The New York Mets have been in existence for 51 years. Last season they celebrated their 50th season of playing professional baseball and the organization had the perfect opportunity to make a positive move toward the fanbase. In that season, they could have done so many different things. They chose to parade some names and faces out onto the field and honor them. It was a very nice ceremony, but it was missing something. No one had their number retired into Mets lore.
In fact, under the current ownership, the Mets have not retired a single number. The last number retired was Jackie Robinson and that was when MLB forced them to in 1997 when they ordered every team to retire his number 42. Among the other three are Gil Hodges, Casey Stengel and Tom Seaver. The only Mets player even retired, in fact, is Tom Seaver. He was certainly deserving of the honor. His three Cy Young awards, Rookie of the Year award and Mets records absolutely attest to that. He is a World Series winner and a MLB Hall of Fame member.
However, the criteria is not necessarily Hall of Fame and World Series titles. If that were the case, Gary Carter would be there on that wall too. The fact is the criteria is not set in stone. It is based on a group of administrators and a few members of the media within the organization. This group has not chosen a new member of this extremely elite group since 1988. The Mets missed a golden opportunity to change that last year. They have one last chance to do it this year. In July, all eyes will be on Citi Field as the Mets host the All Star Game.
Wouldn’t it be a great chance to show the baseball world that the Mets organization embraces their own history by retiring a number or two this year, prior to the mid-season classic? The Mets have come a long way from the joke that they were just a few short years ago. Now is the time to take full advantage of all that good will and strike while the iron is hot. It would improve the way they are viewed by their fans, by MLB owners and by the baseball world in general.
They would not appear to be the bumbling idiots they were portrayed as for years, but rather they will be admired by their peers. Other owners would like to take their team in a similar direction. This is their last chance for a long time. The spotlight will never be brighter. Now is the time for the Wilpons to act. With that said, here are a few suggestions that the Mets could immortalize and that the fans and baseball world would certainly understand.
First, and the most obvious, is Gary Carter. If not for Ray Knight‘s Game Six and Game Seven heroics, Carter could easily have been named World Series MVP in 1986. He was a Hall of Fame catcher and loved the Mets dearly. He coached in their system and wanted to wear their hat on his plaque in Cooperstown.
Next is Dwight Gooden. He is a World Series winner also. On top of that, he won a Cy Young award and Rookie of the Year honors as a Mets ace. He trails only Tom Seaver in several Mets records and is in the Mets Hall of Fame already.
Next is fan favorite Rusty Staub. While he never won a World Series, he was a key member of the 1973 team that won the National League title. He is beloved by fans and media members in New York, alike. He was a major part of some pretty bad Mets teams in the early 80’s and retired one year before they won it all in 1986, but he retired as a Met. He played more games with the Mets than he did with any of his other four teams. To this day, he still has close ties with the organization.
Finally, we have two players that shared the same number: 31. The two players, of course are John Franco and Mike Piazza. Last season, the Mets entered Franco into their Hall of Fame. He was the last player to be named captain of the team prior to David Wright this season. Piazza is on the ballot for the MLB Hall of Fame and could get voted in in the next few seasons if the know-it-all beat writers wake up.
Both were integral parts of the team for long stretches and both were extraordinary examples of kindness and strength during 9/11. They were responsible for helping us realize that it was okay to cheer again. That alone needs to be honored.
It was Franco that helped the Mets fans embrace Piazza. It was Franco that gave his number to Piazza as a welcome present to the team. It was Piazza that lifted the Mets into the 2000 World Series with big hit after big hit. It was Piazza that was the driving force of the offense for nearly a decade. They are forever linked in Mets history.
We all know the Mets like to get bargains. If they retired the number 31, they would get a two-for-one deal. That’s all they need to know. A Piazza/Franco celebration prior to the ASG, would really look good for the organization and imagine how nice the monstrous home runs would look sailing over that new number during the home run derby. The time to make that a reality is now.
Awesome idea! How about retiring 3 numbers from three different generations? How about Ed Kranepool, Rusty Staub and Gary Carter? You would not only be commemorating Met history but you would start to heal the wounds current Met ownership has inflicted on their fan base.
That is my idea exactly. The fact is that they have one Mets player inducted in 50 years and two managers inducted in 50 years. When you forget the fact that a non-Mets player was inducted because MLB forced them to, the organization has not embraced their own history very well and that doesn’t sit well with fans. They need to bridge that gap. Five names (including Shea) in 50 years is really pathetic.
No Keith Hernandez or Darryl Strawberry?
I agree that they both should be retired eventually, but the idea was to get the ones that really make sense to not just fans but the baseball world. Keith Hernandez, while a great Mets leader didn’t have his greatest success in Queens. He won his awards in St Louis. The baseball world might scratch their heads over that one.
Same with Strawberry, with the exception that he won a ROY here. Still, the baseball world remembers his success equally with the Yankees than with the Mets. I wanted to choose ones for the initial class that were undeniable. Thanks for weighing in.
I completely agree that the Mets are way behind. The present ownership does not like the Mets as much as it likes the Brooklyn Dodgers, and so, embracing the Mets is something hard to imagine. Look at how idiotic the development of Citi Field has been in design and in filling it with Mets memories.
Gil Hodges did play for the Mets in 62-63, and while he’s retired for the ’69 season, he was one of Casey’s original Metsies.
My list would be:
36 Koosman
7 Kranepool
8 Carter
17 Hernandez
31 Piazza (Franco dilemma)
45 McGraw (Franco dilemma)
16 Gooden
XX Franco
I’ve said it over & over: the Mets are the team the Wilpons own, but do not love.
I like that list a lot. Franco is not a dilemma though. The number gets in, not the player, so Franco could be honored twice under your scenario. I would add Gooden for the reasons I stated in the article. Of course Wright too, when he retires.
I disagree with just about all of this. The Mets have a team Hall of Fame to recognize its best players. They ignored that for too long but appear to be slowly getting with the program now. IMO they are best served to reserve number retirement to the truly great (there’s Seaver and… there’s Seaver), and honor the others by re-issuing their numbers thoughtfully. For example, issue 17 to Davis and 36 to a promising lefty starter, 8 to d’Arnaud, etc. etc. In a matter of taste I think that’s a far more appealing way to remember past contributors, and it doesn’t overstate their importance.
The problem with most of the suggested retirements is 1) None are even close to having accomplished what Seaver did in a Mets uniform – and at this point the only player with a chance to is Wright and he’ll have earned that when his day comes. That’s an incredibly rare thing to have happen. Why cheapen it? and 2) it’s a very slippery slope to retire some but not all of those guys who tend to come up in these discussions. Strawberry for example has a stronger argument for accomplishments as a Met than Hernandez or Carter, certainly way more than Staub, but if you’re recognizing popularity with Staub than why not Mookie also, then why not Rod Kanehl, etc etc. It’s messy. It’s something the Yankees would do. If you need to properly recognize the 86ers then they’d do better “retiring” No. 86 for the lot of them. They could do 69 and 73 too.
The Met history is what it is. They’re a team that has in 52 years produced one player whose number ought to have been retired, and they did that.
Well said, Jon.
While I respect your thoughts, I have to disagree. The criteria for this process set by that committee is a HOF player that wears the Mets hat in Cooperstown. That is the only reason Kid isn’t on the wall yet. Wright’s chances are not ideal for HOF candidacy if Piazza is any indication. Furthermore, there are very few in baseball history, let a lone Mets history that can match Seaver. That is a very unfair standard.
To that end, Mets management must either lower that bar, ever so slightly to let a guy like Piazza or a Carter onto that wall or make some type of gesture to their history that fans would acknowledge as the team’s way of honoring those players. Like you suggest. Though I am not too comfortable with D’arnaud wearing the 8. Thank you for your thoughts though.
I’m also not for retiring a lot of numbers. Retiring a number has to be the GREATEST honor a person can have. It represents two things to me: Productivity and Longevity. Baseball is about doing something over a long period of time. That is why the season is 162 games. There have been many good players that have had short careers. But what seperates the truly great ones are that they can do it over an extended period of time. I just don’t see how you can retire a player’s number if they haven’t played at least 10+ seasons with the team.
Like Jon said, there are other ways to honor players who have brought home championships or who were great players but just didn’t play long enough to deserve having a number retired by a team.
Besides, there has to be an incentive in today’s day and age to stay with a team. If you want to have your potentially have your number retired, stick with 1 team instead of chasing every last dollar.
Well put Jon and Name. The Met HOF is where the honors belong. The wall should be reserved for The Franchise and hopefully the present Captain. I’ m a 51 year fan, seen all the history, and although I like all the others, I would not want it any other way.
The Wilpons live in the past, unfortunately nit the NY Mets past–or present or future for that matter.
Look how long it took for a “Mets” atmosphere to actually happen at Citi Field!
I’d argue that perhaps #5 should have been retired before Wright ever got the chance to wear it, in honor of the winningest manager in team history.
But dang, they issued #5 to Charlie O’Brien in ’91 before Davey’s body was even cold…
Hang up pennants. Not the cheap symbolism of retired numbers, many of these players developed and in their prime with other organizations. The HOF at the ballpark serves these ex-Mets and their deeds well.
If longevity is a factor, as Name pointed out, then Kranepool’s should be retired. No one has more years than him. Gooden and Strawberry should never be retired due to their drug abuse-not good role models at all!
I’m very young, so i have never seen Kraenpool play, but looking at his stats, they certainly don’t warrant anything(in fact they look rather pathetic if i may say so). Career OPS+ of 98. He is already being rewarded for his longevity by being in the Mets HOF(i’m pretty sure that’s the only reason he is there as well as being part of championship squad).
To have your number retired you need Greatness AND Longevity.