The Strawberry Statement

[batmagadanleadoff]

soupcan wrote: soupcan wrote: How many ultimately mediocre players on every other team in the majors have similar accomplishments and don't have their numbers retired? Quite a fucking few I'm thinking. I disagree with this many ways over. First of all, every ML'er is, at best, mediocre at the end of their careers. Even Willie Mays. Otherwise, they'd still be playing. Mike Piazza would still be backstopping for the Mets, catching Tom Seaver's 96 MPH fastballs. So to characterize Strawberry based on his end of career mediocrity, to imply that Straw was a mediocrity is wholly unfair to Straw and a distortion. But I'm not going to retire a number based on a few good years either. Do the Mets want to be the Yankees who will soon start having to use the Greek alphabet for their players because they've retired every single number for every single player who had a few good years for them? Straw was a superstar and, I think, an underrated superstar, playing in an era when having to hit half your games in Shea Stadium was still murder on a batter's stats. I'll tell you something ... I secretly chafe a little bit every time I have to read that David Wright is the Mets best home grown hitter because I don't really believe it. Wright isn't the hitter that Straw was, and in fact, if you compare Wright's first eight years to Straw's first and only eight Mets seasons, (they were both 21 in their debut seasons, btw, making for a convenient comparison) Straw comes out on top overall, even though Wright had the best singular season. If Wright is the better Mets hitter than Straw, it's only because Wright outlasted Straw as a Met and took many more PA's, which enabled Wright to pass Straw in the career totals categories. For me its not about whether Straw was this or that or better than this guy or that guy. I like what the Red Sox do. I may be mistaken but I believe they have a system for retiring numbers. A player must be in the Hall of Fame and had to have played at least 10 years for them. THAT's a guy whose number should be retired. Also, I don't think it'd be unprecedented if a player like Straw were to have his number retired. He's certainly more deserving of that honor, by like orders of magnitude, than say Gary Carter, who seems to have the most support among Mets fans for that kind of treatment. Lesser players than Straw have had their numbers retired. Not that that means anything, because we're now delving into a discussion in which rules and standards don't really apply and ownership can retire whatever numbers they feel like retiring. You're right, it wouldnt be unprecedented but again do the Mets want to be the Padres who retired Randy Jones and Steve Garvey? The freaking Dodgers haven't even retired Garvey's #6. I'd like a retired number in Queens to be a real honor. Right now I think it is. Casey Stengel, Gil Hodges, Tom Seaver and Piazza. 3 Hall of Famers and one guy who's value to the team is without question.

Jeez, if I knew you were gonna write this humongous post, I woulda spared you and told you not to waste alla your time. I never weighed in on whether or not the Mets should retire Straw's number. I haven't formed an opinion on the matter. All I said in that regard, is that it wouldn't be so unreasonable, in light of other team's retired numbers, if the Mets retired #18. I did disagree with you about that mediocrity business, but I'd guess that that was an off the cuff comment in the heat of the moment, and that you really don't think Straw was a mediocrity. At least not all of the time. Not when he was a Met.

I did go on that I think Straw was a better Mets hitter than Wright. But I also agree with Edgy that longevity counts. But in my book, which hasn't been published yet, that would only make Wright's Metly contributions more valuable than Straw's. It wouldn't make Wright the better Mets hitter of the two. Not that they aren't kinda close and that a reasonable case couldn't be made for Wright.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I like retiring numbers. I wouldn't be opposed to seeing 8 on the wall...

What is it with Mets fans who think Gary Carter's number should be retired? Because this is one argument that I'm simply incapable of understanding. It's incomprehensible to me on every level. And one of these days I'm gonna write a long post explaining why. If Carter, then they might as well retire Donn Clendenon's number, too. And Bobby Ojeda's. Jeez, the guy was a great Met and deserving of his induction into the Mets HOF, but his legend has grown to absurd heights, way the hell out of proportion to his on the field contributions. He's way overrated as a Met -- the Derek Jeter of the Mets. And I say that bit about Jeter in the worst way possible.

[Frayed Knot]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I like what the Red Sox do. I may be mistaken but I believe they have a system for retiring numbers. A player must be in the Hall of Fame and had to have played at least 10 years for them. THAT's a guy whose number should be retired. That is a pretty good rule of thumb, but it might be a little too strict for my taste, which is stricter than most. But I think the Mets should eventually retire 5 for David Wright, and he's very unlikely to ever meet that criteria.

I agree that strict rules would only lead to exceptions being made (Pesky for The BoSox) which then render the strict rules kind of meaningless.
But I would set some sort of standard built around the idea of:
- all or a significant majority of the player's career as a Met. That eliminates Keith, Carter, Mays, and Beltran amongst others. Also Strawberry if counting by seasons even if not by GP/ABs
- HoF caliber or at least a lengthy star-level resume: bye-bye Eddie Krane & Franco
- some sort of good character clause. That makes Doc & Darryl with their numerous arrests, suspensions, etc. tough sells, and possibly Reyes also even if he were to suddenly find the fountain of youth and unexpectedly give us say five more good seasons.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I agree. Retiring 8 would be absurd. They should just reissue it. It's been idle long enough.

[G-Fafif]

There are lessons to be gleaned from the examples of others, but frankly, I don't care what other teams do and I don't care what the Hall of Fame says when it comes to Mets. This is not an endorsement or a rejection of any given number being retired, just a matter of personal principle. I wouldn't not retire a number because the MFYs or the Astros or whoever have a stricter or looser policy.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I like retiring numbers. I wouldn't be opposed to seeing 8 on the wall... What is it with Mets fans who think Gary Carter's number should be retired? Because this is one argument that I'm simply incapable of understanding. It's incomprehensible to me on every level. And one of these days I'm gonna write a long post explaining why. If Carter, then they might as well retire Donn Clendenon's number, too. And Bobby Ojeda's. Jeez, the guy was a great Met and deserving of his induction into the Mets HOF, but his legend has grown to absurd heights, way the hell out of proportion to his on the field contributions. He's way overrated as a Met -- the Derek Jeter of the Mets. And I say that bit about Jeter in the worst way possible.

I like Gary Carter.

He's in Cooperstown, and, had the Hall gone with his wishes, would have gone in as a Met.

He's one of the best catchers of all time, unquestionably of his era.

He was key piece that led to the 1986 championship.

The team must feel similarly, as it has not circulated the number.

Note, there is a big difference to me saying "I wouldn't be opposed to" and saying "I'm loudly advocating for."

[batmagadanleadoff]

G-Fafif wrote: There are lessons to be gleaned from the examples of others, but frankly, I don't care what other teams do and I don't care what the Hall of Fame says when it comes to Mets. This is not an endorsement or a rejection of any given number being retired, just a matter of personal principle. I wouldn't not retire a number because the MFYs or the Astros or whoever have a stricter or looser policy.

I agree with this totally. I would never want the process of retiring a uniform number to come down to some rigid formulaic algorithmic type of computer-like process. The only rule I would insist upon if I owned the Mets would be that there are no rules. You have to "feel" this out more than anything else, I would think. It mainly has to feel good.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I like Gary Carter.

He's in Cooperstown, and, had the Hall gone with his wishes, would have gone in as a Met. Irrelevant, to me anyways.

He's one of the best catchers of all time, unquestionably of his era. But See e.g., Warren Spahn, Yogi Berra, Eddie Murray, Rickey Henderson.

He was key piece that led to the 1986 championship. At best, he was "a" key piece. But no more key than Bobby Ojeda or four or five other '86ers. He was the fourth or fifth or sixth best player on that team. Was he more key than, say, Clendenon to the '69ers? Or Koosman?

The team must feel similarly, as it has not circulated the number. I have no idea what the fuck the Mets are doing, or even thinking with 8. And 24.

Note, there is a big difference to me saying "I wouldn't be opposed to" and saying "I'm loudly advocating for.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I like Gary Carter. He's in Cooperstown, and, had the Hall gone with his wishes, would have gone in as a Met. Irrelevant, to me anyways. He's one of the best catchers of all time, unquestionably of his era. And Warren Spahn yada yada yada He was key piece that led to the 1986 championship. At best, he was "a" key piece. But no more key than Bobby Ojeda or four or five other '86ers. He was the fourth or fifth or sixth best player on that team. Was he more key than, say, Clendenon to the '69ers? Or Koosman? The team must feel similarly, as it has not circulated the number. I have no idea what the fuck the Mets are doing, or even thinking with 8. And 24. Note, there is a big difference to me saying "I wouldn't be opposed to" and saying "I'm loudly advocating for.

We are allowed to disagree.

You can pick out any one of those things, but the collection of those things is what makes Carter special -- at least to me.

There's a big difference between Spahn's contributions to the team and Carter's. Mays, I'm sure, is a reflection of his prior time in New York and his status as arguably the best all-around player ever.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: We are allowed to disagree.

And thank god for that. Otherwise, what would be the point of posting?

[Benjamin Grimm]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I have no idea what the fuck the Mets are doing, or even thinking with 8.

Me neither. Gary Carter last wore the number in 1989. It went unused through the 1990 and 1991 seasons, but then was pretty much in constant use for the next eleven seasons. I don't recall what might have happened after 2002 to make number 8 suddenly become more sacred.

http://leaptoad.com/mets/uninumbers.php

[Guest cooby]

soupcan wrote: Edgy MD wrote: I remember the old MoFo, where the folks most abusive to the Mets poorer players were the ones most nostalgic for the poorer players of days gone by (*cough* Doug Flynn *cough*). Folks love to demand it both ways. You coughing at me pal? I was like 11-12 when Flynn was a Met. I was a good glove no-hit infielder just like him so I identified. With Straw & Doc I was in my 20's and looking for more. They both raised my expectations and when I went all in and they didn't deliver due to their own issues, I took it personally.

Have you ever read High and Tight? I think you should

[Edgy MD]

I have no idea what the fuck the Mets are doing, or even thinking with 8. Me neither. Gary Carter last wore the number in 1989. It went unused through the 1990 and 1991 seasons, but then was pretty much in constant use for the next eleven seasons. I don't recall what might have happened after 2002 to make number 8 suddenly become more sacred. http://leaptoad.com/mets/uninumbers.php

Well, among other things, the team changed owners.

Carter, interestingly, is credited in the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary with the first usage in print of of the term, "f-bomb."

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

You guys should hop aboard my bandwagon and pressure the Mets, in a non-aggressive way, to retire 24 for Joan Payson.

As for 8, I think the the idea was, come 2002 Carter was under HoF consideration and it was let's see if goes to Coop "as a Met" (stupid). Then the poor guy got brain cancer and they subsequently got scared of how it would look, especially since they'd conspicuously withheld it all those years. I just got done arguing it would be appropriate to re-introduce 8 with dArnaud but they didn't go for it. Now I want them to give 8 to Conforto (it's in his twitter handle!)

[Edgy MD]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Then the poor guy got brain cancer and they subsequently got scared of how it would look, especially since they'd conspicuously withheld it all those years. I just got done arguing it would be appropriate to re-introduce 8 with dArnaud but they didn't go for it. Now I want them to give 8 to Conforto (it's in his twitter handle!)

This is the problem with making decisions that are sentimentally defensible but logically poorly considered. They become institutionalized, and once the sentiment is past, you're stuck with them.

Literally 86.41% of all people could do without hearing "God Bless America" at a ball game again. An additional 9.22% just mutely shrug their shoulders at the question, half-drunk and floating through life. The remaining 4.37 aren't patriotic so much as the Patriotism Police, and will rip the Mets publicly if the song ceases appearing. And their brethren-in-arms in parts of the country that will never have access to the Mets will echo the cry in poorly written all-caps protest, so the Mets are stuck with it.

I know a way out of the Carter Conundrum, though. Re-issue the number to a good player (d'Arnaud comes to mind), but solicit the buy-in from the family beforehand so they don't get sucked into a populist campaign, and at the same time, let them know you are re-naming Tradition Field as Gary Carter Field, to there will be no ambiguity about the team's continued and ongoing respect for Carter.

[Centerfield]

G-Fafif wrote: There are lessons to be gleaned from the examples of others, but frankly, I don't care what other teams do and I don't care what the Hall of Fame says when it comes to Mets. This is not an endorsement or a rejection of any given number being retired, just a matter of personal principle. I wouldn't not retire a number because the MFYs or the Astros or whoever have a stricter or looser policy.

Absolutely.

The only thing I would change here is that I don't care what the Hall of Fame says when it comes to anything.

[G-Fafif]

Edgy MD wrote: Then the poor guy got brain cancer and they subsequently got scared of how it would look, especially since they'd conspicuously withheld it all those years. I just got done arguing it would be appropriate to re-introduce 8 with dArnaud but they didn't go for it. Now I want them to give 8 to Conforto (it's in his twitter handle!) This is the problem with making decisions that are sentimentally defensible but logically poorly considered. They become institutionalized, and once the sentiment is past, you're stuck with them. Literally 86.41% of all people could do without hearing "God Bless America" at a ball game again. An additional 9.22% just mutely shrug their shoulders at the question, half-drunk and floating through life. The remaining 4.37 aren't patriotic so much as the Patriotism Police, and will rip the Mets publicly if the song ceases appearing. And their brethren-in-arms in parts of the country that will never have access to the Mets will echo the cry in poorly written all-caps protest, so the Mets are stuck with it. I know a way out of the Carter Conundrum, though. Re-issue the number to a good player (d'Arnaud comes to mind), but solicit the buy-in from the family beforehand so they don't get sucked into a populist campaign, and at the same time, let them know you are re-naming Tradition Field as Gary Carter Field, to there will be no ambiguity about the team's continued and ongoing respect for Carter.

A good idea in 2012...

http://www.faithandfearinflushing.com/2012/01/24/carter-a-name-not-a-number/

...remains a good idea in 2016.

[soupcan]

Edgy MD wrote: Absolutely not.

Okay then.

[Edgy MD]

G-Fafif wrote: ...remains a good idea in 2016.

Yes, sorry. Certainly didn't intend to put a trademark on your idea.

So whose ear do I need to put a bug in?

[G-Fafif]

I'd try J. Wilpon, L. DePaoli, D. Newman and anybody else on this roster who strikes your fancy.

New York Mets
120-01 Roosevelt Avenue
Flushing, NY 11368