In that NY Post quote above after the OP: with his "with this honor comes great responsibility to represent this franchise...". Really, any more than any other player because he gets to wear a number from a century ago, cause the owner and the family want publicity for great grandparent and historical figure in the teams 100th season?
How is this situation any different from previous players or next year's picks requesting retired numbers? Is there something special about Nabers, or will T his now become common occurrence?
If the player who is unretiring the number is OK with it...
for someone who hasn't done shit in the NFL yet. Especially for a loser franchise that has been scraping the bottom of the barrel for over a decade. Maybe start winning and then you can have the balls to ask people to unretire their number.
The Giants unretired a number for a player that has not played a down of professional football. Hopefully Nabers lives up to all the hype and has a long and successful career. The Giants should just unretire all the numbers and not retire any going forward. A really poor decision by the Giants imo
on an unrelated note (Flaherty not on that team), Larry has an outstanding article coming out on the 1926 Giants. I never knew how touch and go football in New York was until I read it. Should be out this weekend or early next week.
Another thing to keep in mind is that this is not just some minor/dustbin Giants story. The dude was the 1st person in NFL history to have his number retired. Lo and behold his jersey number was also the #1.
The New York Football Giants drafted a receiver, not a QB with their 1st pick. That has been and will continue to be scrutinized. They have just given that unretired number to their 1st pick. An unproven rookie, With a QB who many do not have faith in (Giants fans or otherwise).. It is and will be a national story.
I guess I need to remove it from this, right? https://www.bigblueinteractive.com/information-pages/new-york-giants-retired-jersey-numbers/ - ( New Window )
No, I think it should stay. A notation needs to be made, but the #1 has significance in Giants history. They used to give it to the players who they thought deserved the attention. In 1925 it was worn by Hinkie Haines.
From 1926-1928 it was worn my Jack McBride (who is one of my "he belongs in Canton" guys)
From 1928-1931 it was worn by Benny Friedman, the revolutionary passer who was the second most famous football name after Red Grange.
Ray Flaherty was given the #1 in 1932. Flaherty, aside from being a fantastic end, was also a respected team leader, was named captain and became Steve Owen's first assistant coach.
The #1 was un-retired for two seasons in 1946-1947 for tackle Frank Cope, another of Steve Owen's favorites. Cope was also the team captain.
I guess I need to remove it from this, right? https://www.bigblueinteractive.com/information-pages/new-york-giants-retired-jersey-numbers/ - ( New Window )
No, I think it should stay. A notation needs to be made, but the #1 has significance in Giants history. They used to give it to the players who they thought deserved the attention. In 1925 it was worn by Hinkie Haines.
From 1926-1928 it was worn my Jack McBride (who is one of my "he belongs in Canton" guys)
From 1928-1931 it was worn by Benny Friedman, the revolutionary passer who was the second most famous football name after Red Grange.
Ray Flaherty was given the #1 in 1932. Flaherty, aside from being a fantastic end, was also a respected team leader, was named captain and became Steve Owen's first assistant coach.
The #1 was un-retired for two seasons in 1946-1947 for tackle Frank Cope, another of Steve Owen's favorites. Cope was also the team captain.
Now this is incredible context. I wonder why they got away from this practice. It's a great system.
I guess I need to remove it from this, right? https://www.bigblueinteractive.com/information-pages/new-york-giants-retired-jersey-numbers/ - ( New Window )
No, I think it should stay. A notation needs to be made, but the #1 has significance in Giants history. They used to give it to the players who they thought deserved the attention. In 1925 it was worn by Hinkie Haines.
From 1926-1928 it was worn my Jack McBride (who is one of my "he belongs in Canton" guys)
From 1928-1931 it was worn by Benny Friedman, the revolutionary passer who was the second most famous football name after Red Grange.
Ray Flaherty was given the #1 in 1932. Flaherty, aside from being a fantastic end, was also a respected team leader, was named captain and became Steve Owen's first assistant coach.
The #1 was un-retired for two seasons in 1946-1947 for tackle Frank Cope, another of Steve Owen's favorites. Cope was also the team captain.
Now this is incredible context. I wonder why they got away from this practice. It's a great system.
The main reason they got away from it was there was no numbering-by-position system until 1952. Any player could wear any number prior to that year.
The AAFC in 1946 was the first league to institute a numbering system - for instance, Otto Graham was a QB who wore the #60. The system the NFL adopted in 1952 was more akin to the modern one we are familiar with today.
By the way, with Nabers wearing #1 and Burns wearing #0
Perhaps... just perhaps... Ray Flaherty would mind and his family who have passed.
Also, if the owner of the franchise calls your grand children, what do you expect their response to be?
When you erode what was supposed to be an eternal honor, doesn't the honor lose its meaning?
If you do this, do it with everyone and just use the Ring of Honor.
Anything else is half-assing it and disrespectful.
Eric, I don't think retiring numbers in the NFL to be a good idea in the first place. That said, I find Mara even entertaining unretiring a number disrespectful to the player and all the fans of this team.
This team and this league was built upon the shoulders of players like Ray Flaherty and the fans who watched him play. Mara had a team to inherit because of these players and the fans who watched him play.
In making this choice he has spat on the history of this team, he has spat on the memory of this player and he has spat on the fans of this team.
Most people who are fans of this are fans because of memories and lifetime connection to this team. They are fans because their fathers and grandfathers were fans of this team. He has disrespected that legacy in this decision. He has stated loud and clear that he does not care about the rich history of the team. He does not care about the fans that made his team successful. He only cares about the next buck he can make.
I am disappointed and disgusted by this decision. I am really struggling right now with even supporting this team anymore when the fans care more than the owner. What happens next? When they get some hotshot rookie QB who wants 11, or a pass rusher who wants 56.
When your honors have no meaning anymore, neither does your history. If that history has no meaning, there is no more emotional connection for your fans. When there is no emotional connection, you are simply entertainment. Frankly this team hasn't been entertaining in a long time. So what reason do we have to care anymore?
I know plenty of people who have retired and then later on, got another job and retired from that job, too. If a man can retire twice, so can a number.
Michael Strahan is a retired Giant, but he's still working. He'll retire from that as well (with a whole lot more money).
In 1935 the roster limit was only 24 players. Times change.
I bet 99% of BBIers didn't know who wore #1 a day ago, let alone when he played. If retiring numbers is meant to honor the past I don't think it's working.
I think they should retire a number for 50 years, and then reintroduce it and honor that player again. That way the players of the past are introduced to the current fan base. And a current player can be recognized by getting the number.
Unlike some, I don't blame Nabors for asking. I think we all know he's a brash, arrogant kid who probably hasn't heard "no" a lot in his life. I also don't think the family agreeing carries a lot of weight when they were put under the pressure of being asked. For me, the responsibility lies solely in the organization. Retiring a jersey is a promise that a players legacy will never die and that promise was made by the New York Giants. Retiring Ray Flaherty's number was such a huge honor it was a practice adopted by the NFL at large and is something we still do to this day. If we're going to argue the fear of a number shortage go to three digits. It makes more sense than adding zero which was just stupid.
To anyone saying it's been 90 years and we have to move on, I ask this question: Are you comfortable walking up to one of the Giants living legends and telling them to their face that their legacy only matters as long as there are people alive who saw them play? I can't help but think this is a huge slap in the face to everyone whose numbers have been retired who now know it could just be temporary.
Had the Giants organization given this just a little more thought there are ways they could've improved the optics if they were determined to move forward. The jersey should have some sort of acknowledgment that it's Ray Flaherty's retired number and his family should get all of the player proceeds from jersey sales.
Although in my opinion, there is no consideration that could be given that makes this okay. To me it's a broken promise and an indulgence offered to a player who hasn't played a single game in the NFL yet. I don't like that no one is saying no to this kid. Maybe John Mara should gave him his parking spot too. I'd hate to see him stub a toe on the way into the stadium.
maybe put a time limit on how long the number is retired?
say 50 years? So the player and their family can be honored, but after 50 years an entire generation of fans have come and gone and not many people remember the player, it can be reissued.
I think another good idea, is the player has to wear a patch honoring the previous owner. I think the NFL would get behind this. Similar to the Walter Payton patch.
Unlike some, I don't blame Nabors for asking. I think we all know he's a brash, arrogant kid who probably hasn't heard "no" a lot in his life. I also don't think the family agreeing carries a lot of weight when they were put under the pressure of being asked. For me, the responsibility lies solely in the organization. Retiring a jersey is a promise that a players legacy will never die and that promise was made by the New York Giants. Retiring Ray Flaherty's number was such a huge honor it was a practice adopted by the NFL at large and is something we still do to this day. If we're going to argue the fear of a number shortage go to three digits. It makes more sense than adding zero which was just stupid.
To anyone saying it's been 90 years and we have to move on, I ask this question: Are you comfortable walking up to one of the Giants living legends and telling them to their face that their legacy only matters as long as there are people alive who saw them play? I can't help but think this is a huge slap in the face to everyone whose numbers have been retired who now know it could just be temporary.
Had the Giants organization given this just a little more thought there are ways they could've improved the optics if they were determined to move forward. The jersey should have some sort of acknowledgment that it's Ray Flaherty's retired number and his family should get all of the player proceeds from jersey sales.
Although in my opinion, there is no consideration that could be given that makes this okay. To me it's a broken promise and an indulgence offered to a player who hasn't played a single game in the NFL yet. I don't like that no one is saying no to this kid. Maybe John Mara should gave him his parking spot too. I'd hate to see him stub a toe on the way into the stadium.
I agree and also hold no ill will towards Nabers. He has no connection to the team's history. Mara does and is the direct beneficiary of that history.
in triple digits, a lot of teams are going to have to think about unretiring numbers. With 53 roster players and 12 PS, that leaves 35 numbers left. That’s not a lot for teams that have been around for 100 years.
What honors the player, his legacy, and the family more:
1) Moth balling the number and virtually no one ever thinking about that player again
2) Taking the number out of rotation out of respect for the player, and then reintroducing the number and the player to a future generation
Maybe the Yankees should let Judge wear #3 or #4 then. How do you think that would go over with the Yankees fans? Should be no different here.
Baseball has fewer number limits, so the embargo period could be longer.
Imagine if at 100 years the Yankees had a policy they could reintroduce #4 in 2039, and they had a huge ceremony honoring Gehrig. And if there was that generation's Jeter or Judge, they presented him with that number and he wore an LG patch for the remainder of his career.
What honors the player, his legacy, and the family more:
1) Moth balling the number and virtually no one ever thinking about that player again
2) Taking the number out of rotation out of respect for the player, and then reintroducing the number and the player to a future generation
Maybe the Yankees should let Judge wear #3 or #4 then. How do you think that would go over with the Yankees fans? Should be no different here.
The way the Yankees retire numbers they may have to at some point. There's several I would un-retire before Ruth or Gehrig, of course, but I see no harm in it.
RE: RE: I know... old man here who says get off my lawn
in triple digits, a lot of teams are going to have to think about unretiring numbers. With 53 roster players and 12 PS, that leaves 35 numbers left. That’s not a lot for teams that have been around for 100 years.
If the Flaherty family is OK with it, so am I.
if the family question were a spouse or a players children, I would agree. Sitting here right now I can't tell you my great grandparents names let alone how they would feel about anything. To me that makes a difference.
By your play on the field and how you conduct yourself.
If you have a great first 4 years then you have earned the privilege to wear that jersey. And do so as long as you produce.
So if a player ever plays as well as LT then after 4 years let him wear 56. He has earned it.
This way a number means a high level of play.
Wont be popular here but the cowboys do this with certain numbers, such as Irvin's number. Not retired, used as an honor.
Cee Dee Lamb wore 88 his rookie year
Yeah, but for a reason. Wasnt just a random circulation.
CeeDee wore number 2 for the Sooners. Once drafted by the Cowboys we learned the story about Jerry’s high school buddy, Jerry Lamb. One he played football with who recently passed.
Jerry wanted CeeDee to honor him by wearing his number 88. Originally, Lamb wanted to wear the number 10, but that wasn’t in the cards. At least, not according to Dallas owner Jerry Jones.
I don't like that no one is saying no to this kid. Maybe John Mara should gave him his parking spot too. I'd hate to see him stub a toe on the way into the stadium.
Honestly, seems like its getting a little personal with you.
What honors the player, his legacy, and the family more:
1) Moth balling the number and virtually no one ever thinking about that player again
2) Taking the number out of rotation out of respect for the player, and then reintroducing the number and the player to a future generation
Maybe the Yankees should let Judge wear #3 or #4 then. How do you think that would go over with the Yankees fans? Should be no different here.
This is why I wanted to discern the reasoning behind retiring #1
#4 was retired by the Yankees to honor Gehrig because of his battle with ALS. It was retiring #3 for Ruth because of his sheer greatness that changed the reasoning behind number retirement going forward.
In 1935 did the Giants hold a ceremony? Or was it simply removed from the rotation, kind of like how the Yankees have handled the "captain" designation, and wasn't really meant to be retired?
RE: I know... old man here who says get off my lawn
#4 was retired by the Yankees to honor Gehrig because of his battle with ALS. It was retiring #3 for Ruth because of his sheer greatness that changed the reasoning behind number retirement going forward.
Which was later revised to include: being a contributing member of a dynasty (20, 21, 46, 51), having one great season (9), Yankee lifer (10), trying to keep a drunk happy so he'll manage you for a 5th time (1), feeling guilty about treating someone like shit (44).
You won't find a bigger Don Mattingly fan than I am, but they could very easily unretire 23 as well. Along with 49, Guidry's resume isn't that of an all-time great.
There's a way to honor each of those players without taking their number out of circulation forever.
Unlike some, I don't blame Nabors for asking. I think we all know he's a brash, arrogant kid who probably hasn't heard "no" a lot in his life. I also don't think the family agreeing carries a lot of weight when they were put under the pressure of being asked. For me, the responsibility lies solely in the organization. Retiring a jersey is a promise that a players legacy will never die and that promise was made by the New York Giants. Retiring Ray Flaherty's number was such a huge honor it was a practice adopted by the NFL at large and is something we still do to this day. If we're going to argue the fear of a number shortage go to three digits. It makes more sense than adding zero which was just stupid.
To anyone saying it's been 90 years and we have to move on, I ask this question: Are you comfortable walking up to one of the Giants living legends and telling them to their face that their legacy only matters as long as there are people alive who saw them play? I can't help but think this is a huge slap in the face to everyone whose numbers have been retired who now know it could just be temporary.
Had the Giants organization given this just a little more thought there are ways they could've improved the optics if they were determined to move forward. The jersey should have some sort of acknowledgment that it's Ray Flaherty's retired number and his family should get all of the player proceeds from jersey sales.
Although in my opinion, there is no consideration that could be given that makes this okay. To me it's a broken promise and an indulgence offered to a player who hasn't played a single game in the NFL yet. I don't like that no one is saying no to this kid. Maybe John Mara should gave him his parking spot too. I'd hate to see him stub a toe on the way into the stadium.
anecdotally, and not holding my own thoughts in any higher regard than anyone else's...
I've been a huge giants fan for the better part of 41 years, but have never taken a lot of interest in knowing anything about the NFL in the black-and-white-TV days. (I acknowledge I may be different from many in that regard.)
I have heard the name Ray Flaherty a bunch, but had to google this morning to learn anything specific about him.
I can't say this bothers me in the least.
More generally - It will be interesting to see how sports deals with the "well, there are only 100 numbers to work with" issue as more decades pass us by.
One year after the player's death. Team chooses when it goes to another player so it may still be many years before it is worn again. I would always keep Al Blozis number retired.
I don't like that no one is saying no to this kid. Maybe John Mara should gave him his parking spot too. I'd hate to see him stub a toe on the way into the stadium.
Honestly, seems like its getting a little personal with you.
lol maybe, I just don't like it when the lunatics are allowed to run the asylum
#4 was retired by the Yankees to honor Gehrig because of his battle with ALS. It was retiring #3 for Ruth because of his sheer greatness that changed the reasoning behind number retirement going forward.
Which was later revised to include: being a contributing member of a dynasty (20, 21, 46, 51), having one great season (9), Yankee lifer (10), trying to keep a drunk happy so he'll manage you for a 5th time (1), feeling guilty about treating someone like shit (44).
You won't find a bigger Don Mattingly fan than I am, but they could very easily unretire 23 as well. Along with 49, Guidry's resume isn't that of an all-time great.
There's a way to honor each of those players without taking their number out of circulation forever.
Well the Yankees have started doing plaques in MP without retiring the players number
Perhaps... just perhaps... Ray Flaherty would mind and his family who have passed.
Also, if the owner of the franchise calls your grand children, what do you expect their response to be?
When you erode what was supposed to be an eternal honor, doesn't the honor lose its meaning?
If you do this, do it with everyone and just use the Ring of Honor.
Anything else is half-assing it and disrespectful.
We dont have to manufacture a scenario where they felt obligated to say yes just to make it look bad. We have no idea how they felt about it but they are the deciders and putting feelings in their mouths for them is also disrespectful.
How is this situation any different from previous players or next year's picks requesting retired numbers? Is there something special about Nabers, or will T his now become common occurrence?
Quote:
Larry's articles:
1929
1930
1933
1934
Outstanding, thanks
I just realized I should not have included 1930. Strike that. He wasn't on that team. He came back to the Giants after 1930.
The New York Football Giants drafted a receiver, not a QB with their 1st pick. That has been and will continue to be scrutinized. They have just given that unretired number to their 1st pick. An unproven rookie, With a QB who many do not have faith in (Giants fans or otherwise).. It is and will be a national story.
No, I think it should stay. A notation needs to be made, but the #1 has significance in Giants history. They used to give it to the players who they thought deserved the attention. In 1925 it was worn by Hinkie Haines.
From 1926-1928 it was worn my Jack McBride (who is one of my "he belongs in Canton" guys)
From 1928-1931 it was worn by Benny Friedman, the revolutionary passer who was the second most famous football name after Red Grange.
Ray Flaherty was given the #1 in 1932. Flaherty, aside from being a fantastic end, was also a respected team leader, was named captain and became Steve Owen's first assistant coach.
The #1 was un-retired for two seasons in 1946-1947 for tackle Frank Cope, another of Steve Owen's favorites. Cope was also the team captain.
Quote:
I guess I need to remove it from this, right? https://www.bigblueinteractive.com/information-pages/new-york-giants-retired-jersey-numbers/ - ( New Window )
No, I think it should stay. A notation needs to be made, but the #1 has significance in Giants history. They used to give it to the players who they thought deserved the attention. In 1925 it was worn by Hinkie Haines.
From 1926-1928 it was worn my Jack McBride (who is one of my "he belongs in Canton" guys)
From 1928-1931 it was worn by Benny Friedman, the revolutionary passer who was the second most famous football name after Red Grange.
Ray Flaherty was given the #1 in 1932. Flaherty, aside from being a fantastic end, was also a respected team leader, was named captain and became Steve Owen's first assistant coach.
The #1 was un-retired for two seasons in 1946-1947 for tackle Frank Cope, another of Steve Owen's favorites. Cope was also the team captain.
Now this is incredible context. I wonder why they got away from this practice. It's a great system.
Quote:
In comment 16590061 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
I guess I need to remove it from this, right? https://www.bigblueinteractive.com/information-pages/new-york-giants-retired-jersey-numbers/ - ( New Window )
No, I think it should stay. A notation needs to be made, but the #1 has significance in Giants history. They used to give it to the players who they thought deserved the attention. In 1925 it was worn by Hinkie Haines.
From 1926-1928 it was worn my Jack McBride (who is one of my "he belongs in Canton" guys)
From 1928-1931 it was worn by Benny Friedman, the revolutionary passer who was the second most famous football name after Red Grange.
Ray Flaherty was given the #1 in 1932. Flaherty, aside from being a fantastic end, was also a respected team leader, was named captain and became Steve Owen's first assistant coach.
The #1 was un-retired for two seasons in 1946-1947 for tackle Frank Cope, another of Steve Owen's favorites. Cope was also the team captain.
Now this is incredible context. I wonder why they got away from this practice. It's a great system.
The main reason they got away from it was there was no numbering-by-position system until 1952. Any player could wear any number prior to that year.
The AAFC in 1946 was the first league to institute a numbering system - for instance, Otto Graham was a QB who wore the #60. The system the NFL adopted in 1952 was more akin to the modern one we are familiar with today.
The last Giants to do so were Willis Smith wearing #0 and Flaherty the #1 in 1934.
Smith was the last Giant to wear #0 until Parris Campbell last year.
Also, if the owner of the franchise calls your grand children, what do you expect their response to be?
When you erode what was supposed to be an eternal honor, doesn't the honor lose its meaning?
If you do this, do it with everyone and just use the Ring of Honor.
Anything else is half-assing it and disrespectful.
Eric, I don't think retiring numbers in the NFL to be a good idea in the first place. That said, I find Mara even entertaining unretiring a number disrespectful to the player and all the fans of this team.
This team and this league was built upon the shoulders of players like Ray Flaherty and the fans who watched him play. Mara had a team to inherit because of these players and the fans who watched him play.
In making this choice he has spat on the history of this team, he has spat on the memory of this player and he has spat on the fans of this team.
Most people who are fans of this are fans because of memories and lifetime connection to this team. They are fans because their fathers and grandfathers were fans of this team. He has disrespected that legacy in this decision. He has stated loud and clear that he does not care about the rich history of the team. He does not care about the fans that made his team successful. He only cares about the next buck he can make.
I am disappointed and disgusted by this decision. I am really struggling right now with even supporting this team anymore when the fans care more than the owner. What happens next? When they get some hotshot rookie QB who wants 11, or a pass rusher who wants 56.
When your honors have no meaning anymore, neither does your history. If that history has no meaning, there is no more emotional connection for your fans. When there is no emotional connection, you are simply entertainment. Frankly this team hasn't been entertaining in a long time. So what reason do we have to care anymore?
Quote:
By your play on the field and how you conduct yourself.
If you have a great first 4 years then you have earned the privilege to wear that jersey. And do so as long as you produce.
So if a player ever plays as well as LT then after 4 years let him wear 56. He has earned it.
This way a number means a high level of play.
Wont be popular here but the cowboys do this with certain numbers, such as Irvin's number. Not retired, used as an honor.
Cee Dee Lamb wore 88 his rookie year
Michael Strahan is a retired Giant, but he's still working. He'll retire from that as well (with a whole lot more money).
In 1935 the roster limit was only 24 players. Times change.
I think they should retire a number for 50 years, and then reintroduce it and honor that player again. That way the players of the past are introduced to the current fan base. And a current player can be recognized by getting the number.
To anyone saying it's been 90 years and we have to move on, I ask this question: Are you comfortable walking up to one of the Giants living legends and telling them to their face that their legacy only matters as long as there are people alive who saw them play? I can't help but think this is a huge slap in the face to everyone whose numbers have been retired who now know it could just be temporary.
Had the Giants organization given this just a little more thought there are ways they could've improved the optics if they were determined to move forward. The jersey should have some sort of acknowledgment that it's Ray Flaherty's retired number and his family should get all of the player proceeds from jersey sales.
Although in my opinion, there is no consideration that could be given that makes this okay. To me it's a broken promise and an indulgence offered to a player who hasn't played a single game in the NFL yet. I don't like that no one is saying no to this kid. Maybe John Mara should gave him his parking spot too. I'd hate to see him stub a toe on the way into the stadium.
I think another good idea, is the player has to wear a patch honoring the previous owner. I think the NFL would get behind this. Similar to the Walter Payton patch.
To anyone saying it's been 90 years and we have to move on, I ask this question: Are you comfortable walking up to one of the Giants living legends and telling them to their face that their legacy only matters as long as there are people alive who saw them play? I can't help but think this is a huge slap in the face to everyone whose numbers have been retired who now know it could just be temporary.
Had the Giants organization given this just a little more thought there are ways they could've improved the optics if they were determined to move forward. The jersey should have some sort of acknowledgment that it's Ray Flaherty's retired number and his family should get all of the player proceeds from jersey sales.
Although in my opinion, there is no consideration that could be given that makes this okay. To me it's a broken promise and an indulgence offered to a player who hasn't played a single game in the NFL yet. I don't like that no one is saying no to this kid. Maybe John Mara should gave him his parking spot too. I'd hate to see him stub a toe on the way into the stadium.
If the Flaherty family is OK with it, so am I.
1) Moth balling the number and virtually no one ever thinking about that player again
2) Taking the number out of rotation out of respect for the player, and then reintroducing the number and the player to a future generation
1) Moth balling the number and virtually no one ever thinking about that player again
2) Taking the number out of rotation out of respect for the player, and then reintroducing the number and the player to a future generation
1) Moth balling the number and virtually no one ever thinking about that player again
2) Taking the number out of rotation out of respect for the player, and then reintroducing the number and the player to a future generation
Maybe the Yankees should let Judge wear #3 or #4 then. How do you think that would go over with the Yankees fans? Should be no different here.
Baseball has fewer number limits, so the embargo period could be longer.
Imagine if at 100 years the Yankees had a policy they could reintroduce #4 in 2039, and they had a huge ceremony honoring Gehrig. And if there was that generation's Jeter or Judge, they presented him with that number and he wore an LG patch for the remainder of his career.
That would be absolutely awesome.
Quote:
What honors the player, his legacy, and the family more:
1) Moth balling the number and virtually no one ever thinking about that player again
2) Taking the number out of rotation out of respect for the player, and then reintroducing the number and the player to a future generation
Maybe the Yankees should let Judge wear #3 or #4 then. How do you think that would go over with the Yankees fans? Should be no different here.
The way the Yankees retire numbers they may have to at some point. There's several I would un-retire before Ruth or Gehrig, of course, but I see no harm in it.
Quote:
but not crazy about unretiring numbers unless you do them all.
Awesome, the first thing I thought of.
If the Flaherty family is OK with it, so am I.
if the family question were a spouse or a players children, I would agree. Sitting here right now I can't tell you my great grandparents names let alone how they would feel about anything. To me that makes a difference.
Quote:
In comment 16590316 kelly said:
Quote:
By your play on the field and how you conduct yourself.
If you have a great first 4 years then you have earned the privilege to wear that jersey. And do so as long as you produce.
So if a player ever plays as well as LT then after 4 years let him wear 56. He has earned it.
This way a number means a high level of play.
Wont be popular here but the cowboys do this with certain numbers, such as Irvin's number. Not retired, used as an honor.
Cee Dee Lamb wore 88 his rookie year
Yeah, but for a reason. Wasnt just a random circulation.
CeeDee wore number 2 for the Sooners. Once drafted by the Cowboys we learned the story about Jerry’s high school buddy, Jerry Lamb. One he played football with who recently passed.
Jerry wanted CeeDee to honor him by wearing his number 88. Originally, Lamb wanted to wear the number 10, but that wasn’t in the cards. At least, not according to Dallas owner Jerry Jones.
I don't like that no one is saying no to this kid. Maybe John Mara should gave him his parking spot too. I'd hate to see him stub a toe on the way into the stadium.
Honestly, seems like its getting a little personal with you.
Quote:
What honors the player, his legacy, and the family more:
1) Moth balling the number and virtually no one ever thinking about that player again
2) Taking the number out of rotation out of respect for the player, and then reintroducing the number and the player to a future generation
Maybe the Yankees should let Judge wear #3 or #4 then. How do you think that would go over with the Yankees fans? Should be no different here.
This is why I wanted to discern the reasoning behind retiring #1
#4 was retired by the Yankees to honor Gehrig because of his battle with ALS. It was retiring #3 for Ruth because of his sheer greatness that changed the reasoning behind number retirement going forward.
In 1935 did the Giants hold a ceremony? Or was it simply removed from the rotation, kind of like how the Yankees have handled the "captain" designation, and wasn't really meant to be retired?
Agree. It's ridiculous
#4 was retired by the Yankees to honor Gehrig because of his battle with ALS. It was retiring #3 for Ruth because of his sheer greatness that changed the reasoning behind number retirement going forward.
Which was later revised to include: being a contributing member of a dynasty (20, 21, 46, 51), having one great season (9), Yankee lifer (10), trying to keep a drunk happy so he'll manage you for a 5th time (1), feeling guilty about treating someone like shit (44).
You won't find a bigger Don Mattingly fan than I am, but they could very easily unretire 23 as well. Along with 49, Guidry's resume isn't that of an all-time great.
There's a way to honor each of those players without taking their number out of circulation forever.
To anyone saying it's been 90 years and we have to move on, I ask this question: Are you comfortable walking up to one of the Giants living legends and telling them to their face that their legacy only matters as long as there are people alive who saw them play? I can't help but think this is a huge slap in the face to everyone whose numbers have been retired who now know it could just be temporary.
Had the Giants organization given this just a little more thought there are ways they could've improved the optics if they were determined to move forward. The jersey should have some sort of acknowledgment that it's Ray Flaherty's retired number and his family should get all of the player proceeds from jersey sales.
Although in my opinion, there is no consideration that could be given that makes this okay. To me it's a broken promise and an indulgence offered to a player who hasn't played a single game in the NFL yet. I don't like that no one is saying no to this kid. Maybe John Mara should gave him his parking spot too. I'd hate to see him stub a toe on the way into the stadium.
I like this.......
I've been a huge giants fan for the better part of 41 years, but have never taken a lot of interest in knowing anything about the NFL in the black-and-white-TV days. (I acknowledge I may be different from many in that regard.)
I have heard the name Ray Flaherty a bunch, but had to google this morning to learn anything specific about him.
I can't say this bothers me in the least.
More generally - It will be interesting to see how sports deals with the "well, there are only 100 numbers to work with" issue as more decades pass us by.
Quote:
I don't like that no one is saying no to this kid. Maybe John Mara should gave him his parking spot too. I'd hate to see him stub a toe on the way into the stadium.
Honestly, seems like its getting a little personal with you.
lol maybe, I just don't like it when the lunatics are allowed to run the asylum
Quote:
#4 was retired by the Yankees to honor Gehrig because of his battle with ALS. It was retiring #3 for Ruth because of his sheer greatness that changed the reasoning behind number retirement going forward.
Which was later revised to include: being a contributing member of a dynasty (20, 21, 46, 51), having one great season (9), Yankee lifer (10), trying to keep a drunk happy so he'll manage you for a 5th time (1), feeling guilty about treating someone like shit (44).
You won't find a bigger Don Mattingly fan than I am, but they could very easily unretire 23 as well. Along with 49, Guidry's resume isn't that of an all-time great.
There's a way to honor each of those players without taking their number out of circulation forever.
Well the Yankees have started doing plaques in MP without retiring the players number
Quote:
Perhaps... just perhaps... Ray Flaherty would mind and his family who have passed.
Also, if the owner of the franchise calls your grand children, what do you expect their response to be?
When you erode what was supposed to be an eternal honor, doesn't the honor lose its meaning?
If you do this, do it with everyone and just use the Ring of Honor.
Anything else is half-assing it and disrespectful.
We dont have to manufacture a scenario where they felt obligated to say yes just to make it look bad. We have no idea how they felt about it but they are the deciders and putting feelings in their mouths for them is also disrespectful.
I agree. Why can't something be just as it seems?
Also, if the owner of the franchise calls your grand children, what do you expect their response to be?
When you erode what was supposed to be an eternal honor, doesn't the honor lose its meaning?
If you do this, do it with everyone and just use the Ring of Honor.
Anything else is half-assing it and disrespectful.
So the living family is ok with it, but the dead may be offended? Did you just say that?