Author Topic: Celtics numbers that should be un-retired  (Read 7155 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Celtics numbers that should be un-retired
« Reply #30 on: September 19, 2018, 09:37:36 PM »

Offline Rosco917

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6108
  • Tommy Points: 559
When does preseason start again?

Re: Celtics numbers that should be un-retired
« Reply #31 on: September 20, 2018, 01:15:31 AM »

Offline IndyCelt

  • Neemias Queta
  • Posts: 14
  • Tommy Points: 4
There is always the options of going to letters     AA , CC, AC the like at some point.Seriously I could see the option of going with O1, O3. The retiring is all well and good but I don't want to see someone wearing 78 playing basketball.

Re: Celtics numbers that should be un-retired
« Reply #32 on: September 20, 2018, 03:38:29 AM »

Offline AshyLarry

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 675
  • Tommy Points: 177
  • Ashy To Classy, baby.
Are championships not valuable? Do consistancy longevity on winning teams mean nothing? All these players had moments worthy of being recognized in those rafters.

I'm more in the camp of retireing the numbers of the likes of KG and Powe. But that's just me.
My pic is now, and will be Fab Melo until he posts his first official NBA dbl-dbl. This may be permanent.

Re: Celtics numbers that should be un-retired
« Reply #33 on: September 20, 2018, 05:10:29 AM »

Offline GreenEnvy

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4550
  • Tommy Points: 1031
There is always the options of going to letters     AA , CC, AC the like at some point.Seriously I could see the option of going with O1, O3. The retiring is all well and good but I don't want to see someone wearing 78 playing basketball.

Why can’t they wear number 78? Is it that much of an eyesore? Or too long to pronounce?

Not sure what the issue is here, we are a franchise who embraces their history.

We are the Celtics, and that means something.
CELTICS 2024

Re: Celtics numbers that should be un-retired
« Reply #34 on: September 20, 2018, 05:52:25 AM »

Online Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33432
  • Tommy Points: 1532
There is always the options of going to letters     AA , CC, AC the like at some point.Seriously I could see the option of going with O1, O3. The retiring is all well and good but I don't want to see someone wearing 78 playing basketball.

Why can’t they wear number 78? Is it that much of an eyesore? Or too long to pronounce?

Not sure what the issue is here, we are a franchise who embraces their history.

We are the Celtics, and that means something.
we are the Celtics and having your number retired should mean alot more than it does
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Celtics numbers that should be un-retired
« Reply #35 on: September 20, 2018, 06:57:33 AM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • NCE
  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20000
  • Tommy Points: 1323
It's not broke, so don't fix it.   Also, I find the concept of un-retiring numbers to lack class.

Re: Celtics numbers that should be un-retired
« Reply #36 on: September 20, 2018, 08:21:36 AM »

Offline gouki88

  • NCE
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31552
  • Tommy Points: 3141
  • 2019 & 2021 CS Historical Draft Champion
There is always the options of going to letters     AA , CC, AC the like at some point.Seriously I could see the option of going with O1, O3. The retiring is all well and good but I don't want to see someone wearing 78 playing basketball.

Why can’t they wear number 78? Is it that much of an eyesore? Or too long to pronounce?

Not sure what the issue is here, we are a franchise who embraces their history.

We are the Celtics, and that means something.
we are the Celtics and having your number retired should mean alot more than it does
I think the lax standards of jersey retirement that you're referring to are things of the past. Maxwell was a poor decision IMO, as he was merely a decent-good player who won a Finals MVP. However, since then we have had 1 jersey retirement, for a guy who is widely considered a top 5 all time Celtic.
KG didn't get his retired, and it hasn't sounded like he will. Ray didn't get his retired, and it seems almost a certainty that he won't. Rondo hasn't retired, but (barring some unimaginable return to Boston where he wins 2 rings as the starting PG) he almost certainly won't.
I don't think the 'problem', so to speak, of retiring too many numbers is as present today, with only 2 numbers being retired post-2000
'23 Historical Draft: Orlando Magic.

PG: Terry Porter (90-91) / Steve Francis (00-01)
SG: Joe Dumars (92-93) / Jeff Hornacek (91-92) / Jerry Stackhouse (00-01)
SF: Brandon Roy (08-09) / Walter Davis (78-79)
PF: Terry Cummings (84-85) / Paul Millsap (15-16)
C: Chris Webber (00-01) / Ralph Sampson (83-84) / Andrew Bogut (09-10)

Re: Celtics numbers that should be un-retired
« Reply #37 on: September 20, 2018, 08:40:23 AM »

Online Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33432
  • Tommy Points: 1532
There is always the options of going to letters     AA , CC, AC the like at some point.Seriously I could see the option of going with O1, O3. The retiring is all well and good but I don't want to see someone wearing 78 playing basketball.

Why can’t they wear number 78? Is it that much of an eyesore? Or too long to pronounce?

Not sure what the issue is here, we are a franchise who embraces their history.

We are the Celtics, and that means something.
we are the Celtics and having your number retired should mean alot more than it does
I think the lax standards of jersey retirement that you're referring to are things of the past. Maxwell was a poor decision IMO, as he was merely a decent-good player who won a Finals MVP. However, since then we have had 1 jersey retirement, for a guy who is widely considered a top 5 all time Celtic.
KG didn't get his retired, and it hasn't sounded like he will. Ray didn't get his retired, and it seems almost a certainty that he won't. Rondo hasn't retired, but (barring some unimaginable return to Boston where he wins 2 rings as the starting PG) he almost certainly won't.
I don't think the 'problem', so to speak, of retiring too many numbers is as present today, with only 2 numbers being retired post-2000
The C's have said KG is going to go up there.  As I've said in basically every thread it comes up, I don't think he should.  Now if they don't put him up there, maybe what you are saying is true, but there are far too many numbers in the rafters. 

If I was doing it now, I'd retire the numbers of Cousy, Russell, Hondo, Cowens, Bird, McHale, and Pierce.  I'd have Lewis up there, but don't think I'd actually retire his number, though I could be persuaded to do so.  I'd listen to arguments on S. Jones, Parish, and White because of their longevity and all around solid play.  I'd have Brown, Red, Heinsohn, and Ainge honored up there for what they did for the organization, but certainly wouldn't retire any number for them (and I'd wait until Tommy and Danny retired before putting their name up there). 

So for me the only retired numbers for sure would be 6, 14, 17, 18, 32, 33, and 34.  I'd put 35 as a maybe and could maybe be convinced on 00, 10, and 24 (though it would take a lot of convincing on them).  Having your number in the rafters of the most decorated franchise in NBA history should be an immense honor.  I wouldn't want to cheapen it by putting lesser deserving players up there. 
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Celtics numbers that should be un-retired
« Reply #38 on: September 20, 2018, 08:44:04 AM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
Give players the option to gift their number to their favorite player if they really want to, with the right to take it back if the dude gets arrested or something.  Or maybe make it a one year thing even.

Like if you have played for the team through your rookie contract and signed another.....I mean how much would you cry if Bill Russell had said to KG "I want you to wear my number this year"

Crazy idea but still

Re: Celtics numbers that should be un-retired
« Reply #39 on: September 20, 2018, 08:57:13 AM »

Offline gouki88

  • NCE
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31552
  • Tommy Points: 3141
  • 2019 & 2021 CS Historical Draft Champion
There is always the options of going to letters     AA , CC, AC the like at some point.Seriously I could see the option of going with O1, O3. The retiring is all well and good but I don't want to see someone wearing 78 playing basketball.

Why can’t they wear number 78? Is it that much of an eyesore? Or too long to pronounce?

Not sure what the issue is here, we are a franchise who embraces their history.

We are the Celtics, and that means something.
we are the Celtics and having your number retired should mean alot more than it does
I think the lax standards of jersey retirement that you're referring to are things of the past. Maxwell was a poor decision IMO, as he was merely a decent-good player who won a Finals MVP. However, since then we have had 1 jersey retirement, for a guy who is widely considered a top 5 all time Celtic.
KG didn't get his retired, and it hasn't sounded like he will. Ray didn't get his retired, and it seems almost a certainty that he won't. Rondo hasn't retired, but (barring some unimaginable return to Boston where he wins 2 rings as the starting PG) he almost certainly won't.
I don't think the 'problem', so to speak, of retiring too many numbers is as present today, with only 2 numbers being retired post-2000
The C's have said KG is going to go up there.  As I've said in basically every thread it comes up, I don't think he should.  Now if they don't put him up there, maybe what you are saying is true, but there are far too many numbers in the rafters. 

If I was doing it now, I'd retire the numbers of Cousy, Russell, Hondo, Cowens, Bird, McHale, and Pierce.  I'd have Lewis up there, but don't think I'd actually retire his number, though I could be persuaded to do so.  I'd listen to arguments on S. Jones, Parish, and White because of their longevity and all around solid play.  I'd have Brown, Red, Heinsohn, and Ainge honored up there for what they did for the organization, but certainly wouldn't retire any number for them (and I'd wait until Tommy and Danny retired before putting their name up there). 

So for me the only retired numbers for sure would be 6, 14, 17, 18, 32, 33, and 34.  I'd put 35 as a maybe and could maybe be convinced on 00, 10, and 24 (though it would take a lot of convincing on them).  Having your number in the rafters of the most decorated franchise in NBA history should be an immense honor.  I wouldn't want to cheapen it by putting lesser deserving players up there.
I must've missed the KG news, somehow. I don't think he should be up there either. Not to lessen what he did, but he only played 6 years with 1 ring.

I also agree with the numbers you'd have retired, although I would add Parish, but that's it.

I just have no idea how you go about unretiring numbers, especially of those who have passed, like DJ, as it would be a pretty awful PR move. Seems like what's done is done at this stage
'23 Historical Draft: Orlando Magic.

PG: Terry Porter (90-91) / Steve Francis (00-01)
SG: Joe Dumars (92-93) / Jeff Hornacek (91-92) / Jerry Stackhouse (00-01)
SF: Brandon Roy (08-09) / Walter Davis (78-79)
PF: Terry Cummings (84-85) / Paul Millsap (15-16)
C: Chris Webber (00-01) / Ralph Sampson (83-84) / Andrew Bogut (09-10)

Re: Celtics numbers that should be un-retired
« Reply #40 on: September 20, 2018, 04:12:27 PM »

Offline Onslaught

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1768
  • Tommy Points: 156

# 3 DJ - Good player. Helped us get 2 titles. 1x all-star with us. Just not enough.




I do think KG's 5 and Ainge's 44 (especially if he wins another as a GM) should be retired.

So DJ helped us get 2 banners and KG got one but should go up?
Peace through Tyranny

Re: Celtics numbers that should be un-retired
« Reply #41 on: September 20, 2018, 04:19:18 PM »

Offline BitterJim

  • NGT
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8902
  • Tommy Points: 1212
There is always the options of going to letters     AA , CC, AC the like at some point.Seriously I could see the option of going with O1, O3. The retiring is all well and good but I don't want to see someone wearing 78 playing basketball.

Why can’t they wear number 78? Is it that much of an eyesore? Or too long to pronounce?

Not sure what the issue is here, we are a franchise who embraces their history.

We are the Celtics, and that means something.
we are the Celtics and having your number retired should mean alot more than it does
I think the lax standards of jersey retirement that you're referring to are things of the past. Maxwell was a poor decision IMO, as he was merely a decent-good player who won a Finals MVP. However, since then we have had 1 jersey retirement, for a guy who is widely considered a top 5 all time Celtic.
KG didn't get his retired, and it hasn't sounded like he will. Ray didn't get his retired, and it seems almost a certainty that he won't. Rondo hasn't retired, but (barring some unimaginable return to Boston where he wins 2 rings as the starting PG) he almost certainly won't.
I don't think the 'problem', so to speak, of retiring too many numbers is as present today, with only 2 numbers being retired post-2000
The C's have said KG is going to go up there.  As I've said in basically every thread it comes up, I don't think he should.  Now if they don't put him up there, maybe what you are saying is true, but there are far too many numbers in the rafters. 

If I was doing it now, I'd retire the numbers of Cousy, Russell, Hondo, Cowens, Bird, McHale, and Pierce.  I'd have Lewis up there, but don't think I'd actually retire his number, though I could be persuaded to do so.  I'd listen to arguments on S. Jones, Parish, and White because of their longevity and all around solid play.  I'd have Brown, Red, Heinsohn, and Ainge honored up there for what they did for the organization, but certainly wouldn't retire any number for them (and I'd wait until Tommy and Danny retired before putting their name up there). 

So for me the only retired numbers for sure would be 6, 14, 17, 18, 32, 33, and 34.  I'd put 35 as a maybe and could maybe be convinced on 00, 10, and 24 (though it would take a lot of convincing on them).  Having your number in the rafters of the most decorated franchise in NBA history should be an immense honor.  I wouldn't want to cheapen it by putting lesser deserving players up there.
I must've missed the KG news, somehow. I don't think he should be up there either. Not to lessen what he did, but he only played 6 years with 1 ring.

I also agree with the numbers you'd have retired, although I would add Parish, but that's it.

I just have no idea how you go about unretiring numbers, especially of those who have passed, like DJ, as it would be a pretty awful PR move. Seems like what's done is done at this stage

Agreed. KG might be my favorite Celtic that I was alive to see (sorry, Pierce), but he just hasn't done enough to get his number retired here. Same for Ray Allen
I'm bitter.

Re: Celtics numbers that should be un-retired
« Reply #42 on: September 20, 2018, 07:13:43 PM »

Offline GreenEnvy

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4550
  • Tommy Points: 1031
There is always the options of going to letters     AA , CC, AC the like at some point.Seriously I could see the option of going with O1, O3. The retiring is all well and good but I don't want to see someone wearing 78 playing basketball.

Why can’t they wear number 78? Is it that much of an eyesore? Or too long to pronounce?

Not sure what the issue is here, we are a franchise who embraces their history.

We are the Celtics, and that means something.
we are the Celtics and having your number retired should mean alot more than it does

It means we are rich in history. I don’t mind them retiring key players throughout the eras.

Other than the 2008 title team, we won multiple titles through multiple key players.

Yankees do this too and nobody has an issue. And they have to field up to 40 players a year (not 15 or whatever we do). Aaron Judge is the face of the franchise and wears #99. Nobody is griping that he’s not wearing #6 or 20 or whatever.
CELTICS 2024

Re: Celtics numbers that should be un-retired
« Reply #43 on: September 21, 2018, 11:37:41 AM »

Online Big333223

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7477
  • Tommy Points: 736
I would change Red and Brown to last names to make #1 and #2 usable, but no more than that

Yeah, while I mostly agree with Eddie's assertions in a 'start completely over and choose the really deserving players' kind-of way, there is no real way of handling this that wouldn't look totally bad (imagine un-retiring Reggie Lewis' #35??).

So, yeah, #1 and #2 are the easy choices - nobody knows Red or Brown by these #s anyway.

This is my feeling as well. Those numbers have nothing to do with Red and Walter Brown, putting them in circulation would be fine.

Otherwise, leave it alone. There are names up there I wouldn't have retired but what's done is done. Plus, I like that the Celtics haven't just retired their best players, they've tried to retire guys who are part of the culture. Satch was never an all star but he played his whole career with Boston, won 8 rings and did some coaching with the team. That stuff matters.
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008

Re: Celtics numbers that should be un-retired
« Reply #44 on: September 21, 2018, 12:48:59 PM »

Offline Section301

  • Sam Hauser
  • Posts: 155
  • Tommy Points: 26
  • Yum
There is always the options of going to letters     AA , CC, AC the like at some point.Seriously I could see the option of going with O1, O3. The retiring is all well and good but I don't want to see someone wearing 78 playing basketball.

Why can’t they wear number 78? Is it that much of an eyesore? Or too long to pronounce?

Not sure what the issue is here, we are a franchise who embraces their history.

We are the Celtics, and that means something.
we are the Celtics and having your number retired should mean alot more than it does
I think the lax standards of jersey retirement that you're referring to are things of the past. Maxwell was a poor decision IMO, as he was merely a decent-good player who won a Finals MVP. However, since then we have had 1 jersey retirement, for a guy who is widely considered a top 5 all time Celtic.
KG didn't get his retired, and it hasn't sounded like he will. Ray didn't get his retired, and it seems almost a certainty that he won't. Rondo hasn't retired, but (barring some unimaginable return to Boston where he wins 2 rings as the starting PG) he almost certainly won't.
I don't think the 'problem', so to speak, of retiring too many numbers is as present today, with only 2 numbers being retired post-2000
The C's have said KG is going to go up there.  As I've said in basically every thread it comes up, I don't think he should.  Now if they don't put him up there, maybe what you are saying is true, but there are far too many numbers in the rafters. 

If I was doing it now, I'd retire the numbers of Cousy, Russell, Hondo, Cowens, Bird, McHale, and Pierce.  I'd have Lewis up there, but don't think I'd actually retire his number, though I could be persuaded to do so.  I'd listen to arguments on S. Jones, Parish, and White because of their longevity and all around solid play.  I'd have Brown, Red, Heinsohn, and Ainge honored up there for what they did for the organization, but certainly wouldn't retire any number for them (and I'd wait until Tommy and Danny retired before putting their name up there). 

So for me the only retired numbers for sure would be 6, 14, 17, 18, 32, 33, and 34.  I'd put 35 as a maybe and could maybe be convinced on 00, 10, and 24 (though it would take a lot of convincing on them).  Having your number in the rafters of the most decorated franchise in NBA history should be an immense honor.  I wouldn't want to cheapen it by putting lesser deserving players up there.

You lost me when you said you'd drop Heinsohn.  37pt 23 reb as a rookie to seal the C's first championship, a total of 8 rings and 19p 9 reb for his career.  He wasn't some JAG riding Russell's coat-tails. 

At any rate, I'm really not sure what's GAINED by un-retiring numbers other than making it easier for guys who haven't contributed as much to the franchise to have a number that makes them happy (and maybe to make it easier on the refs).  I don't see that the benefits of making those number available in any way outweighs the drawbacks of leaving things as they are.  One of those biggest drawbacks being (in my eyes) the optics of taking away an honor that has already been bestowed.  "we're sorry - we thought you were an all time Celtics great.  Turns out we were mistaken, you were just an all-time Celtics good."
Good food, like good music and good love, always requires a little sweat in the making in order for it to be truly memorable.