7.19.25 for Wright5

[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]

Koosman. No

deGrom. Yes.

Beltran. Borderline, but yes.

Koosman 140-137 39.2 WAR 12 yrs a Met
deGrom 82-57 41.3 WAR 11 years a Met
Beltran 32.3 oWAR + dWAR 7 years a Met

I'd at least move Koosman to your borderline ranking.

Later

[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]

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-24

Later

[Edgy MD]

And they can say whatever they want after the fact to rationalize the number retirement.

It was said before for several decades.

[batmagadanleadoff]

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]

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-j ... ll-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.