Jump to content

Not-yet-retired numbers that should/will be


tigerslionspistonshabs

Recommended Posts

In the 4 major sports. Can be retired, active, whatever. Just has to have already achieved retired jersey status (eg. Connor McDavid could one day have his number retired by the Oilers, but as of now, no). And take into account respective teams' standards. (eg. Chauncey Billups wouldn't have his # retired by the Lakers, Celtics or Bulls) 

 

I'm just going to do NBA and NHL...you guys can feel free to do whatever 

 

NHL

Boston- Chara, Bergeron

Buffalo- none

Montreal- Price, Koivu, Shutt

Florida- This is borderline, but Vanbiesbrouck

Tampa Bay- Martin St. Louis, Lecavalier, Stamkos

Toronto- none

Ottawa- Alfredsson

Detroit- Zetterberg, Datsyuk, maybe one day Fedorov

New York Rangers- none

New York Islanders- Tavares

New Jersey Devils- Elias

Washington- Ovechkin, Bondra

Philadelphia- none

Pittsburgh- Crosby, Malkin, Fleury, Jagr

Carolina- Eric Staal, Ward

Columbus- Nash

Chicago- Toews, Kane, maybe Chelios?

Minnesota- Koivu

St. Louis- Pronger, 

Dallas- none

Colorado- Hejduk, Tanguay

Nashville- Legwand, Weber, Rinne

Winnipeg- this one's weird. Kovalchuk is obviously retire-worthy, but he never played a day in Winnipeg. Selanne is probably the Jets' most famous player, but he played for the Coyotes franchise. Who knows...

Anaheim- Selanne, Kariya, Getzlaf, Perry

L.A.- Kopitar, Quick, Nicholls?

San Jose- Thornton, Marleau, Pavelski

Vancouver- Sedin bros.

Arizona- Shane Doan

Calgary- Iginla, Kiprusoff, Fleury, 

Edmonton- Ryan Smyth 

 

NBA

Boston- Pierce

Brooklyn- Vince Carter, Brooke Lopez

New York- none

Philadelphia- Moses Malone

Toronto- Carter, I think Kyle Lowry is on the verge as well.

Detroit- Hamilton, Prince (It's been all but confirmed, but I don't agree with it)

Chicago- none

Indiana- Paul George is on the verge

Cleveland- Lebron

Milwaukee- none

Charlotte- I'm not sure what's going on with that mess- I know they retained the original Hornets records, but the only guy even worth considering is Larry Johnson

Atlanta- none

Miami- Lebron, Wade, Shaq, NBA referees

Orlando- Hardaway, Shaq, McGrady, Anderson, Howard

Washington- Wall

LA Lakers- Kobe

LA Clippers- Chris Paul

Phoenix- Marion

Golden State- Curry 

Memphis- Tough- alot of borderline guys- Pau Gasol, Marc Gasol, Conley, Randolph? I'd say because they have sort of a lower standard, all of the above will be.

New Orleans- I'm sure Anthony Davis will be when it's all said and done, but not yet

Houston- I've heard that Yao Ming will be retired, although not really deserved

Dallas- Nowitzki

San Antonio- Duncan, Ginobili, Parker

OKC- Durant, Westbrook

Utah- none

Portland- Rasheed Wallace, Aldridge

Minnesota- Garnett

Denver- Carmelo

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply

For the Colorado Avalanche, it's a matter of time before "23" gets lifted to the rafters (23 has not been given to any roster player since Hejduk retired; considering Baeuchemin wore 23 with the Ducks and now wears 32 with the Av's).

 

Fun fact: when Hejduk's number is retired the Av's will have a complete starting line-up in the rafters (a centermen (Sakic), 2 wings (Forsberg & Hejduk), 2 defensemen (Bourque & Foote), and a goaltender (Roy).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument could be made that the Portland Trail Blazers should retire Brandon Roy's number 7, based more on what he did for the franchise than his actual career numbers and length. The fans still adore him, and when Mo Williams originally chose to wear number 7 after being signed by the team two seasons ago, the fans were extremely upset and played a role in having him change his number to 25.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, upperV03 said:

The argument could be made that the Portland Trail Blazers should retire Brandon Roy's number 7, based more on what he did for the franchise than his actual career numbers and length. The fans still adore him, and when Mo Williams originally chose to wear number 7 after being signed by the team two seasons ago, the fans were extremely upset and played a role in having him change his number to 25.

Brandon Roy was a stud, it's sad that his career was derailed by injuries. 

 

Ronde Barber will eventually get his number retired by the Bucs. 16 years with one franchise is quite impressive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ringing in on the Mets again: they should formalise the retiring of no. 24 in honour of Willie Mays.  I realise that Mays played only two unproductive seasons for the Mets.  But, even though I am the first one to defend strict franchise continuity, I still say that it would be appropriate for the Mets to recognise Mays's importance to New York baseball history on account of his time with the New York Giants.  

 

Just as the Milwaukee Brewers have appropriately retired Hank Aaron's no. 44 for his overall importance to baseball in their city, the Mets should do likewise for Mays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to see the Cubs retire the numbers of players pre 1960s, for example Gabby Hartnett.  But one of the possible problems is that Hartnett wore 7, 9, 2 while with the Cubs.  

For the Blackhawks-Toews and Kane have been mentioned.  Duncan Keith's number 2 should also get consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, AstroBull21 said:

For the Lightning, the St Louis situation is fresh, so not yet.  Vinny Lecavalier is a shoe in.  A sleeper would be Dave Andreychuk the captain of the cup team who works in the front office.

 

Yea, guys that leave a bit of a sour taste when they leave take longer. I expect Lecavalier will get honored within 2 years of his retirement, while St.Louis may be a bit longer. Andreychuk is a solid choice as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DC in Da House w/o a Doubt said:

Washington Nationals:

11 - Zimmerman

 

Zim has been there from day 1, Mr. National through and through.  If you try counting his walk off homers, you'll have to use your toes.  I would bet significant money that no one else will wear #11 in Nats' history.

 

And that team should do the right thing by respecting the numbers that it already retired while it was playing in Montreal.  No one on that team should be wearing numbers 8, 10, or 30.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's interesting to me is the potential impact retiring numbers could have on the future... in my eyes, the number 12 is the quintessential quarterback number, but it is already retired by the Bills, Jets, 49ers, Seahawks, & Dolphins, with the Patriots and Packers waiting in the wings... some numbers could end up becoming vintage/nostalgic simply by being weeded out via retirements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, C-Squared said:

What's interesting to me is the potential impact retiring numbers could have on the future... in my eyes, the number 12 is the quintessential quarterback number, but it is already retired by the Bills, Jets, 49ers, Seahawks, & Dolphins, with the Patriots and Packers waiting in the wings... some numbers could end up becoming vintage/nostalgic simply by being weeded out via retirements.

 

That is a good point.  Then there is the problem that the Yankees face on account of an excessive amount of retired numbers.

Even though I grew up with the tradition of retiring numbers, and even though I still advocate it, I am beginning to see the merits in the practice of not doing so, as is common in soccer.  Sometimes a number will be left empty for a year, such as Ryan Giggs's no. 11 with Manchester United, or Thierry Henry's no. 14 with Arsenal.  But more often the number even of a club legend is given out right away after his departure, as Chelsea did with Didier Drogba's no. 11 (after both of his stints) and Frank Lampard's no. 8.  And the no. 7 shirt at Manchester United was passed with no delay from Eric Cantona to David Beckham to Cristiano Ronaldo and then even on to Michael Owen, despite the stature in club history of the first three of those players.

 

Retired numbers in soccer do occur, but they are very rare.  Often it is on account of a player dying during his career.  But those done solely for playing include no. 25 at Chelsea for Gianfranco Zola, no. 3 at AC Milan for Paolo Maldini, and numbers 9 and 10 at the New York Cosmos in honour of Giorgio Chinaglia and Pele, respectively. (I have to believe that the Cosmos are the only football club to have both of those numbers out of circulation.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

14 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Even though I grew up with the tradition of retiring numbers, and even though I still advocate it, I am beginning to see the merits in the practice of not doing so, as is common in soccer.  Sometimes a number will be left empty for a year, such as Ryan Giggs's no. 11 with Manchester United, or Thierry Henry's no. 14 with Arsenal.  But more often the number even of a club legend is given out right away after his departure, as Chelsea did with Didier Drogba's no. 11 (after both of his stints) and Frank Lampard's no. 8.  And the no. 7 shirt at Manchester United was passed with no delay from Eric Cantona to David Beckham to Cristiano Ronaldo and then even on to Michael Owen, despite the stature in club history of the first three of those players.

 

Yeah, I'm starting to like this route also.  Another example is LSU's football team.  I'm not sure how long they've been doing it, but I know the last few years what seems to be the best player on the team always wears #7 -- Patrick Peterson, Tyraan Mathieu, Leonard Fournette... I think that's pretty cool and almost more of an honor than having no one ever wear the number again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Retired numbers should be reserved for guys who are legends (Mantle, Ruth, J. Robinson, Beliveau, Gretzky, Howe, Chamberlin, Payton, etc.) , not just really good players who played for the franchise. 

 

Being a member of your given sports' HoF should be a minimum requirement.

 

As time goes on, and franchises all start getting into 100 or so years of existence, you're going to start running out of numbers if you keep retiring numbers for guys who were simply good players.  . 

 

I'm fine if you have a "ring of honor" where you put the guy's name and number he wore in, but I dont think its really necessary to retire numbers on guys unless they're really one of the best players ever,  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, BrianLion said:

Retired numbers should be reserved for guys who are legends (Mantle, Ruth, J. Robinson, Beliveau, Gretzky, Howe, Chamberlin, Payton, etc.) , not just really good players who played for the franchise. 

 

Being a member of your given sports' HoF should be a minimum requirement.

 

As time goes on, and franchises all start getting into 100 or so years of existence, you're going to start running out of numbers if you keep retiring numbers for guys who were simply good players.  . 

 

I'm fine if you have a "ring of honor" where you put the guy's name and number he wore in, but I dont think its really necessary to retire numbers on guys unless they're really one of the best players ever,  

 

While it's true that a team can get into trouble by retiring too many numbers (witness the Yankees and the Chicago Bears), I think it's wrong to suggest that being in the Hall of Fame should be a minimum requirement.

 

Often a player or a manager who is extremely important in a team's history is well short of Hall of Fame stature.  Rusty Staub with the Expos and Fred Hutchinson of the Reds are a good examples.  And Hutchinson exemplifies another type of number retiring: for a player or a manager who dies in his prime.  Other examples are Gil Hodges with the Mets and Dick Howser with the Royals.

And then there are Hall of Famers who are honoured by a team for their overall contribution to the sport in their city, even if most or all of that contribution came with another franchise.  In this category we find Hank Aaron with the Brewers and Pete Maravich with the New Orleans Hornets/Pelicans.

All of this shows that the retiring of a number is a type of honour that is separate from the enshrinement in a sport's Hall of Fame.  Retiring a number is a highly subjective sort of thing, whose meaning is best left to each team to decide for itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, MBurmy said:

I still think the Bucks need to retire Glenn Robinson's #13...the Big Dog did a LOT for the team in his time there (helped their revival and their brief time as a powerhouse).

 

I bet they will someday. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.