball and cultural history. We would have been PROUD to attend Jackie Robinson Park had they gone ahead and named it that. Nice job Mets ! Bravo !

HOPE JACKIE'S PICTURES ARE NICE AND BIG !

Speak for yourself. I myself do not really want to see pictures of another teams player in the Mets home ballpark. Jackie Robinson has been sufficiently honored by major league baseball by having his number retired by every team. I am glad it was not named Jackie Robinson Park.

Why put the Eddie Grant memorial in Centerfield as well? For those of you that lost your team and had to accept the Mets as a replacement I sympathize, but the Mets are all I've ever had and quite frankly, all I ever want. The treacly nostalgia for the Gi-odgers is pathetic in my opinion.

Are we Mets fans that ashamed of our history that we must continue to co-opt two teams that told NYC to go pound sand 50, that's 50 years ago?

I myself am not ashamed of the Mets (or their history...Ask Cubs (0,0), Phillies(3,1), Astros(1,0), Senators/Rangers(0,0), White Sox(1,0), Red Sox(4,1), Angels(1,1) and yes the F'n Giants(3,0) fans if they'd like to play in 4 and win 2 world series in the same time frame as the Mets).

While I have an appreciation of NY Baseball history...the Giants and Dodgers are just that history. I'm sorry for all the fans who lost their teams in 1957, but I wish they'd stop messing with my team.

**nymdan** · 08-28-2007, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by PeteU

From this image, I notice one thing--the area down the left field foul line between the lower and mezzanine decks seems to have a lot of open, structural steel without an exterior wall behind it.

Good call, I never noticed how open this area is. I hope this doesn't create any unusual wind patterns within the stadium, such as the one in Citizens Bank park, where the open areas behind the concourses creates a cross-draft, helping the ball fly out of the park. But who knows, maybe this opening will actually knock the ball down.

**SBBL** · 08-28-2007, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by MSUlaxer27

Speak for yourself. I myself do not really want to see pictures of another teams player in the Mets home ballpark. Jackie Robinson has been sufficiently honored by major league baseball by having his number retired by every team. I am glad it was not named Jackie Robinson Park.

Perhaps there are other reasons you sound so hostile towards Jackie Robinson . . .

Any true NY fan of baseball, any true fan of NY baseball, in fact, any true NY'er, has every reason to be proud of our history with Jackie Robinson. That is why so, so many of us are pleased and honored this great man will be remembered WHERE HE SHOULD BE, in a NY ball park. I hope the pictures are BIG and NUMEROUS & all over the JACKIE ROBINSON ROTUNDA when I walk in after driving there on the JACKIE ROBINSON PARKWAY. NY'ers and NY baseball fans can NEVER, NEVER honor Jackie enough.

The Brooklyn Dodger & NY Giant players and achievments belong to NY baseball fans. That is why knowledgeble and true fans embrace the National League hero's of OUR past as well as their achievements and championships.

Baseball is all about history. The entire park is a tribute to our dodger and giant past. Our history includes Jackie.

Thank God !

**Yankeefan90** · 08-28-2007, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by SBBL

Perhaps there are other reasons you sound so hostile towards Jackie Robinson . . .

Any true NY fan of baseball, any true fan of NY baseball, in fact, any true NY'er, has every reason to be proud of our history with Jackie Robinson. That is why so, so many of us are pleased and honored this great man will be remembered WHERE HE SHOULD BE, in a NY ball park. I hope the pictures are BIG and NUMEROUS & all over the JACKIE ROBINSON ROTUNDA when I walk in after driving there on the JACKIE ROBINSON PARKWAY. NY'ers and NY baseball fans can NEVER, NEVER honor Jackie enough.

The Brooklyn Dodger & NY Giant players and achievments belong to NY baseball fans. That is why knowledgeble and true fans embrace the National League hero's of OUR past as well as their achievements and championships.

Baseball is all about history. The entire park is a tribute to our dodger and giant past. Our history includes Jackie.

Thank God !

I think what Jackie Robinson did for the game was great. But Jackie Robinson never played for the Mets, nor did he ever play for the 30 other baseball teams that HAD to retire his number. The man was a pioneer for the game yes, and the Dodgers should take every effort to immortalize this man but sadly it was the Dodgers that left New York and took all of that history with them. New York did enough by naming a Parkway after him. Also as a white American with Italian ancestry I find that for all 30 teams to immortalize only an African-American pioneer for the sport is rascist. Babe Ruth IMO opinion should also have his number retired through out baseball. Also I think the rotunda at Citi Field should have been named after Gil Hodges, a man who played for the Dodgers and managed the Mets. It would have been a nice way to remember the NY teams of yesteryear while also immortalizing the history of the Mets. Just because someone doesn't want a man who never put on the uniform of thier favorite team immortalized in their stadium doesn't make someone rascist.