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.
They should retire 8 and have Gary and Yogi there. I know, I know, Berra’s a Yankee, but he was also part of a Mets club that went to the World Series and was a coach on the 69 squad. That should count for much. He was here a long time.
With regards to retired numbers, I like the idea. Here’s who should be considered:
Koosman 36
Yogi 8
Hernandez 17
Carter also 8
Gooden 16
Strawberry 18
Davey Johnson 5
Mike Piazza 31
I don’t think you need to do Mays and I don’t think you need to do Tug/Franco yet.
I loved “Kid” as a player, but in fairness he only spent 5 years here and 2 of those were very sub par. He should have a special day at Citi Field. Shower him with love and gifts, but we can’t retire 8. Maybe the Mets can put up a ring of honor for special players like the Giants did, but not retire those numbers. Carter rightfully went into the HOF as an Expo. He was the final piece to the Mets championship puzzle, but the number can’t be retired. #31 should be retired since he has been elevated to Seaver status w/all team events.
don’t forget 15. Has to be mentioned.
Carter was a Hall of Fame player and he was a Met – but he was not a Hall of Fame player as a Met.
Count me in the don’t retire 8 column. Honor him (as they did about 10 years ago at Shea when they had Gary Carter Day – I was there for it), and pray for him – but not the number
I beloved playing should not be retired for that reason only..Carter’s best years were not with the met’s..sorry
37 – Done. He is the patriarch.
14 – Deserving Done. Also should be in the Hall of Fame.
41 – Deserving Done. The franchise is a no-brainer.
42 – Done. If any team did it, LA Dodgers and the Mets needed to.
8 – Needs to be done.
17 – Needs to be done, but not on the same day as 8. Need to have separate events.
36 – Needs to be done. Playing second fiddle to the franchise is pretty good, without Tom Terrific Kouz is the ace.
16 18 – Only if you want to remember what a heap of talent these two threw away.
1 – Only Mookie should wear this number. That’s purely sentimental.
7 – For what? Retire 5 first, he’s the leader in many categories also. Plus Wright didn’t run for the money.
45 – Yes, for Tug and Johnny.
31 – Yes, for Mike.
24 Why? He played two years here, 135 games.
Out of 99 possible numbers, you lose 10 without retiring 16, 18, 7 and 24. Reissue these numbers. Roster is 24 men. Including manager, coaches and guys on the 40 man roster, you need numbers for about 45 guys. 89 minus 45 is 44 that are totally free.
I think Shannon touches on something here. By retireing number 8 you open the door to a slippery slope if you do it 17 has to as well. Also I am not of the opinion that Carter’s number should be retired, his best years were in Montreal. I can see the argument for doing it I’m just not sure I agree.
Ya think that pitching staff would have been as good without Carter? I don’t. Ask Darling how good Carter was. I still feel that he brought the whole thing together and without his single in game 6 that kept it alive we don’t talk about Buckner.
I agree with Shannon 100 percent. All you have to do is look across town and see what happens when numbers are retired at an almost disturbing rate (getting into the “true Yankee” stuff isn’t why we’re here). Give out the numbers judiciously and keep handing the same useless numbers out to new players. Half the players on the current team are candidates for the anonymity of number 6—at least until Wally Backman comes to take it back.
I would definitely prefer to see something comparable to a ring of honor, versus, overdoing it with retired #’s and therefore diluting the significance. No one really compares to 41, in terms of carrying the team on his back for as long as he did. Piazza’s most historic seasons were in LA but his achievements in NY were still amazing. The emotional value of his HR after 9/11 was also major, maybe even bigger than TS leading the lovable losers to a WS. I would think Piazza has the strongest argument after TS, but he probably didnt dominate to the extent TS did, for as long as TS did, as a Met. If Wright can put up another 5 years of 300-30-100+ then maybe he will qualify. 4-5 great years should be consideration for the ring of honor. There are probably much fewer retired #’s throughout baseball versus the total # of HOF inductees… even after considering how many HOF’r played before #;s were issued.