PDA

View Full Version : Future Retired Sox Numbers


kevingrt
04-13-2009, 03:16 PM
In honor of Paulie and Jermaine hitting their 300th HR's today I wanted to pose a question to us WSI'ers.

Who do you think from this current Sox team have a shot of getting their numbers retired? I think their are two obvious candidates in Buehrle and Konerko. And I think the discussion ends there. Thome is a real tough one because he loves this team so much and has done so much for the organization.

Obviously there are players like Quentin, Ramirez, Danks, Floyd, Beckham, etc. that have a world of talent and have that potential but they are so young.

Oh and the other guy that may be in the discussion is #13.

Thoughts?

Nellie_Fox
04-13-2009, 03:22 PM
Personally, I think only Hall of Famers should have their number retired, but that's just me. Teams are getting carried away with this lately, and we'll eventually see players wearing three-digit numbers because there aren't enough left.

HawkDJ
04-13-2009, 03:23 PM
Frank Thomas and maybe Mark Buehrle. That's about it as of now.

doublem23
04-13-2009, 03:23 PM
The only player actively on the Sox that should be a lock is Buehrle.

Frank Thomas is a lock, as well.

Eddo144
04-13-2009, 03:32 PM
Personally, I think only Hall of Famers should have their number retired, but that's just me. Teams are getting carried away with this lately, and we'll eventually see players wearing three-digit numbers because there aren't enough left.
:scratch: For three-digit numbers to be used, a team would have to retire more than 60 numbers. That's pretty extreme, as even the Yankees only have 16 retired numbers (for 17 players).

For the Sox, 35 is a no-brainer, and I'd say 13 is too, eventually, considering Ozzie was a well-liked player and the manager to lead the team to its first championship in 88 years.

As for active players, 56 and 14 could be retired, but I'd say both Buehrle and Konerko need to have 2-3 more good seasons with the team or win another World Series.

It also wouldn't bother me to see 23 retired for Ventura, but I can't see that happening.

TommyJohn
04-13-2009, 03:33 PM
Personally, I think only Hall of Famers should have their number retired, but that's just me. Teams are getting carried away with this lately, and we'll eventually see players wearing three-digit numbers because there aren't enough left.

I agree to an extent-example-I don't think Harold Baines merited having his number retired, but Billy Pierce and Minnie Minoso did. Pierce is the winningest lefthander in team history (that being said I wouldn't advocate retiring Wilbur Wood's number) and was a staff ace during one of the best eras in team history. Minoso goes without saying-he was a pioneer-the first black player in Chicago baseball history-and his arrival signalled the start of the Go-Go era that turned around the franchise.

ChiSoxFan81
04-13-2009, 03:34 PM
47

LITTLE NELL
04-13-2009, 03:37 PM
If Paulie sticks around 4 more years and gets to 400 HRs I think he deserves to have his 14 retired.

sox1970
04-13-2009, 03:37 PM
Locks:

35 14 56 13

...and that's it.

october23sp
04-13-2009, 03:38 PM
If Paulie sticks around 4 more years and gets to 400 HRs I think he deserves to have his 14 retired.

Or if we win another WS and he's a big part he deserves one.

kittle42
04-13-2009, 03:39 PM
No one currently would be a lock.

Konerko and Buehrle are possibilities if they stick around 4-5 more years.

Guillen would be an interesting discussion.

downstairs
04-13-2009, 03:41 PM
rowand
33

Dibbs
04-13-2009, 03:42 PM
Frank will have his number retired.

I think Buerhle and Konerko have the best shot. They still need a few years of excellence. No one else is even close right now in my opinion.

october23sp
04-13-2009, 03:42 PM
rowand

33


That number should be retired throughout baseball.

BringBackBlkJack
04-13-2009, 03:46 PM
Big Frank's 35 is a no-brainer.

I'm a huge Ozzie fan both as a player and as a manager but I think it will require a few more WS championships for 13 to get retired.

sox1970
04-13-2009, 03:52 PM
Big Frank's 35 is a no-brainer.

I'm a huge Ozzie fan both as a player and as a manager but I think it will require a few more WS championships for 13 to get retired.

If he manages another 10-15 years, which is possible, he will have been with the Sox organization for the better part of 35-40 years. That, plus managing the first Sox championship in 88 years will get him that honor regardless if they don't win another world series in his tenure.

And remember, it doesn't take much for the Sox to retire a number or make a statue for you. :smile:

Hitmen77
04-13-2009, 04:04 PM
I think the only lock now is #35.

Guillen is a good candidate for the combination of his playing and managerial career with the Sox (I don't think either one alone would get his # retired). As others have said, perhaps Konerko and Buehrle someday if they had more years of success with us.

I agree with those that are against retiring too many numbers. What I would like to see the Sox do is come up with some way to officially honor former Sox stars who were great for us, but not quite to the level of retired number and/or statue. Some sort of White Sox Hall of Fame. This would include the guys with the retired numbers plus other stars such as Ventura, Horlen, Dick Allen, Carrasquel, etc. Buehrle, Konerko, and Guillen would easily qualify for this level of honor and the Sox could do so without making it look like they're just cranking out retired numbers.

downstairs
04-13-2009, 04:05 PM
Serious post here...

35 for sure.

Do fans regard Konerko and/or Burlymon in the same light as, say, Baines? Its hard to say. I was young-ish when Baines played, and I never thought he was THAT great. I was always surprised his number was retired.

Ozzie- no way unless he wins more than two world series.

The Dude
04-13-2009, 04:09 PM
Locks:

35 14 56 13

...and that's it.

Ditto. Even though Ozzie drives me insane and I hate most of his recent moves, his 2005 managing was pretty stellar.

Jim Shorts
04-13-2009, 04:16 PM
Ditto. Even though Ozzie drives me insane and I hate most of his recent moves, his 2005 managing was pretty stellar.

Yeah, getting that '08 team into the playoffs was just poor field management.

#13 deserves retirement based on the fact we're the only generation to watch our guys get rings.

35 - absolutely

23 should be retired just for what he did on Jerry's basketball team.

doublem23
04-13-2009, 04:22 PM
23 should be retired just for what he did on Jerry's basketball team.

MJ's already got his number retired by 2 teams, he doesn't need any more... Especially since he wore #45 when he was here.

LITTLE NELL
04-13-2009, 04:41 PM
If he manages another 10-15 years, which is possible, he will have been with the Sox organization for the better part of 35-40 years. That, plus managing the first Sox championship in 88 years will get him that honor regardless if they don't win another world series in his tenure.

And remember, it doesn't take much for the Sox to retire a number or make a statue for you. :smile:
Its hard to argue with the Sox selection of statues. Fox, Aparicio, Fisk are in the HOF and Pierce, Minoso and Baines should be in. The Old Roman is also in the HOF. Having a Sox HOF is a pretty good idea.

Berkules
04-13-2009, 04:42 PM
I'd like to see Paulie have 3-4 more good years to earn a retirement but I think Buehrle still has a ways to go. I agree that too many teams retire too many numbers (cross-sports: the Kings retired Vlade Divac's number...that's ridiculous). I'd love to see #13 retired but agree it'll take 10-15 more years and at least one more WS. ::crosses fingers::

Hitmen77
04-13-2009, 04:54 PM
And remember, it doesn't take much for the Sox to retire a number or make a statue for you. :smile:

At least the Sox aren't as bad as the Mets as far as statues go:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/mets_fans_perplexed_by_new?utm_source=a-section

Redus Redux
04-13-2009, 04:59 PM
Agreed with the poster who said number retiring should have gigantic requirements. It should be playing careers only factored in.

About Wade Boggs' # retirement with Tampa:

#12 by the Devil Rays of Wade Boggs (http://www.baseballchronology.com/Baseball/Players/Pboggw001.asp), who lead the team in only one offensive category in his short time: grounding into double plays in 1999.

hi im skot
04-13-2009, 05:00 PM
At least the Sox aren't as bad as the Mets as far as statues go:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/mets_fans_perplexed_by_new?utm_source=a-section

:rolling:

chisox77
04-13-2009, 05:17 PM
#13 - By the time Ozzie is finished (you never know when that will be), his playing and managing credentials will combine for enough "capital" to get this kind of honor.

#35 - Big Frank is an obvious choice. He deserves it.

#14/#56 - Both need to accomplish more (another WS championship would clinch their case), but certainly deserve consideration, even at this point in their careers.

#23 (Ventura) - Needed to improve mound charging skills.

Eddo144
04-13-2009, 05:48 PM
Agreed with the poster who said number retiring should have gigantic requirements. It should be playing careers only factored in.
Managers can make the Hall of Fame, but not have their numbers retired? :scratch:

PKalltheway
04-13-2009, 05:52 PM
#14- Konerko. He's in his 11th season with the team, and needs just 7 homers to join Big Frank as the only two players in Sox history to hit 300 homers. Paulie has had a damn good career with the Sox, and I think it merits having his number retired.

#35- Thomas. I don't think I need to explain.

#13- Guillen. His combined contributions as a player and as a manager with the Sox merit having his number retired.

I think it's pretty neat to have had the caliber of players (and management in the case of Guillen) to merit the discussion of having their number(s) retired. Would we have even been talking about this 10 years ago? Let's retire Mike Caruso's number, he really did a lot.

Say what you want about the '50s/'60s Sox, but this is a damn good era in Sox baseball, arguably the best.

dickallen15
04-13-2009, 06:06 PM
#14- Konerko. He's in his 11th season with the team, and needs just 7 homers to join Big Frank as the only two players in Sox history to hit 300 homers. Paulie has had a damn good career with the Sox, and I think it merits having his number retired.

#35- Thomas. I don't think I need to explain.

#13- Guillen. His combined contributions as a player and as a manager with the Sox merit having his number retired.

I think it's pretty neat to have had the caliber of players (and management in the case of Guillen) to merit the discussion of having their number(s) retired. Would we have even been talking about this 10 years ago? Let's retire Mike Caruso's number, he really did a lot.

Say what you want about the '50s/'60s Sox, but this is a damn good era in Sox baseball, arguably the best.

As long as Reinsdorf is around, I think Konerko is a lock to have his number retired. He's #2 on the HR list. He will be #3 on the rbi list and if he averages 90 this year and next, he will be #2, and Appling has about 1000 games on Paulie. He's a ALCS MVP and a World Series hero. There is no way his number is not retired assuming he's done playing and JR still has a say.

TDog
04-13-2009, 06:10 PM
...

And remember, it doesn't take much for the Sox to retire a number or make a statue for you. :smile:

I wouldn't say that. It might seem that way, especially for younger fans who don't appreciate how great Fox and Aparicio were. Certainly, the Giants statues outside AT&T represent a more impressive lot, but the statues in the Cell celebrate White Sox history. I would place a lower standard for statues than I would retired numbers. I've posted before that I think there is entirely too much number retiring going on.

But Frank Thomas is the only additional player from this century that should be getting either honor.

BleacherBandit
04-13-2009, 06:16 PM
I think all teams should follow what the Red Sox have done:

You're required to:

1. Be in the HOF

2. Have played at least 10 years with the Red Sox

That leaves only these players to have their numbers retired by the Red Sox:

Bobby Doerr
Joe Cronin
Johnny Pesky
Carl Yastrezemski
Ted Williams
Carlton Fisk
Jim Rice (He will be soon)

If you think about it, this is the ULTIMATE list of Red Sox players. Look at the players left off: Clemens, Boggs, Conigliaro--all of these players closely associated with the Red Sox, but they won't ever be retired, because of the requirements.

I'm not saying that the White Sox should use these requirements since we'd have to take away retirement of numbers from several players, but it's the best way in my opinion to make sure the retirment of numbers doesn't ever get out of hand.

Woofer
04-13-2009, 06:21 PM
#35 is an obvious choice, #14 and #56 still need a few more all star caliber years. Everyone else will have to wait to see how their careers pan out.

TDog
04-13-2009, 06:47 PM
I think all teams should follow what the Red Sox have done:

You're required to:

1. Be in the HOF

2. Have played at least 10 years with the Red Sox

That leaves only these players to have their numbers retired by the Red Sox:

Bobby Doerr
Joe Cronin
Johnny Pesky
Carl Yastrezemski
Ted Williams
Carlton Fisk
Jim Rice (He will be soon)

If you think about it, this is the ULTIMATE list of Red Sox players. Look at the players left off: Clemens, Boggs, Conigliaro--all of these players closely associated with the Red Sox, but they won't ever be retired, because of the requirements.

I'm not saying that the White Sox should use these requirements since we'd have to take away retirement of numbers from several players, but it's the best way in my opinion to make sure the retirment of numbers doesn't ever get out of hand.

You left out the Red Sox requirement that a player finish his career with the Red Sox to get his number retired. That was fudged in the case of Fisk.

Also, consider that Ted Williams' number was retired when he retired, five years before he was elected to the Hall of Fame, no-brainer that his election was.

Eddo144
04-13-2009, 06:49 PM
If you think about it, this is the ULTIMATE list of Red Sox players. Look at the players left off: Clemens, Boggs, Conigliaro--all of these players closely associated with the Red Sox, but they won't ever be retired, because of the requirements.
Why not Boggs? He's in the Hall of Fame and he was on the Red Sox for 11 years, from 1982-1992.

TDog
04-13-2009, 06:52 PM
Why not Boggs? He's in the Hall of Fame and he was on the Red Sox for 11 years, from 1982-1992.

Because Boggs didn't finish his career with the Red Sox.

BleacherBandit
04-13-2009, 08:01 PM
You left out the Red Sox requirement that a player finish his career with the Red Sox to get his number retired. That was fudged in the case of Fisk.

Also, consider that Ted Williams' number was retired when he retired, five years before he was elected to the Hall of Fame, no-brainer that his election was.

Oh. I thought they had officially scrapped that requirement when Fisk was hired on as an "assistant" by Dave Ducket, or whoever the GM was back then, for one day.

But even then, at least the Red Sox have some sort of requirement.

EDIT: Maybe with Boggs, there's a bit of animosity since he signed with the Yankees, and because of that affair he had.

Zisk77
04-13-2009, 08:05 PM
Beurhle's statue will have him tarp sliding! :D:

BadBobbyJenks
04-14-2009, 12:18 AM
20 obviously.

35 and 13 are locks. I think if Buehrle stays here his entire career, 56 will be retired as well.

palehozenychicty
04-14-2009, 12:54 AM
Frank should be retired.

I think Ozzie, Paulie, and Buehrle need a few more years of success for a statue.

JB98
04-14-2009, 01:46 AM
Big Frank is a no-brainer.

If Ozzie can lead the club to multiple World Series titles, then his number will go up on the wall.

Paulie is an interesting case. I don't think he's done enough yet, but it would be hard to deny him if he gets to 400 HRs in a Sox uniform. As it stands now, he's had a better White Sox career than Baines did. If Harold's number is on the wall, shouldn't Paulie's be there too?

Buehrle has a ways to go yet. He needs a few more 15-win seasons to merit having his number retired.

SALUKIS15
04-14-2009, 01:47 AM
#17 - Mike Caruso :D:

Jim Shorts
04-14-2009, 08:52 AM
MJ's already got his number retired by 2 teams, he doesn't need any more... Especially since he wore #45 when he was here.

Oh, jeeze, you bought that? I forgot my teal as it was in jest.

Shoeless
04-14-2009, 10:58 AM
20 obviously.

Jon Garland was an awesome player, after all.

PS: I'm colorblind so don't make fun of my bad teal.

Max Power
04-14-2009, 10:59 AM
EDIT: Maybe with Boggs, there's a bit of animosity since he signed with the Yankees, and because of that affair he had.

That he agreed to go into the HOF wearing a Devil Rays hat couldn't have helped either.

sullythered
04-14-2009, 03:29 PM
From the current squad:
Konerko and Buehrle. Right now, without any future success.

Buehrle has been an absolute rock in the rotation for a decade now, and the most prominent Sox pitcher on the best and most important Sox team in nearly 100 years.

Konerko is top two or three in every Sox power category, and has been around even longer.

56 and 14 should never be worn by a Sox player after these guys are done.

Frank should go without saying.

Nellie_Fox
04-14-2009, 03:34 PM
...the best and most important Sox team in nearly 100 years.You're showing a lack of historical perspective. The Sox of the 50's were a much more consistently good team. The '59 Sox probably weren't the best Sox team of that decade; it's just that they didn't have divisions or wild cards then, and the Yankees won the AL title all but two years during the 50's.

doublem23
04-14-2009, 03:53 PM
You're showing a lack of historical perspective. The Sox of the 50's were a much more consistently good team. The '59 Sox probably weren't the best Sox team of that decade; it's just that they didn't have divisions or wild cards then, and the Yankees won the AL title all but two years during the 50's.

No offense, Nellie, but if the Sox win 66 more games this year, the 2000s will surpass the 1950s as the winningest decade in White Sox history.

Alexei4president
04-14-2009, 08:28 PM
I would say easliy frank Thomas and thats about it

TommyJohn
04-14-2009, 08:44 PM
Paul Konerko and Mark Buehrle may be all-time "White Sox Greats" but I hardly think that merits number retirement. I just don't think either one deserves it. Frank Thomas, yes. The others, no.

Shoeless_Jeff
04-14-2009, 09:39 PM
Sammy Sosa...

:cower:

TDog
04-14-2009, 11:31 PM
No offense, Nellie, but if the Sox win 66 more games this year, the 2000s will surpass the 1950s as the winningest decade in White Sox history.

The 1950s was pre-expansion, and while it's true that the American League was behind in integration, there was an explosion of available baseball talent and just 16 major league teams. I was born in 1957, but I have no doubt that the White Sox of the 1950s were better at the game of baseball than the White Sox of this decade. Despite the complaints about the unrestrained spending by the American League team in New York, I have no doubt the same could be said for the Yankees.

Nellie_Fox
04-15-2009, 12:18 AM
No offense, Nellie, but if the Sox win 66 more games this year, the 2000s will surpass the 1950s as the winningest decade in White Sox history.Teams today play 80 more games in a decade than they did in the 50's. How about winning percentage? And 1950 was a very bad year; other than that, they were above .500 every year from 1951- 1967.

Of the White Sox top 25 winning percentage years, five were in the 50's (54, 59, 55, 57, 53, in order) while only two were in the 00's (05, 00.)

HebrewHammer
04-15-2009, 06:05 AM
So, do we retire 44 or 32 for Brian Anderson? Why not both?

The only 2 locks are Frank and Ozzie.

Here's an interesting one, Kenny Williams. I think he needs another championship to get the retirement ceremony. I don't think Ozzie does.

What are they going to do when Ken Harrelson retires? Ed Farmer?

moochpuppy
04-15-2009, 09:06 AM
#35 = no brainer
#13 = no brainer (first world series title since 1917)

Redus Redux
04-15-2009, 09:57 AM
Teams today play 80 more games in a decade than they did in the 50's. How about winning percentage? And 1950 was a very bad year; other than that, they were above .500 every year from 1951- 1967.

Of the White Sox top 25 winning percentage years, five were in the 50's (54, 59, 55, 57, 53, in order) while only two were in the 00's (05, 00.)

Just my view but the ring is the thing. Whenever I talk about the Sox total of wins in the last decade, fans from the other teams are surprised, but they dont seem to care a ton.

If anything, a long stretch of good years with nothing to show for it is more frustrating than continued losing. I would hate to be a 90s Bills fan.




Thats not to rain on everything that came before, but I just see it as '05 has to be seen as the pinnacle of what the team's achieved in recent memory. It's what keeps me hungry for more.

downstairs
04-15-2009, 11:06 AM
No way on Ozzie unless his teams dominate and win at least 2 more titles. And I don't think he should get special props just because he won the single World Series after a drought of 88 years.

Should Charlie Manuel have his number retired in Philly? No way. Torre in Yankee Stadium? Absolutely.

kevingrt
04-15-2009, 11:32 AM
No way on Ozzie unless his teams dominate and win at least 2 more titles. And I don't think he should get special props just because he won the single World Series after a drought of 88 years.

Should Charlie Manuel have his number retired in Philly? No way. Torre in Yankee Stadium? Absolutely.

Well Ozzie is not 65 years old and he does have some mileage with this franchise. Now I agree it is too early to retire the #13 in White Sox history but Ozzie is still relatively young for a manager and the things he has done with the 2005 and 2008 teams are pretty major accomplishments. If he can put together another World Series or two along with the time he spent with this franchise as a player I think Ozzie has a great show at getting a statue and a retired number.

GoSox2K3
04-15-2009, 11:40 AM
No way on Ozzie unless his teams dominate and win at least 2 more titles. And I don't think he should get special props just because he won the single World Series after a drought of 88 years.

Should Charlie Manuel have his number retired in Philly? No way. Torre in Yankee Stadium? Absolutely.

Did Charlie Manual also play 13 seasons as a fan favorite for the Phillies including winning rookie of the year for them?

I'm not saying Ozzie's number should be retired, but comparing his career with the Sox to Charlie Manual's career with the Phillies is quite a stretch.

Sox
04-15-2009, 11:40 AM
15 and 72.

doublem23
04-15-2009, 11:56 AM
72.

:scratch:

jsg-07
04-15-2009, 12:00 PM
I think 35 and 13 are the only two locks in my opinion. I know a lot of people are influenced by 2005 for Mark and PK, but they, along with the rest of the 2005 team have their place cemented in the Champions Plaza to show the organizations respect for what they did.

Not saying that Mark and PK won't eventually deserve it though..

dickallen15
04-15-2009, 12:10 PM
I think 35 and 13 are the only two locks in my opinion. I know a lot of people are influenced by 2005 for Mark and PK, but they, along with the rest of the 2005 team have their place cemented in the Champions Plaza to show the organizations respect for what they did.

Not saying that Mark and PK won't eventually deserve it though..

Konerko is #2 in homers, will be #3 in RBI in August and has a shot at #2 by the end of next year. Mix that with his ALCS MVP and his WS grand slam, and the fact that he's been a good soldier all these years, and the captain for a while, unless there is an ownership change, no one else is going to wear 14 for the White Sox.