Master Index of Archived Threads


New Numbers are In

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 06 2008 08:37 PM

Most suckas gotta go to a different address for this but bringing it to you here first now. 9 Marlon Anderson (switching from 23 for Brian Schneider) 16 Angel Pagan 19 Ryan Church 38 Matt Wise 39 Jason Vargas (Vargas was 43 last season) 43 Brian Stokes 49 Ruddy Lugo 57 Johan Santana 61 Steven Register

metirish Feb 06 2008 08:44 PM

Number 57 might give Steven Register hope of making the club....or maybe not.

Gwreck Feb 06 2008 08:44 PM

Several low and desirable numbers (17; 20; 27; 30) sitting open and available.

Fman99 Feb 06 2008 09:04 PM

I wonder, should the Mets decide to sign Livan as rotation insurance, if Steve Register would give up his #61 for him.

Elster88 Feb 06 2008 09:23 PM

Are they going to retire 8? JCL's website says the retarded midget was the last guy to have it. Or 31?

Valadius Feb 06 2008 09:48 PM

I have no doubt that #31 will be retired. The question is when.

Gwreck Feb 06 2008 09:50 PM

They'll retire 31, but not until Piazza retires. And maybe not until he's elected to the HOF. 8 should go back into general circulation. Congrats Kid on the HOF, but 4+ seasons doesn't get your number retired.

Nymr83 Feb 06 2008 11:09 PM

retiring 8, or any other number for a guy who was here 5 seasons, is absurd. i'm pretty borderline on piazza's 8 years earning a number retirement, though if he wears a met cap into the hall i suppose you have to.

G-Fafif Feb 07 2008 12:33 AM

My goodness. Knock 57 out of that list and we are reminded what a long, cold lonely winter it was. Was.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 07 2008 06:03 AM

I don't think 31 should be retired. Or 8. Or 17. For most of Piazza's time at Shea, he was in decline. He had three and a half really good years, and then a slow decline to mediocrity. I absolutely wouldn't retire his number.

metirish Feb 07 2008 06:12 AM

I agree with Grim, I probably was in favour of # 31 being retired when Piazza wa here but with the passing of time I think it shouldn't be , not that his accomplishments have diminished in my eyes but rather I can look more objectively. With the new stadium coming the next few years should draw huge crowds so it's not like they will need these nights to create buzz.

Centerfield Feb 07 2008 08:06 AM

I can't believe there is any question about retiring Piazza's number. In 1998, over 109 games, he hit .348, hit 23 HR's, and drove in 76. Those are great numbers. In '99 and '00 he had MVP-caliber years. In 2001 and 2002, he had very good numbers for any hitter, great numbers for a catcher (averages out to .290, 34.5 HR's, 96 RBI). He was hurt in 2003, and remained a productive player, albeit not a star, in 2004 and 2005. He was a perennial all-star, led the team to a World Series, and almost single-handedly rescued them from what had been nearly a decade of mediocrity. No one on this current team, or the 80's Mets or the '69 Mets had as much pressure to carry the team as Piazza did during '98 to '01. Take Piazza out of the picture and that team doesn't even come close to being in a pennant race...meaning there is no contender playing at Shea from 1990 to 2006.

AG/DC Feb 07 2008 08:21 AM

The idea of honoring somebody isn't to create buzz, but to honor them, I hope.

seawolf17 Feb 07 2008 09:00 AM

For me, retiring a number is about my personal association with that number. It irks me to see other players in #17; it'll probably irk me the same way to see some middle reliever wear #31 in 2012. I guess I don't care if they're "retired," per se, but at least wait until we're all dead to reissue them.

AG/DC Feb 07 2008 09:13 AM

That's a harshly conservative bent, but one I'm really vulnerable to mice elf. In my pollyanna world: - all 101 numbers are in circulation, 69 included; - no number gets re-assigned while the last player to wear it is still active somewhere in the league; - numbers get re-assigned only in the reverse order of legacy --- as in once all 101 numbers have been assigned, you start again by giving away the number of the least productive player in team history, hoping the new guy can take it futher; - exceptions occur only with permission from the last guy to wear the number; - nobody gives a shit what you wore with your last team --- you're a Met now, Ace, and time begins now. Also, spring training players get numbers in a different color to show that the assignment isn't real until a player makes the team. They also get blank hats without insigniae. In a sense, all really good players, then, would have their number unofficially semi-retired through their lifetimes, with or without a ceremony or a wall display.

Vic Sage Feb 07 2008 09:15 AM

Centerfield wrote: I can't believe there is any question about retiring Piazza's number. In 1998, over 109 games, he hit .348, hit 23 HR's, and drove in 76. Those are great numbers. In '99 and '00 he had MVP-caliber years. In 2001 and 2002, he had very good numbers for any hitter, great numbers for a catcher (averages out to .290, 34.5 HR's, 96 RBI). He was hurt in 2003, and remained a productive player, albeit not a star, in 2004 and 2005. He was a perennial all-star, led the team to a World Series, and almost single-handedly rescued them from what had been nearly a decade of mediocrity. No one on this current team, or the 80's Mets or the '69 Mets had as much pressure to carry the team as Piazza did during '98 to '01. Take Piazza out of the picture and that team doesn't even come close to being in a pennant race...meaning there is no contender playing at Shea from 1990 to 2006. And of course it would continue the tradition of the Mets retiring the numbers of players whose greatest days were as Dodgers.

SteveJRogers Feb 11 2008 06:15 PM

G-Fafif wrote: My goodness. Knock 57 out of that list and we are reminded what a long, cold lonely winter it was. Was. Do de do do...

RealityChuck Feb 12 2008 07:10 AM

No matter how good he does with the Mets, I would be against retiring 57. We need to keep it available in case we get a player named Heinz.

metsguyinmichigan Feb 12 2008 07:42 AM

Nymr83 wrote: retiring 8, or any other number for a guy who was here 5 seasons, is absurd. i'm pretty borderline on piazza's 8 years earning a number retirement, though if he wears a met cap into the hall i suppose you have to. I respectfully disagree. I'm not saying make a complete farce out of retiring numbers like the MFYs. But there are several people I'd like to see up on the wall. 1) 24 Anytime you have someone who is in the conversation about the best player of all time, you can retire his number. The Brewers did it with Aaron, who made a similar return home but with a different team. And if they're not goig to circulate it anyway, might as well put it up there. 2) 31 Eight years is a long time. He's going in the hall as a Met. 3) 17 If they're not going to retire it, at least stop giving it to the Grame Lloyd types.

AG/DC Feb 12 2008 07:53 AM

The problem is that the Yankees (again the Yankees) have seemingly dozens of Hall of Famers (though probably fewer) that seem to have spent their last two years with the team --- Niekro and such. We have Warren Spahn. Yogi Berra for a handful of games also. So, your second sentence in point (1) is more compelling than your first. The rarely applicable Aaron precedent --- that the honor is as much or more for the player's prior legacy in the same city for a now-migrated team, as much as for him returning to the current team to cap his legacy. I'd still try to make it an honor for Mrs. Payson as well.

metsguyinmichigan Feb 12 2008 08:15 AM

AG/DC wrote: I'd still try to make it an honor for Mrs. Payson as well. And I would not object. Mrs. Payson was a pioneer, and her place in this team's history can't be stated enough.

Vic Sage Feb 12 2008 01:59 PM

I think the only players who should have their numbers retired are those HOFers who have spent most of their careers, and have had their most productive seasons, with the Mets, or players who have otherwise had a unique historical impact on the franchise. Based on this criteria, i don't see retiring any of the numbers suggested here (Piazza, Carter, Hernandez), as all those players had their most productive seasons elsewhere, nor did any of them spend the majority of their careers in NY (on edit: except for Piazza, who played slightly more of his games here, but still had his most productive seasons and more awards in LA), nor did any of them have any particular historical importance for the Mets, beyond playing on winning teams.Carter had his best years and spent most of his career as a Montreal Expo. Hernandez's career was primarily as a Cardinal, where he won an MVP. Carter and Hernandez certainly were key players on the 80s teams, but so were alot of other guys. Ditto for Piazza on the 1998-2000 teams. Mike was also part of the subsequent downfall of that era, with his huge contract, defensive deficiencies and inability to transition to 1b. Also, I don't like retiring numbers of coaches, owners and administrative personnel, by and large. But I give Casey and Gil a pass because of their historic importance to the franchise. I also think we could retire #62 for Mrs Payson and Mr. Shea, as a symbolic gesture for their roles in bringing NL baseball back to NY in 1962.

Gwreck Feb 12 2008 02:53 PM

="Vic Sage"]nor did any of them have any particular historical importance for the Mets, beyond playing on winning teams. Are there any Met players of "historical importance" who didn't play on the winningest Met teams? What percentage of "important historical" Met events would you say took place outside '69, '73, '86, '88, '99, '00 and '06? 5 percent? 3 percent?

Vic Sage Feb 12 2008 03:28 PM

So far, i'd say none of them are of "historical" importance... I'm just leaving open the possibility that there were, are or could be guys who aren't HOFers, but left an impressive legacy (what if Mookie gets elected President? how about Senator Fernandez of Hawaii? What if Doc Taylor descovered a cure for cancer?) But what I'm also talking about is discussing such players in terms of the Franchise's history, rather than just societal history. For example, a career player like Kranepool, who was there from the inception of the organization, and leads the franchise in all longevity categories could be considered ... if he was a better player. If he was a Rusty Staub-type player (a really good but not HOF player) who had that kind of Kranepoolian signficance to the franchise, i'd think such a player should be considered. What if David Wright has an excellent but not HOF career, but spends nearly his entire career in NY, and ends up leading the franchise in numerous stats, as well as being the face of the organization for 10-15 years, doing charity and outreach, and generally being a team leader and standup guy? What if he also ends up a coach or manager here? I'd say that type of Mets career would warrant having his number retired, even if he doesn't end up in the HOF or win a WS ring. I don't want enshrinement in the HOF or a WS ring to be an absolute necessity for such an honor. But neither do i want numbers all over the outfield wall, making them less special.

Nymr83 Feb 12 2008 03:33 PM

i don't think the HOF is necessary nor do i think being a hallf of famer means you deserve your number on the wall (unless you spent your whole career with a team, i can't conceive of a circumstance where a hall of famer spend their whole career on a team where they should not retire his number.) that said i think Seaver is the only player the Mets need to have retired right now. Add Robinson (who is a unique individual case, there should be no similiar retirement for a hispanic, an asian, or anyone else) and thats it. I don't mind that Hodges is retired but wouldn't really do it myself. a number for Payson (along with Shea who will no longer have the building named after him) would be fine but i wouldn't care much about it. thats it.

metsguyinmichigan Feb 13 2008 08:05 AM

Vic Sage wrote: I also think we could retire #62 for Mrs Payson and Mr. Shea, as a symbolic gesture for their roles in bringing NL baseball back to NY in 1962. Brilliant!

AG/DC Feb 13 2008 09:21 PM

Tony Armas: 44. First pitcher to sport the double quarts since Jason Isringhausen.