Surprised this hasn't been brought up on here yet.
What do you guys think of it?
Is it appropriate? Should it be allowed?
Do you support it?
Printable View
Surprised this hasn't been brought up on here yet.
What do you guys think of it?
Is it appropriate? Should it be allowed?
Do you support it?
He said Omar Vizquel could wear his number, so I'm not sure why anyone would be against it.
I know the White Sox are bush league morans, but this is ridiculous. Does anyone in that organization know what the word RETIRED means?
There have been quite a few people against it apparently.
I am more or less surprised by it. I think it's a feel good story, and a positive thing....but it's a retired number...shouldn't it remain that way?
I guess. I see it as a number and nothing more. Not a big deal to me, but I guess some people see it differently.
/shrug
Well it just reflects poorly on the organization I think. It would bother me if some yahoo insisted on wearing 6 once they got to the Tigers, and even more so if they gave it to them.
when I first read the headline I thought is was bad; but once I hear Aparecio was cool with it, it seems no big deal
This is more how I see it.Quote:
Originally Posted by haveacigar
I don't think you should even ask, not sure if Omar asked ever just saying. It's not like A-Rod should have gotten to keep number 3 in New York, or that Griffey should have gotten to keep 24 in Cincy.
I also think it reflects poorly on an organization when they retire a number of a guy who didn't do anything....cough cough Rickey Henderson in San Diego cough cough.
I understand the relationship of Vizquel and Aparacio, but it just seems like a poor choice to me.
I still don't know what I think about it overall.....it seems like it takes away from Louis IMO.
I said no, but that was before I'd read the story. If Vizquel is doing it to honour Aparicio, and he agrees, then I think that it is fine. In general, I don't think teams should retire as many numbers as they do, and if a number is retired, the team doesn't backtrack on that.
I could make a list of numbers that are retired by organizations that I don't think should be....seems like organizations like to hang on and shout out that they had a specific player
Where's the "I don't care" option?
fixed.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
not an option ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
But doesn't "retired" mean that Luis shouldn't even be put in the position of having to say whether or not he's cool with it?Quote:
Originally Posted by gRYFYN1
Im fine with it if he is. Dont do it with dead ballplayers though, like when Wells asked for Ruth's number.
It is a number. I don't care. And Luis is happy with it. So yeah...
we have a perfectly even split right now
Well, Kenny said he voted before he read and would have changed his vote, so not quite ;)
I lean toward "yes". While I do think that a number should remain retired once a team retires it, since Aparicio supports it, Vizquel is a potential Hall of Famer, and they share a mutual respect for one another I'm fine with it. If it was some random rookie player who insisted on the number or something like that, I'd likely be against it, and I imagine Aparicio would be as well.
If by "should it be allowed?" you mean should MLB have a rule against "unretiring" a number, then I say there definately shouldn't be such a rule. Each team makes its own decision about what numbers to retire*; if they change their mind, it would normally be kind of tacky and disrespectful (though in a case like this, where Aparicio is cool with it, it's a little bit different), but there shouldn't be any rule against it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
*Except that there's one number that's retired thoughout major league baseball. ;)
When a number is retired, whose number is it? If it is the players (alive ones) number, then they should have a say. If it is the teams, then this is stupid on Chicago's part. Does this make sense to anybody else?
I find the fact that Aparicio signed off on it to be more or less irrelevant here.
I mean, it's nice that they asked him and he agreed. They'd be really douchey if they didn't ask Aparicio.
I just think that if you're going to unretire a number to accommodate a guy who is coming there at the very end of his career, after he had a hall of fame career elsewhere, it diminishes the idea of retiring numbers in general. If that's the way you want it to be, fine, don't retire the number, just honor it but still give it out.
Very well put. It isn't like Omar will go down as a White Sox great or anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by haveacigar
When I first saw this story break this afternoon, the only thing I could think was how did the conversation even come up? And how did management think this would blow over?
Generally, in management, you move forward on a decision when you are very confident in the ripple effect it will create. I don't believe that everyone in the front office was comfortable with this when it was decided upon. In my humble experience, you don't do it, regardless if Aparacio agrees, simply because you don't do something unless you are positive it is a good, sound choice.
In some aspects, it's the players number, and in some other aspects, it's the team. Either way, the team can do whatever they want, so long as they have the players consent. If Omar was actually Aparacio's blood son, then it would be pretty cool for example. But this sort of just seems 'cheap' to me. It is supposed to be worn in tribute all year long....but still.
Has anyone else considered that maybe it was Aparacio's idea? He could have been excited that Omar was coming, and told the White Sox he could use the number maybe? Just a thoughtQuote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
Very possible.
Reminds me when Bruce wanted too wear number #80 in SF. Rice said he was Ok with it, but SF still said no. That was the right move.A number is retired it shouldn't be worn.