The New York Mets have reached seven postseasons in 52 years. Two of them ended perfectly. Five of them didn’t. Those five were forwarded to you for your cosmic reconstructive surgery consideration, along with the request that you choose only one for historical repair. I read everything that was written in response — not just in the FAFIF comments section, but throughout other venues where the question was posed and the subject given careful thought — and I have to agree with your conclusion.

***

You guys say it has to be 1973, and for very good reason.

• “A World Series for Willie as a Met.”

• “Rusty should have one.”

• “I was 13 years old and many of the guys from 1969 were still on the team.”

• “Those guys worked hard and almost got it. I will never ever forget that team, and I have forgotten most of all the other seasons.”

• “I was 15 years old. Every kid should have their team win a championship when they are 15 years old (with certain notable exceptions, of course).”

• “My second year of Mets fandom — would have been wonderful.”

• “You had me at Rusty Staub, Series MVP, plus the serious Hall of Fame consideration he deserved. ’73 had that perfect combination of scrappy, high-spirited underdogs, with a foundation of amazing talent. Seaver, Koosman, Matlack, and Tug; Rusty, Cleon, Buddy, Felix Millan, and just-an-honor-to-be-on-the-field-with-him Willie Mays. Merely typing those names is a thrill. And after that rollercoaster playoff series against the Big Red Machine, to then wipe the A’s dynasty off the map? Such celebrations the baseball world has not seen since…well, we didn’t get to see it then either.”

• “I have to choose 1973, because my father would be alive to enjoy it with me, and because Ya Gotta Believe.”

• “1973 changes everything. The pain of all the other near-misses is quenched if Yogi does not mismanage his rotation for games 6 and 7. The Mets are forever cast as a good or decent team, and not the accidental champions of 1969 and 1986. And perhaps so many more championships would have followed, with fewer of the near-misses listed above. Without question, 1973.”

• “No Wild Card — just a wild season!! That delirious ending, that five-game playoff win!! Beating the A’s would have been glorious.”

• “Maybe the late ’70s Mets malaise wouldn’t have happened if the 1973 Mets were WS champs. Willie Mays, on his knees, pleading.
 The damned Wilpons made short shrift of 1973 this past season, the cheapskates. Should have been a full tribute with those California critters G.T. Seaver and Willie Howard Mays the stars, along with Le Grand Orange. With a Tim McGraw post-game concert.”

***

Also, you guys say it has to be 1988, and your reasoning was very sound.

• “For me the one that got away was 1988. We had the better team by far, and they got overconfident, then underplayed, and went out with a whimper. Plus, the pain of losing the playoffs is worse than the pain of losing the World Series. That was in the bag. And then it was gone.”

• “The ’88 team was by far the best of that bunch.”

• “It would have solidified the Mets as the team of the ’80s and unlike 1986, I was old enough to remember and enjoy it.”

• “1988 was the best Mets team there ever was or ever will be. They had upgraded several positions since 86. The rotation was better. They didn’t win quite as many games as they did in ’86, but they dominated the NL and the 1980-83 Islanders had already showed us the trick of dialing it down a bit during the long regular season, saving something for the playoffs. Maybe the Mets had recurring issues with the Cardinals, but once they made the playoffs, they were unbeatable. Even in the most dire October circumstance, they would always rally. Such was the false lesson of 1986. 1988 was the year the dynasty finally materialized. There was no way we were going to lose to the Dodgers, who had lost so many lopsided games to us during the season. Mets-A’s was going to pit the two best teams of a generation, but the Mets’ rotation was going to be the difference. I KNEW this. And a Mets Series victory would have cemented the Mets as permanent fixtures at the top of NY sports. They have never had so much at stake, and they never had so much reason to believe that THIS was the defining year for the franchise. 1988.”

• “The ones that hurt the most were ’88 and ’06 because of the ways that they lost. Reading your prose, I could feel the pain and regret return for those two more than the others. I went with ’88 because of Davey, Doc, Keith and Gary and how that would have been a dynasty, not a one-off.”

• “I have to pick 1988. I still can’t believe they lost to that Dodger team. Game 4 is the worst day of being a Mets fan.”

• “I don’t see how you can pick anything except 1988. That team was better than any of the others, they had already won once, and they should have won the NLCS, if not the whole enchilada.”

• “It has to be 1988. Imagine having our own mini dynasty to point to.”

• “Two titles in three years would have cemented the late-’80s Mets as an all-time great in the game, not just the best teams in franchise history. I remember the last weekend of July and first one in August quite vividly, which is when I thought they really won the NL East. Bobby O and El Sid pitched shutouts at Shea, with Elster homering in the 8th inning of the Friday game against John Smiley. Watching that night on Channel 9, it was the loudest Shea had been since the ’86 Series as Elster circled the bases and later came out for a curtain call. Pendleton game in reverse perhaps? That’s actually one of several 1988 games I wish SNY would air as a Mets Classic. Then the next weekend at Three Rivers, hamstring-addled Keith homers one night to win a game, they rally from 3-1 down the next night, then score 4 in the 9th on Sunday. (They lost 1-0 the next night to some guy named Rick Reed. Whatever became of him?)”

• “The 1988 team was superb, much better balanced than the later ones that lost.”

• “1988 would have changed the team’s history.”

• “I’ll go with 1988, because it’s the one that made me the most unhappy. Actually, I guess 1973 did (I was ten, and they sent me to the guidance counselor to find out what the hell was wrong with me. Smart lady, she figured it out.) But that’s mitigated by how lucky they were to be there. I voted for 1988 because the Mets were more important to me then than they were in 2000.”

• “’88 hurt the most as IMO the Mets were the class of the NL that year and a WS appearance seemed so inevitable. that was a real blow. It wasn’t just that they lost to a clearly inferior (except for that series) team, it was HOW they lost. Soscia’s (I know it’s misspelled but I don’t care) wasn’t just a death blow to the Mets, it was the end of ‘dominant Doc’ as well. If only Bobby O had waited until the season was over to trim those hedges, if only Coney had kept his trap shut, if only Keith and Gary didn’t suddenly get old….sigh.”

***

Furthermore, you guys say it has to be 1999, and I can’t argue with any of the reasons given.

• “90% of my moral upbringing was learning to be OK with crushed Metsian hopes. But sublime happiness > character building. ’99.”

• “Put me down for ’99 over the Yanks. Leiter for MVP. All three Mets WS MVPs wear #22.”

• “1999!”

• “Beat the Braves and the Yankees in 1999 and the whole world of baseball changes.”

• “Shea Stadium is a madhouse on Saturday night, October 30th, as the Mets, behind Al Leiter, close out the Yankees…winning the final game of the 20th Century and bringing home their 3rd World Series Championship. Afterward, Bobby Valentine proclaims the 1999 Mets ‘The Greatest Mets team ever assembled.’ Reserve Outfielder Shawon Dunston, tears streaming down his cheeks, gives his now-legendary ‘I am so proud to be a Met’ speech. The quote is posted above the doors to the Mets Hall of Fame and Museum at Citi Field. Piazza, who played the entire month on fumes, is jubilant, saying ‘This is why I stayed here! Winning a World Series outdistances anything I’ve ever accomplished in my career.’ Many Mets fans agree with Valentine. The 1999 team lives forever in the hearts of Mets fans. Sound good? I like it too.”

• “That team was so likable and hard-working that if they didn’t win a championship since then it wouldn’t have mattered.”

• “It really was The Best Infield Ever (no offense to Todd Zeile & Mike Bordick).”

• “The Grand Slam Single could be part of the first-ever comeback from 3 games down to win the LCS.”

• “Definitely 1999 because we would’ve been the first to come back down 3-0 and then beat that other team. Mojo Risin’!”

• “Of course, ’99 also means Yankees lose, and gives momentum for the 2000 WS that I greedily want as well.”

• “In addition to getting to beat the Yankees in the Series, they’d get to beat the Braves in the NLCS. I’m biased by the fact that I was 16 that year & had the time to fully enjoy it. Plus my grandpa would’ve been alive to see it.”

• “1999, because 13-year-old me deserves it.”

• “Loved that team more than any other in my adult life, still believe if Olerud is back in 2000 the ring is ours.”

• “Had they won in ’99, the LCS victory would have been the first-ever comeback from 3-0 in MLB.”

• “Would have loved for them to beat those f-ing Braves. Plus, that was some of the most exciting postseason baseball of my life, despite them losing all the marbles.”

• “The Grand Slam Single isn’t just important-to-Met-fans weirdness, it’s the nationally-famous keystone of a Met comeback, Kirk Gibson and Dave Roberts in ’04 wrapped into one. Fonzie’s slam in NLDS Game 1, Pratt’s in Game 4…these are Moments now. And who’s to say ’00 ends the same way if you roll the bones on ’99? Who’s to say the MFYs don’t make some more ill-advised spending than they did? Who’s to say Joe Torre is a Hall of Famer now? Who’s to say 1999 isn’t a magic bullet for BOTH years?”

• “The parameters say the Mets won’t win those other years, but it doesn’t say the way it doesn’t happen remains the same. So in my fantasy, the Yankees losing in ’99 makes them make different moves that don’t work out the same way and the Mets lose to the Mariners, not the Yankees, in ’00.”

• “I’m sticking with 1999 cuz I loved that team, and it means the Mets will play in back-to-back World Series for the first and only time, and even though it means losing to the Yankees in 2000, the Mets will still have won the first postseason meeting between the two teams.”

• “I agree Clemens would have gone down as a thug and a dud and the Yankees would never have had the three-peat that’s given them a stranglehold on baseball in this town to this day. The Met teams of that era never got the credit they deserved.”

• “I’ve gotta go with ’99, but only if the changing point is Game 6. Think about how celebrated the 2004 Red Sox have been, now picture the Mets beating them to the punch, only even better — Mets come back from 3 games to none deficit against division rival that has had their number for a decade, with 3 straight classic games (come from behind win in 8th inning in Game 4, Grand Slam single in Game 5, come back from 5-run first-inning deficit to win in extras in Game 6), and then win however they wanted to in Game 7. Then, off to the first Subway Series in 43 years (everyone voting for 2000 seems to forget that they would have gone through the Yankees in ’99 as well), and they beat the freaking Evil Empire, preventing them from becoming a dynasty. That was my favorite Mets team, and it would have been amazing for them to win it all. Mike Piazza would already be in the Hall of Fame in a Mets hat, Edgardo Alfonzo would rightly be recognized as an all-time great Met (and would have at the very least been on the freaking HOF Ballot — what a snub that he was left off a few years ago). Even if 2000 played out exactly the same way, the sting of losing to the Yankees would be so much less if it was just them evening up the tally.”

• “’99 felt right going through the playoffs, was a great combination of players and after the grand slam single everything seemed to come together. Then Kenny Rogers didn’t know when to hold them, fold them or throw them into the strike zone.”

• “They were better than the Yankees and top to bottom they were a monster team. If Kenny Rogers was a man and didn’t WALK Andruw Jones, we would have won that series and defeated the Yankees.”

• “That team was stacked & that postseason was epic.”

• “When I first started reading this post, I automatically pointed to 2000 since beating the Evil Ones makes everything right with the world. But by the end of the post, I saw that 1999 would really have been the one to get. First, we would get to beat that team from the Confederacy thereby changing the aura of that place they call a ballfield. And then, totally break up the dominance and 4 out of 5 titles that the Evil Ones amassed. Maybe even shaking things up enough to change the 2000 results as well. 1999 would have become the first Subway Series and the one to get. The ’99 team was a lot of fun to watch and a championship that year would have gone a long way toward restoring the Mets to their rightful place as NY’s team.”

• “I would like to see the ’99 team as WS champs. The greatest infield ever receives the national and historical recognition only we in the blue and orange glasses duly give them.”

• “That team was so good. Maybe the perspective of the Mets as champions and the Yankees as losers alters the offseason philosophy enough so that it leads to a Mets loss to Seattle in 2000 instead. Maybe John Olerud sticks around more. Maybe we get Bobby Valentine longer, because he gets a longer leash for having won a title.”

• “It has to be 1999. If they had finished the job against Atlanta and then beat the Yankees (who, in my opinion, were better in ’99 than in ’98)? After that incredible, magical run and all of those ridiculously Amazin’ moments?? That goes down as the greatest championship run by any team in baseball history. AND that team was only getting better. So I’ll take my 1999 World Champion New York Mets, my first-ballot hall of famer and forever #31 Mike Piazza and run with it. And I’ll rest peacefully knowing my favorite player growing up, Mr. Alois Terry Leiter, never called a single game for the Yankees on YES.”

• “The Mets beat the Braves and the MFYs and Mike ‘Dolphin Face’ Hampton never becomes a Met.”

• “1999, but only if Griffey ends up a Met the off season afterwards. Yes, that means trading Fonzie but I get to see my all-time favorite player in Griffey play for my favorite team.”

• “Since we’re fantasizing, can’t we just win in ’99 & somehow trade for Hampton, lose him to Colorado and still draft Wright?”

• “I like to think that winning in ’99 begets winning again in 2000. Both vs the Yankees. Quickly and decisively returning us to the top dog in town, the destination of choice for free agents. The fin de siècle Mets are remembered as one of the greatest dynasties of all time. Runaway financial success ensues, meaning the Wilpons aren’t dumb/desperate enough to fall for the Madoff scam. Mike Piazza is, as he should be, a first-ballot HoFer sporting a Mets cap. Yankee attendance and ratings plunge, Steinbrenner panics and trades Rivera and Jeter for, I dunno, Nomar, and the team moves to New Jersey and becomes an afterthought, the Padres of the East Coast. All is well.”

***

Did I mention you guys say it has to be 2000? And you’ve got all the reason-bases covered as far as I’m concerned.

• “Gotta be the Subway Series. Winning that would dominate every Metsian highlight reel for all time.”

• “My choice would be a 2000 WS victory over the hated crosstown rivals, without hesitation or reservation. We would always have had that trophy to hold over the pointed little heads of their fans, regardless of the other 26 they hold. Instead, as things unfolded, we heard their braying without end. So, the year 2000 has my vote.”

• “I am shocked 2000 isn’t the unanimous vote. Beating the Yankees would carried us for decades.”

• “2000, because it was the goddamn Yankees. Think of how easy it would be to shut down obnoxious Yankee fans forever if only they had beaten them the one time they met. It was there for the taking, they just didn’t take it. This would have worked for 1999 as well, but there would have been an extra layer of playoffs to undo.”

• “Beating the Skanks would have been the ultimate.”

• “It’s 2000. There really isn’t an argument. Multiply the Mlicki game by a million and you have a starting-off point.”

• “’00 of course, to beat the Yanks.”

• “Had to go for 2000. In fact, given the ’roided-up nature of those cheating MFY bastards, I want it awarded retroactively. So many moments in that series just hurt. RUN, TIMO!!!”

• “’00 so I could shut Yankee fans up.”

• “The 2000 postseason has a frustration all its own due, of course, to the opponent. Add to that that we were probably the better team there, too, despite the lopsided previous half-decade, that all the losses (and the lone win for that matter) were 1- or 2-run games, and mainly to the fact that the team just played so shitty in those five games.”

• “Nothing would’ve topped taking down that other NY team.”

• “2000. Can’t imagine anything being better than beating the Yankees in the W.S.”

• “I’ll go with 2000. Beating the Yankees in the World Series would have been the best.”

• “Ditto on ’00. All this would be worth it if they’d won against Satan’s nine, or if I could know that they’d one day right that wrong. I’ll go to my grave wishing on a 2000 win vs. NYY.”

• “I assume that with all of the good side effects, it wouldn’t lead to any more championships. I choose beating the yanks in ’00.”

• “I’d trade Jets ’69 SB win for ’00 WS win.”

• “It’s 2000 for me. Zeile’s drive isn’t swatted down by the hand of god in Game 1, Mets win. Clemens is ejected in Game 2 and Piazza gives the Mets the lead after taking Rivera deep. Armando pitches the 9th inning of Game 4 and the Yanks get only one, Piazza takes Rivera deep again to win the World Series in a sweep. I’d STILL be smiling. The rest of the decade would play out exactly the same, most likely. There’d still be a lot of hurt. But we’d have made up for ’99’s shortcomings, and we’d have crushed the Yankees when it mattered. The inferiority complex that’s been nourished since 1996 would be drastically reduced, possibly done away with.”

• “I’d say the 2000 subway series. Heartbreaker. I was at game five, so that’s partly why.”

• “2000, since the steroid-riddled Yankees shouldn’t have even been there.”

• “2000! Take ’roids out of the game and they likely would have been the champs.”

• “The injustice of them getting away with the attempted bat assault, NEGATED!”

• “I took 2000, probably because I remember it the best and it was the MFY’s who won so lopsidedly. And this.”

• “My gut says 2000, because the city would have been won back. In 1973 and 1988, that wasn’t an issue. In 2006, well, it wouldn’t have been an issue had they won in 2000. It would snatch a CRIMINALLY REPUGNANT championship from the Yankees. Dawn of a new century and sunset on the cheating-assed Yankees and sunrise on the Mets? Where do I sign? 2-0-0-0. Winning the championship is wonderful. Taking it away from the Yankees, well, glory be.”

• “2000. Fuck the Yankees.”

• “I’m leaning toward picking 2000 for the Mets 3d WS. In doing so, I’m sacrificing my personal needs for the greater good of the Mets community. I sure as hell wasn’t no wide-eyed and still mostly innocent elementary schooler in 2000 — like I was in 1973 — but many other Met fans were.”

• “Loved the 2000 team. That was a magical time, plus it was my first real taste of Mets playoffs. Loved that postseason.”

• “The 2006 team was dominant wire-to-wire and was fun to root for. That said, nothing would have been better than beating the Yankees in 2000.”

• “I’m torn between 1999, the year of the best infield ever, according to Sports Illustrated, and 2000. I think 2000 gets it, just to best the Yankees and shut up all those fans.”

• “’99 would have been great but the loss in 2000 still hurts today.”

• “I was strongly considering ’06. Despite my greater age, I was much more into that team than I was the ’88 squad. But there’s no way to turn down ’00.”

• “Wow. Tough! Going w/2000. ’73 diminishes ’69. ’88 diminishes ’86. ’99 still loses to Yanks in ’00. Oliver Perez a WS champ in ’06? Ha!”

• “While a strong argument can be made for each choice and even 40 years haven’t softened all of the sting from ’73, for me it’s 2000, hands down. And for all of Greg’s eloquent explanations and what-if dominoes falling tied to that contingency, I could take the liberty of editing everything he wrote down to ‘Mets beat Yankees.’ ’Nuff said.”

• “How can anyone not vote for the Mets to retroactively beat the MFYs in ’00? I don’t know how any other year is even a consideration. Even the ’99 season didn’t end with us actually losing a WS to the MFYs, so it doesn’t present us with the opportunity to reverse that very real loss, just a theoretical loss that never happened, because we never made it the Series to begin with.”

• “I would vote for 2000, 2000 out of 2000 times. Think of how less stressful our lives would be. I can’t keep going to the Mlicki well.”

• “Why any Mets fan would not choose 2000 above all other seasons is beyond me. If they beat the Yankees in that World Series it does two things: 1) Once and for all shut up all the incessant Yankees fans and their puffy-chested nonsense by always referring to the World Series they lost to the Mets.
 2) See no. 1.”

• “I’d even settle for taking it to a sixth game so I didn’t have to watch the Yankees celebrate in our house.”

***

Finally, you guys say it has to be 2006. I can’t say you’re wrong about any of the reasons.

• “I agonized over this one. I distinctly remember crying over Sunday dinner in 1973 as the Mets lost game 7. But I think if the Mets win in 2006, the collapses of 2007 & 08 never happen, 3 straight division titles happen and away we go.”

• “2006. That one really crushed me.”

• “That really hurt.”

• “2006. Those guys deserved it.”

• “I moved to St. Louis from New Jersey in April 2006. I was the only guy walking around here in Mets gear. That loss will haunt me for as long as I live here. They still show that Beltran AB a million times a year on TV here, even 8 years later. It rubbed salt in the wound even more when Beltran actually PLAYED for the Cardinals. Plus, I have to listen to these pretentious “Cardinal Way, I’m better than you and I know it” Cardinals fans who nearly make you fall asleep when watching their games at Busch. I’d take that one back in a heartbeat. Oh, and one more thing: Don’t you think we’d still be talking about Endy’s catch if the Mets won the game? I’m 33 and that’s the greatest play of my lifetime, hands down.”

• “2006, if only because it would validate Endy’s catch as the greatest in postseason history.”

• “Endy’s catch goes from memorable to all-time greatest.”

• “Hmmm, ’73 for Willie Mays…no. ’88 because I hate the Dodgers…no. ’99 because I hate the Braves…no. ’00 because I hate the Yankees…no. 2006 because they were the best team that year and Endy’s catch should have taken them to the Series.”

• “I’m torn between ’99 and ’06. Making the Grand Slam Single or The Catch mean something would be Amazin’. I’m siding with ’06, as ’99 & ’00 being close together are pretty special already, but ’06 is the ripest of unplucked fruits. So much potential. Besides The Catch, the memory of Paulie taking out 2 Dodgers at home plate on the same play would be even sweeter. Delgado and Beltran leading the way, and Wright and Reyes learning the taste of winning and what it took to get there would stand them in good stead in ’07 & ’08 when the going got rough.”

• “2006. The endings to the ’99 and ’00 seasons are colored by but aren’t defined by how they ended.”

• “Not choosing ’06 in this survey is boggling. The Endy highlight always ends w/Beltran looking. What I wouldn’t give to change that.”

• “That’s when we became the Cubbies or 21st-century Red Sox.”

• “Molina doesn’t hit that homer and the fate of the franchise changes forever.”

• “I picked 2006. Beltran just sitting on that big dumb curveball and then punching that thing into outer fucking space.”

• “2006. If only to erase Beltran’s strikeout against Wainwright. To me, the most painful, deflating moment in Mets postseason history.”

• “After that, it was one heartbreaking season after another.”

• “2000 would have been awesome, but losing in 2006 after Endy Chavez’s catch seemed like something more sinister.”

• “They were better — they should’ve won that series. Definitely would’ve beaten Detroit.”

• “This is a pretty easy choice for me. 2006 all the way. I grew up in NY and now live in NC. I was only 9 years old during 2000 and though I’ll never forget that, I wasn’t really old enough to truly grasp the magnitude of that series. 2006, however, still hurts…badly. I remember driving home with my dad from school the day of game seven and saying to my dad, ‘if we win today, we’re going to the World Series,’ and I proceeded to pace around the house for the next several hours. After Endy’s catch I immediately got a phone call from a friend who knew how important it was to me and it was one of those moments where you felt like they just couldn’t lose after that. Obviously they did and the memory haunts me to this day and I’d probably give anything to get that one back. However, that season truly defined the fan that I am today.”

• “I have been a fan for 50 years. 1988 was brutal and I still have emotional scars from 2000 (need I say that I live in Yankee country) but I have to vote for 2006. I understand how good Beltran was for us but I will never be able to erase that strikeout from my mind. Absolutely devastating.”

• “It’s really tempting to go with beating the Yankees in 2000, but, as an eternal pessimist, I worry about the Law of Unintended Consequences. If, for instance, Mike Hampton sticks around…well, those great Colorado schools would perhaps suffer from the lack of Hampton kids, but the Mets would also not get the compensatory draft pick from losing him that netted them David Wright. So I’m going with 2006. Because out of all the unfairly scapegoated individuals in Mets history, Carlos Beltran is my #1 pick for ‘deserved better’. And, more importantly, any Unintended Consequences certainly won’t make the following years noticeably worse.”

• “’06, if only because it’s so recent. I am still in the post-’06 phase of my life.”

• “’06 is the only one I would be old enough to remember.”

• “2006 so that I could have truly appreciated it.”

• “’06. It’s pretty good now, but I’m convinced my life would be entirely different if they’d won.”

• “2006. We were there and it was a dejected group of fans leaving Shea that night. It would have been awesome. I was with my son I have never heard Shea louder than when Endy caught that ball.”

• “I gotta go with 2006. of all the vibrations we’re living with from each of these losses, the biggest bang is from a called strike three. Beltran, the best center fielder the Mets have ever had, the best free agent signing the team ever made, leaves under a cloud, instead of staying and being regarded in the club’s pantheon where he belongs. And my son, now 16, would have at least one championship to sustain him in tough times. Yes, if 2006 happens, then 2007 and 2008 probably resolve more favorably too. And we don’t have to remember the last day at Shea as something tinged with such loss and memory that only poets can summon it. It’s remarkable the club doesn’t have more than two series wins. because each in its own way, all these teams were champions.”

• “I would choose 2006 because they would have had a good chance of bringing back the same guys the next year and repeating.”

• “I would clearly pick 2007 if you could pick any season, but given the limitations, 2006. I think this franchise is vastly different right now less than a decade removed from a title.”

• “’88 is a lesson in unpredictability, ’99 brought back hope, ’00 was a lost cause. ’06 is the one that got away.”

• “2006, if only for the symmetry.”

• “Without question 2006. Sure I would have loved to see ’73, ’88, ’99 and 2000. But those losses helped make me into the fan I am today. I think having a championship in recent years would remove much of the doom and gloom some Mets fans feel and the struggles the franchise has had in general. I also really loved that team. Jose Reyes and David Wright were so young, Beltran had a great year, Wagner proved to be a great closer and radical improvement over Braden Looper. Carlos Delgado was like Strawberry in the ’80s. So many great memories from that season — what about Endy Chavez’s catch? Woo-hoo! I so loved that team. We dominated for really the second time in our history. I’ll take that do-over please!”

• “2006. Period. Full stop.”

***

Well, there you have it. Great job, every one of you. Thanks for your input.

Tomorrow, to commemorate the ninth anniversary of Faith and Fear in Flushing, the Blog for Mets Fans Who Like to Read (and ruminate), I’ll chime in with my choice. It’s not gonna be any better than yours, but what the hell? I have my reasons, too.

I’m tempted to label this is a limited-time offer, SO ACT NOW, but actually, it’s an offer not limited by time. If it was, then it couldn’t be offered. But I’m gonna offer it.

You get to pick another Mets world championship for your collection. The catch is you have to pick it from the past, and you can choose only from the five seasons when they came close to being world champions — the five seasons when they went to the playoffs but didn’t go all the way.

On your say-so, they do go all the way. On your say-so, the Mets will have three world championships: 1969, 1986 and…

…that’s the question. Which one do you add to the wall, to the trophy case, to the flagpoles, to the media guide, to the family album? Which one, if you had to do it all over again — and by the parameters of this exercise, you do — would you pluck from the dustbin of disappointment and elevate to exalted?

Which retroactive world championship changes the course of Metropolitan events for not just the better but the best by your reckoning? Which one changes your life as a Mets fan for the best? What’s the one you’ve always wanted inverted? And why that one as opposed to the other ones?

Just to be clear, none of this dislodges 1969 or 1986. Everything you know about those two championship seasons stays exactly as is. It’s just that they now have a brother. And none of this necessarily affects 2014 and beyond. You don’t get to apply the third world championship to a future date. The Mets can still win another as soon as possible, but when they do, it will be their fourth.

Can’t help you with when that will be. I don’t do future.

You’re welcome to your ripple effect in that you can speculate as to how the Mets winning in this other year altered history, that perhaps winning that one time led to a string of successes…or somehow backfired and brought on dark times. Or you could decide that everything is as it’s always been…except now instead of the franchise narrative reading, “The Mets won the World Series twice,” it will be thrice.

The other rule is we deal in the relatively knowable. Everything that brought the Mets to the postseason series in question is as it was. If the Mets played a specific team in a particular World Series, that’s the team they retroactively defeat now. If the Mets played a specific team in a particular NLCS, that’s the team they retroactively defeat now — and then they go on to defeat the American League team that would’ve been waiting for them in the World Series that followed.

And to be clear, you have to choose. You can have only ONE historical do-over of this nature. Call it a Soler’s Choice.

Here are your Metropolitan candidates for cosmic reconstructive surgery.

1973
Instead of the Mets losing to the A’s in seven games, the Mets beat the A’s in the 1973 World Series. It could’ve very easily happened. In reality, all the Mets needed was one more win.

Maybe the ninth-inning rally that produced one run in Game Seven kept going and the Mets stormed from behind to upset the defending champions. Maybe Willie Mays came off the bench to hit for Wayne Garrett, tied the game with a three-run homer, it went to extras and Tug McGraw finished off the A’s one final time. Maybe the Mets led the whole way and Jon Matlack came out of the bullpen to relieve a tiring Tom Seaver in the bottom of the ninth after George Stone couldn’t quite close the deal the day before. Or maybe George Stone got the ball in Game Six and lived up to his 12-3 success of the regular season. Maybe Felix Millan got his glove down in Game One and Don Hahn found the warning track in Game Three and the Mets swept.

Doesn’t matter how they did it. The point is the Mets did it. The Mets won the 1973 World Series. What does it mean?

It means there is no “George Stone” decision to regret for 40 years and counting. It means Willie Mays went out on top and nobody much remembers that he fell down in center field in Game Two. It means a pair of World Series rings for Tom Seaver, Cleon Jones, Ed Kranepool and a whole bunch of 1969 & 1973 Mets. It means a championship for Rusty Staub, possibly (based on existing evidence) the World Series MVP award, maybe enough of a rise in his historical profile to merit him receiving serious Hall of Fame consideration.

It means 1969 and 1973 are a fully accredited tandem. It means nobody outside Metsopotamia doesn’t know “You Gotta Believe” isn’t a Mets thing. It means that whatever Tug does or doesn’t do for the Phillies down the road, he is primarily associated with the Mets, the team for whom he won two world championships. It means that when 2013 rolls around, the Mets don’t think about not reconvening the World Champion 1973 Mets so the fans give them the standing ovation they deserve.

It means there is no Oakland A’s dynasty as such. It means, perhaps, that Reggie Jackson enters free agentry as a less transcendent figure and perhaps doesn’t attract quite as much attention on the open market. Perhaps because he is not so glittering a star he signs with San Diego or Montreal (two teams with whom he negotiated in the fall of 1976). It means, maybe, that Catfish Hunter is a slightly less desirable commodity in 1974 when he suddenly becomes a free agent. It means, one could suppose, that the Yankees don’t necessarily sign either Jackson or Hunter and their position in New York in the late 1970s is altered.

Does it mean the Mets, winners of two world championships in five years, are differently positioned for the seasons after 1973? Do the defending world champion Mets upgrade for 1974 instead of proceeding with essentially the same cast of characters? Is Yogi Berra given more slack in 1975 because he managed the Mets to a world championship in 1973? Is Yogi still the manager by 1977? Does winning those two World Series change Seaver’s attitude toward remaining a Met? Are the Mets bigger spenders by then because they’ve continued their tradition of success?

And you — if you were around in 1973, would erasing the loss and replacing it with a win have meant everything? Would it have continued to mean everything? Would your life as a Mets fan be substantially better if you could point back to the 1973 world champion Mets? The pain you knew and have carried around with you from coming so close would be, now and forever, unadulterated pleasure. And if you weren’t around, based on everything you know, you’ve read and you’ve thought about, would you love more than anything to have the Mets have been world champions in 1969, 1973 and 1986?

How great would it be to have that one back and have it turn out right this time?

1988
Instead of the Mets losing to the Dodgers in seven games, the Mets beat the Dodgers in the 1988 National League Championship Series and then went on to defeat the A’s in the 1988 World Series. It could’ve very easily happened. In reality, all the Mets needed were five more wins.

Maybe the Mets get the best of Orel Hershiser while Ron Darling pitches a gem in Game Seven. Or buoyed by Dwight Gooden’s first career relief appearance, the Mets begin to peck away at Hershiser en route to pulling off a dramatic 7-6 comeback victory that sends them to the pennant. Or maybe it never goes seven. Maybe David Cone doesn’t sign up for a ghosted column in the Daily News and Bob Klapisch doesn’t attribute quotes about Jay Howell looking like a high school pitcher to him and Tommy Lasorda doesn’t fire up his players with such bulletin board material and the Mets leave Dodger Stadium with a 2-0 series lead. Maybe Gregg Jefferies doesn’t get hit by a batted ball while on the basepaths in Game Five.

Maybe Gooden doesn’t walk John Shelby to lead off the ninth inning of Game Four. Maybe when he does, Davey Johnson emerges from the dugout and signals with his left arm to the right field bullpen to bring in Randy Myers, whom Johnson had the foresight to have warming up entering the ninth. Or Myers started the ninth, retired Shelby and then the next batter, Mike Scioscia. Maybe Myers gets one more out besides and the Mets are on their way to dismantling the Dodgers, setting up the clash of the titans everybody anticipates against the A’s.

Doesn’t matter how they did it. The point is the Mets did it. The Mets won the 1988 World Series. What does it mean?

It means there is no “Mike Scioscia” in the Mets vernacular. It means there is no blanket dismissal of the late-’80s Mets as a dynasty that never happened. It means there are two world championships in three seasons. It means a pair of World Series rings for Gary Carter, Sid Fernandez, Mookie Wilson and a whole bunch of 1986 & 1988 Mets. It means Mackey Sasser and Kevin McReynolds, among others, are forever world champion Mets. It means Keith Hernandez and Ron Darling have an entirely different set of stories to tell as Met announcers two decades hence.

It means a comparison and contrast between 1986 and 1988 for years to come — which world championship team was better? Which ticker-tape parade was attended by more people? It means a reflexive roar goes up at Shea and later Citi when 1988 highlights are shown on the video screen. It means that in 2008, a day would’ve been set aside for the 20th anniversary celebration of the 1988 world champion Mets. It means that nearly every reference to the Mets of this era is accompanied by the phrase, “the team of the ’80s”.

It means Mike Scioscia is a vaguely recalled catcher from way back when. It means Kirk Gibson was that guy from the Tigers, wasn’t he? It means that for all of Tommy Lasorda’s bluster, he only won one World Series. It means Orel Hershiser had that sensational scoreless innings streak at the end of the 1988 regular season, but remember how he couldn’t stop the Mets when it mattered? (He was asked in 1999 about what it was like to join the team that broke his heart eleven Octobers earlier and he didn’t want to talk about it.)

Does it mean the Dodgers don’t hold quite the same attraction for free agent Darryl Strawberry in 1990 and the two-time world champion thus realizes he’s better off staying put in New York? Does it mean the Mets are more patient in 1989 and don’t trade Lenny Dykstra? Does Davey Johnson’s masterful managerial job from October 1988, when he outfoxed both Lasorda and Tony LaRussa, convince Frank Cashen once and for all that Davey deserves every benefit of the doubt going forward, even if there’s a rocky stretch now and then? Is Cone, who was such a big part of the world championship pitching staff of 1988, considered too valuable to deal away at the 1992 trading deadline? Do the Mets of 1989 and beyond, perhaps righted toward perennial contention, present Gooden with a more stable professional setting and curb his addictive tendencies? Do Gooden, Strawberry and Cone play out their careers as Mets and thus never wind up Yankees who, in turn, never quite put together all the pieces in 1996? Do Gooden and Cone pitch their no-hitters for the Mets?

And you — if you were around in 1988, would erasing the loss and replacing it with a win have meant everything? Would it have continued to mean everything? Would your life as a Mets fan be substantially better if you could point back to the 1988 world champion Mets? The pain you knew and have carried around with you from coming so close would be, now and forever, unadulterated pleasure. And if you weren’t around, based on everything you know, you’ve read and you’ve thought about, would you love more than anything to have the Mets have been world champions in 1969, 1986 and 1988?

How great would it be to have that one back and have it turn out right this time?

1999
Instead of the Mets losing to the Braves in six games, the Mets beat the Braves in the 1999 National League Championship Series and then went on to defeat the Yankees in the 1999 World Series. It could’ve very easily happened. In reality, all the Mets needed were six more wins.

Maybe Al Leiter pitches another game of his life on three days rest in Game Six, setting up Rick Reed for a triumph in Game Seven. Or after the Mets have fought valiantly back in Game Six, John Franco holds an 8-7 lead in the eighth, setting up Armando Benitez to save it in the ninth. Or Benitez preserves a 9-8 lead in the tenth to ensure Game Seven. Or Kenny Rogers works out of trouble in the eleventh, leading to a twelfth-inning or later Met victory. Then comes a Mets win in the seventh game, the National League pennant and a truckload of momentum that the Mets take back to Shea to start the 1999 World Series, momentum that carries through to a third world championship, the Mets’ first since 1986. Or the Mets won one, some, or all of the close games that started the NLCS and had an easy time with the Braves before taking care of the Yanks.

Doesn’t matter how they did it. The point is the Mets did it. The Mets won the 1999 World Series. What does it mean?

It means “Kenny Rogers” is that pitcher we picked up down the stretch drive who really solidified the staff. It means the Grand Slam Single isn’t a piece of team trivia but a hit that is instantly recognized by all baseball fans. It means Robin Ventura and Todd Pratt go on the MLB Network to recall their exploits in what are automatically considered two of the greatest games ever played…there’s probably an entire evening set aside to explore the 1999 Mets postseason. It means the game of hearts in which Rickey Henderson and Bobby Bonilla engaged during the sixth game at Turner Field becomes a charming anecdote in the tapestry of “it was just meant to be” 1999 recollections. It means Mike Piazza, Edgardo Alfonzo and John Franco have World Series rings. It means a career-defining achievement for someone like Turk Wendell, who becomes a transcendent Met folk hero on the order of Al Weis and Lenny Dykstra. It means Bobby Valentine joins Gil Hodges and Davey Johnson as Mets managers who won the World Series.

It means a ticker-tape parade that honors the Mets for the first time in thirteen years. It means Piazza is on the cover of every magazine from the last out of the World Series to the beginning of the new millennium. It means that when the Mets open the season in Japan in 2000, they are an international sensation. It means the New York Mets are the flagship team of baseball. It means the rush from behind in the Wild Card race to the championship of the world guarantees the 1999 Mets is embroidered securely into the Met narrative for eternity, that when 2009 rolls around, the Mets have to figure out how to best schedule their commemorations of the 40th anniversary of the 1969 world champion Mets and the 10th anniversary of the 1999 world champion Mets. It means, given the vagaries of how we view numbers, that the 1969 and 1999 Mets come up in conversation together all the time.

It means Turner Field is hallowed Met ground, because that’s where the Mets conquered the Braves in 1999. It means the Braves never made it back to a World Series after 1996. It means that the second team to win the World Series as a Wild Card reduced the long-term historical status of the Braves as perennial division champions even further. It means there was no late-’90s Yankee dynasty as such. It means the Yankees’ championships in 1996 and 1998 were overshadowed immediately, It means the Mets won the first Subway Series since 1956.

Does it mean the 1999 Mets were the beginning of a dynasty? Does it mean John Olerud couldn’t bear to leave, having been part of such a great team that was only going to get better? Does it mean that Ken Griffey couldn’t resist the trade the Mets had tentatively made to get him in the ensuing offseason and enthusiastically gave his approval? Does it mean the Mets boasted a lineup that included Piazza, Olerud and Griffey in the early 2000s? Does it mean the Mets didn’t trade for Mike Hampton and never attempted to replace Hampton with Kevin Appier and therefore couldn’t have traded Appier for Vaughn and there was no panicky winter devoted to securing big names who wouldn’t quite fit at Shea? Does it mean that Valentine, having beaten both the Braves and Yankees, earned the upper hand in his internal battles with Steve Phillips and wasn’t going anywhere for a very long time? Does it mean that the Mets, flush with World Series riches and a slew of new season-ticket subscribers, don’t care that they have to eat Bobby Bo’s contract and after giving him his World Series ring, they pay him what he is owed and never have to think about him again?

And you — if you were around in 1999, would erasing the loss and replacing it with a win have meant everything? Would it have continued to mean everything? Would your life as a Mets fan be substantially better if you could point back to the 1999 world champion Mets? The pain you knew and have carried around with you from coming so close would be, now and forever unadulterated pleasure. And if you weren’t around, based on everything you know, you’ve read and you’ve thought about, would you love more than anything to have the Mets have been world champions in 1969, 1986 and 1999?

How great would it be to have that one back and have it turn out right this time?

2000
Instead of the Mets losing to the Yankees in five games, the Mets beat the Yankees in the 2000 World Series. It could’ve very easily happened. In reality, all the Mets needed were three more wins.

Maybe Todd Zeile’s double to left in the sixth inning of Game One travels a few inches farther. Maybe Timo Perez runs hard all the way from first base. Maybe Todd Pratt breaks from third in the top of the ninth. Maybe Armando Benitez strikes out Paul O’Neill in the bottom of the ninth. Maybe Jose Vizcaino grounds out to end the twelfth. Maybe Roger Clemens is ejected in top of the first of Game Two. Maybe the Mets come all the way back on Mariano Rivera in that ninth inning. Maybe Mike Piazza gets to David Cone in Game Four. Maybe Al Leiter, who’s pitched like a Series MVP, comes out before his 142nd pitch of Game Five. Maybe Luis Sojo gets hit by a bus. Or maybe the 94-win Mets maintain their blistering pace of 12 wins in 14 games covering the end of the regular season and their playoff dismantling of the Giants and Cardinals and annihilate the 87-win Yankees who looked like no great shakes getting past the A’s in the ALDS and were in trouble early in the ALCS against the Mariners.

Doesn’t matter how they did it. The point is the Mets did it. The Mets won the 2000 World Series. What does it mean?

It means the Mets won the battle of New York. It means that in the long and glorious history of the New York Yankees, they have never beaten the New York Mets when it counted. It means the Mets got a ticker-tape parade in October 2000 and received keys to the city from a grin-and-bear-it Rudy Giuliani. It means that every Yankees fan you knew had to suck up whatever you said in the wake of your team beating their team in the World Series. It means the Yankees may have beaten the Giants and the Dodgers long ago, but they couldn’t overcome the Mets in the only modern Subway Series. It means the Yankee bandwagon of the late ’90s was stopped dead in its tracks and that next sound you heard was the roar of the engine on the Met bandwagon.

It means “Timo Perez” is that sparkplug who sent the Mets on their way to their third world championship and that “Armando Benitez” is synonymous with saving the big games. It means John Franco has much the same historical cachet as Tug McGraw and Jesse Orosco. It means that one slugger like Mike Piazza, one paragon of everyday excellence like Edgardo Alfonzo and a pair of portsiding aces like Mike Hampton and Al Leiter were enough to form the foundation of a world champion. It means Benny Agbayani, Jay Payton and Mike Bordick were part of the plucky corps that captured the Mets their first Series in 14 years. It means that Bobby Valentine outmanaged Dusty Baker, Tony La Russa and Joe Torre all in the same postseason. It means a case can be made that the 2000 world championship was the Mets’ greatest yet because it required three rather than merely two postseason series wins. It means 2010 was brightened immensely when the Mets gathered the 2000 world champion Mets at Citi Field for the first of what figured to be many reunions of that team that remains every bit as beloved as 1969’s and 1986’s…maybe more so given whom they had to beat to prevail.

It means Roger Clemens goes down in Yankee history as something of a dud not really worth trading David Wells for. It means that the Yankees, for all their money, aren’t necessarily the brightest option for free agent Mike Mussina. It means that for all their achievement to date, the Jeters, Williamses and Riveras could never truly own New York — at least not when they faced the Mets in the World Series. It means Torre has to tip his cap to Valentine. It means George Steinbrenner either doesn’t live another 10 years because he physically can’t bear to or he never lives down this defeat at the hands of the Mets in the 2000 World Series.

Does it mean Mike Piazza, world champion, is enough of a presence in baseball history to transcend all doubts and make the Hall of Fame within his first two years on the ballot? Does it mean nobody has to ask what cap Piazza wears on his plaque in Cooperstown when he’s inducted no later than 2014? Does it mean 31 is retired by the Mets? Does it mean Fonzie becomes the best player to have played his entire career as a Met when he retired, never having left the organization? Does their status as defending world champions in 2001 mean Valentine and the Mets throwing themselves into post-9/11 relief efforts was recognized as more than a footnote on that unfortunate page of municipal history? Do the 2001 Mets retain the services of Mike Hampton? Does it mean they and Alex Rodriguez couldn’t resist each other after 2000? And does it mean that the Mets, doing so well on and off the field, signed both A-Rod and Mussina? Does the Mets winning a world championship in black, orange and blue mean a permanent tri-color scheme because so many fans associate it with the franchise’s success? Did the Mets of 2001 dig deep into their winning experience and return to the playoffs? Did that run of success mean a firmer footing for when they were ready to promote young Jose Reyes and David Wright a couple of years later? Does it mean that they were managed in their salad days by Edgardo Alfonzo, who took over the job in a smooth transition of power when Bobby V was promoted to GM?

And you — if you were around in 2000, would erasing the loss and replacing it with a win have meant everything? Would it have continued to mean everything? Would your life as a Mets fan be substantially better if you could point back to the 2000 world champion Mets? The pain you knew and have carried around with you from coming so close would be, now and forever, unadulterated pleasure. And if you weren’t around, based on everything you know, you’ve read and you’ve thought about, would you love more than anything to have the Mets have been world champions in 1969, 1986 and 2000?

How great would it be to have that one back and have it turn out right this time?

2006
Instead of the Mets losing to the Cardinals in seven games, the Mets beat the Cardinals in the 2006 National League Championship Series and then went on to defeat the Tigers in the 2006 World Series. It could’ve very easily happened. In reality, all the Mets needed were five more wins.

Maybe Carlos Beltran fought off Adam Wainwright’s curveball and eventually walked to make it 3-2 in the bottom of the ninth of the seventh game and Carlos Delgado drove in the tying and winning runs. Maybe Aaron Heilman didn’t give up a home run to Yadier Molina in the top of the ninth. Maybe Jose Valentin and Endy Chavez delivered hits with the bases loaded in the bottom of the sixth. Maybe the Mets put more than one run on the board against Jeff Suppan in the first. Maybe the Game Seven victory over the Cardinals was all the Mets needed to propel them to a beatdown of the Tigers. Or maybe a seventh game was never necessary because Guillermo Mota and Billy Wagner held off the Cardinals in Game Two. Maybe Steve Trachsel didn’t fall apart in his final Met start in Game Three.

Doesn’t matter how they did it. The point is the Mets did it. The Mets won the 2006 World Series. What does it mean?

It means there is no “Beltran taking strike three,” and Carlos’s will to win is never seriously questioned. It means David Wright and Jose Reyes are world champions before either of them is 24 years old. It means Omar Minaya and Willie Randolph are confirmed as saviors and geniuses. It means Fred and Jeff Wilpon have led the Mets to the promised land without Nelson Doubleday. It means Billy Wagner, Paul Lo Duca and Carlos Delgado go down in Met history as the best trio of veteran acquisitions the Mets ever made in one offseason. It means there are no emotional qualifiers to apply to Endy Chavez’s catch. It means Oliver Perez and John Maine came out of nowhere to win World Series rings as Mets. It means Julio Franco emerged as a candidate for AARP’s person of the year. It means T#m Gl@v!ne never had to have his name typographically changed.

It means “2006” is in the conversation with “1969” and “1986,” and that 1986 and 2006 can’t help be linked as seasons when the Mets stood head and shoulders above the rest of baseball for seven Amazin’ months. It means that come 2016 you’re expecting some sort of dual celebration, maybe with appropriate pairs of world champion teammates — Delgado and Keith Hernandez, Wagner and Jesse Orosco — being introduced together. It means that a 20-year world championship drought was snapped. It means fans born in the 1980s and 1990s have a championship to savor. It means the dynasty talk heats up in earnest in Flushing. It means the “Jose-Jose-Jose!” song is sung on the steps of City Hall. It means the Mets are held up by Mayor Bloomberg as an example of the best New York can be. It means the Mets own New York as they haven’t for a generation. It means that as of 2014, only Mets fans under the age of 15 haven’t had a reasonable chance of fully experiencing a world championship in their lifetimes. It means that as of this moment, the Mets have gone no more than eight years since winning a World Series.

It means Tony La Russa has lost to the Mets twice in a pair of postseason showdowns. It means Yadier Molina is no more than an impressive defensive catcher. It means beating a team with Albert Pujols in the middle of its lineup wasn’t really that hard. It means baseball’s supposedly model franchise is looking at a quarter-century without having won the big one and that the “best fans in baseball” would have to dig deep to paint a big red smile over their bruised feelings. It means Jim Leyland has been avenged after he triumphed over the Mets as manager of the Pirates and Marlins.  It means sticking it to Kenny Rogers in the World Series seven years after Kenny Rogers threw ball four to Andruw Jones.

Does it mean that the Mets find the wherewithal to repeat in 2007? Does it mean the Mets leave Shea Stadium on an indisputable high note in 2008? Does it mean Minaya and Randolph are forgiven their transient mistakes because these are the guys who won a World Series in just two years’ time? Does it mean Citi Field is the happiest place on earth in 2009 because it’s home of the Mets who are still at or near the top of their sport? Does it mean, somehow, that the entanglement that ensnares the Mets within the web woven by Bernie Madoff is somehow easier to slip out of? Does it mean Jose Reyes endures in a Mets uniform? Does it mean Carlos Beltran never leaves the franchise where he is embraced for having been the best player on the team that won it all? Does it mean that because perhaps there isn’t the same urgency to bolster the rotation after 2007 that the Mets never trade for Johan Santana and that after 52 seasons the Mets still don’t have a no-hitter? Does it mean that though the Mets might’ve been a joke for a couple of years early in the century that for the most part since the late 1990s they’ve been one of the best teams in baseball?

And you — if you were around in 2006, would erasing the loss and replacing it with a win have meant everything? Would it have continued to mean everything? Would your life as a Mets fan be substantially better if you could point back to the 2006 world champion Mets? The pain you knew and have carried around with you from coming so close would be, now and forever, unadulterated pleasure. And if you weren’t around, based on everything you know, you’ve read and you’ve thought about, would you love more than anything to have the Mets have been world champions in 1969, 1986 and 2006?

How great would it be to have that one back and have it turn out right this time?

***

There you have them:

• 1973 World Champion New York Mets
• 1988 World Champion New York Mets
• 1999 World Champion New York Mets
• 2000 World Champion New York Mets
• 2006 World Champion New York Mets

Choose one.