Interesting article I recently came across (not literally) about the Cubs planning to retire No. 31 this summer as a tribute to Hall of Famer Fergie Jenkins and future Hall of Famer Greg Maddux, both of whom wore No. 31 when pitching for the Cubs. In the meantime, they plan to take their time when it comes to Sammy Sosa, whose No. 21 is expected to be issued this year to Milton Bradley.
The article quotes Mark McGwire, the Cubs’ executive vice president for business operations:
“We’ve gotten into a situation where we’ve been really tough about retiring numbers. We actually have an in-house standard of people getting in the Hall of Fame before the organization would even consider retiring his number. There’s some discussion this year because of No. 31 and the unique status of Mr. Maddux and Fergie Jenkins that we may go ahead and do something this summer.
“With Sammy, time has a way of healing a lot of things, and we’ll just see how it works itself out. I don’t think we’ll be escalating our program in that regard.”
I have to say I applaud the Cubs’ rigid standards and suggest that Met fans unhappy about the number of of Mets to have their numbers retired direct their energies not toward making it up with players of the past but rooting for situations where a decision will be an easy one in the future.
I sometimes think the attention around No. 17 gets way out of hand, for instance. Keith knows how he’s got us by the nads and, I think, gets a kick out of tugging them from time to time. I’ve always been indifferent to whole idea of retiring his number, mainly because of the slippery slope that was the 1980s Mets (if you retire 17, so you must 16 and 18, and 8 and 1, and 47 and so on). Hernandez also didn’t fashion a career with the Mets exclusively (in fact may have had more success in a rival’s clothes) and hasn’t (yet) attained a place in the Hall of Fame (though I and a veteran’s committee might be convinced still of that).
17’s route to immortality will be, like 21 in Chicago, dependent some on how the future views Hernandez. His announcing gig — and forthcoming book — no doubt has his popular estimation on the rise and will continue to add to his lagacy, so I wouldn’t be strongly opposed when that day comes but know this: It hasn’t come yet. It’d be a no-brainer otherwise.
* * *
The Mets you have may have seen have inked gangly pitcher Freddy Garcia and outfielder/utilityman Rob Mackowiak to minor league deals and invited them both to spring training. The oft-injured and well-traveled Garcia has worn 34 everywhere he’s played: It will be interesting to see whether Mike Pelfrey has any attachment to it in the event Garcia makes the club. Macklowiak, who seems a threat to Marlon Anderson (lefty, multipurpose player, with a weak bat) will take what he’s given. He’s worn 59 in Pittsburgh, 10 with the White Sox and 12 with Washington.








As for the impact on jersey numbers,
But let us not forget that going into the new season with a reliable closer only puts the Mets on the exact same footing they were the last three seasons, and none of them ended quite like we wanted. And none of those years began with ownership pledging an idiotic credo of “addition by subtraction,” which plays great on WFAN but seems naive and foolish at best in practice. And, inasmuch as paying top dollar for the top reliever indicates the Mets intend to “go for it” once again in 2009, my concerns — beyond what number Rodriguez might wear since