menu

Chick-fil-A Foul Poles Show Mets Hold Nothing Sacred

When it comes to the New York Mets ownership under the Wilpons, one thing which becomes increasingly clear is just how little they think of their fanbase. When Citi Field was built, it was an over-the-top tribute to the Brooklyn Dodgers with very little honoring the history of the New York Mets.

The exterior of the ballpark was an homage to Ebbets Field. There was the Jackie Robinson Rotunda but nothing honoring Tom Seaver or other Mets greats. The Mets Hall of Fame was nowhere to be seen. They actually removed Dwight Gooden‘s signature from the wall and invented a lie that there would soon be an autographed wall with signatures from Mets greats. There were also many obstructed views. On that front, the Mets made matters worse:

Looking at the image, aside from home plate, first base, and a good portion of right field, what you cannot see is the new advertisements added to the foul poles at Citi Field. Here’s another image to show the new minor league park like advertisements the ballpark now has:

Now, there are many reasons why people would be justifiably angry with these advertisements in the ballpark. On that front, it is beyond amusing to consider one of the reasons purportedly offered for the Mets not wanting to keep Daniel Murphy was his comments on this topic. Perhaps if he offered back part of his contract to advertise on the foul poles, the Mets would have won the 2016 World Series.

Social issues aside, there are other reasons to be annoyed with this. First and foremost, there are now obstructed view seats in the ballpark where there weren’t previously. This means if you bought a ticket for full price to sit in those two areas, you know have an obstructed view seat. Of course, if you go to the Mets website, it should be noted these seats are not designated as obstructed view nor are they discounted to reflect their new status.

After all, if that was done, this could not be as effective a money grab as the Wilpons wanted this to be.

Another factor not discussed is the orange foul poles were uniquely Mets. They are the only team in baseball with foul poles which were not yellow. Even with all the Brooklyn Dodger nonsense around Citi Field, the Wilpons actually kept the orange foul poles keeping something uniquely Mets in their new home. To some Mets fans, those foul poles are iconic. Now? Well, their effect is as obstructed as the views which are now being blocked.

These foul poles are another cash grab much like putting an Amway office in Citi Field was. Like that Amway office, this is another way the Mets have actively tried to make themselves a joke at the promise of another dollar. Already, people are rushing to make the joke that neither Chick-fil-A or the Mets work on Sunday. While the Mets go out of their way to make themselves a laughingstock, sorry  more of a laughingstock, like the David Wright and Yoenis Cespedes insurance proceeds, this is another buck which the Wilpons will pocket and not reinvest in the team.

Overall, the Chick-fil-A foul poles represent everything wrong with the Mets under the Wilpons stewardship, so in the end, the new foul poles are perhaps more fitting that originally contemplated.

 

24 thoughts on “Chick-fil-A Foul Poles Show Mets Hold Nothing Sacred”

  1. OldBackstop says:

    sigh…..I feel like your editor, firing you yet again….

    1. According to the NY Post: ” But, according to the Mets, the seats behind the foul pole were sold as limited-view seating even before the new signage appeared, and no additional seats have been affected.”

    2. I could care less what LGQBT groups want. It seems to me CF is aggressively Christian. I’d rather take my kids to Christian Night than Gay Pride Night at Citifield. And in what universe does gay rights outweigh religious rights? CF was branded by some gay crusaders due to donations to Christian groups, not gay rights groups. And their sales went up.

    3. As to picture in the Post shows, the new ads in left field go up an aisle, then through the Porsche Club, then affect about a dozen seats upstairs than were already limited view.

    4. With the crowds the Mets are getting for the foreseeable future, who is buying limited view seats? Or if they do, not simply moving? Those sections will be empty for some time. When the season ticket market moves alllll the way out there, I’m sure they will come down.

    Thanks for the Snowflake Update. I’m sure you feel all virtual signalled and snuggly inside.

    1. metsdaddy says:

      The Mets can say what they want, but they’re wrong. They’re not sold as obstructed view, and I’d note additional seats now have obstructed views.

      As usual, you just come here with feelings and half truths.

      1. OldBackstop says:

        Half truths? That’s the NY Post reporting a Mets statement. What is your source?

        And the Astros, a pretty good team, have the exact same Chick-fil-A ads on their foul posts, and none of their bloggers got their panties bunched.

        And the Dodgers, a pretty decent club, have foul line ads for Emirate Airlines…a country that greets gays by beheading them….but you knew that.

        And the Braves, who are better than us, have a Chick-fil-A restaurant, with accompanying signage…..but you knew that.

        And the Phillies, who are better than us, have a Chick-fil-A restaurant, with accompanying signage…..but you knew that..

        Plus, you are at the game and a ball hits the foul pole, you get a sweet, sweet free chicken sandwich.

  2. OldBackstop says:

    Oh and by the way, you can’t pile the Wilpons in with the Christian right, they are freaking Jews. If anything, they are being diverse, religion-wise.

    Question…..would you be writing these indignant little articles if the sign was pink and said “Gay Pride”? Or would your concern about decorating color aesthetics and limited view seats (that are already limited) suddenly melt away in a politically correct inner glow?

    1. metsdaddy says:

      Please stop being this stupid. Really, your entire argument on this front is devoid of intellect.

      I spend the majority of the piece discussing obstructed views and damaging a part of the ballpark which is uniquely Mets, and your response is to go off on some inane political bend not germane to the piece.

      1. OldBackstop says:

        — You said “justifiably angry and linked to one of the gay rights rants.

        — you complain the orange poles are sacred….well, there is about 60 percent more orange out there, the signs backage is wider than the existing pole and the same orange.

        — many MLB stadiums have additional screens or netting in the exact same place to better call home runs, and you aren’t whining about that.

        Gawd. Bring back Matt Harvey…..

        1. metsdaddy says:

          I see you opted to double down on the stupidity.

          1. OldBackstop says:

            You do recognize that people post long factual replies here and you answer with one sentence childish insults? I mean, answer with facts AND childish insults…..you’ll look less pathetic to your kid when he is looking at internet archives in ten years.

          2. metsdaddy says:

            People do post long factual replies looking for intelligent and honest discussion.

            That’s not you. You look to troll and insult because I don’t agree with your poorly reasoned, factually inaccurate, and emotion based opinions.

  3. Blair M. Schirmer says:

    One of the replies to Best’s tweet was gold: “This team stinks, but how can we screw the fans more? Let’s put an unnecessary ad along the foul poles to block their views even more. No worries though, there should be plenty of empty seats available to switch into if you want.”

    At this point we’re looking at 72 wins next season. It’s the beginning of the Alderson years all over again. A little more front line talent but even less competent stewardship, not to mention the likelihood of the Mets dumping one of Conforto or Syndergaard as they go into their penultimate arb seasons. Hooboy.

    1. metsdaddy says:

      The key difference was Alderson knew what he was doing. Van Wagenen is terrible.

      1. Blair M. Schirmer says:

        Alderson did some things well but overall he was a shill who swapped a good reputation for millions of dollars as the Wilpons’ front man and con man. That he lied to us regularly on their behalf was unforgivable–hence my irritations. The game had passed him by, too. He was at best an average GM (good trader, fwiw) but the point at which he paid or permitted Bruce to be paid 3/39m and failed to understand that no later than the start of 2017 he had a starting 2 win CFer in Nimmo for the major league minimum, was the point at which he was overdue for retirement. He was also shelling out for Cabrera and Walker when he had big holes on the team and Dilson Herrera on hand–Herrara, who was a hair better at the plate than Dom Smith over two full minor league seasons and as a middle infielder (!), yet Alderson couldn’t find a place for him. Smh.

        But for all that, yes, Alderson was surely a better GM than Wags. Among the proof is that Alderson left enough talent to build a contender in 2019. That was clear. How Wags turned that into a team headed for 74 wins warrants a book I may just have to write.

        1. OldBackstop says:

          Did you say Dilson Herrera? You don’t like Alderson because he dumped him (wth a bum shoulder)

          Well, we have him now, He’s only 25, guess our worries are over.

          1. metsdaddy says:

            No, I did not like dumping Dilson. It was a bad move. That doesn’t outweigh a lot of the good Alderson did.

          2. Blair M. Schirmer says:

            I was looking at Herrera’s numbers when he was a healthy 20-21 yo with amazing numbers at the plate for an MI. Years later Alderson touted Smith and rushed him to the majors two years early, when once upon a time they had an MI who could hit as well but instead chose to bury him.

            Just one of numerous errors.

          3. metsdaddy says:

            That was Sandy’s biggest issue as GM. He had a very poor feel for when to bring up young players.

        2. metsdaddy says:

          Alderson had his issues including not trusting young players, but he was better than average. He left behind a fantastic core and payroll flexibility. Overall, his biggest issue was the biggest issue for all Mets General Managers – Jeff Wilpon.

          1. Blair M. Schirmer says:

            @md — I’d prefer to say Alderson left behind a *good* core (and at best an average farm), a core out of which a contender could have easily been built given the resources the Mets were willing to invest during the 2018-2019 offseason.

            As for payroll flexibility, that’s a double-edged sword. The Mets would have been in far better shape had Alderson committed payroll to the Mets controllable core during the 2017-2018 offseason (if not sooner) and signed them through their arb years while snagging an additional year or two of FA.

            In short, the Mets had a lot of payroll flexibility because they had failed to lock up their good players.

            Whether that’s the fault of the GM or the owners, of course, is hard to say–but Alderson did sign up for this and hitch himself to the Wilpons.

          2. metsdaddy says:

            The Mets farm system was far better than average. If Van Wagenen didn’t make that idiotic trade, they’d have Kelenic, Dunn, Kay, Gimenez, and Mauricio in the top 100 with Vientos, Alvarez, and others not far behind. Really, this Mets system was going to be the envy of the Major Leagues before Van Wagenen tore it apart.

  4. OldBackstop says:

    The current state of our season can be blamed on one guy — Syndergaard. In the first half of the year, he gave up 4 or more runs nine (9) times. To put that into perspective, deGrom did three times. Vargas twice.

    He was supposed to be the stud moving into the ace role, as deGrom moved into his 30s. Instead, he became the guy Fanboys adored, but…..damn, he gave up a lot of runs again? Isn’t that weird.

    1. metsdaddy says:

      It’s weird you can’t see his outing, like seemingly all of his outings, was adversely affected by the defense. It’s why he’s 21st in FIP, which is equivalent to a number one starter.

      So no, he’s nowhere near the problem.

      1. Blair M. Schirmer says:

        @md —I was always struck as a kid by something I found in an old Bill James abstract: “A lot of what we think of is pitching is actually defense.” If your defense turns just one out into a hit your ERA as a pitcher can go up by more than half a run. Or take someone like Lagares at his peak. Take all the extra outs he made over that of an average CFer and move those to Lagares’ batting line and he turns into an average CFer on defense who at the plate hits like Wade Boggs.

        Watching especially the Mets OF the last few weeks, as a pitcher I’d be infuriated.

  5. OldBackstop says:

    Metsdaddy vs. The Post and Mets statement on whether seats have limited view warnings.

    Now, Metsdaddy’s sexcret source is also up again the NY Times, which raised the issue nine years ago::

    “The Mets appear to be correcting that lapse. When ordering tickets for certain seats online, fans receive a warning that reads, “View: Limited portions of the playing field may not be visible from this seat location.” The disclaimer, in bright orange, was attached to seats in 300, 400 and 500 level seats in left field.”

    Bottom line….who cares, for the foreseeable future. You can get a cheap tic in and have your choice of 30,000 seats, or more, for the forseeable future.

    1. metsdaddy says:

      I’m guessing the people who now have obstructed view seats and those who buy tickets not knowing their now obstructed care.

      I’d also note how yet again I’m right, and instead of being recalcitrant, you made snide remarks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *