Mets Retire Another Number!

[G-Fafif]

36, for Jerry Koosman. Gets hung next year.



Mickey Callaway to manage his final six games (perhaps) in 26.

[Edgy MD]

WOWBOBWOW!



Eight and 17 remain mothballed, but fuck it, let's retire an active number.



SNEAKY!

[Guest 41Forever]

Wow. The other players with retired numbers are Hall of Famers. Kooz opens the door to a number of other players.



I thought Wright would be next.

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

what? That's crazy

[stevejrogers]

I guess the floodgates are about to be opened!



Not that Koos isn't worthy, but those clamoring for Carter, Hernandez, Strawberry, Gooden, a joint for McGraw & Franco, and of course to officially put 24 on the wall for Willie, etc will have more fuel to their fire.

[Benjamin Grimm]

This is very strange. Wright should be next. As much as I like Jerry Koosman, I don't agree with this decision.

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

Who the hell was clamoring for this?

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

The fans want 17, 16, 18, 5, 8.



So fucking dumb

[Frayed Knot]

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: Who the hell was clamoring for this?

The Committee for the Advancement of Ceremonies

[nymr83]

Frayed Knot wrote: Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: Who the hell was clamoring for this? The Committee for the Advancement of Ceremonies

Yeah, someone who saw not enough dates circled on next year's calendar.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Fuck youse all. Kooz fucking deserves it 10 times over. Anybody here mentions Gary Carter and his two good Mets seasons and I'll projectile barf on you. Why Kooz over Wright? Because 36 should've been retired decades ago.



Part of me thinks this is a joke, though.

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

Maybe it shoulda but that's not the way they'd done things all these years. One the one hand they say it was a recommendation from the HoF committee and on another Wilpon's like the fans really like this. He made no secret that they're about to unleash a firehose of retired numbers so whatever "honor" Kooz is getting is to be watered down by the likes of Carter which is why high standards beat low ones.

[Edgy MD]

=stevejrogers post_id=22709 time=1569356655 user_id=57]
I guess the floodgates are about to be opened!



Not that Koos isn't worthy, but those clamoring for Carter, Hernandez, Strawberry, Gooden, a joint for McGraw & Franco, and of course to officially put 24 on the wall for Willie, etc will have more fuel to their fire.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: Maybe it shoulda but that's not the way they'd done things all these years. One the one hand they say it was a recommendation from the HoF committee and on another Wilpon's like the fans really like this. He made no secret that they're about to unleash a firehose of retired numbers so whatever "honor" Kooz is getting is to be watered down by the likes of Carter which is why high standards beat low ones.

Who cares how they've done things? There are no rules for this. Owning a baseball team means you get to retire whatever number you want to retire. If they want to, they can retire Dennis Ribant's number. When I say Kooz deserves to have his number retired, what I'm really saying is that if I owned the Mets, I'd retire Kooz's number. And I really really agree with you about the watering down part. I think that's what's gonna happen in the end.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: =stevejrogers post_id=22709 time=1569356655 user_id=57] I guess the floodgates are about to be opened! Not that Koos isn't worthy, but those clamoring for Carter, Hernandez, Strawberry, Gooden, a joint for McGraw & Franco, and of course to officially put 24 on the wall for Willie, etc will have more fuel to their fire.

People are clamoring for a joint for Franco?

[Gwreck]

I don't agree with this at all. Number retirement is for MLB Hall of Fame players.



I could see — maybe — David Wright having a case due to extraordinarily bad luck combined with playing his entire career as a Met. But that's borderline.



Jerry Koosman? First-ballot in the Mets Hall of Fame, sure. Number retirement? No way.

[G-Fafif]

I had a conversation with the Mets director of alumni relations recently. He said a number retirement was being discussed for 2020. I kind of thought, yeah, sure Jay, whatever. Hot damn, they did it.



It's admittedly a step down in the pantheon from Tom and Mike, but not a huge step down, not when you consider Koosman's role in Mets history, longevity and maybe a realization that waiting much longer would take the wind out of such a gesture.



What I love most about it is 36 really has belonged to Kooz forever, more than any regularly circulated number of substance has belonged to anybody. It actually works.



As for who's next, maybe give it a day and a half before making this a contest. Let Jerry have his 36 hours.

[batmagadanleadoff]

=Gwreck post_id=22722 time=1569358779 user_id=56]
I don't agree with this at all. Number retirement is for MLB Hall of Fame players.



I could see — maybe — David Wright having a case due to extraordinarily bad luck combined with playing his entire career as a Met. But that's borderline.



Jerry Koosman? First-ballot in the Mets Hall of Fame, sure. Number retirement? No way.

[Guest 41Forever]

https://live.staticflickr.com/5465/9146554724_74a2b32c12_b.jpg>



One of the best-ever Mets autographs, too!

[stevejrogers]

Edgy MD wrote: I guess the floodgates are about to be opened! Not that Koos isn't worthy, but those clamoring for Carter, Hernandez, Strawberry, Gooden, a joint for McGraw & Franco, and of course to officially put 24 on the wall for Willie, etc will have more fuel to their fire. People are clamoring for a joint for Franco?

There were small pockets of fandom, though haven't seen much since Franco last pitched/Pedro Martinez donned #45.



Mostly wanting to honor Franco along with McGraw based on Franco's longevity and being the "captain." Nothing to be taken too seriously, I just threw that out as an example of what I've seen people post about in Met number retirement threads.



#7 for Kranepool also gets a lot of play among posts as well.

[batmagadanleadoff]

=G-Fafif post_id=22723 time=1569359018 user_id=55]




It's admittedly a step down in the pantheon from Tom and Mike, but not a huge step down, not when you consider Koosman's role in Mets history, longevity and maybe a realization that waiting much longer would take the wind out of such a gesture.

[dinosaur jesus]

I like it, and I don't have any problem with Koosman being honored before some arguably better players.



Here's a list of the numbers retired by every major league team. It is mostly Hall of Famers, but I see a lot of local legends too: Randy Jones, Jim Gilliam, Ken Boyer, Dale Murphy, Jim Fregosi, Jose Cruz, Mel Harder, Rusty Staub, Willie Horton, Kent Hrbek, Bernie Williams. Those seem like good company for our guy Koosman.



https://www.mlb.com/news/every-mlb-team-s-retired-numbers-c300753386https://www.mlb.com/news/every-mlb-team-s-retired-numbers-c300753386

[Edgy MD]

Edgy MD wrote: =stevejrogers post_id=22709 time=1569356655 user_id=57] I guess the floodgates are about to be opened! Not that Koos isn't worthy, but those clamoring for Carter, Hernandez, Strawberry, Gooden, a joint for McGraw & Franco, and of course to officially put 24 on the wall for Willie, etc will have more fuel to their fire. People are clamoring for a joint for Franco?

Not me. I can tell you that.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: Edgy MD wrote: =stevejrogers post_id=22709 time=1569356655 user_id=57] I guess the floodgates are about to be opened! Not that Koos isn't worthy, but those clamoring for Carter, Hernandez, Strawberry, Gooden, a joint for McGraw & Franco, and of course to officially put 24 on the wall for Willie, etc will have more fuel to their fire. People are clamoring for a joint for Franco? Not me. I can tell you that.

Maybe if he gets a joint, he won't mind not getting his number retired.



Shouldn't you be working on a BatCard?

[Frayed Knot]

Just because there are no rules doesn't mean there shouldn't be standards. Not concrete ones maybe, but some kind of threshold which keeps from giving into ceremony whims and/or fan

demands that more numbers be retired for the purpose of having more retired numbers.







[speculation] As for why Kooz and not Wright: I suspect they're going chronologically during this new era of past player relationship mending meaning Kooz is perhaps just the first step on the

way to Tug who will lead them into the Keith/Gary/Dwight/Darryl era (and can they really honor all them while ignoring Ronnie?!?). The ceremony du annum then leads to Franco & Fonzie, then

Beltran (Ceetar will lead the charge!!) on the way to Wright & Reyes. And by then deGrom will be retired ...

[Frayed Knot]

Just because there are no rules doesn't mean there shouldn't be standards. Not concrete ones maybe, but some kind of threshold which keeps from giving into ceremony whims and/or fan

demands that more numbers be retired for the purpose of having more retired numbers.







[speculation] As for why Kooz and not Wright: I suspect they're going chronologically during this new era of past player relationship mending meaning Kooz is perhaps just the first step on the

way to Tug who will lead them into the Keith/Gary/Dwight/Darryl era (and can they really honor all them while ignoring Ronnie?!?). The ceremony du annum then leads to Franco & Fonzie, then

Beltran (Ceetar will lead the charge!!) on the way to Wright & Reyes. And by then deGrom will be retired ...

[G-Fafif]

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=22727 time=1569359720 user_id=68]
=G-Fafif post_id=22723 time=1569359018 user_id=55]




It's admittedly a step down in the pantheon from Tom and Mike, but not a huge step down, not when you consider Koosman's role in Mets history, longevity and maybe a realization that waiting much longer would take the wind out of such a gesture.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I think there are standards. It's just that they vary from owners to owners. (Does that mean then, that they're not really standards?) And in the grand scheme of things, I would think that there are relatively very few players whose number retirements are real headscratchers. Kooz would not be one of those. Saying that Wright should go first is not the same as saying Kooz is undeserving.

[Edgy MD]

Big shot dudes that have fewer fWAR than Koo's 63.0:



Bob F. Feller: 62.6

Dennis F. Eckersley: 61.8

Dazzy F. Vance: 61.6

Juan F. Marichal: 61.2

Rube F. Waddell: 60.0

Don F. Drysdale: 59.3

Jim F. Palmer: 56.8

Dwight F. Gooden: 56.7



I'm (again) not saying that this stat is the be-all-and-end-all, but outside of Eck (for half his career), these were all starting pitchers, so any honest way of measuring value above replacement is illuminating.



I'm neither for nor against this, but don't kid yourself. Koosman was the giraffe's tits. If he got a quick pass from the BBWAA when his name came up for the Hall, it's largely because he got credited with a lot of losses that really belong to Joe McDonald and M. Donald Grant.



Fun Koo' Fact: In addition to his wins and losses, he got 17 career saves!

[G-Fafif]

I'm not sure who exactly composes the Hall of Fame committee that J. Wilpon said made this decision, but I assume it still includes Gary and Howie (who were on the previous iteration) and Jay (the alumni affairs macher). I have faith in their judgment where this sort of thing is concerned (and in Howie and Gary where any Met thing is concerned).



If J. Wilpon wakes up one day and says, "I'd sure like to retire 47 for my old golfing buddy Tom," then we'll know the process is askew.