TFoA Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Toronto is my homer pick for no. 1, but I say that the Bruins have the second-best banners in the NHL. I like it when teams get creative.I also like how the Expos hung a banner for being the best team in the lockout-shortened '94 season:I believe that banner was only hung for the final Expos home game.I'm not so sure it was the last game at Stade Olympique. Look at the Brewers logo right next to the banner, it's the mid-90s "Motre Bame" logo. The Brewers switched to their current identity in 2000. You'd think that by 2004, they'd have changed it.Found the box score from the Tigers-White Sox game on the scoreboard. It was indeed from September 29, 2004. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSox44 Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Toronto is my homer pick for no. 1, but I say that the Bruins have the second-best banners in the NHL. I like it when teams get creative.I also like how the Expos hung a banner for being the best team in the lockout-shortened '94 season:I believe that banner was only hung for the final Expos home game.I'm not so sure it was the last game at Stade Olympique. Look at the Brewers logo right next to the banner, it's the mid-90s "Motre Bame" logo. The Brewers switched to their current identity in 2000. You'd think that by 2004, they'd have changed it.Found the box score from the Tigers-White Sox game on the scoreboard. It was indeed from September 29, 2004.Alrighty then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Teams are terrible about maintaining the logos of their leaguemates, especially the Montreal Expos, who were terrible at maintaining everything. Look, they've got that weird proto-alternate Marlins logo, too.Wrigley Field still dragged out the navy/gold Houston Astros logo for their on-deck circle well into 2005, perhaps 2006. On one hand, it's kind of a funny little subliminal message that you're not worth the time and money to properly represent, but on the other hand, it looks kind of unprofessional, and having two bad Astros logos in the same camera shot is two too many. Quote ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zpqmaowl Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Steve Garvey, Tony Gwynn, Dave Winfield, Randy Jones, Trevor Hoffman, and Jackie Robinson. Quote the worst helmets design to me is the Jacksonville jaguars hamlets from 1995 to 2012 because you can't see the logo vary wall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HolyStroke Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 I guess this is the most appropriate spot for these two questions, how do you guys feel about #42 being retired across the league? How would you guys feel about the NBA retiring #23 across the league I honor of Michael Jordan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tohasbo Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Retiring 42 made sense and still does to this day. I feel the same about Gretzky's 99 being retired league wide for the NHL. I don't feel the same about Jordan, however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Retiring 42 made sense and still does to this day. I feel the same about Gretzky's 99 being retired league wide for the NHL. I don't feel the same about Jordan, however.I couldn't disagree more. Let the teams that these guys play on retire their numbers, but allow other players on other teams who may grow up idolizing these guys to "honor" them (which I think is ridiculous, but I know I'm in the minority there) by wearing their numbers if they so choose to. I have no problem with league-wide jackie Robinson tributes or memorials, because it's a story that needs to be known by everybody, but I don't like seeing #42 hanging next to Mike Schmidt's, Steve Carlton's, Richie Ashburn's, and Robin Robert's numbers. Quote "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBubba Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Because of what Robinson did, I have no problem with his number being retired. However, retiring Gretzky's number was plain stupidity. Even if you think he's the greatest (which I do not), you have to admit that he was not the greatest by a long shot. If he gets his number retired, then Lemieux and Orr do, too. And then people will make a case for Richard and Howe. And Hasek and Roy. And...Now I'm not saying that those above numbers should be retired league-wide, but it is a slippery slope. If player X deserves his number being retired by the league, then player Y does too, and maybe even player Z. Gretzky was not the hands-down greatest ever, not by a longshot, and he doesn't deserve that honour. Quote Nobody cares about your humungous-big signature. PotD: 29/1/12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nash61 Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Retiring #99 league-wide was pointless. No one will ever be stupid enough to try and wear it, so why bother with the formalities? Quote On September 20, 2012 at 0:50 AM, 'CS85 said: It's like watching the hellish undead creakily shuffling their way out of the flames of a liposuction clinic dumpster fire. On February 19, 2012 at 9:30 AM, 'pianoknight said: Story B: Red Wings go undefeated and score 100 goals in every game. They also beat a team comprised of Godzilla, the ghost of Abraham Lincoln, 2 Power Rangers and Betty White. Oh, and they played in the middle of Iraq on a military base. In the sand. With no ice. Santa gave them special sand-skates that allowed them to play in shorts and t-shirts in 115 degree weather. Jesus, Zeus and Buddha watched from the sidelines and ate cotton candy. POTD 5/24/12, POTD 2/26/17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportstar1212 Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Retiring 42 made sense and still does to this day. I feel the same about Gretzky's 99 being retired league wide for the NHL. I don't feel the same about Jordan, however.I couldn't disagree more. Let the teams that these guys play on retire their numbers, but allow other players on other teams who may grow up idolizing these guys to "honor" them (which I think is ridiculous, but I know I'm in the minority there) by wearing their numbers if they so choose to. I have no problem with league-wide jackie Robinson tributes or memorials, because it's a story that needs to be known by everybody, but I don't like seeing #42 hanging next to Mike Schmidt's, Steve Carlton's, Richie Ashburn's, and Robin Robert's numbers.That's why Boston does it best. Their retired numbers are in red, and Jackie Robinson's number is in blue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnWis97 Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Because of what Robinson did, I have no problem with his number being retired. However, retiring Gretzky's number was plain stupidity. Even if you think he's the greatest (which I do not), you have to admit that he was not the greatest by a long shot. If he gets his number retired, then Lemieux and Orr do, too. And then people will make a case for Richard and Howe. And Hasek and Roy. And...Now I'm not saying that those above numbers should be retired league-wide, but it is a slippery slope. If player X deserves his number being retired by the league, then player Y does too, and maybe even player Z. Gretzky was not the hands-down greatest ever, not by a longshot, and he doesn't deserve that honour.I totally agree.Actually, what I don't agree with is what you are almost implying: that it would make sense if he was the "undisputed" best ever. Even if he is, so what. That's no reason for a league-wide retirement.To me, Gretzky is the greatest. But Robinson's league-wide honor is about his cultural significance. Just retiring a number leaguewide for "the best player" is silly. Quote Disclaimer: If this comment is about an NBA uniform from 2017-2018 or later, do not constitute a lack of acknowledgement of the corporate logo to mean anything other than "the corporate logo is terrible and makes the uniform significantly worse." BADGERS TWINS VIKINGS TIMBERWOLVES WILD POTD (Shared) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OMMF Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 it is a slippery slope.Slippery slopes exist only where people want them to. When it comes to private organizations, they are certainly capable of doing one thing without having to do another and be justifiable in doing so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedy Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Retiring 42 made sense and still does to this day. I feel the same about Gretzky's 99 being retired league wide for the NHL. I don't feel the same about Jordan, however.Hmm, just wondering but why are you for Gretzky and against Jordan? They'd both be retired for the same reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illwauk Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Retiring 42 made sense and still does to this day. I feel the same about Gretzky's 99 being retired league wide for the NHL. I don't feel the same about Jordan, however.I couldn't disagree more. Let the teams that these guys play on retire their numbers, but allow other players on other teams who may grow up idolizing these guys to "honor" them (which I think is ridiculous, but I know I'm in the minority there) by wearing their numbers if they so choose to. I have no problem with league-wide jackie Robinson tributes or memorials, because it's a story that needs to be known by everybody, but I don't like seeing #42 hanging next to Mike Schmidt's, Steve Carlton's, Richie Ashburn's, and Robin Robert's numbers.That's why Boston does it best. Their retired numbers are in red, and Jackie Robinson's number is in blue.The Red Sox aren't the only team who does it like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSox44 Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Retiring 42 made sense and still does to this day. I feel the same about Gretzky's 99 being retired league wide for the NHL. I don't feel the same about Jordan, however.I couldn't disagree more. Let the teams that these guys play on retire their numbers, but allow other players on other teams who may grow up idolizing these guys to "honor" them (which I think is ridiculous, but I know I'm in the minority there) by wearing their numbers if they so choose to. I have no problem with league-wide jackie Robinson tributes or memorials, because it's a story that needs to be known by everybody, but I don't like seeing #42 hanging next to Mike Schmidt's, Steve Carlton's, Richie Ashburn's, and Robin Robert's numbers.That's why Boston does it best. Their retired numbers are in red, and Jackie Robinson's number is in blue.The Red Sox aren't the only team who does it like that.No, they aren't, but not that great of an example. Robinson's number is still in the Brewers' font. The Red Sox put Robinson's number in the Dodgers' number font.Other teams do, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JQK Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Quote Stay Tuned Sports Podcast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSox44 Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Better example than the Giants. The more I look at the Giants' retired numbers, the more I think they put Robinson's retired number in their font. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arts11 Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 I know it's variable, but do any teams have actual guidelines for retiring numbers ["official" or not], and if so what are they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedy Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 I know it's variable, but do any teams have actual guidelines for retiring numbers ["official" or not], and if so what are they?The Red Sox criteria is Hall of Fame membership and at least 10 years with the team. You used to have to finish your career with them in addition to the 10 years but they eased up on that to retire Fisk's #27. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 I know it's variable, but do any teams have actual guidelines for retiring numbers ["official" or not], and if so what are they?It's all up to the teams. You'll find that a lot of newer teams will seemingly retire the first number of any halfway good player that played with them just so they can try to establish a history or have an event out of it. I know for the Phillies the requirement is HOF, which is why Jim Bunning's #14 was retired decades after he last played (and after several other players, notably Pete Rose wore it) when he was elected by the Veterans' Committee.I believe the Flyers have the same requirement, which is why Mark Howe's #2 was just retired. I think it's kind of dumb to retire a number after it's been worn by other players, but that's what they do. Quote "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.