|
="Centerfield":1gc9mbcl]
*I only caught the ninth inning but we had Matt Franco playing third. Who played third in 1997? Anyone remember without looking?
[/quote:1gc9mbcl]
Easy, Edgardo Alfonzo.
|
metsguyinmichigan
Jan 27 2009 09:00 PM
|
|
That wasn't Butch Huskey?
I went to the game the next day.
|
G-Fafif
Jan 28 2009 05:38 AM
|
|
Fonzie was hurt that week, though he toughed it out and entered the third game, one of your less-talked about Mets Classics since it was a loss (the Beez Balk game). Rey-Rey went down a couple of weeks earlier and then Manny Alexander did the same. They brought up Shawn Gilbert and he got injured. Thus, Luis Lopez, nominal fourth-string shortstop, was starting against the defending world champions in the Self Esteem Bowl. I seem to recall Fonzie seeing some shortstop action around this time as well. Lopez did stick, though Gilbert's Mets career was basically over. I liked Alexander and was sorry when he was part of the Lance-McRae (or Turk) trade. In the previous series, against the Red Sox, Kevin Morgan filled in at third, his one and only appearance in the bigs.
Pound for pound or on some gut level, 1997 remains my favorite season. Overall, it's a respectable fourth behind '99, '85 and '86.
|
metirish
Jan 28 2009 07:10 AM
|
|
="G-Fafif":oy3qrwa2]
Pound for pound or on some gut level, 1997 remains my favorite season. Overall, it's a respectable fourth behind '99, '85 and '86.[/quote:oy3qrwa2]
Definitely one of my favorite years if only because that was the first year as a fan of the Mets that they were good. The derby game really got me into things as well.
BTW Greg I think it's wonderful out of all the years that you have followed the Mets you can pick 1997 as your fourth favorite.
|
Benjamin Grimm
Jan 28 2009 07:22 AM
|
|
1985 was definitely my favorite. When the Mets contended when I was a kid (really, just in 1973) I was too young to appreciate the rarity.
1984 was fun, but the Mets faded fairly early. 1985 was my first experience as a seasoned fan with a nail-biting pennant race.
1999 had the same excitement, an equally likable cast of characters, and was very refreshing after a long drought. A terrific, solid year, but it can't top 1985 for me.
|
John Cougar Lunchbucket
Jan 28 2009 07:26 AM
|
|
I'm fond of 97 too. If that year didn't happen it's possible none of you would know me. I was nearly divorced from baseball before that team romanced me right back in.
I'm an 84 guy.
|
Edgy DC
Jan 28 2009 07:33 AM
|
|
I've always stood by eighty three. Lights came on at Shea.
|
themetfairy
Jan 28 2009 07:39 AM
|
|
1999. That year made me love baseball again, at a time in my life when I truly needed it.
|
Benjamin Grimm
Jan 28 2009 07:40 AM
|
|
1983 is under appreciated.
I was always, in the previous years, foolishly optimistic. But in 1983, the optimism started to feel real.
|
Kong76
Jan 28 2009 08:00 AM
|
|
I think '97 is when I stumbled onto Mets Online and became a baseball internet
junkie and I still haven't gotten some stuff done that I should have.
Thanks, Bryan!
|
John Cougar Lunchbucket
Jan 28 2009 08:02 AM
|
|
| ="Benjamin Grimm"]1983 is under appreciated.
I was always, in the previous years, foolishly optimistic. But in 1983, the optimism started to feel real. |
I agree with that. I basically consider June 15 and on to be part of 84 anyway.
|
Centerfield
Jan 28 2009 08:17 AM
|
|
1984 was when I first noticed the Mets. I was just a kid, didn't know a heck of a lot, I just knew I was experiencing a new set of emotions. Things never got serious in 1984, but there was definitely interest, and the flirting was undeniable.
In 1985, the flirting turned into full out dating. We were seeing each other more often. I would think about them when I wasn't with them. Unfortunately, I was too young to really appreciate how great that summer was, but I was in love for the first time.
In 1986, our relationship was riding sky high. I never realized things could be so good. And I don't have to tell you what happened that October.
1987: Things just weren't the same. It was still good, but we were having trouble for the first time and we didn't really know how to handle it.
In 1988, everything seemed to be getting back to normal. Lots of transgressions were forgiven, and it looked like we had passed the troubled times. Then in October, they ripped out my heart. I found love letters from some guy named Mike in LA. The next spring they traded away Lenny Dykstra, and to be honest, things were really never the same after that. There was bitterness on both sides, and we both decided to let things cool off for a while.
We kept in touch during the early 90's, but by 93, we hardly saw each other at all. In '94, I heard they ran into some trouble but I was too busy seeing other hobbies to really care.
I didn't see the Mets again until after college. In 1997, I heard (though I didn't watch) that they beat the Yankees in the first ever matchup between those teams, and I realized I still wished them well.
In 1998, I started seeing the Mets out more and more. I heard they got Mike Piazza. They had this guy Olerud that you couldn't help but root for. Before long, I started remembering what I liked about them in the first place. Alot of the old wounds were gone. The Mets were different now. I was different now. We had both gone our own way but circled back to where we started.
In 1999, it was love rediscovered. It was as great as '85 and '86. Except we were older and better able to handle adversity. '99 ended in the worst way you could imagine, but our relationship was strong. We knew were in this together for good.
We've been together since then. Through thick and thin. Through Art Howe and Roberto Alomar. I had one little transgression with the 2004 Red Sox, but the Mets understood and took me back.
Our's is not a perfect relationship, but it works.
|
batmagadanleadoff
Jan 28 2009 08:17 AM
|
|
Olerud and Baerga were the two highest paid 1997 Mets. Who was third?
|
Frayed Knot
Jan 28 2009 08:23 AM
|
|
Back in '86 my little circle of Met fan friends and I would use 1984 as a barometer. If you couldn't talk seriously about that team and that year we basically treated you like a bandwagon jumping newbie not worthy of our time.
Yes, I was an elitist even back then.
|
John Cougar Lunchbucket
Jan 28 2009 08:23 AM
|
|
Lance Johnson?
|
Fman99
Jan 28 2009 08:27 AM
|
|
Hundley?
|
Benjamin Grimm
Jan 28 2009 08:31 AM
|
|
Gilkey?
|
Edgy DC
Jan 28 2009 08:38 AM
|
|
Franco.
|
batmagadanleadoff
Jan 28 2009 08:49 AM
|
|
The answer is so unlikely, that I'd suspect that anyone who gets it right had to have looked.
I guess that's a hint, sort of.
|
Kong76
Jan 28 2009 08:51 AM
|
|
I didn't look, but I figured it was a trick question and that Bonilla's contract
was still not spread out into the 2000's?
|
batmagadanleadoff
Jan 28 2009 08:53 AM
|
|
Here's another hint: He didn't spend the entire season on the Mets and the Mets surely did not pay his entire salary.
|
Kong76
Jan 28 2009 08:54 AM
|
|
I just looked, never mind the above.
|
Fman99
Jan 28 2009 09:14 AM
|
|
="Fman99":3rtexa93]Hundley?[/quote:3rtexa93]
I peeked.
Hundley was #4 so I give myself kudos for being close. Gilkey was #6, Johnson #8, Franco #9.
|
seawolf17
Jan 28 2009 09:15 AM
|
|
="Centerfield":15o6noox]1984 was when I first noticed the Mets. I was just a kid, didn't know a heck of a lot, I just knew I was experiencing a new set of emotions. Things never got serious in 1984, but there was definitely interest, and the flirting was undeniable.
In 1985, the flirting turned into full out dating. We were seeing each other more often. I would think about them when I wasn't with them. Unfortunately, I was too young to really appreciate how great that summer was, but I was in love for the first time.
In 1986, our relationship was riding sky high. I never realized things could be so good. And I don't have to tell you what happened that October.
1987: Things just weren't the same. It was still good, but we were having trouble for the first time and we didn't really know how to handle it.
In 1988, everything seemed to be getting back to normal. Lots of transgressions were forgiven, and it looked like we had passed the troubled times. Then in October, they ripped out my heart. I found love letters from some guy named Mike in LA. The next spring they traded away Lenny Dykstra, and to be honest, things were really never the same after that. There was bitterness on both sides, and we both decided to let things cool off for a while.
We kept in touch during the early 90's, but by 93, we hardly saw each other at all. In '94, I heard they ran into some trouble but I was too busy seeing other hobbies to really care.
I didn't see the Mets again until after college. In 1997, I heard (though I didn't watch) that they beat the Yankees in the first ever matchup between those teams, and I realized I still wished them well.
In 1998, I started seeing the Mets out more and more. I heard they got Mike Piazza. They had this guy Olerud that you couldn't help but root for. Before long, I started remembering what I liked about them in the first place. Alot of the old wounds were gone. The Mets were different now. I was different now. We had both gone our own way but circled back to where we started.
In 1999, it was love rediscovered. It was as great as '85 and '86. Except we were older and better able to handle adversity. '99 ended in the worst way you could imagine, but our relationship was strong. We knew were in this together for good.
We've been together since then. Through thick and thin. Through Art Howe and Roberto Alomar. I had one little transgression with the 2004 Red Sox, but the Mets understood and took me back.
Our's is not a perfect relationship, but it works.[/quote:15o6noox]
CF=Seawolf
|
G-Fafif
Jan 28 2009 11:01 AM
|
|
Mel Rojas?
|
Edgy DC
Jan 28 2009 11:10 AM
|
|
Gotta be.
|
batmagadanleadoff
Jan 28 2009 11:11 AM
|
|
Yes.
Bullpen's Failures Underscore Need for Rojas
By BUSTER OLNEY
Published: August 11, 1997
Until he shuts a team down, until he holds a lead, Mel Rojas will be treated as the Mets' version of Hideki Irabu. Months of talk about the Mets' need for a late-inning reliever preceded Rojas's arrival to fill that crucial role. And, like Irabu, Rojas needed only one poor outing before earning long and loud jeers from the home crowd.
Mets Manager Bobby Valentine said he is sure Rojas, who was the losing pitcher Saturday night in his first game for the Mets, will rebound to pitch well. Yesterday, in a sloppy 11-8 loss to the Houston Astros, the Mets learned again why they needed Rojas in the first place.
The Mets, slipping three games behind the Florida Marlins in the race for the National League wild card berth, committed three errors and received seven generally awful innings from their bullpen, which allowed six runs, nine hits and six walks. Juan Acevedo allowed a homer in two innings -- before being optioned to Class AAA Norfolk -- and Cory Lidle gave up five runs in three innings.
Rojas merely watched from the bullpen on the other side of the right-field fence at Shea Stadium and, in his mind, reviewed his performance Saturday night, when he gave up five runs in the ninth inning in an 8-3 defeat.
Unlike the Yankees' Irabu, Rojas, who was obtained Friday in a six-player trade with the Chicago Cubs, was still in the big leagues. When he strolled into the Mets' clubhouse and began pulling on his uniform before yesterday's game, Valentine walked over and shook his hand. ''You're back,'' Valentine said, jokingly, as if the fans' unfriendly greeting Saturday night might have driven Rojas away.
Given his first chance to see Rojas firsthand Saturday night, the bullpen coach Randy Niemann was impressed: big upper body, long arms, good fastball, great split-fingered fastball. Rojas retired the Astros in order in the eighth inning.
But Bob Apodaca, the pitching coach, had the same concerns about Rojas as he did about Pete Harnisch last week: that he might get a little too excited and try too hard. Harnisch handled his emotions in pitching six solid innings; Rojas did not, Apodaca thought.
''The trouble wasn't mechanical,'' Apodaca said. ''He was up for the game. He's with a new team, trying to do too much. It's not that uncommon, and it's something that you have to guard against. He was trying to impress, and that's human nature.'' Rojas said he felt comfortable in his first inning. ''And then I lost my concentration,'' he admitted.
Apodaca chatted with Rojas about this briefly yesterday, though he felt his advice was almost unnecessary. ''He's aware of it,'' Apodaca said. ''He's a veteran.''
Important to the Mets' hopes for the playoffs, Rojas is bearing a great deal of pressure. Like Irabu.
The bullpen was pivotal again yesterday in a game the Mets never led. The Astros pounded Mets starter Rick Reed -- who had been wearing an electrical stimulation apparatus on his right biceps and forearm in recent days and seems to be going through a dead-arm period -- for five runs in the first inning before Reed was taken out for a pinch-hitter in the second.
Fighting back against the Houston right-hander Darryl Kile and his vicious curveball, the Mets scored three runs in the second inning and reduced the lead to 5-4 in the third inning on John Olerud's first homer since July 16.
Acevedo and Lidle surrendered six runs over the next four innings; Houston's lead was 11-4. Olerud hit his second homer as part of a four-run rally in the seventh. The Mets had a couple of more chances, but all in all, it was the sort of game which, after the first inning, they never really gave themselves a chance to win.
''A real sloppy game, there's no doubt about it,'' Valentine said.
INSIDE PITCH
Before yesterday's game, CARL EVERETT visited his children SHAWNA, 5, and CARL, 4, who are in the custody of the city child welfare agency because of allegations of child abuse against Everett. A fact-finding hearing in Family Court is scheduled for today. . . . After the game, BOBBY VALENTINE and the Houston hitting coach, TOM McCRAW, engaged in a brief and heated argument over a comment one allegedly made about the other. ''It's dead,'' McCraw said, declining to elaborate. McCraw used to be the hitting coach for the Mets, until Valentine became manager. . . . BERNARD GILKEY's last hit came on July 30. He has no hits in his last 22 at-bats and his average has shriveled to .210.
|
Ashie62
Jan 28 2009 11:17 AM
|
|
Yup Rojas 4.58 Mill
I was 14 and the 1973 Mets were big for me...Transistor radio every night in September checking out of towns
Watched one playoff game against the Red in my orthodontists chair
83-84 Were fun in that I could see the light at the end of tunnel and the gathering of real talent..It was exciting!
|
John Cougar Lunchbucket
Jan 28 2009 11:17 AM
|
|
| ]After the game, BOBBY VALENTINE and the Houston hitting coach, TOM McCRAW, engaged in a brief and heated argument over a comment one allegedly made about the other. ''It's dead,'' McCraw said, declining to elaborate. McCraw used to be the hitting coach for the Mets, until Valentine became manager |
Love this stuff. Bobby fought with everyone back in 97
|
G-Fafif
Jan 28 2009 11:20 AM
|
|
I was at that game, a birthday present to a friend who was born on August 10, fittingly enough. The Mets gave away, besides eleven runs, the strangest of premiums: a Miller Lite can belt, adults only. It fit three cans of beer (beer not included) inside it and you could strap it around your waist, lest you forget where you put 75% of your four-pack. They actually ran out of them and provided rainchecks. My friend was late in showing up, so I picked his up for him on the final day of the season.
I think it was the following year the Mets instituted "first 25,000" and such, as ordering up extra Miller Lite can belts must have struck somebody in promotions as something less than the best use of resources.
|
Edgy DC
Jan 28 2009 11:29 AM
|
|
I never understood the limited resources angle, unless it's to encourage advance ordering. Aren't the giveaways 100% underwritten by the sponsor, and doesn't the sponsor want 100% of the fans adorned in their crap?
Or is it all about Ralph Kiner saying their name during the broadcast?
|
batmagadanleadoff
Jan 28 2009 11:32 AM
|
|
="Edgy DC":342gxm8d]I never understood the limited resources angle ....?[/quote:342gxm8d]
I'm still trying to figure out this beer-belt thing.
|
G-Fafif
Jan 28 2009 11:33 AM
|
|
They used to, I gather, order enough to satisfy what they believed the crowd would be. Then along would come a game where the sale outpaced the forecast and it was raincheck time. The "first 25,000" bit took care of that.
I'd have to delve into yearbooks and pocket schedule archives to figure out when these things began to become routinely sponsored. In ye olde days, Batting Helmet Day was just Batting Helmet Day, not Investors Consolidated Batting Helmet Day. I remember reading an article about sponsored giveaways in the WSJ a long time ago that said even something that seemed kinda ritzy (like a transistor radio that the MFYs gave out) was pretty cheap and the sponsor picked up the cost.
|
seawolf17
Jan 28 2009 11:34 AM
|
|
I think it's advance ordering and advance showing up, so you can buy more concessions once you're there.
|
G-Fafif
Jan 28 2009 11:36 AM
|
|
="batmagadanleadoff":3h29wbsh]I'm still trying to figure out this beer-belt thing.[/quote:3h29wbsh]
It may have been more of a flexible tube than a belt. It was white and canvassy, Lite logo on one side, Mets script on the other. And it had a zipper. I've yet to figure its real world utility. When offered a beer, is it like, "No thanks, brought my own!"?
|
Edgy DC
Jan 28 2009 11:40 AM
|
|
I'm guessing 83-88 as when spornsorship of giveaway days took over. Around that time that every Sunday became a giveaway day. I got a Mets sports bag around 83 that was really a cheap Glad logoed thingie. Tee shirt day around 1985 was a fugly v-neck with "Mets" in script on the left breast and "All-Channel Satellite" in print on the right. Since satellite dishes were prohibitively expensive then, I imagine if the promotion netted three or four sales, they covered their nut.
|
John Cougar Lunchbucket
Jan 28 2009 11:44 AM
|
|
Gotta love the SI Vault: July 18, 1977
| ]
Beer Is Out, Halters In
Larry Keith
Take me out to the ball game,
Take me out to the crowd.
Give me some jackets and baseball caps,
Free photo albums and sweatbands and bats.
Yes, it's step right up for the freebies.
If they run out it's a shame.
For it's one, two, three giveaways
At the new ball game.
There was a time when the only pleasures baseball offered were its modest own. Dodgers vs. Reds, Yankees vs. Red Sox. It was all in the game itself. In recent years, though, baseball has decided that the marketplace demands more than hits, runs and errors. Management feels compelled to give you something else. It wants you to leave the stadium with a smile on your face, a song in your heart and a souvenir sweatband on your wrist.
Baseball promotions are a means of winning at the gate even if the home team is losing on the field. At times they have all the taste and sophistication of a TV game show. But whether what is offered is a free gift or a cheap thrill, promotions are good business. The payoff comes in increased revenues from attendance, concessions and parking, plus thousands of people walking around town showing off the team logo. "Financially speaking, we just about have to have giveaway days if we're going to make it," says Baltimore Promotions Director Don Shaver. Bill Veeck's Chicago White Sox had 25 promotion or giveaway dates last season. Business Manager Rudie Schaffer says, "The thing you're trying to accomplish is to bring a fresh person into the ball park. Once you get him there, you give him a good show."
Most teams enjoy the benefits of giveaway days without having to pay the full cost of the items they are handing out. Because 25,000 bats and jackets at 75? and $1.50 each add up, the expense is often shared by local cosponsors. Businesses also participate by buying up blocks of tickets for their employees. Boeing Aircraft set a major league group-sales record this year by purchasing 65,432 tickets for Seattle's two-game Boeing Weekend.
The key to a successful promotion is to turn a profit even while giving something away. Philadelphia was outsmarted a few years ago when cagey Little Leaguers entered Veterans Stadium for the kids' cut-rate 50?, collected a jacket, went outside, returned with another four-bit ticket, collected another jacket, went outside.... "They were starting their own sporting goods store," says the Phillies' executive vice-president. Bill Giles. "Our policy now is that kids have to pay a normal $2.25 for a ticket on special promotion days."
But at that price, a ball club better deliver. A team caught short of advertised items usually hands out IOUs. In many ball parks, you have to be 14 or under to get, say, a free jacket. In Kansas City members of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes make the age decisions. No team is foolish enough to give sticky chewing gum to the masses, and most take special precautions when handing out bats to kids and beer to adults. Three years ago, a sudsed-up crowd in Cleveland stormed onto the field during a game with Texas, forcing a forfeit, only the eighth in major league history. But it is the Rangers, not the Indians, who have plugged up the keg. Texas discontinued its beer promotions at the request of the Arlington city fathers, who objected to fights in the stands and automobile accidents around the park after the game.
The Dodgers do not give away bats because they noticed that constant pounding on the cement stands was creating a potential "structural problem." Montreal discontinued Bat Day after incidents in 1969 and 1974. The first involved empty-handed (and headed) customers who tried to overturn the depleted supply truck. Five years later bat swingers took aim at the windshields of parked cars.
Local custom and interest dictate the nature of some promotions. Toronto and Montreal hand out ski caps. Cincinnati schedules a Farmers' Night (farmer/Pitcher Woodie Fryman is favored to win this year's cow-milking contest) and Texas has a combination Farm and Ranch Night. The egg-throwing contest is a messy highlight of both events. Houston attracts thousands for its Louisiana Weekend, which includes a gumbo-cooking contest. On Texas Weekend the featured events are beer-can crushing and cow-chip throwing.
Philadelphia and Atlanta lead the majors in all-round originality and sophomoric high jinks. The Phillies set the mood on Opening Day when someone arrives by kite, parachute or cannon to throw out the first ball. Fans cannot wait for Halter Top Night on Aug. 19 when halters will be given away. "If they can fill 'em. they can have 'em." reports SI Correspondent Charlie Frush. Each halter will sport the slogan of the cosponsor Tastykake: ALL THE GOOD THINGS WRAPPED UP IN ONE. Slightly more sophisticated is Music Night, when anyone bringing a musical instrument can join in the playing of Take Me Out to the Ball Game and will receive a certificate authenticating his or her performance in the "world's largest orchestra."
Atlanta schedules a promotion of some sort for every game. On Wedlock and Headlock Day 15 couples will be married at home plate before the game, and five professional wrestling matches will take place afterward. The Braves have already held their version of Ladies Night, in which every woman received a cigar (You've come a long way, baby, since the first Ladies Day in 1876). The big winner in the team's $25,000 cash scramble picked up $4,000 in 90 seconds of scurrying after bills scattered all over the field. Which proved once again that in baseball, promotion really does pay. |
|
Frayed Knot
Jan 28 2009 01:53 PM
|
|
I remember when Imus used to say that 'Hand-gun Night' was coming up a Yankee Stadium.
All those over 15 got a freebie but only if accompanied by their parole officer.
Funny how give-away promotions have increased during a time when stadiums are closer to their capacity than ever in many cases, theoretically making the need for a come-on less necessary.
|
Benjamin Grimm
Jan 28 2009 01:55 PM
|
|
It's probably less about filling empty seats than it is about promoting the sponsor.
|
Frayed Knot
Jan 28 2009 02:13 PM
|
|
Egg-zactly
In the old days it was about selling tickets so they figured that having them too often would spoil the novelty and fans would no longer plan their ticket buying around them.
Now they don't need them to fill seats so it's all about making money via the underwriting. They'd probably have them 81 times a year if they could find enough gizmos and sponsors.
|
Ashie62
Jan 28 2009 02:46 PM
|
|
I've still got my blond Ron Swoboda model Bat Day Bat from a late sixties promo where they ask everyone to wave their bats at the same time. Quite a sight!
|
batmagadanleadoff
Jan 28 2009 03:27 PM
|
|
="G-Fafif":s111v9tq]="batmagadanleadoff":s111v9tq]I'm still trying to figure out this beer-belt thing.[/quote:s111v9tq]
It may have been more of a flexible tube than a belt....[/quote:s111v9tq]
I was about to question the whole wholesomeness of that promotion, especially given Baseball's traditional connection with children of all ages. But then I remembered the huge Budweiser ads that have been swallowing up Shea's scoreboard for the past 20 years or so.
Maybe the Mets'll give one of those away for borscht in 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
