|
|
|
Anthony from Yorktown, NY, sent in an email asking…
“Do you think if Mike Piazza retires this year, the Mets would retire his number in CitiField, being the first Met whose number is retired in the new stadium. I think it would be an awesome gesture and the fans would love it. What do you think?”
…that’s a good question anthony…i really look forward to seeing piazza’s number 31 retired…however, personally, the Mets should retire Keith Hernandez‘s number 17 first and foremost…his arrival in 1983 was the stepping stone to the 1986 championship and to me number 17 represents veteran leadership, flawless defense and clutch hitting, which should be bestowed with the honor of never being worn again…also, i don’t blame keith for being upset when he sees the likes of David Newhan or Dae-Sung Koo wearing his number…although it is pretty hilarious to hear how upset he is over that…
Loading ...The Mets have retired the jersey numbers of Tom Seaver, Gil Hodges, Casey Stengel and Jackie Robinson.
 |
 |
 |
RSS 2.0 Both comments and pings are currently closed.
keith only had four full seasons with the mets. none of which were his best seasons. 1986 title was great, but it’s not enough. if so, retire half the team. gooden had 6 or 7 hall of fame years with the mets…
Keith not only deserves the Mets respect w/ a retired number, but should be in the HOF. The greatest first baseman defensively of all time. A field general, a clutch hitter, great presence, unmatched intensity…this guy was baseball, more than Donnie baseball who could put you to sleep with his persona
he was selected for the mets hall of fame and was given a job as an analyst for the mets. he was shown plenty of respect.
you have a low bar for retired numbers and the hall of fame. you are entitled, but i have to disagree that keith earned either. he was better with the cards and they didn’t retire his number.
Keith Hernandez was to first basemen what Ozzie Smith was to Shortstops. So I can’t see how one can be in the Hall without the other. And you can crow all you want about first base being an offensive position, we can pretty much say the same thing about Shortstop today…I hate the double standard when it comes to selection for the Hall of Fame, this set of rules apply to this guy because he played this position, and this set of rules apply to another guy because he played this position…it’s all BS. I can understand it’s different for pitchers, but players on the field? Come on…Ozzie got into the Hall on the strength of a nice backflip and a glove, nothing more. Keith had a better bat, a good glove and was a great leader. But he’s not Hall worthy because he didn’t blast 500 hrs while playing first base. Gimme a break.
there is a huge difference btw ss and 1st defensively. a great ss saves runs every game as ozzie smith did. if you saw him play you know that he was a game changer in an era when shortstop were not offensive players though is stole a lot of bases and was an effective #2 hitter on excellent teams.
apparantly, the baseball veterans and writers who watch closely felt keith wasn’t close to worthy (check out the voting. never close). your bias b/c he’s a met.
Keith should be the last retired in Shea, Piazza the 1st retired in Citi.
It’s gotta be Kooz, first and foremost.
For some reason, I’d like to second that.
I still get tears in my eyes watching Koosman pitch game 5 of the 69 series when they rerun it. One of the gutsiest pitched games I’ve ever seen. This guy was so integral to the 69 and 73 pennant runs and so much of the early Mets history. He deserves to be seriously honored by the Mets hierarchy.
It’s Koos in a landslide!
He would be so proud.
I agree with you on that one, Koosman should be the first. That would be great to do that in 2009 opening day at the new park. Something for the Mets organization to think about.
Carter is next. Piazza wont be for a few years more. Piazza will get his Met HoF & MLB HoF first. Gary Carter will have it retired this year. The signs are there. 8 hasn’t been used since Carter went into the HoF. Notice that Marlon took 9 this year. I really don’t see anyone else getting their number retired at this time.
I couldn’t disagree more with your point about Hernandez – both in fact (he played 6.5 seasons as a Met), and in perception. To me his is the epitome of what a retired number is all about.
I will “agree” though on questioning how Darling could be included in this poll and not Gooden? Why do Mets fans dismiss Gooden’s career so much? I don’t want to have to go on again about how injuries ruined his Mets career far more than drugs did, but his career dwarfed Darling’s in every tangible and intangible measure even taken at face value.
I know we all love Darling’s work on SNY. I know we all love seeing Straw back in the fold and somehow forgive him his mistakes while not affording Gooden the same. But for all history has pigeon-holed Gooden as a 2-year wonder and drug flamout, the fact is he was the unquestioned ace of the Mets staff for a full decade.
Not advocating actually retiring his number, but he at least makes this list.
I would argue for Keith, Piazza, and the most underrated pitcher of his era Jerry Koosman. And Kid, who had his number uncerimoniously “un-retired” by the Nationals and as a Hall of Famer deserves to be honored somewhere besides Canadiens games (where they respectfully display the Expos retired numbers)
I completely agree with everything dave27 said.
So, I’l be concise: Kid, Mex, Koos, Piazza.
I would add that it would be nice to do one of Keith or Gary before Shea is history.
What the Nats/Expos did to Carter was ridiculous.
yeah that disgraceful cocaine scandle shouldnt hurt mex. As long as you play good defense being on cocaine doesnt mean a thing.
I would stick with Kooz . I think Piazza had his bets years in LA.
You can thank the coke for the trade from the Cards for the unforgettable Neil Allen.
Had Keith not been coked up,maybe the Cards retire his number and ‘86 never happens in NY. He was very good, but not “retire his number” good.
I kind of like the idea that there aren’t a ton of retired numbers.
Seaver is the only one that was able to see his number retired.
That exclusivity angle sort of loses it’s value however when one of them was a senile manager who never cracked a .400 winning percentage for the team.
The cocaine line goes double for Doc im sad to say. You dont imortalize players who stunted thier careers with drugs. What kind of signal would that be sending to the kids?
First off, Gooden’s career was derailed by injuries. He lost 2 months in 1987 and the 1995 season to drugs. Injuries are what kept him from maintaining his pre-1993 pace. This is fact.
Second, are you kidding? Criteria for retiring numbers is messages to kids? Should the Brewers un-retire Molitor’s number? How about the Giants and LT?
Hopefully no one who decides these things is on such a moral crusade.
Seriously, this is about sports, not morality. Nobody would want their kids to live the lifestyles of a Ty Cobb, an LT, or even a Babe Ruth….but nobody in their right mind would deny they were great players and deserving of recognition like having their numbers retired.
To say Keith never had a great season with the mets would be crazy because piazzas best seasons were in LA, But they both gave credibility to the Mets, they both delivered a Trip to the WS. Keith has to be first and next year at Citi Field, He was the greatest leader and clutch player the Mets ever had.
I say number 17 for KEITH next year and number 31 for JOHN FRANCO and MIKE PIAZZA. when Piazza makes the hall of fame in 5-7 years.
You must be joking about Franco. Seriously…
I wish Minaya had a number so that the Mets could retire it before the season started. Getting Johan for a crap bouquet of prospects makes legends!!
Johnny come latelys…
Mr. Koosman was the greatest lefthanded pitcher until this date to ever play for the Mets. He won two games during the ‘69 world series (yes, the Mets won something before 1986) including the final game 5 where he pitched a complete game (something most of you also never saw) and hit a double.
Check his stats and notice the CG, SO numbers (yes, that stands for complete games and Shut outs) and innings pitched. Then check the teams offensive output for when he was there. He and Seaver were the best one-two punch of their era and he deserves to have his 36 hanging next to 41.
Coming from a fan since ‘86, when i was 3 years old and my favorite word was Mookie, to hear a clear true blue and orange fan getting nostalgic about Koosman in ‘69 and saying, quote,…
“Mr. Koosman was the greatest lefthanded pitcher [UNTIL THIS DATE] to ever play for the Mets.”
… makes me indescribably excited about Santana’s coming tenure in Queens.
Koos was really a very good pitcher. To a large extent, he was just overshadowed playing behind Seaver. On another team, he would have been the ace. I think his career numbers were better than Whitey Ford, who certainly has a much bigger reputation.
Matlack was pretty good there for a few years too. In the early 70’s, that was a pretty strong front 3.
I personally also don’t think that numbers should be retired except for extraordinary circumstances, so if anyone, I think only Koosman might qualify, but probably not even him. Baseball is different now with free agency and old school definitions of number retirement-worthiness might have to change, but back in the day, a guy who played for a team for 15 or 20 years and went to the hall of fame would be the definition. Even Seaver barely cracks that standard, but of course, certainly the only player the Mets have ever had that meets the old standard.
they shouyld retire 7 for Ed Kranepool and let Reyes continue wearing it..
Kranepool was the ultimate Met..and i’d be nice seeing Reyes wear it to give him something to think about.
Piazza I really still associate with the Dodgers. So I guess Mex has to be associated with the Cardinals by the same logic. I mean he spent 9 years with the Cards and won an MVP there b4 coming to NY for six years.
Im sick of these teams retiring numbers for marketing reasons. A player needs to be born, bred, excel and die in a mets uni before he deserves his number never be used again.
Someone like a David Wright in 18-20 years?
Biggie,
By that logic, Seaver’s number should be un-retired.
i sort of agree.. at least Koosman’s number should’ve been retired first..
But I understand why they retired Tom’s. If the Mets didnt need him at the time to restore credibility he would still not be showing up for functions and his number would still be un retired.
and I agree they should pull 37 off the left field fence as well.
I agree there…Casey is just silly.
They should retire 17- it defined 86 and they should retire it this year so it hangs at shea!!!! Also the Knick retired Earl Monroe and Dick Barnett who were with the knicks less years.
Dolan and Co at MSG are the Epitome of retiring numbers to sell out a game and create some marketing buzz.
Not that Monroe is in that group– Earl is a hall of fame player and a top 50 of all time in the 1996 50th Anniversary list.
The Wizards (his team for the first 4 years of his career) retired his # 10 in december 2007 BTW.
Barnett wore the same # as Monroe and thats about it.
If they were going to retire Keith’s number, they would have already.
-Mike
The real gipper thinks you are wrong…or at least, he hopes so.
there is nothing that makes us different levels of gippers. Anyway — david newhan wore 17 last year. Nobody has every worn 31 again.
The fact that you also post under “ebfnyc” and only post under gipper to bait me does make you a very different level of gipper913.
Finally, your switching from signing “Cal” to using my name Mike as a further way to bait me fully reveals you for the man with too much time on his hands and in desperate need of a date that you are.
….then again, shame on me for taking the bait.
PS: Charlie Samuels likes to tease Keith by still giving out his number to scrubs like Koo and Newhan.
who is ebfnyc and why are you being rude?
Again, here’s the key:
Piazza will go to the Hall of Fame, potentially as a New York Met (almost certainly if his number is retired in New York and not Los Angeles).
Keith is not a hall of famer; Koos is not a hall of famer; Gary is, but as an Expo (and with good reason).
Piazza is the most accomplished of them all; his number should be retired first.
Why would Piazza possibly go to the HOF as a Met? Out of his seven seasons in which he was in the top 10 in MVP voting, five were with the Dodgers. He only had a couple of HOF-type years here, followed by several seasons in which he far underperformed for his bloated contract. Don’t get me wrong- I loved him as a Met and he did a lot for the franchise, but people seem to be forgetting that for five of his seven full seasons as a Met, his offensive statistics were actually generally below his career averages.
Probably because to the average baseball fan, he is best remembered as a Met. Yeah, he had good seasons with the Dodgers, but his best moments were in a Met uniform. Not to mention that he played more games as a Met….
Piazza & Koosman should have their #’s retired. I remember Seaver saying on a broadcast one time that Koosman would have won 300 gamesif he played on better teams. I’m not 100% sure, but I think Piazza had more homers & rbi’s as a Met. Oh yeah, he went to his only world series as a Met.
Reading this post, I wondered whether the Cardinals had retired Keith’s number (Matt, I think, should have addressed this in the post). They have not.
A few years ago, I read a newspaper article (can’t remember who, what, when, exactly, but suspect it was in the Post) that criticized the Mets for not doing more to establish a tradition and legacy. First, the author argued, the Mets should retire Hernandez’s number, making him only the second Mets player to achieve such a distinction.
I couldn’t agree more with both the notion of doing more to establish a Mets legacy/tradition, and retiring Keith’s number as a first step toward doing so.
Also, stop promoting “the wave”–an activity that, to me, signals a bored and apathetic fan base.
I completely agree about building the tradition and keepimg Mets history at the forefront…
But given how Wilpon has decided to name most of the features of CitiField for Brooklyn Dodgers and NY baseball Giants history….I wouldn’t hold my breath.
how does doc not even get on the ballot?
i love ronnie, but you cannot possibly fathom retiring him before doc.
I’m a huge Hernandez fan, but when I listen to his broadcasts, he does seem to cherish his St. Louis days a little more than his NY days.
And like someone said, if they were gonna retire #17, they would’ve done it by now. I think Mets ownership has an unofficial policy of only retiring numbers of players that go into the HOF as Mets.
In my opinion only Koosman, Strawberry and Piazza played with the team long enough to even be considered. Yes the others made
significant contributions to the organization, and perhaps in the free agent era service time should be discounted, but it’s my opinion that’s all.
1968, 69 and 76 were excellent years for Koosman in a Met uniform.
Even the years he had won loss records of 6-11, 8-20 and 3-15 his ancillary numbers were quite good. I think Koosman deserves the honor. Recently Marty Noble suggested him for the Hall of Fame and was ripped to shreds by some blogger/pundit type (deadspin? sorry I can’t remember who).
To suggest that Piazza’s best years where with the Dodgers is to be ignorant of the facts. His first 2 seasons with the Mets surpass his best 2 seasons with the Dodgers, and he was with the Mets for 7 plus seasons, with the Dodgers for 5 plus. Given the defensive position he played when putting up those numbers I believe he qualifies.
Strawberry had great power numbers but his batting average makes me hesitate. I will not take into account the off the field stuff. Overall given the context of the Mets I say he deserves it.
So Koosman, Piazza and Strawberry yes, the rest no, in my opinion.
reading this post reminda me about those polls Matt used to post every so often about who is the best catcher, 1bmen, 2bmen etc. I think he got up to left field whatever happened to that?
gooden: 157-85 3.10era as a met
strawberry: #1 in runs, hr, rbi as a met
neither is even in mets hall of fame unlike keith and carter
retire #29 Masato Yoshii first then we can start talking about all these other scrubs.
What about Mookie? He is the most beloved Met after Gil Hodges. He represents so much when it comes to professionalism and what it means to play the game the right way. He was a good ball player. The others on the list were better (except Darling) but Mookie means so much to the organization.
After Mookie I would go to Piazza because he is superior in ability and stats to the others. I would then go to Keith who should also be in the Hall of Fame. Is Ozzie Smith is in for being the best defensive short stop then Keith should be in for being the best defensive 1st baseman and was superior to Ozzie offensively. I know SS is more valued defensive but that doesn’t mean Keith wasn’t the best.
yes please retire a batter who never batted over 300 and his high totals were 10 hrs and 55 rbis. come on guys lets get real, players who numbers are retired either were on their team for around 20 yrs or had exceptional careers. sad to say it, even tho i love mookie he’d be nothing more than a 4th OF if he were playing today. we can’t retire evry1 who had a special moment in mets history.
while were at it lets retire timo perez and endy chavez. i am all for an all ballerz thing on the side bar here where guys like mooki,e endy, joe mcewing, dykstra, etc get their time
How can you even mention Timo Perez’ name here? His inability to run the bases very likely cost us the 2000 World Series!
It’s not about one moment (the game was tied anyway when he hit the ball, there was no way we were going to lose at that point).
It’s about a classy ball player, who set the right example and was loved by his fan base. He doesn’t have the stats to be regarded as a great but that not what retiring numbers is all about. Gil Hodges played 66 games for the Mets and has about the same managerial record in 3 years as Davey Johnson did with the Mets.
Id rather see Mookie’s retired than Keith, Piazza and Carter — although wearing Cardinal Red is a bit of a deal breaker.
Mookie ain’t getting his number retired. Keep dreaming.
#17 should never be retired before #31. mike piazza WAS the mets during his years here.
the mets should retire the #86 or something like that because with hernandez, carter, strawberry and gooden…you cant really put one of them ahead of the other.
i dont know if im more in shock that ron darling is actually on this list ahead of gooden…or that people have actually voted for him.
I think Matt’s SNYphilia is showing, Instead of Keith or Darling, why not retire Gary Cohen’s #11 (wayne Garrett jersey) he wore when he sat in the bleachers with Howie Rose.
I think it more has to do with Doc snorting a promising career up his nose, along with the rest of his life, not to mention selling his soul to wear Yankee pinstripes…
1-18-31-7,
It;s funny – maybe it is a generational thing. To me, who cam eof age in the 80s, I feel far more affection fro Mex than I ever did for Piazza and would want his number retired first – both from a respecting chronology (Piazza has to go to the MLB HOF and Mets HOF first) standpoint and because I’ll always feel Mex had a bigger impact on the Mets than Piazza ever did.
I wouldn’t mind reserving the honor of first for David Wright.
I think the next number retirement should be Mike Piazza, the year he goes into the HOF. Have like “HOF” night and honor Mike.
I don’t think any of the 1986 Mets should have their numbers retired. Screw Doc and Daryl, they went to the Yankees and won there.
I’m not sure if Carter should have #8 retired. He was a great Met, but the years weren’t there. He played 5 seasons. Keith Hernandez….maybe. Only 1 Met from the 80’s should have his number retired, not both Carter and Hernandez.
I agree with that poster above…#37 should be UNRETIRED. I don’t care if Stengel is NY and baseball royalty. I really don’t. The Yankees already honored him by retiring their #37. Stengel did crap for the Mets and to the Mets, he is a symbol of losing.
Stengel aside, thank god we actually think about retiring our numbers. Otherwise we could be like the Miami Heat who retired #23 for Michael Jordan, ALTHOUGH HE NEVER PLAYED IN A GAME, or the Marlins who retired #5 for Carl Barger BEFORE THEY EVER PLAYED A GAME (he was the team president). Or how about the Rays retiring #12 for Boggs? Give me a break.
Seaver/Hodges represented the late 60’s and early 70’s Mets. We don’t have a 80’s representative. Piazza will represent the late 90’s Mets.
Carter might make more sense b/c he’s a HOF. But I think Keith was a bigger face of the 80’s Mets.
I think it’s all moot. Carter seems to be next and I bet it’s announced within a month after the tix go on sale. Piazza would them be the first Citi retirement.
Keith Hernandez has no shot to ever get into the baseball HoF or to have his number retired anywhere. It’s not a knock on him it’s just he wasn’t good enough on or off the field. He is smart and on TV so he keeps getting brought up. I remember him as the man who quit during game 6. The cocaine was unfortunate but it’s that attitude that was destructive. Encouraging the players to drink and dividing the clubhouse. The Mets would have won without Mex. Gary Carter brought us a championship. Had we had Bob Horner or Jack Clark at 1st we may have won more than one.
Mets would’ve won without Mex? You are a minority of one with that thought. Bob Horner and Jack Clark were stiffs compared to Keith. The guy was like Ozzie Smith in the field. You my friend, are anti-mexetic…
lol @ anti-mexetic! Probably… I just don’t feel the love so many have for him. I feel that he was part of the problem in the late 80s. He was great with the glove but people need to stop with the field general talk. He was at times an all star but mostly above average. There were better first baseman and better leaders.
It’s hard to say who or how many better leaders there may have been because I was only watching one team day in, and day out. On the mid 80s Mets Keith was a leader almost immediately upon his arrival, and the benefit of hindsight only reinforces that for me when I see interviews with his teamates of that era that praise him for his leadership. But was, say, Dale Murphy a better leader? I couldn’t say because I don’t/didn’t have the connection to the Braves that I do to the Mets.
As far as better first basemen, well if you’re including offense in the discussion, absolutely. If you are talking about on the field, I would strongly disagree. The guy could pick it, he fielded bunts like no one else and because he threw lefty was fantastic on the 3-6-3 double play.
“and clutch hitting”
Repeat after me: “There is no such thing as clutch hitting. There is no suck thing as clutch hitting.” Please, if you are going to comment in a public forum on baseball, know some basic math.
“Suck thing?” How about you go back to Typing 101 before you criticize somebody’s math?
How anyone can even talk about putting Carter and Hernandez up there before Koosman and Kranepool is INSANE.
Or, simply not born when Koosman and Kranepool played. I’d be open to either of them, but having never seen them play, I’d have to take the AARP crowd’s word for it.
can it with the ageism….(only kidding)….jerry koosman and bud harrelson are the first two, if any…
How about John Franco? He was the face of the mets for over a decade and has a major NL record.
Retiring numbers should be about the importance of a player for a specific franchise not just about statistics.
John Franco, before Koosman, surely you jest…
franco can pretend his number is being retired when they retire #31 for piazza.
I am just throwing some random thoughts out there right now
1) No way Keith gets in before Camera, Camera is in the Hall he definitely gets the nod over Mex
2) Darling should not be on the poll
3) Look at the retired numbers. The Mets do not simply retire numbers for the sake of it. Seaver (obvious), Stengel (first manager), Hodges (first Met HR and manager of 1st Met world series) To me there was not a “Face” of the franchise in 86. They were a collective team. Had Doc or Straw continued on with the team and their play that would be a different story.
4) Looking at the numbers that are retired I find it hard to see any of those guys get retired with maybe the exception of Piazza. He was the franchise. At times he was the only reason to go to Shea. 8 years with the team and the all-time catching hr king deserves it more then anyone else.
Yanks to keep Stadium’s hallowed name
Team announces its rejection of corporate appellation
classy move by the yanks.
Yawn.
lets not pull a rangers and retire every single fan favorite from a championship year (although Graves and Leetch f*cking rule)
There is not one of these Rangers who doesn’t deserve it
I guess Mess didn’t deserve his number retired. Or Richter for that matter…
Islanders make more sense when they retire numbers
Hey how about Mookie Wilson? He gave 110% each game. Its not all about stats.
No.
Wouldn’t the first number retired in 2009 be at Citi Field? I didn’t know there was a place called CitiField. The Mets now for one more year play at Shea Stadium, right? At least I think it’s Shea Stadium. Or is it really SheaStadium? I’ve been there so often, could I really not know that’s SheaStadium? Kinda makes sense that it’s Shea Stadium and therefore the new stadium will be called Citi Field, two words just like Shea Stadium. Unless I’m wrong, of course. Has it always been SheaStadium and the new place will be CitiField? Or is CitiField a different facility from Citi Field because Citi Field will be the Mets new home so CitiField must be somewhere else, right? With all the BS corporate naming and renaming and re-renaming and even re-re-naming of stuff nowadays, hard to keep track.
It’s gotta be the Kid…..He’s a HOFr and he was the last piece of the puzzle. I hope “8″ gets retired in Shea this season. He loves the Mets and will probably manage the team down the road.
Where is the love for Ed Kranepool????
retire #0 for MR. Met
I think the ONLY other numbers the Mets should retire are 17 and 8.
Hernandez and Carter were the heart and soul of the last Mets team to win a championship. With respect to Piazza, he didn’t have whatever those two guys had that enabled them to be the leaders that they were. Plus, Piazza didn’t win anything here.
We don’t want to become like the Yankees, who retire numbers at the whim of their ownership. To have your Mets number retired should mean something.
Based on the numbers they’ve retired so far, I think that (excluding the managers) the Mets are only retiring the numbers of Hall of Fame inductees who wear a Mets cap on the plaque. I hope this is the situation because you’d otherwise end up with too many retired numbers like NYY.