While the Mets are busy signing their arbitration-eligible guys and pursuing even more relief pitchers (keep your eyes peeled for that METS GIVE HAND JOB headline in the Post), some of their guys are trying on new uni numbers.
Some of the activity relates to new reliever Trevor May who evidently will retain the same No. 65 he wore in his previous job with the Twins. That means a switch for newly re-signed bullpenner Robert Gsellman, who rosters now list in 44. I’ve railed against offensive-line numbers for major leaguers for some time now but there was something appropriate to the 65 hanging beneath the broad shoulders of Gsellman, as the digits mimic the unique spelling on the name above them: 65ELLMAN, right? It’s a gshame. 
On the other hand, Gsellman could probably stand to switch his career up in a lot of ways. Gselly inherits 44 from two-time Met (and three-time ex-Met), Rene Rivera who wore 44 briefly last year, and before than in 2016. Rivera also hung around their minors in 2008 but never appeared.
In a downward move that makes more sense, David Peterson has dropped 54 digits from his ridiculous 77 he wore last season and is now listed as 23. We’ll have to check and see what that means for coach Brian Schneider, who wore it last year and appears currently numberless on the roster.
Catching up on additional 40-man roster stuff, the Mets.com roster lists James McCann as expected in No. 33; utilityman Robel Garcia in 00; and the curiously acquired slugger Jose Martinez as 53, while pitching candidates Jacob Barnes, Sam McWilliams and Stephen Tarpley along with catcher Patrick Mazeika, remain unassigned. If these seeming assignments hold, look for pitching coach Jeremy Hefner and Mascot Mr Met to have a new assignments. And Hefner joins Schneider, Jeremy Accardo (59 reassigned to Carlos Carrasco), Dave Jauss, and Tony Tarasco as coaches awaiting new assignments.
Also on the radar: some guys who had assignments last year (Corey Oswalt 55, Drew Smith 62, Ali Sanchez 70) appear unassigned. I do hope this means more deflation.
Wow. So quite a bit has happened since we last caught up. As I’d mentioned I’d sort of involuntarily 
I’m not overstating it even a little bit when I say the Wilpons’ stunning incompetence and inability to learn despite making the same mistakes over and over and over again had so badly damaged my enthusiasm for the club I was losing interest in something as natural and enjoyable as this goofy little project. I understand that there’s no sure bets in life and financial realities interfere from time to time, but it was never too big an ask that an owner avoid actively making the process of rooting for a team you love an exercise in futility and self-hatred. How hard could it be to sell the Mets to Mets fans?
The Mets have lots of possibilities again. Brodie didn’t necessarily screw up everything beyond what ought to have been decent chances this year and last, thanks mainly to the core assembled by his predecessor and successor.
Thanks to Faith & Fear’s Greg Prince for pointing out the other day that with Miguel Castro in town and wearing No. 50, the Mets had quietly assigned coach Jeremy Accardo with No. 59. Great, I thought, this solves another mystery–only to discover that seemingly revealed another conflict.
Apologies if you used my data to order your Hensley Muelens jerseys and shirseys, but the bench coach was and had been listed as 58 since his arrival and not the 59 I mistyped when entering into the database. This was even reflected in our previous posts on the topic, so sorry for overlooking that. We’re up to date!
I confess not to like seeing Todd Frazier in any uniform with Mets on the front, never mind what’s on the back. And I don’t mean it that way. What I mean is, I don’t like seeing Todd Frazier hit. His swing has to be the most aesthetically displeasing in the game, perhaps even, the ugliest swing in team history. Leaning over, one handed, I don’t even know how he does that. Can you think of one any worse?
Defensively, Frazier is perfectly easy to watch by the way. I’m surprised as many of you guys are that he’s wearing 33 but as we suspected below, Billy Hamilton was designated for assignment and so I’d expect Frazier to get back 21 soon (I spotted him in the dugout yesterday still wearing 33). Erasmo Ramirez, a journeyman reliever whom I believe was also hanging around in spring training, has been called up and issued No. 43. If and when he appears it Ramirez would be the first Nicaraguan ever to join the Mets.
In the meantime I’m still trying to figure out the implications of Miguel Castro’s issuance of No. 50. The Mets roster still lists pitching strategist Jeremy Accardo as wearing 50 but interestingly, sharp-eyed MBTN reader Chris points out the same roster now lists Jeremy Hefner in 93 and not 53. Did the Jeremys switch up and not tell anyone? Since I’ve rarely actually seen these guys in uniform (they wear, you know, uni pants and undershirts for the most part) I don’t know. For now it interferes with the data.
upgrade on Ali Sanchez or Tomas Nido as a reserve but I’m already confusing him with Ramon Castro and Rod Barajas and any number of chunky Latin backstops who’ve passed through. Wearing the No. 61 jersey most recently belonging to DFA’ed pitcher Walker Lockett could distinguish him; having never traded Kevin Plawecki for Lockett in the first place might have helped more.
And not to continue with the stereotypes but Miguel Castro–acquired for a legit lefthanded starting prospect, Kevin Smith–looks like your standard crooked-cap-wearing reliever with good strikeout figures and lousy stats otherwise. At 25 and with a contract that keep him on the club for another year cheaply, he’ll get a look and could still succeed, and also, could not. Castro gets No. 50 and another Uni Controversy given tat’s the number also assigned to Jeremy Accardo, the pitching coach. Stay tuned!
If he can get to opening day before being traded to another club, it looks like Dominic Smith will do so with a new number.
Readers and attendees of yesterday’s Fan Fest at Citifield reported seeing baseball’s most popular reserve first baseman sporting No. 2. That’s evidently because newly arrived Rick Porcello took 22 from him, although as relayed by Matt in the comments in the below section:
Since our last update you must be well aware the Mets were secondary effect victims of the Houston cheating scandal and so beat Carlos Beltran out of town like a bat into a trash can. As you know I wasn’t exactly on board with Beltran to start with, so while it all looks wobbly for the Mets the pivot to Luis Rojas probably isn’t all bad. I could see a small danger in providing a rookie skipper so little time to prepare for his first Spring Training–I tend to believe that smooth springs are a sign, if not the only sign, of good things ahead–and am aware of how poor starts in both his years were among the things that doomed Mickey Callaway’s clubs so count me as cautiously optimistic.
Now, what number will he wear? Rojas in previous outings with the Mets has worn No. 60 as a guest coach and last year, a “quality control” coach. A look at the developing Mets roster would suggest however that 60 is assigned currently to both Rojas and assistant pitching coach Jeremy Accardo. We’ll figure it all out soon I hope.
Marcus Stroman, who already made 
I’m also left to wonder what this will mean to the newly 
Let’s also wait and see what Stroman finally settles on. Will he continue to buck tradition and take a single digit? If so there’s but two choices and a similarly wobbly third: Zero is available now; 2 belongs to the free-agent-to-be-but-I’d-sure-love-to-be-back infielder Joe Panik; and then there’s 8, which has gone unissued now for 17 years (!!) as the Mets seemingly make up their minds on Gary Carter’s legacy (If you’re listening Mets, don’t do it. 
Name the St. Lucie minor league team the Kids instead. Give out a Gary Carter Award every year for the team’s best citizen. Don’t take out numbers for guys with 2 good years on the club and more concrete legacies elsewhere).
Personally I’ve always been uneasy about the precedent of retiring numbers and find the “fans want it” defense weak. I’d prefer they re-issue the good ones. Mickey Callaway of all people talked about what an honor it was to have worn 36 but sitting there in his new number 26, also confessed he didn’t care what number he wore, as long as it didn’t belong to a player. On message as always!
This Stroman fellow, you may know, is noted for the unusual No. 6 he wears on his Blue Jays duds. This he related, owes to his grandmother’s birthday (March 6) and portends a showdown with current occupant Jeff McNeil. The Mets have never had a single-digited pitcher, though positional players pitching (Desi Relaford in 8 and Todd Zeile in 9, also Jose Reyes in 7) have made appearances.