The Mets will retire David Wright’s No. 5 this coming July 19th, prior to their 4:10 pm game against the Cincinnati Reds. Wright will also be inducted into the team’s Hall of Fame.
He spent his entire 14 year career playing in Queens for the Mets, from the time he was drafted with the No. 38 overall pick in 2001 until his final game in late September of 2018. He played in the No. 5 uniform for his entire Mets career.
While injuries severely curtailed his later years, Wright appeared on a path to the Hall of Fame earlier in his career. Even though enshrinement in Cooperstown is probably out of his reach, he was a very good player for a very long time, and as such, the Mets feel he merits not only induction into the team’s Hall of Fame, but also his number retirement.
For decades, the Mets had a number retirement policy — similar to a number of MLB teams — that permitted a player’s number to be retired if they were inducted into the MLB Hall of Fame, and that player wore a Mets cap on his plaque. So the team had only four retired numbers for a number of years, two of which were for managers. The players were Tom Seaver (No. 41) and Mike Piazza (No. 31). The other retired numbers were for managers Casey Stengel (No. 37) and Gil Hodges (No. 14). When Jackie Robinson’s No. 42 was retired league-wide by baseball, the Mets included him as well.
In addition to retired numbers, the Mets have recognized long-time broadcasters Ralph Kiner and Bob Murphy, as well as William Shea, for whom Shea Stadium was named and who was considered the man most responsible for bringing New York baseball back to the National League, following the departures of the Dodgers and Giants to the West Coast.
When the Mets new owner Steve Cohen purchased the team in November 2020, he immediately began to change the Mets policy for retired numbers. They would no longer need to be in the Hall of Fame, which opened the doors for a number of fan favorites, particularly those from Championship teams. In success, the Mets rapidly retired the numbers of Jerry Koosman (No. 36), Keith Hernandez (No. 17), Willie Mays (No. 24), and then last year, Doc Gooden (No. 16) and Darryl Strawberry (No. 18).
Fans have long expected Wright’s number to be retired, as well as that of fan favorite Gary Carter (No. 8), who paired with Hernandez, Gooden and Strawberry to win the 1986 World Series. If Carter’s number is retired next, this will resemble the following graphic:
When the Mets built CitiField, they originally placed the retired numbers on the outfield wall. At the time, those numbers were rendered in the style of the time, which had black block shadow. Once the team ditched the black, the numbers were then redone to match their current style.
The team then moved the retired numbers from the outfield wall to the top of the stadium. The non-players/managers were placed along one corner of the facade, with the four original retired numbers located along another corner.
As more new players began to have their numbers retired, the Mets added those to a third corner at the top of the stadium. In the photo below, Keith Hernandez’ No. 17 had just been unveiled.
After Hernandez came Willie Mays in 2023, followed by Gooden and Strawberry this past season.
You can see the full arrangement below, which includes all the current retired numbers.
Assuming Wright’s No. 5 is rendered in the same style as the other Mets with retired numbers, it should look like this:
While I appreciate the fact that Steve Cohen and the Mets want to retire numbers for fan favorites and all-time greats, I’m still not certain I agree with the new retirement criteria (which seems open-ended). Keeping the protocol to former players who are both enshrined in the Hall of Fame and wore Mets caps on their plaques was, I believe, a better standard. But as a long-suffering Mets fan, I also recognize that the Mets probably won’t be adding any of those players anytime soon. So I certainly don’t fault Cohen’s decision — many long-tenured players or great players for only a few years on the team certainly deserve recognition (what the Mets own Hall of Fame is for), but do they deserve number retirement? It’s a tough call. And so long as Hernandez, Gooden and Strawberry have had their numbers retired, I expect Gary Carter to follow David Wright at some point. After that? Unless Cohen taps more fan favorites or some players from their 1969 and 1986 World Series champions, I don’t see many numbers being retired for a while.
What are your thoughts? Do you think teams (like the Mets) should stick to the original protocol (HOF in team cap) or are you OK with players who didn’t meet the criteria, but who were still nonetheless extremely important to the team, getting the honor? What does your team do? How do they retire numbers?
For my generation he is the definition of the Mets. Best position player in Mets history. #2 player in history to only Seaver. He plays the game the right way on top of being a great player, leader, career Met. . His number is more than deserving to be retired.
Top 10 all time Mets:
Seaver
Wright
Piazza
Gooden
Beltrán
Strawberry
Koosman
Hernandez
Reyes
Lindor
I might put Pete above Reyes (for a number of reasons), even if he signs elsewhere. And one of those is going to have to drop off by the time No. 22 is retired.
If I owned the Yankees, retired numbers would be limited to: 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 15, 16, 42
Number retirement really jumped the shark these past few decades. My Red Sox used to have a sensible policy that went out the window after they bent the rules for Carlton Fisk (players additionally used to have to have RETIRED with the Sox to qualify). Then it’s Johnny Pesky who, while universally beloved, barely even wore the number they retired for him (6) and certainly wasn’t a HOFer. Retiring Wade Boggs’ 26 was a big demerit for the team too. He went to the Yankees for chrissakes! And went in the HOF in a Tampa hat! Way overboard to retire that number. Lou frickin’ Merloni deserved the honor more! Now, Pedro? Papi? Those actually make sense. But I swear they’d try to retire Lynn’s 19, Clemens’ 21, Tiant’s 23, Manny/Dewey’s 24, Nomar’s 5, Pedroia’s 15, hell why not Chris Sale’s 41?, etc. if they could get away with it, just because they want to make it look like every player is super important like the Yankees do (the Yanks’ retired number policy is a joke, just like the team). I’m not personally looking forward to triple-digit uniform numbers in the majors, but it’s going to happen eventually at this rate.
Boggs is in the HoF in a Red Sox hat.
I agree the Yankees have retired too many numbers, but the team is hardly a joke. The Celtics have also retired way too many numbers. But like the Yankees, when you have those many titles, you can do what you want.
Paul O’Neill is at least one too many. Posada and Bernie are also members of the Hall of Very Good, not worthy of having their number retired.
While I agree that waaaaaay to many numbers are being retired, Boggs is absolutely wearing a Boston hat in his HoF plaque…
link
The old system was better by far, i would even say a player needs at least ten years with the team. Just build a team HoF to honor them.
My continued and eternal hot take is that the Mets should have 8 in regular rotation. Carter was a beating heart of the ’86 team, but he spent just five seasons with the Mets, and only three of them were particularly good. I think it’s the correct move to have retired the numbers that they have since Cohen’s tenure as owner began, but Wright should be the last one for a while.
Obviously Willie Mays — and his impact on baseball and baseball in New York in particular — is a special circumstance, but he played less than two seasons for the Mets. And yes, Joan Payson did promise him she’d retire his number. But if Mays’ number is retired, you don’t think Carter’s 5 years (two/three of which were really really good) merit retirement?
This is a fair response, but I think your point about Payson’s promise outweighs the traditional logic – Mays’ 24 being retired by the Mets is a hallmark to his contributions to National League baseball in New York, and it’s good on Cohen for finally making good on Joan’s word.
I’m with Eric on this. Payson’s promise in and of itself was a part of Mets folklore, and it surfaced again for fans like me when Rickey Henderson was allowed to wear it. That was enough to make it official, IMO.
I love Gary Carter, but I think they were going to retire players from that team, I think they got the right ones. Wouldn’t mind it if they retired 8 (my son, who is dead set on becoming a Met and wearing his number 8 might quibble with it lol), but I’m okay with it being in the rotation.
There was no reason to retire Mays number 24 for the Mets. Rickey Henderson did more in a Met uniform than Willie ever did while wearing the number.
Better question, will the Mets be the first team to wear the same memorial number patch on their uniforms, two seasons in a row, for two different players?
As far as Wright, I can see and understand it. Not so much for Kooz, Straw, or Doc. Mex really should be in the Hall and I can see retiring his number for both what he meant to the team and in the booth the last 20 years. But then using the same criteria, should the Mets retire Ron Darling’s number 44/12/15 for what he meant to the 80’s Mets as well as in the booth with Hernandez all these years?
Here’s another question: If the Mets do retire number 8 for the Kid, then that would mean that three of the four official team captains have had their number retired. All but Carter actually wore the “C.” Do you then have to retire (or re-retire) number 45 (or 31) for John Franco? Franco has more saves than any other lefthander pitcher in MLB history (7th All time), is the Mets career leader in saves, and wore the Mets uniform for 14 seasons (the majority of his career, the same number of seasons as Wright and longer than Carter or Hernandez (combined)).
Coming back full circle – it would be typically Metsian, that they would retire Willie Mays number for as much of what he did while not in a Mets uniform, as they wouldn’t retire Franco’s number for what he did while in a Mets uniform.
At the risk of sounding like an old man shouting at clouds: teams should really not be retiring any numbers. It was a stupid decision made by team leadership three or four generations ago that somehow caught on despite how shortsighted it is. Retire jerseys, induct players into Halls of Fame and Rings of Honor, but retiring a number is silly. The Yankees and the Celtics are straight up going to run out of numbers at the rate they take numbers out of circulation, and it seems like the Red Sox and Mets are starting down a similar path. And it leads to very silly things where new players need to get permission from very old retired players to reissue a number.
In addition to hanging certain jerseys from the rafters or the stadium facade, I think it would be a much more fitting honor to reissue a number, and perhaps include a legacy patch or something similar on the uniform acknowledging the number’s history.
I don’t think Atlanta’s policy is written anywhere publicly, but i agree with the 10 they have (Chipper Jones, Dale Murphy, Bobby Cox, Tom Glavine, Gregg Maddux, John Smoltz, Eddie Mathews, Warren Spahn, Hank Aaron, Phil Niekro). Dale Murphy is the only one not in Cooperstown (and I’d argue he should be). If Andruw Jones is elected, his number will likely be retired too.
His number is already retired.
link.
Feels like another guy who should be in the team hall of fame but not have their number retired. Some of these guys deserve a sort of number hiatus where they won’t issue it for a few years, maybe a decade afterwards, but not full on retirement. Number retirement should be reserved for guys who are talked about generations after they stopped playing, hence the team never issuing the number again. I don’t think Wright is a guy who is going to come up in a lot of baseball discussions 50 years from now.
If the splash and lede hadn’t reminded me that Wright had played for the Mets, I would have had to think for minute to recall it myself; that to me says the most about whether his number should be retired.
Sorry, but I’m not sure that this is a jersey to retire?????? Yes, he was a great player. But at what point do we say “retired numbers are for legendary players”? Will anyone speak of David
Wright in the next 30 years????
I’m in agreement with you, Jeff. I don’t think the Mets should retire Wright’s number. But he is arguably the best player they’ve had (maybe aside from Beltran) in the past two decades (deGrom was better, but he chose greener pastures).
This is definitely a generational thing — the generation after me absolutely LOVES Wright (and by all accounts, he is a fantastic human being, as well as a very talented ball player).
The pre-Cohen retirement “rules” were probably a tad too stringent. But I think they may be too loose now.
I also think the team will retire Carter the season after this, and then there may be a few years until the next one. Hard to see anyone but Beltran (and I do NOT think he’s deserving) after Carter, other than some sentimental choices who weren’t necessarily deserving on their play alone.
The Wilpon’s prior criteria were too strict.
It was actually them, and not Cohen, who had decided to retire Koosman’s number. It just got delayed due to COVID.
I am in agreement with all numbers retired so far.
Could argue for a few more such as Franco, Cleon Jones, Beltran
Soon after I die, pro sports will realize they retired too many numbers, and begin to put them back into circulation.
I wish that, if a team retires a number, then the team makes any future choice.
If a player wants to a retired number, the team needs to say either yes or no. Not pass the buck to the player, or the fsmily of the player so the teamdoesn’t look like the bad guy.
Very double position on this: as a Mets fan I say yes, retire number 5, Wright fully deserves it. As a sports fan: never retire any numbers unless it is 42 in all of baseball or if a team wants to honor its fans by keeping 12 out of rotation (Seahawks and some Euro soccer teams). So undecided for now, but I am leaning towards: Wright should be the last Met to have his number retired and after that no more.
Juan Soto just signed a 15 year contract with the Mets. If he plays up to his current standards through its completion, he will likely hold most of the Mets batting records of note. Additionally, he would be a first ballot Hall of Famer who played the majority of his career in a Mets uniform. Wouldn’t that be worthy of his number 22 being retired?
Call me crazy but I am not totally sold on Soto yet. I suspect he may have a bad run as a Met but I hope not, ofcourse. If your prediction comes true I still hold my ground: stop retiring numbers any time soon. Let Wrighty be one of the last.
Feels like an owner who recognizes the sellout-crowd potential of a number retirement policy. That’s why the Astros went nuts during Drayton McLane’s ownership on retiring numbers for players who were popular and had very good careers in Houston, but weren’t Hall of Fame players. Jim Wynn, Jose Cruz and Mike Scott are franchise icons, but not Hall of Famers. They also retired Biggio and Bagwell’s numbers before they got into the Hall of Fame. I’d limit my number retirements to Hall of Famers.
My thought is that a team retiring a player’s number is Ticker material. :)
This is devolving into Let’s Remember Some Guys territory. I don’t have billions of dollars to buy a team but this is a very slippery slope, where the guy bankrolling things becomes a 1-man committee to write the history of a team going back to 1962 and immortalize fan favorites who don’t deserve permanent recognition. Team Hall of Fame? Sure. But taking numbers out of circulation forever for Wright and Koosman (and probably Carter) is lowering the bar. What about Howard Johnson? Jesse Orosco? Mookie Wilson? Ray Knight?
What about Krane? What about Buddy?
This is why (and I agree with you) retiring numbers is a slippery slope. Honestly, I’d have put Eddie Kranepool and Bud Harrelson in long before HoJo, Jesse, Mook and Ray Knight. But all of those guys have decent arguments for their inclusion.
I said before I think the former standard (HOF w/Mets cap) was too stringent, but now it just seems like a way to stoke nostalgia at the expense of overall worthiness.
I mean seriously, it could be argued that the four most important Mets in terms of overall team success could be Carter, Mitchell, Knight and Wilson. Without them, the Mets lose the 1986 World Series. Should we enshrine them in the Mets HOF and retire their numbers?
That Ed Kranepool is near the top of many of the Mets leaderboards is more a testament to the how the Mets (specifically Payson, De Roulets, Grant, and Wilpons) have been criminally mismanaged for the majority of franchise history.
Ed was by all accounts a great teammate and even better person, but there is little basis to retire his number. He is in the team’s Hall of Fame. That is fitting.
None of the players you mention above (except perhaps Carter) should even be under consideration to have their numbers retired.
Also on Carter, you can largely blame his number not being retired under the “old” rules to Wade Boggs. Though he denies it, it was rumored that the Devil Rays paid Boggs $1M to choose their cap when he would be inducted into Hall of Fame. Whether true or not, the Hall got wind of it and changed their rules – prior to 2001 inducted players where able to choose what cap (or none) to put on their HOF plaque. Carter expressed the wish, after his election to the HOF, to have his plaque show a Mets cap, but the HOF chose the Expos instead (the team he played the majority of his career with).
Finally, I think there would be a greater push to retire number 8 for Carter, if he was still alive and involved with the organization. From reading “The Bad Guys Won!,” it seems Carter wasn’t very popular with his teammates and the move to name him captain in 1988 was as much to appease him as any desire from those he played with. I don’t think it likely that there is any push from those of his era now enshrined (Doc, Darryl, and Keith) to have him join them.