Patience - or Lack Thereof

Much like this agitated cat, Mets fans are growing impatient. To use this picture as an example, Mets fans are the cat and the offseason (thus far) is the empty bowl.

Some fans are still calm as can be and others are edgy. A handful have taken to being negative for the sake of it, and the ones who are buying the doomsday scenarios and reckless vitriol being presented by the media are beyond help at this point. All, however, are waiting to be fed.

Before Roy Halladay was traded to the Phillies and John Lackey signed with the Red Sox on the same day, most fans were in agreement with the following notion: Of all the deals that had been made so far this offseason (trades and signings), there wasn't a single player they were upset about the Mets missing out on. To name a bunch of the major moves - 32 year old Chone Figgins signed a deal with Seattle, Placido Polanco (whose value is as a 2nd baseman) signed a 3 year deal to play 3rd base for the Phillies, the Yankees traded for Curtis Granderson, Randy Wolf signed with the Brewers, and the Braves signed two geriatric relievers (Billy Wagner and Takashi Saito).

If the Mets had made any of those moves, they would've been foolish AND they would've been blasted by the media. Figgins would've been seen as an older player with little power, Polanco as someone out of position, Granderson as someone who can't hit lefties, Wolf as too expensive, and Wagner and/or Saito as too old. Since those players all went to other teams, the moves were praised by the media around here and the Mets were painted as a team that had "missed out." Even though they didn't make an offer for any of those players.

When the Halladay and Lackey deals went down, though, lots of the fans reached their breaking point. Lackey didn't sign with the Mets, so to the media (and consequently the fans), that meant that the Mets were a terrible organization who Lackey didn't want any part of. Does that mean the other 28 teams in baseball besides the Mets and Red Sox are also horrible franchises? Because Lackey didn't sign with any of them either.

Halladay is a different story. He went to the Phillies. Does that move improve the Phillies marginally? Absolutely. However, to acquire Halladay, they traded 2008 AL Cy Young Award Winner and proven Postseason bulldog Cliff Lee (along with some of their top prospects). Halladay made it known that the ONLY team he was willing to accept a trade to and sign an extension with was Philadelphia. The Mets had no shot. Again, though, the media spun it as the Mets missing out (when 28 other teams missed out as well), and the fans got angrier and louder.

Today is December 23rd. As an intense and fiercely loyal Mets fan, here is my take:

The biggest need for the Mets this offseason is to find a corner outfielder/middle of the order bat. Right now, they have the best offer on the table for Jason Bay. People are speculating that since he hasn't accepted the Mets' offer yet, he must not want to play here. That may be true. However, using that logic, by rejecting the Red Sox' offer when it was the only one on the table, that must mean he didn't want to play in Boston either. What this appears to be, is a game of cat and mouse. The Mets want Bay, he wants a five year deal (while the Mets have only guaranteed four). Each side is trying to avoid blinking. I'm aggravated at the pace of the negotiations, and I'll be furious if the Mets miss out on Jason Bay and fallback option Matt Holliday. However, they're both still on the market and their suitors are minimal. One of them will probably be a Met in the coming days.

The Mets needed to address their bullpen, and they found one piece with the signing of 30 year old Japanese Reliever Ryota Igarashi. He throws in the mid to upper 90's, and was snatched up on a 2 year deal worth between 3 and 4 million - a very solid move for the Mets that was almost ridiculed because they haven't yet addressed the offense and rotation. If the Mets add one more power reliever (perhaps Octavio Dotel), their bullpen will be in very good shape.

That leaves the starting rotation. If you're a fan who's angry that the Mets didn't sign Jason Marquis (he of the career 4.48 ERA and 1.40 WHIP), I don't know what to tell you. The Mets need a solid #2 type starter to slide in behind Johan Santana, and Marquis is not that. Neither is Randy Wolf. The only #2 type starters on the market are injury risks (Ben Sheets to name one). And I'd much rather have the Mets take a chance on someone like Sheets, if the alternative is someone like Marquis or one year wonder Joel Pineiro. Low-risk, high-reward is the better bet than moderate risk-no reward.

Again, I'm antsy. I wish the Mets had done everything already...signed that power bat, acquired that #2 starter, finished upgrading the bullpen...but they haven't. I can't guarantee that the Mets will fill every hole. But I also don't believe that a team in New York with a brand new ballpark - a team that won 90 games on average from 2005-2008, only to suffer through the worst injury ravaged season in the history of baseball, is undesirable to free agents and as some writers have taken to spewing "a third place team even with Bay and others." I think that idea is a crock. If we're sitting here in a month and the roster is made up of retreads and R.A. Dickey, I'll have been proven wrong. And I'll be pissed. But it isn't January 23rd, it's December 23rd. Carlos Beltran signed in January, Johan Santana was traded in January. Mets fans should have a little more patience...not tons, just a little. See what happens.

The Disappearance of True Sports Journalism

Around the time I was nearing the last leg of my daily morning commute, while I was hustling through the howling winds by battery park on my way to the subway, my thoughts were on baseball.

I thought first of David Wright, since he's a resident of the City, and I wondered what he might be doing today. Was he as excited for the season as I was? With the dawn of blogs, followed by facebook and twitter, the intensity of the fans during the offseason has been increasing.

And as the Winter Meeting have progressed - with little action by anyone, save for the Yankees who dealt a few of their overhyped prospects for a glorified platoon player - lots of Mets fans have become increasingly agitated. They were first bothered by the fact that the Mets wouldn't be spending money this offseason (which was perpetuated by the vast majority of the Mets' beat writers). Then, they were aggravated when a Yankee shill who's about to be honored by the Hall of Fame for some reason, penned an article stating that all the Mets were interested in was signing low-cost Latino's (the inflammatory part of the article was slyly removed by editors from the online edition after fans got wind of it).

When the first actual quote from anoyone but an unnamed source or supposed team insider came out yesterday (from Omar Minaya stating that the Mets would indeed be in on the big free agents), the writers printed it. They didn't apologize for spinning their agenda's in their effort to move papers. They didn't give the Mets credit. Everyone is aware that the object is to sell papers, and interesting negative stories sell. But if you're going to print stories like that, back them up with facts and common sense.

And then it dawned on me...The same supposed journalists who have been damning blogs to hell, are slimier and more fallacious than most bloggers. Worse, they're vindictive and agenda-driven. What else could possibly explain the unbelievable amount of piling on that has been done to the Mets since the 2009 season came to a close? A team who from 2005-2008 won 90+ games per year on average, had suffered a hellish injury marred season. Their punishment for their injuries and the record that resulted, has been writers (mostly local and some national) claiming that the Mets are a loser franchise that won't spend money. A team with no direction.

The fans who follow this team, but aren't as consumed with baseball as some, bought into the nonsense. They started to believe that the Mets were a loser team, even though 2005-2008 proved differently. They feared that the Mets wouldn't spend money, even though they've spent money every season and offseason in recent memory (obtaining Pedro Martinez, Carlos Beltran, Carlos Delgado, Johan Santana, Francisco Rodriguez, and extending David Wright and Jose Reyes).

So far this offseason, all the Mets have done so far is signed a backup catcher and showed remarkable constraint. It's something I'm thrilled about. While other teams have been handing out contracts to middling players that were excessive in both years and dollars, the Mets have lied in wait. It's the tact they took with Carlos Beltran, who signed in January. And it's the tact they took with the Johan Santana sweepstakes, which concluded around February. As the days have passed, the suitors for Matt Holliday have dwindled (the Cardinals are getting impatient, the Yankees dealt for Granderson, Red Sox officials have indicated they only have interest in Jason Bay).

All the while, the Mets lie in wait. Some of the fans that were perilously close to the edge, due in large part to the rambling and nonsensical hyperbole from the area's baseball writers, have slowly started to back off the edge. Others are still skeptical. The one's who have been level-headed throughout, are becoming even more confident in the direction of the team. One thing, though, is starting to become clear. The area writers (with some exceptions...Dave Lennon of Newsday for one) may want to take a look in the mirror before accusing blogs of being nonsense filled wastelands that are threatening to make newspapers obsolete. With every article that gets pumped out, the disappearance of true journalism is becoming more and more obvious. The writers are doing a fine job of single-handedly making their work obsolete. They don't need any assistance from us.

Why I Won't Cancel My Ticket Plan

I received an invoice from the Mets a little over a week ago. Enclosed was a letter from the Mets, stating the obvious - they knew 2009 was an awful season all around, they knew that we knew, and they pledged to make 2010 better. I didn't believe them. Not because I think they're lying or being disingenuous, but because they can't tell the future.

If the Mets or anyone else could tell the future, the team would've been prepared for the rash of injuries that destroyed the roster last season. I appreciate the team's attempt at apologizing and promising better times, but I knew it wouldn't be something that swayed my decision - since my decision was already made.

I never once pondered the idea of not renewing my ticket plan. I've had a partial (Saturday) ticket plan with the Mets since the 2001 season. No, I wasn't a bandwagon fan who jumped on board after the 2000 World Series trip. I was a 17 year old who had finally convinced my father to purchase a ticket plan (2 seats in Loge Reserved, Row A between third base and left field) and come to the games with me.

For nine seasons, we cherished those seats in Loge Reserved. We made friends with most of the other plan holders who sat around us, and made enemies with the fairweather fans who came into our section and pissed us off. We imitated the vendors - everyone from the guy with the awful toupee, to the soda vendor who pronounced pepsi as "petsee," to the guy who sweated into his beer. The games were sometimes great and sometimes awful, but usually fell somewhere inbetween.

It was more than the games, though. It was knowing that any time the Mets were home on a Saturday, we would be there. For all the arguments fathers and sons have, there would never be one that took place at a Mets game. It was a time to sit in the sun, cheer for your team, curse a little, laugh a lot, and throw back a few. In 2007, when my father eventually got tired of dealing with all the traffic we had to sit in to and from the games, my friend Jeff bought his ticket and we split the plan until Shea Stadium was demolished after the 2008 season. Our last Saturday game at Shea was Johan's masterpiece against the Marlins that kept the Mets alive.

As the offseason before 2009 went on, we agonized over whether or not we would be offered a ticket plan in new Citi Field. We eventually were, but it was different than the one we had at Shea. Instaed of 13 Saturday games, we received 10 Saturday games and 5 weeknight games. This change was a problem for some, but since I work in the Bronx and my friend Jeff works in Manhattan, it wasn't a big deal meeting up after work to head to the weeknight games. We of course decided to get the plan, and our friend Charles came in with us and bought a 3rd ticket.

The seats we were able to secure in Citi Field were in Promenade Reserved, Section 527, Row 2...a far cry from our old seats that were in the Loge at Shea. But even though they weren't the best seats, they were still good. And they were a ton less money than we had paid at Shea (coming out to roughly $300.00 per seat for the 15 games - plus whatever we spend on parking and food). Every Met fan knows how last season turned out, so there's no need to go into that. We went until it was unbearable (which for me came when I was unfortunate enough to see David Wright take a fastball to the head). We enjoyed Citi Field, and even when the Mets were getting blasted, we enjoyed eachother's company.

My friends and I are enormous Mets fans. We follow the team 12 months a year, hang on every pitch, and look forward to every game. Our moods rise when the Mets win, drop when they lose, and go into the toilet when they drop a game in agonizing fashion. Our girlfriends can't understand why we care so much about the Mets, nor do we expect them to. We were born to root for this team, and take great pride in doing so. We DO care this much, and that's all that matters. No matter how bad the team gets, no matter how terrible the losses get, no matter how down the rest of the fanbase gets, we will always be there.

That's not to say that the losing doesn't have a huge impact on us. It affects us tremendously. We get pissed off, we storm around the ballpark by ourselves cursing and shaking our heads. When we're watching the games at home, we call eachother in disgust and throw our possessions at the walls when bad things happen to our team. Through all of it, the Mets remain our team.

We refuse to buy the negativity being spewed by the local and national media about the Mets. We aren't offended that our beautiful new ballpark has a rotunda that's dedicated to the man who broke baseball's color barrier. We aren't mad that the Mets haven't already signed Matt Holliday, unlike the delusional and impatient fans who are already thirsty for blood. We're aware that the offseason will play out slowly, and we hope that the Mets end up with the players they need.

Mets fans are different than Yankee fans. We're conditioned to not give up easily. We aren't spoiled brats who expect our team to win the World Series every year. We refuse to whimper in the corner because the Mets had one brutal injury ravaged season after having four seasons where the team averaged nearly 90 wins.

We will keep our ticket plan. And like the days I spent at the ballpark with my father from 2001-2006, the three of us will go to the ballpark together to cheer for the Mets. We'll sometimes get there early to tailgate a little, head to shake shack for a burger, and then settle into our seats. Every time we attend a game, we'll have our momentary escape from our jobs and our love lives and any nonsense that may be going on at the moment.

We'll enjoy the day or night, enjoy eachothers company, and hope the Mets win. We'll do those things because that is what being at a baseball game is all about. It's not a place to bicker over nonsense (like the rotunda or the media's controversy du jour), it's about enjoying the ballgame. If there are 2 strikes on a batter and Johan is in his delivery, we'll stand up and cheer (the fairweathers behind us can complain all they want). If one of the Mets drives in a run, we'll stand in unison and slap hands and beat the hell out of eachother in celebration. Unlike tons of other Mets fans who have been canceling their tickets in droves, we will be there. And come April, we'll be filled with optimism just like we are every season. That optimism will likely turn to sadness and disappointment sometime between April and late October. But if it doesn't, oh what a season it will be.

What is a Laughing Stock?

Since the Mets' 2009 season mercifully came to a close, there have been quite the number of words/terms that have been used to describe them. They've been labeled pathetic, a joke, second class citizens, and a laughing stock. A great big laughing stock...

What IS a laughing stock? The 1962 Mets were a laughing stock. The Knicks since 2001 are a perennial laughing stock. The Detroit Lions are a laughing stock. But the Mets? Can one unbelievably unlucky injury plagued hell on Earth season make the Mets a laughing stock just like that? Many in the local and national media seem to think so.

The dreadful 2009 season the Mets had has somehow eliminated the 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 seasons. Jose Reyes is no longer a star on the rise -he's washed up at age 26 after being healthy for 4 straight seasons (apparently only players on teams other than the Mets recover from injuries in their 20's). The team that was picked by Sports Illustrated before last season to win the World Series is now dead in the water. They apparently have no direction (even though their farm system has been improving and is now around the middle of the pack). They have no hope (even though they sold over 3 million tickets, have pledged to keep a high payroll, and have a brand new ballpark and relatively new network). To the media and uninformed fans of other teams, they're a laughing stock.

From 2005 through 2008, the Mets averaged 89 wins per year. They came back from the dead in 2005, and were one swing away from making it to the World Series in 2006 (but were at a severe disadvantage after losing both their #1 and #2 starters before the NLDS - a fact no one ever brings up). In 2007, everyone knows what happened. In 2008, the Mets lost Billy Wagner in August and ended up missing the Playoffs by a game. Tough endings to seasons? No doubt.

From 1997-2009, the Mets have had 9 winning seasons and 4 losing seasons (three of those losing seasons were 2002, 2003 and 2004). They've made the playoffs 3 times during that span, and missed out on the playoffs by 1 game on 3 other occassions (1998, 2007, 2008). They've consistently been at one of the top spots in baseball as far as attendance is concerned. They've launched their own network, opened a beautiful new ballpark, continued to dwarf the team across town with their charity efforts, and have had no trouble attracting free agents.

But 2009 happened. Apparently, losing Jose Reyes, Carlos Beltran, Carlos Delgado, JJ Putz, John Maine, Oliver Perez, Johan Santana, Fernando Nieve, Jon Niese, Ryan Church, Alex Cora, Gary Sheffield, Angel Pagan, Brian Schneider, Jeff Francoeur, David Wright and others for huge chunks of the season had nothing to do with the Mets losing over 90 games. They were a laughing stock again (even though they were contenders up until the point when the injuries got too absurd to combat in June). They were a joke of a franchise (even though they had a brand new ballpark, and a network with some of the best in the business as its voices). Their future was doomed and they needed to rebuild (even though their core of David Wright, Jose Reyes, Carlos Beltran, Johan Santana and Francisco Rodriguez was in tact). Their farm system was brutal (even though they have Ike Davis, Fernando Martinez, Reese Havens, Josh Thole, Ruben Tejada, Wilmer Flores, Jenrry Mejia, Brad Holt and others on the horizon). All of these things somehow became fact after ONE injury ravaged season.

Now, according to the same drones in the media, it's going to be impossible for the Mets to attract free agents this offseason (even thought they signed Pedro Martinez and Carlos Beltran after a brutal 2004). If that angle isn't good enough, the writers (New York Daily News, I'm looking at you) will claim that the Mets are in a financial freeze - that they don't intend to spend this winter...another notion that's a complete crock.

All of this hyperbole is enough to drive a regular fan insane. Since most Mets fans are already insane, my advice is to take all of this stuff and shrug. Laugh if you must, or just crack a small smile. Don't believe the nonsense that's being spewed. Don't let the negativity cause you to scale back your fandom. Don't fall for the trap. The 2010 Mets, barring injuries, will be what the 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 teams were - teams that win more games than they lose. If they play up to their capability, they'll make the Playoffs. And if they catch the breaks that are necessary for a Championship run, they'll make one. Laughing stock my ass.

Are These Retro Enough?

Today, in an e-mail to fans and in an official release, the Mets announced what had been known by most fans for quite some time: The Mets are getting a new "retro" home jersey for the 2010 season (the old bright white pinstriped jersey is no more).

In its place, is a jersey that is similar but is a lot closer to the orignial Mets home uniforms of the 1960's. The new jersey is a cream color - the drastic difference between the old bright white jerseys and the new cream ones is evident when you look at them side by side. The pinstripes appear to be lighter, while the blue and orange Mets lettering across the chest appears to be darker than the lettering on the old jerseys (which I thought was too bright). However, one thing about the "retro" jerseys is completely 1998.

The jerseys the Mets wore in the 1960's were cream with light blue pinstripes and Mets written in bold across the chest (just like the new "retro" jerseys). One thing those jerseys didn't have? Black drop-shadow encasing the Mets lettering across the chest. To the non die-hard fan, this isn't a big deal. To the fans who almost unanimously relayed their disdain of the black colors that appeared in Mets uniforms starting in 1998 (in surveys that the team sent out themselves). "Retro" jerseys - especially ones that celebrate the teams past- should not have black drop-shadow. Especially when the fans the team polled pretty much all hate the Mets' black hats and uniforms. Black was not an original Mets color. Their colors were blue (from the Dodgers) and orange (from the Giants).

This new jersey is very nice. If it's worn strictly with the blue hats and blue stirrups it will look great. In order to make it look fantastic, the Mets need to remove the black drop-shadow. Tom Seaver never wore a Mets uniform that had any black in it. David Wright's "retro" jersey shouldn't have black either. Make the change.

Vomit Inducing Voraciousness

Today, Rational (sometimes) Mets Musings will focus its attention on a report about the team that plays across town -the team that plays in another league, but whose personnel moves profoundly affect the Mets and the rest of Major League Baseball.

In a report for SI.com, Jon Heyman relays the news that the Yankees recently reached out to the Toronto Blue Jays to express interest in acquiring their (and arguably the American League's) best pitcher. According to Heyman, in exchange for Roy Halladay, the Yankees are willing to include Phil Hughes and Catcher Jesus Montero (the Yankees' top prospect).

There are two parties I'm disgusted with. One of them is the Yankees...who after a World Series Title that came on the heels of one of the biggest spending sprees in the history of baseball, may attempt to add yet another enormous contract (Halladay will seek a 6 year extension worth over $20 million annually) to stack up next to the rest of their mercenaries. The Yankees cannot be faulted for this. It's disgusting, greedy, and absurd, but it's not their fault. They're simply trying to buy every single marquee player in their quest to eventually make the entire baseball season an irrelevant masquerade. The rules are the rules, and there is no hard salary cap. If the Yankees acquired Roy Halladay, their payroll would skyrocket to close to $250 million (almost double what the Mets' payroll is, and $100 million clear of the field).

Regardless of how recklessly the Yankees are acting during the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, the party I'm far more disgusted with are the Blue Jays and Alex Anthopoulous. For those who may not know, Anthopoulous is the new General Manager of the Toronto Blue Jays. In sharp contrast from his predecessor J.P. Ricciardi, Anthopolous has intimated that he has no reservations about dealing Roy Halladay to a team in his own division (namely the Yankees or Red Sox). If the Yankees - and to a lesser extent the Red Sox - were on the same financial level as the Blue Jays, I would agree with lots of Anthopolous' points.

Anthopolous states that if the trade packages are comparable between a team in his division and a team outside of his division, he would almost certainly deal his star player to the team that plays outside of his division. He goes on to say that if the markedly better package is from a team in his division (the Yankees), it's in the best interest of his franchise to deal his star player to that team. While this idea may not be totally absurd if the Blue Jays were the 2nd best team in the Division - making them a contender for the Wild Card each year - it IS absurd since the Blue Jays are also in a division with the Red Sox.

I'm not suggesting that General Managers refuse to deal quality players to the Yankees -that would result in cries of collusion, and create an enormous mess throughout Major League Baseball. My suggestion is that the brand new General Manager of a team in the same division as two financial behemoths, exhausts every single trade option before even considering dealing Roy Halladay to the Yankees. In a perfect world, there would be a hard salary cap in baseball (Maybe $200 million), that would prevent scenarios like Halladay to the Yankees from becoming a reality. With the absence of that hard salary cap, General Managers who outsmart themselves all the way to unemployment must be trusted to not let this situation with the Yankees get any more out of hand.

Our Ballpark

With the absence of any concrete team related news over the last few days, Rational (sometimes) Mets Musings will today turn its attention to our glistening new ballpark, and the unfair abuse it has taken during its first year of existence.

This weekend, it was reported that the bullpens at Citi Field would be renovated for the 2010 season. Instead of one being behind the other, the bullpens will be changed to a side by side setup. Both broadcasters and players of visiting teams complained throughout the season about the location of the visitors pen (which prevented broadcasters from seeing who was warming up, and prevented players from having a quality view of the game that was taking place before them). The renovation of the bullpens follows lots of other adjustments/corrections that were made to the ballpark in-season (some with lots of fanfare, some that no one noticed).

For any Mets fan, Shea Stadium was a place that was filled with memories - a place that shook with anticipation and excitement, and a place that was loved even though it was absent of charm and was lacking in most areas. The ramps were steep, the escalators were usually broken. The corridors were cold and dark, the seats weren't angled properly, and the blue exteroir that was unveiled in the mid 1980's turned to purple after a while. Nevertheless, the ballpark was loved despite its deficiencies - treatment that Citi Field has not received.

What is Citi Field? It's a brand new ballpark that was built for baseball. It is the home of the New York Mets, who wear Blue and Orange. Like its predecessor, it is a distinct pitchers park. The outside of the ballpark is beautiful, and is a nod to the exterior of Ebbets Field. The seats, for the most part, aren't absurdly priced, and are angled toward the field (there are some blind spots, like there are in every ballpark). There are lots of advertisements, a tremendous food selection, a train that lets you off at the entrance of the ballpark, and pictures of past and current players that take up just about half of the left side of the exterior of the ballpark. Sounds nice, right?

Lots of Mets fans (and New Yorkers) chose to ignore everything that was great about Citi Field, and attacked everything they felt was wrong about it. The most deafening screams came from those who claimed the ballpark was a nod to the Dodgers, and nothing more (simply because the rotunda was named after Jackie Robinson). Those people failed to take into consideration that the Mets are descendants of the Dodgers and Giants (we'll get to the other old New York NL team in a second), whose fans are in turn descendants of the fans of those late, great teams. The fans complained because the seats were green (ignoring the fact that when Shea Stadium opened, the seats were pastel colors). They complained that the walls weren't blue, but were the black and orange colors of the old New York Giants (ignoring the fact that the walls were green when Shea Stadium opened). They complained that there were (gasp!) seats where you couldn't see every inch of the playing field. The last complaint is a circumstance of going to a ballgame. There isn't ONE ballpark in Major League Baseball that offers unobstructed seats from every location in the joint.

There were a bunch of issues that the fans complained about, and those issues were addressed. It was noted by season ticket holders that the LED Boards that ran along the Promenade Level were blocking the view for some fans in the first row. The Mets responded by lowering the boards. The fans complained that there weren't enough pictures of Mets greats adorning the ballpark (even though there were pictures ringing the entire outside of the ballpark to go along with the enormous mural that covered the left field entrance, not to mention the silhouettes of great moments in Mets history that were at each main entrance). In turn, the Mets added MORE pictures to the inside of the ballpark. After all of these complaints were addressed, the only thing left to yell about was the fact that there wasn't enough blue and orange throughout the park.

Ballparks, these fans claimed, were filled with the colors of the home team's uniform (even though that claim is false). Without those colors, the fans roared, it's impossible to know whose ballpark they were at (just like the fans in Fenway Park who forget where they are because of all of the green). With the fans and talk show hosts continuing to roar through the offseason, the Mets announced that they would add orange and blue to the bare walls that enclose the staircases at Citi Field. This, they thought, would please the fans. Wrong. The same fans who screamed about the lack of Mets colors at Citi Field are now screaming because they're worried that the staircase walls (that they haven't seen, and have no idea how the Mets will paint them) will look tacky. Plain walls were an indication that the Mets didn't care about their history. Walls that contain orange and blue are tacky. Note to whoever builds the next Mets ballpark in 50 years: Don't build walls.