https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/08/01/retired-jerseys-leave-celtics-crunching-numbers/fnbsZUUe9nf38xlc1kOevJ/story.htmlIt’s slim pickings for new Celtics and jersey numbers.
By Gary Washburn Globe Staff August 02, 2015
When the Celtics’ five offseason signees were introduced last week in Waltham, a recurring theme was their choice of uniform numbers. Selecting uniform numbers in Boston has become an increasingly pertinent issue for an organization with 21 retired numbers.
Amir Johnson chose No. 90, Perry Jones will wear 38, and David Lee got lucky because one of his former numbers (42) was available.
The alarming number of retired jerseys has forced new players to scramble for new numeric identities. A few years ago, Jason Collins wore No. 98 at training camp and Darko Milicic donned 99.
Jae Crowder wore 99 when he was acquired from the Mavericks last December, and has stuck with that football-style number. Johnson is wearing 90 since the No. 15 he wore with the Raptors is retired in Boston (Tom Heinsohn).
The retired numbers are a growing issue, although many new Celtics won’t admit that. Many of those considered to be prime numbers — 1, 2, 3, 10, 21, 22, 23, 32, 33 — are retired, leaving some of the Celtics to look like cornerbacks — rookie R.J. Hunter is wearing 28 — or defensive linemen such as Johnson and Crowder.
Should the Celtics consider revising their retired-jersey policy to allow current players to wear some of the untouchable numbers, while maintaining tradition?
Other sports organizations have created rings of honor or other ways to laud former players without retiring numbers. Or they have allowed players to wear numbers that had been retired.
While some numbers should not be touched — Bill Russell (6), Bob Cousy (14), John Havlicek (17), Larry Bird (33) — the Celtics may want to consider allowing players to wear numbers of players considered Celtic greats but perhaps not all-time greats. The Celtics are a victim of their own success, as are the Lakers, who have also racked up retired numbers at a rapid rate.
Johnson said he considered wearing No. 5 but that is expected to be iced until Kevin Garnett retires and the number goes with him. Paul Pierce’s No. 34 is a cinch to be retired whenever he is finished playing.
It’s not that the lack of desirable numbers makes the Celtics a less-desirable free agent destination, but a feature of playing for a new team is wearing a number a player is comfortable with.
And the Celtics are running short, so the football numbers have become prevalent.
Celtics radio analyst Cedric Maxwell, whose No. 31 was retired in 2003, said he would not mind prominent current players wearing certain retired numbers.
What’s more, he said he reminds former 3-point marksman and Hall of Famer Reggie Miller that he would have been more than happy to pull 31 down from the Garden rafters if Miller had signed with the Celtics when they pursued him in 2008.
“It doesn’t bother me,” Maxwell said. “I understand the honor system but they did it one time before with Loscy [Jim Loscutoff]. For people who have their number retired, I don’t think it would infringe upon them if somebody else wore their number.”
Loscutoff, a staple on Celtics teams of the 1950s and ’60s, did not want his No. 18 retired so future players could wear it. Hall of Famer Dave Cowens wore it later on.
Maxwell freely admitted it was difficult watching Fred Roberts and Mikki Moore wear No. 31 before it was retired. And he suggested that the Celtics formulate a list — with the help of a committee of former players, executives, and public relations employees — of players whose numbers would be considered untouchable.
Obviously, No. 2 (Red Auerbach), 6 (Russell), 17 (Havlicek), and 33 (Bird) would be on that list. But what about 18 (Cowens), 21 (Bill Sharman), 22 (Ed Macauley), 23 (Frank Ramsey), 24 (Sam Jones), and 25 (K.C. Jones)? Would No. 15 (Heinsohn), 16 (Tom Sanders) or 19 (DonNelson) be considered untouchable?
Seven of the 21 retired numbers were retired before 1970. As the Celtics collected championships and continued to honor their great players, more numbers were lifted to the rafters, including those of Jo Jo White (No. 10), Dennis Johnson (3), Kevin McHale (32), Robert Parish (00), and Reggie Lewis (35).
Garnett and Pierce will have their numbers retired in coming years. And the organization will have to decide whether Ray Allen (20) deserves that honor, as well.
It’s reached the point in Boston where players are choosing unorthodox numbers with few options. Gigi Datome wore No. 70 briefly last season, and Semih Erden and Chris Johnson each wore No. 86 in 2011-12.
When the Spurs signed LaMarcus Aldridge to a maximum contract this summer, general manager R.C. Buford approached former San Antonio standout Bruce Bowen about allowing Aldridge to wear his retired No. 12. Bowen quickly agreed.
“If you’re talking about a great player wearing your number like a Reggie Miller, that makes the jersey even better,” Maxwell said. “Now, when Fred Roberts wore my number or Mikki Moore wore it, I didn’t really feel good about it. Now, if you’re one of the greatest players to ever wear that jersey, I think that would be a little bit different.”
Maxwell said the 1980s version of the Big Three — Bird, Parish, and McHale — should have their numbers untouched, in addition to Russell, Cousy, and Havlicek. But there would be heated debates about who should join the list.
What about Lewis’s 35, which was retired in March 1995, nearly two years after he tragically died during an offseason workout? Or Johnson’s 3 or Sharman’s 21?
While the Celtics are an organization that is brilliant at honoring its past, it may be time to make an adjustment, especially with current players choosing jersey numbers in the 90s.