2013 Yankees, Who’s Wearing What
Posted by Steve L. on February 13th, 2013 · Comments (16)
I took a guess at Juan Rivera’s number below. But, the rest are pretty good, I think. Did I miss anyone or a number?
| # | Player |
| 2 | Derek Jeter |
| 11 | Brett Gardner |
| 13 | Alex Rodriguez |
| 14 | Curtis Granderson |
| 17 | Jayson Nix |
| 18 | Hiroki Kuroda |
| 19 | Chris Stewart |
| 22 | Matt Diaz |
| 24 | Robinson Cano |
| 25 | Mark Teixeira |
| 26 | Eduardo Nunez |
| 27 | Dan Johnson |
| 28 | Joe Girardi |
| 29 | Francisco Cervelli |
| 30 | David Robertson |
| 31 | Ichiro Suzuki |
| 33 | Travis Hafner |
| 34 | David Aardsma |
| 35 | David Phelps |
| 36 | Kevin Youkilis |
| 38 | Cody Eppley |
| 39 | Clay Rapada |
| 42 | Mariano Rivera |
| 43 | Michael Pineda |
| 45 | Bobby Wilson |
| 46 | Andy Pettitte |
| 47 | Ivan Nova |
| 48 | Boone Logan |
| 50 | Mick Kelleher |
| 52 | CC Sabathia |
| 53 | Juan Rivera |
| 54 | Kevin Long |
| 56 | Tony Pena |
| 57 | Mike Harkey |
| 58 | Larry Rothschild |
| 59 | Rob Thomson |
| 61 | Adam Warren |
| 62 | Joba Chamberlain |
| 65 | Phil Hughes |
No one wanted #12?
And, obviously, the Yankees are sitting on numbers 6, 20, 21 and 51 for some reason
Steve L. wrote:
At a certain point they’re just going to have to shit or get off the pot, as the saying goes. Either retire #6, #21 and #51 or put them back in circulation. It’s been long enough since Torre, O’Neill, and Williams all moved on that this is just sort of silly.
Perhaps the policy should be that for all numbers that will not be retired, they are taken out of circulation for five years and then reintroduced. That would be a way to honor guys like Bernie and Paulie who probably don’t deserve the ultimate honor of a number retirement ceremony. Alternatively, they could get plaques in Monument Park without having their numbers retired. A third thought could be that their number is semi-retired in that the names and numbers are displayed in Monument Park without taking the jersey out of circulation.
Obviously Torre will have his number retired. I imagine Posada may get the ultimate honor if he makes the HOF (which is more likely than Williams/O’Neill but still a dubious proposition if the entire PED era is being held out).
If Mussina makes the hall, would/should the Yankees retire his number? And, if they do, will they have to yank it off someone’s back?
Steve L. wrote:
It’ll depend on whether the Hall enshrines him as a member of the Yankees or the Orioles. There’s certainly precedent not to retire a jersey (Joe Gordon/Tony Lazzeri) although they made it into the Hall of Fame via the Veterans Committee and hadn’t been players for five decades…
Somehow I doubt #35 gets hung up, even if Moose enters Cooperstown wearing pinstripes.
The Yankees already have too many numbers retired. 1. (Martin, loved him but no way), 9. (Maris, this to me is an absolute joke), 44. (Jackson, played for the Yanks 5 years and had three good years only one of those years was he in the top 5 MVP vote). Who doesn’t love Paul and Bernie but I would not retire their numbers. Jorge, I wouldn’t, but we have time. I don’t think a manager’s number should be retired, but if someone insists on doing it, there is a case for Torre.
From a marketing standpoint, perhaps you hold off on “selling” these events until a time when you need to create some buzz (and ticket sales) while things aren’t going so well on the field.
@ Joseph Maloney:
Agreed on 1, 9 and 44.
I think 1 marginally earned, in composite, as a player and manager. He did bleed yankee blue. Self destructive to be sure, and it hurt the team at times.
9 probably got it for the 61 HR season, but I can also tell you firsthand, a number of guys that played with him, Gibbs, Downing, Stafford, Johnny B., and Tresh all loved the guy. They all felt he was a great teammate and a very underrated outfielder.
44… Neeeehh. I do appreciate he helped us win, but he was a rented tool that dogged it too often and pissed on his teammates. Never liked him. Never will.
51… Probably. He gets a nudge because he played his whole career as a Yankee.
Same with 20.
21? I certainly liked him as much as these other two. Not as many years as 20 and 51, but 9 years is a bunch. Helped get us 4 rings. I’d vote yes.
More numbers: http://www.yankeenumbers.com/spring-Training-2013.asp
Steve L. wrote:
A team should not be allowed to officially retire the number of a player – any player, that has played less than half of his career, or less than a certain amount of years, for that team. Period. It should not matter how popular he was, or how impressive his accomplishments in that timeframe were. Mussina was a great pitcher, but he played only ten years in Baltimore, and less than half of his career in New York. A player such as Mussina in this case should not be eligible to have his number retired for either team, Hall of Fame induction or otherwise. To retire the number of a Mussina in either Baltimore or New York is to diminish the honor itself as bestowed on other players as and has been done in the past such as with #44 in The Bronx.
@ Ricketson:
Why should there be rules that govern how a team chooses to honor a player? It should be up to the team’s discretion to decide how to best honor its alumni.
More on why the Yankees have doubled up on numbers this spring:
http://aol.sportingnews.com/mlb/story/2013-02-15/spring-training-yankees-numbers-retired-world-series-alex-rodriguez
@ MJ Recanati:
I simply would be favor of a rule forbidding the asinine practice of a team retiring the number of a player such as Reggie Jackson who played less than 25% of his career for that team (The Yankees). Jackson is one of my favorite ballplayers since childhood, and the Yankees are my favorite team, but the team’s retirement of his number is absurd – he played twice as many years with Oak., and still less than half of his career with that franchise – but the Yankees retire his number?
Of course such a rule will never be enacted/implemented – I am speaking hypothetically. In your opinion, it should be up to a team’s discretion; in my opinion, if such a proposal was presented, I would support it. Once again in the case of an Oak. player, Fingers: his number has been retired by two teams? One of which is Oak., with whom he played only 52% of his career, and the second Mil., with whom he played only 23% and the final 4 years (3 of which were exceptional) of his career?
I wouldn’t mind M.L.B. stepping in and telling Mil., “[N]o… your official retirement of Fingers’ number is ridiculous. If you want to unofficially retire his number by not assigning it in the future, that’s fine. But you can’t give Fingers’ the same honor MLB has given Jackie Robinson, for example, simply because you would like your franchise to have a/one more retired number, an association with that player for some reason, etc.”
Ricketson wrote:
That’s why he wears pinstripes in the Hall, though. It was a trade off.
@ Corey:
That’s my point – that kind of stuff shouldn’t be allowed. I love Jackson, and part of me was pleased that he wore “pinstripes in the Hall,” but its wrong, and was not a matter of discretion in this case. There should be some legitimacy in the retirement of a number – Fingers has only 3 exceptional years in Milwaukee, and 4 altogether, and his number is retired? Jackson has only 4 years worth speaking of in N.Y. and his number is retired?