The subject of the Mets and retired numbers is an interesting one, and as I have spoken to more and more folks about it I find it’s a very complicated topic.
I’m bringing this up today because I woke up to several tweets about retiring number 8.
First, let’s look at what the Mets have done so far. I consider 37 an anomaly of a young franchise. Like the Rays and Boggs. Or the Marlins and their 5.
14 sure seems worthy, although I’m too young to know what happens say Gil lives to be 100 and gets fired in 1976.
41 is the only number for a player, and he’s in the Hall of Fame. That seems to be the bar.
Back to 8.
The captain. Loved. Ring. Hall of Famer.
But if you retire 8 don’t you have to retire 17?
If you take emotions and the Expos out of it I think the average Mets fan would put Keith ahead of Gary in the pantheon. So don’t you have to retire 17 first or on the same day?
If you’re retiring 8 today as opposed to say three years ago…well why? Why didn’t you retire it three years ago? Are we being sentimental?
If we’re being sentimental why didn’t 45 get retired for Tug McGraw when he was ill? And John wore the number, he was also a captain and played a long time. What about John?
Why is 7 in circulation? The leader in many offensive categories played a long time, and the guy on the Marlins wasn’t too bad either.
What about 36? No love for the Kooz?
What about the second best pitcher in franchise history? No 16?
What about 1? He was out in CF a long time. Who do you think hit the ball to Buckner?
How do you retire 1 and 16 without retiring 18?
And what’s with 24?
Do we really want a wall with 37 14 41 42 8 17 36 16 18 1 7 45 31 24 on it?
The Mets have their own hall of fame where they have honored most of these players. It would be strange to go from three numbers to ten or more. I can make a case for any of the above. I can also make a case against them. Including 8 and 17.
In the past the franchise was a little casual in handing out the numbers. 17 has been passed around like a used Kleenex.
Heading forward, what if the Mets were judicious in handing out the “good” numbers. The next time an Ike Davis type prospect shows up, issue that guy 17. Not some Fernando Tatis.
Put 8 away (and it has been parked lately, along with 31) and if the Mets ever draft a “shouldn’t miss” catcher then issue it. Treat it the way the Mets have with Willie Mays’ #24 (except the Torve weirdness). Rickey Henderson, Hall of Famer, got to wear 24. That’s not shabby.
…
I don’t see how you do 8 without 17.
Should the Mets try to hold an early season ceremony to handle both? I’m really not sure. Ive changed my opinion a few tines on this. And therein may lie the answer.