Last week, we had another of Mike Chamernik’s “Question of the Week” series, the response was great, and Mike is back again with his next question.
Question of the Week
by Mike Chamernik
The Raptors will retire Vince Carter’s No. 15 in early November, per reports. It would certainly jibe with the new City Edition jersey that was leaked a few weeks ago.
Honoring Vince is a mixed bag for Toronto basketball fans. On the one hand, Carter was the franchise’s first superstar, and one of the most electrifying players in the league during his Raptors tenure. Anecdotally, young Canadian players cite Carter as a reason why they picked up basketball.
On the other hand, he pretty much quit and tanked his value to force his way out of Toronto back in 2004. It was a whole big thing.
Does your favorite team have a undeserving or unpopular jersey number retirement? Is there any retired number you personally disagree with?
What are the standards for a player to have his number retired with your team, in your opinion?
Thanks, Mike. This is definitely another fun QOTW.
Interestingly, I had some fairly strong feelings regarding the Mets retiring No. 24 for Willie Mays back in 2022. Under the former Mets ownership (and prior to that as well), a player had to be elected to the Hall of Fame (and be depicted in their cap) in order to have their number retired. Thankfully, under the new ownership of Steve Cohen, they’ve relaxed those standards, leading to the number retirements of Jerry Koosman, Willie Mays, Keith Hernandez, Doc Gooden and Darryl Strawberry. Aside from Tom Seaver and Mike Piazza (the only two players whose numbers were retired under the old system), the team had retired the numbers of Casey Stengel, their first manager, and Gil Hodges, who led them to their improbable — Miracle — World Series Championship in 1969.
Can’t wait to hear the readers’ responses! OK guys…fire away!
Jim Thome for the Guardians. He got elected to the HOF, fine. But I still never liked how he left the team (fully his right as a free agent) and I think it should’ve excluded him from getting his number retired. I also always thought he was a jerk, so there is some personal animosity on my end as well, full disclosure.
Interesting, I’ve always heard that Thome was the nicest guy ever
Fans were begging Thome to stay here. He even told us, “It can’t be all about greed.” Then he took the money and ran.
Not only did they retire his number, they built a damn statue of him. He deserves neither.
That being said, everything I’ve ever seen and heard indicates that he was indeed a very nice guy.
I encourage you to read Terry Pluto’s book Dealing for the truth about Thome’s free agency decision. Thome desperately wanted to stay. Then GM Mark Shapiro didn’t think the team could rebuild with Thome on the roster even at a home town discount (which Thome was more than willing to give). Instead Shapiro offered Thome a lowball contract which for some reason included a clothing line and a commitment to having a statue of Thome. Thome wasn’t interested in a clothing line or the statue and was puzzled by their inclusion. Philadelphia came in above Cleveland’s contract offer in dollars and years. Thome came back to Shapiro and asked for the team to match the years of the Philly deal. Shapiro, even with Thome giving Cleveland a discount on dollars, passed. Again, this is all in Pluto’s book which really details that the team was never serious about resigning Thome.
It’s unfortunate so many Cleveland fans harbor ill will toward Thome when the team forced him out. Along with Kenny Lofton, no one represented the Jacobs Field era Tribe better on or off the field. Thome’s number deserved to be retired and he earned the statue the team commissioned to honor him.
Jim Thome has always been generous with his time. Prime example: The day his father passed, he showed up at the United Center, shook hands took pics, tossed autographed balls, and met every kid that was there. Sorry he left Cleveland, but he’s treasured here in Chicago.
As a Padres fan, I don’t like having Steve Garvey’s number retired. He played for the Padres for a few years, hit a clutch homerun in the playoffs, and what else?
That, and he was primarily a Dodger. Don’t like it at all. Randy Jones is another weak retired number, although I somewhat understand it as a franchise with less history than others.
As a Dodgers fan and a huge fan of Steve Garvey when I was a kid, I think it is ridiculous that the Padres have retired his number. I am not even upset that the Dodgers haven’t.
The Steelers and Penguins have *officially* retired very few numbers, all of them deserving. There are a bunch of numbers that the Steelers haven’t handed out since key players left, and I can’t argue with any of them.
The Pirates have retired ten numbers, all of which belonged to players from before I could spell “baseball.” They recently inducted Barry Bonds into the team Hall of Fame, the first player from my lifetime to receive the honor, WITHOUT retiring his number. I wish they would have picked someone else from the early 90s-era team…
The Falcons don’t retire jersey numbers, and yet they have a perfect candidate for this concept: Arthur Blank being inducted into the Ring of Honor the other night was a level of cluelessness I’ve never seen before.
Blank’s induction was hilarious. Obama medal meme
The Cardinals retiring Bruce Sutter’s number never sat well with me. He made his name (and won his Cy Young) with the Cubs, of all teams. He was only a Cardinal for 4 years (and only 1 was what you would call great, 2 good, 1 poor).
Yeah, he led the league in saves for the team 3 times, and yeah, he closed out a World Series, but then so did Jason Motte. I don’t know what they were thinking with that one.
Really? I always thought Cardinals fans were supportive of Sutter’s number retirement. Heck, he wore a St. Louis cap on his Hall of Fame plaque, so the feelings seemed mutual, too.
Only speaking for myself. It’s not that he’s not fondly remembered, he is, even though he left as a free agent after only 4 seasons.
But when you look at the other players with retired numbers, he’s BY FAR the guy least associated with the team and with the shortest tenure, I mean he really sticks out among names like Schoendienst, Ozzie Smith, Musial, Slaughter, Boyer, Brock, Gibson, Simmons, LaRussa, Herzog…
I think most fans would rather see Willie McGee’s 51 on the wall, honestly, even though he’ll never get anywhere near the HOF.
Not crazy about the Broncos retiring 18 for Frank Tripucka and Peyton Manning, given that they played a combined 7 seasons with the team. I feel the same way about the Nuggets retiring 55 for Dikembe Mutumbo, as he only played 5 seasons for them.
I feel like impact on the organization is a more important criterion for number retirement than longevity. As a lifelong fan of the Denver-area professional sports teams, I don’t have a problem with Manning having his number retired. He is arguably the second-most important player the team has ever had behind John Elway, and he made a huge difference to the franchise in the four years he played. His choice to continue being a “Bronco” after retiring (living in metro Denver, making lots of public appearances on behalf of the team, referring to the Broncos as “we” on ManningCast, etc.) also adds credence to Number 18 being retired in his honor.
With that said, his number retirement was one of the oddest, most low-key things I’ve ever seen. There was never an official ceremony. They just stuck his name on the bottom of a banner that already had Tripucka’s name and number on it: link. Then, later, they updated the banners by removing the names, leaving it to everyone’s imagination as to who they were retired for: link. So I’m not entirely sure that 18 really is retired for Peyton Manning – and I’m not sure if the team does either!
Candidly, and with all due respect, I think Manning has a better case of the number retirement than Tripucka does. Manning won an MVP, was named to three Pro Bowls, won four AFC West titles, went to two Super Bowls and won one in his four years with the team. Few players accomplish that much in an entire career. Tripucka was an important player to help get the franchise off the ground in the early ’60s, but he played on pretty bad teams and wasn’t particularly efficient. Yes, I know it was a different era, but plenty of his contemporaries at QB put up much better numbers while protecting the ball better. I think Tripucka is well-deserving of the team’s Ring of Fame, but he seems an odd choice for a number retirement when plenty of Broncos who’ve been inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame don’t have their numbers on display inside the stadium.
The Yankees retiring Reggie Jackson’s 44 always bugged me. He was on the team for 5 years out of a 20 year career. Yes, he had good years there, and his Game 6 in the ’77 World Series is one for the ages. But he just didn’t spend enough time there to merit a number retirement.
It’s a similar case with Roger Maris’ 9 being retired. Despite the single-season record he set in 1961 and those few good years in the early ’60s, he was only on the team for a few years.
Maris was a two-time MVP, broke the season home run record (which stood for a long time) and probably saved the World Series in 1962 with a great throw. He’s worthy in my mind.
Of course Graig Nettles did pretty well in #9 too, including World Series heroics.
I really think the Yankees should double retire 9 like they did for 8. I think Maris is deserving of a retirement, if only barely, but I feel more or less the same about Nettles. Really hurts nothing to retire it for both of them tbh.
What I don’t get is why Willie Randolph’s 30 is still in circulation. He played for the Yankees for 13 years, won two championships, went to 5 ALL-Star games and was co-captain with Ron Guidry. Steinbrenner was ticked that he left for the Dodgers, but he then came back to coach for the team through its last dynasty. Why doesn’t he get his due (can you tell he was one of my favorite players growing up)?
Ivon Labre, Washington Capitals might be overdoing it. Especially when Peter Bondea and Olie Kolzig haven’t had their numbers retired. Perhaps that’s coming in the post-Ovechkin Era as the team will need things to rally around.
FWIW, I think #8 and #19 will ne retired by the Caps (Ovechkin and Backstrom) will a strong case for Holtby’s #70. I could see Carlson’s #74 and maybe Oshie’s #77 up there too.
This may be heresy in my hometown, but I’ve never understood why Bob Gassoff has his number retired with the St. Louis Blues. His death was tragic, but is that enough to warrant a retired number. He wasn’t much of a player, but he sure could fight. In this day and age, I don’t think this would happen.
I will take the heat off of you my t-rav brother and state that only MacInnis, Hull, Federko, and Pronger’s numbers should be retired.
Nothing is more ridiculous than Michael Jordan’s number being retired by the Heat despite never having played a game for them.
As far as standards go, if I were in charge, a player gets his/her number retired if:
1) They spent 10+ years with the team (I would maybe lower this to 7+ years for football).
2) They are inducted into the Hall of Fame -OR- a fan referendum with 75+% approval.
3) They have contributed positively to the community through charitable works.
Love the 75% fan vote idea
I might add (feel free to disagree) that the player should also be able to boast one of the following: had contributed to the team in a way that resulted in notable success (not necessarily championships won, but people outside of the team’s fandom should think of that era of that team as a time when they were formidable), or they are essentially ubiquitous with the team’s history/public perception. To that end, Dan Marino and Junior Seau come to mind (I suppose your #2 essentially covers this base, though). I lived in San Diego during the Seau years and the last of the Tony Gwynn years. It was a rare day that went by that one of those names didn’t come up somehow. Both players couldn’t have been more intwined in the community, despite playing during periods of relatively low post season success in relation to their star power and talent.
Barring any amazing changes in the team’s trajectory, LeBron should not have his number retired in LA. Former success does not erase the fact that he was the face of (and likely one of the most influential members of) a storied franchise quickly turning into a bigger and bigger clown show starting the moment he signed on the dotted line.
I know he was with them when they won in the bubble, but there aren’t many pundits that can say that without inflecting their voices with the audible equivalent of an asterisk.
As proven by the delayed number retirements of Wilkes and Green, Lakers have an unofficial rule that they retire every number of a player that helps them win a title and is elected to the Hall of Fame. So LeBron will definitely get his #23 retired once he’s elected to HoF.
Many Laker fans have wanted Fisher number retired but it’s never going to happen unless he makes the HoF.
It will be interesting if Dwight Howard gets his number retired by the Lakers since he helped them win a ring and is likely to get elected to the HoF.
Lakers were one of the absolute worst teams in the league prior to LeBron getting there. The highlight of the 5 years before he got there was finishing 11th in the west. The other 4 years they finished last or 2nd to last. Then LeBron shows up and in 2 years they have a title. I don’t care if they retire his number or not, but don’t be revising history to make him look like the problem in LA.
Also, you’re right that many people put an asterisk by the bubble championship, but I have yet to hear anyone explain how it was any less of a title. It’s usually just thinly-veiled LeBron hate. If anything, the Lakers likely would have had an easier time winning under normal conditions. The Lakers are one of the few teams that has a sizeable fan base everywhere. Meaning they can neutralize the home court effect of other teams to some degree. Having no fans was a relative disadvantage to them compared to other teams.
Another great topic!
As of a few years ago, I believe only Nolan Ryan (Rangers, Astros and Angels) and Wilt Chamberlain (Warriors, 76ers and Lakers) had their numbers retired by three teams. A strong case could be made for each.
But to me, I’d prefer to see the honor reserved for players who were not only accomplished on the field but also proud off-the-field team representatives in their communities, such as Kent Hrbek. Sadly, Ed Kranepool was never given the honor.
No more retiring numbers, ever. In fact, UNretire all currently retired numbers across all teams and all sports.
I leave it to the discretion of the team and the equipment managers on determining if a player is special enough to wear a number that has an historical significance to the franchise. And if it’s determined in the affirmative, a patch should be worn on the shoulder or chest or somewhere that notates the number as having historical significance to the franchise. Michigan gave out #98 to Devin Gardner and put a Harmon patch on it, Penn State almost exclusively gives out #11 these days to linebackers who become defensive leaders, and Lavar Arrington couldn’t be happier about it.
Make the important numbers MORE important by giving them to new, important players. THAT is how to serve the legacy of the player(s), the number, and why it matters to the team.
Yeah I like how the Cowboys have an “88 Club” for special WRs.
Yes, exactly this. That’s how special numbers should be handled by teams, always.
I’m a Yankees fan, so where do I start?
More than anything with O’Neill, Reggie, or Maris, I HATE that 6 and 37 were retired for Torre and Stengel respectively. I can’t speak for Stengel so much, but what’s the enduring image of Joe Torre? He’s sitting there in the dugout, brooding, in that classic satin jacket with the “Yankees” script across the front. He’s certainly one of the greatest managers in Yankees history, but you can’t tell me that he truly “owned” the number 6. To me, it reeks of the Yankees retiring it so that they can SAY they’ve retired every single digit number.
Very glad a Yankees fan chimed in. Now I need a Celtics’ fan’s perspective.
That’s not even true anymore because 0 has been in circulation for like 5 years now.
Teams can/should decide what the criteria is for retiring a number…not a big fan of retiring a number league-wide anywhere. Un-retiring fir a day of as requested ain’t cool with me.
I have a problem with the Phillies retiring #34 for Roy Halliday – only with Philly 4 years (but oh, what 4 years!), plus the circumstances surrounding his passing kinda tarnish his legacy. YMMV.
I’m not a fan of numbers retired for non-players. So if I had my druthers, the Brewers would un-retire the 1 they retired for Bud Selig, and the Twins would undo their weird “retirement” of the letter W for the original Washington Senators. Instead, the Twins should retire jerseys with no number in honor of Senators great Walter Johnson. Johnson technically wore 28 and 25 in his final two seasons with the franchise, but for most of his career the team wore no numbers. That said, all three teams I root for have a relatively restrained retirement policy for players, and I don’t disagree with any number the Twins, Brewers, or Nats have retired.
My standards are, Did the player get elected to the Hall of Fame? If so, automatic retirement. And Did the player define an era for the team, including preferably multiple pennant runs? If so, then retirement may be justified depending on how prominent the player was in fan imagination and memory. Like, I’d never argue that Kent Hrbek belongs in Cooperstown, but for the period of 1982-94, he was both a face of the franchise and usually one of the two best offensive and defensive players in the dugout. The Twins probably win both World Series during his career without him on the playoff roster, but they almost certainly don’t reach the World Series without him on the regular-season roster. For the franchise, Hrbek is as epochal a player as Oliva or Killebrew, so I’m happy his number is retired. Others he played alongside who were of similar talent, like Gary Gaetti, I wouldn’t retire their numbers, simply because they were neither so prominently franchise faces nor quite as individually vital to the team’s most successful seasons. The latter, non-HOF case is a judgment call, and so I prefer a more cautious approach, which all three of “my” teams have generally followed.
Couldn’t agree more about retiring numbers for non-players. I hate managers getting their number retired, especially for the past 2+ decades, every manager is wearing some kind of jacket or pullover over the jersey (or just not wearing the jersey at all).
The Seahawks retiring 12 is okay with me, but I’m VERRRRRYYYYY wary of making PR stunts like that a common occurence.
Retired-number adjacent, but shoutout to old-timey Yankee Cliff Mapes, who was wearing #3 in 1948 until it was retired for Ruth, and then was wearing #7 in 1951 until he got traded, whereupon Mantle got it when he returned from the minors.
Retiring legitimate numbers in honor of non-players is the worst. I’ll give a begrudging approval for Joe Torre with the Yankees, Sparky Anderson with the Reds and Tigers, etc, because the MLB coaches are actually given numbers. But basketball and hockey? Stop it. Those coaches don’t have uniform numbers. Celtics #1 for Walter Brown, Celtics #2 for Red Auerbach, Blazers #77 for Jack Ramsay, Panthers #93 for Bill Torrey, etc…unretire those numbers immediately. I’ll let the Islanders keep their bowtie for Bill Torrey and I’ll let the Knicks keep their 500-something number for Red Holtzman (that’s not a uniform number but it’s the number of coach’s wins), but if you only wore a suit and never a number, no you shouldn’t get a number retired! I don’t care! I’ll shout that out loudly. In a softer voice because it’s the same principle but a little less egregious, the Vegas Golden Knights retired #58 for the nightclub shooting just before Opening Night. Nice try but that’s still a “no” from me. Unretire that. Much respect to the Florida Marlins for unretiring #5 for Carl Barger (president, and fan of Joe Dimaggio) when an actual player named Logan Morrison wanted it.
The Orioles seem to be very selective about their retired numbers.
-Officially, 4, 5, 8, 20, 22, 33, and of course 42 are retired.
-Unofficially, 7 (Cal Sr.), 10 (Adam Jones), 44 (Elrod) and 46 (Flanagan) are retired, as no player has worn them since
-Had Mike Mussina stayed with the Orioles, his 35 probably would have been retired. Adley wears it now.
-25 is interesting. Notable/Semi-notable hitters who have worn/currently wear it: Don Baylor, Rich Dauer, Rafael Palmeiro, Jay Gibbons, Jim Thome, Hyun Soo Kim, and currently Anthony Santander
O’s fan passing through, I want to point out that 7 and 46 are back in circulation now for Holliday and Kimbrel (although Kimbrel was just DFA’d). It seems the new ownership is willing to liberalize the use of the out-of-circulation numbers, but since Kimbrel and Holliday both had special cases (Kimbrel being a potential HOFer, Holliday being a #1 pick and top prospect), I wonder if the OOC numbers might be off-limits to most players (and heck, they could put 46 back in the closet now if they want).
It hadn’t occurred to me that the team hasn’t issued number 10 since Jones left! He was a great player, face of the team, and community ambassador, but I don’t think of him a guy whose number should be off-limits.
Mussina is an interesting one. From the outside looking in, it is odd that his number was never retired (ask Buster Olney). And now that Adley is here, it will never be retired, or at least not any time soon. But that has the wrinkle of the old ownership butting heads with Moose. If Adley weren’t issued 35, and the number weren’t in use when Rubenstein bought the team, I wonder if he would consider retiring it…
But that would also be a deviation from protocol. The Orioles have a six core, franchise legends who are the unquestioned greatest and most important players/manager in team history. They are also the six guys with O’s hats in Cooperstown, and they all have statues in center field. Mussina doesn’t fit as snugly into that box. He never won a WS with the team, most people probably think of him as a Yankee, and his hat in the HOF is blank. In other words, he should be the perfect candidate for the halfway treatment!
To answer the actual question… none that I disagree with, because I’m an O’s and Skins fan, and both those teams are very conservative with number retirements. Until 2020, the Skins only officially retired number was 33 for Sammy Baugh. They’re just now working their way through retiring the numbers that have long been OOC (there are a lot). I wouldn’t put any hard and fast requirements on it, other than “if you’re not sure whether it should be retired, it shouldn’t be.” Or at least hold it out for a few years and then decide. But after a few years, please make up your mind. Sonny Jurgensen retired after 1974, and his number was OOC but not officially retired until 2022!!
Blame me being sick for forgetting about Holliday LOL
For a team with only two titles – one of which isn’t represented yet because it’s too recent – the Milwaukee Bucks have too many retired numbers, with 9.
No brainers (to me) – Kareem, Oscar Robertson
OK by me – Sidney Moncrief
OK when you include his 50 years as a team broadcaster and community activist – Jon McGlocklin.
Didn’t spend enough time in Milwaukee: Bob Lanier.
Questionable: Junior Bridgeman, Marques Johnson, Bob Dandridge, Brian Winters
Oscar? Really? I know he won a title there, but only played 4 years for the Bucks. To me he’ll always be a Cincinnati Royal.
As a Tampa Bay Rays fan, I gotta say I always though it was a bit weird they retired 12 for Wade Boggs. While he did get his 3000th hit with the Rays, he also only played 2 seasons with them. Maybe someone else has different insight than I, but it does seem like it was marketing thing or just a feeling that it adds a level of prestige to the franchise to have a retired number.
Yeah, you absolutely nailed it. That might be the most ridiculous retired number in sports.
No numbers should be retired with the exception of 42 in baseball, 99 in hockey and probably that’s it. Each team should have a ring of honor, to celebrate their greatest players. It’s getting ridiculous with all the numbers for certain teams running out. Of course, there should be some grace period before giving a ring of honor players number to a new player.
Most of Cleveland’s retired numbers are appropriate. But as noted above, Thome doesn’t deserve one because he ran out on us.
The Cavs retired Nate Thurmond’s No. 42 even though he was a role player and he played only three years here at the very end of his career. Nice gesture, but I don’t know; I thinks it’s a bit much.
The most blatant overhyped honor is the Yankees putting Jorge Posada out in Monument Park. Holy Moses! Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Mantle, and . . . Posada???? Come on.
Not an Astros fan, but can’t believe they have 9 retired numbers with no championships (nobody on the 2017 or 2022 teams have their number retired, but I’m sure Altuve, Verlander and possibly others eventually will). The Phoenix Suns are even worse, with 11 retired numbers and zero championships.
Speaking of the Astros, if you read into the history of Don Wilson on his day of demise along with his son, and furthermore the injuries sustained by his wife that day, you have to greatly question what the heck the Astros were thinking of when they retired his number.
Enough said.
I know Rollie Fingers is a HOFer and won an MVP with the Brewers, but he was only on the team for four seasons and I don’t think that’s long enough to justify a retired number.
Good answers, everyone!
Speaking of, the Grizzlies will retire Tony Allen’s No. 9 this season. Memphis has gone hard on retiring the numbers of players from the Grit and Grind era.
Thankfully, my Raiders do not retire numbers. The last couple decades not withstanding, the team has a ridiculous amount of former stars that would be worthy. It would be near impossible to start sorting it all out with hurting feelings and causing uproar. Just to start… 00, 8, 12, 16, 21, 22, 24, 25, 32, 36, 63, 75, 78, 81, 83, 87 are all Hall of Fame players who spent the bulk or all of their careers with the Silver & Black. That doesn’t even count guys like Lamonica, Plunkett, Carr, Bo, Seymour, Rice, Woodson, and other players who were either “great” Raiders or HOF primarily with other teams.
Good answers, everyone!
Speaking of, the Grizzlies will retire Tony Allen’s No. 9 this season. Memphis has gone hard on retiring the numbers of players from the Grit and Grind era.
The University of Iowa men’s basketball program has an oddly contentious situation with its number retirements – and whether those numbers are actually retired in the first place. For starters, Iowa has alternately retired players’ numbers in some cases and other players’ “jerseys” in others. When a player’s number is retired, it’s supposed to take the number out of circulation. A “jersey retirement,” on the other hand, just puts a representation of the player’s jersey in the rafters while allowing future players to wear the number.
It’s not always entirely clear which players have had their numbers retired verses their jerseys retired. For example, B.J. Armstrong, a star point guard for the team back in the late ’80s before winning three NBA titles with the Michael Jordan-led Bulls in the early ’90s, had his jersey retired back when most fans thought the terms “jersey retirement” and “number retirement” were interchangeable. But when a few players wore Armstrong’s Number 10 a couple decades later, that’s when the University became vocal about the distinction.
Part of the problem was that Iowa had previously been pretty liberal in its retirement of player numbers – including retiring the numbers of all five starters from their 1956 National Runner-Up team – leading to a bit of a shortage of available numbers for current players. The shortage was compounded because the NCAA, until recently, allowed only digits between 0 and 5 on jerseys to streamline referees’ use of hand signals to the scorer’s table.
The biggest controversy came when Iowa announced it would retire Player of the Year Luka Garza’s number on his Senior Night in 2021. Family and supporters of the late Roy Marble – the program’s previous career scoring leader before Garza broke his record – expressed their outrage on social media about how shoddily Iowa had treated Marble, since he’d never had his number or jersey retired. Since then, Iowa has inducted Marble into its athletics hall of fame and added his name to the list of number/jersey retirements: link. But I still don’t know for sure whose jerseys are retired versus whose numbers are retired. I guess I’ll know if/when I see those “retired” numbers worn by current players.
I understand why Richard Childress took the #3 out of circulation until it was returned to the track with Austin Dillon in the driver’s seat …but looking back, I kinda wish it hadn’t be ‘retired’ at all (though Kevin Harvick made #29 his own and had a good amount of success in it).
I love how Kyle Petty took over the #45 when his son died…but it was gone too long (and Adam too soon). Glad it’s back but I don’t like seeing it driven as a Michael Jordan entry-should stayed with the Petty’s/Legacy.
They aren’t my team, but I was very recently telling a friend I didn’t think the Magic should have retired Shaq’s number. It’s similar to the argument against Vince Carter. While on one hand Shaq WAS the Magic back in the day and was admittedly significant to the franchise, his tenure was pretty short and he chose to go elsewhere. Magic hof or ring of honor or whatever? Sure. Number retirement? Not if I was in charge.
A unique situation with the Detroit Red Wings. Larry Aurie’s number 6 was retired in 1938 but has never been hung in the rafters. The reasoning for that, according to the team, is because he was never elected to the Hall of Fame.
Bernie Williams
Nate Thurmond was a great player but the Cleveland Cavaliers retired his number merely for stepping in for an injured Jim Chones during the Miracle at Richfield playoffs. His Cavs tenure was brief and he was a role player. That being said, Kyrie Irving helped the Cavs when a title and I never want to see his number in the rafters. To me he forfeited that honor when he forced his way out of town because he didn’t want to play alongside LeBron.
One last Cleveland retired number/jersey comment-MLB has made a colossal mistake in not allowing the Guardians to wear 14 to commemorate Larry Doby breaking the color barrier in the AL. Given that the AL and NL had separate record books until interleague play and that Doby went thru the same things Jackie Robinson did, and in some different cities, it’s shameful MLB doesn’t allow the team to wear 14 once a season to honor Doby.
This year Detroit Tigers retired manager Jim Leyland. No world series championships with deep lineup.
I think retired numbers can get out of hand. The Lakers used to be very discerning in who got their number retired. They were only all time greats. Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, Wilt Chamberlain, Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Kobe Bryant, and Shaq, makes sense. Gail Goodrich, James Worthy, and Pau Gasol were great players, but not retired numbers worthy for the Lakers. They recently retired George Mikan’s 99, which does seem appropriate even though he played for the Lakers in another city. It wasn’t his fault that the team moved.
Now my university, USC, does it great. They only retire Heisman winners, and put their jersey numbers in the Coliseum Peristyle. CFB has a problem with not having enough numbers, with many numbers being used by both a defensive and offensive player, so this is a good way to keep the numbers down, even with USC having the most Heisman winners. With all the other greats that played at USC like Ronnie Lott, Junior Seau, and many others, they could run out of numbers. The number 55 is sacred to many USC followers. Through the years No. 55 has been worn by All-American linebackers like Junior Seau, Chris Claiborne, Willie McGinest, and Keith Rivers to name the few. They have tried to honor this number by only offering it to truly great linebackers. The problem is if you give it to a highly ranked recruit and they don’t live up to it. Or if a player plays great at USC, offering them the number after already playing part of their Trojan career in another number. It’s almost had become retired, without it being retired for one particular player.
Retiring two numbers for Kobe Bryant is just stupid. Just as bad as three statues.
Does Raymond Bourque deserve to have his number retired by the Boston Bruins? Obviously. But the Colorado Avalanche, a team he played one full season for and a small part of another? No freakin’ way.
Funny, you should mention that, because I was considering mentioning it here but decided not to because virtually every Avs fan I know is fine with it. I think Avs fans take so much pride in their role in helping a league-wide legend finally lift the Cup that they’ve forum day strong emotional attachment to Bourque, even given his short tenure with the team.
Do I personally agree with it? I probably wouldn’t have made the decision if I was in charge. But it’s certainly not unpopular with the fans. And that image of Sakic handing off the trophy to Bourque for the first skate is arguably the most iconic in franchise history.