Author Topic: Amir Johnson found it hard to find an available jersey number with the Celtics  (Read 11512 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LilRip

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6857
  • Tommy Points: 391
When I get MyPlayer on the C's in 2k, it's gonna be hard to select a number too lol. I don't know how but there has to be a way to get more jersey numbers. I know there's the whole 50-99 range, but those don't really look great on basketball jerseys for some reason. Remember when Walker was wearing 88? I remember him saying he felt like a receiver out there, or something.

On a side note, retiring names would be pretty cool.
- LilRip

Offline rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9666
  • Tommy Points: 324
There's still enough available numbers below 50. Not counting those currently in use, there are the following:

5 (may be essentially off-limits)
9 (no, it's not going to be retired for Rondo)
12 (presuming Dragic gets cut, as expected)
20
26
27
29
30
34 (technically, but we know this is off-limits)
37–40
42–43
45–49

So even if 34, 5, 9, and 12 are out, that leaves 16 available numbers below 50.
"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'"

"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

— C.S. Lewis

Offline greece66

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7395
  • Tommy Points: 1342
  • Head Paperboy at Greenville
There's still enough available numbers below 50. Not counting those currently in use, there are the following:

5 (may be essentially off-limits)
9 (no, it's not going to be retired for Rondo)
12 (presuming Dragic gets cut, as expected)
20
26
27
29
30
34 (technically, but we know this is off-limits)
37–40
42–43
45–49

So even if 34, 5, 9, and 12 are out, that leaves 16 available numbers below 50.
Rozier has 12.

Offline Celtic Fan Forever

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5979
  • Tommy Points: 2437
Some of the ones I don't understand:

3: Dennis Johnson- don't get me wrong, I love DJ. But he played only 7 seasons for us and was a 4th option for the team that set up the stars. Basically equivalent to retiring a Rondo with a good attitude.

16: Tom "Satch" Sanders- won titles with us, but was never a focal point. Good role player but i find it hard to retire someone who averaged 9.6 ppg and 6.3 rpg on 43% shooting as a Celtic.

19: Don Nelson- won some titles with us but averaged 11.4 ppg as a Celtic and was never a focal point of the offense. Just a solid role player.

22: Ed Macauley- 6 season, 0 titles. I mean, he did get us Russ  ;D

23: Frank Ramsey- again, another great role player. But never a top option, not worthy of having his number retired.

25: KC Jones- I get that he was a great defender but I can't justify retiring a guy who averaged 7.4 ppg over his Celtic career. Let's retire Tony Allen while we're at it.

31: Cedric Maxwell- only had 1 or 2 great seasons as a Celtic. Not around long enough to warrant this.


My criticisms might be a little harsh but I think back in the day we basically retired the numbers of every player that had anything to do with a title team. I think only the elite guys of their eras and title runs should have their numbers retired, not the role players that rode the coattails of Russ and Larry. Just my 2 cents.




2023 CelticsStrong Historical Draft Champions - OKC Thunder
PG: Chauncey Billups/ Baron Davis
SG: Michael Redd/ Dan Majerle/ Allan Houston
SF: Peja Stojakovic/ Gerald Wallace/ Toni Kukoc
PF: Shawn Kemp/ Antonio McDyess
C: Dwight Howard/ Tyson Chandler

Offline oldtype

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1677
  • Tommy Points: 143
We have too many retired numbers. It's kind of ridiculous and also cheapens the value of the honor.

I know it's not practical to take people down from the rafters, but we should probably give some of them the LOSCY treatment and put those numbers back into circulation. In my view someone like KG is the utter bare minimum (Hall of Famer + won title as one of the best players on Celtics) we should even consider for number retirement.

I also hate how all our numbers are just little boxes on two banners. Names like Russell, Bird, and Pierce should be hanging over the Garden permanently.


Great words from a great man

Offline Celtics4ever

  • NCE
  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20000
  • Tommy Points: 1323
Quote
3: Dennis Johnson- don't get me wrong, I love DJ. But he played only 7 seasons for us and was a 4th option for the team that set up the stars. Basically equivalent to retiring a Rondo with a good attitude.

DJ had a lot of clutch plays over the years.

Quote
16: Tom "Satch" Sanders- won titles with us, but was never a focal point. Good role player but i find it hard to retire someone who averaged 9.6 ppg and 6.3 rpg on 43% shooting as a Celtic.

Some guys just emphasize what it meant to be a Celtics, I would assume, your never heard of a defensive specialist?

Quote
23: Frank Ramsey- again, another great role player. But never a top option, not worthy of having his number retired.

No mention of the sixth man position, which does not surprise me, given your shallow comments elsewhere.  Ramsey and Red invented it.

Quote
25: KC Jones- I get that he was a great defender but I can't justify retiring a guy who averaged 7.4 ppg over his Celtic career. Let's retire Tony Allen while we're at it.

There is a big difference between the rings won by KC and Tony Allen.

Quote
31: Cedric Maxwell- only had 1 or 2 great seasons as a Celtic. Not around long enough to warrant this.

He pretty much single handedly won a game seven with his get on my back your boys speech and scoring more than Bird.  You claim KG belongs up their when he won two, inconsistent.

We may have too many but older teams have them too, and their guys did a lot less than ours.   Utah retired Mark Eaton, almost all of these guys had better careers and were not just one trick ponies.   Some of these guys sacrificed their games for the good of the team, they could have done more, but they played team ball.  Sorry, that some of you do not appreciate the nuances.

Offline greg683x

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4097
  • Tommy Points: 585
I think this is an under the radar reason why some free agents balk at signing with the celtics.

It seems ridiculous, but some players, especially bigger name players this day in age, their number is part of their brand and/or can hold some sort of superstitious effect on them.

Greg

Offline erisred

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 650
  • Tommy Points: 37
I'd actually be in favor of keeping the numbers in the rafters as they are, but letting current Celtics use the numbers in an honorary system.
33 is the Larry Bird
5 is the Kevin Garnett
34 is the Pierce
0 is the Bill Russell.

To wear that number the Celtics brass have to vote on it. Another option is that the owner of the retired number can delegate that number to whoever he thinks deserves it. Make a big ceremony at the start of the season...use it to sweet talk free agents etc..
if Bill Russell came and said to Anthony Davis, we want you to wear my number, youre the only one good enough etc...that would be quite an honor.
Those names will forever own those numbers, but they may also have co-owners if someone's good enough.

If Kevin Durant wanted number 34, and Pierce is cool with it, then boom.

I do see the other side of the coin though.
Cousey was 0, Russ was 6.  Other than that I agree with you about the numbers. Retire the jersey, with the name, up in the rafters, but don't retire the number. Maybe retire a number for ten years then unretire it and replace with a jersey with the players name.

 I'd love the Celtics to have unretiring ceremonies for a few of the older greats while they are still with us.  Give us one more chance to celebrate their greatness.

Offline Rosco917

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6108
  • Tommy Points: 559
Some of the ones I don't understand:

3: Dennis Johnson- don't get me wrong, I love DJ. But he played only 7 seasons for us and was a 4th option for the team that set up the stars. Basically equivalent to retiring a Rondo with a good attitude.

16: Tom "Satch" Sanders- won titles with us, but was never a focal point. Good role player but i find it hard to retire someone who averaged 9.6 ppg and 6.3 rpg on 43% shooting as a Celtic.

19: Don Nelson- won some titles with us but averaged 11.4 ppg as a Celtic and was never a focal point of the offense. Just a solid role player.

22: Ed Macauley- 6 season, 0 titles. I mean, he did get us Russ  ;D

23: Frank Ramsey- again, another great role player. But never a top option, not worthy of having his number retired.

25: KC Jones- I get that he was a great defender but I can't justify retiring a guy who averaged 7.4 ppg over his Celtic career. Let's retire Tony Allen while we're at it.

31: Cedric Maxwell- only had 1 or 2 great seasons as a Celtic. Not around long enough to warrant this.


My criticisms might be a little harsh but I think back in the day we basically retired the numbers of every player that had anything to do with a title team. I think only the elite guys of their eras and title runs should have their numbers retired, not the role players that rode the coattails of Russ and Larry. Just my 2 cents.



These players are character and chemistry type guy's, if you don't have respect for Character and Chemistry, I can see you not understanding their numbers being retired.
I may be wrong, but between them they may have over 40 rings.

We have plenty of number remaining.

Offline Greyman

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 784
  • Tommy Points: 211

I always wondered why players don't select numbers 50-100 more often anyways. Should be original.

It has a lot to do with referees and foul calling.

Easy solutions:


A. just don't call fouls on the Celtics' players with jerseys in the 60-99 range
B. find referees with 10 fingers-per-hand

Boom. solved.


TP - I like your thinking.

Offline slightly biased bias fan

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1198
  • Tommy Points: 310
https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/08/01/retired-jerseys-leave-celtics-crunching-numbers/fnbsZUUe9nf38xlc1kOevJ/story.html

It’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.

Offline DrJasper

  • Derrick White
  • Posts: 274
  • Tommy Points: 71
I think there are definitely  some number which should remain untouched, but as many here say there are a bunch of numbers which retirements weren't necessary.
Of course the Celtics would never deprive that honor, but they could ask those player for the permission to give the numbers out again.

I mean 21 retired numbers are just too much, even for such a high class organization as the C's.
And if we look into the future, 10 years from now (when we won at least 2 more titles  8) ) this problem will become even bigger.

And I think most of those players won't have a problem to allow other Celtics to wear their number and they should be asked now as long as they are alive, because the organization would never do it without their permission especially if they passed away.
Memphis Grizzlies
PG: Dragic, Ball, Carter
SG: Temple, KCP, Holiday, Washburn
SF: Richardson, Anderson, Parsons, Casspi
PF: Jackson jr, Beasley, Watanabe
C: Adebayo, Green, Noah
https://basketball.realgm.com/nba/teams/Memphis-Grizzlies/14/Rosters/Regular/2019  +21 Lal 2nd

Offline clover

  • Front Page Moderator
  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6130
  • Tommy Points: 315
There are always more numbers. And if it's a matter of players picking their favorite or long-time numbers, they'll bump up against their teammates anyway.

It's really a sign of what embarrassing prima donnas they've become if they're moping about their numbers. Suck it up and play.

Offline HomerSapien

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 657
  • Tommy Points: 43
Forever is a long time.  Maybe they should bring the numbers back into rotation after 25 or 50 years.  By the time 50 years has gone by more Celtics fans will have forgotten why a number is hanging from the rafters than remember it.  Take this "number reintegration" milestone as an opportunity to remind present day Celtics fans of a key member of team history one more time before allowing their number to be reused.

1. Every 5 years have a ceremony for the players whose numbers are being unretired remembering their accomplishments again
2. Keep them in the rafters at the Garden, but replace the "22" with "Macauley 22"
3. Any time a present day Celtic wears a previously retired number a small version of the legacy players name would be embedded inside the actual uniform number

The team would hopefully still be very judicious on who gets to be the first wearer of re-integrated numbers so that we don't have the Mikky Moore's of the world being our first on court reminder of the former greats, but this may be an interesting way to get around the rafter crunch and keep the memory of these great players fresher for a longer period of time.

Offline clover

  • Front Page Moderator
  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6130
  • Tommy Points: 315
If they were ever to "retire" Ray Allen's number, however, I'd say it's all just a bogus, overblown sham and should be done away with.