Retired Number Survey

[Guest Swan Swan H]

Lots of talk about retired numbers lately, spurred on by the mention of Mike Piazza's upcoming induction into the Mets HOF as well as the presence of retired Mets favorites like Doc, Darryl, Franco, Ventura, Gibbons, Johnson and Piazza at the All-Star weekend, and, oh yes, the starting NL right fielder in that game, fella named Beltran who played here for a while.

We all have opinions on whose number, if any, should be retired, so I thought I'd do a survey and see who gets the most support from 'Poolers. Here's the setup:

Vote for up to four people whose numbers, you believe, should be retired by the Mets. No need to nominate four, of course, and blank ballots, while not affecting the results, should be entered for posterity. Put them in order, please - NO TIES. Point will be calculated as follows:

1st - 5
2nd - 3
3rd - 2
4th - 1

I will keep this open until tomorrow afternoon, then I'll run the entries through the old SWANIVAC 3000 and produce the results.

[TransMonk]

I didn't weight in on the other thread, but I would not retire any more numbers at this time.

Hernandez and Carter both had success for other teams. Darryl and Doc burned out instead of fading away.

The only player that I would have no beef with retiring right now is Franco...but the rub is if it would be 31 or 45? I feel that many people would think of 31 as Piazza (who I could warm up to retiring eventually) and 45 as possibly Pedro, Tug and (hopefully, eventually) Wheeler.

So, I would be happy honoring Franco on the wall somehow, but I don't know that putting away a certain number would do the honor justice.

[metirish]

I'm confused by the voting process.

Should there be a poll?

[seawolf17]

I think you could retire 31 for Franco/Piazza -- it had a solid 15-year run with two guys who are All-Time Mets. I love Keith, but I understand not retiring it; same for Gary/Doc/Darryl.

I vote for 31 and nothing else right now.

[Guest Swan Swan H]

A poll only allows for yes or no. I want to weigh the voting, so a first place vote is worth more than a second place vote.

[Guest Swan Swan H]

TransMonk wrote: I didn't weight in on the other thread, but I would not retire any more numbers at this time. Hernandez and Carter both had success for other teams. Darryl and Doc burned out instead of fading away. The only player that I would have no beef with retiring right now is Franco...but the rub is if it would be 31 or 45? I feel that many people would think of 31 as Piazza (who I could warm up to retiring eventually) and 45 as possibly Pedro, Tug and (hopefully, eventually) Wheeler. So, I would be happy honoring Franco on the wall somehow, but I don't know that putting away a certain number would do the honor justice.

John's generosity in releasing 31 to Piazza does make this confusing, as does the number he chose to take, which I still think of as Tug's number.

[seawolf17]

Swan Swan H wrote: The number he chose to take, which I still think of as Tug's number.

Plus PEDRO. Let Wheeler make 45 his bitch, then we retire it in 2030 for Tug/Franco/Pedro/Wheeler.

[Guest Swan Swan H]

seawolf17 wrote: Swan Swan H wrote: The number he chose to take, which I still think of as Tug's number. Plus PEDRO. Let Wheeler make 45 his bitch, then we retire it in 2030 for Tug/Franco/Pedro/Wheeler.

Sweet idea. I'll be there. You can buy me a Geritol.

[metirish]

Ok, right now I retire Piazza....I wouldn't argue against Mex....but what about Mookie etc then?

[Frayed Knot]

None.

Talk to me in another decade about #5
And, while we're at it, put the unofficially retired 8 & 24 back into circulation.

[bmfc1]

1) 31
2) 8
3) 17
4) 24.

Though Willie Mays' time with the Mets was brief, he was on the NL Championship team and his time with the New York Giants, a team that is part of the Mets heritage (it said so at the Fan Fest), should be recognized by this honor.

[RealityChuck]

1. 31
2. 17

Nothing else now, though eventually I'd liked to see 5 and 33.

[Ceetar]

1) 31
2) 15
3) 17


Release all other back into circulation. (the 8, 24, etc)

[Guest Swan Swan H]

bmfc1 wrote: 1) 31 2) 8 3) 17 4) 24. Though Willie Mays' time with the Mets was brief, he was on the NL Championship team and his time with the New York Giants, a team that is part of the Mets heritage (it said so at the Fan Fest), should be recognized by this honor.

There is some precedent for the sort of thing you recommend for Mays, most specifically Hank Aaron's 44 being retired by the Milwaukee Brewers.

[bmfc1]

Thank you Swan Swan H. (And we saw that the Brewers gave out a Hank Aaron bobblehead. A Willie Mays bobblehead--and a day--would be nice.)

[Guest Mets � Willets Point]

I kind of like numbers living on to be used for multiple stars, a la 31 and 45. Of course, you have to police the good numbers less they grace the backs of scrubs.

[Ceetar]

31 is a given imo.

I think a second survey should be conducted as to

14 31 37 41 42 or
14 37 41 31 42 or
14 37 41 42 31 or
14 37 31 41 42 ...

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I'd be for "retiring" No. 86 as a means of acknowledging the volume of contributors to that team without singling out anyone whose Met careers were problematic for number-retirement for reasons of short tenures, flameouts, unimpressive overall bodies of work, etc etc.

I'm in no rush for any additional retirements including 31.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

31
16
1
17

[Edgy MD]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I'd be for "retiring" No. 86 as a means of acknowledging the volume of contributors to that team without singling out anyone whose Met careers were problematic for number-retirement for reasons of short tenures, flameouts, unimpressive overall bodies of work, etc etc.

Abstract number retirement honorees are an interesting ancillary issue. In addition to 86, other prospects would be 69 (for similar reasons) and 62 or 64 for Bill Shea --- whose name is already there anyhow --- designating him either as the father (spiritually anyhow) of the 1962-launched team, or the 1964-launched stadium that bore his name.

The '69 notion occurred to me way back-back-back when Ms. Met was decrying the insult of not retiring 20 for Tommie Agee, because the 1969 team was insufficiently honored. Bam! Retire a number that's never issued anyhow.

The Bill Shea thing, I think, was something Bucket brought up while appearing on SNY.

62 has been issued three times: to Hubie Brooks for, like, a day, as a September callup, to Juan Lopez as an interim coach, and to Elvin Ramirez during his multiple callups last year --- the last one being on the only mindful issuance. 64 went to Elmer Dessens during his multiple trips to town in 2009 and 2010, and to Josh Stinson during a September 2011 callup. No real harm in taking those out of circumluation either.

[seawolf17]

I still don't get why Casey's 37 is retired.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I like the way this survey is phrased. I think it's kinda pointless to ask which number or numbers the team (owners) should retire because here, there are no rules. The owners are free to retire whatever number or numbers they wish to retire, whether it's Mike Piazza'a old uni or Jay Kleven's. It's their team and these decisions are some of the spoils. When we engage in this uni retirement talk, what we're really wondering or debating, is what numbers we would retire if we owned the team. So with that out of the way, if I owned the Mets, the only numbers I'd retire are 31 for Piazza and 17 for Keith. Next in line for consideration only, would be Doc and Darryl's unis followed by Koosman's. I'm not considering numbers of active players. I don't say that I'd retire 16 or 18 or 36, but that if there was some hierarchy or imaginary line of consideration, the last three would be at the front of my line. I shouldn't be surprised at how often Gary Carter's name comes up in this topic of conversation but I just don't see it. His Met legacy, in my eyes, is crucial - Carter was historically, one of the most important Mets in franchise history, no doubt, but at the same time, his Mets legacy is vastly overstated, and at the expense of the legacies of other Mets.

[Frayed Knot]

seawolf17 wrote: I still don't get why Casey's 37 is retired.

Essentially for the same reason as Mays: a NYC baseball icon even though only briefly a Met.
Then throw in the part about being a media favorite who was present at the launching of the franchise.

[Guest sharpie]

None.

[Edgy MD]

Surely you must get it. I mean, even if you disagree with it, you must certainly be able to glean what they were thinking.

[Chad ochoseis]

None. I don't want to have to drop $20 on a new Fafif t-shirt.

[Vic Sage]

Frayed Knot wrote: None. Talk to me in another decade about #5 And, while we're at it, put the unofficially retired 8 & 24 back into circulation.

This... exactly this.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Vic Sage wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: None. Talk to me in another decade about #5 And, while we're at it, put the unofficially retired 8 & 24 back into circulation. This... exactly this.

I missed FK's post about re-circulating 8 & 24. Sign me up for that, too.

[Guest sharpie]

I also endorse the 8 and 24 re-emergence.

Retiring marginal numbers is a MFY thing to do.

[metirish]

A while back I was at the local CVS....I was wearing my



when the cashier asked me what the numbers were(Mets she asked, tried to guess)......she thought it was very cool, told me she was a MFY fan and that they retire every damn player that pulled on the shirt......I agreed...