Posted on 02 March 2013.
The United Cardinal Bloggers is having its annual preseason Roundtable discussion this month, where a variety of topics surrounding the St. Louis Cardinals organization are presented, and then analyzed by the membership. Yesterday was my day to poise my question, and the direction of choice was to cover the past, present and future, all in wrapped up in one.
Since the current ownership of the team took over, the standing rule on retired numbers has been that they are only officially retired once a player is elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame.
However, in this era of Cardinal baseball (which has been arguably as successful as any), there are a lack of true Hall of Fame candidates. However, when you consider the era, players like Jim Edmonds, Yadier Molina, Chris Carpenter and Adam Wainwright have all made monumental contributions to the team success….not to mention a certain former first baseman as well.
With that considered, how do you feel about the Cardinals’ policy on retired numbers, and which current-to-recently former Cardinals could/should deserve the honor? Here is a transcript of the discussion, and some varying opinions on candidates and on the policy itself:
Daniel Solzman: I was not a fan when #15 was re-issued. Likewise, if #5 is issued again, I will not be happy about it. If 29 gets issued to someone other than Chris Carpenter, I imagine a cluster of the fan base will be upset. If Holliday stays healthy, he might be the other player to be joining Molina on that list.
I think Edmonds should see his jersey retired. He might not get in on first ballot but I think, when you factor in those defensive gems, the HOF should vote him in. His numbers are similar to Dale Murphy but his average was 20 points hire than Dale’s, which could and should make a difference.
It should be noted that while the debate to retire 51 officially rages on, the jersey has yet to be issued.
(Matt) Holliday is signed through 16 with an option for 17. Barring a trade, he will have played most of his career as a Cardinal. If the option for 17 gets picked up, he will have played 8.5 seasons as a Cardinal. All things considered, he should finish with some solid numbers worthy of 7 being retired.
Daniel Shoptaw: I understand the Cardinals’ position on retired numbers. You hate to have a wide swath of numbers unavailable for use. I mean, look at the Yanks–they are going to have start using triple digits in a decade or so. You don’t want to be too free and easy with retirement–it’s supposed to be an honor. Plus, who knows what the feelings of the fan base are going to be down the road. I mean, if they’d retired 25 immediately after McGwire’s retirement, which could have been a sticky situation.
The unofficial retiring brings about some of the same problems. Obviously 57 is retired, even though it’s not with the official group. You start running out of numbers if you keep everyone of them that belonged to a “True Cardinal” off the backs of the next generation.
That said, I do think the Cards are going to need to make exceptions for Carpenter and Molina (if he needs it). Those were two of the focal points of a great stretch of Cardinal baseball and should be honored in some way. While I appreciate Matt Holliday, I think one of things about the number retirement is that it has to be a player that captured the fans’ imagination as well as being a great player. Ozzie, Lou, Gibby all have legends around them, true or not. They were more than just good players, they were icons.
Carp has that. Molina has that. Holliday? I don’t think so and I don’t know that, barring some dramatics, he’ll ever get there. He’s a great player and I’m glad we have him, but I don’t see him as a candidate for retirement if his career–his solid, remarkable career–continues on this path.
J.D. Norton: I like the Cards policy, but I think they should step out a bit and put #15 up. Yes, I think Jim Edmonds belongs in the HOF. If you look at players like Dawson and Rice and then put Edmonds in the discussion, it’s a no brainer to me. I think the Cards should lead the charge, retire his number now and hope that helps. For those who disagree, name me 10 CF’ers who have better numbers than JE. There’s 14 CF’ers in the HOF. Even MLBN had Edmonds in the top 10 CF’ers of all-time.
Wes Keene: The policy is good. There’s a lot of emotion tied up with sports, and every few years we’ve got someone that’s easy to view as a hero on the team. There’s nothing wrong with that, but you’ve got to have some method to keep the warm and fuzzies from running you out of numbers. I find the practice of predicting HOF inductees to be daunting so I don’t try. I’m not a writer, so I don’t get a vote, and the ones who do frequently befuddle me.
Since the retired number pool will be a subset of the HOF Cardinals, it gets even dicier. Given how rare retiring a number is, I’d suspect it’s Carp or Molina, but not both.
Dathan Brooks: I’d suggest that the organization’s policy, while perhaps not perfect, is as close as it can be. A policy is exactly what’s necessary, too. Case-by-case basis simply wouldn’t work, so I say good for them. I think it speaks to the ownership of this team that they take this so seriously, too, let’s not let that go unsaid. But I’ve said it before…let’s take a high-level view of where “we” are right now. Off the top of my head, and without digging deep, which means I’m sure to miss/forget some, numbers that are spoken for/taken/unlikely to be issued soon/retired today, include:
1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 17, 20, 24, 25, 29, 32, 42, 45, 51, 57.
I know, Wainwright & others are left off the list while Yadi is included. Might they reissue some of these? Sure. I’m just saying, there are twenty numbers here, more than half of which are below 25. You can’t just go retiring numbers for every fan favorite, or hold sacred a uniform number because a guy we really really liked once wore it–it just isn’t feasible. I wrote about this on some blog a long time ago (too lazy to look it up), but the line, “Now batting, number 386, outfielder, Tony Gwynn IV” comes to mind from that blog post. The Cards would simply run out of retired numbers too near into the future, and have to start coming up with creative (read: non-purist/traditionalist) ways to ID players. (Symbols? “The player formerly known as….”? LOL I kid, of course)
In any event, it’s a good problem to have.
Bob Netherton: I think the current policy on retired numbers is ridiculous. While you don’t want to retire the number of every good player that comes through the system, a bit of easing on the current policy would go a long way to reward players like Curt Flood, Willie McGee and Chris Carpenter.
The counter-argument is the team will run out of numbers and start needing triple digits for jersey numbers.
With all due respect, pfffffffft.
We are talking about one of the most storied franchises in baseball, not the Miami Marlins or Colorado Rockies. A bit of perspective can help soft through this mess. We are only talking 3 or 4 players in a decade where the team has has monster success (40s, 60s, 80s, 00s). There might be decades (50s, 70s, 90s) where there are at most one. Over 100 years, that’s still less than 30 numbers. It takes about 40 numbers to field a team (25 plus DL). We are good for another century. Lets retire Flood and McGee now and get ready for Carpenter in a couple of years.
Christine Coleman: As many have already said, some kind of policy is definitely needed for retired numbers because it can get out of hand for a team like the Cardinals with such a long and rich tradition. The policy currently in place, with retiring numbers for Hall of Fame players, seems to work well since it sets the standard. I will mention, since I don’t think anyone else has yet, that Ken Boyer’s number is retired and he’s not in the Hall of Fame — other than Tony La Russa, who of course will be in the Hall of Fame, he’s the only non-Hall-of-Famer.
The practice of unofficially retiring numbers by not issuing them has its place, but it also does reach a point where numbers have to be used too. Keeping 51 and 57 out of circulation are good, and necessary, moves. It makes sense to not issue 15 as well, and not to use 5 right now anyway. But I saw someone complaining on Twitter last weekend that number 12 is being used already. If the Cards can’t issue a number because Lance Berkman wore it, that’s when triple-digit uniform numbers are going to be needed soon.
Bill Ivie: I like the current policy but I think, with current plans for Ballpark Village, it can be amended.
Since the team is building a Cardinals Hall Of Fame and museum, retired numbers should only belong to Cardinals Hall Of Famers, not necessarily Cardinals in Cooperstown. This would allow guys like Darryl Kile, Willie McGee, Jim Edmonds to be honored in that way.
At the same time, I must say that I do not feel that all of these names need a number retired. Wille was great for the team in the 80′s and Jimmy did his part in the 00′s. But what about Vince Coleman who shattered records in the 80′s and was a big part of some post-season runs (minus tarp incidents). If we look at his place in history, he probably deserves to be in this discussion. But wait…that’s number 29…that’s Carp! Carp had a major impact for a few years too. Like Vince, he was hurt at times and wasn’t key in everything the team did during his tenure. Who gets the number?
It’s a can of worms I don’t want to open up. I think the Cards HOF alleviates some of this. Willie McGee can be a Cardinal HOF member without his jersey retired. It gives the opportunity to honor players for being a great Cardinal and also to honor players for being the best in the league and finding Cooperstown.
When do we retire #25? How quickly do we retire #5, knowing that he is in a personal services contract with his current team long after he retires?
Brian Vaughn: I think there’s definitely a middle ground between necessitating a player’s Hall induction as a requirement to have his number required and letting any above average player have the honor. I say this largely because Hall of Fame voting is getting weirder and weirder; players aren’t exactly getting in based on merit thanks to some truly obnoxious voters, so I think there has to be a better way. Players like Carpenter particularly gave the Cardinals quite a large chunk of service time and excellence, and there’s something to be said for that.
John Nagel: To me, having a players number retired doesn’t make them a better player in my eyes. I agree with many that having too many waters down the award. Why can we still not honor players in other ways? Having a retired number should be set aside for HOF players.
Its to early to decide on Pujols. I say no on Edmonds and so far no on Wainwright. If Yadi continues on his path then he could be a yes. If the Cards continue with the HOF = number retired rule then Carpenter is a no as well.
I think the “only retire HOF numbers” policy is a necessity. Before long, finding numbers for players is going to be difficult enough. Besides, once you start amending the retired numbers rule, then you have to ask, “Where does it stop?”
I also feel the reason the question of retiring numbers has become significant is because the delay of the Cards HoF in Ballpark Village has left St. Louis with no obvious method to honor memorable Cardinal players and coaches. Carpenter deserves a sacred place in the future Cards HoF, but not on the wall of Busch Stadium.
Now, I might be in favor of a wall inside the fan tunnels of Busch that lists memorable Cardinal numbers/players like Carp and Edmonds…but leave the retired numbers wall for Baseball HOFers. That’s an exclusive group, and should be kept that way going forward.