Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, March 29, 2013

Lundegaard: Why Don’t the Mariners Retire Edgar Martinez’s Number?

I haven’t seen an Edgar treated this badly since Edgar Buchanan in “Framed”!

The next year Edgar won the PCL batting championship (.363) and got another September call-up. In 1989, he actually made the team out of spring training but was still seen as a backup to Jim Presley, who hit 28 home runs in 1985, and was seen as the third baseman of the future. But ’85 was Presley’s high-water mark and the M’s finally traded him in January 1990. But even then, the club didn’t know what it had with Edgar.

“I think Darnell Coles is going to surprise a lot of people,” manager Jim Lefebvre told The Seattle Times in February 1990 about his new starting third baseman. “He knows there is no one in the wings, just Edgar Martinez to back him up. I think it is time for him to realize that he belongs at third, because to play that position you have to be an athlete. And Darnell Coles is an athlete.”

Edgar? Not an athlete. He’s just a backup. He’s no one in the wings.

Other people knew. That same spring, stats guru Bill James wrote the following about Edgar: “What a sad story this one is. This guy is a good hitter, quite capable of hitting .300 in a park like Seattle, with more walks than strikeouts. Martinez has wasted about three years when he could have been helping the team.”

Those were three years when he could have been adding to his counting numbers, too. Instead, he didn’t play regularly until May of that year. He was 27. He hit .302 with an OBP of .397. Two years later he won the batting title. Three years later he won it again. Never has an organization’s persistent obtuseness been so unjustly rewarded.

But Edgar’s chances for the Hall were probably gone for good. Because the M’s didn’t bring him up soon enough.

Repoz Posted: March 29, 2013 at 07:30 PM | 108 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: mariners

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. Bhaakon Posted: March 29, 2013 at 07:59 PM (#4399411)
Because retiring non-HOFers is the sports franchise version of throwing away all your pants that don't have an elastic waistband.
   2. Sweatpants Posted: March 29, 2013 at 08:06 PM (#4399415)
According to the Mariners media guidebook, “To be eligible to have one’s number retired, the former Mariners should have either a) been elected to the National Baseball Hall of Fame and been in a Mariner’s uniform for at least five years, or b) come close to such election and have spent substantially his entire career with the Mariners.”
I wasn't aware that teams actually spelled out their standards for number-retirement eligibility. Martinez has stayed around 33% in his four years on the ballot; I have no idea whether they'd be willing to call that close (I don't know if that's even the standard they use for closeness).

There is an Edgar Martinez Dr. that runs alongside Safeco Field, so it's not as if the team hasn't honored him in any way.
   3. SoSH U at work Posted: March 29, 2013 at 08:08 PM (#4399418)
Because retiring non-HOFers is the sports franchise version of throwing away all your pants that don't have an elastic waistband.


I tend to think teams should be conservative with number retirements, but I don't think it has to perfectly line up with Hall enshrinement. There are three players from that M's team that will go into the Hall (assuming Arod eventually makes it), but all of them spent substantial time elsewhere. Edgar is far and away the Mariner most deserving of having his number set aside for all eternity in the club's 30-plus years of existence.
   4. jdennis Posted: March 29, 2013 at 08:10 PM (#4399422)
if i were an owner, i wouldn't retire a number of a hall of famer that played on my team if he wasn't there for very long, like a lot of teams do. but i would retire players who played for 15-20 years with my team, that were not near the hall of fame. i'd want to create a different team mythos from the overall baseball mythos. that's just my opinion.

for example, i would retire martinez (assuming he kept the same number for a long time) but i wouldn't retire nolan ryan if i were the rangers, shaq if i were the magic, etc.
   5. cardsfanboy Posted: March 29, 2013 at 08:24 PM (#4399433)
Because retiring non-HOFers is the sports franchise version of throwing away all your pants that don't have an elastic waistband.


I have to agree with SoSH on this, there shouldn't be a fast rule on a player, it should be based upon the franchises history etc. If you are a team like the Yankees, who's roster has been filled with hof players, that might be the standard to go with, but if you are a team that doesn't have a history of hofers sticking with the organization for most of their careers, then you need to look at the really good, fan liked players who have been on the roster for a long time.

if i were an owner, i wouldn't retire a number of a hall of famer that played on my team if he wasn't there for very long, like a lot of teams do. but i would retire players who played for 15-20 years with my team, that were not near the hall of fame. i'd want to create a different team mythos from the overall baseball mythos. that's just my opinion.


Exactly, it's a team honor, separate and distinct from the hof. If you want to put in a Willie McGee or Jose Oquendo, and the fans think that you should, then you really have to consider the option. At the same time, you have to balance it against over diminishing it's prestige by giving it to everyone.
   6. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 29, 2013 at 08:40 PM (#4399445)
Because retiring non-HOFers is the sports franchise version of throwing away all your pants that don't have an elastic waistband.

Ridiculous.

Why should the Yankees not retire the number of someone like Mattingly, who had HoF talent, and was the face of the franchise for a decade?

Edgar Martinez's number should have been retired the season after he retired.
   7. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: March 29, 2013 at 08:50 PM (#4399451)
There is an Edgar Martinez Dr. that runs alongside Safeco Field, so it's not as if the team hasn't honored him in any way.


I was going to mention this, too. Martinez is also in the Mariners' Hall of Fame. I'm sure they'll get around to retiring his number at some point, along with Ichiro's.

It'll be interesting to see if they retire Randy Johnson, Ken Griffey, and A-Rod's numbers. Johnson will probably go in, since he'll likely make the Hall of Fame, and is already in the Mariners' HoF. Griffey likewise, but A-Rod might not have spent enough time there to really make it.
   8. JE (Jason Epstein) Posted: March 29, 2013 at 08:55 PM (#4399455)
Edgar Martinez? Apparently, to the Seattle Mariners baseball club, he’s still no one in the wings.

The heckya mean?
   9. vortex of dissipation Posted: March 29, 2013 at 09:05 PM (#4399457)
Johnson will probably go in, since he'll likely make the Hall of Fame, and is already in the Mariners' HoF.


Johnson's number, 51, was also Ichiro's number. After Ichiro retires, I expect that it will be retired by the Mariners in honor of both Ichiro and Johnson.
   10. vortex of dissipation Posted: March 29, 2013 at 09:11 PM (#4399460)
It'll be interesting to see if they retire Randy Johnson, Ken Griffey, and A-Rod's numbers. Johnson will probably go in, since he'll likely make the Hall of Fame, and is already in the Mariners' HoF. Griffey likewise, but A-Rod might not have spent enough time there to really make it.


No-one has worn #24 for the Mariners, except Ken Griffey Jr. himself when he returned, since Griffey left for Cincinnati. The Mariners have given #3, Rodriguez's number, to several players since he left, including Yuniesky Betancourt. It's currently being worn by Robert Andino. This indicates to me that the Mariners have a different attitude towards Griffey's number than A-Rod's...
   11. bobm Posted: March 29, 2013 at 09:25 PM (#4399472)
[2] I wasn't aware that teams actually spelled out their standards for number-retirement eligibility.

The Red Sox policy on retiring uniform numbers is based on the following criteria:
Election to the National Baseball Hall of Fame
At least 10 years played with the Red Sox [...]


Johnny Pesky - #6

Signed by the Red Sox in 1940.
Officially associated with the Red Sox for 21 years as a player, coach, and manager.


http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/bos/history/retired_numbers.jsp
   12. bobm Posted: March 29, 2013 at 09:28 PM (#4399473)
It might be easier to get into Cooperstown -- as Carter did in 2003 -- than to gain Mets immortality by joining Casey Stengel (37), Gil Hodges (14), Tom Seaver (41) and Jackie Robinson (42). (Robinson's number is retired in every big league ballpark.)

The Mets' seven-member Hall of Fame committee appears to be on the fence about retiring additional numbers. "I think the general point of view is we don't want to get to the point where it's somewhat gratuitous and you've got dozens and dozens of people whose numbers are retired,'' said Dave Howard, the Mets' executive vice president of business operations. "Historically, from a Mets perspective, this is a very high honor. Certainly from a player standpoint, it's only been Tom Seaver. He's in a class by himself.''

Broadcaster Howie Rose, a media representative on the committee, said, "I think we're all of a mind that if we're going to do it, do it very meticulously, properly. You don't want a situation where you wind up saying if we did this one, you have to do the next one. Right now, we'd rather be very judicious, as opposed to, OK, it's time to retire another number. I'm far more comfortable being a minimalist than I am being gratuitous.''


http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/mets-judicious-about-retiring-player-numbers-1.3661157
   13. bobm Posted: March 29, 2013 at 09:33 PM (#4399475)
From Wikipedia:

The Los Angeles Dodgers' current policy is only to retire the numbers of longtime club members if they are inducted into the Hall of Fame; the lone exception was longtime Dodger player and coach Jim Gilliam, whose #19 was retired when he died of a cerebral hemorrhage during the Dodgers' 1978 postseason run. Nevertheless, the Dodgers have informally kept Fernando Valenzuela's #34 out of circulation since his retirement.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_retired_numbers
   14. Walt Davis Posted: March 29, 2013 at 09:38 PM (#4399478)
Edgar and the minors:

at 22 he hit just 273 with a ton of walks and no power (mostly AA).
at 23 he hit just 264 with a ton of walks and a smidgen of power (AA).
24 was his breakout year but you don't get promoted right away in your breakout year. Just like almost any other minor-leaguer, he got his well-deserved cup of coffee.

25, 1988, is really the first time you can make a case that Edgar should have gotten more ML time. Presley was pretty terrible and Edgar was hitting quite well.

At 26, the job was mostly his with 15 starts in their first 23 games ... and he hit like crap in April. He got Choi'd (or hurt) until about mid-June when he was given 20 starts in 29 games and hit badly (250/325/333). That was pretty much it.

At 27 he finally won the job (139 starts). At 29 he started spending significant time at DH. At 30/31 he only managed 88 games.

I find it hard to realistically squeeze out more than maybe 800 extra PA for Edgar. Even that is a stretch. Yes, the Ms did not show faith in him at age 26 but he wasn't treated differently that a ton of other young players are treated as they're breaking in. Yes, they should have given him a real shot at 25 and maybe he'd have won it. But he was given a shot at 26 and unfortunately he hit badly.

To emphasise ... in April 89 he hit 176/259/176 ... not a single extra-base hit in 58 PA. In that June 15 to July 20 spread, he hit 3 doubles and 1 HR in 85 PA. His career minor-league ISO to that point was 140 and he hadn't hit with real power since age 21. You'd have been nuts (and waiting 3+ years) to predict this guy would someday be posting 220 ISOs. His age 27 season looked a bit worse than Dave Magadan's (Magadan was pretty good in those days). That was Magadan's only flash of power.

It's true, Edgar could have been contributing earlier. He'd probably have been average and, you never know, maybe he would have found it all a couple of years earlier. But we have no particularly good reason to believe that since it took him a while to find it anyway. But I don't think adding 1-1.5 average seasons to Edgar's career makes any difference for the HoF.
   15. Drexl Spivey Posted: March 29, 2013 at 09:50 PM (#4399491)
Larry Dierker's #49 was retired by the Astros.

No non-HOFer should ever have his number retired.
   16. Long Time Listener, First Time Caller Posted: March 29, 2013 at 09:53 PM (#4399493)
Because retiring non-HOFers is the sports franchise version of throwing away all your pants that don't have an elastic waistband.


Then there are plenty of historic teams that have given in to fat-pants long ago.

Non-HOFers with retired numbers:

BOSTON: Johnny Pesky

CHICAGO AL: Harold Baines, Minnie Minoso, Ted Lyons, Billy Pierce

CINCINNATI: Davey Concepcion, Ted Kluszewski

STL: Enos Slaughter, Ken Boyer,

LAD: Junior Gilliam

DET: Willie Horton

And the list could go on and on. I picked those teams because they are founding teams. You're telling me a team that's a half century old would do itself a disgrace by putting a borderline HOFer who played his whole career there on the wall when these teams with 100+ years of history have retired the numbers of players who didn't have as impressive a career as Edgar (with the exception of Minoso, potentially)
   17. Long Time Listener, First Time Caller Posted: March 29, 2013 at 09:54 PM (#4399495)

It'll be interesting to see if they retire Randy Johnson, Ken Griffey, and A-Rod's numbers. Johnson will probably go in, since he'll likely make the Hall of Fame, and is already in the Mariners' HoF. Griffey likewise, but A-Rod might not have spent enough time there to really make it.


Who knows WHAT the Mariners will do, but if the Cubs can retire Greg Maddux's number, I don't see any reason why any of these three players would be ridiculous decisions by Seattle
   18. GregD Posted: March 29, 2013 at 09:57 PM (#4399496)
Obviously you don't want to overdo it, but I agree that Mattingly/Harold Baines/Edgar/Davey Concepcion guys are not going to hurt a team's credibility one iota.
   19. Bug Selig Posted: March 29, 2013 at 09:57 PM (#4399498)
No non-HOFer should ever have his number retired.


Bu11####. Why in the hell would you give that process power beyond what it already has? In no way does franchise icon equate to HOF'er. None.
   20. Karl from NY Posted: March 29, 2013 at 09:59 PM (#4399500)
Broadcaster Howie Rose, a media representative on the committee, said, "I think we're all of a mind that if we're going to do it, do it very meticulously, properly. You don't want a situation where you wind up saying if we did this one, you have to do the next one."


Yup. The Mets have had a ton of Hall of Very Good half-careers. Strawberry, Beltran, Alfonzo, Reyes, Hernandez, Piazza, HoJo, Gooden, Koosman, Leiter, Cone. All between 20 and 40 WAR with the team, but none stands out enough or is enough of a franchise icon and statesman. If you start retiring or team-HOFing any of this group, you pretty much have to take them all. Piazza once he's in the HOF might get enough support, but it's still hard to immortalize only eight years of service and less than half his career value. Hernandez might have a shot after another 10-20 years of broadcasting.
   21. flournoy Posted: March 29, 2013 at 10:08 PM (#4399513)
No non-HOFer should ever have his number retired.


I can't even grasp this viewpoint. What would be the point of retiring numbers if it were contingent on Hall of Fame induction? Instead of a separate honor, it would become just a formality in the Hall of Fame induction process.

Anyone who tries to tell me that the Braves shouldn't have retired #3 in honor of Dale Murphy can go pound sand, for all I care. I do think Murphy should be in the Hall of Fame, but either way, his number belongs on the left field edifice at Turner Field. The Braves have also retired 31, 47, 6, and 29 in honor of Maddux, Glavine, Cox, and Smoltz, respectively, and will retire 10 for Chipper Jones this summer. They'll all be in the Hall of Fame in due course, but why wait? Why should some silly institution in rural New York that allows idiot sportswriters to vote in their candidates dictate who the Braves want to honor?
   22. Sweatpants Posted: March 29, 2013 at 10:15 PM (#4399522)
STL: Enos Slaughter, Ken Boyer
Slaughter is in the Hall.

I generally agree with this sentiment, though. Guys can be the face of their franchise and legitimately great players without having a Hall of Fame career. Of the Braves' retired numbers, the only one who isn't in or likely to make it in is Dale Murphy. I can't imagine that anyone in Atlanta has a problem with his number being alongside Aaron's and Niekro's.

Coke to flournoy.
   23. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: March 29, 2013 at 10:15 PM (#4399523)
so jerry lundegaard is out of prison and writing about baseball in seattle?

you betcha
   24. Pat Rapper's Delight Posted: March 29, 2013 at 10:15 PM (#4399525)
Larry Dierker's #49 was retired by the Astros.

Jim Umbricht's #32 was retired by the Astros. Is there a more obscure player who has received that honor? (Yes, I know he died of skin cancer while an active player, but still....)
   25. JJ1986 Posted: March 29, 2013 at 10:19 PM (#4399528)
Strawberry, Beltran, Alfonzo, Reyes, Hernandez, Piazza, HoJo, Gooden, Koosman, Leiter, Cone. All between 20 and 40 WAR with the team, but none stands out enough or is enough of a franchise icon and statesman


Retire Kid, Mex, Straw, Doc and Piazza. Koosman is the only real borderline. No one is going to miss Alfonzo, Beltran, Leiter, Johnson and Cone.
   26. cardsfanboy Posted: March 29, 2013 at 10:22 PM (#4399531)
Obviously you don't want to overdo it, but I agree that Mattingly/Harold Baines/Edgar/Davey Concepcion guys are not going to hurt a team's credibility one iota.


That made me think, what guys for each team who will probably not make the hall, would be a good person to have their uniform retired?

For the Cardinals Mike Shannon is obvious. The fact that it isn't retired is somewhat of a joke. (George Kissell should probably be retired, but he was never actually a major league player) And Jose Oquendo and Willie McGee have their supporters.

Dave Concepcion is a great example for the Reds.
   27. Jim (jimmuscomp) Posted: March 29, 2013 at 10:55 PM (#4399541)
Tim Salmon - Angels

   28. chisoxcollector Posted: March 29, 2013 at 10:56 PM (#4399542)
Non-HOFers with retired numbers:

CHICAGO AL: Ted Lyons


Ted Lyons is in the HOF.
   29. chisoxcollector Posted: March 29, 2013 at 10:57 PM (#4399543)
That made me think, what guys for each team who will probably not make the hall, would be a good person to have their uniform retired?


I think it's a no-brainer for the White Sox to retire numbers for Mark Buehrle and Paul Konerko when the time comes. Count me among those that think HOF induction has nothing to do with retiring somebody's number. It would be ridiculous for the White Sox not to have retired Minnie Minoso's number.

Hell, if Ozzie Guillen had ended his Sox managerial career on better terms, I'd be all for retiring his number. Long time popular (if not very good) player, manager of first World Series winner in 88 years.
   30. Bhaakon Posted: March 29, 2013 at 11:14 PM (#4399548)
I can't even grasp this viewpoint. What would be the point of retiring numbers if it were contingent on Hall of Fame induction? Instead of a separate honor, it would become just a formality in the Hall of Fame induction process.


Don't be ridiculous, there are plenty of HOF inductees who shouldn't have their numbers retired.
   31. Drexl Spivey Posted: March 29, 2013 at 11:26 PM (#4399554)
I unnecessarily researched this and found out:

1. The only jersey that has been "unretired" was that of Steve Largent (after Jerry Rice joined the Seahawks). Largent did give permission to Rice.
2. There was a minor controversy when Paul O'Neill's jersey number was issued to someone else.
3. There exists a segment of people online that want to ban the retirement of jersey numbers based upon the "they're honoring the guys by wearing that jersey number" logic.
   32. chisoxcollector Posted: March 29, 2013 at 11:29 PM (#4399557)
The only jersey that has been "unretired" was that of Steve Largent (after Jerry Rice joined the Seahawks). Largent did give permission to Rice.


The White Sox unretired Luis Aparicio's number for Omar Vizquel. With Aparicio's permission, as Vizquel wanted to honor him.
   33. SoSH U at work Posted: March 29, 2013 at 11:32 PM (#4399559)
The only jersey that has been "unretired" was that of Steve Largent (after Jerry Rice joined the Seahawks). Largent did give permission to Rice.


The Marlins unretired No. 5 for Logan Morrison. The man who had that number retired in his honor, Carl Barger, did not give his permission, unless David Samson has a ouija board.

2. There was a minor controversy when Paul O'Neill's jersey number was issued to someone else.


LaTroy Hawkins.

3. There exists a segment of people online that want to ban the retirement of jersey numbers based upon the "they're honoring the guys by wearing that jersey number" logic.


I still think a better way of honoring Robinson would have been to allow one player per year to wear his number. Later on, ESPN thought so too.


   34. Tubbs & Minnie Miñoso don't fear Sid Monge Posted: March 29, 2013 at 11:32 PM (#4399560)
I'm not sure why teams don't try to retire numbers to help draw attention and support to push a borderline player into the HOF. A few good examples would be Dwight Evans, Keith Hernandez, and Bobby Grich, who could all use their former team's support to get in via the Expansion Era Vet Committee. A lot of times a team waits until the player gets in the HOF to retire their number, a recent example was Bert Blyleven and the Twins. It was surprising the Twins didn't retire his number when he was struggling to get votes
   35. Tubbs & Minnie Miñoso don't fear Sid Monge Posted: March 29, 2013 at 11:35 PM (#4399563)
Also, the Phoenix Coyotes (formerly Winnipeg Jets) un-retired Bobby Hull's #9 at his request so his son Brett could use it
   36. SoSH U at work Posted: March 29, 2013 at 11:38 PM (#4399565)
The Rice, Vizquel and Hull examples all make some sense, and came with the permission of the retiree. But why the hell would you do it for Logan Morrison? You're afraid what he might tweet about you if you say no?

   37. Tubbs & Minnie Miñoso don't fear Sid Monge Posted: March 29, 2013 at 11:45 PM (#4399568)
LoMo's father's favorite number was #5, thus despite the Barger family not being cool with it LoMo gets the # un-retired. There was no Jack McKeon there to demote him to AAA so he could update his Bookface and Tweeter
   38. puck Posted: March 29, 2013 at 11:51 PM (#4399571)
That made me think, what guys for each team who will probably not make the hall, would be a good person to have their uniform retired?

Todd Helton. Seems like he won't make it, right? (Coors Field specticism and < 1400 RBI as a 1B.)
   39. Random Transaction Generator Posted: March 29, 2013 at 11:57 PM (#4399572)
The Blue Jays have only two retired numbers (Robbie Alomar and, of course, Jackie Robinson).
However, they have a "level of excellence" that is used to recognize popular/good players in their history:

George Bell
Dave Stieb
Joe Carter
Cito Gaston
Tony Fernandez
Pat Gillick
Tom Cheek
Roberto Alomar
Paul Beeston

Similarly, the Toronto Maple Leafs have only three retired numbers (Ace Bailey (career cut short due to injury) #6, Bill Barilko (died in off season after scoring Stanley Cup winning goal) #5, and the league-wide retirement of Wayne Gretzky's #99), but lots of "honoured" numbers (16 players sharing 10 numbers).
The retired ones can't be used again, but honoured ones are available.
   40. Random Transaction Generator Posted: March 30, 2013 at 12:01 AM (#4399575)
That made me think, what guys for each team who will probably not make the hall, would be a good person to have their uniform retired?


Barry Bonds? :)

In all seriousness:

Todd Helton
Chase Utley/Jimmy Rollins


   41. Obo Posted: March 30, 2013 at 12:13 AM (#4399578)
Ace Bailey (career cut short due to injury) #6


Unretired for Ron Ellis.
   42. robinred Posted: March 30, 2013 at 01:42 AM (#4399593)
I was surprised to learn that they had not already retired it. Mariners' fans seemingly just love the guy, and he was a great hitter for a long time. I think they should retire it immediately.
   43. robinred Posted: March 30, 2013 at 01:48 AM (#4399594)
Non-HOFers with retired numbers:


The Padres, definitely not an historic team, have retired Randy Jones' number, 35, Hoffman, 51, and Garvey
--6. Jones was a good call although he was only great for a couple of years. Hoffman was a given. Garvey was a mistake IMO, although he did mean a lot to the franchise when he came and had the big HR.

As a Cincinnati fan, I would like to see them retire Eric Davis' number, 44.
   44. Gotham Dave Posted: March 30, 2013 at 03:28 AM (#4399605)
You can get your number retired as a non-HoFer for the Yankees, but only if you die young or have a b¡tchin' 'stache. Considering Munson qualifies on both counts they should probably retire his number a second time.
   45. Walt Davis Posted: March 30, 2013 at 07:20 AM (#4399615)
I agree that Edgar's number should be retired by the Ms. The franchise is nearly 40 years old now ... though I am a bit surprised to see that Griffey ekes out the WAR win.

But I'll also note that in theory they could retire Edgar, Griffey, Ichiro, Unit and ARod pretty legitimately and Moyer almost has an argument. And they're all players of the last 20-25 years. That would be a lot to retire. But then it's pretty unlikely the next 20 years will provide 5 players that good (Felix almost certainly).

The Cubs retired Santo's number before he made the HoF. They did retire Maddux but that was also Fergie's number so it would have been retired anyway (probably earlier if they hadn't handed it out to Maddux already).
   46. bookbook Posted: March 30, 2013 at 08:07 AM (#4399621)
Edgar s a no-brainer. Moyer may have to come wear his number as M's pitching coach for awhile, so he can wait. Griffey's number they should retire, then jr. Can force a trade to Cincinatti's rafters.
   47. Karl from NY Posted: March 30, 2013 at 09:42 AM (#4399639)
I'm not sure why teams don't try to retire numbers to help draw attention and support to push a borderline player into the HOF.

Does this work? Are there any actual examples? The timing at least would seem off, since the HOF election happens in the winter and number retirements usually go along with a game-day ceremony on a slow summer afternoon.

Retire Kid, Mex, Straw, Doc and Piazza.

Kid, Mex, and Piazza all already had the majority of their value behind them when they became Mets. Straw bolted as soon as he hit free agency. Doc ruined a potential dynasty with cocaine. That's a lot of dubious credentials for franchise immortality.
   48. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: March 30, 2013 at 10:20 AM (#4399652)
You can get your number retired as a non-HoFer for the Yankees, but only if you die young or have a b¡tchin' 'stache.

Damn, that even survived a tracer.

Considering Munson qualifies on both counts they should probably retire his number a second time.

And since the mustachioed and young-dying Billy Martin was a two time WS hero as a player and also managed them out of the wilderness, I'd say he qualifies for a fireproof #1 jersey that he can wear around his current domicile to flaunt in front of his neighbors Steinbrenner and George Weiss.
   49. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 30, 2013 at 12:00 PM (#4399689)
Does this work? Are there any actual examples? The timing at least would seem off, since the HOF election happens in the winter and number retirements usually go along with a game-day ceremony on a slow summer afternoon.

Rizzuto had his number retired in 1985 (I was at the game, also Seaver's 300th), and was elected by the VC in 1994.

It certainly wasn't decisive, but was part of a long campaign by the Yankees, Joe Dimaggio, Ted Williams, and other to get him in.
   50. puck Posted: March 30, 2013 at 12:52 PM (#4399703)
I'd be ok with the Rockies retiring Larry Walker's number. There's a fair amount of demand for recognition of the Blake Street Bombers, maybe this and a general plaque or display in the stadium would keep them from doing anything crazy for Bichette and Castilla.
   51. Benji Gil Gamesh Rises Posted: March 30, 2013 at 01:04 PM (#4399708)
That made me think, what guys for each team who will probably not make the hall, would be a good person to have their uniform retired?
David Ortiz.
   52. Tom Nawrocki Posted: March 30, 2013 at 01:12 PM (#4399709)
Todd Helton. Seems like he won't make it, right?


I would say the odds are much better for him getting his number retired than for making it to the Hall of Fame.
   53. Spivey Posted: March 30, 2013 at 01:14 PM (#4399712)
Come on, of course Seattle needs to retire his number. Him and Griffey put them on the map.
   54. WSPanic Posted: March 30, 2013 at 01:18 PM (#4399714)
In addition to George Brett (and Jackie Robinson), the Royals have retired Frank White's #20 and Dick Howser's #10.

One could argue Howser wasn't with the team long enough, but the WS title and his being forced out for health are certainly special circumstances.

The Royals screw a lot of things up, but I think they got this right.
   55. Kiko Sakata Posted: March 30, 2013 at 01:19 PM (#4399716)
Does this work? Are there any actual examples? The timing at least would seem off, since the HOF election happens in the winter and number retirements usually go along with a game-day ceremony on a slow summer afternoon.


The Cubs retiring Ron Santo's number was a piece of the campaign to get him elected to the Hall of Fame. I don't know how much of a difference that specific event actually had, though.
   56. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: March 30, 2013 at 01:20 PM (#4399717)
Come on, of course Seattle needs to retire his number. Him and Griffey put them on the map.

Totally agree about retiring Edgar's number, but what put Seattle on the map was that 1995 division race and the comeback over the Yankees in the Division Series, which was a team effort.
   57. Depressoteric Posted: March 30, 2013 at 01:45 PM (#4399722)
That made me think, what guys for each team who will probably not make the hall, would be a good person to have their uniform retired?
I doubt Ryan Zimmerman will ever make the Hall of Fame, but make no mistake: when he retires, the Nationals are going to retire his number approximately 5 seconds later. Ain't nobody ever going to wear #11 in Washington again.
   58. Depressoteric Posted: March 30, 2013 at 01:50 PM (#4399726)
By the way folks, just you so know, Mariners fans are well aware that Edgar's number WILL be retired by the Mariners eventually. The informal word is that if it really looks like he isn't going to make the Hall (i.e. if his percentage keeps dropping to the point where it's in the teens) then they'll pull the trigger right there. But if his percentage climbs, and he looks like he's got an authentic shot, then they want to try and time it to coincide with induction.

There is absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind that Edgar will get his number retired.
   59. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 30, 2013 at 01:57 PM (#4399729)
By the way folks, just you so know, Mariners fans are well aware that Edgar's number WILL be retired by the Mariners eventually. The informal word is that if it really looks like he isn't going to make the Hall (i.e. if his percentage keeps dropping to the point where it's in the teens) then they'll pull the trigger right there. But if his percentage climbs, and he looks like he's got an authentic shot, then they want to try and time it to coincide with induction.

Yeah that's stupid. Making it an automatic follow-on to the HoF reduces the honor.

I would also think it matters much more to the player before he gets in to the HoF.
   60. alilisd Posted: March 30, 2013 at 02:59 PM (#4399758)
@ 43: You missed Winfield and Mr. Padre, Tony Gwynn. Garvey's is a mystery. One theory is it was retired by Joan Kroc in an attempt to generate support for an ownership group which included Garvey when she was looking to sell. Kroc sold the team in 1990, the year after Garvey's number was retired. There really is no legitimate reason for the team to have retired it. Unless they were tweaking their hated rivals to the north. I've never met a Padres fan who supports it and I've met many who are vehemently opposed to it. I fall into the latter camp.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/apr/12/garveys-no-6-should-be-unretired/
   61. robinred Posted: March 30, 2013 at 05:19 PM (#4399811)
Gwynn and Winfield are both in the HOF, so I didn't see the need to add them--assumed everyone knew. If Caminiti had not been a steroids user, my guess that they would have retired his # as well.

Padres footnote: I wonder how many franchises have traded a HOF 2b AND a HOF ss while they were still in the mid-20s, as the Padres did with Roberto Alomar and Ozzie Smith?
   62. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: March 30, 2013 at 05:25 PM (#4399813)
Padres footnote: I wonder how many franchises have traded a HOF 2b AND a HOF ss while they were still in the mid-20s, as the Padres did with Roberto Alomar and Ozzie Smith?

And Winfield had just turned 29 when the Padres let him get away via free agency. That was one hell of a franchise, wasn't it?
   63. robinred Posted: March 30, 2013 at 05:29 PM (#4399815)
There was no way that they could have kept Winfield; trust me on this, I was very young, but I was there. Smith probably would have left as well, but like many people back then, the Padres overrated Garry Templeton. That was one of Whitey Herzog's many shrewd moves in that era for the Cardinals.

As to Alomar, I was opposed to that deal, although I was a Fred McGriff fan and he did a nice job in SD. But peak-Alomar is just not the kind of guy that you trade, IMO.
   64. Gonfalon B. Posted: March 30, 2013 at 05:32 PM (#4399819)
The Yankees are so loose and easy with their criteria that they put up a plaque in Monument Park for someone who spent 11 years as a Cardinal.
   65. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: March 30, 2013 at 05:38 PM (#4399822)
I've never met a Padres fan who supports it and I've met many who are vehemently opposed to it. I fall into the latter camp.


I'm a Padre fan and I don't mind it. Garvey's responsible for the most exciting moment in Padres history.

(It helps that I started following the Padres in 1983, so it felt like Garvey had always been a Padre)
   66. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 30, 2013 at 05:40 PM (#4399824)
The Yankees are so loose and easy with their criteria that they put up a plaque in Monument Park for someone who spent 11 years as a Cardinal.

3 former Cardinals who never played for the Yankees, and only appeared once at Yankee Stadium ;-)
   67. alilisd Posted: March 30, 2013 at 06:55 PM (#4399864)
@ 61: Never safe to assume anything about he Padres franchise, IMO. Gwynn most would probably assume, but Winfield, no, unles someone is familiar with the franchise, which almost anyone outside SD is not.

As to the footnote, no idea. But I disagree with your assessment of the Smith Templeton trade. Sure in hindsight it's easy to say the Padtes blew it or Herzog pulled off a big move, but an honest assessment at the time would have noted Smith was the better fielder, but with no bat (a 66 OPS+ in over 2,500 PA's?!?!) and Templeton, while still being a good fielder, was a good, for a SS, stick who was a switch hitter.
   68. alilisd Posted: March 30, 2013 at 07:02 PM (#4399867)
@ 62: It was a poor franchise, and still is in many respects. As robin red noted, there was no way they could keep Winfield when the Yankees were calling. I give them a lot of credit for reaching out to him and bringing him back to the franchise. It was very gratifying to me to see him return to the franchise and become the first HOF player to have a Padres cap on his plaque.
   69. alilisd Posted: March 30, 2013 at 07:10 PM (#4399873)
Well, Monty, I feel confident we've never met. :-)

That you were not a fan prior to 1983 I think is highly significant. Had you followed the team throughout the '70's when Garvey was a dodger, I think you would feel differently.
   70. flournoy Posted: March 30, 2013 at 08:00 PM (#4399898)
Retired Numbers Sporcle Quiz

Some glaring omissions that I didn't notice mentioned earlier in the thread, at a glance...

CIN - Pete Rose, Barry Larkin
DET - Lou Whitaker, Alan Trammell

I assume the Reds plan to retire Larkin's number soon. I guess I understand why Rose isn't there, but I think he should be. Apparently the Tigers subscribe to the idiotic "only Hall of Famers" idea. Screw them. Whitaker and Trammell belong with those other guys.
   71. Walt Davis Posted: March 30, 2013 at 09:21 PM (#4399923)
I got 101 out of 165 on the Sporcle quiz ... it would have been a LOT worse without this thread but I still forgot about half the "no kidding" ones from this thread. The Astros have really embarrassed themselves, the Cards have retired Sutter's number but not the Cubs. And I had not realized the Yanks had actually retired Guidry's number -- WTF? They're gonna be out of numbers soon if they keep up with that crap. The Indians are a tough one.
   72. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 30, 2013 at 09:43 PM (#4399932)
And I had not realized the Yanks had actually retired Guidry's number -- WTF?

If you go by WAR, he has almost 50. I don't see that as a questionable record for number retirement.
   73. Walt Davis Posted: March 30, 2013 at 11:44 PM (#4400000)
They're the freaking Yankees. Bernie, Lazzerri, White and Munson have that many WAR ... hell, Nettles isn't far off.

Put him in the team HoF by all means but if there's a franchise that should be extremely snooty about whose numbers get retired, it should be the Yanks.
   74. flournoy Posted: March 30, 2013 at 11:44 PM (#4400002)
Addendum to #70 - apparently Barry Larkin's number was retired last year.
   75. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 31, 2013 at 12:19 AM (#4400013)
Put him in the team HoF by all means but if there's a franchise that should be extremely snooty about whose numbers get retired, it should be the Yanks.

The Yankees, particularly under that old softy George Steinbrenner, were a bit more sentimental than other teams. Nothing wrong with that, although the bar may need to be be raised a bit if avoiding 3-digit numbers is a priority.
   76. The District Attorney Posted: March 31, 2013 at 01:22 AM (#4400029)
Retiring Rose's number would be pretty weird when he wouldn't be allowed into the stadium to accept it. And MLB probably wouldn't let it happen even if the Reds were willing to do that.

I don't like the idea of retiring a number based primarily on non-performance factors: the guy died early, or was with the organization forever, or he was just a big "fan favorite", etc. But there aren't really a ton of those. I agree with the general consensus here that near-HOF players should have their numbers retired. The question becomes what do you do with the player who has that near-HOF career, but didn't play a huge amount of time with your specific team. I guess then you think about whether it would indeed make more sense for another team to retire the number, and you also give more weight to the squishier stuff. As a Met fan, in Keith Hernandez's case, I don't anticipate the Cardinals wanting to retire the number, and he was a popular player, is associated with a high point in team history, and is now a well-liked announcer. So I do think they should retire his. I wouldn't do Gooden or Straw.

(Edgar for the Mariners, of course, obviously.)
   77. bobm Posted: March 31, 2013 at 01:25 AM (#4400030)
[71] And I had not realized the Yanks had actually retired Guidry's number -- WTF? They're gonna be out of numbers soon if they keep up with that crap.

"Yankees' Retired Numbers - A Projection of When They Might Run Out of Double-Digit Numbers"
   78. flournoy Posted: March 31, 2013 at 01:51 AM (#4400035)
The question becomes what do you do with the player who has that near-HOF career, but didn't play a huge amount of time with your specific team.


I don't think this is an issue. Steroid/character issues aside, who would retire Kevin Brown or Gary Sheffield's number? Nobody is going to retire Fred McGriff's number. It works the same way it does for Hall of Famers. Nobody has retired a number for Goose Gossage. The Athletics are the only team that retired Rickey Henderson's number, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to make a case for any other team to do so.

This is why it makes no sense for number retirement to be tied to Hall of Fame induction. They are completely different honors.
   79. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: March 31, 2013 at 03:23 AM (#4400047)
As a Met fan, in Keith Hernandez's case, I don't anticipate the Cardinals wanting to retire the number, and he was a popular player, is associated with a high point in team history, and is now a well-liked announcer. So I do think they should retire his. I wouldn't do Gooden or Straw.


Agree.

Odd, though, that Keith was done as a full time player at 33, and done as a hitter at 34.

Is there any other player for whom you could make a case that cigarettes kept him out of the Hall?
   80. Drexl Spivey Posted: March 31, 2013 at 03:57 AM (#4400050)
This is why it makes no sense for number retirement to be tied to Hall of Fame induction. They are completely different honors.


The point is not that number retirement should be tied to HOF induction.

The point is that HOF induction should should be a qualifying requirement before someone gets their number retired.

No matter how shitty the HOF induction process is; they will still elect the clear cut greats. I agree that many HOFers shouldn't have had their numbers retired.

It's just a difference of opinion, so there's no real point in debating it. I just think that retired numbers should be reserved for the true greats of the game and not the Larry Dierkers of the world. No one is looking up at the retired numbers at Minute Maid and talking about the legendary #49.
   81. Mark Armour Posted: March 31, 2013 at 04:33 AM (#4400051)
When the Yankees retire Jeter and Torre (assumed), they will be done with 1 through 10. Will 11 become the coveted number to give to the phenom?
   82. Drexl Spivey Posted: March 31, 2013 at 05:30 AM (#4400057)
When the Yankees retire Jeter and Torre (assumed), they will be done with 1 through 10. Will 11 become the coveted number to give to the phenom?


If they want to keep with tradition, then yes.

Phenom Mickey Mantle was initially given the number six (in order to keep the Ruth/Gehrig/Dimaggio numbers three/four/five streak going).

He was later demoted, then promoted and was given the number seven.
   83. Dr. Vaux Posted: March 31, 2013 at 05:33 AM (#4400058)
I guess I'm in the minority among thinking fans in thinking that a team's history and a player's place in it should be factors in the retirement of numbers. A player can be a great member of an organization in a lot of different ways, and his team retiring his number is an effective and satisfying way to recognize that. It's an honor from, and from the standpoint of, a franchise, not the sport as a whole. That doesn't mean that teams don't get overly profligate with the honor, like the Yankees with Guidry, but Dale Murphy is a perfect example of a deserving recipient--he was a great Atlanta Brave, but not a Hall of Fame player. The Braves retiring his number doesn't have anything to do with his standing in the pantheon of major league outfielders as a whole, throughout the game's history--it just has to do with his standing in the pantheon of players who have played for the Atlanta Braves. I also think that a full baseball career can make someone a good candidate (e.g. Mike Shannon), not only a playing career by itself.
   84. robinred Posted: March 31, 2013 at 05:55 AM (#4400059)
I guess I'm in the minority among thinking fans in thinking that a team's history and a player's place in it should be factors in the retirement of numbers.


I agree that it should. Like I said, I think the Padres did the right thing in retiring Randy Jones' number. And, even looking at an original 16 franchise with a lot of HOFers I agree with flournoy that Whitaker's and Trammell's numbers should be retired in Detroit.

Rose is a weird situation in another way: no one except Pete Jr. in his promotional cameo has worn 14 since Charlie Hustle left Cincinnati/got kicked out of baseball, and I doubt that anyone will as long as Rose is alive, and maybe even after that.
   85. Drexl Spivey Posted: March 31, 2013 at 06:05 AM (#4400060)
I think the Padres did the right thing in retiring Randy Jones' number.


Why retire any number that isn't iconic?
   86. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: March 31, 2013 at 06:43 AM (#4400062)
Agree with Vaux. I'd happily put Hernandez in the Mets Hall for his excellent career, and post-playing career affiliation with the team. Hall, shmall.
   87. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: March 31, 2013 at 06:53 AM (#4400063)
Retire Kid, Mex, Straw, Doc and Piazza.

Kid, Mex, and Piazza all already had the majority of their value behind them when they became Mets. Straw bolted as soon as he hit free agency. Doc ruined a potential dynasty with cocaine. That's a lot of dubious credentials for franchise immortality.


Keith was pretty close to having half his value as a Met. Definitely more than Carter and he beats Piazza in that regard by at least a season. There was bad blood with Strawberry when he left. No one with any sense thought Bonilla was going to be as good as Strawberry in his prime, but it was widely believed (in NY anyway) that Strawberry's best days were gone, which cushioned the blow.

It's a lot easier to support a guy who really wanted to be associated with your team (Carter, and Hernandez didn't have a choice in his trade from St. Louis but took to NY [and vice versa] like few players before him) than one like Strawberry who took off.
   88. Blastin Posted: March 31, 2013 at 08:21 AM (#4400067)
From what I heard, they retired Guidry (at a game I attended) so he would come back and serve as a (not very effective) pitching coach.
   89. flournoy Posted: March 31, 2013 at 09:08 AM (#4400072)
I guess I'm in the minority among thinking fans in thinking that a team's history and a player's place in it should be factors in the retirement of numbers.


I don't think that's a minority opinion. I think we're running about 90% in agreement with you here.
   90. The District Attorney Posted: March 31, 2013 at 10:03 AM (#4400082)
My assumption in #76, BTW, is that only one team should retire a player's number. I couldn't construct an elaborate logical defense of this, but I just think it's much cooler that way. Since Gary Carter's number was retired by the Expos (certainly the more appropriate team to do it), I tend not to think the Mets should.

However, I might make an exception in this case because Montreal doesn't have a team anymore. So although the number is technically retired by a team, it's not retired by a team whose fans have a connection to the player, and the guy died tragically and I do have some human qualities, and, well, I might well end up doing it. It's almost funny that the Nats keep the Expo retired numbers. They clearly see themselves as the successors to the Senators and not the Expos. I guess it'd be rude to un-retire numbers, though. Maybe they could have gotten away with it if the guys were long-gone historical players, but not when they're still around.

If the Mets (under Wilpon, anyway; I suppose we couldn't held new owners accountable for Wilpon's decisions) do end up retiring Carter's number, it'll be a shame in the sense that they really should have had their #### together enough to figure out they wanted to do it when he could appreciate it.
   91. Tubbs & Minnie Miñoso don't fear Sid Monge Posted: March 31, 2013 at 01:41 PM (#4400164)
The Mets should retire Hernandez & Piazza, they were the face of their '86 WS & '99 Pennant. Boston should retire Evans' #24, Manny be damned. The Angels inducted Grich as their first honoree for their HOF & I'd love to see them push to get him on the Exp Era Vet Comm ballot.
   92. cardsfanboy Posted: March 31, 2013 at 01:59 PM (#4400172)
But if his percentage climbs, and he looks like he's got an authentic shot, then they want to try and time it to coincide with induction.


Horrible marketing on their part then. Why combine two fan events into one timeframe? You retire his number one year, have an Edgar weekend. Then when he goes in, you do it again with another weekend.

Put him in the team HoF by all means but if there's a franchise that should be extremely snooty about whose numbers get retired, it should be the Yanks.


Excellent point. The line for uniform retiring should be somewhat dependent on the franchise success. The better the franchise, the higher the line should be.

My assumption in #76, BTW, is that only one team should retire a player's number.

There are going to be some obvious exceptions. Albert Pujols could legitimately earn the right to have his number retired by both the Cardinals and the Angels.(he's a hof lock, will probably amass around 25-35 war for the Angels and is signed to a 10 year personal contract with them, meaning he will be around a lot after his playing days)

I think Bruce Sutter and Lee Smith have arguments for both the Cardinals and Cubs(assuming you accept relievers as hof players) Frank Robinson for the Reds and Orioles. Randy Johnson with the D-backs and Mariners. Etc.


   93. Tubbs & Minnie Miñoso don't fear Sid Monge Posted: March 31, 2013 at 02:02 PM (#4400174)
In addition, the Tigers should waive their HOF requirement and retire Trammell, Whitaker, and Morris' (as opposed to the great Dan Petry) numbers. Obviously, all these players would wear Detroit hats on their HOF plaques
   94. robinred Posted: March 31, 2013 at 02:36 PM (#4400190)
Why retire any number that isn't iconic?


"Iconic" is a mostly subjective term, but Jones, was, actually a huge icon in SD for about three years in the mid-70s, at the height of the Reds/Dodgers NL West era, and got the Padres, a truly hapless organization, their first exposure on what at the time was the baseball publicity map (SI, TSN, Baseball Digest). When his career ended, he settled in SD, the team opened a BBQ named after him in the park, he was actually there a lot, and has been around the team ever since, and is still around it now.

Given the Padres' history, it makes sense, even thought it wouldn't to most other people, probably.
   95. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: March 31, 2013 at 02:39 PM (#4400193)
The Mets should retire Hernandez & Piazza, they were the face of their '86 WS & '99 Pennant.

I will say this: In the 1999 World Series, the Braves sure did a pretty good imitation of the 1962 Mets. I can understand the confusion.
   96. Dr. Vaux Posted: March 31, 2013 at 02:54 PM (#4400203)
I don't think that's a minority opinion. I think we're running about 90% in agreement with you here.


Yes, I was tired and cranky when I typed that post.
   97. Tubbs & Minnie Miñoso don't fear Sid Monge Posted: March 31, 2013 at 02:56 PM (#4400204)
The Mets should retire Hernandez & Piazza, they were the face of their '86 WS & '99 Pennant.

I will say this: In the 1999 World Series, the Braves sure did a pretty good imitation of the 1962 Mets. I can understand the confusion.


My bad, for some reason I always mix up '99 & '00 for the Subway Series. The '99 WS was forgettable, I mostly remember the Jim Grey/Pete Rose/Chad Curtis fiasco
   98. asinwreck Posted: March 31, 2013 at 04:30 PM (#4400257)
It is an outrage that the Padres never retired Gary Coleman's number in his lifetime. He managed them to a world championship!
   99. Walt Davis Posted: March 31, 2013 at 09:51 PM (#4400507)
I don't think this is an issue. Steroid/character issues aside, who would retire Kevin Brown or Gary Sheffield's number? Nobody is going to retire Fred McGriff's number.

Yeah but this has been done rather a lot. FRobinson is retired twice and he's got a legit case. But so is Wade Boggs. Ryan is retired by three teams. The Brewers retired Aaron. The Cards retired Sutter (but not the Cubs). Fingers by A's and Brewers. Carew by Angels and Twins (somewhat justifiable). Maddux by Cubs and Braves (somewhat justifiable). Fisk by both Soxes. Reggie by As and Yanks.

Sure, for a multi-team induction you probably need to make the HoF which none of Brown, Sheff or McGriff is likely to do. And clearly it helps if one of the teams was an expansion team.

I'd say the Phillies, Twins, Braves, O's, Cubs, Pirates and Dodgers (LaSorda, ugh!) have all done excellent jobs but probably the White Sox have done the best of all. They don't have a lot of HoFers and have done a good job of recognizing franchise icons like Pierce, Baines and Minoso anyway.

I am surprised to learn that nobody has retired Jimmie Foxx's number (did he have a number?). In fact no pre-Oakland A has a retired number. While Mack seems like just the sort of arrogant SoB who'd think nobody deserves such an honor, he was definitely the sort of guy who would have loved an extra large gate on some weekend.
   100. Tubbs & Minnie Miñoso don't fear Sid Monge Posted: March 31, 2013 at 10:07 PM (#4400525)
Foxx wore #3 from 31-35 for the A's and from 36-42 for the Sox, as great as he was the Sox's strict policy will keep his # off their wall & despite having a rich history Oakland seems to care little about educating their fans about their past
I support McGriff for the HOF but don't see where he played any one place long enough to have his # retired
Boggs & Clemens both burnt their bridges in Boston so I doubt they'll ever have their #s retired
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
robneyer
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(401 - 2:28pm, Jul 25)
Last: ursus arctos

NewsblogCSN: Enough is enough — time to move on from Ryan Howard
(105 - 2:27pm, Jul 25)
Last: Red Menace

Newsblog5 for Friday: Leo Mazzone, pitching coach to the HOFers
(20 - 2:26pm, Jul 25)
Last: bigglou115

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(3129 - 2:23pm, Jul 25)
Last: Bitter Mouse

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(926 - 2:21pm, Jul 25)
Last: andrewberg

SABR - BBTF ChapterWho's going to SABR??
(94 - 2:16pm, Jul 25)
Last: Joey Numbaz (Scruff)

NewsblogSurprising Sports Stars – Guided by Voices’ Robert Pollard
(14 - 2:13pm, Jul 25)
Last: Tom Nawrocki

NewsblogNoble: Tom Seaver expects Derek Jeter to become first unanimous Hall of Fame inductee
(79 - 2:08pm, Jul 25)
Last: Lassus

NewsblogGoldman: Eliminating the shift a bandage for a phantom wound
(39 - 2:02pm, Jul 25)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-25-2014
(6 - 1:38pm, Jul 25)
Last: Moeball

NewsblogLa Russa: Asterisk for tainted stars
(14 - 1:20pm, Jul 25)
Last: winnipegwhip

NewsblogThe Inventor of the High Five
(25 - 12:20pm, Jul 25)
Last: Batman

NewsblogBuck Showalter, Tommy Hunter bemoan shrinking strike zone in Orioles loss
(12 - 11:34am, Jul 25)
Last: Bug Selig

NewsblogTwitter / Ken_Rosenthal: Mariners announce acquisition of Kendrys Morales for RHP Stephen Pryor.
(18 - 11:14am, Jul 25)
Last: Davo Dozier

NewsblogRick Cerone: “Robinson Cano . . . what a fool!”
(257 - 11:12am, Jul 25)
Last: Greg Pope thinks the Cubs are reeking havoc

Page rendered in 0.5488 seconds
52 querie(s) executed