clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Would you be okay with the Celtics un-retiring player numbers?

New, comments
Maddie Meyer/Getty Images

Yesterday, Gary Washburn at the Boston Globe posed the question of possibly un-retiring a few retired Boston Celtics jersey numbers because a lot of the most typical basketball numbers are and have been off the table.

Washburn argues this leaves new players wearing numbers that remind one of football rather than basketball.

The retired numbers are a growing issue, although many new Celtics won't admit that. Many of those considered to be prime numbers — 1, 2, 3, 10, 21, 22, 23, 32, 33 — are retired, leaving some of the Celtics to look like cornerbacks — rookie R.J. Hunter is wearing 28 — or defensive linemen such as Johnson and Crowder.

Obviously, No. 2 (Red Auerbach), 6 (Russell), 17 (Havlicek), and 33 (Bird) would be on that list. But what about 18 (Cowens), 21 (Bill Sharman), 22 (Ed Macauley), 23 (Frank Ramsey), 24 (Sam Jones), and 25 (K.C. Jones)? Would No. 15 (Heinsohn), 16 (Tom Sanders) or 19 (DonNelson) be considered untouchable?

What do you all think? Would you un-retire any numbers so that the new waves of Celtics can put their own mark on them?