37 14 41 31 1 8 16 17 18 5 42 SHEA
At Saturday’s Queens Baseball Convention I was joined by Bitter Bill Price and the Faith and Fear Twins Jason and Greg to discuss which numbers the Mets should retire.
I’m doing this from memory, but the general overview was that Jason has a higher bar than the rest of us, although he repeatedly said he would come to Whoever Day and be happy for that person.
I opened up with 5 to discuss both David Wright and Davey Johnson. My quick discussion point on Davey is that there are two managers on the wall, yet Davey was named All Time Manager back at the 50th. The panel voted no on Davey 5 and think Wright is a lock.
I then suggested John Franco. Long time player and captain. The panel did not hang a number on the wall for John.
17? Unanimous.
I then made me normal “if 17, then 8” argument. Gary Carter 8 made it, although Jason who was nothing but overflowing with respect and love for Carter did not feel his Mets career was wall worthy, and let me be clear he said he would be there cheering if it did happen.
OK folks, now that 17 and 8 are in what about 16? You gonna tell Doc he isn’t in? 16 made it.
Bill paired 16 and 18 – I don’t think I verbalized it but I feel 16 over 18 for some reason, but like Jason it’s not like I would protest Darryl Strawberry Day.
I suggested 1. You don’t often here the suggestion that Mookie’s number should be retired. My point was that I can never ever look at a Mets 1 jersey and not think Mookie. Plus he is a citizen in good standing, beloved, and an 86 Met. I don’t think we ever “voted” but it did bring us to another discussion….
Earlier in the day at the Meet The Mets Executives Panel the Mets Executives made a casual mention that the club is already having conversations about celebrating the 30th Anniversary of the 1986 club. Which is great.
So I suggested, factoring in the business part of things – I don’t think it would be at all bad if once a month in 2016 they retired one number. If we finished 2016 with the fence saying 37, 14, 41, 8, 16, 17, 18, 42, SHEA I don’t think that would be at all bad. It’s not like there would be another ten numbers coming, only one more in the near future and two more by 2036.
Piazza’s 31 is a no brainer and I think it is just a matter of time.
We kicked around 24 and if it should be retired or put into circulation. The general consensus was that it’s a special number that shouldn’t be given to anyone, but if “Super Juan Lagares” comes along (Juan’s glove and Darryl’s bat) maybe you could give it to Super Juan (and Greg pointed out how much pressure THAT would be on a prospect).
There was also a suggestion floating around QBC, I think it came up during the Uni Watch Panel, to retire 24 for Joan Payson.
We were rushed on time and Koosman 36 (Bill was into it, the rest of us had no strong opinion, but again it’s not like we would riot). Kranepool 7 not quite. Hojo 20 suggested from the crowd, but didn’t make it. There was also a suggestion of just retiring the number 86.
So my take – 2016 seems a great time to add to the fence. Maybe just do Piazza in 2015 to get it done and not make the man wait. Then in 2016 knock out 1, 8, 16, 17, 18 in whatever order. In 15-20 years add a 5. And if someone on the current club is a Hall of Famer we should be so lucky.
I don’t think this makes us the Yankees. If i stroll into aging Citi Field in 2037 knowing that Bobby Bonilla is finally off the payroll and the fence says
37 14 41 31 1 8 16 17 18 5 42 SHEA
I don’t think that’s such a bad thing. In fact it would seem to be the right thing. For a 75 year old franchise that doesn’t seem ridiculous at all.
This entire panel should be renamed the Panel of Bad Ideas.
31 – No Brainer. This should have been done years ago.
17 & 8 – Also should have been done years ago. Mets don’t get a title without Hernandez & Carter. Also first two Captains in team history. Carter is in the Hall of Fame as well, doesn’t matter if he’s an Expo. He had an impact on franchise.
1 & 7 – No. Just NO. People really do overestimate how much Mookie is loved by this fan base. Dude is always crying about something. And just because somebody is here forever doesn’t mean they should get their number retired, so that applies to Kranepool.
16 & 18 – Why? So we can be reminded everyday of the failures of wasted potential?
20 – Whatever person suggested this should be shot on site.
24 – Why? Mays only played one season with us. The number should be tossed back into circulation.
36 – Again, why? Guy only won 3 more games than he lost as a Met. Don’t really get why this is even discussed as much as it is.
Yea…let’s retire every number like the Yankees do and have no numbers left to give out. I like that fact we haven’t retired a number in over 25 years. Shouldn’t be retired unless the player goes into the Baseball HOF as a Met…not cause you had a man-crush on him when you were 10.
metspolice How about #36,Jerry Koosman was a Met for 12 yrs,winning 140 games with an ERA just over 3.Underrated IMO #Mets #Koosman
On board with most of them; I love Mookie; can understand the sentiment involved, but if Mookie, then you gotta consider Kranepool; saying that, in your words, I’d not storm the castle if it happened. Honestly, the one number I was a bit disappointed that you ran out of time discussing was 36. That number, IMHO, more than any other Met number outside of 41, is synonymous with Jerry Koosman. If you need solid evidence to justify it, look at the 69 World Series; as well as the NLCS AND WS in 1973. Still the franchise leader for victories by a lefty; 40 years (nearly) since he made his last start for us. All these years later, considering Sid, Ojeda, Matlack, Al Leiter, Glavine, Santana…. without a doubt the most important lefty in this team’s history.
I idea of retiring a number once a month in 2016 is a fantastic idea. A great way to celebrate the ’86 team.
For me #36 will always be Koosman whether the number is up on the wall or not.
metspolice Had to cut out prior to this unfortunately. 24 I say yes as a tribute to Mets color roots and Mays having played for both.
metspolice I wrote this on Sunday in response to that panel. http://bit.ly/1AEsy3F