CelticsStrong
Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: Eddie20 on September 19, 2018, 11:32:21 AM
-
# 1 Walter Brown - Celtics owner. He should have his name on a banner like Loscy.
# 2 Red - Put a cigar on a banner, like the microphone for Most.
# 3 DJ - Good player. Helped us get 2 titles. 1x all-star with us. Just not enough.
# 16 Satch - Good player and multiple champion, but never an all-star
# 19 Nelson - Him, KC Jones, and Ramsey are arguably the least worthy.
# 23 Ramsey - See above.
# 25 KC - Never an all-star. As a coach ran our stars into the ground season after season.
# 31 Maxwell - Finals MVP, but just not good enough to make the cut.
# 35 Lewis - His unfortunate passing shouldn't give him an automatic entry. He was great, but just not enough time played.
I do think KG's 5 and Ainge's 44 (especially if he wins another as a GM) should be retired.
-
this would in reality be a very tricky business - peoples feelings would be hurt and it'd be hard for the franchise to do this in any way and not look bad.
unless they just un-retire all of them , come up w a different system of honoring people, like what you mention for red and walter brown.
otherwise it'd be ugly.
but i agree, something needs to give eventually.
-
What's done is done.
I wouldn't "un-retire" any of them. That ship sailed a long time ago when the organization decided how they were going to do things. You can make it more stringent going forward but I wouldn't go back and "un-retire" now unless you had the person's okay on it.
-
What's done is done.
I wouldn't "un-retire" any of them. That ship sailed a long time ago when the organization decided how they were going to do things. You can make it more stringent going forward but I wouldn't go back and "un-retire" now unless you had the person's okay on it.
Right on the mark. You can't unretire numbers. I also disagree with most of the reasons Eddie gave for doing it. You don't have to be an All-Star or have eye popping numbers to be an all time Celtic great.
Look at it this way, if Smart spends the next 6 years as a Celtic winning a couple of titles as the team's sixth man/defensive bulldog/leader while posting numbers similar to what he has already posted, he probably deserves to have his number retired. No All-Star. No DPOY awards. Just an all time Celtic great.
-
What's done is done.
I wouldn't "un-retire" any of them. That ship sailed a long time ago when the organization decided how they were going to do things. You can make it more stringent going forward but I wouldn't go back and "un-retire" now unless you had the person's okay on it.
Right on the mark. You can't unretire numbers. I also disagree with most of the reasons Eddie gave for doing it. You don't have to be an All-Star or have eye popping numbers to be an all time Celtic great.
Look at it this way, if Smart spends the next 6 years as a Celtic winning a couple of titles as the team's sixth man/defensive bulldog/leader while posting numbers similar to what he has already posted, he probably deserves to have his number retired. No All-Star. No DPOY awards. Just an all time Celtic great.
Exactly. If Smart has that career and doesn't improve his game then he does not deserve his number retired. These players should be Celtic greats, not just good players. However, if he ends up being a head coach and/or GM and is successful then I could get aboard for his overall body of work.
We've set the bar really low with retired numbers. Be decent, win a couple of times as a reserve, and you're in. The numbers our guys will have to chose from in say 20 years is going to be laughable.
-
Put me in the "Leave things as they are." column.
-
What's done is done.
I wouldn't "un-retire" any of them. That ship sailed a long time ago when the organization decided how they were going to do things. You can make it more stringent going forward but I wouldn't go back and "un-retire" now unless you had the person's okay on it.
Right on the mark. You can't unretire numbers. I also disagree with most of the reasons Eddie gave for doing it. You don't have to be an All-Star or have eye popping numbers to be an all time Celtic great.
Look at it this way, if Smart spends the next 6 years as a Celtic winning a couple of titles as the team's sixth man/defensive bulldog/leader while posting numbers similar to what he has already posted, he probably deserves to have his number retired. No All-Star. No DPOY awards. Just an all time Celtic great.
Exactly. If Smart has that career and doesn't improve his game then he does not deserve his number retired. These players should be Celtic greats, not just good players. However, if he ends up being a head coach and/or GM and is successful then I could get aboard for his overall body of work.
We've set the bar really low with retired numbers. Be decent, win a couple of times as a reserve, and you're in. The numbers our guys will have to chose from in say 20 years is going to be laughable.
Dennis Johnson wasn't a reserve. He played for 7 years in Boston, starting 607 of 632 games for us and was a critical part of two NBA titles. He was a great basketball player. He was a 5 time All Star for his career and 3 time World Champion. Just because he didn't get more than the one AS nod during that time doesn't mean anything other than at that point there were one or two more popular guards in the East. Anybody who was paying attention knows that on a team with guys like Bird and McHale, DJ's job wasn't to post gaudy scoring numbers. That, plus the perennial-All-Star stature of his teammates was always going to work against him for getting AS votes.
-
# 1 Walter Brown - Celtics owner. He should have his name on a banner like Loscy.
# 2 Red - Put a cigar on a banner, like the microphone for Most.
# 3 DJ - Good player. Helped us get 2 titles. 1x all-star with us. Just not enough.
# 16 Satch - Good player and multiple champion, but never an all-star
# 19 Nelson - Him, KC Jones, and Ramsey are arguably the least worthy.
# 23 Ramsey - See above.
# 25 KC - Never an all-star. As a coach ran our stars into the ground season after season.
# 31 Maxwell - Finals MVP, but just not good enough to make the cut.
# 35 Lewis - His unfortunate passing shouldn't give him an automatic entry. He was great, but just not enough time played.
I do think KG's 5 and Ainge's 44 (especially if he wins another as a GM) should be retired.
I agree with those who said what's done is done but for the sake of conversation I agree with all but Reggie Lewis and DJ, those are deserving to be in the rafters.
Interesting note on Most's microphone in the rafters, i never knew this. Tried looking for a pic but nothing came up, but was referenced multiple times in articles to have happened.
-
None.
-
# 1 Walter Brown - Celtics owner. He should have his name on a banner like Loscy.
# 2 Red - Put a cigar on a banner, like the microphone for Most.
# 3 DJ - Good player. Helped us get 2 titles. 1x all-star with us. Just not enough.
# 16 Satch - Good player and multiple champion, but never an all-star
# 19 Nelson - Him, KC Jones, and Ramsey are arguably the least worthy.
# 23 Ramsey - See above.
# 25 KC - Never an all-star. As a coach ran our stars into the ground season after season.
# 31 Maxwell - Finals MVP, but just not good enough to make the cut.
# 35 Lewis - His unfortunate passing shouldn't give him an automatic entry. He was great, but just not enough time played.
I do think KG's 5 and Ainge's 44 (especially if he wins another as a GM) should be retired.
I agree with those who said what's done is done but for the sake of conversation I agree with all but Reggie Lewis and DJ, those are deserving to be in the rafters.
Interesting note on Most's microphone in the rafters, i never knew this. Tried looking for a pic but nothing came up, but was referenced multiple times in articles to have happened.
From IMDB:
"Honored with the permanent installation at Boston Garden of his microphone, silver-plated and encased in a Celtic-green frame, to the facade of the radio booth, the vantage point Most always described as "high above courtside." [December 1990]"
I'm pretty sure it was brought over to the "new" Garden. Seems like I have seen it outside a booth in the uppermost boxes.
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0609187/bio
-
None.
agreed
-
this would in reality be a very tricky business - peoples feelings would be hurt and it'd be hard for the franchise to do this in any way and not look bad.
unless they just un-retire all of them , come up w a different system of honoring people, like what you mention for red and walter brown.
otherwise it'd be ugly.
but i agree, something needs to give eventually.
why? there is a LOT of time before the celtics come close to running out of numbers.
the celtics have retired a total of 21 numbers over some 70 years. that leaves 79 number left to use. there is not a real shortage of available numbers.
at the above rate, in another 70 some years, there will still be well over 50 active numbers for players to choose from.
p.s. without the OP providing us with any rhyme or reason or basis for his choices it is hard to know whom to de-select and whom to leave in.
KG, only one championship? why put him in but others with more championships are taken out?
-
I would change Red and Brown to last names to make #1 and #2 usable, but no more than that
-
# 1 Walter Brown - Celtics owner. He should have his name on a banner like Loscy.
# 2 Red - Put a cigar on a banner, like the microphone for Most.
# 3 DJ - Good player. Helped us get 2 titles. 1x all-star with us. Just not enough.
# 16 Satch - Good player and multiple champion, but never an all-star
# 19 Nelson - Him, KC Jones, and Ramsey are arguably the least worthy.
# 23 Ramsey - See above.
# 25 KC - Never an all-star. As a coach ran our stars into the ground season after season.
# 31 Maxwell - Finals MVP, but just not good enough to make the cut.
# 35 Lewis - His unfortunate passing shouldn't give him an automatic entry. He was great, but just not enough time played.
I do think KG's 5 and Ainge's 44 (especially if he wins another as a GM) should be retired.
I agree with those who said what's done is done but for the sake of conversation I agree with all but Reggie Lewis and DJ, those are deserving to be in the rafters.
Interesting note on Most's microphone in the rafters, i never knew this. Tried looking for a pic but nothing came up, but was referenced multiple times in articles to have happened.
From IMDB:
"Honored with the permanent installation at Boston Garden of his microphone, silver-plated and encased in a Celtic-green frame, to the facade of the radio booth, the vantage point Most always described as "high above courtside." [December 1990]"
I'm pretty sure it was brought over to the "new" Garden. Seems like I have seen it outside a booth in the uppermost boxes.
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0609187/bio
Yeah, its way up there at TD. It's hanging above the 330/301 area of the arena, I believe.
-
What's done is done.
I wouldn't "un-retire" any of them. That ship sailed a long time ago when the organization decided how they were going to do things. You can make it more stringent going forward but I wouldn't go back and "un-retire" now unless you had the person's okay on it.
Right on the mark. You can't unretire numbers. I also disagree with most of the reasons Eddie gave for doing it. You don't have to be an All-Star or have eye popping numbers to be an all time Celtic great.
Look at it this way, if Smart spends the next 6 years as a Celtic winning a couple of titles as the team's sixth man/defensive bulldog/leader while posting numbers similar to what he has already posted, he probably deserves to have his number retired. No All-Star. No DPOY awards. Just an all time Celtic great.
Exactly. If Smart has that career and doesn't improve his game then he does not deserve his number retired. These players should be Celtic greats, not just good players. However, if he ends up being a head coach and/or GM and is successful then I could get aboard for his overall body of work.
We've set the bar really low with retired numbers. Be decent, win a couple of times as a reserve, and you're in. The numbers our guys will have to chose from in say 20 years is going to be laughable.
I know this is apples to oranges, but the New York Yankees have every single digit number retired. I don’t see jersey numbers as a deal breaker for players.
-
I would change Red and Brown to last names to make #1 and #2 usable, but no more than that
Yeah, while I mostly agree with Eddie's assertions in a 'start completely over and choose the really deserving players' kind-of way, there is no real way of handling this that wouldn't look totally bad (imagine un-retiring Reggie Lewis' #35??).
So, yeah, #1 and #2 are the easy choices - nobody knows Red or Brown by these #s anyway.
-
New idea....since Robert Parish's number 00 is retired...
Why can't they have players wear 01, 02, 03, etc...?
-
New idea....since Robert Parish's number 00 is retired...
Why can't they have players wear 01, 02, 03, etc...?
In that case why not just give players numbers like 76 or 87 or 91? I don't understand the fixation on players needing to have low numbers. As pointed out, we only have 20-something numbers retired in 70 years. At that rate, which I don't see as sustainable, the team would have enough numbers for the next 250 years.
-
New idea....since Robert Parish's number 00 is retired...
Why can't they have players wear 01, 02, 03, etc...?
In that case why not just give players numbers like 76 or 87 or 91? I don't understand the fixation on players needing to have low numbers. As pointed out, we only have 20-something numbers retired in 70 years. At that rate, which I don't see as sustainable, the team would have enough numbers for the next 250 years.
I dunno....seems like Tatum was obsessed with "0"
-
You just can't unretire a number. It would be immensely disrespectful.
Also, the rumour that the Celtics will soon run out of jersey numbers is a myth.
-
New idea....since Robert Parish's number 00 is retired...
Why can't they have players wear 01, 02, 03, etc...?
In that case why not just give players numbers like 76 or 87 or 91? I don't understand the fixation on players needing to have low numbers. As pointed out, we only have 20-something numbers retired in 70 years. At that rate, which I don't see as sustainable, the team would have enough numbers for the next 250 years.
The league and the officials prefer numbers that they can express easily with their hands, i.e. using digits 0 thru 5, higher digits can be confusing to communicate to the scorers table. There are of course players with numbers using the higher digits, but since it is discouraged at all levels it is a bit less common.
-
None.
This....none should be unretired.
-
Agree with the OP. We have far too many retired numbers.
If it was up to me, I'd only keep 3 retired numbers: #6, #33 and #35.
#6 and #33 for obvious reasons. #35 cause Reggie Lewis literally gave his life for the Celtics.
I'd then do what we did with Loscy and put names into the rafters rather than numbers.
Personally speaking,
- I see no reason whatsoever to have a number retired for Walter Brown (first owner of the C's).
- I'd strongly consider adding Chuck Cooper's name in the rafters (first African American to get drafted in the NBA).
-
We have a bad precedent in place and having your number retired doesn't have the luster it should. We are a historic franchise, the guys on the rafters should be great, not just good, players. For example, according to the Smart example previously posted, say we do win multiple titles over the course of the next 6 seasons. One person said that would immediately catapult Smart into the rafters. However, what if we keep the same starting lineup during that span? By the Smart inclusion, thar would automatically mean that 0-7-11-20 and 42 will be joining 36.
Let's take the Lakers retired jerseys-
Kareem
Elgin
Kobe 8 and 24
Magic
Worthy
Shaq
Goodrich
Wilkes
West
Gasol
Wilt
Do you see the difference? If they used our criteria then Nixon, Odom, Cooper, Scott, Rambis, etc. would be retired too.
-
I agree about #1 & #2, but un-retiring the numbers of say, Reggie, who died in an attempt to play for us (however misguided, the tragic nature of his death deserves honouring imo), is a really bad PR move
-
We have a bad precedent in place and having your number retired doesn't have the luster it should. We are a historic franchise, the guys on the rafters should be great, not just good, players. For example, according to the Smart example previously posted, say we do win multiple titles over the course of the next 6 seasons. One person said that would immediately catapult Smart into the rafters. However, what if we keep the same starting lineup during that span? By the Smart inclusion, thar would automatically mean that 0-7-11-20 and 42 will be joining 36.
Let's take the Lakers retired jerseys-
Kareem
Elgin
Kobe 8 and 24
Magic
Worthy
Shaq
Goodrich
Wilkes
West
Gasol
Wilt
Do you see the difference? If they used our criteria then Nixon, Odom, Cooper, Scott, Rambis, etc. would be retired too.
Luckily, we aren't the Lakers so I couldn't care less what they do. We are the Celtics. We do what we do.
-
We have a bad precedent in place and having your number retired doesn't have the luster it should. We are a historic franchise, the guys on the rafters should be great, not just good, players. For example, according to the Smart example previously posted, say we do win multiple titles over the course of the next 6 seasons. One person said that would immediately catapult Smart into the rafters. However, what if we keep the same starting lineup during that span? By the Smart inclusion, thar would automatically mean that 0-7-11-20 and 42 will be joining 36.
Let's take the Lakers retired jerseys-
Kareem
Elgin
Kobe 8 and 24
Magic
Worthy
Shaq
Goodrich
Wilkes
West
Gasol
Wilt
Do you see the difference? If they used our criteria then Nixon, Odom, Cooper, Scott, Rambis, etc. would be retired too.
Luckily, we aren't the Lakers so I couldn't care less what they do. We are the Celtics. We do what we do.
That's all well and good, but the fact remains having your number retired as a Laker isn't as watered down. I mean we're basically the polar opposite of the Sox in that regard.
-
We have a bad precedent in place and having your number retired doesn't have the luster it should. We are a historic franchise, the guys on the rafters should be great, not just good, players. For example, according to the Smart example previously posted, say we do win multiple titles over the course of the next 6 seasons. One person said that would immediately catapult Smart into the rafters. However, what if we keep the same starting lineup during that span? By the Smart inclusion, thar would automatically mean that 0-7-11-20 and 42 will be joining 36.
Let's take the Lakers retired jerseys-
Kareem
Elgin
Kobe 8 and 24
Magic
Worthy
Shaq
Goodrich
Wilkes
West
Gasol
Wilt
Do you see the difference? If they used our criteria then Nixon, Odom, Cooper, Scott, Rambis, etc. would be retired too.
Luckily, we aren't the Lakers so I couldn't care less what they do. We are the Celtics. We do what we do.
That's all well and good, but the fact remains having your number retired as a Laker isn't as watered down. I mean we're basically the polar opposite of the Sox in that regard.
I really don't care. We celebrate all-time Celtics, not all-time players. And many of the players you mentioned are Hall of Famers. I think that means a lot.
And Walter Brown and Red Auerbach are probably two of the absolute most important figures in this franchise, more important than the players. Without them there are no Celtics and no 17 banners. They deserve the numbers 1 and 2.
-
We have a bad precedent in place and having your number retired doesn't have the luster it should. We are a historic franchise, the guys on the rafters should be great, not just good, players. For example, according to the Smart example previously posted, say we do win multiple titles over the course of the next 6 seasons. One person said that would immediately catapult Smart into the rafters. However, what if we keep the same starting lineup during that span? By the Smart inclusion, thar would automatically mean that 0-7-11-20 and 42 will be joining 36.
Let's take the Lakers retired jerseys-
Kareem
Elgin
Kobe 8 and 24
Magic
Worthy
Shaq
Goodrich
Wilkes
West
Gasol
Wilt
Do you see the difference? If they used our criteria then Nixon, Odom, Cooper, Scott, Rambis, etc. would be retired too.
Luckily, we aren't the Lakers so I couldn't care less what they do. We are the Celtics. We do what we do.
That's all well and good, but the fact remains having your number retired as a Laker isn't as watered down. I mean we're basically the polar opposite of the Sox in that regard.
I really don't care. We celebrate all-time Celtics, not all-time players. And many of the players you mentioned are Hall of Famers. I think that means a lot.
And Walter Brown and Red Auerbach are probably two of the absolute most important figures in this franchise, more important than the players. Without them there are no Celtics and no 17 banners. They deserve the numbers 1 and 2.
The thing is someone like Dennis Johnson isn't an all time Celtic. He played 7 years and was never better than the 3rd best player on any team (and Parish easily could have been better). DJ is in the top 10 for all time Celtics for just assists, steals, and turnovers (he is 8th in all 3). DJ was a great player, but he wasn't an all time Celtic. Antoine Walker, for example, has far more appearances on top 10 lists, but because he didn't get to play with Bird, McHale, and Parish, he didn't win any titles so he isn't in the rafters. And DJ isn't alone. As has been pointed out there are way too many numbers in the rafters, which is why I've long been an opponent to putting KG up there. He just wasn't a Celtic for long enough to make the list (to prove this, let me just say that Toine has a higher VORP than KG as Celtics - I mean if Toine has more value over replacement than KG, KG doesn't belong up there).
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/leaders_career.html
-
I would change Red and Brown to last names to make #1 and #2 usable, but no more than that
Yeah, while I mostly agree with Eddie's assertions in a 'start completely over and choose the really deserving players' kind-of way, there is no real way of handling this that wouldn't look totally bad (imagine un-retiring Reggie Lewis' #35??).
So, yeah, #1 and #2 are the easy choices - nobody knows Red or Brown by these #s anyway.
Why don't we just get it over with and change our team name to 'Clippers' or 'Nets' or 'Tigers' ?
The difference between us and the rest of the league is Red Auerbach and Walter Brown. They built the team and saw it thru tough times and created the greatest dynasty in pro sports. To take down #1 & #2 would be the most disrespectful thing you could do.
As for the other numbers, all were important in our history. Anyone that Red saw fit to retire from the 60's dynasty is just fine with me. The 70's and 80's guys should be unquestioned. All were great players that won multiple titles.
Paul Pierce was very deserving and #5 should follow as soon as possible.
Running out of numbers is a myth - Numbers 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 20, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40's & 50's all still in play and all are basketball appropriate numbers. The reason to not wear #'s like 84 or 99 or 72 is that they are worn by football players and were never worn in basketball until recently. They look ignorant on players. Plus the pragmatic reason of officials having difficulty communicating them to the score table.
Is there any room left for tradition in our country anymore ? I say keep on hanging the numbers of our great and beloved Celtics high in the Boston Garden and add some championships up there with them. Way too long with only one title.
-
When does preseason start again?
-
There is always the options of going to letters AA , CC, AC the like at some point.Seriously I could see the option of going with O1, O3. The retiring is all well and good but I don't want to see someone wearing 78 playing basketball.
-
Are championships not valuable? Do consistancy longevity on winning teams mean nothing? All these players had moments worthy of being recognized in those rafters.
I'm more in the camp of retireing the numbers of the likes of KG and Powe. But that's just me.
-
There is always the options of going to letters AA , CC, AC the like at some point.Seriously I could see the option of going with O1, O3. The retiring is all well and good but I don't want to see someone wearing 78 playing basketball.
Why can’t they wear number 78? Is it that much of an eyesore? Or too long to pronounce?
Not sure what the issue is here, we are a franchise who embraces their history.
We are the Celtics, and that means something.
-
There is always the options of going to letters AA , CC, AC the like at some point.Seriously I could see the option of going with O1, O3. The retiring is all well and good but I don't want to see someone wearing 78 playing basketball.
Why can’t they wear number 78? Is it that much of an eyesore? Or too long to pronounce?
Not sure what the issue is here, we are a franchise who embraces their history.
We are the Celtics, and that means something.
we are the Celtics and having your number retired should mean alot more than it does
-
It's not broke, so don't fix it. Also, I find the concept of un-retiring numbers to lack class.
-
There is always the options of going to letters AA , CC, AC the like at some point.Seriously I could see the option of going with O1, O3. The retiring is all well and good but I don't want to see someone wearing 78 playing basketball.
Why can’t they wear number 78? Is it that much of an eyesore? Or too long to pronounce?
Not sure what the issue is here, we are a franchise who embraces their history.
We are the Celtics, and that means something.
we are the Celtics and having your number retired should mean alot more than it does
I think the lax standards of jersey retirement that you're referring to are things of the past. Maxwell was a poor decision IMO, as he was merely a decent-good player who won a Finals MVP. However, since then we have had 1 jersey retirement, for a guy who is widely considered a top 5 all time Celtic.
KG didn't get his retired, and it hasn't sounded like he will. Ray didn't get his retired, and it seems almost a certainty that he won't. Rondo hasn't retired, but (barring some unimaginable return to Boston where he wins 2 rings as the starting PG) he almost certainly won't.
I don't think the 'problem', so to speak, of retiring too many numbers is as present today, with only 2 numbers being retired post-2000
-
There is always the options of going to letters AA , CC, AC the like at some point.Seriously I could see the option of going with O1, O3. The retiring is all well and good but I don't want to see someone wearing 78 playing basketball.
Why can’t they wear number 78? Is it that much of an eyesore? Or too long to pronounce?
Not sure what the issue is here, we are a franchise who embraces their history.
We are the Celtics, and that means something.
we are the Celtics and having your number retired should mean alot more than it does
I think the lax standards of jersey retirement that you're referring to are things of the past. Maxwell was a poor decision IMO, as he was merely a decent-good player who won a Finals MVP. However, since then we have had 1 jersey retirement, for a guy who is widely considered a top 5 all time Celtic.
KG didn't get his retired, and it hasn't sounded like he will. Ray didn't get his retired, and it seems almost a certainty that he won't. Rondo hasn't retired, but (barring some unimaginable return to Boston where he wins 2 rings as the starting PG) he almost certainly won't.
I don't think the 'problem', so to speak, of retiring too many numbers is as present today, with only 2 numbers being retired post-2000
The C's have said KG is going to go up there. As I've said in basically every thread it comes up, I don't think he should. Now if they don't put him up there, maybe what you are saying is true, but there are far too many numbers in the rafters.
If I was doing it now, I'd retire the numbers of Cousy, Russell, Hondo, Cowens, Bird, McHale, and Pierce. I'd have Lewis up there, but don't think I'd actually retire his number, though I could be persuaded to do so. I'd listen to arguments on S. Jones, Parish, and White because of their longevity and all around solid play. I'd have Brown, Red, Heinsohn, and Ainge honored up there for what they did for the organization, but certainly wouldn't retire any number for them (and I'd wait until Tommy and Danny retired before putting their name up there).
So for me the only retired numbers for sure would be 6, 14, 17, 18, 32, 33, and 34. I'd put 35 as a maybe and could maybe be convinced on 00, 10, and 24 (though it would take a lot of convincing on them). Having your number in the rafters of the most decorated franchise in NBA history should be an immense honor. I wouldn't want to cheapen it by putting lesser deserving players up there.
-
Give players the option to gift their number to their favorite player if they really want to, with the right to take it back if the dude gets arrested or something. Or maybe make it a one year thing even.
Like if you have played for the team through your rookie contract and signed another.....I mean how much would you cry if Bill Russell had said to KG "I want you to wear my number this year"
Crazy idea but still
-
There is always the options of going to letters AA , CC, AC the like at some point.Seriously I could see the option of going with O1, O3. The retiring is all well and good but I don't want to see someone wearing 78 playing basketball.
Why can’t they wear number 78? Is it that much of an eyesore? Or too long to pronounce?
Not sure what the issue is here, we are a franchise who embraces their history.
We are the Celtics, and that means something.
we are the Celtics and having your number retired should mean alot more than it does
I think the lax standards of jersey retirement that you're referring to are things of the past. Maxwell was a poor decision IMO, as he was merely a decent-good player who won a Finals MVP. However, since then we have had 1 jersey retirement, for a guy who is widely considered a top 5 all time Celtic.
KG didn't get his retired, and it hasn't sounded like he will. Ray didn't get his retired, and it seems almost a certainty that he won't. Rondo hasn't retired, but (barring some unimaginable return to Boston where he wins 2 rings as the starting PG) he almost certainly won't.
I don't think the 'problem', so to speak, of retiring too many numbers is as present today, with only 2 numbers being retired post-2000
The C's have said KG is going to go up there. As I've said in basically every thread it comes up, I don't think he should. Now if they don't put him up there, maybe what you are saying is true, but there are far too many numbers in the rafters.
If I was doing it now, I'd retire the numbers of Cousy, Russell, Hondo, Cowens, Bird, McHale, and Pierce. I'd have Lewis up there, but don't think I'd actually retire his number, though I could be persuaded to do so. I'd listen to arguments on S. Jones, Parish, and White because of their longevity and all around solid play. I'd have Brown, Red, Heinsohn, and Ainge honored up there for what they did for the organization, but certainly wouldn't retire any number for them (and I'd wait until Tommy and Danny retired before putting their name up there).
So for me the only retired numbers for sure would be 6, 14, 17, 18, 32, 33, and 34. I'd put 35 as a maybe and could maybe be convinced on 00, 10, and 24 (though it would take a lot of convincing on them). Having your number in the rafters of the most decorated franchise in NBA history should be an immense honor. I wouldn't want to cheapen it by putting lesser deserving players up there.
I must've missed the KG news, somehow. I don't think he should be up there either. Not to lessen what he did, but he only played 6 years with 1 ring.
I also agree with the numbers you'd have retired, although I would add Parish, but that's it.
I just have no idea how you go about unretiring numbers, especially of those who have passed, like DJ, as it would be a pretty awful PR move. Seems like what's done is done at this stage
-
# 3 DJ - Good player. Helped us get 2 titles. 1x all-star with us. Just not enough.
I do think KG's 5 and Ainge's 44 (especially if he wins another as a GM) should be retired.
So DJ helped us get 2 banners and KG got one but should go up?
-
There is always the options of going to letters AA , CC, AC the like at some point.Seriously I could see the option of going with O1, O3. The retiring is all well and good but I don't want to see someone wearing 78 playing basketball.
Why can’t they wear number 78? Is it that much of an eyesore? Or too long to pronounce?
Not sure what the issue is here, we are a franchise who embraces their history.
We are the Celtics, and that means something.
we are the Celtics and having your number retired should mean alot more than it does
I think the lax standards of jersey retirement that you're referring to are things of the past. Maxwell was a poor decision IMO, as he was merely a decent-good player who won a Finals MVP. However, since then we have had 1 jersey retirement, for a guy who is widely considered a top 5 all time Celtic.
KG didn't get his retired, and it hasn't sounded like he will. Ray didn't get his retired, and it seems almost a certainty that he won't. Rondo hasn't retired, but (barring some unimaginable return to Boston where he wins 2 rings as the starting PG) he almost certainly won't.
I don't think the 'problem', so to speak, of retiring too many numbers is as present today, with only 2 numbers being retired post-2000
The C's have said KG is going to go up there. As I've said in basically every thread it comes up, I don't think he should. Now if they don't put him up there, maybe what you are saying is true, but there are far too many numbers in the rafters.
If I was doing it now, I'd retire the numbers of Cousy, Russell, Hondo, Cowens, Bird, McHale, and Pierce. I'd have Lewis up there, but don't think I'd actually retire his number, though I could be persuaded to do so. I'd listen to arguments on S. Jones, Parish, and White because of their longevity and all around solid play. I'd have Brown, Red, Heinsohn, and Ainge honored up there for what they did for the organization, but certainly wouldn't retire any number for them (and I'd wait until Tommy and Danny retired before putting their name up there).
So for me the only retired numbers for sure would be 6, 14, 17, 18, 32, 33, and 34. I'd put 35 as a maybe and could maybe be convinced on 00, 10, and 24 (though it would take a lot of convincing on them). Having your number in the rafters of the most decorated franchise in NBA history should be an immense honor. I wouldn't want to cheapen it by putting lesser deserving players up there.
I must've missed the KG news, somehow. I don't think he should be up there either. Not to lessen what he did, but he only played 6 years with 1 ring.
I also agree with the numbers you'd have retired, although I would add Parish, but that's it.
I just have no idea how you go about unretiring numbers, especially of those who have passed, like DJ, as it would be a pretty awful PR move. Seems like what's done is done at this stage
Agreed. KG might be my favorite Celtic that I was alive to see (sorry, Pierce), but he just hasn't done enough to get his number retired here. Same for Ray Allen
-
There is always the options of going to letters AA , CC, AC the like at some point.Seriously I could see the option of going with O1, O3. The retiring is all well and good but I don't want to see someone wearing 78 playing basketball.
Why can’t they wear number 78? Is it that much of an eyesore? Or too long to pronounce?
Not sure what the issue is here, we are a franchise who embraces their history.
We are the Celtics, and that means something.
we are the Celtics and having your number retired should mean alot more than it does
It means we are rich in history. I don’t mind them retiring key players throughout the eras.
Other than the 2008 title team, we won multiple titles through multiple key players.
Yankees do this too and nobody has an issue. And they have to field up to 40 players a year (not 15 or whatever we do). Aaron Judge is the face of the franchise and wears #99. Nobody is griping that he’s not wearing #6 or 20 or whatever.
-
I would change Red and Brown to last names to make #1 and #2 usable, but no more than that
Yeah, while I mostly agree with Eddie's assertions in a 'start completely over and choose the really deserving players' kind-of way, there is no real way of handling this that wouldn't look totally bad (imagine un-retiring Reggie Lewis' #35??).
So, yeah, #1 and #2 are the easy choices - nobody knows Red or Brown by these #s anyway.
This is my feeling as well. Those numbers have nothing to do with Red and Walter Brown, putting them in circulation would be fine.
Otherwise, leave it alone. There are names up there I wouldn't have retired but what's done is done. Plus, I like that the Celtics haven't just retired their best players, they've tried to retire guys who are part of the culture. Satch was never an all star but he played his whole career with Boston, won 8 rings and did some coaching with the team. That stuff matters.
-
There is always the options of going to letters AA , CC, AC the like at some point.Seriously I could see the option of going with O1, O3. The retiring is all well and good but I don't want to see someone wearing 78 playing basketball.
Why can’t they wear number 78? Is it that much of an eyesore? Or too long to pronounce?
Not sure what the issue is here, we are a franchise who embraces their history.
We are the Celtics, and that means something.
we are the Celtics and having your number retired should mean alot more than it does
I think the lax standards of jersey retirement that you're referring to are things of the past. Maxwell was a poor decision IMO, as he was merely a decent-good player who won a Finals MVP. However, since then we have had 1 jersey retirement, for a guy who is widely considered a top 5 all time Celtic.
KG didn't get his retired, and it hasn't sounded like he will. Ray didn't get his retired, and it seems almost a certainty that he won't. Rondo hasn't retired, but (barring some unimaginable return to Boston where he wins 2 rings as the starting PG) he almost certainly won't.
I don't think the 'problem', so to speak, of retiring too many numbers is as present today, with only 2 numbers being retired post-2000
The C's have said KG is going to go up there. As I've said in basically every thread it comes up, I don't think he should. Now if they don't put him up there, maybe what you are saying is true, but there are far too many numbers in the rafters.
If I was doing it now, I'd retire the numbers of Cousy, Russell, Hondo, Cowens, Bird, McHale, and Pierce. I'd have Lewis up there, but don't think I'd actually retire his number, though I could be persuaded to do so. I'd listen to arguments on S. Jones, Parish, and White because of their longevity and all around solid play. I'd have Brown, Red, Heinsohn, and Ainge honored up there for what they did for the organization, but certainly wouldn't retire any number for them (and I'd wait until Tommy and Danny retired before putting their name up there).
So for me the only retired numbers for sure would be 6, 14, 17, 18, 32, 33, and 34. I'd put 35 as a maybe and could maybe be convinced on 00, 10, and 24 (though it would take a lot of convincing on them). Having your number in the rafters of the most decorated franchise in NBA history should be an immense honor. I wouldn't want to cheapen it by putting lesser deserving players up there.
You lost me when you said you'd drop Heinsohn. 37pt 23 reb as a rookie to seal the C's first championship, a total of 8 rings and 19p 9 reb for his career. He wasn't some JAG riding Russell's coat-tails.
At any rate, I'm really not sure what's GAINED by un-retiring numbers other than making it easier for guys who haven't contributed as much to the franchise to have a number that makes them happy (and maybe to make it easier on the refs). I don't see that the benefits of making those number available in any way outweighs the drawbacks of leaving things as they are. One of those biggest drawbacks being (in my eyes) the optics of taking away an honor that has already been bestowed. "we're sorry - we thought you were an all time Celtics great. Turns out we were mistaken, you were just an all-time Celtics good."
-
I don't understand the being easy on the refs. They could simply change their SOP to using two hand signals with two flashes of numbers. 6 fingers first flash then 8 fingers second flash, 68. Zero first then 7 second, 07. It would take a whole one second more. No big deal. I can't believe that simplifying things for the refs is an excuse when it would literally mean one extra second of finger flashes to convey fouls to the scorekeeper.
-
Who cares about the refs?
-
I don't understand the being easy on the refs. They could simply change their SOP to using two hand signals with two flashes of numbers. 6 fingers first flash then 8 fingers second flash, 68. Zero first then 7 second, 07. It would take a whole one second more. No big deal. I can't believe that simplifying things for the refs is an excuse when it would literally mean one extra second of finger flashes to convey fouls to the scorekeeper.
Maybe do some sort of synchronized routine utilizing two refs for numbers greater than 55
-
I don't understand the being easy on the refs. They could simply change their SOP to using two hand signals with two flashes of numbers. 6 fingers first flash then 8 fingers second flash, 68. Zero first then 7 second, 07. It would take a whole one second more. No big deal. I can't believe that simplifying things for the refs is an excuse when it would literally mean one extra second of finger flashes to convey fouls to the scorekeeper.
It's not about making it easier on the refs, it's about accuracy and efficiency. The refs are able to handle numbers using the higher digits. There are players that use those numbers. But it makes it more likely that a mistake can occur, and the league, understandably wants to avoid mistakes.