Whose number to retire next
by WSB Chris on Sep 8, 2010 9:01 AM CDT
Email
Print
I was sitting at the game Sunday taking in Miller Park and was looking at the retired numbers. First kind of sad that two out of six of the retired "numbers" are non Brewers players Jackie Robinson and Uke and the Hammer was way past his prime when he was a Brewer. But I digress.
I was trying to think who would be the next Brewer to have his number retired? I cannot really think of one who would be worthy of having a number retired maybe Jenkins? Maybe Hoffman just because he finished a stellar career here.
The Brewers where so bad for so long not a lot of shinning stars to consider for a honor of this level.
So any other ideas who might be the next Brewers to get his number retired?
53 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Why do they need to retire anyone's?
I don’t think there are any non-retired numbers screaming for it at this point.
Now that's great tasting chicken!
by Kyle Lobner on Sep 8, 2010 9:25 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Ditto
There is no point to retire a number for the sake of retiring numbers
by Saberilliterate on Sep 8, 2010 9:31 AM CDT up reply actions
Oh not looking at this as they must do it
Just when they do who might it be
"It's a joke. It's all a joke.
The next one might be Braun
Not saying that he deserves it now, and it is unlikely that he will ever deserve it. But he probably has the highest chance.
I thought about Molitor, but I just don’t see it happening for a number of reasons.
Moliter has his number retired already
4 is him isn’t it?
"It's a joke. It's all a joke.
by WSB Chris on Sep 8, 2010 9:50 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
We can no longer mention that number!
I was disappointed with the lack of hookers but the pancakes were delightful
apology accepted
"I've been banging a lot of bratwurst lately".
Uecker during the 8th inning of his first game back
are you going to demand one of Chris
for misspelling your inspiration?
by PagsBrewCrew on Sep 14, 2010 9:39 AM CDT up reply actions
It is a well known fact that I am spelling challenged
what do you hate the handicap too Pags
"It's a joke. It's all a joke.
didn't know that qualified someone for a handicap
if I go back 5 years, I could qualify for special parking.
by PagsBrewCrew on Sep 14, 2010 3:54 PM CDT up reply actions
Ueck, #8
But not really. I don’t think you retire a player’s number for things they did off the field.
not sure if this image link will work
but I think that means his non-number number has already been retired
How about Gantner?
If I’m not mistaken, they actually haven’t issued #17 since he wore it, so it’s practically de facto retired.
Brewers Baseball and other assorted nonsense (mostly the assorted nonsense) at my blog, What's a Tararrel?
Ehhhh, not so much
I view it as either, you were good, or you meant something to that particular team and its fanbase
Brewers Baseball and other assorted nonsense (mostly the assorted nonsense) at my blog, What's a Tararrel?
I agree with this statement.
In order for your number to be retired, you have to be in the hall of fame (IMO).
by BrewCrewBrian on Sep 8, 2010 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions
I disagree
To me, the whole point of retiring numbers is to honor guys who maybe weren’t hall of fame caliber, but captured the hearts of the city they played for. Being great at baseball gets its own honor (HoF), but being beloved by a fanbase gets a different honor.
That said, I’m not sure Gantner qualifies by that standard, either, but I still find it interesting they haven’t issued #17.
Brewers Baseball and other assorted nonsense (mostly the assorted nonsense) at my blog, What's a Tararrel?
by Lefti on Sep 8, 2010 12:02 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
Agree to disagree here...
To clarify my stance a bit more: I think statues can be for those guys.
Retired numbers are generally when the athlete is both things
by BrewCrewBrian on Sep 8, 2010 12:07 PM CDT up reply actions
To your point...
There are some guys who’ve had their numbers retired, but aren’t in the HOF. Granted, it’s a small percentage of the numbers that have been retired around the league, but they exists nonetheless.
Pujols is the Barack Obama of baseball.
it depends on the rules of the team
The Twins are one of those teams with a very, very low number of non-HOF numbers retired (just Oliva and Hrbek) and that’s because those players have been very important in the history of the franchise, especially Oliva. Unlike some teams, they don’t retire the numbers of every HOF player they’ve had (no Molitor, Carlton, etc.)
to add to that
The Twins have only retired 5 numbers. The other two Hall of Famers are Harmon Killebrew and Rod Carew. There’s no official policy that I can find, but it’s got to be “non-HoF, extremely important to franchise history” and “HoF, spent all or most of career with Twins.”
I can’t imagine that they’re going to be retiring any numbers anytime soon. If I’d have to conjecture, probably #7 for Mauer once he retires.
behold the bitterness
I wish I could maintain a level of bitterness that approaches yours man. ;)
"It's a joke. It's all a joke.
there's a reason they have the "walk of fame"
it’s for guys like Gantner and Jenkins. guys not really that great, but good enough to be memorialized in Milwaukee.
see below for my explanation why.
"That's not a weird stat. Rickie is a run-scorer," Yost said. "It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter," Yost told reporters. "See, you guys have no concept. He's a run-scorer. So there's nothing weird about it. That's what he does."
Didn't Gantner do the part-time coach/instructor thing for a while?
I assumed they reserved it for him just in case he came back to work….
Coaching
He did some coaching at the minor league level for a while, but I don’t think he had any coaching positions with the Brewers.
He’s currently working for the Brewers making promotional appearances from time-to-time (like Gorman).
Pujols is the Barack Obama of baseball.
It's only a matter of time before Yost's # 3 is retired
I was disappointed with the lack of hookers but the pancakes were delightful
Why not #5?
Afterall, that’s the number he wore when he played. One could argue he was better as a back-up catcher than he ever was as a manager. :)
"The Milwaukee Brewers' line score is starting to resemble an international phone number" - Pittsburgh Pirates Radio during 20-0 shutout - 4-22-10
The retiring of numbers in baseball is an honor for HOF-ers. and there's only one Brewers HOF-er who hasn't had his number retired
It’s time to put up the 21 or 20 of Don Sutton.
"That's not a weird stat. Rickie is a run-scorer," Yost said. "It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter," Yost told reporters. "See, you guys have no concept. He's a run-scorer. So there's nothing weird about it. That's what he does."
no thanks
I like Sutton, but he only played for the Crew for two years and went 26-26. I’m sure the Dodgers have retired his number though.
yes, but...
the brewers seem to have a minimum standard of anyone that played for the team that is in the HOF. there’s no good reason for fingers and aaron to be retired as brewers. fingers had 4 seasons (really, 2 full ones) with a fangraphs WAR of about 5 and sutton had 2.5 with a greater WAR. so there’s an argument to be had there.
and the front office will probably consider retiring hoffman’s number after his brief tenure. sigh.
to answer the original question, i think it’s an “ask again in 15 years” kind of question.
Aaron
is partially number-retired as a Brewer because he was a Brave AND a Brewer. It’s more that his number is Milwaukee-retired than Brewer-retired.
as to the HoF vs non-HoF – I don’t think for an individual team to retire you, you need to be HoF. Maybe if you’re a big market team with a lot of exposure, but there is a HoF-from-big-market bias that extends beyond free agency big bucks that can be offered by the large market teams. Milwaukee has always been a small fish, so I think that means we’ve probably had more great players that just haven’t been recognized over the years.
If we are retiring Braves
then Spahn and Matthews need consideration as well for their service in Milwaukee
"That's not a weird stat. Rickie is a run-scorer," Yost said. "It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter," Yost told reporters. "See, you guys have no concept. He's a run-scorer. So there's nothing weird about it. That's what he does."
I think part of the equation is that he DID play for the brewers though
but the Braves years put him over the top.
Fingers
“no good reason”? Well, he did win the MVP and Cy Young in ’81… as well as helped the team get to the playoffs in ’82?
Yes, he didn’t pitch very long with the Brewers, but he did quite a bit in that time.
Pujols is the Barack Obama of baseball.
That's not true...
There are many teams in MLB that have retired numbers for players who aren’t in the HOF…
Pujols is the Barack Obama of baseball.
of the non-HOFers on that list
I count 6 soon to be HOFers (Bagwell, Biggio, Maddux, Glavine, Thomas, and Raines), some guys who will get in because of the veterans committee (Olivo, Concepcion, Murphy) a couple managers that led their teams to short term success (Murtagh, Martin, Oates, Martin), a guy who had his MLB career shortened by racism (Howard), two Owners (Autrey, Busch), a reliever who died of cancer mid season (Umbricht), and a consecutive sellout streak.
Some of those guys meant a lot to the franchise, like Hrbek, Garvey and Pesky, and these are guys I’d argue against retiring . Some . The fact is that none of the candidates that we’ve discussed (Gantner or Jenkins) would qualify as guys I’d argue for. I think minimum requirements should be met.
Did the player play more than 10 years in the city?
Was he the best player on the team for the majority of that time?
Is he qualified for the Baseball HOF?
Did his contributions on the field lead to the post season?
The best candidates I see coming down the road (player-wise) are Braun and Fielder. But that has a lot to do with where things go in the next couple off-seasons.
To answer the original question, Braun is the next guy I see getting retired.
"That's not a weird stat. Rickie is a run-scorer," Yost said. "It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter," Yost told reporters. "See, you guys have no concept. He's a run-scorer. So there's nothing weird about it. That's what he does."
Kinda agree as a general guideline...
but I think you’re being too harsh if you’re meaning you need to meet all those qualifications. If so the list militates against:
Those who are on very good teams (who are likely to have lots of good players making it unlikely any one player is the best for the majority of the time)
Those on very bad teams (not making the post season at all) or who underperform the one or two seasons they do make the post season
Those who play a long time in one place but less than 10 years (how many players these days are likely to stay with the same team for 10 years?).
"I hope your name is Rick"
oh i'm not saying all of those must be met
but a few of them could. Also, to your point of how many stay in the same place for 10 plus years, the team has to want them around for that lonf, so they have to be good. So I think it’s a decent guideline. Plus it allows them to mean something to a city, thus bringing them closer to # retirement
"That's not a weird stat. Rickie is a run-scorer," Yost said. "It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter," Yost told reporters. "See, you guys have no concept. He's a run-scorer. So there's nothing weird about it. That's what he does."
Just retire Turnbow's bobblehead's hair.
Nobody should ever have to wear that again
http://www.mlbsoup.com
by tcyoung on Sep 8, 2010 1:52 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
There are teams that have retired numbers of players that tragically died while part of the team
Taking shallowness to new depths -- FtJ's blog
by Fatter than Joey on Sep 9, 2010 9:33 AM CDT reply actions
Unfortunately
There’s also the sad case of a number of players who would have qualified for having their numbers retired on that basis but their deaths were not deemed to have been tragic enough…
"I hope your name is Rick"
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
NL Central Standings
| W | L | PCT | GB | STRK | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Chicago
|
0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | Lost 0 |
|
Cincinnati
|
0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | Lost 0 |
|
Houston
|
0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | Lost 0 |
|
Milwaukee
|
0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | Lost 0 |
|
Pittsburgh
|
0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | Lost 0 |
|
St. Louis
|
0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | Lost 0 |
(updated 2.16.2012 at 7:03 AM CST)
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
