Whose numbers should the Mets retire?
Was called to duty today for Johan Santana's introductory news conference at Shea Stadium, so I figured I'd check in here, on what could prove to be a historic day for the Mets and their fans.
Years from now, will there be a call for the Mets to retire Santana's 57 uniform number?
We discussed the retired number issue last week with the Yankees, who _ due to their age, their success and the impetuous George Steinbrenner _ carry a lot more controversy on this subject. But there's room for debate within the Mets, as well.
The Mets have been conservative on this matter, limiting immortality to Gil Hodges' 14 (that's him on the left, for you youngsters), Casey Stengel's 37 and Tom Seaver's 41, as well as Jackie Robinson's 42. Willie Mays' 24 has largely been out of circulation, except for a bizarre cameo by Kelvin Torve in 1990 and Rickey Henderson's stints as a player and coach.
Hodges, Seaver and Stengel are all worthy of the honor, in my humble opinion. To those, I would add Keith Hernandez's 17 and Mays' 24 and, down the line, Mike Piazza's 31.
Hernandez was the heart and soul of the 1986 World Series champs. Throw in his contributions as a great broadcaster, and this is a no-brainer.
While Mays played with the Mets for only a season and a half, his success with the New York Giants should be celebrated, and the Mets are the National League progeny of the Giants and Dodgers. Give Willie the benefit of the doubt. Besides, it would be great to see him honored at a New York ballpark one more time.
Piazza's 31 hasn't been distributed since he left Flushing after the 2005 season, and you've got to figure his time will come when he makes the Hall of Fame. An easy call for perhaps the Mets' all-time best position player.
In a terriffic new book, "Mets By The Numbers," the great Howie Rose, in a foreword (Jon Springer and Matthew Silverman are the authors), suggests consideration for Dwight Gooden (16), Darryl Strawberry (18) and Jerry Koosman (36). I'd vote no on the first two; for all they did, their legacies are, sadly, as much about what they didn't do. I'm not old enough to remember Koosman's prime, so I can't opine with knowledge on that one.
And I'm pretty sure that many fans, particularly those in the young teenage girl demographic, would endorse retiring David Wright's number 5 today.
Thoughts?
E-mail
Facebook
Digg
Delicious
Comments (21)
My only strong opinion here is on Gooden. Hang up his no. 19 for the sheer sensation he created with the K-counts whose legacy lives on. If you wanted to see 12 or 14 strikeouts in a game, it was no problem, it seemed. I've never relished a pitcher's every single pitch the way I did for him in his prime. I even recall being disappointed with groundouts and flyouts. The optimism from his youth and his contributions during 84-86 far outshine his downfall.
I agree with the Mets conservative approach on this so far. I think Tom Seaver being the only player with a retired number is appropriate right now. While I wouldn't be upset if Keith or Piazza received the honor, my vote on both would be no. I think it should only go to homegrown players and/or players who spend (at least almost) their entire superb career as a Met, and winning a champion certainly helps too. By those standards, I think the next possible candidates for the honor would be Wright and perhaps Reyes. But, like I said, if Piazza gets inducted into the HOF as a Met, I wouldn't have a problem with them retiring 31.
It's long bothered me that the Mets haven't retired an '86 Met's number, especially now when they trot one out when they have a game to sell out or a network that needs viewers. And, when you consider that of the 3 presently-retired numbers (14, 37, 41), only Tom Seaver really contributed as a player (Yes, I do know that Gil Hodges had a stint as a player with the team).
You'd have to start with Hernandez and Carter, as each made it OK to be a Met again after the late 70's/early 80's. It's always bothered me to see 17 and 8 on the backs of guys like Luis Lopez and Dave Gallagher. If only 1 of the Mex/Kid combo can get a # retired, make it Keith as he's still associated with the team and Carter's already in the Hall with an Expos hat. And, if there's a sentimental choice for Mets fans, it would have to be Mookie Wilson who was #1 in our scorebooks--and in our hearts. Of course, he is also responsible for the seminal moment in many Mets fans' fandom, as well. I hated seeing Mookie reduced to wearing 51 when Lance "One Dog" Johnson was around.
I guess "00" is unofficially retired, as it confused too many kids when Tony Clark was wearing Mr. Met's number. And, I thank Mike Piazza and Pedro Martinez for insuring that John Franco will never have either of his numbers retired.
Hey Ken.
Obvious choice for me is Keith Hernandez and Mike Piazza
As a long time fan from '73, I remember Koosman and if we're retiring numbers on performance and sentimentality, the Lefty should have his jersey hanging next to Seavers. I'm somewhat torn on Gooden and Strawberry for similar reasons; let me get back to you on those.
As we fast-forward 20 years, add Mssrs. Wrigth & Reyes to the wall and possibly Beltran & Santana. Just think, if Santana pitches well for the next 8 years, he will most definitely enter the hall as a Met.
~Howard
Ken this is my favorite topic. I think the Mets dropped the ball in not retiring #17. Hernandez was a lot like Messier for the Rangers. He not only produced on the field, but changed the clubhouse attitude. He was a great leader on the field, though obviously off the field he failed since Gooden (#16 not 19 Jon) Strawberry and Mitchell turned out how they did.
I think with Gooden and Straw going to the Yanks and they not turning their lives around, you cant retire their #'s.
I agree with Gravedigger who thinks they should be mostly home grown players, but Piazza did so much as a Met that his # has to be retired.
I think this is for the fans as much as the player, and the fans never connected with Franco.
As for Willie Mays, c'mon. It's insulting to guys like Ed Kranepool and Mookie Wilson when a guy who played for less than two seasons when they retire his #. Even Gretzky shouldn't have his # retired by the Rangers.
Richie:
Much like Jackie Robinson's 42, Gretzky's 99 is retired by all NHL teams, including the Rangers.
Hey Chris. Yeah I know 99 is retired, but its not a Rangers retired #, and I'm glad for that. He doesn't deserve to have his # retired by the Rangers, just like Mays shouldn't have his # retired by the Mets.
I also hate that Jackie Robinsons # is retired by all of baseball. (Hold on Ken, wait for the next line before you start bashing me here!!) I mean I idolized Ed Kranepool growing up (now you can begin the bashing). So I still wear #7 to this day. And for the rare athlete that comes up that cares about history, I think it would be pretty cool to wear Robinson's # in honor of him. But now they cant. I understand what an honor it is to him. And I wouldn't have minded a ceremony with the #42 on every teams outfield wall. But players still should be allowed to wear his #.
Richie, I did agree with you 100% on Jackie - until last year, when Ken Griffey Jr. came up with the brilliant idea of wearing #42 on April 15 (the anniversary of Jackie's debut). I think teams should do that every year on April 15 - but I do think the idea of leaving #42 unoccupied, always, while well-intentioned, didn't make sense.
Thanks Richie. There might have been a subconscious Righetti flashback in there somewhere.
Keith Hernandez should have his number retired from the Mets. His impact, which culminated with a sensational 1986 team, overshadows the impact that Pedro or Beltran have provided with their signings. No knock on Carlos, but that called third strike would have been fouled off if Keith was batting in that spot and he would have delivered. Mike Piazza also gets the nod. There was no Met previously who could hit like him. He also represented the team well, and in my humble opinion showed great class when the Howe's of the world were playing him out of position and subjecting him to ridicule. Mike is a class act. Gooden and Strawberry were not class acts and don't deserve consideration. The Mets are now blessed with another complete player, David Wright, and I'm sure he will have his number retired. Finally, the other day when the Mets got Santana someone asked what is the impact? I said it was like trading for Tom Seaver,. Now there was someone who deserves the nicname "The Franchise" . I believe Johan and David will someday be Tom's equal.
CommonSense.
Well said!!!
~Howard
Ken, it would have been better if just Griffey wore #42. I think the impact would have been greater, rather to force whole teams to do so.
It would be nice if one player per year got selected for that honor.
About Wright getting his # retired, I bet most Mets fans would have thought Gooden, Strawberry and Alfonso would have also. I always think as a Mets fan, something is going to go wrong. Unfortunately, I'm usually right!
Richie, way too early for Wright predictions. Re the other three, I've never meet a person who expected Alfonso to have his # retired, and Gooden and Straw were layups for the Hall of Fame until they snorted their careers away. Hernandez should be the last player honored at Shea, Piazza the first at Citi.
My first choice would be Piazza. I think since the end of the 80's no player has meant more to this team than Piazza. It was a shame when he left and they couldnt find a role for him. (I'd rather have him platooning with Schneider now than Castro). I was pretty young the 80's so I dont have a good enough memory of Hernandez and Carter but the measure of if a player should have their number retired should be fan reverance for that player. Based on that, other than Seaver, there are no players bigger in this organization's history than Mex, Kid and Mike. The shame is that Hernandez and Carter's numbers have been issued since the end of their careers.
In thinking of Carter, the real big question with Piazza is what hat will he be assigned in Cooperstown? He was considered near-hall of fame worthy when he was traded to the Mets.
I have to admit that I'm not a fan of retiring numbers. The Yankees are completely ridiculous with what they've done over the years. They have cheapened the meaning behind a retired number. To me, players such as Ruth, Gehrig and Mantle should have their numbers retired. Ed Kranepool? Jerry Koosman? Keith Hernandez? No way. Obviously, Tom Seaver should have his retired. Stop the madness. (And I am against retiring Torre's number, too.)
Numer 17 should be retired. If Hernandez doesn't come in 83, there's no telling how long the team would have remained in the doldrums. He changed the attitude of that team and made it great.
I don't mind retiring #24 either. It wasn't Mays' decision to leave New York in 1957. National League fans in New York were stripped of their history when the Dodgers and Giants skipped west. The Mets deserve to inherit some of that history on behalf of the people that supported the Dodgers and Giants while they were in New York. I'm one of those crazy people who resent the fact that the Giants get to hang up plaques for Christy Mathewson and John McGraw at ATT Park. Same for Bill Terry's #3 and Mel Ott's #4. Those players were Giants, but they were New York Giants. Their careers were made in New York, not San Francisco. Same for the Dodger numbers on the wall at Chavez Ravine.
While I'm ramblng on, I've always wondered what happened to the statue of Christy Mathewson that stood outside the Polo Grounds or the monument to infielder Eddie Grant (killed in World War I)that stood in centerfield of the Polo Grounds. Those are historical aftifacts that belong to National League baseball in New York. I would only hope that the Mets find a way to honor all of the great National League New Yorkers in the new stadium - not only Jackie Robinson. They can't retire the numbers, but they can honor the players that made National League baseball in the city so memorable.
why dont the mets sighn piazza and have keith hernandez teach him to play first base. rodriguez and posada have both played first base. he can play behind the plate and at 1B. great insurance if delgato cant hit but if he can you now have the best lineup and the best pitching in the NL. the fans will love him even if he does nothing.
John, have you forgotten Piazza's experience playing first base in 2004?
Richie, I asked Rachel Robinson last year what she thought about all of those players wearing #42. Her response, essentially, was, "The more people who want to honor Jackie, the better."
All these people who want Keith Hernandez's number retired must be the same ones who cheered him after the Pittsburgh cocaine trial. Hernandez for years denied his use which got him booted out of St Louis by Whitey Herzog. Besides he wasn't good enough long enough. Yeah, he won one championship but with the talent that team had they should have won more. The Mets captain let the team just kick it away. Koosman would be a far better choice. So would Tug McGraw. Even Jack Heideman would be better than a guy who thinks woman shouldn't be allowed to be doctors.
Ken, if Rachel Robinson feels that way then players should be able to wear that # all the time if they file paperwork and explain why. I guarentee you with how much Bud flips he'd agree to that if Griffey or some other well known and respected black player asked to wear the #. I think that would be pretty cool.
As for Jim...I was at that game and cheered. I was young but dont regret it. He kicked his problem and he should be proud of that. We all have issues and for someone to beat it, that should be applauded. But I agree with you they should have won more than one championship.