Comments on: A Tale of Three Padres

By: Pat

Pat — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 13:53:03 +0000

I don’t have any problem with either Jones or Winfield. Winfield’s time in NY was not significantly greater than his time here, and both he and Jones served as a crucial bridge between the completely hapless early Padres and the, at least somewhat, more successful teams of the 80’s. For many seasons those two players were the only reason to watch the Padres play. Also, I think Winfield’s dislike of Steinbrener may have played a role in his decision to wear a Padres cap rather than a Yankees.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: Andy fm VA

Andy fm VA — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 13:36:28 +0000

1. I’m in for a movement to UN-Retire Garvey’s number!!!

2. Winfield should be a Yankee in the HOF.

3. Tony Gwynn’s # should be the only one, at this time, retired at our park. And next year, when elected …he should have been the first Padre induced.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: Mark O

Mark O — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 02:31:00 +0000

I guess I didn't realize that Garvey's number was up at Petco with the rest of the guys. Jones I have no problem with..he was a great pitcher for a few years and one of the first Padre stars. Winfield was a great player and started his career here and now works for the team so why not. Obviously Tony goes without saying, but I guess I missed Garveys #6 being up with the others.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: michael

michael — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 00:37:58 +0000

It's never bugged me all that much that Garvey was a Dodger. I mean, lots of cool players were Dodgers. I mean, c'mon! Chris Gwynn! He was the Ozzie Canseco of Gwynndom!

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: Nick G.

Nick G. — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 21:18:58 +0000

LM– Winfield chose to have a Pads cap in the HOF because they slipped him some cash to do so. I don’t really have a problem with that — mainly b/c it gets under the skin of a lot of Yankee fans I know.

I don’t have a problem with Jones’ number being retired either. In my mind, he’s the first great Padre pitcher. Well, maybe not “great,” but very good.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: LynchMob

LynchMob — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 20:25:40 +0000

Pat - good point … it is something to be careful with, obviously …

I think the first thing to do is build consensus that it’s the right thing to do … so the key question/issue becomes not “if do it” but “how do it” …

One idea for “how do it” is to somehow get Garvey himself to humbly offer to take his number off the wall … or perhaps not so humbly (ex. have him pronounce “I’m a Dodger and will always be a Dodger and so I renounce my Padre-ship” …

Hey, we’re still just brainstormin’ here …

If you still need “a persuasive argument for doing so” … how about “2 wrongs don’t a make a right”? In other words, it was wrong to retire it … and every day that it’s retired is a day when something wrong is perpetuated …

Here’s another “how” idea … have some kind of celebration of the 1984 NL Championship team … and substitute something that honors that team in place of Garvey’s number on the wall … obviously involving Garvey in that celebration …

ps. I actually like have Randy Jones’ number retired … he won a Cy Young award for the Padres! That was HUGE! ‘75 & ‘76 were AWESOME! http://www.thebaseballcube.com.....ones.shtml … 600 IP!!! 42 W!!! 43 CG!!! 11 SHO!!! … calling that “a few good seasons” is not right …

pps. Winfield … don’t get me started … I’m not happy with his # on the wall either … less than half his career with Padres! He play for the Yanks more than the Padres … I just think it oughta be a requirement that you play > 50% of your career for the Padres to be eligible for retired number … what’s the downside of that??? I don’t get how/why he choose to have a Padres cap on his plaque … he took 15 million reasons to wear a Yankees cap … he’s a Yankee!

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: Pat

Pat — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 19:42:10 +0000

Garvey’s number was retired at the very end of Joan Kroc’s ownership. Garvey was part of a potential ownership group who she wanted to sell the team to. I always put those two events together and figured she did it to engender goodwill for Garvey and his ownership group. But unfortunately it backfired and we ended up with the most godawful number being retired and the Werner ownership group! Talk about a double whammy. As for untretiring the number, it never should have been retired in the first place, but I think it would be completely lacking in class to unretire it. Much as I dislike Garvey, I don’t think we should take the number down, but I’m willing to listen to a persuasive argument for doing so.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 19:29:34 +0000

When exactly did Garvey get his number retired? I always figured that Garvey’s number was retired to give the Padres some recognition when the team was bad. Why else would his number be retired? Of the number retired, only Gwynn’s should be. I understand that Jones works for the team but you shouldn’t retire someone’s number that only had a few good seasons. Same with Winfield, although I guess retiring his number is a small price to pay for wearing a Padres cap on his HOF plaque.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: LynchMob

LynchMob — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:40:50 +0000

Didi - yes ... where do we sign??? GY - you gonna lead us on a campaign to clean up the wall at Petco? Free it from unwanted Blue!