Casey Stengel
One thing Steve Cohen has purported to try to do is to right a lot of the existing wrongs with the New York Mets. The most classic example was his deciding to retire Willie Mays‘ number with the franchise even if that decision was rather dubious (much like Casey Stengel‘s was).
Put another way, he is looking to change the karma of the Mets. Seeing what M. Donald Grant and the Wilpons did, there is a lot to undo here.
One of the worst days in the history of the franchise was the firing of Willie Randolph. At the time, the fanbase was split over whether or not Randolph should be fired with a majority likely calling for the termination in the aftermath of the collapse.
There were no Mets fans who were happy with the classless manner it was handled. Randolph was fired one game into a west coast trip and replaced by the backstabbing Jerry Manuel. Making the bizarre decision even worse was the fact Randolph was fired after a Mets win.
Parenthetically here, Manuel would guide the 2008 Mets to their own collapse. Worse yet, he did it as the Mets were closing Shea Stadium putting a damper on the beautiful and touching ceremony to close the ballpark. Naturally, in true Wilpon fashion, Manuel was rewarded for his collapse.
Understandably, Randolph did not handle the firing well. He initially made overtures the firing was racially motivated, and he would back off the statements. Unfortunately, Randolph would never get another opportunity to manage a major league team for the rest of his career.
That was a shame because Randolph was a good manager, and he was one ahead of his time.
He paired with Rick Peterson to be at least a decade ahead in terms of bullpen usage. As a manager with limited starters, he did not allow John Maine, Oliver Perez, Steve Trachsel, etc. to falter. Rather, he turned to his bullpen, the strength of his pitching staff, to carry the team through games.
We saw his impact on developing David Wright and Jose Reyes. Wright became a better defender who utilized his base running better. Reyes developed an idea of the strike zone and became an All-Star who didn’t swing at literally every single pitch.
He has dealt with the New York media more than anyone. He is a Mets fan at heart. We’ve seen how his knowledge of the game can help players, and now, the Mets have hired Carlos Mendoza, who needs Randolph’s guidance on the bench.
Mendoza talked about how Randolph has been a major influence, and it began talk of Randolph becoming the Mets bench coach. Naturally, that was met well here as I have made the case Randolph should get another opportunity to manage and that the Mets should look to bring him back in this very role.
The timing is right, and Mendoza seems to want Randolph. The Mets can build a terrific coaching staff, and at the same time, Cohen has the opportunity to undo one of the worst things the Wilpons did during their ownership.
Randolph should be brought back by the Mets, and they can let him help Mendoza lead the Mets to their first World Series since 1986.
Yes, this is raining on the parade. It’s a contrarian opinion on a celebrated moment. All that said, when you actually look at it, Willie Mays number 24 should not be retired by the New York Mets.
If this was 1973, you could understand it. The Mets were around for all of a decade, and they had little history. The franchise had already retired Casey Stengel’s 37, which had much more to do with his New Yankees tenure than anything.
However, Joan Payson, as much as she loved Mays (justifiably so), did not retire his number. Yes, she took it out of circulation, but she opted not to retire it.
Keep in mind, she ran the Mets until her death, which was two years after Mays retired. As much as people want to reframe history now, this wasn’t she never got around to doing it.
It’s now 2022, and the Mets have a 60 year history. One way to look at it is the Mets have existed for about as long as the Yankees had when the Mets were founded.
This is now a franchise with a real history. There are two World Series titles and five pennants. There are two Hall of Famers with Carlos Beltran joining this group maybe later this year, and Jacob deGrom going there one day.
It’s a team with their own Hall of Fame. While oft overlooked, it has 30 members. Of note, Mays was never inducted as a member. Now, he has his number retired.
The former was the more correct position when viewed through the lense of the New York Mets franchise.
Mays was a Met for two seasons playing 135 games total amassing a 1.6 WAR. He hit .238/.352/.394 with 19 doubles, one triple, 14 homers, and 44 RBI.
In the postseason, he was 3-for-10 with two RBI. It was his last postseason game winning RBI. That postseason would also mark the lowest point of his career serving as a juxtaposition to his catch robbing Vic Wertz.
All told, Mays is arguably the best player who ever lived. He’s New York baseball royalty lyrically memorialized by Terry Cashman as THE part of “Willie, Mickey, and the Duke.” (Say Hey! Say Hey!”). He’s just not Mets royalty.
As an aside, Duke Snider was a Hall of Fame center fielder in the above referenced song. He was a beloved Brooklyn Dodger, who was part of the 1955 Dodgers. He returned to play with the Mets in 1963, and no one even mentions retiring his 4.
The reason they don’t say that about Snider is because he wasn’t a great Met. Snider, as a Met, didn’t deserve the honor. It’s the same for Mays.
Despite that, the Mets opted to gild the lily. Yes, it was popular, but it was unnecessary. Mays was not a Mets great. Meanwhile, true Mets greats who will never get their number retired watched on.
There are many injustices Steve Cohen corrected since taking over from the Wilpons. This wasn’t one of them. It was unnecessary, and in some ways, actually overlooked Mets history on a day it was being celebrated.
Certainly, the New York Mets have made some truly odd decisions this season. That began their first game of the season where Kevin Pillar batted lead-off, Brandon Nimmo was eighth, and Dominic Smith was left out of the lineup all together. The curious lineup decisions continued with Jeff McNeil batting seventh for a stretch and completely overreacting to Michael Conforto slumping.
While Luis Rojas has received his share of the blame for those decisions, it is important to note he is not the one making out the lineup card. We are well past the days of Casey Stengel playing hunches. No, the lineup now is much more of a collaborative process, and unless you are someone like Terry Francona, your standing and stature to make those decisions alone differs.
To be fair, it’s not just the lineup. There have been other decisions. There was using Aaron Loup when the three batter rule meant he had to face J.T. Realmuto. He has used Trevor May and Miguel Castro quite often so far this season. The latest was letting Marcus Stroman bat in the sixth only to let Jeurys Familia pitch in the seventh.
That last decision was one of several which has caused fans to question his abilities. There has been a growing narrative where Rojas was not ready for this job and is in over his head. Certainly, one of the contributing factors was his being thrust into the job after Carlos Beltran‘s firing. However, when it came to that decision, there was much more happening than most were aware:
You’re incredibly wrong so relax. Luis is a great manager who we will all go to war for. We love him. I was going back out in the 7th…that’s why I hit. The inning ended up taking long and didn’t make sense to go back out after getting cold on the bases. Poo-poo take sir! ??♂️ https://t.co/r8B1RPBMtB
— Marcus Stroman (@STR0) April 14, 2021
When assessing managers, we far too often overlook the fact there is much we don’t know. For example, we don’t understand players have personal conversations with players, and they have to make assessments and decisions based upon those conversations. We really don’t know why some players are unavailable.
There’s also the fact we tend to only judge one or two decisions per game and blow it out of proportion when it comes to assessing the total job. First and foremost, it would seem from Stroman’s tweet, Rojas has the back of everyone in that clubhouse. To a certain extent, that is no surprise with Rojas managing most of these players in the minors, and those players respecting him.
Players certainly respect him when he goes out there arguing with the umpire after Jose Alvarado threw not once but twice at Conforto. More people respect him when he takes ownership of the team’s issues and doesn’t pass the blame to the players. He also accepts the responsibility for the decisions clearly made by the front office.
Another overlooked factor is how much certain players have improved. It’s still early, but we have seen Pete Alonso and Brandon Nimmo play significantly improved defense. We have also seen him make Dominic Smith passable in left field. Make no mistake, this is significant because the Mets need for each one of these things to happen if the team wants to truly compete this season.
And remember, when assessing Rojas, the Mets have had a simply bizarre start to the season. They didn’t play the first series due to the Nationals getting infected with COVID. They had a suspended game after three batters and a rain out. At one point, they had played five games and had five games postponed. Despite that, he has his team ready to play, and they seem primed to take off.
Overall, Rojas isn’t perfect, but no manager is. He is still growing into the job, and he is learning. Overall, he has a real skill-set to thrive in this job, and he is doing many thing which are helping the Mets win games. This is not a manager in over his head. Rather, this is a manager who knows exactly what he’s doing, and the Mets are better off for having him in the dugout.
Mike Piazza perhaps let the cat out of the bag when he intimated the New York Mets may start retiring more numbers. Of course, this shouldn’t come as a shock when the organization announced Jerry Koosman‘s 36 was going to be retired.
Looking at the Mets franchise history, this is quite the Steinbrenner type of move.
After the simply bizarre act of retiring Casey Stengel‘s number, the Mets put the highest of standards for retiring player numbers. In fact, prior to the Koosman announcement, it was an honor solely reserved for Hall of Famers.
It’s a standard which frankly makes sense. Number retirement should be an honor presented to the true legends of your franchise. By definition, that’s what the Hall of Famers are.
If we sort through team history, if not for a completely and arbitrary application of an theretofore unenforced rule Gary Carter would be in the Hall of Fame as a Met. That would’ve led to the retirement of his 8.
It’s also quite possible we may one day see Keith Hernandez and Carlos Beltran inducted. With that should come their numbers being retired. At least with respect to Hernandez, that would be an extremely popular decision.
Past that duo, the only player who you can conceive of hitting that level is Jacob deGrom. That’s something that needs consideration.
When a number is retired, the franchise is putting a player at the level of Tom Seaver, Piazza, and quite possibly deGrom. Looking at the team history, they don’t have players at that level. They really don’t.
That includes David Wright who is an extremely popular choice amongst the fans. If not for injuries, he very well might’ve. By the same token, if not for addiction, Dwight Gooden and Darryl Strawberry not only would’ve been at that level, but quite possibly, would’ve been a step above Wright.
Fact is Wright is a Mets great, but he’s not a baseball great. Yes, he deserves honoring by the Mets, but a number retirement is just too high of an honor. That should be reserved for the true legends to wear a Mets uniform.
Keep in mind, as discussed on the Simply Amazin Podcast, much of the case for Wright can dwindle over time. For example, if Michael Conforto re-signs, he should take over a good chunk of Wright’s records.
After that, we could see someone else surpass both players. Part of the reason is the records on the books isn’t particularly impressive for a franchise. Keep in mind, that’s not saying Wright’s career numbers aren’t impressive. They are. However, as a franchise leader, it’s not.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. The issue just is where you start drawing lines.
For example, for all the push for Wright, John Franco remains the franchise all-time saves leader, has the most saves of any left-handed pitcher in MLB history, and he was a captain. Despite that, there seems little to no push to retire his number even with his being a Met longer just as long as Wright.
Really, when you look at both, yes, they should be honored, but in reality, it should be short of number retirement. In reality, that’s why there’s a Mets Hall of Fame.
The answer should be to make the Mets Hall of Fame into a destination at Citi Field. Really showcase the Mets greats honoring them the way they should be honored. That’s far more fitting than trying to elevate players like Wright to the levels of Seaver.
In the end, there’s nothing wrong with not having many numbers retired. In many ways, that makes that honor all the more meaningful. It’s better to keep it that way while also finding an appropriate way to honor the Mets greats who aren’t in the Hall of Fame.
With the scare of Davey Johnson being sick in the hospital with COVID19, the Mets were in danger of losing their second franchise great in less than a year. Tom Seaver will never be around to see his statue, but Johnson could be around to see his number retired.
The Mets standards for retiring numbers is all over the place. Casey Stengel was the first for, well, it wasn’t his performance as manager. That’s for sure.
Then, it was Gil Hodges. His number was posthumously retired a little more than a year after his tragic death. His guiding the Miracle Mets certainly factored into this decision.
After that, for the longest time, only Hall of Famers had their number retired. Yes, Seaver’s number was retired before his induction, but his induction was a fait accompli. For his part, Mike Piazza had to wait for his induction.
Things have changed with Jerry Koosman now getting his number retired. With that happening, it’s hard to ascertain where the line now is. Wherever it is, one thing should be clear – Davey Johnson should have his number retired.
Johnson is arguably the best manager in Mets history. In fact, in the 59 year history of the Mets, he remains the only manager to win two division titles. That’s a record which will stand for at least two more years.
That’s not the only records Johnson has. He’s the only manager to have never finished below second place. His .588 winning percentage still rates first. The same for his 595 wins.
He’s the only Mets manager to have five consecutive 90+ win seasons.He’s the only manager to have multiple 100 win seasons.
In fact, his 1986 Mets are one of the best teams of all-time. In fact, since World War II, no National League team has won more games than that Mets team won that season. As we all know, the Mets won the World Series that year.
With that, he joined Grote as only one of two Mets managers to win a World Series.
The way Johnson did it was truly unique. He was one of the first managers noted for what we now deem an analytical approach. Before games, he used to scour over computer printouts to not only try to maximize his lineup, but also to try to find an edge. As his record indicates, he was very successful.
He also was unique in that he was not always beholden to veterans. In fact, one of the reasons the Mets were so successful early on is Johnson went with the talented Mets core. That included his pushing Frank Cashen to call Dwight Gooden up for the 1984 season.
That was a very bold decision which helped deliver the Mets a World Series title three years later.
Johnson did his part getting the most out of those young Mets on the field. Although, there will forever be the question if his laidback style managing personal lives had a negative impact. To be fair, it’s hard to pin substance abuse issues on just a manager. That’s an unfair criticism.
Overall, Johnson wasn’t just the winningest manager in Mets history, he’s also a revolutionary figure in the game. He’s as important a figure in team history, and in many ways, he’s the best manager in Mets history.
Really, it’s hard to imagine anyone can do what he did. The winning. Changing the way the game is managed. All of it. And that is exactly why the Mets should retire his number.
Typically speaking, deciding who is “THE BEST” at something is a futile endeavor. After all, trying to apply objective measures to reach a subjective opinion is a concept somewhat at odds with itself.
In terms of baseball, it’s nearly impossible with the change of eras. Should Babe Ruth be considered the best ever when he played before integration? Should Barry Bonds be disqualified due to PEDs? Should we split the difference and say it’s Willie Mays?
Again, there’s just too many factors at play to determine who is THE BEST. To that end, we should look at this more as who’s in the discussion rather than who is atop the list.
In terms of the Mets, we know Tom Seaver is the best player to ever play for the team. That’s one of the rare instances where it’s clear-cut. It’s far from clear-cut on the manager side.
For 25 years, it was clearly Gil Hodges. He led the Miracle Mets to the 1969 World Series partially due to innovation. Hodges utilized platoons, and he might’ve been the first manager to utilize a five man rotation.
As we all know Hodges never got the chance to cement himself as the best manager ever as he suddenly died of a heart attack on the eve of the 1972 season. You can’t help but wonder what he could’ve done with the Mets getting Rusty Staub.
In 1984, the Mets hired Davey Johnson, who arguably went on to become the best manager in team history. In addition to winning the 1986 World Series, his teams never finished lower than second in the division.
Johnson was also the only Mets manager to win multiple division titles. In his tenure, his teams averaged 96 wins. It’s part of the reason why he has the most wins and highest winning percentage. Those were the Mets glory years, and he was at the helm.
Arguably, Hodges and Johnson are the Mets two best managers. However, there could be a case for Bobby Valentine.
Valentine is third in terms of wins and winning percentage. He came one year short of Johnson’s team record by having five consecutive winning seasons. However, notably, Valentine’s teams were not as loaded as Johnson’s.
Despite that, Valentine was the first Mets manager to lead the team to consecutive postseasons. He’s the only Mets manager to lead his team to a postseason series victory in consecutive seasons. In fact, he’s the only one to do it in any two seasons.
Overall, that’s the top three, and people should feel comfortable ranking them as they see fit. There’s a justifiable reason to put them in any order from 1-3. That said, Hodges and Johnson have the edge having won a Word Series.
After that trio, it’s fair to say Willie Randolph was a clear fourth. In addition to his leading the Mets to the 2006 NLCS, he never had a losing record while amassing the second best winning percentage in team history. His hand in developing David Wright and Jose Reyes to not only reach their potential, but also handling the city should never be discounted.
Honestly, if that isn’t your 1-4, you’re simply doing it wrong.
Terry Collins has a losing record and the most losses in team history. He blew a World Series. He also unapologetically destroyed reliever careers (see Tim Byrdak, Jim Henderson) while admitting he didn’t want to develop young players like Michael Conforto.
Yogi Berra was the manager who led the Mets to their second pennant, but he also finished with a sub .500 career despite having a World Series contending type of roster for part of his tenure.
After that, well, just consider there are only six Mets managers with a winning record. Two of them, Bud Harrelson and Mickey Callaway, were not generally well regarded for their managerial abilities. After that, there’s a lot of bad, including Hall of Famers Casey Stengel and Joe Torre.
Through Mets history, it’s clear who the four best managers are even if the order isn’t nearly as clear. Past them, it’s an uninspiring debate among pretty poor choices.
In the end, your list is personal to you, and no one can quite tell you you’re right or wrong. That is unless you do something monumentally stupid like having Hodges outside the top three or putting Stengel on your list.
Short of that, everyone’s opinions are valid, and it’s a fun debate. And remember, that’s all this is – a fun debate. It’s nothing more than that because you can’t definitely prove one is better than the other.