Wright, then .....

[Guest 41Forever]

MLB keeping writers covering each team busy by asking them to predict numbers each team could retire. Some interesting choices. I didn't realize the Mets have kept 17 out of circulation for a while.



https://www.mlb.com/news/mets-next-retired-numbers-predictionhttps://www.mlb.com/news/mets-next-retired-numbers-prediction

[Gwreck]

I preferred the approach of “Hall of Famer who went in as a Met” approach to retired numbers. I could see it expanded to “spent entire career with team” as well. No to Koosman, Gooden, Strawberry, Carter, or Hernandez. There is a good Mets hall of Fame. Retired numbers are for a step above that.

[kcmets]

They should have retired Kranepool's number a long time ago.

[seawolf17]

=kcmets post_id=35036 time=1586634751 user_id=53]
They should have retired Kranepool's number a long time ago.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I think they had it just right, up until the Koosman decision. Wright should be next, and nobody else for a while.

[Ceetar]

Granted it's not "in uniform" but retire Keith based on his booth work.



and Beltran for being a hall of famer that played a large and excellent portion of his career with the team and managed them to a World Series in a different timeline.

[Edgy MD]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I think they had it just right, up until the Koosman decision. Wright should be next, and nobody else for a while.

deGromio.

[smg58]

You could objectively (to the extent that the stat is objective) set a criterion of WAR in a Mets uniform, and maybe allow bonus points for playoff appearances or World Series wins. And you could make the standard higher for number retirement than the Mets Hall of Fame.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Edgy MD wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: I think they had it just right, up until the Koosman decision. Wright should be next, and nobody else for a while. deGromio.

Yes, maybe. But like I said, not for a while.