7.19.25 for Wright5

[Benjamin Grimm]

I'd make Wright a definite, and deGrom a maybe.



I wouldn't have done Keith, Doc, Darryl, or Koosman. Or Mays.



I'd probably pass on Beltran as well.

[Edgy MD]

It seems highly unlikely that the Mets would have retired 24 for Mays if he hadn't played for them, as the gesture was widely reported as a sort of a reciprocal one offered by Joan Payson as part of her sell for convincing Mays to agree to the trade that brought him to the Mets.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: It seems highly unlikely that the Mets would have retired 24 for Mays if he hadn't played for them, as the gesture was widely reported as a sort of a reciprocal one offered by Joan Payson as part of her sell for convincing Mays to agree to the trade that brought him to the Mets.

Who knows? It could've been anything or any reason. And they can say whatever they want after the fact to rationalize the number retirement. It could've been nothing more than that it made Cohen feel good and that Cohen felt like basking in the moment for a day. The number retirement could have been as much about Cohen as it was about Mays, not that Cohen is dumb enough to ever admit that if that's what it was. There are no "rules" for this and one of the perks of owning a baseball team is that you get to retire whatever number you feel like retiring. It doesn't matter if some other team has a policy for retiring numbers that's so stringent, that it's almost impossible to meet.

[MFS62]

This article from 2022 says it was to fulfill a promise by Mrs. Payson.

https://www.mlb.com/news/mets-retire-willie-mays-no-24https://www.mlb.com/news/mets-retire-willie-mays-no-24



Later

[Edgy MD]

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=180246 time=1733340439 user_id=68]And they can say whatever they want after the fact to rationalize the number retirement.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: And they can say whatever they want after the fact to rationalize the number retirement. It was said before for several decades.

True. But what was said before doesn't necessarily have to have been the actual reason for retiring Mays's number. Even if they say so. Only Cohen truly knows.



This is what's going on with this absurd batshit crazy push to have Carter's number retired. Most of the momentum probably stems from nothing more than an emotional attachment to Carter. Fans loved him. He was extremely popular. Many of these fans were little boys in elementary school when Carter was a Met and so they hero worshipped him the same way little boys worship Batman or Superman. But they can't admit that Carter's number should be retired just because they "liked him a lot". So they fabricate this case for Carter, this justification to retire his number that isn't really there and can't hold up to even minimal scrutiny. They say stupid crap like that he's a Hall of Famer. And then you tell them "So what?" What do his Expos stats have to do with this? He wouldn't have gotten into Cooperstown on his Mets stint alone. And Eddie Murray and Warren Spahn and Rickey Henderson are also Hall of Famers. And on and on with more bullshit.

[Benjamin Grimm]

The mothballing of number 8 really doesn't make sense. I can only assume that they agree with you (and me) that Carter's number shouldn't be retired, but don't want to offend the fans by assigning it to anyone else.



If it were up to me, I would rip off the band-aid and assign it to someone right away. If the Mets were to acquire someone who wore 8 with his previous team, that would be the ideal cover. (Kind of like they did with 24 and Rickey Henderson and Robinson Cano.) But failing that, I'd assign it to the next Joey Wendle or Zack Short that comes along. Or maybe a potential star like Drew Gilbert.



The Mets didn't retire the number when Gary Carter went into the Hall of Fame. They didn't do it when he was terminally ill. They didn't do it when he died. They know it's not appropriate. But I have to assume the number will remain in limbo until someone is bold enough to assign it or the team caves and retires it, whichever comes first.



Like I said, I would put it in circulation immediately. And would have done so years ago.



It's been 23 years since a Mets player wore 8 (Desi Relaford in 2001) and 22 years since it was worn by a coach (Matt Galante in 2002).

[Centerfield]

I didn't realize there was still a push to retire 8 for Carter.



I'll admit, I didn't realize how crappy his tenure was while growing up. But if you look up his production it's not even close.



Edgardo Alfonso should be up there before Carter. Same with Pete. HoJo. David Cone.



But I guess if you use Mays or Gil as a standard, then Carter should have been retired years ago.

[Frayed Knot]

I think the 'Pons saw Carter (and rightfully so) as a future Halla Fama and so wanted to keep that number in reserve for when he became the next 'Met' to be inducted although his induction wound up taking longer than most expected, the mandatory five year waiting period plus six more, before he garnered enough votes.



Not sure why, assuming they planned on a ceremony all along since the number was mostly moth-balled after he retired, they didn't act then. But it wasn't long after that that he got sick and maybe they didn't want it to seem like they were retiring the number because he was ill, or later because he died (it was longer from the end of his career to his HoF than from the HoF to his death). In any case, it seems like it just got stuck in limbo, as if nobody wanted to make the call for retirement but no one wanted to be the one to put it back in circulation either. And so it's now stood like that going on 13 years since his passing.

[kcmets]

Kranepool #7 > Doc y Straw...



(number-retirement wise)

[stevejrogers]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: The mothballing of number 8 really doesn't make sense. I can only assume that they agree with you (and me) that Carter's number shouldn't be retired, but don't want to offend the fans by assigning it to anyone else. If it were up to me, I would rip off the band-aid and assign it to someone right away. If the Mets were to acquire someone who wore 8 with his previous team, that would be the ideal cover. (Kind of like they did with 24 and Rickey Henderson and Robinson Cano.) But failing that, I'd assign it to the next Joey Wendle or Zack Short that comes along. Or maybe a potential star like Drew Gilbert. The Mets didn't retire the number when Gary Carter went into the Hall of Fame. They didn't do it when he was terminally ill. They didn't do it when he died. They know it's not appropriate. But I have to assume the number will remain in limbo until someone is bold enough to assign it or the team caves and retires it, whichever comes first. Like I said, I would put it in circulation immediately. And would have done so years ago. It's been 23 years since a Mets player wore 8 (Desi Relaford in 2001) and 22 years since it was worn by a coach (Matt Galante in 2002).

When did #17 go into unofficial mothballs? I know Keith had some fun with various “obscure” Mets in his number during those last few years.



I want to say roughly the same time as the #8 mothballing.

[Edgy MD]

Seventeen was in circulation for eight years after Eight hung up its cleats. It last saw active duty on the back of Fernando Tatis in 2010.

[Bob Alpacadaca]

I don't have any problem with any of the numbers the Mets have retired. The honor can be about more than statistics. Beltran and deGrom would certainly be worthy in my eyes.

[metirish]

https://www.mlb.com/news/david-wright-jersey-number-retired-mets-hall-of-famehttps://www.mlb.com/news/david-wright-jersey-number-retired-mets-hall-of-fame



I guess it's happening

[G-Fafif]

DiComo:

NEW YORK -- The Mets are about to fete one of the greatest players in their history with the most prestigious honor a team can bestow. The team intends to retire David Wright's No. 5 and induct him into the Mets Hall of Fame during a July 19 ceremony at Citi Field, according to multiple people with knowledge of the plans. Wright will become the 10th individual to have his number retired by the Mets and the second, along with Tom Seaver, to enter the team's Hall of Fame on the same day. The ceremony will take place before a 4:10 p.m. ET game against the Reds. The most accomplished position player in Mets history, Wright hit 242 home runs, drove home 970 runs and compiled 49.2 Wins Above Replacement over a 14-year career in New York. He established a Hall of Fame arc in his 20s before succumbing to the back, neck and shoulder injuries that ultimately ended his career. From 2015-17, Wright played in only 75 games. He returned in 2018 to appear in two final, emotional games -- the last of them before a sold-out crowd at Citi.

[Benjamin Grimm]

This is well-deserved.



Worth mentioning (sort of), this will be the first single-digit number to be retired by the Mets.

[Centerfield]

My stated criteria:

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.

David is clearly identifiable with the team. He played 14 seasons with the Mets, with the last three being derailed by injury. 242 HR, 1777 H, 970 RBI. .296/.376/.491. Career .867 OPS. 7 time All-Star, received MVP votes in 6 different seasons, two GG, 2 Silver Sluggers.



Obviously, we think he could have had a much longer career if not for his back injury. Was also hurt in the middle of his career by the stupid dimensions of the park Jeff Wilpon designed. I vote yes. David deserves this honor.

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

wright for sure. Nobody else for a long time.

[whippoorwill]

They were so stingy with # Retirements for so long.

I'm happy that the Mets are finally retiring numbers and I think the ones they've done are the right ones.

[Frayed Knot]

They were rightfully so stingy with # Retirements for so long. I'm not happy that the Mets are finally retiring so many numbers and I think a few of the ones they've done are the right ones.

[Frayed Knot]

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: wright for sure. Nobody else for a long time.

Not even #52 for Weisman?

[ashie62]

Very happy for Davis. It will be nice to see him back at the stadium to celebrate and DH

[Gwreck]

Frayed Knot wrote: They were rightfully so stingy with # Retirements for so long. I'm not happy that the Mets are finally retiring so many numbers and I think [CROSSOUT]a few of[/CROSSOUT] NONE OF the ones they've done RECENTLY, OTHER THAN DAVID are the right ones.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Frayed Knot wrote: They were rightfully so stingy with # Retirements for so long. I'm not happy that the Mets are finally retiring so many numbers and I think [CROSSOUT]a few of[/CROSSOUT] NONE OF the ones they've done RECENTLY, OTHER THAN DAVID are the right ones.

Are you endorsing FK's re-write of cooby's post? Really? The guy that thinks the Mets should retire Carter's number is complaining about the Mets retiring too many numbers and that nobody among the recent honorees but Wright deserves the honor? If Carter deserves to have his number retired, then Dwight Gooden should have the stadium named after him and Jerry Koosman should have the Borough of Queens named after him.

[metirish]

[whippoorwill]

Frayed Knot wrote: They were rightfully so stingy with # Retirements for so long. I'm not happy that the Mets are finally retiring so many numbers and I think a few of the ones they've done are the right ones.

Really you didn't think so? They stood at 5 or whatever until they finally got to Jerry Koosman

Edited December 14, 2024 by Guest

[Marshmallowmilkshake]

The Mets are embracing team history and I'm in favor. Good for Wright.

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

Wright deserves it. The other guys belong in the team Hall of Fame.



That the Mets have a shitty history without a lot of truly great, long-tenured team-associated players is their fault and papering it over by elevating guys who don't meet the criteria isn't going to change that.

[Edgy MD]

I have a lot of affection for Jerry Koosman, but I never once looked at Grant Roberts or Colin McHugh in 36 and felt it was wrong that the number was still in circulation. Nor have I heard anybody anywhere voice such sentiments.



What happened is Steve Cohen's research netted him not the opinion of the wisest fans, but the loudest, and those were the ones projecting silly manufactured grievances over petty jealousies.



I don't like that there aren't a lot of great legacies in Mets history. Elevating good legacies does not change that.



Beyond that, there are thousands ways to honor people, but because of the franchise-to-franchise sameness wrought by running our leagues as cartels, our teams only exercise three — team halls of fame/rings of honor, retired numbers, and statuary.



It's a shame, as there's so much opportunity to distinguish themselves in character as well as performance.

[Frayed Knot]

=whippoorwill post_id=181099 time=1734185583 user_id=79]
Really you didn't think so? They stood at 5 or whatever until they finally got to Jerry Koosman