Dr. B and Mikes periods must be synced this month.

Dr. B and Mikes periods must be synced this month.

 

Nah, he's just a pissed off old man.

You're older than I am.

I don't mind this move. I think retired numbers should be reserved for distinguished players of the particular team; Barger and Jackie Robinson should be honored, but should be honored in other ways not involving retired numbers.

 

 

I agree on Barger, not Robinson. Robinson's number deserves to be retired by every major league baseball team.

You're older than I am.

 

Doesn't change my stance.

Dr. B and Mikes periods must be synced this month.

Time to shed everything about the Florida Marlins.

 

I want a video of everyone that thinks this saying it with those Championship flags flying proudly behind them at the new pond. Label it "Hypocrisy...A Definition"

 

I'm not happy about this, but it was no secret they were going to do it. It's been discussed fully in other threads, no reason to rehash it. LoMo is saying the right things, so we I guess we just move on. The previous fan base that the FO is trying so hard to disengage themselves with can't shake their heads any harder because of this. To me, it's irrelevant whether or not they should have retired that number in the first place. They did do it.

I don't mind this move. I think retired numbers should be reserved for distinguished players of the particular team; Barger and Jackie Robinson should be honored, but should be honored in other ways not involving retired numbers.

 

 

I agree on Barger, not Robinson. Robinson's number deserves to be retired by every major league baseball team.

Why does Robinson have to be honored in a way that entails retiring his number for teams he never played for?

Its good to see Lomo getting a number to honor George Brett, because like Brett he's known mostly for being a pain in the ass

Its good to see Lomo getting a number to honor George Brett, because like Brett he's known mostly for being a pain in the ass

 

No, Brett had a pain IN his ass. There's a difference.

I don't mind this move. I think retired numbers should be reserved for distinguished players of the particular team; Barger and Jackie Robinson should be honored, but should be honored in other ways not involving retired numbers.

 

 

I agree on Barger, not Robinson. Robinson's number deserves to be retired by every major league baseball team.

Why does Robinson have to be honored in a way that entails retiring his number for teams he never played for?

 

Because Robinson's impact was so big it encompasses all of the sport and impacts every team to this day. If anyone deserves to have his number retired by everyone its Robinson.

 

You could argue that Robinson's impact even transcends baseball itself, its a big deal.

lomocinco

I don't mind this move. I think retired numbers should be reserved for distinguished players of the particular team; Barger and Jackie Robinson should be honored, but should be honored in other ways not involving retired numbers.

 

 

I agree on Barger, not Robinson. Robinson's number deserves to be retired by every major league baseball team.

Why does Robinson have to be honored in a way that entails retiring his number for teams he never played for?

 

Because Robinson's impact was so big it encompasses all of the sport and impacts every team to this day. If anyone deserves to have his number retired by everyone its Robinson.

 

You could argue that Robinson's impact even transcends baseball itself, its a big deal.

That impact still doesn't correlate directly with number retiring. Yeah, his impact was tremendous, but retiring his number is far from a necessary move.

 

Furthermore, a lot of the appeal of number retiring is that the esteemed player should be the last player for that team to wear that particular number. That hasn't always happened that way, but that is the way it should be handled ideally. Generations of players have worn #42 since Robinson's era, which makes the number retiring seem even more arbitrary.

I also think it's a better tribute to allow black players to wear #42 if they choose to. The Jackie Robinson day that started recently is much more fitting.

I also think it's a better tribute to allow black players to wear #42 if they choose to. The Jackie Robinson day that started recently is much more fitting.

 

With the obvious exception of the entire league wearing #42 on Jackie Robinson day, who has worn the number besides black or Hispanic players?

I also think it's a better tribute to allow black players to wear #42 if they choose to. The Jackie Robinson day that started recently is much more fitting.

 

With the obvious exception of the entire league wearing #42 on Jackie Robinson day, who has worn the number besides black or Hispanic players?

Dennis Cook! He was the last to wear it for the Marlins in 1997

I also think it's a better tribute to allow black players to wear #42 if they choose to. The Jackie Robinson day that started recently is much more fitting.

 

With the obvious exception of the entire league wearing #42 on Jackie Robinson day, who has worn the number besides black or Hispanic players?

I don't understand your question. Tons of players wore #42 from Jackie Robinson's era through 1997.

I also think it's a better tribute to allow black players to wear #42 if they choose to. The Jackie Robinson day that started recently is much more fitting.

 

With the obvious exception of the entire league wearing #42 on Jackie Robinson day, who has worn the number besides black or Hispanic players?

I don't understand your question. Tons of players wore #42 from Jackie Robinson's era through 1997.

Fanofthefish got it and answered it for me.

 

I was asking if any players after Robinson, with the exception of black or Hispanic players, had worn the #42. With highlights, I had only ever seen black players wear 42 [Mo Vaughn being the biggest [lit and fig] example that I can remember].

Before 1997 I don't think that #42 was really regarded as sacred, so I'm sure if you really researched it you'll find a bunch of white guys wearing it.

I also think it's a better tribute to allow black players to wear #42 if they choose to. The Jackie Robinson day that started recently is much more fitting.

With the obvious exception of the entire league wearing #42 on Jackie Robinson day, who has worn the number besides black or Hispanic players?

The way I understood it happening was anyone that wanted to wear that number for whatever reason could wear it up until the day they retired it. Then only those players that were already wearing it could continue. MLB's version of grandfathering it in. A player will choose a number to wear for a variety of reasons. Not always because it was his fav players number or because he wants to honor another player.

The point is that if someone like Dontrelle Willis wanted to do what Mo Vaughn did and wear #42 to honor Robinson, he probably won't be able to unless he petitions arduously to MLB to make an exception (and I'd say it's still unlikely that MLB grants the request).

 

That's why the universal retirement of #42 makes no sense to me among the other reasons. Personally I think you honor Robinson more by allowing players to wear it.

I agree (maybe for a different reason?).

 

The #42 is special for a different reason. It should be honorable at will.

I think it's pretty cool they did that for LoMo. As others said, Barger should be remembered, but not by retiring a number he never wore. Cool move by Loria.

I think it's pretty cool they did that for LoMo. As others said, Barger should be remembered, but not by retiring a number he never wore. Cool move by Loria.

 

So, it's cool the Marlins are letting LoMo wear 5 in honor of his father, a number he didn't wear, but they shouldn't have honored Mr. Barger by retiring a number he didn't wear? This is poor logic, please try again.

 

As Qban Castillo pointed out, without Carl, there are no Miami Marlins and no World Series title flags hanging in a beautiful new stadium. Mr. Barger's efforts to make baseball in South Florida a reality cannot be overstated. This is just another middle finger to the history of this franchise and those who have supported it through it all of these years.

 

Why couldn't he have just paid JJ to switch to 55?

I think it's pretty cool they did that for LoMo. As others said, Barger should be remembered, but not by retiring a number he never wore. Cool move by Loria.

 

So, it's cool the Marlins are letting LoMo wear 5 in honor of his father, a number he didn't wear, but they shouldn't have honored Mr. Barger by retiring a number he didn't wear? This is poor logic, please try again.

They retired #5 for Barger's favorite player, Joe DiMaggio.

They're giving #5 to Logan for his favorite player, George Brett.

 

It's almost the same thing.