stevejrogers

Okay, the current guy does seem to be catching up.

Testing something out, but that is your leader in the clubhouse when it comes to major Topps brand releases by a sitting Mets skipper! =

Ceetar wrote: dgwphotography wrote: Saw this on FB - everything is so shiny and new... I don't think that green subway station there has been painted since. I'm surprised it didn't get the same orange and blue treatment that the LIRR stop down the ramp has.

Well, put it THAT way: Davey Johnson 9 Topps 7 (includes 1984 Traded) Topps Special sets 2 (1988 AS, 1990 UK Mets Set, Donruss 2 (both special 1988 All-Star Game sets) Willie Randolph 8 Topps 4 (includes 2005 U&H) Other Topps Sets 3 (Allen & Ginter 2006-2007, 2008 Heritage with John Maine), Upper Deck 1 Casey Stengel 6 Topps 6, 4 solo cards and 2 with others Joe Torre 6 Topps 4 (3 as inserts in Team Photo Card), Donruss 1, Fleer 1 Gil Hodges 5 Topps 5 Bobby Valentine 3 Topps 2 Topps Special 1 (2000 Subway Series set) Art Howe 5 Topps 3 (includes 2003 Traded) Other Topps Sets 2 (2002's Topps 206, 2003's Topps Heritage) Terry Collins 5 Topps Heritage 5 Wes Westrum 2 Topps 2 Yogi Berra 2 Topps 2 Joe Frazier 2 Topps 2 (both insert in Team Photo card) Frank Howard 2 Topps 2 (includes 1983 Traded) Bud Harrelson 2 Topps 2 (includes 1990 Traded) Jeff Torborg 2 Topps 2 (shares his 1993 card with Tom Kelly) George Bamberger 1 Topps 1 Dallas Green 1 Topps 1 (shares his 1993 Topps Traded card with Davey Johnson as a Red...I'd have to guess that's a rib on the Mets) Jerry Manuel 1 Topps 1 =

What about card #s? Do you not count O-Pee-Chees since they have the same card image on front but number is different?

According to http://www.tradingcarddb.com/ Note, does include team postcard sets and parallels. The team filter though doesn't seem to count stuff like Valentine's appearances in World Series commemorative sets and the like as well as cards with multiple people from different teams on it (like a Dallas Green card where he shares it with an AL skipper in the 1994 (IIRC) Topps set. As a Met Willie Randolph as manager 49 (was in both Topps base and their Allen & Ginter sets) Gil Hodges as manager 34 (obviously a ton in recent nostalgia based sets) Davey Johnson 32 Casey Stengel 24 (obviously a ton in recent nostalgia based sets) Bobby Valentine as manager 21 Art Howe 21 Yogi Berra as a manager 17 (I'm guessing as some of the nostalgia based ones don't have images that can tell if photo is from 72-74) Jerry Manuel as manager (in as a coach in Met postcard sets and Topps Met Gift Boxes set) 10 (all off the same Topps 2009 base card!) Bud Harrelson as manager 9 Joe Torre as manager 9 Jeff Torborg 8 Terry Collins 5 Wes Westrum 5 Frank Howard 4 Dallas Green as manager (I wonder how he is as a Met in THB as he is as a Met in this site as the 1990 Wiz All Time Met set) 4 (all team sets) Joe Frazier 3 George Bamberger 1 Others Mike Cubbage 3 as a player, 9 (mostly team sets) as a coach Roy McMillan 8 as a player, 1 (Berra's 1974 card with his coaching staff) as a coach Salty Parker 7 cards listed, none as a Met

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I think that Terry Collins might be the new Mets record holder for most baseball cards as a manager. He's been with the org for quite some time, now. Valentine and Johnson were around longer.

Edgy MD wrote: Do these patches tend to appear during spring training? Probably depends if the ST Game uniform is same as the one worn going North.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: sharpie wrote: I would respectfully disagree on all your points. But i think we're steering afar from the point of the thread. Partly my fault. Apologies. And I would respectfully agree that we have veered far off of the point of the thread. Apology accepted and echoed. The point of this thread is Elton John song parodies. Get to work. Hmmm... So goodbye Citi brick road...

Frayed Knot wrote: Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I fear this is going to be an issue with legs. I tend to doubt it Sure, a lot of people are going to disagree with him and all, but his statements hardly constituted some hate-filled rant that's going to cause his team & MLB to come down on him, or be the fuel for group protests and the like. I don't know, I've seen a lot worse than what LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr said earlier on social media about being offended and disappointed in what Murphy said (including calls for immediate removal from roster). I doubt this will be a John Rocker situation with past incidents coming out to prove a pattern of ignorant behavior as well as lines of thinking. But I can see a groundswell on various platforms, as well as smallish protests when the team comes back to New York, forcing Sandy's hand to take the first trade offer that comes across his desk.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: No they shouldn't. Geez if they really want to honor tradition, 17 should be the number they put the shittiest guy they can find in because with few exceptions that's all who've worn 17 starting with Don Zimmer! I gotta say this whole hysteria over number retirement has become about 15% genuine affection for players and their contribution to history; 10% fan desperation to realize some reward for theor passion and 75% hook for ignoramuses like Bill Price to hang their manufactured outrage upon. Especially to play up supposed inferiority complexes when compared to how the MFY choose to honor their former players. Because Lord knows there is nothing hacks in the media love more as a way to get a rise out of Met fans is to bring up something in comparison with the Yankees.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: SteveJRogers wrote: ... the fact is, unless the former wearer was a no doubt future HOFer, the Mets have historically never really gave a flying fuck about numerical legacies. You nailed that one. Although, I see that 17 hasn't been issued since mid-2010, five years ago. That can't be a random coincidence, I'd suppose. Hernandez has been working the broadcast booth as a regular though for a lot longer, even before SNY, so if anything it might be a case of "OKAY KEITH, WE GET IT! FINE! INTO UNOFFICIAL RETIREMENT IT GOES!" since he has said on the air how certain players didn't look right wearing #17. But yeah, that, #8, #31 and #24 are the only 1-50 numbers that haven't been been used since that point.

Been looking at the All-Time Numerical Roster, and it seems it has been a thing since way before Samuels was ever in charge of such things: I.e. #36 used by the Wayne Twitchells and Danny Boitanos of the early 1980s Mets. #7 found its way onto John Christensen after Hubie Brooks took it over from Ed Kranepool. #45 bounced around in between Tug McGraw and John Franco and while one would expect Zach Wheeler to be its custodian for a while it has gone through Jason Isringhausen and Justin Hampson since Pedro Martinez took it from Franco, etc. While #8 was never as much of a hot potato as #17 was, it still made the rounds before the unofficial retirement since Carter got inducted into Cooperstown. The only two numbers (well, technically three, but with the above photo of Kelvin Torve and subsequent Rickey Henderson usage, Mays' 24 has been used) that were given the "NOBODY WEARS THIS EVER AGAIN" treatment without the official retirement have been #41 (only Seaver wore it from his debut through its official retirement) and #31 (hasn't been reissued). While its safe to assume using McKnight's distinction was meant to be yet another "dig" at the Wilpons' perceived lack of caring about Met history, the fact is, unless the former wearer was a no doubt future HOFer, the Mets have historically never really gave a flying fuck about numerical legacies.

Ceetar wrote: and all of them will tell us to "Let's Go Mets" for the second half of the season. *Does Rob Van Dam point to self as he says* LET'S GO METS WOOOOO! LETS GO WOOOOOO! BY GOD METS! THE METS ARE THE BEST THERE IS, THE BEST THERE WAS, AND THE BEST THERE EVER WILL BE! WHO'S NEXT TO GO DOWN TO DEFEAT BY THE METS!

Obviously Grote

Meet The Mets goes mid-1970's AC: [youtube:2j2aq6r2]upMzA_3dmrI[/youtube:2j2aq6r2]

Frayed Knot wrote: d'Kong76 wrote: Bunch of wet blankets we have here, I tell ya. And I haven't even begun to wet blanket!! btw, Kernan should be ashamed of himself for playing that angle. That I'd agree with. They ignore their past, even when it�s staring them right in the face. Sure, the Mets don�t have 27 titles, but Mets� fans have heroes. As if the Mets never created a HOF (which was done under the Doubleday/Wilpon era) or littered both Shea and Citi with banners and such featuring memorable players and moments over the years (again, both within the last 30 years of Met ownership). Or set up an alumni thing (complete with playing former players as ambassadors) for local events and such. I'd argue that at times it seemed the Wilpon regime hadn't quite figured out how to handle certain aspects of team history (the Payson entrance is just a door with "PAYSON" above it, as opposed to the full scale Hodges and Seaver entrances with banner sized photos of the two, and lobbies featuring framed photos and their old Met HOF busts), but you can't say they've completely failed to embrace it only because they've haven't retired a number since 1988.

Lefty Specialist wrote: d'Kong76 wrote: I'm kinda serious about Kranepool... he played 18 years in one uniform. I think we'd be hard pressed to find someone in any sport that donned the same laundry for that long and doesn't have a retired number hanging around in tribute. Um, no. That he hung around for 18 years is more an indictment of the inability to have good-hitting teams that could survive without him. He hung around because the Payson family was loyal to him because he hit a trifecta as an Original Met, member of the 1969 and 1973 squads (but the emphasis I'm sure is on the 1969 World Champs) and a local kid done good.

d'Kong76 wrote: I'm kinda serious about Kranepool... he played 18 years in one uniform. I think we'd be hard pressed to find someone in any sport that donned the same laundry for that long and doesn't have a retired number hanging around in tribute. To be fair, most of the ones fitting that bill are HOF, or just a cut below in terms of that sport's caliber of players. We can agree to disagree about the point of how to honor a longtime employee like Ed Kranepool, but his being considered a Met "legend" and icon is used as a punch line for those who love to bash the Mets' supposed lack of history as compared to other franchises.

Edgy MD wrote: HahnSolo wrote: https://twitter.com/chuckknoblauch/status/567154579192565760 Chuck Knoblauch takes aim at the Bronx. I know, glass houses, stones... But I laughed. It's a living-under-a-cloud-of-spousal-assault-charges house. Those charges may or or may not hold up, but man, I'd lay off throwing my teammates under buses for a while. Especially after he got his Twinkie HOF induction put on hold because of it.

*sigh* I see the Yankee uniform underneath the jacket so yeah, I agree it is clearly a photo of Green in his Yankee days, but the point is there is not a single, or partial, logo or lettering in the photo. Hence it is a little too conspiratorial to declare the book cover to be pandering towards the Yankee fanbase just because you can make out that its clearly a photo from his Yankee days.

Edgy MD wrote: You'd probably be lucky to get six pages of Mets content from it, but here's a new one. [fimg=450]http://radio.foxnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/The-Mouth-that-Road.jpg[/fimg] I'm always conscious of how these are branded to match the targeted fan base, so it's notable that while it has a Phillie-colored text layout, they show him in a Yankee jacket. Do we really think underscoring his 121 games of Yankee management is going to boost sales that much? Do you really think they really wanted you to associate the Yankees with that image? All you see is a black jacket with the trim. No logo present. Could be a random black jacket for all you know. I think you are reading way too much into the jacket color.

*bangs head on desk* No. The example was of the use of social media, Twitter specifically with the whole hashtag and "meme me" thing, spreading something like wildfire that most likely would have stayed in the innuendo and "wasn't that years ago case settled or something" category of celebrity scandals. One of the early accusers in the newest round that came out around that time justified coming out with her story by saying the groundswell on social media was so great, that the time was right to tell the story. Right, one has not a damn thing to do with the other, nor am I suggesting that people being pissed off about a dopey press release about the new scoreboards is going to affect that kind of change, but I'm saying that you can't easily dismiss the vocal minority with the "haters gonna hate" mentality that you've been giving to blogs, social media communities, etc.

I love the idea that you are completely no selling the fact that a social media staff, Twitter to be specific, blunder (to say nothing about the social meida viral sharing of Buress' comments) was a key factor in taking down an entertainment icon. Stop acting like social media and/or the interwebs is something that organizations should be flat out ignoring, or treating as simply "haters gonna hate." I understand the idea that it is the ones making the most noise that "you still have them" but no one is rage quitting over getting a new scoreboard. Its simply saying that it is yet another example of the Mets staff being in denial about how angry the fanbase has been for decades now. I mean there is a Kickstarter campaign for a "Sell The Team Now" billboard outside Citi Field!

Stop taking the hyperbolic way of looking at what I said (yes I know I drew comparisons with Cosby's Twitter staff's "Meme Me" fiasco). The new scoreboard was something that didn't need a press release, or pushed ahead and reworded "the project was started back on Jan blah blah..." or something like that.