Author Topic: Are we retiring #5 ??  (Read 9575 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Are we retiring #5 ??
« Reply #15 on: September 24, 2016, 06:45:18 PM »

Offline rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9658
  • Tommy Points: 323
What they should do is retire Pierce's number, and then do something different for Garnett where they transition off retiring numbers to just honoring players while keeping the numbers in circulation (like the Cowboys do)

So Pierce would be the last number retired, and then Garnett is the first person inducted into the Celtics' Shamrocks of Honor (or whatever they call it).

This would be the perfect way to end retiring numbers (which the C's really need to do) and move onto something else.  Perfect bookends with a special player in Pierce closing one chapter and a special player in Garnett starting a new one.

But what if there's another "career Celtic" (or close to it) who's a great player? Like, Jaylen Brown becomes a 10-time All-Star with the Cs and leads them to 3 titles? I think his number would have to be retired.
"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

Re: Are we retiring #5 ??
« Reply #16 on: September 24, 2016, 07:05:54 PM »

Offline SHAQATTACK

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 36703
  • Tommy Points: 2951
KG been my favorite player since he came into the league.   

Not retiring his number would be a crime,

Re: Are we retiring #5 ??
« Reply #17 on: September 24, 2016, 07:09:22 PM »

Offline 2short

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6080
  • Tommy Points: 428
He was a great Celtic, and won a ring, but he doesn't fit the criteria for having his number retired here. Maybe if he'd gotten here 5 years earlier, but he didn't. He'll be a HOFer, and have his number retired in Minnesota, but Pierce is the only mamber if the Big 3 that'll get his number retired here

What's the criteria that he doesn't meet?

I think he obviously belongs up there.
He changed the team and it lasted after he left.  DJ who I love and thought should be in HOF right away but didn't think he played long enough with C's has his number retired.  Max, hate to pick on him but his 31 is retired.  Add in solid players like kc jones etc and yes KG played not that long in Boston but he needs his # retired.

Ps-I think that is why the C's gave home #5

Re: Are we retiring #5 ??
« Reply #18 on: September 24, 2016, 07:19:02 PM »

Offline alldaboston

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4170
  • Tommy Points: 324
What they should do is retire Pierce's number, and then do something different for Garnett where they transition off retiring numbers to just honoring players while keeping the numbers in circulation (like the Cowboys do)

So Pierce would be the last number retired, and then Garnett is the first person inducted into the Celtics' Shamrocks of Honor (or whatever they call it).

This would be the perfect way to end retiring numbers (which the C's really need to do) and move onto something else.  Perfect bookends with a special player in Pierce closing one chapter and a special player in Garnett starting a new one.

exactly. I have nothing against KG. he changed the entire mentality of this franchise. but dont retire his number. how about we retire something like "KG"? like what we did with "LOSCY".
I could very well see the Hawks... starting Taurean Prince at the 3, who is already better than Crowder, imo.

you vs. the guy she tells you not to worry about

Re: Are we retiring #5 ??
« Reply #19 on: September 24, 2016, 08:32:50 PM »

Offline mctyson

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5087
  • Tommy Points: 372
He's one of the 20 best players ever. 

Yes.

Re: Are we retiring #5 ??
« Reply #20 on: September 24, 2016, 08:36:24 PM »

Offline Sievers81

  • Jrue Holiday
  • Posts: 365
  • Tommy Points: 29
An east yes.

He was an essential part in breaking a 20+year drought of Championships, and he waived his no-trade clause to leave the team in a better position to rebuild.

Re: Are we retiring #5 ??
« Reply #21 on: September 24, 2016, 08:52:45 PM »

Offline trickybilly

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5586
  • Tommy Points: 616
No. Celtics great, but not a celtics legend. Paul Pierce is a celtics legend.
"Gimme the ball, gimme the ball". Freddy Quimby, 1994.

Re: Are we retiring #5 ??
« Reply #22 on: September 24, 2016, 09:05:19 PM »

Offline cons

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1126
  • Tommy Points: 103
No ones touched it since he left. I think it's already essentially a done deal.

well, no one has touched ray allen's 20 either, do you think its a done deal that we are retiring his number too?

Yeah, but Wyc hasn't said that Ray's number is getting retired. ;)

http://nesn.com/2013/02/celtics-co-owner-wyc-grousbeck-cant-imagine-kevin-garnett-paul-pierce-not-having-numbers-retired/

Yeah I'm surprised no ones taken 20. I suspect Danny or Wyc must be at least thinking about retiring it because otherwise I don't see how someone wouldn't have taken it again already. It's such a common normal number in basketball. As compared to like crowder resorting to taking 99 for instance.

Re: Are we retiring #5 ??
« Reply #23 on: September 24, 2016, 09:43:07 PM »

Offline apc

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4310
  • Tommy Points: 437

Re: Are we retiring #5 ??
« Reply #24 on: September 24, 2016, 10:13:56 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
I would absolutely retire KG's number.

Re: Are we retiring #5 ??
« Reply #25 on: September 24, 2016, 10:46:48 PM »

Offline MBunge

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4661
  • Tommy Points: 471
There's no way that Wyc and Ainge aren't retiring the number of the most important player of their era of ownership/management.  They'd probably like to retire Ray's as well.

Does KG deserve it?  Absolutely.  An all-time great who agreed to come to Boston, revitalized the franchise, won a title and then consented to a trade that opened the door to another era of possible title-contention?

Mike

Re: Are we retiring #5 ??
« Reply #26 on: September 25, 2016, 02:17:18 AM »

Offline Greyman

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 784
  • Tommy Points: 211
While I understand people having reservations about retiring KGs number, most are based on comparisons to others. Comparisons to incomparable Celtics legends or to players who are questionable retired numbers. Based on what KG achieved in Boston alone, he gets his number retired.

Re: Are we retiring #5 ??
« Reply #27 on: September 25, 2016, 02:19:49 AM »

Online GreenEnvy

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4550
  • Tommy Points: 1031
They need to retire #5

End of story
CELTICS 2024

Re: Are we retiring #5 ??
« Reply #28 on: September 25, 2016, 06:12:18 AM »

Offline mr. dee

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7828
  • Tommy Points: 597
He was a great Celtic, and won a ring, but he doesn't fit the criteria for having his number retired here. Maybe if he'd gotten here 5 years earlier, but he didn't. He'll be a HOFer, and have his number retired in Minnesota, but Pierce is the only mamber if the Big 3 that'll get his number retired here

Chamberlain got retired by the Lakers and he only played like 4 seasons there.

Re: Are we retiring #5 ??
« Reply #29 on: September 25, 2016, 06:15:25 AM »

Offline walker834

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5240
  • Tommy Points: 238
Yes he is one of the greatest celtics ever.  I think Ray Allen's number should be retired too.   All 3 of them and rondo and perk because it's a slap in the face to any of them.   Jaylen changed his number to 7 because 9 should be gone too.  People can find numbers. There are an unlimited number of numbers.  It migth get bad trying to fit triple digits on jerseys though.

There are ways to do it.  It's either just pierce or all 5.  YOu retire kg you have to retire ray as well. You can't just do pierce and kg. That's un celtics like and not very team like. You do the big 3 you cant leave out rondo.  you do rondo you cant leave out perk.

So it's just pierce or all 5.

Tony Allen, POsey powe and those guys they dont get their numbers retired and that's understandable.

The celtcs are a team though and championships and thats the way to do it. The entire starting 5 from that 08 team gets retired here.

Doc was pretty clear about how they never lost in the finals with that starting 5.  Perk got hurt and they lost.  That's the only way to do it.

I don't think any of those numbers have been worn since by anyone that is retirement worthy.  I think players have worn those jersey numbers as short term preseason numbers and stuff like that and short term contracts but that's it.  Perk's number hasn't been worn either except that.  Rondo's was used a few times in short stints as well. Ray, KG, and  Pierce's numbers have not been worn I don't think.

20, 34, 5, 43 and 9 will be retired.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2016, 06:29:37 AM by walker834 »