BBTV Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Just read on ESPN that the White Sox have unretired Luis Aparicio's No. 11, which will be worn by Omar Vizquel.Aparicio is cool with it, though I think that if you retire a number, it should stay retired. The question should never even be asked. The retired guy is in a horrible situation, because he really can't say no, and then once a guy takes the field in his number, he's no longer the last player ever to have worn it, which is what they usually say during number retirement ceremonies.Should numbers be allowed to be unretired? Once a number is retired, should it become an "illegal" number for that team, and they'd have to petition the league to make it legal again (so that in cases where it's a player's son, an exception could be made)?SIDE NOTE - the article states that Harold Bains' number 3 was unretired (for himself, which I don't think counts as an unretirement, but whatever.) I have to ask - why was it retired in the first place? He started in 1980, and his number was retired while he was still active in 1989. His stats were good, but he doesn't appear to have been number-retirement worthy. Also, those 9 years represented well under half of his playing career. Seems like the Sox just really, really wanted to have some kind of ceremony. "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...
JayJaxon Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 I can understand his reasoning behind wanting to wear the number, but a part of me thinks he should just wear another number and move on. That to me is like A-Rod going to the Yankees and wanting to wear 3. Not that Aparicio is on the same level as Ruth. But the point is that the number is retired for a reason and it should stay that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FamousAtticus Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 I agree, once a number is retired it should stay that way. The only way this rule should be interpreted differently would be if a player un-retires or in baseball decides to return to the team as a manager/coach, then I see no issue with that player wearing their respected "retired" number(ex: Michael Jordan). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaltimoreFan Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 I agree that the White Sox shouldn't unretire a number. Unless the player did something horrible or maybe if his son or something wanted to wear it. Otherwise I do think a franchise should just change its mind like that. SIDE NOTE - the article states that Harold Bains' number 3 was unretired (for himself, which I don't think counts as an unretirement, but whatever.) I have to ask - why was it retired in the first place? He started in 1980, and his number was retired while he was still active in 1989. His stats were good, but he doesn't appear to have been number-retirement worthy. Also, those 9 years represented well under half of his playing career. Seems like the Sox just really, really wanted to have some kind of ceremony.I can't say because I wasn't a White Sox fan at the time, but Baines may have meant a whole lot to the city of Chicago and the fans. Kind of like Rusty Staub in Montreal. I think there can be certain players that were not Hall of Fame great but still represent the team and do alot for the fans, and in return deserve a retired number. I'm guessing that was the case for Baines, but I can't really say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFoA Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 The Heat had better unretire #23 for Michael Jordan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 SIDE NOTE - the article states that Harold Bains' number 3 was unretired (for himself, which I don't think counts as an unretirement, but whatever.) I have to ask - why was it retired in the first place? He started in 1980, and his number was retired while he was still active in 1989. His stats were good, but he doesn't appear to have been number-retirement worthy. Also, those 9 years represented well under half of his playing career. Seems like the Sox just really, really wanted to have some kind of ceremony.The White Sox have a love affair with Harold Baines that words can't describe. Or explain. It's kinda weird.I think it's pretty crappy to unretire numbers for other players. This is especially bad because Aparicio is one of the franchise's best players ever, and Vizquel is a one-year defensive replacement whose best days were elsewhere. I'm guessing Vizquel is wearing 11 because he wanted to be a great Venezuelan shortstop like Aparicio, but this is the league where not even people in Denver can honor Jackie Robinson by wearing 42. Tell Vizquel to nut up and pick another number if he really respects his predecessor's legacy. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Imperfect Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Omar Vizquel is my favorite player of all time, but I don't see why he didn't just go with #12 (if it was available), since its in between his usual number and Aparicio's number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infrared41 Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 If Luis Aparicio wants to come back and wear his number then fine. Otherwise, it's a retired number. If you're going to allow people to wear it again then what was the point of retiring it in the first place? Vizquel can either ask Guillen for his #13 or he can wear a different number. I get the fact that Aparicio is one of Vizquel's heroes and all but a retired number is a retired number. The fact that the guy who wore it and the guy who wants to wear it are from the same country and play the same position isn't a good enough reason to "unretire" the number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sodboy13 Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 What the hell. Was Omar too cheap to buy #31 off of DeWayne Wise? This guy killed the Sox for years in Cleveland, and now they're unretiring the number of of of the team's greatest players ever for him? Get bent. On 1/25/2013 at 1:53 PM, 'Atom said: For all the bird de lis haters I think the bird de lis isnt supposed to be a pelican and a fleur de lis I think its just a fleur de lis with a pelicans head. Thats what it looks like to me. Also the flair around the tip of the beak is just flair that fleur de lis have sometimes source I am from NOLA. PotD: 10/19/07, 08/25/08, 07/22/10, 08/13/10, 04/15/11, 05/19/11, 01/02/12, and 01/05/12. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viper Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 If you have a strict policy of never unretiring numbers, then what do you do 50-100 years down the road when your team starts running out of available 1- and 2-digit numbers? Do we really want to start seeing players wear three-(or-more-)digit numbers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corvus Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 If you have a strict policy of never unretiring numbers, then what do you do 50-100 years down the road when your team starts running out of available 1- and 2-digit numbers? Do we really want to start seeing players wear three-(or-more-)digit numbers?Fractions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Yankees will have retired 1-9 once Jeter and Torre are honored. I don't think we're ever gonna get to the point where we can't dress a team because all the numbers are retired, but just in case we might, let's stop retiring numbers for mediocre players. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted February 9, 2010 Author Share Posted February 9, 2010 If you have a strict policy of never unretiring numbers, then what do you do 50-100 years down the road when your team starts running out of available 1- and 2-digit numbers? Do we really want to start seeing players wear three-(or-more-)digit numbers?Yankees will have retired 1-9 once Jeter and Torre are honored. I don't think we're ever gonna get to the point where we can't dress a team because all the numbers are retired, but just in case we might, let's stop retiring numbers for mediocre players.Exactly. This won't be a problem if teams have standards for retiring numbers. Too many teams (especially younger teams, or teams that are having trouble drawing) just want an excuse to have a ceremony, so they retire some dude who wouldn't have started on 12 other team's number, or the number of a guy who never even played for them, or a number for the "fans". Have standards and this isn't an issue. "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...
The_Admiral Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 I feel like the Cubs have gone overboard in retiring numbers for Banks, Williams, Santo, Jenkins, Sandberg, Maddux, and inevitably Dawson, given that these jerks have brought diddly poo to the town, but I can't really argue against any of those players except for Dawson. Quite a double-bind. Conversely, the White Sox have no Hall of Famers from their 2005 team, unless you count Frank Thomas who was mostly just there in spirit. They'll probably retire numbers for Konerko and Buehrle, though, but not after heated rumors that Kenny's gonna trade Paul Konerko's retired number to the Angels for "power arms." ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJworks Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 I feel like the Cubs have gone overboard in retiring numbers for Banks, Williams, Santo, Jenkins, Sandberg, Maddux, and inevitably Dawson, given that these jerks have brought diddly poo to the town, but I can't really argue against any of those players except for Dawson. Quite a double-bind.Being a Cubs fan myself, I've only witnessed them for 15 years, but I would go out on a limb and say that those 7 guys are the historical figures us Cubs fans have to hold on to. We aren't known to be a winning team, so I'm saying that these players are generally the only thing that The North Side can typically be proud of. Dribbble | Twitter | Facebook | Portfolio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 That and piss-drunk WASP girls with no self-worth. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infrared41 Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 I feel like the Cubs have gone overboard in retiring numbers for Banks, Williams, Santo, Jenkins, Sandberg, Maddux, and inevitably Dawson, given that these jerks have brought diddly poo to the town, but I can't really argue against any of those players except for Dawson. Quite a double-bind. Conversely, the White Sox have no Hall of Famers from their 2005 team, unless you count Frank Thomas who was mostly just there in spirit. They'll probably retire numbers for Konerko and Buehrle, though, but not after heated rumors that Kenny's gonna trade Paul Konerko's retired number to the Angels for "power arms."I really have to wonder about a person who calls Ernie Banks a jerk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rams80 Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Exactly. This won't be a problem if teams have standards for retiring numbers. Too many teams (especially younger teams, or teams that are having trouble drawing) just want an excuse to have a ceremony, so they retire some dude who wouldn't have started on 12 other team's number, or the number of a guy who never even played for them, or a number for the "fans". Have standards and this isn't an issue.You mean, like the Rams and their desperate attempts to bring in fans? Even if the player probably deserved it like Faulk, they end up half-assing the ceremony to an embarassing degree./And yet, somehow 80 remains unretired even though both Henry Ellard and Isacc Bruce wore that number. On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said: You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now. On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said: Today, we are all otaku. "The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010 The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddball Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 What's the big deal? If Aparicio said that the only player that he'd allow to wear was Vizquel, then who cares if the White Sox and Aparicio allow Vizquel to wear it. I don't see the big deal at all. Everyone agreed to it, so it's not an issue at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illwauk Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 What's the big deal? If Aparicio said that the only player that he'd allow to wear was Vizquel, then who cares if the White Sox and Aparicio allow Vizquel to wear it. I don't see the big deal at all. Everyone agreed to it, so it's not an issue at all.Co-sign. Although if I were running the Sox, I'd have said "no" because numbers are supposed to be retired for a reason. But as long as Vizquel asked personally and Aparicio himself doesn't have a problem with it, I can't complain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.