The Mets can write their own story. Start with 8.

35 Replies to “The Mets can write their own story. Start with 8.”

1. I’m not sure we think alike. I don’t think “8” merits retirement.

2. I agree with FormerDirtDart!… Not enough longevity as a Met!

   Please don’t let emotions take over reasoning!

3. I’ve already written fairly extensively about retiring Carter’s number (I’m opposed to it — details here: http://bit.ly/ikhPYI ).

   But I want to address this notion of “emotion.” Leaving aside the question of whether Carter deserves numerical enshrinement on the merits — again, I don’t think he does — not all of us get the warm fuzzies when Carter’s name comes up. Indeed, the emotions he triggers for many of us are unpleasant ones.

   This is a guy whose teammates called him “I-Me,” because those were supposedly the two most frequent words to emerge from his mouth. A guy who didn’t want to wear an Expos cap on his Hall of Fame plaque because, as he put it, “If the Expos are no longer in existence, how is that going to be beneficial to me and my family?” A guy who complained about not having a larger role in the Shea Stadium closing ceremony and the new ballpark’s opening ceremony. A guy who openly campaigned for Willie Randolph’s job but refused to manage at the double-A level because, as he put it, ““Why would I want to put myself through six months of going to Binghamton?” A guy who then referred to Binghamton as an “armpit.”

   1. hello paul. you forget to mention his stats on the field.

      1. Which were very solid for two years and then very weak for three years. Which in turn is not the performance of someone whose number you retire.

         I’ve already stated that case multiple times in other forums. I only stated all that other stuff here because Shannon was making a point of using “emotion” as the rationale for retiring #8. My point is that not all the emotions regarding Carter are good ones.

   2. If we’re going to bring personality traits and attitude into this, it bears noting that the Mets nominated Carter as their candidate for the 1989 Roberto Clemente Award, which he ultimately won.

   3. He, and he alone, was the catalyst for the single most important inning in franchise history. Not Keith, not Darryl, not MItchell, not Knight, not Nails. It was Keith who looked into the precipice, the last out of the world series, two strikes, two run deficit, and said ‘no’.

      I can’t tell you how many times that last pitch is an out, how often people cave into losing.

      Carter was the rock of the franchise. You’ve got Keith, Straw, and Doc all in one corner, the life of the team, the talent, etc. And then you have Carter. He’s probably the best catcher in NYC in the last 50 years, if not tied with Munson.

      If the Mets retire #8, I have absolutely no objection. Rusty Staub, that’s another story. I can see retiring Keith, Straw, Doc, and Carter, and I’m not going to worry too much about them not all being HOF’ers.

      Is Roberto Alomar a HOFer? Gossage? I’ll take 3 years of Doc over both those careers put together, and double down.

      1. He’s probably the best catcher in NYC in the last 50 years, if not tied with Munson.

         If you’re just talking about catching skills, the idea that Carter (or Munson, or any other NYC catcher of the past half-century) was better than Jerry Grote is laughable on its face.

         If you add hitting to the equation, the best NYC catchers of recent times are obviously Piazza, Munson, and — let’s admit it, because he’s probably been the most consistent one of the bunch — Posada.

         As for Carter’s tenure with the Mets, I’ll keep saying it, because it’s true: two very solid years, three very crummy years.

         1. I just have to disagree w you there. Hey, let me tell you. I was there, at Yankee Stadium, in 2003 last game of the World Series. You know who made the last out? Posada. I’m not going to hold it against him, but that was an out Carter didn’t make.

            Piazza. I’m sorry, but I smell steroids. Let me ask you this. Carter at the plate, world series against the Yankees, and that idiot Clemens throws a broken piece of Carter’s bat back at him while he’s running up the line. Do you think Carter just walks to first and shrugs it off? Carter would take that guy apart, and the whole team would have joined him.

            To me, Carter is a leader.

            1. “that was an out Carter didn’t make”

               that’s cuz kid was retired in 2003

4. I agree with Shannon. Why does Tom Seaver have to be the only Mets player whose number is retired?

   Where is it written that a player has to go into the Hall of Fame with a Mets logo on his plaque to deserve to have his number go up on the wall?

   Retiring #8 for Gary Carter would fit in with the tradition established by honoring Casey Stengel and Gil Hodges.

   1. Retiring #8 for Gary Carter would fit in with the tradition established by honoring Casey Stengel and Gil Hodges.

      Oh, please.

      1) Comparing managers to players is always dicey. Apples and oranges.

      2) Stengel, for better or worse, was the face of the franchise for its first half-decade. He also went on to have a seat on the team’s board of directors after he retired. I’m not saying that’s a good reason to retire his number, but it explains part of WHY they did it.

      3) If you really need a good explanation of why Gil’s number was retired, and/or if you’re trying to compare Carter’s impact on the team with Gil’s, you have a tenuous grip on Mets history at best.

5. Amazing that when Rusty came over in 1972, they let Duffy Dyer keep #10…times have changed.

6. I think the Mets are writing their history. And in that history, Carter was a good hired gun, for a short period.

7. It does start with a look. Fix that next year.

   “Wait Till Next Year” should be this year’s slogan

8. Another Carter moment I’ll throw into the fold: Game One of the ’88 NLCS. The Mets score 3 in the 9th to win, with the big blow being a bloop double off the bat of Gary Carter. Sure, they went on to lose the series, but taking Orel down to start that series with a W is something I still vividly remember 23 years later.

   Shannon brings up a good point in that if you apply the reasons for NOT retiring Carter’s number, then fairness dictates you take a few down. Length of tenure? Stengel only managed for 4 seasons. As a player and manager combined, Hodges was in a Mets uni for only 6, just one more than Carter.

   As there has only been one player number retired, the criteria are pliable. Nobody will likely ever measure up to Seaver, but of the things on Seaver’s resume’, Carter matches three: Hall of Famer, World Champion Met, and catalyst to brighter days.

   Much is said of Carter’s pedestrian offensive output in his final years, but what of his handling of that mid-to-late 80s pitching staff that was the envy of the NL? That’s got to count for something.

   1. Hey, let’s retire Elrod Hendricks’ number. Those Orioles staffs no doubt owed everything to him!

      1. Lets retire jane jarvis the organist at shea.
         give her a number that adds up to the amount of keys that were on the hammond b-3 organ she played. and retire that number.
         she was truly the first “lady met”.

      2. Big difference between “count for something” and “deciding factor,” Paul. Had Hendricks also played in 4 All-Star games and finished 6th and 3rd in the MVP voting as an Oriole, then we can make that comparison.

         1. Hey, you’re the one who brought up the “handling pitchers” thing. Don’t get all touchy if someone starts applying that argument to other catchers.

            Here’s question: What exactly — EXACTLY — does “handling pitchers” entail? Can you name me one single catcher who was particularly good at it? How about one who was especially bad at it?

            Here’s the truth: Most of us have no clue what “handling pitchers” really means, but it’s pretty much part of the job description for every big league catcher. I can think of maybe two situations in recent history where it’s actually mattered: (1) Greg Maddux hated pitching to Javy Lopez and basically refused to do so, and (2) lots of Yankees pitchers haven’t liked pitching to Jorge Posada.

            For just about every other big league catcher — including but certainly not limited to Gary Carter — “handling pitchers” is just part of the job. If you’re forced to resort to that as a reason to honor Carter, you’re really scraping the bottom of the number-retirement barrel.

            1. Not getting touchy at all. Just saying it was ONE thing of many to keep in mind. If you find it silly, ignore it. Toss it out of the equation. There’s still plenty there, especially in comparison to the numbers already up on the wall.

            2. hi paul. who was the best at handling pitchers? JERRY GROTE. i recall a story from back in the late 60’s,mets pitchers complained to gil hodges grote was “too tough” on them.
               gil calls grote into his office and tells him “keep on doing it”.

               “if grote was on the big red macine,i would be playing third base”
               –Johnny Bench

9. Fact of the matter is, we all know that the ownership only wants to retire Dodger numbers, but he owns the Mets (in a sad way, we hope not for long), regardless, there is no way, even if you think that that the team should retire number 8, that they can do that with any credibility (I know we are talking about the Mets, here) until they retire 17 & 31 first.

   1. Exactly which “Dodgers numbers” has this ownership retired?
      The answer, none.
      The only number the members of this ownership were involved in retiring (as a team), is Tom Seaver’s #41.

      1. Dirt, it is not the numbers as much as their disrespect to the team’s history. I will say it again and again, the stadium (a brand new one) had to be retro fitted to acknowldege team history because they were embarassed into it. I have been a Mets’ fan all my life and I am not someone that says every number should be retired. I believe in 17 & 31 being retired for various reasons. You would have to go a long way to convince me that they had to retire 41 for any other reason than they had no choice.

10. at wednesday’s mets game, paul and i discussed the possible retirement of kid’s 8, and i have to say, his arguments have made me change my stance slightly — i still feel carter’s being sick is no reason to retire his # (either retire it or don’t, but don’t do it because now he may kick off before he gets to see it retired) and i also feel that IF you retire #8, you have to retire #17 & 31 (and possibly #45 in a tug-piazza-franco three-way), you also better strongly consider #16 & #18 as well…no way 8 gets in ahead of the others

    but in discussing it with paul, he reminded me (and i never should have forgotten) how much of a “me first” player kid apparently was…and how egotistical he was — now, did that affect his play on the field? maybe not, but if you’re gonna bring up character issues with straw and doc (and possibly keith and mike), then you better consider kid’s attitude towards his teammates and in the clubhouse — he may have thought he was a choir boy (and probably seemed like it in that clubhouse), but he had as many failings as a human as did everyone else

    and one more thing — i recently attended an event hosted by frank boulton (LI Ducks owner) which featured Bob Wolff (there to promote and sign his new book), Ron Darling and Bud Harrelson…this was before carter got sick (or at least before the news was made public)…

    and somehow the panel had carter’s name brought up, and BOTH darling AND buddy took shots at kid — now, darling played with him and buddy was a coach, so their perspective was quite valuable — and they were especially critical of his behavior when he wanted the mets managerial job; i wished i’d recorded the evening’s dialog, but suffice it to say that, in a very public forum, darling and buddy weren’t too keen on carter — had he been a fantastic teammate and overall good guy, i’m SURE they never would have said this stuff — and while buddy can be a bit sardonic, i found darling to be nothing short of a total gentleman — and he didn’t seem like he had an ax to grind either

    i think you retire a number based SOLELY on the player’s ENTIRE value to the organization

    and if that is the critrion (or the primary one) then there are about 5 numbers that need to go in before *8*

    1. I hear what you’re saying, but my response is, “then retire the other 5, then.” Hernandez was the best 1st baseman of his generation. Doc was a RoY, Cy Young winner, and put up arguably the best year of any pitcher in the modern era. Strawberry was a RoY and 7-time All-Star. In the minds of anyone who watched them play, 16, 17, 18, and 31 will always be “their” numbers regardless of who’s wearing them. Recognize that. Own it.

       What truly befuddles me about all this is how Hernandez’s 17 being retired seems to have universal support while doing the same for Carter is some huge debate. They were a two-headed monster for those Mets, playing similar roles in the transformation of the team. Are Keith’s two more years of tenure and being named the captain *first* really that much bigger a deal? Say what you will about Carter’s attitude, but he was never called to testify in a drug dealer’s trial.

       1. Sparks, Carter only really had two good statistical seasons for the Mets. I do not agree with “all five” being retired. I can be convinced about Straw, I do not think Doc’s should be.

          1. The mere fact that opinion is so split is just another reason not to retire Carter’s number. Number retirements should be obvious no-brainers. Carter’s obviously isn’t. Admit that and move on.

             You want to honor Carter? Donate some money to these guys, sponsor someone in a walk-a-thon, or go on one yourself. You know, DO something. That would all be a better tribute than trying to come up with some hokey TV movie tearjerker scenario where everyone has a good cry at the heartbreaking number-retirement ceremony and then goes back to their safe little lives.

          2. So why would Strawberry get the nod over Gooden? Doc has it on Darryl in most every measurable sense. Both were Rookie of the Year, so that’s a draw. Doc was a Met for 11 years vs. Darryl’s 8. Doc won a Cy Young, Strawberry never won an MVP. In their best seasons, Doc had the most statistically dominant season as a pitcher *in the history of the game* in ’85, while Darryl led the league in HRs once. The only thing Strawberry has on Gooden is the number of All-Star appearances (7 vs. 4).

             I keep reading that Carter only had 2 good seasons. From a strict statistical standpoint, that may be true, but:

             a) what a great 2 Mets seasons they were, and
             b) he nonetheless remained an All-Star through ’88

             In the end, I repeat my previous comment. For the remainder of our generation, the numbers 8, 16, 17, 18, and 31 will reflexively be associated with Carter, Gooden, Hernandez, Strawberry, and Piazza. In many cases, that’s actively been encouraged by the team by its being slow to issue them to anyone else except in tribute. What purpose is served by being so uptight about this? Just admit it. Recognize it. Own it. As Shannon says, the worse that happens is some 7-year-old kid asks who that #__ hanging on the wall was, and his dad or uncle or grandpa replies with, “Hall of Fame catcher Gary Carter” or, “Darry Strawberry. He once hit a ball that would’ve left the stadium in Montreal if it didn’t have a roof and was the first Met to hit 30 home runs and steal 30 bases in the same year.”

             I get that you shouldn’t take the decision lightly and have to maintain its integrity, but 6 player numbers in 50 years is hardly going overboard. The Astros have retired 9 player numbers over the same time frame and have only one pennant and nary a World Championship.

             1. The Astros have retired 9 player numbers over the same time frame and have only one pennant and nary a World Championship.

                Yeah, the Astros also played in a dome and wore orange rainbow stripes — let’s do that too, whee!!

                Who cares what the Astros have done? Or the Yankees, or anyone else? How about this: Let’s do what MAKES SENSE, and what makes sense is that you don’t retire the number of a guy who had two good years and three shitty ones for your team.

                Carter is in the Mets Hall of Fame, a nice gesture that recognizes his contributions to the team but is a notch below number retirement, and that feels about right. Let it go.

                For the remainder of our generation, the numbers 8, 16, 17, 18, and 31 will reflexively be associated with Carter, Gooden, Hernandez, Strawberry, and Piazza.

                Not so fast, amigo. Many of us associate 31 with John Franco every bit as much as we do with Piazza (Franco wore it for eight and a half seasons, which is (a) longer than Franco wore 45, and (b) longer than Piazza wore 31).

                As for #8, there’s another Met who wore that number and who happens to have been a better catcher, a better overall player, and arguably a more important figure in Mets history than Carter. That would be Yogi, who wore #8 as a player (barely), coach (including ’69) and skipper (including ’73, when he somehow guided a bunch of scrubs to within a game of a world championship) for 11 years.

                I’m not saying the Mets should retire #8 for Yogi (I don’t think they should). I’m just saying that the notion of Carter as the definitive 8 in Mets history is somewhere between wishful and willful.

             2. Yogi doesn’t get retired as a Met, no way.

                To me it’s not at all about how many years you were on the team. Messier and the NY Rangers. Reggie and the Yankees. When you have a player come from another team, and bring your team to the championship, then your number deserves to be retired, imo.

                We can talk about game 6, and we should, but it was a question of he (and Keith) anchoring what otherwise would have been a young and/or dis-sheveled team. Without those two guys, the Mets only have one championship. Isn’t it true? Who cares about a decade of excellent play on a mediocre team? When the moment is there to be grabbed, and you reach out and grab it (ahem, Beltran), then you are a champion, and your team should honor you.

                For the Mets they only have two championships, so we can spare the numbers.

       2. ” Say what you will about Carter’s attitude, but he was never called to testify in a drug dealer’s trial.”

          and i think that’s where a very large part of this debate is actually going, without anyone actually SAYING it

          seems like there is a LOT of pro-carter sentiment because he was, at least in his own mind, a choirboy in a room full of cocaine snorting, womanizing, alkies

          “well,” you (not necessarily you, sparks, just some) say, “keith, darryl and doc all did drugs, but gary is as pure as the driven snow”

          to which i say, even if true, “so what?”

          the baseball fame sure isn’t filled with choirboys, so that same standard should be applied to the retiring of numbers — keep the criteria limited to their on-field accomplishments (and, in the case of immortals like casey, gil and perhaps yogi, other, bigger contributions)

          there are at least 5 more deserving than carter of having their numbers put on the black wall of citi…unless and until you put them up there first, then i can’t get on board with kid

          lets not let his supposed clean lifestyle and tragic disease cloud our judgment of his value to the mets

          and just because the yankees will have no single digits left (after they retire “2” and “6” for jeets and torre), and put guys like “44” (in what was a BLATENT attempt to buy his cap loyalty at cooperstown) on their plaques, or the astros have 9 numbers retired, there is no reason the mets need to do the same

          carter had some great seasons, some memorable (very memorable) and awesome moments with the mets, no doubt…and he’s probably in the top 10 of all time mets without question…but he certainly does NOT deserve to the be 2nd player number retired, not by a long shot

          i have no problem if they want to put 8 on the wall, but not before the other, more deserving mets (who lived cleanly or not so cleanly, off the field) go in first

11. If you had asked me before he got sick if 8 should be retired, I would have said probably not. My answer is the same now, however, I would add that if they were planning to do it anyway, do it now. Those that want it retired seem to feel emotional ties to him as the final piece of the 1986 team, who gutted it out, played hurt and started the rally. On the flip side, his tenure here was short and poor after 1986. He was not popular in the clubhouse or in baseball for that matter. Perhaps it was partly because he was not a wild, out of control partier like many of the others, but recent comments from him have seemed out of place too.

    If he were a true leader of the 1986 Mets I would say yes…retire 8. What we have now is a situation where it is not cut and dried and it seems the Met fans will have to live by the decision of the Wilpons on a very subjective matter. That’s a scary thought.

12. has any one thought how carter and his family feel about this whole retiremnent issue ? they, of course have other things fsr more important to deal with right now.
    some times i asked my self,does carter feel “the mets did not retire my number when i went into the HOF,they need not do it now”
    Do not let his illness be the main reason now.
    a lot of mets fans and former players and media were sort of rubbed the wrong way by his so called “me my self and i “persona. i just want to see him get better. the # 8 retirment issue has gone full circle with opinions. mets management…your move.

Comments are closed.