The Mets slash ticket prices

9 Comments

Mets attendance went way down in 2010, and the team has reacted: they’ve lowered ticket prices.  Season tickets are a flat 10% off. Given how many categories of tickets any given ballpark has it’s complicated beyond that — big cuts for some categories of seats, slight increases for others — but the team says that prices are going down 14% on average.

This is all Byzantine stuff to me — I don’t know the difference between a “Promenade Reserve,” a “Promenade Reserve Infield” and a “Promenade Reserve Infield Select Extra Crispy” —  but you have to applaud the Mets for understanding that, if you want to get more butts in the seats for a team that isn’t all that hot, you have to lower the prices.

I think the most interesting thing about this is that Dave Howard, the Mets’ Executive Vice President for Business Operations, held a conference call exclusively for Mets bloggers yesterday to answer questions and address concerns about the price changes. You can read a writeup of this by Caryn Rose (a/k/a Metsgrrl) here.  That’s smart outreach to go beyond merely answering questions of the newspapers.  After all: the newspaper guys will report your press release pretty straight up. Bloggers are often season ticket holders too, however, and if they think they’re getting played, they’ll not hesitate to go after you. Transparency is essential when it comes to this sort of thing.

Oh, Caryn also has a list of the perks that season ticket holders who renew early will get (it’s at the end of her post of the Howard call).  Not a bad list. I’d totally love to bring out the lineup card to the umpires one day. If a Mets season ticket holder was doing this last Opening Day you can bet that they would have changed it so Mike Jacobs wouldn’t be batting cleanup.

 

Joe Maddon is on the hottest of hot seats

Getty Images
1 Comment

Patrick Mooney and Sahadev Sharma of The Athletic have written a fantastically revealing article about the 2019 Chicago Cubs.

The story, on the surface anyway, might be confused for one of those pre-Opening Day team philosophy pieces in which a bunch of players and executives talk about how they need to “go about their business” a better way, focus on the little things and all of that common, cliche-driven material. And yes, there is a fair amount of that in there.

But the larger arc of it is more revealing than that. The whole thing reads like a warning shot from the front office toward the players and coaching staff, with Joe Maddon standing out as a particular subject of rebuke. Indeed, it’s hard to read the thing without believing that, absent a super fast start and a return to championship form, Maddon is gonna be fired this year.

The article has been shared on social media a lot since going live yesterday, and most of that sharing has focused on little things like the Cubs wanting players to eat less fast food this year and batting practice being mandatory a certain number of days a week. But it’s bigger than that. The article doesn’t contain any incendiary quotes or veiled threats, but it seems pretty clear that Maddon is taking blame for the team not being focused in the past.

Part of that comes from the structure of it. The idea here is that the 2018 season ended badly and that, in the offseason, the front office made a point to talk to the players. Theo Epstein talking to Jason Heyward in the batting cage after everyone else has gone home for the offseason. Epstein, Jed Hoyer and other front office officials visiting Jon Lester at his home in Georgia. Epstein and Hoyer going to Anthony Rizzo‘s wedding in Florida. There’s a lot of talk from all of them about hatching the new forward-looking philosophy but everything from Maddon comes from past quotes or quotes given in reaction to the new philosophy. It seems clear that the front office and the players are on the same page and that Maddon is kinda going along for the ride with it, even if he’s saying all the right things.

As far as the substance of the new 2019 philosophy goes, there is a lot of stuff couched in terms of “here’s a good thing we’re going to start doing this year” that come off like criticisms of Maddon for not doing them in the past.

For example, there is talk about how Maddon plans to talk to players and coach more which are hard to read, in context, as anything other than criticism of him being removed or aloof before. They plan to give players lineups several days in advance, characterized as a means of helping them plan, but there is reference to the sense that they were pressing to impress Maddon and not be written out of the lineup in the past. There’s stuff about how the players are “coddled” with clubhouse amenities and how Maddon’s office was too far away from them and how he talked to the press too much and to the players too little. Again, not explicitly stated as a current criticism but, rather, couched in terms of a “here are good things we’re going to do now.” It’s clear, though, that the unspoken idea is “. . . and we should’ve done it differently before.”

When put together with other things in the article — things like (a) Maddon not getting a contract extension and thus being a lame duck; (b) top executives Theo Epstein and Jed Hoyer making a point to travel with the team more on road trips and show up more in the clubhouse at Wrigley; and (c) a Theo Epstein/Jon Lester-driven narrative that makes references to both the Chicken and Beer and Bobby Valentine-era Red Sox — it all puts one in mind of the late Terry Francona-era Boston Red Sox. To be sure, it’s reported and stated much more more artfully than that. This is not an anonymously-source hit piece driven by a Sox chairman or VP with an axe to grind or anything. It’s a good article. But it makes one think that a message is being sent to and/or about Joe Maddon, even if it’s being sent more subtly than the kind of message you might’ve seen sent in, say, the Boston Globe back in the day.

No matter what you think of it all, it strikes me that Maddon is on the hottest of seats right now and that, if and when he’s fired, this article will stand in hindsight as a pretty obvious harbinger of it.