Rebuttal: My outrage at Citi Field

I miss Shea Stadium. But I'm much more excited for Citi Field.

Andrew Beaton over at Hot Foot feels much different:

It is truly shameful that the Wilpons are sacraficing thousands of seats, the opportunity for thousands of fans to go to a game, in order to build a few extra luxury boxes and earn an extra couple bucks. In fact, MLB teams have financial incentives to build luxury boxes beyond the obvious ones.

Sure, that's an issue here, but if you've been to Shea Stadium at all, you must know it's a dump. That's right, I said it. Shea was a dump.

It wasn't pretty. Citi Field will be gorgeous.
It didn't have the greatest facilities. Citi Field will be better for the players and the fans.
The good food was few and far-between. Citi Field will have scrumptious food at every turn.

There are 10,000 less seats, but it will be a much more pleasing venue for everyone. Better seats, better sight lines, better proximity to the game. It's going to be a better place, no matter which way you slice it.

Plus, you cannot forget that baseball is a business. It is hard to look beyond the emotions and love of the game, but it's an entertainment business. It's sole purpose is to entertain to make a profit. If they can make more money in Citi Field, then so be it.

They make more money because of SNY, would you want them to shut that down too, just because some people can't get it on their cable provider? I don't think so. It's a business, and where they play is just another way they can make money.

And where do you think that money goes? Well, most of it probably goes into the pockets of the Wilpons & Co., but the money gets recycled into the team. More money translates to better facilities, better franchise, and possibly better players.

So Citi Field in an investment in the franchise for the better. It may be a bit tougher to get a ticket, but outside of the huge games, I've never had a problem getting a seat at Shea when I needed it. I'm sure it will be just the same.

Citi Field, I can't wait for you to get here.

Rebuttal: My problem with veterans

Yesterday, I wrote about "my problem with prospects." Today, in a guest post, Doug Helferich is going to explain his problem with veterans...

They've seen it all. They know the pitchers, they know how to play each hitter in the field. The provide stability. But are they a sure bet? I think it depends.

Over the years, the Mets have perennially been buyers at the trading deadline. Trading for such gems as Kris Benson (losing the young Ty Wigginton who, while never a stay, provided decent defense and adequate hitting ability) and practically giving away the fireballing Scott Kazmir for the miserable Victor Zambrano, the Mets have time and again thrown away promising young stars for players with a few more years under their belts. Luis Castillo is another recent name added at the deadline.

Other free agent deals and trades in the offseason brought the likes of Mo Vaughn, Roberto Alomar, Jeromy Burnitz, Tom Glavine, Pedro Martinez, Paul Lo Duca, Carlos Delgado, Johan Santana, Cliff Floyd, and Moises Alou into the orange and blue. While most of those deals (certainly more recently) have been at least good if not excellent, some have been questionable at best (read: Castillo).

At some point, you have to plan for the future. The Mets will never truly rebuild like they need to, purging the team of old fallen stars and getting valuable playing experience. However, there are small circumstances where they have had the chance without losing much, if any, skill at a given position. For example, why won't the Mets commit to a youngster at second base? As much as I love Gotay, he was a terrible fielder, and he has not had a good year with the Braves. However, we really didn't give him a real chance to start. Same thing this year with Argenis Reyes; he splits the starts with Easley, and clearly will get less time with Castillo coming back soon.

The Mets opt for veterans time and again, when, by the end of the year, the kid that is replaced would be nearly as good (and certainly not as injury-prone) as the older player. Every veteran we sign is one less opportunity to build a team of players we can keep for years at a time. We don't have to sign or trade for a whole new team each year. 2006 is a good example of solid veteran signings; they unquestionably put experienced players in the needed positions. But what did Luis Castillo offer that necessitated a 4 year deal? Why did we resign Alou when we could have gotten away with a platoon of Endy and friends?

Veterans can be great mentors and provide stability to an inexperienced team. However, they also impede the progress of a franchise. The Mets need to decide whether they are going to sign a new team of old-timers every year, or actually put together a real team that will play together for years.

Rebuttal: Blame Santana On This One

Lou Di Falco, over at Never Forget 69, pens his latest article entitled "Blame Santana On This One."

From Di Falco:

No question the second inning was a bit bizarre. After walking a batter and giving up a hit, with two outs David Wright made an error on a routine ground ball that should have ended the inning. The next batter, the pitcher Felix Hernandez, on the first pitch he has seen all season hit an opposite field grand slam home run. How does this happen? Sorry, but Johan Santana has got to do a better job than that. This you would have expected from Oliver Perez, not Santana. He is supposed to be the Mets stopper. Since the Mets won on Sunday, you had to feel good that with Santana on the mound the Mets had a chance to end up on the right side of the .500 ledger.

Ah yes. If you're Santana and your Gold Glove third baseman makes an error to keep the inning alive, then you throw a pitch high and outside of the strike zone to the opposing pitcher, he closes his eyes, swings, and hits a home run, it's obviously all your fault.

How could I not see that?

I do agree this is something I would more likely see out of Perez, or even Jorge Sosa, but we all know, or at least we should, that Santana gives up a lot of home runs. He lead the AL in home runs allowed last year with 33. So far in '08, he's given up 14, running at pretty much the same pace.

After that grand slam, Santana buckled down and allowed only three hits and one earned run through the next five innings. The Mets offense on the other hand, after knocking out King Felix in the fifth, managed only two hits off the beleagured Mariners bullpen.

If you're going to place blame, it's on the offense, not Santana.