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.