White Sox unretire #11

[jkrdevil]

This reminds me off when Jerry Rice was at the end of his career and he was signed (or traded to) the Seahawks. He wore #80, which was previously retired for Steve Largent.

[infrared41]

The solution is simple. Instead of retiring numbers just do the ring of honor thing like Dallas or Denver. It honors the player and the number and no one has to worry about running out of numbers.

[illwauk]

Or, turn a retiring player's jersey number into an "award" for a player that's proven himself to be worthy of being part of such a legacy. Sort of like the #44 jersey for Syracuse before it was retired.

For example, the Packers #80 jersey has been worn by arguably the two greatest receivers ever to play for the club, Donald Driver and James Lofton. Instead of retiring the number for either guy, they would only take it out of circulation until another receiver comes along who would do it justice.

[BlueSky]

There are only two options IMO. Either set the standard for retiring a number so high that teams would never have more than a few out of circulation, or do what was mentioned previously, honor the player and keep the number available. Sometimes it's weird to see guys in numbers we associate with a great player (can't imagine another Saint wearing 26, but I'm sure it's coming) but it's just not practical to retire a bunch of numbers. And with some teams having long histories, you inevitably run into one fan saying, "Good God, they gave Don Meredith's number to Sam Hurd?!?" while another says, "Who's Don Meredith?"

Maybe the worst example of teams 'unretiring' a number I've heard of is when Pat Swilling went to the Lions, who had retired Joe Schmidt's 56 many years before. Instead of having some backbone, the Lions asked Joe Schmidt for permission to give Swilling his old number. What's the guy going to say? The Lions were total asshats for ever putting a retired star in that position. He said yes and Swilling wore 56 during a few nondescript seasons in Detroit.

[BBTV]

The Phillies have a HOF standard for retiring numbers (with the exception that Richie Ashburn's #1 was retired prior to the veterans' committee electing him.) Not that they've had quite the history of some of the teams that are as old as them, but it does help keep their retired number total low. This wouldn't work in the NFL, where I am probably going to be enshrined in the HOF some day.

[STL FANATIC]

The Cardinals have a similar standard, with some exceptions in both directions.

Kenny Boyer's #14 is retired, but he's not a HOFer. Likewise there's guys like Joe "Ducky" Medwick who're in the HOF but don't have their number retired. And they have one kind of gimmicky number retired for the late owner Gussie Busch. They retired 85 for him, I believe on his 85th birthday.

Oh, and because he played before numbers, Rogers Hornsby is honored with his name and an old version of the STL logo. The late great Jack Buck also is honored with the retired numbers with a microphone icon. Those aren't really gimmicky, though, I don't think.

There were actually reports that they were going to formalize the HOF standard this offseason, but I don't know if that ever happened.

They also have the "unofficially retired" numbers for guys who might not (or even certainly won't ) make the HOF that they just won't give out for a long time. Willie McGee's #51, Darryl Kile's #57, Mark McGwire's #25 (obviously he'll be using it again for now), and Josh Hancock's #32 (although I think less people identified him with his number and yes, his death wasn't particularly honorable so I don't know how long that one will hold).

Surprisingly, Jim Edmonds #15 did not fall into that category as former hitting coach Hal MacRae wore it before Matt Holliday inherited it. Holliday will now wear #7, though, as he tries to get the Cardinals to do what they haven't for Joe Medwick--but that's a long ways and a lot of "ifs" away.

[BaltimoreFan]

I'm not sure if the Orioles have any standards for retired numbers, but all 6 retired numbers are HOF players (Brooks, Weaver, Ripken, Frank, Palmer, and Murray). They have also unofficially retired #7 and #44 for Cal Ripken Sr and Elrod Hendricks. Which I think means they won't distribute the number unless there is a need. They also have plaques in the dugout and bullpen for both coaches. I could be wrong but I think #33 was retired after Eddie Murray was traded to the Dodgers. I thought I remember reading that they had to unretired it when he came back in 1996. If it wasn't offically retired, I pretty sure no one else wore it while he was gone.

I'm not sure how many other teams do it, but the Orioles actually have their own Hall of Fame. This is a cool way to honor the players that aren't good enough to have their number retired, but still should be honored by the fans. It's pretty cool, they have an induction every year in August. It's cool to see some of the old players come back.

[BBTV]

The Cardinals have a similar standard, with some exceptions in both directions.

Kenny Boyer's #14 is retired, but he's not a HOFer. Likewise there's guys like Joe "Ducky" Medwick who're in the HOF but don't have their number retired. And they have one kind of gimmicky number retired for the late owner Gussie Busch. They retired 85 for him, I believe on his 85th birthday.

Oh, and because he played before numbers, Rogers Hornsby is honored with his name and an old version of the STL logo. The late great Jack Buck also is honored with the retired numbers with a microphone icon. Those aren't really gimmicky, though, I don't think.

There were actually reports that they were going to formalize the HOF standard this offseason, but I don't know if that ever happened.

They also have the "unofficially retired" numbers for guys who might not (or even certainly won't ) make the HOF that they just won't give out for a long time. Willie McGee's #51, Darryl Kile's #57, Mark McGwire's #25 (obviously he'll be using it again for now), and Josh Hancock's #32 (although I think less people identified him with his number and yes, his death wasn't particularly honorable so I don't know how long that one will hold).

Surprisingly, Jim Edmonds #15 did not fall into that category as former hitting coach Hal MacRae wore it before Matt Holliday inherited it. Holliday will now wear #7, though, as he tries to get the Cardinals to do what they haven't for Joe Medwick--but that's a long ways and a lot of "ifs" away.

The Phillies did a similar thing by retiring different old "P"s for old guys who played before numbers (Grover Cleveland Alexander, Chuck Klein, etc.) but those "retirements" were lost with the move to Citizen's Bank from the Vet.

And like the O's, and I presume many other teams, they have their own HOF - it's just not really that well known or recognized, and not many fans really care about it IMO. Number retirement > Team HOF.

[JayJaxon]

The Braves do not have a ton of retired numbers. Maddux last year made number seven. But I'm pretty sure the next few years are going to fill that space up at Turner Field because there is Glavine, Smoltz, Jones, and maybe Cox to go.

I'm not really sure if many managers have their numbers retired. Do any of you know of ones? I think Billy Martin's #1 is retired in New York but he played for them too. As much as Cox has meant to the Atlanta Braves, it would not surprise me to see #6 retired when it's all over.

[The_Admiral]

Earl Weaver's number is retired in Baltimore, I think. If it isn't, it certainly ought to be. Cox and Torre would be the only two extant managers who deserve number retirement. St. Louis will probably retire 10 for La Russa, but I find him to be an ass and I'd really prefer they didn't do that.

[BBTV]

I can't argue that those managers shouldn't have their numbers retired, but I can argue that managers shouldn't even wear numbers (or uniforms) at all. One of the dumbest rules in the sport.

[BaltimoreFan]

Earl Weaver's number is retired in Baltimore, I think. If it isn't, it certainly ought to be. Cox and Torre would be the only two extant managers who deserve number retirement. St. Louis will probably retire 10 for La Russa, but I find him to be an ass and I'd really prefer they didn't do that.

Earl Weaver's number is retired. In fact it is the reason Miguel Tejada switched to number 10 (and 9 this year as Adam Jones took 10).

I can't argue that those managers shouldn't have their numbers retired, but I can argue that managers shouldn't even wear numbers (or uniforms) at all. One of the dumbest rules in the sport.

I've often wondered why managers were uniforms in baseball. The only reason I can think of is that the 1st and 3rd base coaches may confuse fielders.

[infrared41]

I can't argue that those managers shouldn't have their numbers retired, but I can argue that managers shouldn't even wear numbers (or uniforms) at all. One of the dumbest rules in the sport.

Years ago I actually heard Sparky Anderson address the question on why coaches and managers wear uniforms. He claimed it was because they're out there pitching BP, hitting infield, outfield, etc. and that it just made sense to wear stuff that was suitable for those types of drills. So they wear baseball uniforms to do baseball stuff...I guess. That's what Sparky said anyway.

[BBTV]

I can't argue that those managers shouldn't have their numbers retired, but I can argue that managers shouldn't even wear numbers (or uniforms) at all. One of the dumbest rules in the sport.

Years ago I actually heard Sparky Anderson address the question on why coaches and managers wear uniforms. He claimed it was because they're out there pitching BP, hitting infield, outfield, etc. and that it just made sense to wear stuff that was suitable for those types of drills. So they wear baseball uniforms to do baseball stuff...I guess. That's what Sparky said anyway.

Charlie Manuel ain't doing any "baseball stuff" (though he did lose around 80 lbs or so this offseason.) There's plenty of team-licensed active wear that they could put on. Even if they opted for uniforms, do they need numbers as if they're on the roster?

[infrared41]

I can't argue that those managers shouldn't have their numbers retired, but I can argue that managers shouldn't even wear numbers (or uniforms) at all. One of the dumbest rules in the sport.

Years ago I actually heard Sparky Anderson address the question on why coaches and managers wear uniforms. He claimed it was because they're out there pitching BP, hitting infield, outfield, etc. and that it just made sense to wear stuff that was suitable for those types of drills. So they wear baseball uniforms to do baseball stuff...I guess. That's what Sparky said anyway.

Charlie Manuel ain't doing any "baseball stuff" (though he did lose around 80 lbs or so this offseason.) There's plenty of team-licensed active wear that they could put on. Even if they opted for uniforms, do they need numbers as if they're on the roster?

I'm not disagreeing with you. I was simply pointing out Sparky's explanation.

[Jamikel]

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.

[PurpleRush]

The Red Sox have a criteria for retiring numbers as well.

As for this matter, I personally think once a number is

retired, it should stay that way unless it is a son / grandson thing.

I also think Jerry Rice should not have been allowed to wear #80 in Seattle.

He's already in a uniform no one will associate him with

after retirement anywhere, might as well have a different number while there.

[STL FANATIC]

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.

[BaltimoreFan]

Charlie Manuel ain't doing any "baseball stuff" (though he did lose around 80 lbs or so this offseason.) There's plenty of team-licensed active wear that they could put on. Even if they opted for uniforms, do they need numbers as if they're on the roster?

Well some managers do just wear active wear. I know Terry Francona always seemed too. Mike Hargrove never seemed to wear a jersey either (I remember one fan called him out during a Q&A at O's fanfest years ago for it). But they still have uniform numbers. Now that you've mentioned it, it does seem kinda stupid. I guess it has just become a tradition that no one wants to get rid of.

I also think Jerry Rice should not have been allowed to wear #80 in Seattle.

He's already in a uniform no one will associate him with

after retirement anywhere, might as well have a different number while there.

I'm not sure, I think Jerrry Rice may be the one exception. Only because he was perhaps the greastest WR of all time, and he was thought that while he played for Seattle. That may be the only other exception, besides a relative. I mean Vizquel is certainly a great SS, but I don't think he's great enough to warrant unretiring a number for.

[JayJaxon]

I don't really think there is anything wrong with managers wearing the uniform. With Francona and others, we are starting to see a trend of managers not wearing the jersey anymore, but I honestly don't see an issue with that either. Baseball is the only sport where it would make sense for the management to wear a uniform.

Another interesting fact about today's manager is that Jim Leyland and Bobby Cox are the only two MLB managers that still wear spikes. Why do they do that? I have no clue. But they do.