https://twitter.com/iamjoonlee/status/613067210295255040
https://twitter.com/iamjoonlee/status/613067210295255040
link to tweet
https://twitter.com/iamjoonlee/status/613067210295255040
link to tweet
FL4WL3SS said:They're most likely anticipating David Ortiz in a few years as well. His chances of getting in the Hall are probably less than 50/50, but he absolutely deserves to get his number retired.
I laughed.moondog80 said:
-Must be a member of the HOF, or have made truly special and unique contributions to the team over a long period.
-Must not be Wade Boggs.
I agree with this.moondog80 said:They changed the policy once for Carlton Fisk (which was an utter farce), another time for Johnny Pesky, and then again for Pedro Martinez. I'm fine with all of those selections. But just be honest and say that the main criteria are:
-Must be a member of the HOF, or have made truly special and unique contributions to the team over a long period.
-Must not be Wade Boggs.
Rudy Pemberton said:
Weird hero worship? Isn't that pretty much what sports is?
JohntheBaptist said:I laughed.
Nite Vizhun UV said:
No, it's weird laundry worship.
Yeah it is definitely strange--and it seems pretty ok with everyone? On one hand I get it because Yankees but youre right- he is an enormous part of the teams history to be just passed over.moondog80 said:
I discuss this in, of all places, the Shuaghnessy thread, but the only modern HOFer other than Boggs I could find with a number that was not retired was Goose Gossage. A reliever who was something of a nomad -- most associated with the Yankees but accumulated less than 50% of his WAR with them, and of course they already have a million other retired numbers. Any other team probably retires his number -- the Cardinals retired Sutter and Fingers had his number retired by two different teams. And Wade Boggs is no borderline HOFer like Perez or Rice or Dawson or Blyleven (all retired numbers). First ballot, 92%.
But he had the nerve to go to a different team when the Sox didn't want him, and worse, he rode a horse. As though he should have been subdued when his team won the WS.
moondog80 said:
I discuss this in, of all places, the Shuaghnessy thread, but the only modern HOFer other than Boggs I could find with a number that was not retired was Goose Gossage. A reliever who was something of a nomad -- most associated with the Yankees but accumulated less than 50% of his WAR with them, and of course they already have a million other retired numbers. Any other team probably retires his number -- the Cardinals retired Sutter and Fingers had his number retired by two different teams. And Wade Boggs is no borderline HOFer like Perez or Rice or Dawson or Blyleven (all retired numbers). First ballot, 92%.
But he had the nerve to go to a different team when the Sox didn't want him, and worse, he rode a horse. As though he should have been subdued when his team won the WS.
Red(s)HawksFan said:
Tampa retired Boggs' number, so Goose is the only player that fits your criteria (modern HOFer with no number retired).
+1Rudy Pemberton said:
Weird hero worship? Isn't that pretty much what sports is?
moondog80 said:
We both know that's a silly technicality.
Red(s)HawksFan said:
It's only silly because it doesn't fit your narrative. Boggs and the Sox apparently don't have much of a relationship, which despite his qualifications puts him down on the priority list to be "honored" by the team.
Why does any team have a responsibility to retire a player's number?moondog80 said:
No, it's silly because the point -- obviously -- is that the responsibility to retire Boggs' number rests on the Red Sox' shoulders. Just because the Rays embarrassed themselves, that doesn't absolve the Red Sox, regardless of whether or not Boggs kisses Larry Lucchino's ring.
Papelbon's Poutine said:Why does any team have a responsibility to retire a players number?
moondog80 said:
To the degree that such a concept exists Red Sox "own" Boggs' historical rights. Nolan Ryan can be shared by the Angels and Astros and Rangers, Frank Robinson by the O's and Reds, but the Red Sox obviously dominate the narrative of Boggs' career. Thus, the decision to honor him (or not) rests with the Red Sox.
The game was to find a modern HOFer whose number was not retired; I felt that Boggs' number being retired by the Rays evades the spirit of the question and should not be considered. RedHawk disagreed.
Red(s)HawksFan said:
"evades the spirit" = "doesn't fit the narrative"
This post is full of win.Lose Remerswaal said:Wade Boggs' #26 will get retired.
FOR BROCK HOLT
I understand why you think if anyone should do it, it should be the Red Sox. That's not my question. My question is why the team has a "responsibility" to bestow an honor on any player.moondog80 said:
To the degree that such a concept exists Red Sox "own" Boggs' historical rights. Nolan Ryan can be shared by the Angels and Astros and Rangers, Frank Robinson by the O's and Reds, but the Red Sox obviously dominate the narrative of Boggs' career. Thus, the decision to honor him (or not) rests with the Red Sox.
Papelbon's Poutine said:I understand why you think if anyone should do it, it should be the Red Sox. That's not my question. My question is why the team has a "responsibility" to bestow an honor on any player.
Because they don't. You may want to argue that he deserves it and that's a perfectly reasonable debate, but it's not owed to him, whether he's a HoFer or not. Part of retiring a number is acknowledging the connection the player had with the franchise, the fans and contributions to iconic moments in the history of the team. Boggs had none of those, was generally considered a prick and has shown no inclination to mend any fences. (Christ, Clemens even has done that much and his departure and Yankees tenure was a tad more acrimonious on both ends.)
Boggs has no connection to these owners or front office. The majority of fans don't give a shit because he's wasn't beloved. And he's seemingly done nothing on either of those fronts to improve the situation. You call it 'kissing the ring', but I think 'not perpetuating your reputation of being a prick' is more accurate.
moondog80 said:We agree, they have the responsibility to decide upon the honor, not necessarily to bestow it.
You can make all the excuses you want about connections to the front office (what, specifically, should Boggs do?), but the fact remains that Boggs' number not being retired by the Red Sox is an outlier of 56-game-hitting-streak proportions. What is the most similar case? In any sport?
moondog80 said:
We agree, they have the responsibility to decide upon the honor, not necessarily to bestow it.
You can make all the excuses you want about connections to the front office (what, specifically, should Boggs do?), but the fact remains that Boggs' number not being retired by the Red Sox is an outlier of 56-game-hitting-streak proportions. What is the most similar case? In any sport?
moondog80 said:What is the most similar case? In any sport?
If there are only 139 retired numbers in the NFL, that means a lot of teams simply don't do it altogether -- they instead do a ring of honor or some such thing. Which makes sense, since NFL teams are so big and there are only so many numbers to go around. So I think it's reasonable to restrict to situations where teams fail to retire the number of just one particular player.Papelbon's Poutine said:Red(s)HawkFan covered the Boggs portion but to this:
The Google machine and some quick math tells me that there are 252 players inducted into the NFL HoF (295 total, 43 of which are coaches, owners or contributors). 139 numbers have been retired across the NFL (which includes stupid shit like the Seahawks #12 and any retired for a coach or owner, I didn't bother to go through the list). So, 113 players. Even without looking at NBA or NHL, I'd say it's not as egregious as you're making it.
moondog80 said:If there are only 139 retired numbers in the NFL, that means a lot of teams simply don't do it altogether -- they instead do a ring of honor or some such thing. Which makes sense, since NFL teams are so big and there are only so many numbers to go around. So I think it's reasonable to restrict to situations where teams fail to retire the number of just one particular player.
So you really think teams that don't retire numbers altogether gets at the spirit of my question, of teams that notably pass over one player?Papelbon's Poutine said:
You asked for an example of a HoFer not having his number retired "in any other sport". I gave you 113+ of them. But please, don't let that interrupt you. Please continue to tell us about Wade Boggs' persecution at the hand of the evil Lord Lucchino.
Do we know that he's been invited? For his part, I can find articles where he says it would be an honor for his number to be retired, with the Red Sox only commenting that they have a policy, which apparently applies only to Wade Boggs.Red(s)HawksFan said:
How about attending games once in a while and hanging out in the Legends' suite? Not a huge commitment, a few games a year maybe. If Evans and Petrocelli and Lonborg and Lynn and Lee and Eck and Rice and Fisk can do it, why can't Boggs?
He lives in Florida, does he ever make appearances at Jetblue Park? Spend a day or two (or more) instructing at camp like Evans and Rice and Tek and Wake and Pedro do.
They might be small gestures, but they can't hurt. As I said, it's all a popularity contest. You have to shake hands and kiss babies sometimes.
moondog80 said:Do we know that he's been invited? For his part, I can find articles where he says it would be an honor for his number to be retired, with the Red Sox only commenting that they have a policy, which apparently applies only to Wade Boggs.
lexrageorge said:Nate Archibald is in the NBA Hall of Fame. One of his Celtics teams won a championship. His #7 is not retired by the Celtics, a franchise that has retired 22 numbers in a period far shorter than the Red Sox existence, and will probably add at least one more (#34) in a few years.
Retired numbers are arbitrary. It's an honor bestowed by a team, not the HoF, and if the team wants to use fan popularity as a criterion, they are free to do that. Boggs was a self absorbed jerk when he left town, and got himself involved in a scandal or three while he was here. Which means the onus was on him to work to mend fences with the team if he really wanted his number retired. Boggs has been in the Red Sox Hall of Fame for 11 years now, so it's not like he's been completely forgotten or discarded by the current owners.
Bigpupp said:If Boggs didn't want to have anything to do with the Red Sox after he left, then why should the Red Sox want to have anything to do with Boggs?
When he picked a TB hat for the HoFmoondog80 said:
When did Boggs indicate such a stance?
Would that include any mention of MARGO?RedOctober3829 said:Miller Lite owns Boggs' historical rights. Maybe he'll get a case of beer named after him.
Serious question, how old are you? Because it might explain the disconnect on the first bolded. Thats not trying be condescending, that's a legit question because of you were of a certain age, you might not have been aware of the experience that was Ware Boggs in its totality.moondog80 said:
Nate Archibald played less than half of his career with the Celtics, and while he was still a good player, it was all post-peak. If he's the best you can come up with, that supports my argument that Boggs has no peer in being denied a retired number.
Why was Boggs a self-absorbed jerk? Because he was aware of his stats? Did he ever interrupt a press conference out of anger that one of his hit was changed to a base on an error (or whatever it was that Ortiz was pissed about)? Or was it because his marital infidelity hit the papers (just like Ortiz, Varitek, Francona, etc.)? If the media understood how good he was while he was here, or if the current admin did something one in a while to let the current fans know how good he was, he'd be plenty appreciated around here.
Bigpupp said:When he picked a TB hat for the HoF
Absolutely, but even if you assume it's only a rumor then where does the rumor start and why has it why become repeated for so long? If he had a great relationship with the Sox then it never gets started to begin with.moondog80 said:
His plaque has a Sox cap. You're referring to a rumor that has never been confirmed.