Jump to content
Grand Central Mets
  • Create Account

Benjamin Grimm

Old-Timey Member
  • Posts

    43,349
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

 Content Type 

Profiles

News

New York Mets Videos

2026 New York Mets Top Prospects Ranking

New York Mets Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

The New York Mets Players Project

2026 New York Mets Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Benjamin Grimm

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. I didn't either. According to the link in Edgy's post:
  4. I think 4 is the best choice. Numbers 7, 8, and 9 are too excessive.
  5. The only other number I'm aware of that the Mets have in mothballs is 48, which is a little more understandable, since Jacob deGrom is still an active player and his story is still being written. If it was up to me, I'd keep 48 in circulation too. 16, 17, and 18 were in use for years by other players before they were retired. 48 could be too.
  6. So they'll remove the tarp on Sunday and the game can get started. The fans will just have to sit there eating hot dogs for 72 hours.
  7. Look how they put a bit of a halo around Gary Carter. Like he's scowling down at the Mets from heaven.
  8. And did anyone squawk when Rickey Henderson and Robinson Cano got number 24?
  9. I expect we'll see more than a little of Dylan Ross this year.
  10. It's been almost 40 years since Carter last played in a game as a Met. They can wait another 20 years I guess. By then there will be an even smaller percentage of living fans who remember Gary Carter.
  11. Retired numbers have become so devalued that it's silly that this is a controversy. If it were up to me, I'd take number 8 permanently out of mothballs and put it in the regular rotation. However, I won't get upset if they retire it, because this really doesn't matter anymore. But it's time to poop or get off the potty. Either reissue the number or retire it. This in-between status is ridiculous. Maybe they're realizing that the two most appropriate times to retire the number have passed: When Carter got into the Hall of Fame, and when he died. There are no more trigger events that I can think of. (Unless they're waiting for the birth of his first great-grandchild?)
  12. Zack vs. Zach. I wonder if Gary Cohen will tell us the last time that happened and act like it means anything,
  13. I think, at a minimum, going forward you ought to delay the purge so that at least several nights pass before it occurs. Also, an alert should go out immediately to whomever can prevent the purge as soon as the button is clicked.
  14. Wow. So anyone has the ability to purge anyone else, and it's irreversible if it's not caught quickly? That's really bad.
  15. Wow! It's about time!
  16. My guess is that the ones that disappeared may be the ones that Cowtipper started. (I'm thinking that if the parent post was removed, the replies that hung off it would have been orphaned and rendered invisible. Or perhaps deleted outright.) But when he posted in a thread that someone else started, the thread remains but his posts are gone. That appears to be the pattern.
  17. Wow. Very curious. I hope to get an explanation from our admins about this. I recall something similar happened in the old CPF years ago. Willets Point, who had admin privileges at the time, decided to leave the forum and deleted his profile. That created a big mess that I had to go behind the scenes to fix. Every thread that he had posted in became invisible. It took me a while to figure out what had happened and ultimately I had to recreate his profile. Do we have the ability to delete our profiles here? (I'll have to see if there's an option. If I find it, I won't, of course, be able to test it.) If so, that's not a good thing. Obviously, people should have the ability to exit the forum, but it shouldn't have this kind of an impact.
  18. What do we think his role is going to be? I know it will depend on the performance of the three players, but I wonder if we might see a regular starting outfield of Benge, Ewing, and Morabito, with Soto becoming a full-time DH, Taylor a valuable reserve player, and Robert an afterthought?
  19. I suppose that, usually, by the time a game gets to the point where a position player is on the mound, I've turned off the game. Was Rivas' approach typical? Lazy throws from the mound? I think if it was me, I'd try to throw line drives. Or do they always go with "lazy throws" to avoid wear-and-tear on the player's arm?
×
×
  • Create New...