I really liked Clancy’s comment – worthy of a post:
Not everyone whose number is retired has to be in the Hall of Fame (heck, the other team in NY practically retires your number if you successfully bunt a runner over to second).
It’s more about what the player meant to the team, isn’t it?  Keith Hernandez turned this franchise around, made it take itself seriously again, truly led the club in word and deed.  How many times would you see him walk to the mound in a tight spot and not just offer empty words of encouragement but emphatically challenge the pitcher to get that guy out, or find him in the dugout talking to one player or another – pitcher or everyday player – about the game, a situation, an at-bat? He challenged this team to be better, and they listened.  I consider him a leader in the way Gil Hodges was a leader, on the field and in the clubhouse (and to also argue time of service for number retirement, Hodges only managed for four years).
It’s not just about numbers one puts on the board, or about being a Hall of Famer, it’s about what you did for your team; I think Hernandez was the heart and drive of the Mets during his time here, and his number should be on the wall, without question.
I want to clarify what I said in response to a previous post. I am not of the opinion that only HOFers should have their # retired…but it seems as though the Mets are. They have clearly taken that tack in their approach to retirement and they may have even expressed it verbally at some point.
I just don’t think Mex is next in line for having the number retired. The argument seems to be grounded mostly in the emotional and leadership effect he had on the team…and even there he is not at the top of the list in my opinion. If you start considering those types I think Tug McGraw and John Franco are just as likely to be considered, and I don’t see anyone clamoring to have those #s retired. I agree with Clancy that Mex was vital to the success of the mid-80s Mets…but does everyone seriously think that Mex is the best Met whose number isn’t retired already? If you do, then I am fine with the drive to retire his number…but I can’t personally get on board because I don’t think that is the case.
Before #17 is retired, number 36 should be.
@jesse i love Koosman, but given off-field issues I think it won’t be happening this year.
Shannon, but Gooden can go into Mets hall of fame this year with his off field issues also?
Gooden was previously announced. It’s awkward, but I don’t think you can unannounce him.