Mets to Retire 16, 18 (merged with Oh Holy Hell, Retire #7 NOW!!!)

[Edgy MD]

=Fman99 post_id=135844 time=1692914666 user_id=86]
I think it's great. You're all nuts

[ashie62]

Cleon Grote Krane and Bud Harrelson



Now!

[metirish]

Strawberry has the club HR record and Doc second only to Seaver in wins , so there is that

[batmagadanleadoff]

Why would anyone wanna have some rigid rule requiring the player whose number is being retired to be a Hall of Famer enshrined in a Mets cap? If I owned the Mets, I'd never make a rule that might handcuff me like that. (Not that I can't ignore it anyways if I was the owner). Some of youse are saying, with that rule, that even if Keith Hernandez played his whole career as a Met -- rookie to retirement -- he still wouldn't deserve to have his number retired because he's not a HOFer? Or David Wright?



I never understood this "rule" stuff with retiring numbers. What rules? It's the owner's team and he's allowed to do whatever he feels like doing as far as retiring numbers go.

[whippoorwill]

=metirish post_id=135850 time=1692919031 user_id=72]
Strawberry has the club HR record and Doc second only to Seaver in wins , so there is that

[batmagadanleadoff]

=whippoorwill post_id=135852 time=1692920420 user_id=79]
=metirish post_id=135850 time=1692919031 user_id=72]
Strawberry has the club HR record and Doc second only to Seaver in wins , so there is that

[nymr83]

I don't think Gooden's Mets career, just by the numbers, is worthy of of jersey retirement . Nothing to do with Cocaine.

[Frayed Knot]

=ashie62 post_id=135848 time=1692916696 user_id=90]
Cleon Grote Krane and Bud Harrelson

[Frayed Knot]

I don't want a set of rigid rules governing number retirement. But I'd like there to be some sort of guidelines and mine would look something like this:

1) a career NYM or at least a solid majority of his career as one

2) HoF inductee or at least pretty darn close to it

3) Was a member/citizen of good standing while a NYM



- Keith falls short on #1 & #2, although I understand this is as much about his announcing career as his playing one

- Cater checks off #2 though isn't close on #1

- Gooden and Strawberry are barely there on #1, not close on #2, and iffy as hell on #3

- Piazza checks #2 and is at least close on #1. I wouldn't have tabbed him, though I'm not going to go nuts on it.

- Mays obviously has #2 covered tho isn't close on #1, although I understand there are extenuating circumstances (promises) here.

- Koosman: #1 yes, #2 not close.

- Wright: #1 yes, #2 no. Probably gets the sympathy vote.

- Reyes - #1 yes, #2 not close

- Mookie, HoJo, Krane, Beltran, Cleon, etc.: Please stop.

Strawberry has the club HR record and Doc second only to Seaver in wins , so there is that Indeed; I don't understand the hate. Yes they screwed up but haven't we all?

Saying that someone falls short of the ultimate team honor isn't "hate".

These guys are already in the NYM HoF. That should be considered a terrific honor but, by expanding the retired number roster, not only is

the team (read: Cohen) degrading the status of number retirement but he's also treating the HoF status as if it's almost a meaningless

gesture.

[Centerfield]

I still don't understand 24.



Mays was a Giant. Not a Met.

[Edgy MD]

If Koosman was mediagenic or had a memorable nickname or something, there'd be an active movement to induct him and he'd at least have made a few veteran ballots by now.



More than one lesser starting pitcher is walking around with a Hall of Fame pin on his lapel.



Well, actually, most of those are dead, but still.

[Edgy MD]

Well, he was a Met. Beyond that, he transcended.



Mostly, though, he was loved by a generation of New Yorkers, including Mrs. Payson, whose vision for the team was in part to be a deposit of the New York legacies of the two National League teams that departed, and so she made Mays a promise, and this was the team's way of honoring that promise.



There's plenty of precedent. The Brewers retired Hank Aaron's number (pretty much upon his retirement in 1976, I think), and his legacy with them was pretty much as close to a perfect parallel with Mays' Mets legacy as there can be. You also have the Nets' retiring Julius Erving's number.

[Edgy MD]

Also, when I become the Mets' potentate or majordomo or whatever, I'm going to instruct the Mets archivists to position the team as the keepers of the legacy of the 19th Century New York Metropolitans.



Their manager Jim Mutrie had a .635 winning percentage with them and the Giants, and a display about him in the Mets museum wouldn't hurt nobody and would probably land him in the Hall of Fame, where he should have been enshrined long ago except nobody thinks about him.

[nymr83]

"There is someone arguably worse than him in the hall" is a really poor argument. there are at least 20 retired hitters more deserving than Tony Perez. maybe even 50. should we let them all in?

[Centerfield]

Every time I ask about Mays, all the answers are abstract. He transcended. Was beloved. You had to be there to understand what it meant to the city/fanbase/everyone/me.



And I get that. He made Mets fans really really happy. Especially those who had been Giant fans. But that's not a reason to put him in the Hall of Fame, much less retire his number. And I get that there is precedent. Like when they retired Boggs number in Tampa. I thought it was silly then, I think it's silly now.



It can't just be that this player made us really really happy. Todd Pratt did that. So did Cespedes. Daniel Murphy. Edgardo Alfonso is much more worthy of number retirement than Willie Mays. I worried that when you retired Koosman you opened the door to a lot of questionable guys. With Mays, you can retire literally anyone.



I have no issue with the HOF as a Met criteria. I have no issue with the HOF Met criteria that allows exceptions for a lifelong Met that falls just short of HOF criteria due to an unfortunate injury.



My criteria would be:



1. Did he dominate?

2. As a Met?

3. For a long time?



Mays hits none of that criteria. Koosman was a Met for a long time but was he dominant. I didn't see him play, so I'm left with stats. Those suggest 4 dominant seasons out of his 12. Maybe that, plus being a World Champion is enough.



And for what it's worth, I don't think I care all that much. But retiring 24 means we can't make fun of any Yankee numbers again.

[Edgy MD]

But then there's the (a) historical deposit of the legacy of the lost team, ( the honor of Mrs. Payson's promise, and © historical precedent.



The very greatest player in the world was a New York National League centerfielder, and with that team gone, along with it went the institution who would presumably be tasked with honoring and preserving that legacy.



That's bad, and that legacy shouldn't die. The Mets don't have to be the institution that picks up that historical wrong and corrects it, but why not? It's a good thing that the echoes of Willie Mays' work as a New York Giant should resound somewhere in New York, and I feel a whole lot better and righter hearing it resound in Flushing, Queens than in The Bronx.

[Marshmallowmilkshake]

=Centerfield post_id=135877 time=1692968335 user_id=65]




And for what it's worth, I don't think I care all that much. But retiring 24 means we can't make fun of any Yankee numbers again.

[Edgy MD]

I didn't argue that he should be in.



Also, you're misquoting me.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: But then there's the (a) historical deposit of the legacy of the lost team, and ( the honor of Mrs. Payson's promise.

That's my point. If someone's gonna constantly make exceptions to the rule, then there really is no rule. Which, of course, there isn't. Once again: Where do these supposed rules come from?





The problem that Mets fans have is that the franchise doesn't have many of these inner circle no doubt about it Hall of Famers who played exclusively or practically exclusively for the Mets. The Mets don't have a stable of Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Berra, Mantle, Ford, Dickey, et. al. So they have to make do with what they have. Or wait one or two lifetimes for the Babe Ruth of the Mets to arrive. If they're even playing baseball two lifetimes from now. Me, I doubt it, but that's for another thread. And besides, the Yankees also retired the numbers of players like Ron Guidry, Don Mattingly and Reggie Jackson, whose Yankee careers are more in line with the Mets careers of Hernandez, Strawberry and Gooden.



In fact, the Mets only have one of these guys - Tom Seaver - and even Seaver spent about 40% of his career with teams other than the Mets. Piazza and Hernandez, without doubt, have had careers worthy of having their numbers retired. But Piazza split his career about evenly between the Mets and other teams. And Keith spent the majority of his career with the Cardinals. I'm not even mention Gary Carter, a deserving Hall of Famer --- the almost entirety of his peak star years came as an Expo. Because if Carter, then Nolan Ryan. And if Ryan, then Rickey Henderson. And Warren Spahn.



This is the Mets history. The team's been around for more than 60 years and in that time, Doc and Darryl and Keith Hernandez and Jerry Koosman and Mike Piazza and David Wright are, along with Seaver, [CROSSOUT]among [/CROSSOUT]the very best Mets ever. And there's no denying that.

[smg58]

In terms of WAR as a Met (going by Baseball Reference), Gooden is second among pitchers and Strawberry is second among hitters. And they contributed to a world champion. They're both quite a bit higher than Carter or Hernandez, and Piazza as well. So you can disagree on where the line should be drawn, but I would argue the line has already been drawn below them.

[Edgy MD]

Edgy MD wrote: But then there's the (a) historical deposit of the legacy of the lost team, and ( the honor of Mrs. Payson's promise. That's my point. If someone's gonna constantly make exceptions to the rule, then there really is no rule. Which, of course, there isn't. Once again: Where do these supposed rules come from?

I'm not sure what you're referring to. I didn't know there was anything that could be referred to as an established "rule," so I'm not sure how my statement makes your point. I wasn't responding to anything you had written, and I was, in fact, repeating myself. I'm not sure if you understand my statement is a reinforcement of some rule or an exception. I'm just trying to respond to centerfield's statement that he doesn't understand it.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: I didn't know there was an established rule.

That's because there isn't one.

[Edgy MD]

Then what "rule" are you referring to when you quote my post?

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: Then what "rule" are you referring to when you quote my post?

Ohferchrissakes. Do we hafta have a variation of this discussion every other week? I quoted you only as a jumping off point because I thought it was convenient to segue off of your post. I was referring to the non existing rule that some posters believe exists or believe that it should exist or think that because the Red Sox only retire the numbers of HOFers that played solely for the Sox, that the Mets are somehow bound by that rule and are violating it all of the time by retiring anybody's number given that the Mets have no such players.



So of course they then come up with exceptions to justify retiring the numbers of their personal favorites while still maintaining "rules". Rules that are always being broken because there always seems to be an exception. You can't have the Red Sox rule and at the same time, have Seaver's number retired. And why the Mets should be bound by whatever the Red Sox do, or what any other team does is beyond me in any event.

This all has little or anything to do with anything you specifically posted.

[Edgy MD]

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=135897 time=1692975155 user_id=68]Ohferchrissakes. Do we hafta have a variation of this discussion every other week?

[kcmets]

Why was the Krane thread merged with the Doc/Straw thread?

[A Boy Named Seo]

Frayed Knot wrote: Now batting for your 2032 New York Mets, number @ ...

There's an argument to made (I shall make it now) that coaches and managers don't need numbers anyway. So many managers just wear windbreakers or whatever. Just give them all a numberless uni or a windbreaker with the Mets logo on one side and their initials on the others side (soccer style) and boom, the Mets instantly have 12 more available numbers. And Buck and BS would be perfect.



https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/b13d61de4c4aad289648e686203d34d01e08eb0a/0_63_2463_1478/master/2463.jpg?width=620&dpr=1&s=none>

[batmagadanleadoff]

A Boy Named Seo wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: Now batting for your 2032 New York Mets, number @ ... There's an argument to made (I shall make it now) that coaches and managers don't need numbers anyway. So many managers just wear windbreakers or whatever. Just give them all a numberless uni or a windbreaker with the Mets logo on one side and their initials on the others side (soccer style) and boom, the Mets instantly have 12 more available numbers. And Buck and BS would be perfect. https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/b13d61de4c4aad289648e686203d34d01e08eb0a/0_63_2463_1478/master/2463.jpg?width=620&dpr=1&s=none>

Suits are nice, too.

[FIMG=333]https://i.ytimg.com/vi/b4Wfr5v6wX8/hqdefault.jpg[/FIMG]

[Edgy MD]

=kcmets post_id=135903 time=1692978417 user_id=53]
Why was the Krane thread merged with the Doc/Straw thread?

[A Boy Named Seo]

A Boy Named Seo wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: Now batting for your 2032 New York Mets, number @ ... There's an argument to made (I shall make it now) that coaches and managers don't need numbers anyway. So many managers just wear windbreakers or whatever. Just give them all a numberless uni or a windbreaker with the Mets logo on one side and their initials on the others side (soccer style) and boom, the Mets instantly have 12 more available numbers. And Buck and BS would be perfect. https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/b13d61de4c4aad289648e686203d34d01e08eb0a/0_63_2463_1478/master/2463.jpg?width=620&dpr=1&s=none> Suits are nice, too. [FIMG=333]https://i.ytimg.com/vi/b4Wfr5v6wX8/hqdefault.jpg[/FIMG]

They are nice. Aside from nostalgia, I'd have no real problem if baseball let the managers and coaches dress like coaches in every other sport. I do love the goofiness of making a 76-year old man wear a full baseball uniform but it's not necessary in any way.