It's Morabito Time

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

I think on some level the Torve and Morabito "mistakes" were actually trial balloons. Especially Torve, they got away with it for a while

[Edgy MD]

I don't say no, but it seems pretty thumbheaded in this age of social media, where loud minorities with the time on their hands cand convince the world that they are the majority and the voice of the people, to run this as a trial balloon.

As noted in the 100 Ways to Honor Gary Carter, there are all sorts of ways for a professional organization to utterly anticipate the blowback and get ahead of it with an ounce of foresight and a tablespoon of creativity.

[Benjamin Grimm]

If I could turn back the clock, I'd make it so that retired numbers were never a thing. Tom Seaver, David Wright, Mike Piazza, Gil Hodges, etc. would be represented on those big circles with their faces instead of their numbers. At least, future generations wouldn't point to a number 36 and say, "Who was that guy?" Instead, they'd point to a picture of Jerry Koosman and say, "Who was that guy?" I think having your face up there is a better honor than having your number up there, and it doesn't deplete the inventory of available uniform numbers.

I guess one potential problem would be if the Mets acquired a guy who looks like Gary Carter. Then fans would be outraged that Gary's face was being reused and they'd force the new player to have plastic surgery.

[Edgy MD]

It was kinda disgraceful the way the Mets re-assigned Gary Carter's old hair to Charlie O'Brien. 

As if we wouldn't notice!

 

[Gwreck]

On 5/21/2026 at 10:09 AM, Centerfield said:

The Mets have butchered retired numbers from day 1. Cohen had a chance to make it right but instead just made it worse. 
 

Retiring a manager’s number is ridiculous. We did it twice. And neither of them are our winningest manager. Retiring Mays devalues all retired numbers. Retiring 8 for Carter would be as dumb as retiring 4 for Lenny. 

Hodges absolutely was the winningest and most important* manager in club history when his number was retired.  Was it premature to do so in 1973?  Maybe.  A totally different category than retiring Stengel’s number, which was dumb from day 1.

The funny thing of course is that they did number retirements perfectly for the next 45 years!  You got your number retired if you were elected to the HOF (primarily) for your Mets accomplishments.  It was a special level of honor, easily distinguishable from the Mets HOF or any other random thing.  They even handled the 24 thing well in my view:  it’s not retired, but it was only given out selectively to players who earned it (eg Rickey).

And then in 2019 the Wilpons screwed it all up by retiring Koosman’s number.  (The retirement didn’t happen until 2021, but the flood of new retirements was a Wilpon initiative).  Yes, Cohen should have done more to halt it but he didn’t start it.

—-

*A decent argument can be made that he’s still the most important manager in team history.

[Centerfield]

22 hours ago, Marshmallowmilkshake said:

I don't have any problems retiring numbers for Stengel and especially Hodges - for very different reasons. 

I think you would find it difficult to propose a standard for retiring numbers that:

1.  When applied, would justify the retirement of Stengel and Hodges' numbers.

2. When applied, would not lead to the justification of number retirement for people clearly not deserving of number retirement.

I would love to see your proposal for such a standard.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I think Hodges and Stengel make more sense if you put yourself in 1972 and 1966 (or whenever). Hodges was beloved in New York, both for his time with the Dodgers and as manager of the Mets. For those who are too young to remember, his death is just a historical fact, but to those for whom it was fresh news, it was shocking and tragic. I completely understand the sentiment.

And Casey Stengel was a big part of establishing the Mets. I admit that that means a lot less now than it did sixty years ago. Maybe the thing to do is wait for the perspective that only comes with time before retiring numbers. 

[Gwreck]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Grimm said:

And Casey Stengel was a big part of establishing the Mets. 

How, exactly?

The club was long established before Stengel was ever hired.  The credit there goes to Bill Shea and Joan Payson…not Stengel.

The Mets were a laughingstock their first season.  And their second.  And their third.  I guess Stengel helped sell tickets because he was a well-known figure and a good self-promoter?  

 

[Centerfield]

4 hours ago, Gwreck said:

Hodges absolutely was the winningest and most important* manager in club history when his number was retired.  Was it premature to do so in 1973?  Maybe.  A totally different category than retiring Stengel’s number, which was dumb from day 1.

The funny thing of course is that they did number retirements perfectly for the next 45 years!  You got your number retired if you were elected to the HOF (primarily) for your Mets accomplishments.  It was a special level of honor, easily distinguishable from the Mets HOF or any other random thing.  They even handled the 24 thing well in my view:  it’s not retired, but it was only given out selectively to players who earned it (eg Rickey).

And then in 2019 the Wilpons screwed it all up by retiring Koosman’s number.  (The retirement didn’t happen until 2021, but the flood of new retirements was a Wilpon initiative).  Yes, Cohen should have done more to halt it but he didn’t start it.

—-

*A decent argument can be made that he’s still the most important manager in team history.

I don’t think any manager’s number should be retired. But if you work under the assumption that this is a thing, you certainly don’t retire the number of a guy who managed four years and made the postseason once. 
 

The thing about retired numbers is if you have to explain/justify it to future generations then you probably shouldn’t be retiring that number. 
 

No one will ever question Seaver no matter how much time passes. 

[Gwreck]

10 minutes ago, Centerfield said:

But if you work under the assumption that this is a thing, you certainly don’t retire the number of a guy who managed four years and made the postseason once. 
 

The thing about retired numbers is if you have to explain/justify it to future generations then you probably shouldn’t be retiring that number. 

There is a lesson to be learned about overreaction in the face of tragedy.  Hodges’ number was retired shortly after his sudden passing.  With a little more hindsight, that might not have happened.

The Mets were hardly the only team that have had such retirements:  see, e.g., Jim Umbricht of the Astros; Jim Gilliam of the Dodgers.

[Frayed Knot]

<cross-posted with GWreck>

 

I think part of this goes back to the mindset of the early days of the Mets. The team was born just five years after the city was coldly abandoned but not just one but two NL teams with more than a half-century each of history. So the mindset seemed to be one of drafting aging 'name' players particularly if they had some NYC history. So while expansion Houston went after young players (they fielded an all-rookie lineup at least once in their first year) the Mets were going after the aged Duke Snider, Gil Hodges, and Warren Spahn, for instance, with Casey Stengel to lead them. And even the Mays acquisition was just a decade into the team's history.

The point being, that when players/managers were imported in part for their NYC ties they wind up getting honored for the parts of their careers which preceded the Mets. And while it's easy to say that only NYM content should count it was tough for some to divorce the Met stuff from the earlier stuff. Just think back to the Hodges HoF induction just a few years back (and the lengthy argument that led to it). By the time of Gil's eventual induction only a tiny percentage of those leading the charge or cheering the result had ever seen Hodges play a single ML game.

[Edgy MD]

The Mets were not "long-established" before Casey Stengel was hired.

Whatever one's opinion on the retirement of 37, that's just not an accurate statement.

[Gwreck]

It depends on how the word “established” is being used.  It was Ben Grimm’s post that said Stengel had “a big part of establishing the Mets.”

If “established” means “created” or “in existence” then the post is accurate: New York was awarded a National League franchise and the Metropolitan Baseball Club was created well before Stengel was hired, and he didn’t have a role in “establishing” the team.

If “established” means “well-known” or “prominent” or “of or relating to a set standard,” then it’s a different analysis. 

[Centerfield]

I fully understand that there was sentiment driving the retirement of 14 and 37. My point is that this type of sentiment is precisely what should be disregarded when retiring numbers. Being heartbroken over losing NL baseball then seeing your childhood hero back in town is a terrible reason to retire a number. Being a legendary manager for a different team then giving a new team “identity” is silly. 
 

There are no rules for retiring numbers. But if you want the honor to mean something, and not be ridiculed like the Rays retiring Boggs number, you have to set the criteria first, then apply them objectively.  There is no set of objective criteria that would justify Stengel or Hodges. And that’s why I say the Mets botched the number retirements from the beginning. 
 

I didn’t realize it was the Wilpons that decided to retire Koosman. If so then they set the wheels in motion for further diluting the honor to the point it is now. I mean Willie Mays?  What are we even doing. 
 

And with each undeserving honoree, it’s used as justification to bring the bar even lower. “Well if you’re going to retire 14, you have to retire 24”.

”if 24 is retired, you have to retire 8”

Lenny Dykstra is a world champion and has more WAR with the Mets than Carter. Retire 4. 
 

There’s no championship in 86 without Sid. Retire 50. 
 

Did we forget who the WS MVP was?  Tell Soto to get a new number. 

[Edgy MD]

The 24 thing is not an extension of 14.  It is a stand-alone decision honoring a promise made before Mays joined the team.

[Marshmallowmilkshake]

13 hours ago, Centerfield said:

The thing about retired numbers is if you have to explain/justify it to future generations then you probably shouldn’t be retiring that number. 
 

I know we profoundly disagree on this topic, and that's OK. I love that retired numbers give us an opportunity to continue telling the stories about these people. 

I probably have a few more years behind the cart than you, so it might mean something a little different to me. But Hodges wasn't just a manager. The people on that team speak of him with incredible reverence, not just as a player or manager, but as a person. Hodges is a hero in every sense of the word. He's likely one of the most pivotal people in the history of the franchise, in large part responsible for shaking off the "lovable losers" image. His sudden and tragic passing had a profound impact on the team for years. If having 14 on the wall gives me an opportunity tell people today who he was, then I'm all for it.

Stengel was probably more of a knee-jerk move. He was forced into retirement after breaking his hip late in the season and was more of a figurehead at that point anyway. He was the face of the franchise, for those early years. There might have been a element of an FY to the Yankees in there. It was just before my time.

I don't have a problem with Willie Mays. I think it's very similar, if not identical, to the Brewers retiring Hank Aaron's number. Both became legends in a city, Their franchises moved. They finished their careers in that original city with a different team. Mays is in the conversation for the greatest player ever. I was just a kid at the time, but I remember the joy at his arrival. Willie Mays is a Met and back in New York! I look at it as a tribute to his time in New York. Again, reasonable people can disagree on this. 

If anyone isn't getting enough of a tribute, I think it's Joan Payson. She was a trailblazer. The first woman to buy a major American professional sports team using her own money rather than inheriting it. I don't know if there was another buyer in the wings, but the Mets exist because of her. She selected the name and everything. She -- and Stengel -- were the first people inducted into the Mets Hall of Fame. 

When we look back at history we see the names and stats. But sometimes there is so much more to the story. If the Mets don't do good enough of a job telling these stories, that's on them. 

 

 

 

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

Administrative scarcity is not greatness. You'll remember Carter with or without a stupid circle on the wall. Or a circle on the wall with No. 8, but with guys still wearing the number on the field.

Why were the Mets carrying a No. 8 jersey around with them. Has anyone asked that?

[Frayed Knot]

8 hours ago, Centerfield said:

I fully understand that there was sentiment driving the retirement of 14 and 37. My point is that this type of sentiment is precisely what should be disregarded when retiring numbers. Being heartbroken over losing NL baseball then seeing your childhood hero back in town is a terrible reason to retire a number. Being a legendary manager for a different team then giving a new team “identity” is silly. 

And just to be clear, I'm not advocating for the inclusion of pre-NYM history into these decisions, just 'splainin part of what was NYM ownership/mgmt's mindset in those early days. Between being a brand new team with no history of its own in a city that the NL had just abandoned (x2) and next to the team in the final years (although no one knew it at the time) of a forty year run of absolute MLB dominance, there was a question of how well or even if those disgruntled Dodger/Giant fans would accept the newcomer much less embrace it. So incorporating the other NYC teams' histories -- colors, uniform details, executives (George Weiss), managers, legacy players, etc. -- was, in effect, part of their marketing strategy and the honoring of Stengel and Hodges was an outgrowth of that.

[The Hot Corner]

Getting back to the actual subject of this thread,  Nick Morabito.  It is a small sample size, but he seems overmatched at the MLB level.  In 7 plate appearances, he has 6 strike outs.  Looking at his minor league stats  he seems to have an issue with a high strike out rate (40 Ks in 146 ABs this season & career 316 Ks in 1268 ABs) throughout his minor league career.  It is difficult to hit consistently when you strike out 25% of your at bats.  That is a lot for any hitter, but unacceptable for a hitter with minimal power.  

I guess it shouldn't be a surprise that he is not making much contact with the step up to the major league level.

 

 

[Gwreck]

10 hours ago, Johnny Lunchbucket said:

Why were the Mets carrying a No. 8 jersey around with them. Has anyone asked that?

They almost certainly weren’t.  They carry a sewing machine, extra blank jerseys, and extra letters/numbers with them on the road.  The idea that a number could be giving out “accidentally” is at least possible.

That said, I don’t think numbers are generally given out without thought, and it makes sense that giving out 8 could have been a trial balloon.

[Centerfield]

There is no chance it was accidental. That would be incompetent to an incredible level. 
 

I think you’re right. They were trying it out and seeing what happened. 

[Edgy MD]

They could have actually gotten ahead of what would happen, and influenced what would happen.

[Edgy MD]

MLB honoring and commemorating the legacy of Lou Gehrig tonight by having everybody wear a 4 on their shoulders.

There are other (and better!) ways to call to mind and summon forth the qualities of a player, guys.

It isn't always numbers numbers numbers.