...this organization has been a little bit too liberal with retiring numbers...
Can we just think about this for a second?
http://www.nba.com/celtics/history/RetiredNumbers.html
Who on that list doesn't deserve to have their number retired? (I'll take the argument that Red should have his number of wins retired instead of 2)
We have so many retired numbers because we have an extensive and storied history, not because we just give the numbers away.
As for KG, I'm still undecided, but lean toward no because he wouldn't really fit in with the other names on the list
Side note: We have 31 players in the hall of fame, but only 22 retired numbers. We're not even close to giving them away
There are a few they could give back I think
Luscutoff
Nelson
Max
Satch
Jo-Jo
I'd say if the player is in the HOF as a player or Celtics coach they get hung in the rafters. Reggie Lewis is a special case.
Nelson and Maxwell were both league leaders in efficiency. Loscy was a 6-time champion and Satch was an 8-time, how many players have contributed to that many banners and didn't get their number retired? As for JoJo, he was an all-star 7 out of his 9 seasons as a Celtic and a Finals MVP. He's obviously deserving.
I suppose so. It doesn't kill me their numbers are retired but it could be argued that Loscy, Satch, Max and Nelson having their numbers retired cheapens retiring Birds or Russels or players that far out rank the others somewhat relatively meager accomplishments
Maybe because you let it. Bird and Russell should have done plenty to set them apart.
I'll tell you what, do a Poll and have people vote or rank the "deservedness" of the players 1 through 22 that have their jerseys retired. See how they rank. Or just a Yes vs No.
I'm simply saying, being a part of a larger, more general group shouldn't diminish or "cheapen" other individuals' accomplishments. The fact that certain other players, say Steve Nash, have won the MVP shouldn't cheapen Jordan's MVPs.
Right, but it may cheapen the idea of what an MVP is.... as does having lesser players having their numbers retired. Maybe there are some years there shouldn't be an MVP or there should be an MVP Magna Cum Laude ,Or Summa etc.
We all know that even though Bird and Satch have their numbers retired Bird > Satch, but what's the cut off....or maybe there doesn't have to be one. Maybe it's just a gesture and it doesn't matter. Why isn't say Larry Seigfried's number retired, or Arhibald's. It's subjective, but it being subjective means there's no criteria for having it done which means all arguments as to whether someone is deserving of it or not are moot.
If you did a poll, you know the guys I listed would probably be at the bottom of the pile.
If the crux of the question was freeing up uniform numbers, let's use decimal places. I'd like the next Celtic superstar to be number 33 1/3
