Who should get their number retired and by which team(s)?

[smzimbabwe]

The Mariners have stated that they will not retire a number unless that player makes the Hall of Fame. Even then, I think Edgar Martinez' #11 should be retired anyway...

[Arts11]

To all the fans of relocated (or "soon" to be) teams, how would you feel if said team decided to retire the numbers of players from their last location?

For example (although I doubt it'd ever happen), how would you feel if the Thunder decided to retire Gary Payton's number? Conversely, would you feel okay if a new Seattle franchise (that wasn't the SuperSonics) retired his number?

[Arts11]

The Mariners have stated that they will not retire a number unless that player makes the Hall of Fame. Even then, I think Edgar Martinez' #11 should be retired anyway...

That's kinda presumptuous on the Mariners part. I mean, yeah, it makes a retired number that much more prestigious, but IMO nothing in their history really warrants that level of exclusivity.

Would the player have to go into the Hall as a Mariner? Because for someone like Randy Johnson, I mean, I think he spent the most time in Seattle, but he probably had his best years in Arizona.

[pmoehrin]

The Mariners have stated that they will not retire a number unless that player makes the Hall of Fame. Even then, I think Edgar Martinez' #11 should be retired anyway...

That's kinda presumptuous on the Mariners part. I mean, yeah, it makes a retired number that much more prestigious, but IMO nothing in their history really warrants that level of exclusivity.

Would the player have to go into the Hall as a Mariner? Because for someone like Randy Johnson, I mean, I think he spent the most time in Seattle, but he probably had his best years in Arizona.

That's the hole you put yourself in with that type of criteria. Somebody like Edgar I would argue did more for the Mariners then Randy Johnson, even though I don't think anyone would argue that Edgar had a better career then Johnson.

If the Mariners want to retire Edgar Martinez's number nobody should take issue with it. Borderline HOFer but the guy played more then 2000 games for the Mariners and was a career .300 hitter. Your not going to find many players contributing more to a franchise, especially in this day and age.

[Don]

Bryce Harper.

[Funky Bunky]

The Angels desperately need to retire Tim Salmon and Troy Percival. The fact that ten years later and nobody from the championship team is up there is just bizarre. Hopefully this'll happen soon seeing as how the retired numbers just were updated from the generic ones to the current number font.

Plus, Maple Leafs precedent should mandate that Nick Adenhart be retired. However, no way in hell should that apply to Donnie Moore.

I'm surprised the Angels didn't want to retire Guerrero's number. He was so important to the team while he was here, and he did even more than Rod Carew, who HAS his number retired.

I personally believe that only true superstars, who played the majority of their career with your club, should get their numbers retired (So I don't even think Guerrero should)... but the Angels have already retired Fregosi, Jimmie Reese (a conditioning coach), Gene Autry, and Rod Carew who only played 6 seasons, so might as well retire Salmon, GA, Percy, etc., as they deserve it as much as any of those guys.

As for my hockey team, I think only Selanne should get his number retired as of now. Screw Paul Kariya, I don't feel Giguere deserves it based on my beliefs, and Scott Niedermayer didn't play here that long. Maybe if Corey Perry and/or Getzlaf stay here longer and stay elite players, I think they might deserve it down the road.

... and hopefully the Chargers retire Tomlinson's number soon. I really like how they retired Seau's number at his memorial, and I love how the Chargers un-retired Ron Mix's number because he came back to play for the Raiders.

[DCDuck]

The Redskins only have one number officially retired - 33, Sammy Baugh - but they do have "ring of honor" numbers that hold special significance: 7, 17, 21, 44, 68, 72, 81. Of all those, I only think 17, 21, 68 and 81 should be retired.

[BBTV]

The only good reason for having set criteria is that it gives you an out when people clamor for a popular player to be honored but the team doesn't want to do it. "Oh, well, we'd do it, but he's not in the HOF."

That's BS. You don't need set criteria. If there's any doubt - even a little bit - of whether or not a team should retire a player's number, then that team shouldn't. It's the highest honor a team can give someone, and it should be an absolute no brainer in every case.

[Funky Bunky]

Bryce Harper.

Justin Schultz for the Oilers, and RGIII for the Skins, also.

[Don]

The Caps have 4 retired numbers. Thats alot for a franchise with a largely putrid history IMO. Of the 4 retired, 7 Yvon Labre, 5 Rod Langway, 32 Dale Hunter, 11 Mike Gartner, I think only 2 should actually be up there, Langway and Hunter. Langways arrival saved the franchise and was our longest tenured captain and Dale Hunter personified the franchise for his tenure here. Most people dont even know who Yvon Labre is and the only reason his number was retired in 1981 (thats right, in existence for 7 yrs and we retired a number) is because he remained with the team for awhile in different capacities and still shows up to community events. Mike Gartner was good, hes in the hall of fame, but he wasnt even the last guy to wear that number and left the organization acrimoniously.

[tBBP]

Speaking of teams with putrid histories, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers have one and only one officially retired number: that of the original Buccaneer, Lee Roy Selmon. I say that because Mike Alstott got his jersey retired when he went into the Ring of Honor...just not his number 40. (Yet.)

Anyway, I'll come back to that...

...In my mind, I think retired numbers should be an honor bestowed upon only those who make the most indelible impacts for their respective teams, and in some cases, the community that team plays in, and even the game itself. The question to ask to determine that: "could another player possibly ever come behind this guy and fill his shoes"? If the answer is no, that guy deserves to have his number retired once it's all said and done. Case in point: Ray Lewis. The Ravens will never again see another linebacker of that ilk?heck, probably not another player period?suit up for them. That guy, for virtually the entire time that team has existed, has been the unquestioned leader and face of thay franchise. No other player even comes close. Ed Reed or Jonathan Ogden might be the next in line, but when you think "Ravens", at least if you've been around a while, the first name, first face, first number you see in your head is Ray Lewis. And all that's to say nothing of the impact he's made on the city of Baltimore itself?he could practically own that city if he wanted to, and they'd give it to him.

All of which brings me back around to my own team. If you were to ask me which numbers should be most considered, I'd give you three: 55, 64, and 99. That first one belongs to my cousin, who although much more quietly was one of the two best linebackers in the game, and had every bit the impact on the Buccaneers, and the Tampa community, that Ray did on the Ravens, and in my mind is just about as HOF-worthy. (Ask me who the better of the two was, though, and six times out of six I'll tell you Ray Lewis.) The second of those belonged to the single steadiest lineman the Bucs ever had, Paul Gruber. But, since linemen hardly ever get any respect or recognition, and since no one outside of Tampa or Wisconsin (or what existed of Buc Nation pre-pewter pants) knows who the hell he was, that'd probably be a hard sell. The last of those numbers, very obviously, Warren Sapp. Bo was the relatively quiet leader of that team; Sapp was the face, and may as well have been the mouth. Those two, more so than any others short of the Original Buccaneer, did more to impact that team, and in the case of Bo and Warren, turn its then-woeful fortunes around, than any others they've had.

Will they get their numbers retired? Time will tell. But no question they will all eventually find their names up in the Ring of Honor someday.

[raysfan24]

Bryce Harper.

Please tell me you did not just say that. I mean Bryce Harper is going to be a star but come on!

[Gary]

This is not a popular opinion at all, but I would be fine if the Tigers retired #30 Magglio Ordonez. He was there when the Tigers turned around and he did send them to a World Series. This is highly unlikely, though.

When it comes to Tigers players having their numbers retired Ordonez is probably further down the list. Yes he may have turned them around but I feel players like Alan Trammell, Lou Whitaker and Jack Morris have a better chance of getting in.

Only problem is the Tigers only retire HoF. So I think Morris and/or Trammell would have their numbers retired.

[LMU]

I still find it kind of funny with the Angels where they retired the numbers of two players that were traded for each other (Fregosi/Ryan).

[NEW.ERA]

If the Flames retired #9 and #30. 2, 14 and 25 should follow suit. But me thinks only Iginla and Kiprusoff will see that honour.

[tp49]

I know it will never happen because of the ownership but it is criminal that the New York Islanders have not retired Pat LaFontaine's number. It is equally criminal that he has never been inducted into the team's hall of fame (though Kenny Jonsson is...) #16 should be hanging from the rafters in Nassau.

I also tend to think that the Washington Capitals should retire Peter Bondra's number as well.

[theSLVRBCK]

Just pulling names from my teams but ...

Chipper Jones' #10 for the Braves was the first name and number that jumped to my mind and I feel he should be a first ballet HOF inductee. The second was Tony Boselli's #71 for the Jaguars, it has been "taken out of service" however.

[TBGKon]

For the Rays, they should retire Fred McGriff (#24) and possibly in the future Carl Crawford (#13). Fred McGriff is part of the inaugural Rays team and has hit his 400th and 493rd Home Runs as a Ray. Carl Crawford has always been for many years as the face of the franchise and he set many Rays records in the process. Also, he was major part of the Rays recent playoff appearances and a pennant.

Was Fred McGriff so significant that nobody could ever do justice to his #24 for the Rays again? It's hard to say from afar, but it seems like retiring his number would be just for the sake of having a retired number - faking a history, if you will. Retiring a number should be reserved for those who achieved to the point where they are practically synonymous with their number on their team, and anyone else wearing that jersey wouldn't be right. You're taking a number out of circulation for ever - that's a pretty big deal. I'm not saying a guy has to hit 500 HR or be a HOFer - there's plenty of ways to make an impact without having those types of stats. But retiring a number because a guy who established himself elsewhere happened to hit his 400th HR with a team? That's kind of like the Rockies retiring Dale Murphy's number 3 because he played for them as a decrepit old man in their inaugural year.

Fred McGriff wore 29 for the Rays

[BBTV]

1341919047' post='1842143']

1341878519' post='1841833']

1341874784' post='1841801']

For the Rays, they should retire Fred McGriff (#24) and possibly in the future Carl Crawford (#13). Fred McGriff is part of the inaugural Rays team and has hit his 400th and 493rd Home Runs as a Ray. Carl Crawford has always been for many years as the face of the franchise and he set many Rays records in the process. Also, he was major part of the Rays recent playoff appearances and a pennant.

Was Fred McGriff so significant that nobody could ever do justice to his #24 for the Rays again? It's hard to say from afar, but it seems like retiring his number would be just for the sake of having a retired number - faking a history, if you will. Retiring a number should be reserved for those who achieved to the point where they are practically synonymous with their number on their team, and anyone else wearing that jersey wouldn't be right. You're taking a number out of circulation for ever - that's a pretty big deal. I'm not saying a guy has to hit 500 HR or be a HOFer - there's plenty of ways to make an impact without having those types of stats. But retiring a number because a guy who established himself elsewhere happened to hit his 400th HR with a team? That's kind of like the Rockies retiring Dale Murphy's number 3 because he played for them as a decrepit old man in their inaugural year.

Fred McGriff wore 29 for the Rays

Well that sorta proves my point. Since the poster I quoted didn't even know that, how significant could he really have been? Certainly not synonymous with his number

[lancealot]

AFL- Shane Crawford #9 hawthorn hawks, is temporarily retired untill the club finds a player the deem 'fit' they offered it to Cyril rioli but he refused, it should be retired a he isn't just a club legend but a hall of famer and an Aussie legend