Author Topic: Are we retiring #5 ??  (Read 9577 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Are we retiring #5 ??
« Reply #45 on: September 25, 2016, 04:47:27 PM »

Offline dannyboy35

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1937
  • Tommy Points: 104
When Kg flattened Zaza Pachulia.

Re: Are we retiring #5 ??
« Reply #46 on: September 25, 2016, 05:55:25 PM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016
Absolutely should retire #5.  This was a sad sack irrelevant franchise until KG put us on his back and carried us to a championship.  We've been riding the wave of credibility ever since.  KG single-handedly resurrected Celtic Pride.  It had been dead for almost two decades.

Re: Are we retiring #5 ??
« Reply #47 on: September 25, 2016, 07:16:35 PM »

Offline Boris Badenov

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5227
  • Tommy Points: 1065
Retired numbers:

Ed Macauley - 6 years, 0 titles
Reggie Lewis -  6 years, 0 titles
KG - 6 years, 1 title

The idea that KG's number being retired somehow doesn't fit with precedent seems wrong to me.

also

DJ: 7 years, 2 titles

DJ has an extra ring but he was playing at borderline All-Star level or below for most of his time here, while KG was playing at All-NBA level for much of his time here, and at MVP level for one year.


Re: Are we retiring #5 ??
« Reply #48 on: September 25, 2016, 07:22:27 PM »

Offline tenn_smoothie

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6090
  • Tommy Points: 717
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.

20, 34, 5, 43 and 9 will be retired.

Wow, I never thought about all those - tho I love them all, especially Perk and I do have a bad taste in my mouth about Rondo, Danny drove Ray Ray out.

You also gotta retire 44 as well, which should have been done a long time ago.

We are not out of numbers yet, there are still plenty of 20's, 40's & 50's to be worn and retired -  tho I would like to see a ban on wearing numbers beyond the 50's. Wearing a 99 or a 91 or 85 just looks stupid for basketball. What are they, defensive tackles ?

In practical terms though, and based on greatness, contributions to the organization and their love of being a Celtic, # 34, 5 & 44 should go to the rafters - no question.

Back to Garnett - he single-handedly erased the Bias curse and his influence on the Celtics is still present to this day. Without him making us great again, would we be where we are today, our reputation as the greatest franchise finally restored and building towards another title era ??

Plus, Kevin Garnett LOVED being a Boston Celtic - he was a Celtic all along, just got here later than he should have.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2016, 07:28:24 PM by tenn_smoothie »
The Four Celtic Generals:
Russell - Cowens - Bird - Garnett

The Four Celtic Lieutenants:
Cousy - Havlicek - McHale - Pierce

Re: Are we retiring #5 ??
« Reply #49 on: September 25, 2016, 07:34:32 PM »

Offline alldaboston

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4170
  • Tommy Points: 324
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.

yeah...no

34 is getting retired. no debate about that

5. this one is hard. i personally say no. he belongs to minnesota. they'll retire his number. i would prefer if we retire something like "KG", like how we did with LOSCY (i've made this point like 3 times in this thread, no one has said anything)

20. the exit he had makes this pretty easy to say no. i know we tried trading him a few times and there was never a great relationship with ray compared to pierce and KG, but i still think that exit was cheap. thanks for helping us win banner 17, but lets just move on now.

9. its already assigned to d-jax, who paid homage to rondo on twitter for taking his number. jaylen did NOT change from 9 to 7 because he thinks rondo should be retired. he said it before, he wants to get 0 from avery (which is the number he wore in college). it had nothing to do with rondo. he's at 7 now because its closer to the 0 that he wants. if it were to be retired, danny wouldnt have let a second round pick in d-jax wear it.

43. just stop. no. its nice to feel sentimental and all "tugging on the heart strings" and all that good stuff, but you cant just retire a guy's number because you liked the guy's character and because he won a ring here. if you wanna retire perk, you might as well retire posey, house, and everyone else on that 08 team.
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 #50 on: September 25, 2016, 08:18:39 PM »

Offline LooseCannon

  • NCE
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11833
  • Tommy Points: 950
I think we've retired too many numbers

I want to see 00 to 99 retired in my lifetime.
"The worst thing that ever happened in sports was sports radio, and the internet is sports radio on steroids with lower IQs.” -- Brian Burke, former Toronto Maple Leafs senior adviser, at the 2013 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference

Re: Are we retiring #5 ??
« Reply #51 on: September 25, 2016, 08:22:51 PM »

Offline walker834

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5240
  • Tommy Points: 238
Good points.  Made me think. I agree it gets complicated once we get past pierce where he may be hte only number retired here. 

The whole appeal of playing for the celtics is having that chance of having your number raised to the rafters and win a championship though.  I agree putting that whole 08 starting lineup up there is a bit much and we have to have standards though.

It's questionable whether we want to be petty and say ray didn't do this or that.  Seems like there are two sides to that.

Same with Rondo too.  Was that Rondo's fault he got traded or was it just time to move on from him?  Rondo did his part here.  People will say he was this or that but I don't know.

I agree with you overall though. I think the celtics should have standards of excellence but  it depends on what that is I guess.  All those guys won a championship here as a starting 5.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2016, 08:29:28 PM by walker834 »

Re: Are we retiring #5 ??
« Reply #52 on: September 25, 2016, 08:34:20 PM »

Offline walker834

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5240
  • Tommy Points: 238
Danny Ainge himself was traded to sacramento.  More similar to the pierce situation but he came back and doesnt have his number in the rafters and is the gm. He may get his number retired ultimately because of that.

http://www.nba.com/celtics/history/retired-numbers/

Surprising Ainge isn't up there but guys like Cornbread are. Maxwell is up there probably because of all this contributions in oher ways as well.  Johnny Most has his mic retired.  I dont think Max should be retired for that but overall contributions he's been a staple here.

DA has to be up there eventually. 
« Last Edit: September 25, 2016, 08:41:45 PM by walker834 »

Re: Are we retiring #5 ??
« Reply #53 on: September 25, 2016, 08:39:53 PM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7477
  • Tommy Points: 736
I think the big thing with KG, for me, is that even though I loved him and adored him as a Celtic, I think of him as a Timberwolf. I have a feeling that's how most fans think of him too. Maybe I'm wrong about that.
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008

Re: Are we retiring #5 ??
« Reply #54 on: September 25, 2016, 08:46:44 PM »

Offline walker834

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5240
  • Tommy Points: 238
Most of the numbers that are retired are guys who were life long celtics or contributed in a variety of ways.  Or extenuating circumstances like Reggie Lewis.  Tiny Archibald isn't up there for example.  Neither is Danny Ainge surprisingly but he will be I would guess.

Shows how different the nba is now though.  They had guys that revolutionized the 6th man position.

Heinsohn you know was all over that.

Re: Are we retiring #5 ??
« Reply #55 on: September 25, 2016, 09:32:26 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
5. this one is hard. i personally say no. he belongs to minnesota. they'll retire his number. i would prefer if we retire something like "KG", like how we did with LOSCY i've made this point like 3 times in this thread, no one has said anything)
Loscutoff specifically asked that his number isn't retired. Also, his number is retired anyhow, blame Dave Cowens.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: Are we retiring #5 ??
« Reply #56 on: September 25, 2016, 10:37:50 PM »

Offline alldaboston

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4170
  • Tommy Points: 324
5. this one is hard. i personally say no. he belongs to minnesota. they'll retire his number. i would prefer if we retire something like "KG", like how we did with LOSCY i've made this point like 3 times in this thread, no one has said anything)
Loscutoff specifically asked that his number isn't retired. Also, his number is retired anyhow, blame Dave Cowens.

I could see KG not wanting his number retired here too, out of respect to Minnesota, the team that he established himself with, the team that took the risk on him. He belongs to them. Sure he would have his number retired in both places, but then the significance of it goes away a bit in my opinion. A number retirement in Minny and a KG retirement here would be ideal in my opinion.
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 #57 on: September 25, 2016, 10:55:46 PM »

Online trickybilly

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5587
  • Tommy Points: 616
I like the idea of retiring "KG" like Loscy, although I don't really like that because you sort of have to do the same for Ray (who was absolutely critical in getting the Championship), and Ray Allen does not deserve to go into the rafters.

The idea of comparing Ed Maccauley with KG is a bit stalkhorsey, he was an MVP, but I really don't think in this day and age if Ed Macauley happened again he would go up. You really should need to do something comparable with most other guys to get your number in the rafters (multiple champion. Obviously, stats-wise, Russell has made that virtually unworkable, but there needs to be some sort of very high standard.

"He made the Celtics relevant again" - wow, no way - crazy talk. Although Danny Ainge must now be getting close.

The huge thing that KG did was bring a uniqueness of character and a general attitude which seems to have endured. He seemed to fortify the whole organization. That legacy or "commodity" is almost impossible to properly assess, other than by using describing words, but if the jersey is lifted on that basis and that basis alone, I will have no complaints.



"Gimme the ball, gimme the ball". Freddy Quimby, 1994.

Re: Are we retiring #5 ??
« Reply #58 on: September 25, 2016, 11:16:06 PM »

Offline Ilikesports17

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8595
  • Tommy Points: 842
I like the idea of retiring "KG" like Loscy, although I don't really like that because you sort of have to do the same for Ray (who was absolutely critical in getting the Championship), and Ray Allen does not deserve to go into the rafters.

The idea of comparing Ed Maccauley with KG is a bit stalkhorsey, he was an MVP, but I really don't think in this day and age if Ed Macauley happened again he would go up. You really should need to do something comparable with most other guys to get your number in the rafters (multiple champion. Obviously, stats-wise, Russell has made that virtually unworkable, but there needs to be some sort of very high standard.

"He made the Celtics relevant again" - wow, no way - crazy talk. Although Danny Ainge must now be getting close.

The huge thing that KG did was bring a uniqueness of character and a general attitude which seems to have endured. He seemed to fortify the whole organization. That legacy or "commodity" is almost impossible to properly assess, other than by using describing words, but if the jersey is lifted on that basis and that basis alone, I will have no complaints.
you absolutely do not have to retire Ray Allen if you retire KG. I just dont understand that logic.
Quote from: George W. Bush
Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions.

Re: Are we retiring #5 ??
« Reply #59 on: September 25, 2016, 11:54:09 PM »

Offline walker834

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5240
  • Tommy Points: 238
I agree with that.  We don't have to retire ray or rondo or perk.  It does depend on what you define as someone deserving of being in the rafters.  I think KG deserves that. If parish does why not KG?  It needs to be defined in ways who does and who doesn't.  Most guys up there are career celtics and the nba is different now.  I think those standards should still stand in ways though.

KG redefined what it is to be a celtic deserving who belongs in the rafters in ways. Bill walton isn't up there though.

Maybe that needs to be redefined in KG's situation. He was really the face of that team that won in 08 even over pierce. Getting KG was what that was all about.