7.19.25 for Wright5

[stevejrogers]

Scuttlebut on socials seems to be suggesting #5 will be officially retired in David Wright's honor on Saturday July 19th before the game vs the Cincinnati Reds.

[metirish]

I saw this but hesitated to report it as the accounts were mostly BS, except I guess the 7 Line

[Edgy MD]

BEST FIVES



1) David Wri5ht

2) Davey Johnson

3) Jon Olerud

4) Steve Henderson

5) Chris Cannizzaro

6) Jeromy Burnitz

7) Ed Charles

8) Tusyoshi Shinjo

9) Charlie O'Brien

10) Chris Jones

[Benjamin Grimm]

I think the first 5 that I remember was Mike Phillips.

[Centerfield]

Edgy MD wrote: BEST FIVES 1) David Wri5ht 2) Davey Johnson 3) Jon Olerud 4) Steve Henderson 5) Chris Cannizzaro 6) Jeromy Burnitz 7) Ed Charles 8) Tusyoshi Shinjo 9) Charlie O'Brien 10) Chris Jones

What number in Mets history has the most success? Onfield performance, no managers, no ceremonial crap. So 24, though retired, would be one of the worst performing numbers.



5 is pretty good.



4

Rusty

Dykstra

Ventura

Alvarez



13

Mazzili

Fonzie

Wagner



20

Agee

HoJo

Pete



31

Franco

Piazza

[Edgy MD]

I imagine Seaver has eclipsed most of those rosters all on his own.



Sixteen gets you Gooden, Mazzilli, Pagan, LoDuca, Nomo. That's some juice right there.

[Frayed Knot]

=stevejrogers post_id=180051 time=1733178798 user_id=57]
Scuttlebut on socials seems to be suggesting #5 will be officially retired in David Wright's honor on Saturday July 19th before the game vs the Cincinnati Reds.

[Bob Alpacadaca]

No. 45 had a good run with Franco and Pedro and Tug!



I'm all in on retiring Wright's number.

[Edgy MD]

I guess that would make him the first guy since Seaver to have his number retired without first being inducted into the Mets Hall of Fame.



I guess that would make him and Seaver the only guys to have their numbers retired without first being inducted into the team Hall of Fame, since the establishment of the Mets Hall of Fame.



That would be missing out on the chance for two big-ticket events instead of one.

[stevejrogers]

Edgy MD wrote: I guess that would make him the first guy since Seaver to have his number retired without first being inducted into the Mets Hall of Fame. I guess that would make him and Seaver the only guys to have their numbers retired without first being inducted into the team Hall of Fame, since the establishment of the Mets Hall of Fame. That would be missing out on the chance for two big-ticket events instead of one.

Willie Mays.



Also Tom was inducted into the Met Hall on the same day. So if you want to split hairs with ceremonial unveiling of the bust and the retired number banner on the outfield wall 🤷🏻‍♂️😉

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

Mets Hall of Fame has been rendered meaningless by all these numba retirees.

[Gwreck]

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: [CROSSOUT]Mets Hall of Fame[/CROSSOUT]Number retirement has been rendered meaningless by all these numba retirees.

Fixed it

[Frayed Knot]

The next guy inducted into the NYM HoF is probably going to see it as an insult.

[Edgy MD]

I promise that, if I get inducted and don't get my digits hung from the roof, I won't be insulted.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Shaun Fitzmaurice -- Charter Member of "The **** Club", rocking #5.



.

[FIMG=333]https://www.faithandfearinflushing.com/wp-content/uploads/fitzmaurice.jpg[/FIMG]

[batmagadanleadoff]

I find it odd that -- assuming that both Wright and Carter's numbers are slated for retirement -- that the Mets would retire Wright's number before Carter's number. Given that Carter was inducted into Cooperstown before Wright's career even began, I figured that Carter's number would get the treatment first. I'm not complaining. I think it's appropriate. Wright is deserving of the honor while Carter clearly isn't. But I'm trying to make sense of this and what this means with respect to #8.

Edited December 3, 2024 by Guest

[metirish]

Shaun seems an odd spelling, especially for someone born in Worcester in 1942( I looked him up) must be an American thing?

[MFS62]

Number 8 will always be Chris Cannizzaro to me.

Later

[Centerfield]

I still can't believe we retired #24. I mean, I wasn't here for it, so I admit I don't get the emotional relevance. But give him a nice plaque or some shit. The guy played 135 games for the Mets.



With his number on the wall, you can make a case for any Met that gives you the touchyfeelies.

[Frayed Knot]

The rationale was that it was fulfillment of a promise that Joan Payson (or someone connected to her) made to Willie when the Mets acquired him.

She was part of the NY Giants family prior to the NYM existence and Willie was long said to be her favorite athlete (at least of the two-legged variety as

the Paysons were longtime horse folk, y'know, the sport of kings and all that) and the honor is as much what Willie meant to baseball in NYC as anything.

Does that mean it Had To be done a half century later when Willie was basically one foot in the grave? Probably not. But I guess an insider with

specific knowledge of what was said and by whom might have a different view.

[Benjamin Grimm]

The Brewers retired Hank Aaron's number, probably for a similar reason, to honor what he meant to Milwaukee rather than what he meant to the Brewers.



I think that if the Brewers ever move to another city, it would be okay to unretire 44.

[Marshmallowmilkshake]

I don't have a problem with Willie Mays on the wall - or the Jackie Robinson Rotunda, for that matter. We are the keepers of New York National League history. Doesn't mean we retire Mell Ott and Roy Campanella. But they're not Willie Mays and Jackie Robinson.

[Edgy MD]

I always thought a permanent exhibit at the Mets Museum dedicated to the American Association New York Metropolitans would be a good idea.



I thought that until I found out they wore teal. Yeeesh.

[Centerfield]

I disagree we are the keepers of New York National League history. None of that history belongs to us simply because we play in the same city those teams left. Those franchises still exist. Their history belongs to them. I get that they moved to California, and now it feels like there's a disconnect between their current cities and their history in NY. But that's why moving franchises sucks. This franchise was born in 1962. Everything that happened before that has nothing to do with us.



Let's say the Yankees picked up and moved to Las Vegas next year. Do we now have an obligation to build Monument Park? Put up a statue of Babe Ruth? We are the only NY team left. Are not we not keepers of that history? What if Aaron Judge decided to play with the Mets his last two years before retiring. Do we retire his number?



Look, I get that it's not apples to apples because the Mets and Yankees co-existed, but it should illustrate how preposterous it is that one team somehow inherits another team's legacy.



The Mets are the Mets. If they want to build a "History of NY Baseball Museum" somewhere in CitiField then sure, why not. But dedicating a rotunda to a guy who played for another team, no matter how iconic, is dumb. And so is retiring the number of a great baseball player who played for another team.



I get that Joan Payson may or may not have made promises. I don't know how much of that is true, and how much is legend. But even assuming it's true, her promise was that Mays would be the last Met to wear 24. That promise was broken in 1990. But let's assume for the moment that Mrs. Payson actually promised Willie that his number would be retired. I get that it was a sweet gesture. But once you do that, you dilute the honor and take away it's meaning.



"We honor only the best players in our rich history, and also if the owner really really likes you."



In the end, I don't think it matters. The Mets screwed up their number retirements from the get go.



37. Casey Stengel. Managed the Mets for 4 years to a .300 win percentage. But hey, he was a great manager before us and said funny things. How is this worthy of getting your number retired.



14. Gil Hodges. Played 167 games for the Mets. Managed for 4 years. .420 winning percentage. Let's be honest. His number is on that wall because he died. By this logic, if Davey had died in 1988, his number could be retired too.



I mean, I guess if you look at it that way, Mays really should have had his number retired. Three guys who did very little with the Mets.

[batmagadanleadoff]

=Centerfield post_id=180170 time=1733270811 user_id=65]
I disagree we are the keepers of New York National League history. None of that history belongs to us simply because we play in the same city those teams left. Those franchises still exist. Their history belongs to them.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I disagree we are the keepers of New York National League history. None of that history belongs to us simply because we play in the same city those teams left. Those franchises still exist. Their history belongs to them. I kind of always agreed with this. In fact, once the Dodgers and Giants left for California, they were both against the NL expanding to NY and the creation of the Mets franchise. When I read the post a few above this one about being the keepers of NL history, it came off as bullshit and word-salad to justify the retirement of Mays' and Jackie's #'s. It came off as reverse-engineered logic to justify the ends. (Of course, Jackie's # was retired globally and wasn't simply and solely a Mets decision). But where does it come from that the Mets are the keepers of NY NL history? It came out of somebody's ass -- that's where. You can say anything to justify anything. The President needs to run the country without being second-guessed. So let's let him commit crimes if that's what it takes to run the country. Whatever. If you wanna retire May's # to honor Payson's old promise, that's fine. Own up to it. But for the Mets to retire his # because the Giants used to play in NY? WTF? Didn't the Giants already retire Mays's number?

Here's something to think about: Would the Mets have retired #24 for Willie Mays had Mays never played for the Mets? Had Mays remained a Giant for his entire playing career? And would it have been appropriate for the Mets to retire Mays's #24 even if he'd never played for the Mets? Because whether or not Mays played for the Mets, he still played in NY for a NL team. So what exactly does it mean to be "the keepers of NL history"?

[Bob Alpacadaca]

How sad.

[Centerfield]

I disagree we are the keepers of New York National League history. None of that history belongs to us simply because we play in the same city those teams left. Those franchises still exist. Their history belongs to them. I kind of always agreed with this. In fact, once the Dodgers and Giants left for California, they were both against the NL expanding to NY and the creation of the Mets franchise. When I read the post a few above this one about being the keepers of NL history, it came off as bullshit and word-salad to justify the retirement of Mays' and Jackie's #'s. It came off as reverse-engineered logic to justify the ends. (Of course, Jackie's # was retired globally and wasn't simply and solely a Mets decision). But where does it come from that the Mets are the keepers of NY NL history? It came out of somebody's ass -- that's where. You can say anything to justify anything. The President needs to run the country without being second-guessed. So let's let him commit crimes if that's what it takes to run the country. Whatever. If you wanna retire May's # to honor Payson's old promise, that's fine. Own up to it. But for the Mets to retire his # because the Giants used to play in NY? WTF? Didn't the Giants already retire Mays's number? Here's something to think about: Would the Mets have retired #24 for Willie Mays had Mays never played for the Mets? Had Mays remained a Giant for his entire playing career? And would it have been appropriate for the Mets to retire Mays's #24 even if he'd never played for the Mets? Because whether or not Mays played for the Mets, he still played in NY for a NL team. So what exactly does it mean to be "the keepers of NL history"?

The answer is no. Mays' number never would have been retired and it never would have even been proposed. Which illustrates how ridiculous it is that his 400 ABs warrant a retirement. Similarly, Jackie Robinson's number never would have been retired by the Mets had it not been mandated throughout baseball. That was ridiculous as well, but no one was really going to speak out against it, and it certainly can't be undone now that the cat is out of the bag.



My criteria are not as strict as some others, but number retirement should only be for players who put up elite performance with the Mets, meaning either HOF worthy, or just a shade below, and are clearly identifiable with the team. I don't think manager numbers should be retired at all, but if you consider them, it should be for managers who had long tenures, achieved success, and again, are clearly identifiable with the Mets.



So by my critera:



Stengel. No



Hodges. No



Seaver. Yes.



Robinson. No



Piazza. Yes.



Koosman. No



Keith. No. Borderline, but no.



Mays. No.



Gooden. Borderline, but probably no.



Strawberry. Borderline. Probably no.



Wright. Borderline but yes.



deGrom. Yes.



Beltran. Borderline, but yes.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I kind of always agreed with this. In fact, once the Dodgers and Giants left for California, they were both against the NL expanding to NY and the creation of the Mets franchise. When I read the post a few above this one about being the keepers of NL history, it came off as bullshit and word-salad to justify the retirement of Mays' and Jackie's #'s. It came off as reverse-engineered logic to justify the ends. (Of course, Jackie's # was retired globally and wasn't simply and solely a Mets decision). But where does it come from that the Mets are the keepers of NY NL history? It came out of somebody's ass -- that's where. You can say anything to justify anything. The President needs to run the country without being second-guessed. So let's let him commit crimes if that's what it takes to run the country. Whatever. If you wanna retire May's # to honor Payson's old promise, that's fine. Own up to it. But for the Mets to retire his # because the Giants used to play in NY? WTF? Didn't the Giants already retire Mays's number? Here's something to think about: Would the Mets have retired #24 for Willie Mays had Mays never played for the Mets? Had Mays remained a Giant for his entire playing career? And would it have been appropriate for the Mets to retire Mays's #24 even if he'd never played for the Mets? Because whether or not Mays played for the Mets, he still played in NY for a NL team. So what exactly does it mean to be "the keepers of NL history"? The answer is no. Mays' number never would have been retired and it never would have even been proposed.

That was my point. That the Mets retired #24 because they're the 'keepers of NY NL history" doesn't hold up. If it did, the Mets would've retired #24 even if Mays never played for the Mets. And if Mays, then why not Mel Ott and Carl Hubbell's numbers by that logic?

[MFS62]

=Centerfield post_id=180219 time=1733334660 user_id=65]


Koosman. No



deGrom. Yes.



Beltran. Borderline, but yes.

Edited December 4, 2024 by Guest