Author Topic: Nationals' "retired" numbers—what's the status?  (Read 2695 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline 1995hoo

  • Posts: 1085
Nationals' "retired" numbers—what's the status?
« Topic Start: February 17, 2012, 04:29:27 PM »
The Nationals' website continues to list the Expos' three retired numbers (8, 10, and 30) as "franchise retired numbers." It's eminently apparent that the numbers remain in circulation, and the roster on Nationals.com indicates that Danny Espinosa is even changing his number this season from #18 to #8 (Gary Carter's number).

Does anyone know if the Nationals have ever issued any statement on the matter? The reason I ask is that I was reading the Wikipedia article about the Nationals and saw that it said that in 2011 they decided to "resume" honoring the Expos' retired numbers. So I changed it because that's demonstrably wrong and now an argument has broken out. I don't know why I care, but since I was the one who changed it, I'd kind of like to be right! There's no dispute that they didn't honor the retirements in the past, but apparently some people think that because the team's website lists them, they must "really" be "retired numbers," even though it's readily apparent that the "Team History" section on the site is a bit old and not formatted the same as the rest of the site.

Offline OldChelsea

  • Posts: 8160
  • Nats Supporter in Exile
Re: Nationals' "retired" numbers—what's the status?
« Reply #1: February 17, 2012, 06:43:13 PM »
This item in Federal Baseball (http://www.federalbaseball.com/2010/8/10/1615098/washington-nationals-make-montreal) might provide some insight:

'The Nats developed the following guidelines in deciding who would be recognized in the new "Ring of Honor" at Nationals Park:

'"The first criteria [sic] was that the player had to be elected to the National Baseball Hall of Fame. The second criteria [sic] was that the player had to be associated with the Montreal Expos, Homestead Grays, Washington Senators or Washington Nationals. Lastly, the player had to have had significant years with those teams." '

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 14293
    • Twitter
Re: Nationals' "retired" numbers—what's the status?
« Reply #2: February 17, 2012, 06:58:03 PM »
The Expos numbers should be retired on throwback nights when we wear the Montreal uniforms, otherwise they are fair game.

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 21643
Re: Nationals' "retired" numbers—what's the status?
« Reply #3: February 17, 2012, 07:39:55 PM »
The Expos numbers should be retired on throwback nights when we wear the Montreal uniforms, otherwise they are fair game.

:clap: That's montreal's history, not DCs

Online imref

  • Posts: 43137
  • Re-contending in 202...5?
Re: Nationals' "retired" numbers—what's the status?
« Reply #4: February 17, 2012, 09:22:37 PM »
i wouldn't mind seeing us retire Carter's #8 though.

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 21643
Re: Nationals' "retired" numbers—what's the status?
« Reply #5: February 17, 2012, 09:29:56 PM »
i wouldn't mind seeing us retire Carter's #8 though.

I can think of a few people whose numbers should be retired before they think of retiring former expos' numbers- Walter Johnson, Frank Howard...

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 35131
  • World Champions!!!
Re: Nationals' "retired" numbers—what's the status?
« Reply #6: February 17, 2012, 09:32:52 PM »
Espinosa just switched to 8, so that song be retired for a while, likely.

Online imref

  • Posts: 43137
  • Re-contending in 202...5?
Re: Nationals' "retired" numbers—what's the status?
« Reply #7: February 17, 2012, 09:40:28 PM »
I can think of a few people whose numbers should be retired before they think of retiring former expos' numbers- Walter Johnson, Frank Howard...

yeah, but Carter has links to this franchise, but I see your point and wouldn't complain if they retired Johnson's #.

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 21643
Re: Nationals' "retired" numbers—what's the status?
« Reply #8: February 17, 2012, 09:44:19 PM »
Carter had links to montreal- mob ownership stripped.down the franchise to.the point where it was basically an expansion team

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 66171
  • We had 'em all the way.
Re: Nationals' "retired" numbers—what's the status?
« Reply #9: February 17, 2012, 09:45:59 PM »
yeah, but Carter has links to this franchise, but I see your point and wouldn't complain if they retired Johnson's #.

I'd rather they retire Johnson's statue at the entrance to the stadium.   Damn, is that ugly.     Since Carter was in house last year (?), I wouldn't mind seeing his number retired.   

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 31799
    • http://www.wnff.net
lol at "mob" ownership

Offline PowerBoater69

  • Posts: 14293
    • Twitter
They should retire all used numbers and go alpha-numeric so that every player is assigned a unique identifier.

Offline welch

  • Posts: 16454
  • The Sweetest Right Handed Swing in 1950s Baseball
1. I think that the Nationals Park Ring should have the same baseball players that RFK had. If a player had to be elected to the Hall of Fame, that cuts out most of the important, and long-serving, baseball players who ringed RFK.

2. I'm undecided about retiring numbers...that was more of a Yankees thing than a Washington thing. Honor the Expos decisions? That's hard to justify when the Nats should be trying to increase their Washington fan-base. Andre Dawson, Gary Carter, and Rusty Staub were all fine players, but their history belongs to Montreal. Of course, having had my team stolen twice, it is painful to think of dis-honoring former Expos, but it has to be.

3. The old Nats never a retired number, in part because their best players switched numbers around. Players did not have numbers during most of Walter Johnson's career, and later seemed fairly casual about numbers. Except lordly Yankees. Take a look at Cecil Travis in Baseball Reference. He was numbers 26 and 31 as a rookie in '33, then 20 when he became a regular in '34, then 5 until he went to war, then 23 and 7 when he came back.

4. So, I say, don't retire numbers, but honor Travis and Joe Judge, Eddie Yost, Mickey Vernon and Roy Sievers.


Offline OldChelsea

  • Posts: 8160
  • Nats Supporter in Exile
[...]4. So, I say, don't retire numbers, but honor Travis and Joe Judge, Eddie Yost, Mickey Vernon and Roy Sievers.



Two good ways of going about that:

(1) The Toronto Maple Leafs in nearly a century of existence have retired only two numbers (the ##5 and 6 of Bill Barilko and Ace Bailey respectively, both of whose careers ended tragically) but maintain a system of 'Honoured Numbers' recognising past players while still allowing their numbers to be issued to current players.

(2) DC United, as is normal in soccer, do not retire numbers at all - instead they have a Hall of Tradition, again recognising past players while still allowing the numbers to be reissued.

Alternatively, if numbers must be retired wholesale: the Quebec Nordiques, before relocating in 1995 to become the Colorado Avalanche, retired four numbers (3, 8, 16 and 26 for J.-C. Tremblay, Marc Tardif, Michel Goulet and Peter Stastny respectively). The Avalanche still recognise these as 'Quebec Nordiques Retired Numbers' while continuing to issue them to current players.

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 66171
  • We had 'em all the way.
Alternatively, if numbers must be retired wholesale: the Quebec Nordiques, before relocating in 1995 to become the Colorado Avalanche, retired four numbers (3, 8, 16 and 26 for J.-C. Tremblay, Marc Tardif, Michel Goulet and Peter Stastny respectively). The Avalanche still recognise these as 'Quebec Nordiques Retired Numbers' while continuing to issue them to current players.

I like that idea.   It could be implemented for the Expos and the Senators.

I like that idea.   It could be implemented for the Expos and the Senators.
As a old Expos fan if think this is a great idea.   I see no reason why Espinosa shouldn't use #8.   

Offline ChiefChris

  • Posts: 51
Interesting to note that the Washington Nationals started out as the Montreal Expos, and their AAA affiliate, the Syracuse Chiefs, were originally the Montreal Royals. I never really put that together until today. :-D

The Chiefs recognize the history of the original (pre-1961) Chiefs, even though that was technically a different franchise. However, they do not recognize anything to do with Montreal, neither its players nor its accomplishments. The lone exception is Jackie Robinson, whose #42 is retired across baseball (he actually wore #9 with Montreal).

Offline shoeshineboy

  • Posts: 7945
  • Walks Kill!! Walks Kill! Walks Kill!!!!
I don't believe in retiring numbers. Wearing another player's number is a way of honoring them. I think that if anything, if a player is important enough to a franchise to be worthy of a special honor, the organization could make it a matter of policy that before awarding the number to a new player, that the former player (or his survivors) would be given the opportunity to offer consent. This would be similar to when Alonzo Mourning asked Patrick Ewing permission to wear his number.

Think about how many 21s, 44s, etc. you see around the league, because players grew up wanting to wear Clemente's or Aaron's number. It has always seemed silly to me to allow a guy on a team to wear a number in honor of a player from another franchise while not affording the opportunity to honor a player from the organization he is playing for. I know this retiring numbers is a big deal for people, but feel it a rather arbitrary practice for honoring people. It sort of makes sense if a player died tragically or something, because the very notion of retiring a number seems elegiac.

I would think most good, living players would like the chance to see younger guys want to wear their numbers.

Offline Baseball is Life

  • Posts: 20393
  • Proud member of the Sunshine Squad.
I kind of like the idea of being generous when retiring #s. I can only see the upside in recognizing former players who contributed. It's a great way to honor the history of a franchise and the game and keep it in front of the current fansbase.

And, yes, include the Expos. The franchise needs to be noted as part of the Nats history.

Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 40000
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Once again, SSB is sound in his thinking.  Tim Wakefield talked about 49 as the knuckelballer's number, which he got I think from Charlie Hough.  18 is the big ace number in Japan.  If this franchise established something like our top starters wear 27-37-47, that might be cool.

Offline zimm_da_kid

  • Posts: 7948
  • The one true ace
Once again, SSB is sound in his thinking.  Tim Wakefield talked about 49 as the knuckelballer's number, which he got I think from Charlie Hough.  18 is the big ace number in Japan.  If this franchise established something like our top starters wear 27-37-47, that might be cool.

I believe Charlie Hough got #49 from fellow knuckler hoyt wilhelm.  Japanese aces also use the #11.