It doesn't even say "Mets" or "Citi Field" on the patch. What's the point? Apparently the Met's marketing teams idea of graphic design is running through the templates in Microsoft Publisher until someone yells "That's it!".

Whoa. That IS bad.

Derek Lowe saw this patch and told Scott Boras that he now wants $20 mil a year to wear a Mets uniform due to this embarrassing patch.

I don't think it's that bad. I mean, it looks akin to a brigade patch from WW2 or something and not a baseball patch, but still...

It doesn't even say "Mets" or "Citi Field" on the patch.

I may be completely reading something into nothing here, but you know what this makes me wonder about? The absence of the name "Citi Field" on the patch could -- could -- be the first sign that the long rumors about Citi abandoning its sponsorship deal because of its financial woes are coming true. First the patch with the mysterious lack of any reference to the name of the place . . . then the press conference announcing the sides have decided to part ways, followed by the announcement of, oh, I don't know, Trump Field?

Just a thought.

I think I can trace my use of "New Shea" into a copyright trademark.

If I had like $100 to bet, I would place it on the name of the field remaining. A bet I think I could win, but not a bet I'd take a mammoth risk on, in other words.

I may be completely reading something into nothing here, but you know what this makes me wonder about? The absence of the name "Citi Field" on the patch could -- could -- be the first sign that the long rumors about Citi abandoning its sponsorship deal because of its financial woes are coming true.

This was my first thought, too.

Hilarious.

What is wrong with this patch? It looks fine to me.

The absence of the name "Citi Field" on the patch could -- could -- be the first sign that the long rumors about Citi abandoning its sponsorship deal because of its financial woes are coming true.

Or it could just be CYA thinking with that possibility in mind.

Or perhaps there's some MLB rule about corporate text on uniforms; I know the Phils didn't spell out Citizens Bank Park on their sleeve patches in 2004 - it had their Liberty Bell logo along with "Inaugural Season" underneath it.

Looking a little more on the patch site Metsblog linked to, the Giants, Reds, Brewers and Cards did not put their stadium names onto their "Inaugural Season" patches (though the Cards put "Busch Stadium" onto their farewell patch in 2005). Couldn't really find any other analogous patches on their site.

I'm reminded of this relic of my youth.

Guys, with the contract that Burrell just signed, do you guys think the Mets should be interested in signing an outfielder. Simply put, there are deals to be had.

do you guys think the Mets should be interested in signing an outfielder. Simply put, there are deals to be had.

I think their lack of any pursuit in that direction tells us, as clearly as anything could, that they are right up against the budget in adding a starter. That is the priority over adding a corner outfielder, and it is apparent that the $$$ are not there to sign both. We may think the Wilpons should throw another $7-10M onto the budget, but the evidence is pretty overwhelming at this point that it isn't going to happen. So unless they somehow (miraculously) move Castillo's contract -- or a very large portion thereof -- I think an OFer is a pipe dream.

It goes without saying that a quality starting pitcher (Lowe) over the current # 5 (Parnell???) is a much, much higher priority, and would be a bigger upgrade than a new outfielder (Dunn?) would be over the current LF platoon of Tatis and Murphy. So if it is one or the other, I think Omar is choosing rightly to go for the pitcher and not the outfielder.

They're planning to change the name from "Citi Field" to "Home Depot Field?"

This is ridiculously generic -- one would think that Wilpon, with his Brooklyn obsession, would have demanded a patch showing Citi Field's pseudo-Ebbets design.

The Nats may not have had much of a team last year, but their ballpark inaugural patch put the Mets' to shame.

I may be completely reading something into nothing here, but you know what this makes me wonder about? The absence of the name "Citi Field" on the patch could -- could -- be the first sign that the long rumors about Citi abandoning its sponsorship deal because of its financial woes are coming true. First the patch with the mysterious lack of any reference to the name of the place . . . then the press conference announcing the sides have decided to part ways, followed by the announcement of, oh, I don't know, Trump Field?

Treasury Department Field

The Nationals Park Inaugural Season patch also did not have the stadium's name, but at least it had a picture of it. Couldn't the Mets have depicted a unique architectural feature of the new park? Is the only iconic item the tilted lettering? That sound's uncomfortably like Enron.