Master Index of Archived Threads


The Strawberry Statement

batmagadanleadoff Jul 14 2016 06:37 PM

Darryl Strawberry says Mets’ organization is ‘an empty place’ for him now Updated July 14, 2016 1:52 PM By Neil Best neil.best@newsday.com Darryl Strawberry expressed lingering bitterness over his relationship with the Mets, and in particular chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon, in an interview with WFAN’s Boomer Esiason and Craig Carton Thursday morning. Carton at one point asked Strawberry, “How long did it take you to reconcile with the Mets?” Strawberry answered, “How long will it?” indicating there are issues in the present tense. Strawberry said he participates in some Mets events, including the recent reunion of the 1986 World Series-winning team, for the sake of the fans and Mets employees with whom he remains close, such as public relations man Jay Horwitz. But, he added, “There’s nothing there for me. It’s an empty place.” Regarding his relationship with the Wilpons, Strawberry said, “I’ve never had a bad relationship with Fred. I just think that Jeff was very cold to the ’86 Mets and all of us and we take it personal. “We won and you should celebrate us and celebrate us in a great way. One day maybe they may come around to say, look, we’re not letting anyone wear No. 16 and No. 18 [Dwight Gooden’s and Strawberry’s numbers] for the Mets one day.” Strawberry spoke as part of a series of interviews in advance of Thursday’s night’s premiere of an ESPN “30 for 30” documentary entitled “Doc & Darryl” about the off-field troubles of the Mets’ young stars of the mid-1980s. When asked whether Jeff Wilpon has a problem with the ’86 Mets, Strawberry said, “He definitely has. I held the records for a long time. It’s no big deal. That’s on them, that’s not on me. I’m free from all that now.” What about the fact that Keith Hernandez and Ron Darling are SNY’s long-time Mets analysts? “They pick who they want,” Strawberry said. “Keith and Ronnie were great for us, too, don’t get me wrong. And I love them, just like I love [Gary] Carter and everyone. They did Carter wrong. They did Ray Knight wrong. So, c’mon.” Asked what ownership’s issues with the ’86 team might be, Strawberry said, “I don’t know. I know Fred loves us. He admires that team. But I don’t what the other reason is with the other guy.” The Mets declined to comment. In addition to a weekend honoring the ’86 team in May, the Mets are wearing 1986 throwback uniforms for Sunday home games this season. Several members of the ’86 Mets work for the organization, including third-base coach Tim Teufel, who wears No. 18. http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/ ... 1.12043173

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 14 2016 06:43 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

Tuefel wears 11 -- wore 18 last few years. I happened to have heard that interview this morning and Best appears to have been fooled by the hosts who asked "What do you think about Tuefel wearing 18?" On a related note, keep this between us, a guy I met in the banking biz says the Mets needed to spring Dwight from another stint in drug rehab just to make the 86 reunion event this year. The banker guy was aware of that because he was in the process of having to repossess Dwight's car.

Edgy MD Jul 14 2016 06:47 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

Makes sense, as Gooden has looked mostly good the last few years, but certainly looked unhealthy at the reunion parade.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 14 2016 06:51 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

If anything's "empty", it's that Newsday article I posted. As much as I can't pass up an opportunity to rag on Jeff, there's doesn't seem to be much substance to whatever Strawberry's griping about. And if there is, Straw apparently kept it to himself, because it's not in that article.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 14 2016 06:56 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

No there really wasn't much behind Straw's complaint. The hosts began from the POV that all is forgiven now and Straw simply misunderstood them and went in a new direction.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 14 2016 06:58 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

I see. So the big news is that Straw's mad at the Mets about something that he doesn't wanna talk about.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 14 2016 07:00 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

Does Straw think his number should be retired? If the Mets retired numbers the way the Yankees do, it would have been retired years ago. And Doc and Carter and Koosman and Tug and Tommie and Cleon and Grote and Bud's numbers too. Did I leave anybody out? Kingman?

Edgy MD Jul 14 2016 07:06 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

Franco. I would agree there isn't much there there. Other 1986 Mets have made similar complaints, but they seem to have been equally nebulous (or, when specific) misguided. I think there's a fan cause celebre that has long argued that 1986 Mets aren't respected enough and somehow the organization hasn't held them in high enough esteem, and they've put a bug or two in some of the players ears, so they voice it too. But under the light of day, the complaints often don't have all that much substance — and turn out to be just a thing to say in order to stay relevant for a few moments — which is too bad because an open and real conversation about how the Mets honor and engage with their past would be a great thing. I perversely like that our site has become so marginalized that The Yellow Hammer can drop the lede for an exclusive scoop and be confident that no outlet will find it and run with it.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 14 2016 07:09 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

My complaint is the Mets don;t do enough to honor clubs other than 86 (which has produced maybe a dozen or more coaches, broadcasters, and resulted in 2 uni numbers going out of circulation if not on the wall already). You know what would really be fun? A 1978 Mets reunion. Hey! It's John Stearns! NL ERA champion Craig Swan! Wait... is that BRUCE BOISCLAIR's music?!

batmagadanleadoff Jul 14 2016 07:12 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

Plus, they're mostly still alive so it's do-able from that perspective. Just one dead '78er.

Ceetar Jul 14 2016 07:34 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

Considering this was a Craig Carton interview, well.. I like how they paraphrased Carton's questions in the article. I can just imagine how leading they were. This just feels like lingering jealousy that they went a different way at SNY. Bet you could get Bobby Ojeda to make similar allusions.

soupcan Jul 14 2016 08:54 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

I've got less of a problem with Strawberry than I do with Gooden but still, Straw can go suck an egg. Take 16 & 18 out of circulation? Why? Because the two of them made some All-Star teams while they were Mets? Rookies of the year? World Champions? Cy Young? How many ultimately mediocre players on every other team in the majors have similar accomplishments and don't have their numbers retired? Quite a fucking few I'm thinking. The only difference to me between those two is that Gooden's performance while he was with the Mets was affected by his drug use and Strawberry's wasn't. The Mets dodged a bullet when the Dodgers signed Straw. Unfortunately for the organization and their fans, they weren't so lucky with Doc. As to the revelation that Johnny Lunch just posted - I'm not nearly surprised. As Edgy stated, Dwight's looked pretty bad for a while now. Sad to say but I won't be surprised when in the next year or so we read about his ultimate demise. I wish that neither of those guys ever got involved with drugs and then played their whole career with the Mets. That didn't happen but you know what did? I invested a lot of my personal fandom and emotion in both of them. Almost 30 years later, I still harbor resentment towards Gooden, and Straw doesn't help his case by acting like the Mets owe him something more than EVERYTHING they've already given him.

Frayed Knot Jul 14 2016 09:16 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

soupcan wrote: How many ultimately mediocre players on every other team in the majors have similar accomplishments and don't have their numbers retired? Quite a fucking few I'm thinking. Sure, but a bunch of mediocre players (or at least mediocre careers) are honored too and that gets far too many fans to say 'Why Not Us?'. I noticed during this AS week for instance that the Padres retired Randy Jones's number for his eight year SDP career and one CY award (which should have gone to Koosman). They also retired Steve Garvey's number who was a Padre for like and hour and a half, but I already knew that. "The Mets dodged a bullet when the Dodgers signed Straw." -- Agreed, but that's another thing that's a tough sell to a number of fans who seem blind to the facts that he broke down during that first FA contract and wound up being dumped by LA before it was even over. Also, the attitude that the team screwed that one up wasn't helped by the authors of 'WORST TEAM MONEY CAN BUY' spending 3/4 of the book harping on the idea that not signing Straw was the worst NYM move ever and the one most responsible for killing the dynasty and that year's team when to me they mostly just seemed pissed that it made their jobs less interesting because they no long had their 6-1/2 foot go-to headline guy around every day. Ultimately Straw is just doing some publicity for the mini-film airing tonight (haven't seen/heard Dwight anywhere) even though he's been pretty clear that he's mentally put his baseball career behind him in favor of his current life/family/recovery/ministry, which (assuming it's true) is all well and good but it also gives him little reason to care have he comes off in these things so I suspect he's mostly saying things that he thinks sound good at the time.

Ceetar Jul 14 2016 09:21 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

Frayed Knot wrote: I suspect he's mostly saying things that he thinks sound good at the time. Indeed. And dropping "Had sex in the clubhouse while games were going on" quotes is not exactly the way you endear yourself to the Mets organization.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 14 2016 09:33 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 14 2016 10:03 PM

Btw, Straw also copped this morning to saying that signing with LA was his mistake, although he was mad at the Metsfor not having offered more than a 3 year contract. i don't recall the specifics of that but do know as a fan it felt like he was on the way out from the start of negotiations that season. Finally i should say that like Soupy I was very much into Darryl, and when i met him at his restaurant a few years back i felt as though I understood how a guy like Francessa discusses Mantle.

Edgy MD Jul 14 2016 09:37 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

There's a post that needs a drug test. Ceetar wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: I suspect he's mostly saying things that he thinks sound good at the time. Indeed. And dropping "Had sex in the clubhouse while games were going on" quotes is not exactly the way you endear yourself to the Mets organization. Or the ministry.

d'Kong76 Jul 14 2016 10:06 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

I'm gonna start a facebook page like that Hodge's nut has for Gil in the Hall for the Mets to retire Kranepool's #. Original Met, 18 years; what do they want, blood?

batmagadanleadoff Jul 14 2016 10:37 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

17 years. 18 seasons.

d'Kong76 Jul 14 2016 11:06 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

I saw 18 on bbrdotcom and went with it. I'd say no need to mince whiskers, but we are a bunch of whisker mincers here most days!

soupcan Jul 15 2016 12:29 AM Re: The Strawberry Statement

Kranepool?! Stop with the crazy talk!!

d'Kong76 Jul 15 2016 12:55 AM Re: The Strawberry Statement

Follow us on twitter, like us on facebook #retkrane7

Mets Guy in Michigan Jul 15 2016 01:14 AM Re: The Strawberry Statement

I think the problem with honoring Doc and Straw is balancing the great things they did with the potential to do so much more. These were self-inflicted wounds, and I look at them and have trouble getting past the part of me that says "What a waste of gifts." Maybe we will would not have needed the miracle of the sixth game had Doc not been on coke during the series. I also recognize the terrible grip of addiction and how they needed help then and, in Doc's case, maybe now.

cooby Jul 15 2016 01:24 AM Re: The Strawberry Statement

They should retire both numbers

Edgy MD Jul 15 2016 02:08 AM Re: The Strawberry Statement

d'Kong76 wrote: I'm gonna start a facebook page like that Hodge's nut has for Gil in the Hall for the Mets to retire Kranepool's #. Original Met, 18 years; what do they want, blood? That guy is a nut's nut. He went nuts on me and then I backed away slowly and quietly withdrew from the Facebook group, and he kept re-adding me unsolicited. He's so unstable and out there and un-self-aware about it, I almost kind of like him, but I tend to think he's hurting the Hodges case more than helping it.

soupcan Jul 15 2016 02:55 AM Re: The Strawberry Statement

cooby wrote: They should retire both numbers Didn't you say in the Piazza thread that you were opposed to number retiring?

Fman99 Jul 15 2016 03:21 AM Re: The Strawberry Statement

Ceetar wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: I suspect he's mostly saying things that he thinks sound good at the time. Indeed. And dropping "Had sex in the clubhouse while games were going on" quotes is not exactly the way you endear yourself to the Mets organization. I dunno, that seems pretty endearing to me. But, you know, YMMV.

G-Fafif Jul 15 2016 03:30 AM Re: The Strawberry Statement

Edgy MD wrote: d'Kong76 wrote: I'm gonna start a facebook page like that Hodge's nut has for Gil in the Hall for the Mets to retire Kranepool's #. Original Met, 18 years; what do they want, blood? That guy is a nut's nut. He went nuts on me and then I backed away slowly and quietly withdrew from the Facebook group, and he kept re-adding me unsolicited. He's so unstable and out there and un-self-aware about it, I almost kind of like him, but I tend to think he's hurting the Hodges case more than helping it. Nuts' nuts think this guy is...nutty.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 15 2016 04:09 AM Re: The Strawberry Statement

soupcan wrote: How many ultimately mediocre players on every other team in the majors have similar accomplishments and don't have their numbers retired? Quite a fucking few I'm thinking. I disagree with this many ways over. First of all, every ML'er is, at best, mediocre at the end of their careers. Even Willie Mays. Otherwise, they'd still be playing. Mike Piazza would still be backstopping for the Mets, catching Tom Seaver's 96 MPH fastballs. So to characterize Strawberry based on his end of career mediocrity, to imply that Straw was a mediocrity is wholly unfair to Straw and a distortion. Straw was a superstar and, I think, an underrated superstar, playing in an era when having to hit half your games in Shea Stadium was still murder on a batter's stats. I'll tell you something ... I secretly chafe a little bit every time I have to read that David Wright is the Mets best home grown hitter because I don't really believe it. Wright isn't the hitter that Straw was, and in fact, if you compare Wright's first eight years to Straw's first and only eight Mets seasons, (they were both 21 in their debut seasons, btw, making for a convenient comparison) Straw comes out on top overall, even though Wright had the best singular season. If Wright is the better Mets hitter than Straw, it's only because Wright outlasted Straw as a Met and took many more PA's, which enabled Wright to pass Straw in the career totals categories. But pound for pound, I'd take Straw. Also, I don't think it'd be unprecedented if a player like Straw were to have his number retired. He's certainly more deserving of that honor, by like orders of magnitude, than say Gary Carter, who seems to have the most support among Mets fans for that kind of treatment. Lesser players than Straw have had their numbers retired. Not that that means anything, because we're now delving into a discussion in which rules and standards don't really apply and ownership can retire whatever numbers they feel like retiring.

Nymr83 Jul 15 2016 06:24 AM Re: The Strawberry Statement

Strawberry has 2 more WAR in 8 years as a Met if you make the most favorable comparison of 8 years to 8 years that includes Wright's half season rookie year, if you instead include Wright first FULL 8 years then he is the one who leads by 2 WAR - I'll take the 3B ahead of the corner outfielder when output is similar. I wouldn't retire the number either.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 15 2016 06:35 AM Re: The Strawberry Statement Edited 3 time(s), most recently on Jul 15 2016 06:59 AM

Comparing their first eight seasons is fair. Yes, Wright's rookie season was a partial one, but Straw missed about a quarter of his rookie season, and missed about a third of the '85 season --when Straw was on pace to have what would've been his best season ever. Even though Wright appeared in just 69 games in his debut season, overall, Wright still had 258 AB's more than Strawberry in their first eight Mets seasons -- 4,161 to 3,903. So that's 2 less WAR's for Wright, if you wanna use WAR, which you do, in 258 more AB's. That doesn't help your case, WAR-wise.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 15 2016 06:44 AM Re: The Strawberry Statement

You wanna compare their WAR's for their entire Mets careers? Strawberry's WAR was 36.4 in 3,903 AB's -- that's one WAR every 107.22 AB's Wright -- 49.9 and 5,996 -- one WAR every 120.16 AB's. Slight edge to Strawberry -- the better Mets hitter, pound for pound.

Edgy MD Jul 15 2016 12:24 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

I don't know why we should divide by the number of at-bats. Longevity counts. Otherwise, retire Céspedes number now.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 15 2016 12:56 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

Edgy MD wrote: I don't know why we should divide by the number of at-bats. Longevity counts. Otherwise, retire Céspedes number now. You're right. I guess Ed Kranepool was a way better Mets hitter than Cespedes because Krane accumulated a lot more of everything than Cespedes.

SteveJRogers Jul 15 2016 01:00 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

Edgy MD wrote: d'Kong76 wrote: I'm gonna start a facebook page like that Hodge's nut has for Gil in the Hall for the Mets to retire Kranepool's #. Original Met, 18 years; what do they want, blood? That guy is a nut's nut. He went nuts on me and then I backed away slowly and quietly withdrew from the Facebook group, and he kept re-adding me unsolicited. He's so unstable and out there and un-self-aware about it, I almost kind of like him, but I tend to think he's hurting the Hodges case more than helping it. After Yogi Berra died, guy went nuts on someone demanding proof to his statement that Yogi Berra was known to be a victim of Alzheimer's, and many in the baseball and Yankee community knew this. The one problem is doing a little Google-fu comes up with an unfunny Onion wannabe for baseball article from 2003 correlating Berra's entire lifetime of quirky linguistics to the disease! Even sayings going back to the 1940s. The only "piece" linking Berra and Alzheimers. You'd think there'd be a little more if it was "well known within Berra's professional communities." The guy still didn't back off despite being confronted with it, despite being told that it was pretty crappy to state something like that in a public forum with no approval from anyone, especially those whom kept a private personal profile in later years. Anyway, on topic. It does seem that the article wants to keep hammering the "Mets done the 1986ers wrong" narrative going, of course the flip is that the Mets do get hammered for "relying on their past too much, and their past isn't that great when its only five league titles and two World Championships in over 55 years" so its kind of a double edged sword when it comes to media, and fan base, narratives. Either the Mets should embrace their entire past (even the ones ownership tends to be embarrassed by), or they should stick with the present-future. The former probably drives the "Backman for manager" cause more so than anything about Backman's qualities as a skipper, as well as the kerfuffle with Piazza's Game Jersey from the First Game Back Since 9/11 game being sold to a third party and sold in an auction. Though I'd imagine the flashpoint of the most recent wave of this narrative started with the opening of the Robinson Rotunda, where it seemed more Dodger icons were presented in Citi Field than Met icons, to say nothing about Citi's behind home entrance invoking Ebbets in its design. The latter tends to come from people that openly mock the idea that Ed Kranepool is considered a Met icon, and conversely laugh at the lack of bonafide superstars the Yankees have trotted out during their OTD celebrations in recent years. I don't know, the Mets seem to do just enough with public and not-so-much public alumni stuff in recent years that I really don't care that we aren't the Reds/Cardinals/Yankees/Dodgers when it comes to this sort of remembering past glories. Plus as stated, there really isn't a whole lot there that needs to be celebrated. FWIW, Strawberry and Gooden kind of were the reasons (according to Howie Rose a few times) the Mets HOF stalled out following Tommie Agee's induction in the early 2000s. Like the Mets weren't quite sure if they should induct them or not. Obviously with the Met Hall being re-constituted as a museum in Citi, it was finally time to let them in, warts and all.

Benjamin Grimm Jul 15 2016 01:03 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

Next time I'm at Citi Field I'll have to stop in the museum to take a look at the display of Dwight Gooden's warts.

Edgy MD Jul 15 2016 01:27 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy MD wrote: I don't know why we should divide by the number of at-bats. Longevity counts. Otherwise, retire Céspedes number now. You're right. I guess Ed Kranepool was a way better Mets hitter than Cespedes because Krane accumulated a lot more of everything than Cespedes. Then we're good. Please realize, in the midst of this sarcasm, that Céspedes has already surpassed Kranepool in WAR for the Mets, at least according to baseball-reference, so let's stay on topic.

Nymr83 Jul 15 2016 01:40 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Comparing their first eight seasons is fair. Yes, Wright's rookie season was a partial one, but Straw missed about a quarter of his rookie season, and missed about a third of the '85 season --when Straw was on pace to have what would've been his best season ever. Even though Wright appeared in just 69 games in his debut season, overall, Wright still had 258 AB's more than Strawberry in their first eight Mets seasons -- 4,161 to 3,903. So that's 2 less WAR's for Wright, if you wanna use WAR, which you do, in 258 more AB's. That doesn't help your case, WAR-wise. Not being on the team yet vs. getting hurt are two different things entirely. and staying on the field certainly matters, but the point is that they were roughly as good per-year and Wright played several more years - he is the best homegrown Mets hitter. and i haven't even gotten into the off-field stuff - Wright is a model citizen, Straw got into fist fights with teammates and was on cocaine - and these things mater too when you are talking about who should be retired. I'm not even sure that Strawberry is second on my list of homegrown hitters - taking not just the bat but position into account, I'd at least consider the Mets careers of Edgardo Alfonzo and Jose Reyes as being on par

Ceetar Jul 15 2016 01:46 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

*cough cough* John Olerud was a better Mets hitter than both of 'em (and Piazza) though he only had a few years worth of PA

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 15 2016 01:52 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

#retiretheonfieldhelmet

Mets Guy in Michigan Jul 15 2016 02:41 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

After Yogi Berra died, guy went nuts on someone demanding proof to his statement that Yogi Berra was known to be a victim of Alzheimer's, and many in the baseball and Yankee community knew this. Steve, explain how and why you are tapped into the "the Yankee community." :) Just teasing you today.

Mets Guy in Michigan Jul 15 2016 02:47 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

I see no dishonor in saluting Ed Kranepool. He's in the Mets Hall of Fame, right? That's an adequate -- and worthy -- tribute. I was at Miller Park last month. The Brewers, who have no World Series titles to boast. still do a nice job honoring players. Aside from statues of Yount and Aaron (and Bud Selig and Bob Uecker), there was a Wall of Honor on the left field side, outside the stadium with many players saluted for long careers with the team. Sixto Leczcano is up there with Aaron and Molitor.

Zvon Jul 15 2016 02:48 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

soupcan wrote: I've got less of a problem with Strawberry than I do with Gooden but still, Straw can go suck an egg. Take 16 & 18 out of circulation? Why? Because the two of them made some All-Star teams while they were Mets? Rookies of the year? World Champions? Cy Young? How many ultimately mediocre players on every other team in the majors have similar accomplishments and don't have their numbers retired? Quite a fucking few I'm thinking. The only difference to me between those two is that Gooden's performance while he was with the Mets was affected by his drug use and Strawberry's wasn't. The Mets dodged a bullet when the Dodgers signed Straw. Unfortunately for the organization and their fans, they weren't so lucky with Doc. As to the revelation that Johnny Lunch just posted - I'm not nearly surprised. As Edgy stated, Dwight's looked pretty bad for a while now. Sad to say but I won't be surprised when in the next year or so we read about his ultimate demise. I wish that neither of those guys ever got involved with drugs and then played their whole career with the Mets. That didn't happen but you know what did? I invested a lot of my personal fandom and emotion in both of them. Almost 30 years later, I still harbor resentment towards Gooden, and Straw doesn't help his case by acting like the Mets owe him something more than EVERYTHING they've already given him. Pretty much this^. Retire their numbers? No way. Re: Gooden's demise- When I read that I winced & thought NOOOOO. But I noted Doc's gaunt appearance last season and I'm afraid that might be a real possibility. It was never resentment w/me. It was HUGE disappointment. I had those two homegrown Mets pegged for the Hall Of Fame. There was anger early in regards to their careers being derailed (of their drug problems I just felt pity). But that has all dissipated.

Edgy MD Jul 15 2016 02:55 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

That's a pretty thoughtful post by Steve I think. I remember the old MoFo, where the folks most abusive to the Mets poorer players were the ones most nostalgic for the poorer players of days gone by (*cough* Doug Flynn *cough*). Folks love to demand it both ways. To review, the Mets have hired, in one capacity or another, Gary Carter, Keith Hernandez, Wally Backman, Tim Teufel, Mookie Wilson, Ron Darling, Lee Mazzilli, Howard Johnson, Randy Niemann, John Gibbons, and Bob Ojeda. And that's just the guys who've gotten more-or-less full-time gigs. Darryl Strawberry, empty though his relationship might be, has been retained on more than one occasion as a spring training instructor. Darryl can say what he wants, and I'm sure it's partly fans egging him into their narrative, partly the interviewer egging him into a statement that's controversial enough to make the papers, partly just him just being in a mood, and partly, you know, probably kind of true. (Who wouldn't be surprised if Jeff kept Darryl Strawberry at arm's length?) He can say what he wants but in the end, it's just another guy filling time on the radio. Stay healthy and sober, Darryl.

Nymr83 Jul 15 2016 03:23 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

Ceetar wrote: *cough cough* John Olerud was a better Mets hitter than both of 'em (and Piazza) though he only had a few years worth of PA the best. but i thought we were discussing the best "homegrown" player

Ceetar Jul 15 2016 03:28 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

Nymr83 wrote: Ceetar wrote: *cough cough* John Olerud was a better Mets hitter than both of 'em (and Piazza) though he only had a few years worth of PA the best. but i thought we were discussing the best "homegrown" player Honestly homegrown doesn't mean that much to me. Carlos Beltran is one of my favorite players. Syndergaard of the current ilk maybe. In the murky waters of what's worthy of Mets HoF or number retirement having spent time in the Mets minor leagues doesn't really factor in for me. It's fun to poke fun at the Yankees for over-retiring guys, but when you're in the entertainment business I don't really think you can over-celebrate.

SteveJRogers Jul 15 2016 04:16 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

soupcan wrote: How many ultimately mediocre players on every other team in the majors have similar accomplishments and don't have their numbers retired? Quite a fucking few I'm thinking. Non HOFers, or questionable by the team that honored them retired numbers as off recently this year: Braves Dale Murphy #3 Larry Jones #10 (well he will be a HOFer) Brewers Hank Aaron #44 (More of a Milwaukee honor, ala what #24 would be as a Met) Rollie Fingers #34 (Bit of a Padres Garvey oddball. Like they were convinced the A's would never do Fingers the honor, so they honored a guy that helped bring them an AL title.) Cardinals Ken Boyer #14 (Tribute to an ailing former MVP) August Busch #85 (Owner) Diamondbacks Luis Gonzalez #20 (For Yankee haters the world over, probably their greatest non HOF player) Dodgers Jim Gilliam #19 (In Memorial tribute) Marlins Carl Barger #5 (Since put back in circulation after being retired for first VP who died before team first started player, big DiMaggio fan) Mets Gil Hodges #14 (In Memorial Tribute) Nationals Technically none, but the Expos had #10 and #30 officially retired for Rusty Staub and Tim Raines respectively, and #83 for owner Charles Bronfman Padres Steve Garvey #6 (odd tribute even if he had an ax to grind against the Dodger organization at the time of his number retirement in 1988 (IDK if this is true, just fishing for a reason) Randy Jones #35 (Padres' Seaver but more like a Ron Guidry type of middling career, and without Gator's '78) Trevor Hoffman #51 (Probably will be in Cooperstown someday) Pirates Billy Meyer #1 (This one has actually stumped baseball historians as to what the reasoning was) Danny Murtaugh #40 (In Memorial, also skipper to two World Champions) Reds Fred Hutchinson #1 (In Memorial) Ted Kluszewski #18 (Apparently was retired in the 1960s, unretired, then put back on the wall when they started retiring numbers again) Dave Concepcion #13 (Captain of BRM era Reds, quality SS for many years) Pete Rose #14 (Finally retired...let's not get into this debate!) Rockies Todd Helton #17 (Very much like the Diamondbacks and Gonzalez, honoring a great with the franchise, though probably not quite a baseball HOFer) Angels Gene Autry #26 (Owner) Jimmie Reese #50 (long time coach and Zimmer like baseball ambassador of sorts in later years) Jim Fregosi #11 (First Angel All Star) Astros Jim Umbricht #32 (In Memorial) Don Wilson #40 (In Memorial) Larry Dierker #49 (Popular pitcher, announcer, etc) Jose Cruz #25 (Best offensive player pre-Bagwell) Mike Scott #33 (Did have some good years, if tainted) Jimmy Wynn #24 (Another offensive star in the dreadful era of franchise) Jeff Bagwell #5 (Still awaiting Cooperstown honors) Indians Mel Harder #18 (Long time pitcher and coach) Fans #455 (Yup, they honored Jacobs Field's consecutive sellout streak) Rangers Johnny Oates #26 (Honoring the ailing skipper of their first postseason seasons) Rays Wade Boggs #12 (Tampa native, and pretty much a signal that it could have been true that he had it in his contract to go into Cooperstown as a Ray) Don Zimmer #66 (Like Reese, honoring a baseball lifer/ambassador, though this one was a posthumous retirement) Red Sox Johnny Pesky #6 (Break from usual Red Sox number retirement system to honor long time Sox employee and the man whom the RF Foul Pole is named for. Royals Dick Howser #10 (In Memorial Tribute) Frank White #20 (Honoring one one of the bigger names not named Brett on those 1970s-1980s teams) Tigers Willie Horton #23 (Grew up in the area, and was a fan favorite for a lot of years) Twins Tony Oliva #6 (Popular player of the 1960s) Kent Hrbek #14 (Popular player of the 1980s and 1990s) Tom Kelly #10 (Skipper of only two Minnesota World Champs) White Sox Minnie Minoso #9 (Long time player and coach, as well as a pioneer) Billy Pierce #19 (Star hurler for the 1959 AL Champs) Harold Baines #3 (Retired while Baines was still active! Good hitter with the ChiSox of the 1980s) Paul Konerko #14 (Put in mothballs last year, very much honoring best productive player not named Big Hurt for the Sox in the last 20 some years) Yankees Thurman Munson #15 (In Memorial to The Captain's tragic demise) Elston Howard #32 (In Memorial to long time player, coach and pioneer with the team) Roger Maris #9 (Honoring an ailing former MVP and a fence mending gesture) Billy Martin #1 (Long time fan favorite player and skipper, but probably leverage to get him back for another managerial tenure) Don Mattingly #23 (Wright supporters will look at this as reason enough to retire #5 in his honor, still a deserving enough tribute if you lower the "HOF or Bust" standard) Ron Guidry #49 (Bit of an odd honor, certainly as big of a Yankee pitcher as anyone not in the Hall, but a loyal Yankee employee probably put his number into official mothballs) Mariano Rivera #42 (Bruce Sutter in 2006 with the Cardinals beat him for the first non Robinson #42 retirement, but he should join Sutter in Cooperstown) Bernie Williams #51 (Things got sillier than ever for the Yankees last year, granted Williams had a great Yankee career, Mattingly-esque even, but the Yankee number retirement jumped the shark years ago, and is now just repeating itself) Jorge Posada #20 (I guess figuring Munson and Howard are not in the Hall of Fame, the Yankees are retiring the numbers of everyone who deserves to be on their all-time great backstop list) Andy Pettitte #46 (See what I wrote for Williams, a cut below Guidry probably in team history, but why wasn't a Monument Park Plaque a sufficient honor) Next category, numbers retired as seemingly more of a "get with it Cooperstown" message before the player was "finally" inducted. Essentially retiring a player that did not turn out to be a first ballot guy (i.e. Tom Seaver getting his number retired in 1988), or in the same year of their HOF induction (i.e. if the Mets retired #31 back in June). Braves Phil Niekro #35 Retired after left the Braves organization, inducted in his 5th year on ballot Cubs Ron Santo #10 Retired in 2003, Santo was honored by the Veterans Committee in 2012 Expos Like Niekro, I kind of have to count it, if I'm being OCD about this Gary Carter #8 Retired 1993, inducted into the Hall 2003, 6th year on ballot Andre Dawson #10 Retired 1997, inducted into the Hall 2010, 9th year on ballot Phillies Richie Ashburn #1 Number retired in 1979, inducted by the Vet Committee in 1995 Pirates Bill Mazeroski #9 Retired in 1987, inducted by the Vets in 2001, pretty much the reason for the shakeup that resulted in the rotation we have today. Astros Craig Biggio #7 Retired in 2008, inducted last year on his third try. Indians Larry Doby #14 Retired in 1994, inducted by the Vets in 1998 Twins Harmon Killebrew #3 Again, a bit OCD, but retired in 1975, made the Hall in 1984, his 4th try White Sox Nellie Fox #2 Retired in 1976, entered the Hall via the Vets in 1997 Carlton Fisk #72 Retired in 1997 Inducted in 2000, second year on ballot Yankees Phil Rizzuto #10 Clearly a shot across Cooperstown's bow by GMSIII, retired famously in 1985 when a certain ex-Met defeated the Yankees for his 300th win, and inducted into Cooperstown by the Vets in 1994 Also put Hoffman, Bagwell, Gonzalez, Concepcion, Helton, Pesky, Oliva, Kelly, Minoso, Konerko, Martin, Mattingly, Williams, Posada and Pettitte in this category, again if you want to be OCD, but probably were meant as many fans think such an honor for Strawberry, Hernandez, et al would be.

Edgy MD Jul 15 2016 04:43 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

Ceetar wrote: It's fun to poke fun at the Yankees for over-retiring guys, but when you're in the entertainment business I don't really think you can over-celebrate. I would tend to disagree. Asking your neighbors to join you in re-celebrating your baby's birth every month will get diminishing attendance and increasingly indiscreet eye rolls, and eventually devalue birthdays and other, realer, more compelling milestones. I mean, you're also in the legacy business, trying to sustain an ongoing relationship with your fans. Let's keep it real. The Mets, by the way have surpassed the Yankees in ratings.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 15 2016 04:45 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

Good work, Rogers.

Edgy MD Jul 15 2016 04:49 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

Yeah, Rogers is winning this thread, but he slowed down at the end there. Is Rizzutto the only questionable retirement by the Yankees? Not Roger Maris/9? Not Guidry/49?

SteveJRogers Jul 15 2016 04:50 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

Edgy MD wrote: Ceetar wrote: It's fun to poke fun at the Yankees for over-retiring guys, but when you're in the entertainment business I don't really think you can over-celebrate. I would tend to disagree. Asking your neighbors to join you in re-celebrating your baby's birth every month will get diminishing attendance and increasingly indiscreet eye rolls, and eventually devalue birthdays and other, realer, more compelling milestones. I mean, you're also in the legacy business, trying to sustain an ongoing relationship with your fans. Let's keep it real. The Mets, by the way have surpassed the Yankees in ratings. Believe it or not, but MFYLs agree with your assessment. As I said with some of the lack luster names they've been trotting out in recent years in lieu of having bigger names at OTD, but still trying to field two "complete" teams of former Yankees to do their annual exhibition three innings.

cooby Jul 15 2016 04:51 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

Astros seem to have gone a bit overboard

SteveJRogers Jul 15 2016 04:52 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

Edgy MD wrote: Yeah, Rogers is winning this thread, but he slowed down at the end there. Is Rizzutto the only questionable retirement by the Yankees? Not Roger Maris/9? Not Guidry/49? *chuckle* Go back up a section! Plenty of WTF selections, Rizzuto is the only one of the HOFers.

Edgy MD Jul 15 2016 05:00 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

Oh, oh yeah. Good job, Steve!

Ceetar Jul 15 2016 05:03 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

Edgy MD wrote: Ceetar wrote: It's fun to poke fun at the Yankees for over-retiring guys, but when you're in the entertainment business I don't really think you can over-celebrate. I would tend to disagree. Asking your neighbors to join you in re-celebrating your baby's birth every month will get diminishing attendance and increasingly indiscreet eye rolls, and eventually devalue birthdays and other, realer, more compelling milestones. I mean, you're also in the legacy business, trying to sustain an ongoing relationship with your fans. Let's keep it real. The Mets, by the way have surpassed the Yankees in ratings. well, you're talking to the guy that posts 101 weeks! photos of his kid to Facebook, so.. parents aren't entertainers though. It doesn't have to be retired numbers, but that's what the Yankees do. And then they basically 'claim' these guys and they represent the brand for them. The Mets absolutely over-celebrate 1986. It can be wearying to some, but most people enjoy it. But hell, broaden the scope. Nobody's gonna be all 'stupid Mets' if they decided to celebrate literally any of the names we've mentioned. And even if they do, so what? People will come out. Call 'em 'great Mets' cause in a way everyone is a great Met (Except Tom Glavine) and part of the reason we love this team. None of it _means_ anything anyway. I'd rather snicker about over-celebrating guys than endless debates about shafting Keith Hernandez or whoever. Most of these things are just a day at the park anyway. And it's baseball, entertainment, and marketing. They promote things like Drawstring Bag night! so why not a 'Roger Cedeno night"? or like, in 2006 when Beltran was approaching Hundley's record for franchise HR in a season, have Todd out for a night. show HR highlights, give away 1996 signed gear. Get Edgardo Alfonzo out here again to talk about his 6/6 with Wilmer. Have 'em both sign pictures before the game in the rotunda. If they're both here next year and the Mets are home, name June 6th Edgardo Alfonzo day and get silly with it.

soupcan Jul 15 2016 05:40 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

batmagadanleadoff wrote: How many ultimately mediocre players on every other team in the majors have similar accomplishments and don't have their numbers retired? Quite a fucking few I'm thinking. batmagadanleadoff wrote: I disagree with this many ways over. First of all, every ML'er is, at best, mediocre at the end of their careers. Even Willie Mays. Otherwise, they'd still be playing. Mike Piazza would still be backstopping for the Mets, catching Tom Seaver's 96 MPH fastballs. So to characterize Strawberry based on his end of career mediocrity, to imply that Straw was a mediocrity is wholly unfair to Straw and a distortion. But I'm not going to retire a number based on a few good years either. Do the Mets want to be the Yankees who will soon start having to use the Greek alphabet for their players because they've retired every single number for every single player who had a few good years for them? batmagadanleadoff wrote: Straw was a superstar and, I think, an underrated superstar, playing in an era when having to hit half your games in Shea Stadium was still murder on a batter's stats. I'll tell you something ... I secretly chafe a little bit every time I have to read that David Wright is the Mets best home grown hitter because I don't really believe it. Wright isn't the hitter that Straw was, and in fact, if you compare Wright's first eight years to Straw's first and only eight Mets seasons, (they were both 21 in their debut seasons, btw, making for a convenient comparison) Straw comes out on top overall, even though Wright had the best singular season. If Wright is the better Mets hitter than Straw, it's only because Wright outlasted Straw as a Met and took many more PA's, which enabled Wright to pass Straw in the career totals categories. For me its not about whether Straw was this or that or better than this guy or that guy. I like what the Red Sox do. I may be mistaken but I believe they have a system for retiring numbers. A player must be in the Hall of Fame and had to have played at least 10 years for them. THAT's a guy whose number should be retired. batmagadanleadoff wrote: Also, I don't think it'd be unprecedented if a player like Straw were to have his number retired. He's certainly more deserving of that honor, by like orders of magnitude, than say Gary Carter, who seems to have the most support among Mets fans for that kind of treatment. Lesser players than Straw have had their numbers retired. Not that that means anything, because we're now delving into a discussion in which rules and standards don't really apply and ownership can retire whatever numbers they feel like retiring. You're right, it wouldnt be unprecedented but again do the Mets want to be the Padres who retired Randy Jones and Steve Garvey? The freaking Dodgers haven't even retired Garvey's #6. I'd like a retired number in Queens to be a real honor. Right now I think it is. Casey Stengel, Gil Hodges, Tom Seaver and Piazza. 3 Hall of Famers and one guy who's value to the team is without question.

soupcan Jul 15 2016 06:03 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

Edgy MD wrote: I remember the old MoFo, where the folks most abusive to the Mets poorer players were the ones most nostalgic for the poorer players of days gone by (*cough* Doug Flynn *cough*). Folks love to demand it both ways. You coughing at me pal? I was like 11-12 when Flynn was a Met. I was a good glove no-hit infielder just like him so I identified. With Straw & Doc I was in my 20's and looking for more. They both raised my expectations and when I went all in and they didn't deliver due to their own issues, I took it personally.

Edgy MD Jul 15 2016 06:16 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

Absolutely not. I LOVED Doug Flynn. I'm referring most directly to the MoFo poster "Doug Flynn," who was as affectionate as you and myself toward Torre-era Mets, but would be the first to viciously rip contemporary reserve infielders like Melvin Mora and Joe McEwing to Norfolk and back. He probably coined the name "Bore-DICK."

Benjamin Grimm Jul 15 2016 06:20 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

I like what the Red Sox do. I may be mistaken but I believe they have a system for retiring numbers. A player must be in the Hall of Fame and had to have played at least 10 years for them. THAT's a guy whose number should be retired. That is a pretty good rule of thumb, but it might be a little too strict for my taste, which is stricter than most. But I think the Mets should eventually retire 5 for David Wright, and he's very unlikely to ever meet that criteria.

Ceetar Jul 15 2016 06:38 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

A think a good rule of thumb is to walk around Citi Field and ask say 1000 people who's #17? and if you get say 75% Keith Hernandez, then retire it because it's pretty clear the fans have a mental association of the number to the player even this many years later. Give it a grace period. in 2025 ask about #5. You might get a bunch of John Oleruds or Davey Johnsons but mostly you're going to get Wright. The Mets are old enough now that a lot of people have worn all the main numbers except for the fake-retired ones. I think it's usually pretty clear when a number clearly is a synonym for that player. The whole concept behind retiring it is that it feels like it belongs to someone else. But the Mets should just set out a rule and decide what exactly it is that retiring a number means to the organization. As we've pointed out a bunch, it's silly to fake-retire numbers by not handing them out. It seems pretty clear the Mets have two classes of retired numbers. So hell, why not put the 8 and the 24 on the wall? You could even invert the colors and have more orange and just make those 'honored numbers' that are reused but represent Carter or Mays time with the Mets. You can't really go wrong with extra celebration.

Mets Guy in Michigan Jul 15 2016 06:47 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I like what the Red Sox do. I may be mistaken but I believe they have a system for retiring numbers. A player must be in the Hall of Fame and had to have played at least 10 years for them. THAT's a guy whose number should be retired. That is a pretty good rule of thumb, but it might be a little too strict for my taste, which is stricter than most. But I think the Mets should eventually retire 5 for David Wright, and he's very unlikely to ever meet that criteria. Yeah, I like some flexibility in there. You don't want a situation where you have a Hall of Famer who played nine years and you have to say no, or a guy who falls just short but is a team legend, which Wright is trending toward. I like retiring numbers. I wouldn't be opposed to seeing 8 on the wall and I wouldn't grumble if they had put 24 on there, too. The circle with "Shea" on there seems awkward to me. There might have been other ways to honor Mr. Shea. There's a good candidate for a statue! Personally, I think the trailblazing Mrs. Payson deserves a tribute of some kind, too. But I also worry about "honors inflation." Nancy Seaver's comments about the statues a while ago points to a line of thinking where retiring the number isn't enough, now you have to build a statue, too, or people are deemed slighted. The league-wide Jackie Robinson number retirement opened the door for that type of thing, too. You know there's an Ian O'Connor column just waiting for him to hit "send" on where he calls for a league-wide retirement of No. 2 to salute Jeter. I think we're seeing this at a national level in some ways, too. We lower the flags to as a memorial display. Now that we've started to see the White House lighted in different colors -- the rainbow for the marriage decision, purple for Prince -- there are groups demanding that it be lighted blue to honor the fallen police officers. Once you take a step, it's a step that will be expected -- and leaves the door open for criticism if you don't take it.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 15 2016 07:23 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

soupcan wrote: soupcan wrote: How many ultimately mediocre players on every other team in the majors have similar accomplishments and don't have their numbers retired? Quite a fucking few I'm thinking. I disagree with this many ways over. First of all, every ML'er is, at best, mediocre at the end of their careers. Even Willie Mays. Otherwise, they'd still be playing. Mike Piazza would still be backstopping for the Mets, catching Tom Seaver's 96 MPH fastballs. So to characterize Strawberry based on his end of career mediocrity, to imply that Straw was a mediocrity is wholly unfair to Straw and a distortion. But I'm not going to retire a number based on a few good years either. Do the Mets want to be the Yankees who will soon start having to use the Greek alphabet for their players because they've retired every single number for every single player who had a few good years for them? Straw was a superstar and, I think, an underrated superstar, playing in an era when having to hit half your games in Shea Stadium was still murder on a batter's stats. I'll tell you something ... I secretly chafe a little bit every time I have to read that David Wright is the Mets best home grown hitter because I don't really believe it. Wright isn't the hitter that Straw was, and in fact, if you compare Wright's first eight years to Straw's first and only eight Mets seasons, (they were both 21 in their debut seasons, btw, making for a convenient comparison) Straw comes out on top overall, even though Wright had the best singular season. If Wright is the better Mets hitter than Straw, it's only because Wright outlasted Straw as a Met and took many more PA's, which enabled Wright to pass Straw in the career totals categories. For me its not about whether Straw was this or that or better than this guy or that guy. I like what the Red Sox do. I may be mistaken but I believe they have a system for retiring numbers. A player must be in the Hall of Fame and had to have played at least 10 years for them. THAT's a guy whose number should be retired. Also, I don't think it'd be unprecedented if a player like Straw were to have his number retired. He's certainly more deserving of that honor, by like orders of magnitude, than say Gary Carter, who seems to have the most support among Mets fans for that kind of treatment. Lesser players than Straw have had their numbers retired. Not that that means anything, because we're now delving into a discussion in which rules and standards don't really apply and ownership can retire whatever numbers they feel like retiring. You're right, it wouldnt be unprecedented but again do the Mets want to be the Padres who retired Randy Jones and Steve Garvey? The freaking Dodgers haven't even retired Garvey's #6. I'd like a retired number in Queens to be a real honor. Right now I think it is. Casey Stengel, Gil Hodges, Tom Seaver and Piazza. 3 Hall of Famers and one guy who's value to the team is without question. Jeez, if I knew you were gonna write this humongous post, I woulda spared you and told you not to waste alla your time. I never weighed in on whether or not the Mets should retire Straw's number. I haven't formed an opinion on the matter. All I said in that regard, is that it wouldn't be so unreasonable, in light of other team's retired numbers, if the Mets retired #18. I did disagree with you about that mediocrity business, but I'd guess that that was an off the cuff comment in the heat of the moment, and that you really don't think Straw was a mediocrity. At least not all of the time. Not when he was a Met. I did go on that I think Straw was a better Mets hitter than Wright. But I also agree with Edgy that longevity counts. But in my book, which hasn't been published yet, that would only make Wright's Metly contributions more valuable than Straw's. It wouldn't make Wright the better Mets hitter of the two. Not that they aren't kinda close and that a reasonable case couldn't be made for Wright.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 15 2016 07:30 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I like retiring numbers. I wouldn't be opposed to seeing 8 on the wall... What is it with Mets fans who think Gary Carter's number should be retired? Because this is one argument that I'm simply incapable of understanding. It's incomprehensible to me on every level. And one of these days I'm gonna write a long post explaining why. If Carter, then they might as well retire Donn Clendenon's number, too. And Bobby Ojeda's. Jeez, the guy was a great Met and deserving of his induction into the Mets HOF, but his legend has grown to absurd heights, way the hell out of proportion to his on the field contributions. He's way overrated as a Met -- the Derek Jeter of the Mets. And I say that bit about Jeter in the worst way possible.

Frayed Knot Jul 15 2016 07:38 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I like what the Red Sox do. I may be mistaken but I believe they have a system for retiring numbers. A player must be in the Hall of Fame and had to have played at least 10 years for them. THAT's a guy whose number should be retired. That is a pretty good rule of thumb, but it might be a little too strict for my taste, which is stricter than most. But I think the Mets should eventually retire 5 for David Wright, and he's very unlikely to ever meet that criteria. I agree that strict rules would only lead to exceptions being made (Pesky for The BoSox) which then render the strict rules kind of meaningless. But I would set some sort of standard built around the idea of: - all or a significant majority of the player's career as a Met. That eliminates Keith, Carter, Mays, and Beltran amongst others. Also Strawberry if counting by seasons even if not by GP/ABs - HoF caliber or at least a lengthy star-level resume: bye-bye Eddie Krane & Franco - some sort of good character clause. That makes Doc & Darryl with their numerous arrests, suspensions, etc. tough sells, and possibly Reyes also even if he were to suddenly find the fountain of youth and unexpectedly give us say five more good seasons.

Benjamin Grimm Jul 15 2016 07:42 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

I agree. Retiring 8 would be absurd. They should just reissue it. It's been idle long enough.

G-Fafif Jul 15 2016 07:43 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

There are lessons to be gleaned from the examples of others, but frankly, I don't care what other teams do and I don't care what the Hall of Fame says when it comes to Mets. This is not an endorsement or a rejection of any given number being retired, just a matter of personal principle. I wouldn't not retire a number because the MFYs or the Astros or whoever have a stricter or looser policy.

Mets Guy in Michigan Jul 15 2016 07:48 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I like retiring numbers. I wouldn't be opposed to seeing 8 on the wall... What is it with Mets fans who think Gary Carter's number should be retired? Because this is one argument that I'm simply incapable of understanding. It's incomprehensible to me on every level. And one of these days I'm gonna write a long post explaining why. If Carter, then they might as well retire Donn Clendenon's number, too. And Bobby Ojeda's. Jeez, the guy was a great Met and deserving of his induction into the Mets HOF, but his legend has grown to absurd heights, way the hell out of proportion to his on the field contributions. He's way overrated as a Met -- the Derek Jeter of the Mets. And I say that bit about Jeter in the worst way possible. I like Gary Carter. He's in Cooperstown, and, had the Hall gone with his wishes, would have gone in as a Met. He's one of the best catchers of all time, unquestionably of his era. He was key piece that led to the 1986 championship. The team must feel similarly, as it has not circulated the number. Note, there is a big difference to me saying "I wouldn't be opposed to" and saying "I'm loudly advocating for."

batmagadanleadoff Jul 15 2016 07:49 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

G-Fafif wrote: There are lessons to be gleaned from the examples of others, but frankly, I don't care what other teams do and I don't care what the Hall of Fame says when it comes to Mets. This is not an endorsement or a rejection of any given number being retired, just a matter of personal principle. I wouldn't not retire a number because the MFYs or the Astros or whoever have a stricter or looser policy. I agree with this totally. I would never want the process of retiring a uniform number to come down to some rigid formulaic algorithmic type of computer-like process. The only rule I would insist upon if I owned the Mets would be that there are no rules. You have to "feel" this out more than anything else, I would think. It mainly has to feel good.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 15 2016 07:54 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

I like Gary Carter. He's in Cooperstown, and, had the Hall gone with his wishes, would have gone in as a Met. Irrelevant, to me anyways. He's one of the best catchers of all time, unquestionably of his era. But See e.g., Warren Spahn, Yogi Berra, Eddie Murray, Rickey Henderson. He was key piece that led to the 1986 championship. At best, he was "a" key piece. But no more key than Bobby Ojeda or four or five other '86ers. He was the fourth or fifth or sixth best player on that team. Was he more key than, say, Clendenon to the '69ers? Or Koosman? The team must feel similarly, as it has not circulated the number. I have no idea what the fuck the Mets are doing, or even thinking with 8. And 24. Note, there is a big difference to me saying "I wouldn't be opposed to" and saying "I'm loudly advocating for.

Mets Guy in Michigan Jul 15 2016 07:59 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I like Gary Carter. He's in Cooperstown, and, had the Hall gone with his wishes, would have gone in as a Met. Irrelevant, to me anyways. He's one of the best catchers of all time, unquestionably of his era. And Warren Spahn yada yada yada He was key piece that led to the 1986 championship. At best, he was "a" key piece. But no more key than Bobby Ojeda or four or five other '86ers. He was the fourth or fifth or sixth best player on that team. Was he more key than, say, Clendenon to the '69ers? Or Koosman? The team must feel similarly, as it has not circulated the number. I have no idea what the fuck the Mets are doing, or even thinking with 8. And 24. Note, there is a big difference to me saying "I wouldn't be opposed to" and saying "I'm loudly advocating for. We are allowed to disagree. You can pick out any one of those things, but the collection of those things is what makes Carter special -- at least to me. There's a big difference between Spahn's contributions to the team and Carter's. Mays, I'm sure, is a reflection of his prior time in New York and his status as arguably the best all-around player ever.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 15 2016 08:01 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: We are allowed to disagree. And thank god for that. Otherwise, what would be the point of posting?

Benjamin Grimm Jul 15 2016 08:04 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I have no idea what the fuck the Mets are doing, or even thinking with 8. Me neither. Gary Carter last wore the number in 1989. It went unused through the 1990 and 1991 seasons, but then was pretty much in constant use for the next eleven seasons. I don't recall what might have happened after 2002 to make number 8 suddenly become more sacred. http://ultimatemets.com/uninumbers.php

cooby Jul 15 2016 08:06 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

soupcan wrote: Edgy MD wrote: I remember the old MoFo, where the folks most abusive to the Mets poorer players were the ones most nostalgic for the poorer players of days gone by (*cough* Doug Flynn *cough*). Folks love to demand it both ways. You coughing at me pal? I was like 11-12 when Flynn was a Met. I was a good glove no-hit infielder just like him so I identified. With Straw & Doc I was in my 20's and looking for more. They both raised my expectations and when I went all in and they didn't deliver due to their own issues, I took it personally. Have you ever read High and Tight? I think you should

Edgy MD Jul 15 2016 08:08 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

I have no idea what the fuck the Mets are doing, or even thinking with 8. Me neither. Gary Carter last wore the number in 1989. It went unused through the 1990 and 1991 seasons, but then was pretty much in constant use for the next eleven seasons. I don't recall what might have happened after 2002 to make number 8 suddenly become more sacred. http://ultimatemets.com/uninumbers.php Well, among other things, the team changed owners. Carter, interestingly, is credited in the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary with the first usage in print of of the term, "f-bomb."

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 15 2016 08:38 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

You guys should hop aboard my bandwagon and pressure the Mets, in a non-aggressive way, to retire 24 for Joan Payson. As for 8, I think the the idea was, come 2002 Carter was under HoF consideration and it was let's see if goes to Coop "as a Met" (stupid). Then the poor guy got brain cancer and they subsequently got scared of how it would look, especially since they'd conspicuously withheld it all those years. I just got done arguing it would be appropriate to re-introduce 8 with dArnaud but they didn't go for it. Now I want them to give 8 to Conforto (it's in his twitter handle!)

Edgy MD Jul 15 2016 08:47 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Then the poor guy got brain cancer and they subsequently got scared of how it would look, especially since they'd conspicuously withheld it all those years. I just got done arguing it would be appropriate to re-introduce 8 with dArnaud but they didn't go for it. Now I want them to give 8 to Conforto (it's in his twitter handle!) This is the problem with making decisions that are sentimentally defensible but logically poorly considered. They become institutionalized, and once the sentiment is past, you're stuck with them. Literally 86.41% of all people could do without hearing "God Bless America" at a ball game again. An additional 9.22% just mutely shrug their shoulders at the question, half-drunk and floating through life. The remaining 4.37 aren't patriotic so much as the Patriotism Police, and will rip the Mets publicly if the song ceases appearing. And their brethren-in-arms in parts of the country that will never have access to the Mets will echo the cry in poorly written all-caps protest, so the Mets are stuck with it. I know a way out of the Carter Conundrum, though. Re-issue the number to a good player (d'Arnaud comes to mind), but solicit the buy-in from the family beforehand so they don't get sucked into a populist campaign, and at the same time, let them know you are re-naming Tradition Field as Gary Carter Field, to there will be no ambiguity about the team's continued and ongoing respect for Carter.

Centerfield Jul 15 2016 09:24 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

G-Fafif wrote: There are lessons to be gleaned from the examples of others, but frankly, I don't care what other teams do and I don't care what the Hall of Fame says when it comes to Mets. This is not an endorsement or a rejection of any given number being retired, just a matter of personal principle. I wouldn't not retire a number because the MFYs or the Astros or whoever have a stricter or looser policy. Absolutely. The only thing I would change here is that I don't care what the Hall of Fame says when it comes to anything.

G-Fafif Jul 15 2016 11:38 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

Edgy MD wrote: Then the poor guy got brain cancer and they subsequently got scared of how it would look, especially since they'd conspicuously withheld it all those years. I just got done arguing it would be appropriate to re-introduce 8 with dArnaud but they didn't go for it. Now I want them to give 8 to Conforto (it's in his twitter handle!) This is the problem with making decisions that are sentimentally defensible but logically poorly considered. They become institutionalized, and once the sentiment is past, you're stuck with them. Literally 86.41% of all people could do without hearing "God Bless America" at a ball game again. An additional 9.22% just mutely shrug their shoulders at the question, half-drunk and floating through life. The remaining 4.37 aren't patriotic so much as the Patriotism Police, and will rip the Mets publicly if the song ceases appearing. And their brethren-in-arms in parts of the country that will never have access to the Mets will echo the cry in poorly written all-caps protest, so the Mets are stuck with it. I know a way out of the Carter Conundrum, though. Re-issue the number to a good player (d'Arnaud comes to mind), but solicit the buy-in from the family beforehand so they don't get sucked into a populist campaign, and at the same time, let them know you are re-naming Tradition Field as Gary Carter Field, to there will be no ambiguity about the team's continued and ongoing respect for Carter. A good idea in 2012... http://www.faithandfearinflushing.com/2 ... -a-number/ ...remains a good idea in 2016.

soupcan Jul 16 2016 12:16 AM Re: The Strawberry Statement

Edgy MD wrote: Absolutely not. Okay then.

Edgy MD Jul 16 2016 12:25 AM Re: The Strawberry Statement

G-Fafif wrote: ...remains a good idea in 2016. Yes, sorry. Certainly didn't intend to put a trademark on your idea. So whose ear do I need to put a bug in?

G-Fafif Jul 16 2016 05:15 PM Re: The Strawberry Statement

I'd try J. Wilpon, L. DePaoli, D. Newman and anybody else on this roster who strikes your fancy. New York Mets 120-01 Roosevelt Avenue Flushing, NY 11368