It’s time to retire retiring numbers
I don’t need to tell you David Wright was an all-time Met great. Fielded his position well. Hit for power and average. Could take a walk. Clutch? You bet. Well spoken. Model citizen. Dad was a cop. Met stock through and through draft pick who grew up rooting for the Tides, never played for another team and acquired as a compensation draft pick for just the kind of fleeting mercenary he wasn’t, the one-and-done Mike Hampton. Tore up the team record books to lead all-time in hits, runs scored, plate appearances, doubles, walks, total bases and runs batted in. Got along great with the press. .296 batting average, same as Mike Piazza as a Met.
If they didn’t go and hang his No. 5 high up in left field next summer, all of the above things would still be true, and needn’t be forgotten, since Wright at the same time will be entering into the Mets Hall of Fame.
I don’t need to tell you, and neither does the retired number.
Don’t get me wrong. I think Wright is the perfect example of a player whose number should be retired, for all the reasons above. But numbskulls are already writing dumb articles about who should be next as though there’s a well of guys as accomplished as Wright out there in Mets history who somehow just haven’t gotten their due.
The sad truth of the matter is the Mets don’t have a great history when it comes to developing retirement-worthy ballplayers and no amount of number-retirement is going to fix that. So I’m calling for an end to number retirements, not just for the Mets, but as a thing. Find a more creative way to salute the accomplishments of these guys. Name a field after Gary Carter. Have the best rookie win the Dwight Gooden Award. And I’d much prefer a Darryl Strawberry statue by the right field gate than no more No. 18s. Wouldn’t anybody?
Let’s end this madness.