njmeadowlanders Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 Now is it just me, or wasn't 42 retired throughout baseball? I know he wore it originally, but once he gave it up wouldn't that have taken away the grandfather clause? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cujo Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 Mets create mess giving Lima No. 42Lima had worn the number before the league retired it - which would allow him to continue wearing it. He likes the number because he won with it. Which is perfectly fine, but should leave him open to accepting another number. Especially since he has had to do that for the last four years because other teams denied him the opportunity. (And, for the record, it's questionable how he acquired the number in the first place since he said Houston assigned it to him in 1997 - apparently a few months before the ceremony honoring Robinson.) There's your reason. I guess if you wore #42 anytime in the past, you can wear it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaltimoreFan Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 I think what happened is he wore it before it was retired. Then the Royals and Dodgers would not let him continue to wear it. Even though he was still eligible to wear. Therefore just by playing for those teams he did not lose his eligibilty to wear. I hope that makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JQK Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 I don't think it's a big deal. I'm not a fan of retiring numbers throughout leagues. Stay Tuned Sports Podcast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cujo Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 I don't think it's a big deal. I'm not a fan of retiring numbers throughout leagues.I second that. I can totally understand the importance of what Jackie Robinson did for the game of baseball, but to see Robinson's #42 retired by teams he never played for or teams that didn't even exist when he played like Colorado and Tampa Bay seems like a bit much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 I'm also against leaguewide 42 retirement, but the Mets are one of the two teams that should be retiring it. Dodgers, and New York (NL) in its new form. So yeah bad move Mets. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElwoodCuse Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 Let's just all please hope that MLB tells those Roberto Clemente folks "uh how about no". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJTank Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 I'm also against leaguewide 42 retirement, but the Mets are one of the two teams that should be retiring it. Dodgers, and New York (NL) in its new form. So yeah bad move Mets. Well Mooo Vaughn wore 42 from 2002-2003 with the Mets www.sportsecyclopedia.com For the best in sports history go to the Sports E-Cyclopedia at http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FUNKAFIED Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 I'm also against leaguewide 42 retirement, but the Mets are one of the two teams that should be retiring it. Dodgers, and New York (NL) in its new form. So yeah bad move Mets. Well Mooo Vaughn wore 42 from 2002-2003 with the Mets True, but Mo Vaughn ALWAYS wore 42. He did so with Boston and Anaheim before NY. The rule stated you could keep the number if you had it before the retirement but it wouldn't be issued again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 I can totally understand the importance of what Jackie Robinson did for the game of baseball, but to see Robinson's #42 retired by teams he never played for or teams that didn't even exist when he played like Colorado and Tampa Bay seems like a bit much. One need only look at a team photo of Colorado or Tampa Bay to see what impact Jackie Robinson had on those clubs.I don't like retiring a number league-wide either, but this one I support. This one was earned. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 Mooo Vaughn Awesome. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slapshot Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 At the time of the number's retirement throughout the league, I thought there were only three players who were wearing at and would be allowed to continue to do so: Mo Vaughn (Red Sox), Mariano Rivera (Yankees) and Butch Huskey (Mets). But since then, I know I've seen a few other players wearing #42, so I don't know what the rule is about it anymore. Back-to-Back Fatal Forty Champion 2015 & 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WJMorris3 Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Mike Jackson had it for Philly as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njmeadowlanders Posted February 20, 2006 Author Share Posted February 20, 2006 Yeah I was wondering why he was allowed to wear it after he stopped, but there's the answer...the issue I had wasn't the debate on whether or not a number should be retired league-wide, but as to the rule on it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njmeadowlanders Posted February 20, 2006 Author Share Posted February 20, 2006 ....and today this photo of him surfaced:With the caption New York Mets pitcher Jose Lima, of the Dominican Republic, wears number 99 as he bunts during baseball spring training in Port St. Lucie Fla., Sunday Feb. 19, 2006. Lima, who previously wore Jackie Robinson's number 42, had to change as Robinson's number has been retired from all baseball. (AP Photo/Richard Drew)So much for that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmackman Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 None of this is as bad as the Miami Heat having two retired numbers. #23 for Michael Jordan (who never played in Miami) and #13 for Dan Marino (who didn't play basketball). "Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes up. It knows it must run faster than the fastest lion or it will be eaten. Every morning in Africa, a lion wakes up. It knows it must outrun the slowest gazelle or it will starve. It doesn't matter whether you're a lion or a gazelle. When the sun comes up, you'd better be running." - Unknown | Check out my articles on jerseys at Bacon Sports Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cujo Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 None of this is as bad as the Miami Heat having two retired numbers. #23 for Michael Jordan (who never played in Miami) Correction: Jordan played IN Miami ... just not for them, my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronChefShark Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 None of this is as bad as the Miami Heat having two retired numbers. #23 for Michael Jordan (who never played in Miami) and #13 for Dan Marino (who didn't play basketball). or as bad as the Canadiens hanging an Expos banner in thier arena US state flag concepts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 The Expos banner at least makes a certain amount of sense - a banner honoring a city's shared sports heritage is one thing. Retiring numbers from players in other sports (which the Canadiens did not do) is quite another. Retiring the number of an opposing player is another thing still. And quite possibly the dumbest retired number quirk there is. Dumber than the Seahawks retiring #12. Dumber than the Indians retiring #455.Oh, and there was at least one other player who wore #42 after it was retired - Scott Karl, of the Brewers. He was grandfathered as well. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cujo Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Dumber than the Indians retiring #455. No. 455? Who's that in honor of?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.