If the Mets' naming-rights deal with Citigroup eventually falls through, what will the franchise christen its new stadium while it waits for a new corporate sponsor to step in? It's a question that's been tossed about for a few weeks, and one that my very few loyal readers have been asking me to chime in about.
I think it's easier to begin by eliminating something that I wouldn't go for. I certainly don't want anything or anyone connected to the Brooklyn Dodgers to grace the marquee of the new stadium. That eliminates Jackie Robinson Stadium, Gil Hodges Park or anything else that makes me think of Ebbets Field.
To this day, the Dodgers remain my second favorite professional baseball team, simply because the franchise had the good sense to get the hell out of Brooklyn when it had the chance. I am sick to death of people who romanticize those days and who try to draw a direct line between the Brooklyn Dodgers and the Mets.
Look, the Mets were not the miraculous off-spring of a solitary parent. This town had two National League teams before the Mets were here - the Dodgers and the New York Giants. Both won championships in the 1950s, both got their butts kicked by the Yankees on a regular basis in the World Series and both skipped town in 1957 to stake their claim in sunny California. The Mets' colors are orange and blue for a reason - and not because they also happen to be the state colors in New York.
In the end, I say the Mets have one of two choices. They could simply call it Shea Stadium II, one final tribute to the man who brought National League baseball to New York. They could also go with a something generic like Metropolitan Stadium, which would be a simple nod to the team nickname and the part of the world it plays in.