This story was excerpted from Anthony DiComo¡¯s Mets Beat newsletter. To read the full newsletter, click here. And subscribe to get it regularly in your inbox.

NEW YORK -- The news that the Mets will retire David Wright¡¯s No. 5 next summer has been, in some ways, a long time coming.

Wright is, of course, the most accomplished position player in franchise history -- and arguably the most popular. He leads the Mets in career hits, doubles, runs, RBIs, walks and WAR from a position player, most of those by wide margins. Considering how impactful Wright was on the field and what he meant to the Mets off it, you won¡¯t find too many folks questioning the idea of mounting a No. 5 placard at Citi Field.

For decades, however, the Mets held to an unofficial policy restricting players from having their numbers retired unless they were due to be enshrined in Cooperstown. Not counting No. 14, which they retired mostly for Gil Hodges¡¯ contributions as a manager, the Mets took the numbers of just two players permanently out of circulation over a 58-year stretch from 1962-2020.

Tom Seaver, a mortal lock for Cooperstown, had his No. 41 retired not long after he threw his final pitch. Mike Piazza waited until the weekend after he entered the National Baseball Hall of Fame to see No. 31 go up.

• Mets' retired numbers

Had the Mets continued holding to this policy, it would have dampened Wright¡¯s chances to have his number retired. Though Wright can still make the Hall of Fame, he¡¯s fighting an uphill battle with nine years of eligibility left on the Baseball Writers¡¯ Association of America ballot. Wright received 6.2% of support in his first year, with 75% needed for induction. The back, neck and shoulder injuries that cut short Wright¡¯s career are the culprit; had he mustered even a few more league-average seasons in his 30s, he¡¯d be a much more solid candidate for Cooperstown.

Mets officials rightfully wanted to retire Wright¡¯s number anyway. But how to honor him without first doing the same for franchise legends like Keith Hernandez, Darryl Strawberry and Dwight Gooden?

You could point to No. 5, then, as a primary reason why the team softened its stance on retired numbers. Almost immediately upon Wright¡¯s retirement, the Mets began clearing a backlog of numbers that they probably should have retired years ago -- Jerry Koosman¡¯s No. 36, Hernandez¡¯s No. 17, Willie Mays¡¯ No. 24, Gooden¡¯s No. 16 and Strawberry¡¯s No. 18. Those five all had their numbers hung within a four-year span.

The backlog is clear now. Wright is amongst some solid company. The only question is who else might one day join him.

Possibilities from the past

The obvious first place to look is Gary Carter, whose No. 8 is retired in Washington for his contributions as a Montreal Expo. There¡¯s no denying Carter¡¯s impact as a cog of the 1986 World Series champions. But Carter played just five years in Queens, compiling 11.4 WAR over that time -- less than a quarter of Wright¡¯s total. He appeared in only 600 games for the Mets. ¡°Kid¡± is a member of the Mets Hall of Fame, and no Met has worn his No. 8 since 2001. Those are weighty honors, but probably the extent of the acknowledgements he¡¯ll receive in Flushing.

The trickiest case may be Carlos Beltr¨¢n, who received 57.1% of support on the Hall of Fame ballot last year and stands an excellent chance of eventually gaining admission to Cooperstown. If he does, Beltr¨¢n might go in with a Mets cap on his plaque. But he also might not. Like Hernandez, Beltr¨¢n spent only seven years in Queens as a player. Unlike Hernandez, Beltr¨¢n never won any popularity contests. His reputation took a hit for his role in the Astros¡¯ sign-stealing scandal, which cost him his job as Mets manager shortly after his hiring. These days, Beltr¨¢n is back in the organization as a special advisor, so relations are good. It¡¯s a situation worth monitoring.

Another borderline case is Jacob deGrom, who spent nine years with the Mets and won two Cy Young Awards in Queens but left as a free agent after the 2022 season. Had deGrom stayed, he¡¯d have been a number retirement lock. But that¡¯s not what happened.

Future hopefuls

No one else in team history -- not Ed Kranepool nor Ron Darling nor Sid Fernandez, John Franco, Edgardo Alfonzo or Jos¨¦ Reyes -- put up the types of statistics that typically accompany a number retirement. That means the best bets are on the active roster.

If Francisco Lindor continues his current career arc, the Mets will almost certainly take No. 12 out of circulation following his retirement. Still in his prime, Lindor is likely to enter the Top 10 on the Mets¡¯ all-time homer and stolen bases lists this year. He could one day pass Strawberry as the Mets¡¯ home run king. While Lindor still has work to do, he¡¯s on the right pace.

Same with Brandon Nimmo, who has already played nine years in Flushing and remains under contract for another six. One of the most popular Mets of the current era, Nimmo is unlikely to retire the franchise leader in any major category outside of walks. But he¡¯s a fan favorite who could spend 15 years or more in Flushing. That matters.

It¡¯s the reason why Pete Alonso could also have his number retired¡­ but only if he re-signs on a long-term deal. If that happens, Alonso will almost certainly become the franchise¡¯s home run king. If it doesn¡¯t, the Mets will probably issue No. 20 to someone else before long.

Then there¡¯s Juan Soto. One of the game¡¯s best hitters at age 26, Soto has a decade-and-a-half runway to build his case. If he contributes a few Hall of Fame-caliber seasons in Flushing, wins a title or two and sticks around until the late 2030s, Soto is as good a bet to have his number retired as anyone. But it¡¯s hard to call someone a lock before he¡¯s even recorded his first Mets hit.