If the celtics won it all again should ainge have his # retired?

[Roy Hobbs]

Well, we probably agree that strictly as a player, #44 doesn't get retired in honor of Danny Ainge.  Right?

As a GM, he's put together exactly one title-level core that will hopefully win at least two, hopefully 3+ banners.

Funny that nobody has yet posted any sort of standard or criteria for getting up to the rafters as a non-player?  We can sort of get a feel for a standard for players by who is already up there.  Could we do the same for a non-player?  There is only Walter Brown and Red Auerbach up there as non-players.  My gut says that to come close to making a "Red Auerbach" standard as a non-player, a person would have to do one or more of several things (that may not be possible in the current era):

1) completely revolutionize the way a team is made, a la inventing the idea of 6th man.

2) Coach the team to more consecutive championships than has ever occurred (or likely will) in any professional sport.

3) As GM, build and completely rebuild the roster to create championship winning teams with completely different cores in three different decades.

I'd say talk of raising Danny to the rafters is a little premature.  Putting one title-level core together one time doesn't cut it, even when coupled with being a solid starting-caliber role player on two title teams. 

If he rebuilds the team and banners are raised post-KG, then the discussion is warranted.

If he rebuilds the team and yet More Banners are raised post-Rondo era, then I'd probably sew the thing together myself.

The thing is, you can't strictly look at Danny as a "non-player".  He was a contributor on two title teams, and played in two additional Finals with the Celts.

What you're getting is the Danny combo package.  Danny has contributed to three title teams (minimum).  To me, that's enough to earn enshrinement.

The thing is, if he bungles the rebuilding post-KG and we have a situate with Rondo similar to Wade in Miami (not enough horses to get past the first round, wondering whether he'll demand a trade or leave via FA), then Danny should quite likely be "hung" from the rafters.

But the whole package involves him as a player:  a shooting specialist/hustle guy that was lucky enough to play next to FOUR hall-of-famers.  The list of players with his level of talent (as a celtic) is quite long; he wasn't a special player by any means any more than Jim Paxson was to his teams, or JJ Reddick is to his.  So, I'd probably consider his playing years as "Celtic years of service" but riding the coattails of true legends.

Heck, he didn't even start in '84.

  Ainge was a far superior player to Paxson or Reddick.

Agreed.  Danny's stats were mediocre in large part because he was the fifth option (through no fault of his own).  Later in his career (particularly in Sacramento) he was more of an all-around player, who played at an all-star level.

As for the argument of "what if the Celtics collapse from here?", I don't really care.  The three year run we've had (regardless of what happens this year) has made Danny an overwhelming success as a GM.  He came in and transformed a mediocre team in decline into a title team, through great drafting and smart trades.  If the Celts never sniff playoff success under Danny's guidance again, he's still done a good job, and a better job than most.

[Roy Hobbs]

 Ainge was a far superior player to Paxson or Reddick.

Whoa...Jim Paxson was averaging 20+ points over the season and playoffs for Portland in back to back seasons (83/84) while Danny Boy was coming off of our bench to drop 5 per game.

There's a certain warm, fuzzy feeling about the '80's teams' success that is transferring to Danny, even though he doesn't really deserve it for his contributions.

I think BBall meant John Paxson, who played a role on championship teams similar to Ainge.  I mean, what's the harm in being compared to two-time all-star Jim Paxson, who had the misfortune of not having enough talent around him.

[More Banners]

Danny's stats were mediocre in large part because he was the fifth option (through no fault of his own).  Later in his career (particularly in Sacramento) he was more of an all-around player, who played at an all-star level.

As for the argument of "what if the Celtics collapse from here?", I don't really care.  The three year run we've had (regardless of what happens this year) has made Danny an overwhelming success as a GM.  He came in and transformed a mediocre team in decline into a title team, through great drafting and smart trades.  If the Celts never sniff playoff success under Danny's guidance again, he's still done a good job, and a better job than most.

A clearer argument for why it is completely premature to discuss raising him up with Auerbach, Bird, et. al. could not be made:

5th option (or higher) as a player; good job, better than most as a GM doesn't exactly cut it.

[Roy Hobbs]

Danny's stats were mediocre in large part because he was the fifth option (through no fault of his own).  Later in his career (particularly in Sacramento) he was more of an all-around player, who played at an all-star level.

As for the argument of "what if the Celtics collapse from here?", I don't really care.  The three year run we've had (regardless of what happens this year) has made Danny an overwhelming success as a GM.  He came in and transformed a mediocre team in decline into a title team, through great drafting and smart trades.  If the Celts never sniff playoff success under Danny's guidance again, he's still done a good job, and a better job than most.

A clearer argument for why it is completely premature to discuss raising him up with Auerback, Bird, et. al. could not be made:

5th option (or higher) as a player; good job, better than most as a GM doesn't exactly cut it.

Well, if you're conveniently going to leave titles and Finals appearances out of the picture, yeah.

Out of curiosity, where do guys like Loscy, Reggie, Sanders, Nelson, etc. fit in your analysis?  None of them had overwhelming stats, and outside of Reggie, they were never the top options (or even close to the top options) on their teams.

I mean, we're not talking about retiring Ainge's number for a hypothetical franchise.  This is the Celtics, and they have a different criteria than other teams.

[BballTim]

 Ainge was a far superior player to Paxson or Reddick.

Whoa...Jim Paxson was averaging 20+ points over the season and playoffs for Portland in back to back seasons (83/84) while Danny Boy was coming off of our bench to drop 5 per game.

There's a certain warm, fuzzy feeling about the '80's teams' success that is transferring to Danny, even though he doesn't really deserve it for his contributions.

I think BBall meant John Paxson, who played a role on championship teams similar to Ainge.  I mean, what's the harm in being compared to two-time all-star Jim Paxson, who had the misfortune of not having enough talent around him.

  Roy's right, I thought you meant John who was much more similar to Reddick IMO.

[BballTim]

Danny's stats were mediocre in large part because he was the fifth option (through no fault of his own).  Later in his career (particularly in Sacramento) he was more of an all-around player, who played at an all-star level.

As for the argument of "what if the Celtics collapse from here?", I don't really care.  The three year run we've had (regardless of what happens this year) has made Danny an overwhelming success as a GM.  He came in and transformed a mediocre team in decline into a title team, through great drafting and smart trades.  If the Celts never sniff playoff success under Danny's guidance again, he's still done a good job, and a better job than most.

A clearer argument for why it is completely premature to discuss raising him up with Auerbach, Bird, et. al. could not be made:

5th option (or higher) as a player; good job, better than most as a GM doesn't exactly cut it.

  When you say 5th option, though, you need to add in the qualifier "on the team that was widely regarded to have the best starting 5 in the history in the league".

[cdif911]

they should retire the towel he threw...

[cdif911]

they should retire Rick Fox's number though....

[More Banners]

Danny's stats were mediocre in large part because he was the fifth option (through no fault of his own).  Later in his career (particularly in Sacramento) he was more of an all-around player, who played at an all-star level.

As for the argument of "what if the Celtics collapse from here?", I don't really care.  The three year run we've had (regardless of what happens this year) has made Danny an overwhelming success as a GM.  He came in and transformed a mediocre team in decline into a title team, through great drafting and smart trades.  If the Celts never sniff playoff success under Danny's guidance again, he's still done a good job, and a better job than most.

A clearer argument for why it is completely premature to discuss raising him up with Auerback, Bird, et. al. could not be made:

5th option (or higher) as a player; good job, better than most as a GM doesn't exactly cut it.

Well, if you're conveniently going to leave titles and Finals appearances out of the picture, yeah.

Out of curiosity, where do guys like Loscy, Reggie, Sanders, Nelson, etc. fit in your analysis?  None of them had overwhelming stats, and outside of Reggie, they were never the top options (or even close to the top options) on their teams.

I mean, we're not talking about retiring Ainge's number for a hypothetical franchise.  This is the Celtics, and they have a different criteria than other teams.

Starting to go in circles here...

Count the banners for those guys that played in the '60's (or look back a couple of pages in this thread).  The lowest was Satch with 5 rings (matching Magic Johnson's success), and the other have more than MJ.  A clear argument can be made from the sheer number of titles that they were important pieces.  Danny's 5 points off the bench in '84 don't exactly scream out "retire the jersey," and he played with FIVE HALL OF FAMERS in '86, though his role (3pt shooter) was clearly important, and he was good at it.  Add in zero all-star appearances as a C, and zero all-NBA-anything honors as a Celtic, and it's clear he wasn't the player he is being remembered to be.

When we start hanging conference championship banners, which we never will, then we can start counting Finals appearances in considering whether to retire a number.  Let's not lower our standards that far.

The championship banner itself represents that year's team success.  There is no need to single out every role player on the roster that becomes a sentimental fan favorite for individual recognition in perpetuity.  Greg Kite and Scott Wedman got two rings in the '80's, too.

Reggie Lewis was/is a controvertial retiring of a jersey #, definitely a sentimental call, but on the other hand, after a player dies while wearing it, would anybody want to wear it again anyway? (a politically incorrect thing to bring up there, but still...).

[More Banners]

Danny's stats were mediocre in large part because he was the fifth option (through no fault of his own).  Later in his career (particularly in Sacramento) he was more of an all-around player, who played at an all-star level.

As for the argument of "what if the Celtics collapse from here?", I don't really care.  The three year run we've had (regardless of what happens this year) has made Danny an overwhelming success as a GM.  He came in and transformed a mediocre team in decline into a title team, through great drafting and smart trades.  If the Celts never sniff playoff success under Danny's guidance again, he's still done a good job, and a better job than most.

A clearer argument for why it is completely premature to discuss raising him up with Auerbach, Bird, et. al. could not be made:

5th option (or higher) as a player; good job, better than most as a GM doesn't exactly cut it.

  When you say 5th option, though, you need to add in the qualifier "on the team that was widely regarded to have the best starting 5 in the history in the league".

True, but that's only one season ('86), and I think (next to 5 HOFers, as mentioned) it isn't hard to argue that anyone from a stable of competent shooter/hustle guys could have done as well.  He, in particular, wasn't key, and shouldn't be singled out for honors in particular, either.

IF he was a member of a top starting 5 for say, 5 championships, then that's different, but for only one, I say no.

[More Banners]

they should retire the towel he threw...

ha ha...right.  We should have a row of towels in the rafters...ML Carr's '81 towel, Danny's 2010 towel...

Incredible history in this franchise...makes being a fan special.

[Andy Jick]

If retiring Danny's #44 is a sure sign that Scalabrine will no longer be needing it, then I'm ALL for it! 

[Roy Hobbs]

If retiring Danny's #44 is a sure sign that Scalabrine will no longer be needing it, then I'm ALL for it! 

I heard a rumor -- and it's probably just a rumor -- that Scal will be retiring this season and will join the team as an assistant coach / member of the staff in some capacity. 

It would be pretty much the best of all worlds -- we keep Scal around the team (he's well-liked and does a lot for charity), while upgrading the team on the court (presumably).

[Andy Jick]

If retiring Danny's #44 is a sure sign that Scalabrine will no longer be needing it, then I'm ALL for it! 

I heard a rumor -- and it's probably just a rumor -- that Scal will be retiring this season and will join the team as an assistant coach / member of the staff in some capacity. 

It would be pretty much the best of all worlds -- we keep Scal around the team (he's well-liked and does a lot for charity), while upgrading the team on the court (presumably).

I am not a fan of Scal, but I believe him to be a good, likable guy.  I believe he may be one of those long-term fixtures in this organization which speaks volumes of the respect that people have for how hard he tries.  I think it's obvious that he's got more in that head of his than his body will allow him...

[xmuscularghandix]

He should anyways. Danny was an important part to those 80's teams and his 100% responsible for putting together the current roster.