Cubs to retire Maddux's number?

by LT on Dec 16, 2006 3:26 PM CST Comment 25 comments

See the last sentence. Is Lilly guessing at this or is this a fact that has not been announced yet? As a Cubs fan who grew up in the 60's I agree with others here who say Fergie Jenkins should have had #31 retired in his name. If Maddux had put up most of his numbers with the Cubs it would be different. I love Maddux but I don't think this would be a good move by the Cubs if it is a fact.

Poll

Should the Cubs retire #31 for Greg Maddux?

Yes

16 votes

No

33 votes

Meh

8 votes

57 votes | Poll has closed

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.

0 recs | Comment 25 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I would like # 31 to be retired in honor of

Jenkins only. But first, I woud like to see them retire # 21.

by VS on Dec 16, 2006 3:36 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I have a feeling...

...you and I are the only ones who want to see that happen.

Though I'd still like to see #31 retired first.

Jason Marquis makes me :-d~o~o~o~

by gravedigger on Dec 16, 2006 3:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

count me in,

thats 3 people

Soriano+ DLee + Ramirez = 1 Damn Good Meat of the Lineup AND Zambrano + LILLY = Playoff Bound Cubbies!!!

by LilLPLancer23 on Dec 16, 2006 5:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

For JENKINS not Maddux

We have been THROUGH this. I think the only problem
is that NOT having retired for Jenkins puts them in odd postion
however the Cubs would never retire 31 for Maddux.

However speaking of Maddux's number. Reason 6344
that I love the guy. #31 was not available for the Padres
as it was retired for Winfield. I suspect the only other number
that might have interested him was 51 as that was his brother
Mike's old number for the Padres ( and he had mentioned
taking Mike's old number with Dodgers) but that is Hoffman's.
So now he is #37. When he was asked why he said
"no particular reason". Pretty much whatever number you guys
have around , I don't care it is just a number.
Throughout his career Maddux has gone out of his way
to dismiss luck,superstition , fate, etc. ( he once had a
funny riff on black cats etc). Whatever happens in a game
is the results of what players DO ( or don't do) not some
mysterious outside force.

I love the ballpark. I love the city. I love the fans. Aside from how we've played this year, there's nothing not to like about Chicago." Greg Maddux 7/29/06

by jessica on Dec 16, 2006 3:38 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I know we have been through this but

in this article Lilly says that the Cubs are retiring Maddux's number. Maybe he just didn't take the number out of respect to the greats that have worn that number for the Cubs.

by LT on Dec 16, 2006 3:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Speaking of all of this though...

Has a team ever retired the number of one of its former players who is currently still playing for another team?

Jason Marquis makes me :-d~o~o~o~

by gravedigger on Dec 16, 2006 3:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes.

The White Sox retired Harold Baines' #3 while he was still playing for the Rangers. He took it back when he returned to the team before he retired.

About Lilly, either he was told that -- and it's news to all of us, because NO announcement has been made -- or he's just guessing. I lean toward the latter.

by Al on Dec 16, 2006 3:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It wouldn't surprise me...

...if he were told that #31 was going to be retired and he couldn't have it, and then he assumed/guessed it was for Maddux.

Thanks the for answer to my question, I didn't remember that, though I do vaguely remember the last couple years Baines played.

Jason Marquis makes me :-d~o~o~o~

by gravedigger on Dec 16, 2006 4:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The whole story...

... can be found here, along with info on the only two other players to have their numbers retired while still active, and the mention of a name familiar to all of us:

Baines got off to a blistering start for the moribund 1989 White Sox, ranking among the league leaders in batting average and making the All-Star team, and on July 30, he was traded to the Rangers with Fred Manrique for Scott Fletcher and two minor league prospects, Wilson Alvarez and Sammy Sosa. The Rangers were just 7 games out of first place at the time, but the acquisition of Baines failed to improve the team. The loss of the popular Baines was a blow to White Sox fans, and when he returned to Comiskey Park on August 20 in a Rangers uniform, the White Sox retired his #3 (Phil Niekro and Frank Robinson are the only other active players to have their uniform numbers retired).

by Al on Dec 16, 2006 4:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

My favorite part...

...of that blurb is the part that said that the Rangers were "just" seven games out of first place on July 30. Seven games out with two months to go is hardly an insignificant gap to make up, especially when the team that was being chased was the eventual 99 win, and World Champion, A's.

by gauchodirk on Dec 16, 2006 4:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Like the majority of today's ballplayers

Lilly probably never heard of Fergie Jenkins.
History completely escapes today's players, from what I have read over the years. Only a tiny minority (and that probably includes Maddux, being older) seem to have an clue about what went on before them. I'll give Dusty Baker his props for that, because I seem to remember him making the same statement -- it may have been in reference to Jackie Robinson. That's why Buck O'Neil's passing was a huge loss -- he was a connection to a bygone era. And, at least Ted Williams made a showing at an All-Star game before he died -- since he was so reclusive, I think it was important that he became a 'real person,' (for today's player) not just a line in the history book.

by Smooth Jazz Man San Diego on Dec 16, 2006 9:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Why not both?

I see no reason why the Cubs could not honor both players with the same number. Two Hall of Famers, even if Maddux goes into the Hall of Fame as an Atlanta Brave. So what? If I had to pick only one, you have to go with Fergie because he entered the Hall as a Cub. But I'd like to see the Cubs honor Maddux too. He deserves it. And how about #17? No one seems to be talking about that. If there is any former Cub who deserves his number retired, it's Mark Grace. A Cub for life.

"Don't complain to me about the stormy weather, boys. Just bring the ship into port." --Steve Stone, September 2004

by ctcoff99 on Dec 16, 2006 6:19 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

nice thought but I don't think it would work

For one thing it will 7-9 years before Maddux goes
in the HOF. Also he is very old school and I kind of doubt
he would want to horn in on Fergie's ceremony. The best
thing is to take the number out now, retire it for Jenkins
properly and give some kind of aknowedgment that it
was in "good hands" after he used it.

I love the ballpark. I love the city. I love the fans. Aside from how we've played this year, there's nothing not to like about Chicago." Greg Maddux 7/29/06

by jessica on Dec 16, 2006 6:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I would think...

... that if they did retire #31 for Fergie, Fergie is the type of guy who would insist on inviting Maddux to the ceremony and acknowledging his contributions. And that probably can't happen till after Greg retires.

While Mark Grace was a very good player and extremely popular, he will never make the Hall of Fame, and I think that's the reason you'll never see #17 retired. Now, you'll say that Ron Santo isn't in the Hall and his number is retired. But I think most of us, and the Cub organization, think he SHOULD be in the Hall.

by Al on Dec 16, 2006 6:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Wow..

Grace was a nice player, but retire his number? The guy never hit 20 home runs or drove in 100. This in an era of expansion and smaller ballparks. He was extremely consistent and a good defender, but I was never overly impressed. The 1989 playoffs being the exception. For the most part I thought Andre Dawson was right when he said the Cubs traded the wrong guy when they traded Palmeiro.

Well, sometimes nothin is a real cool hand.

by wicubfan on Dec 17, 2006 5:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, but....

look at his yearly totals for hits, doubles, batting average, average w/ RISP, etc. Not to mention his defense at first base. If I am not mistaken, he was the Major League leader for hits and doubles in the 1990's; no small feat considering he played in the era of Tony Gwynn, Cal Ripken, Jr., Ken Griffey, Jr., and so many other great hitters. Mark Grace was more than just a good, steady player. He was a superstar, who never got the credit he deserved because, as we all know, "chicks did the long ball". And so does the media.

"Don't complain to me about the stormy weather, boys. Just bring the ship into port." --Steve Stone, September 2004

by ctcoff99 on Dec 18, 2006 10:47 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Typo

I meant to say "chicks DIG the long ball", of course.

"Don't complain to me about the stormy weather, boys. Just bring the ship into port." --Steve Stone, September 2004

by ctcoff99 on Dec 18, 2006 10:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

We'll agree to disagree..

I just think superstar is going a bit too far.

Well, sometimes nothin is a real cool hand.

by wicubfan on Dec 18, 2006 7:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

31 Off Limits, but not 21

Here's the scoop on the numbers:

No imminent plans to retire 31, but it's still off limits. 21 is up for grabs

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-061216cubs,1,2284723.story?coll=cs-h ome-headlines

by GuntherNancy on Dec 16, 2006 8:56 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Interesting.

I would think you'll see Marquis wearing #21, without question. It's been his number through his St. Louis career (although not with the Braves -- #21 is retired by the Braves for Warren Spahn).

McDonough's got it exactly right for Jenkins and Maddux. No one else will ever wear #31. At some point, likely after Maddux gets into the HoF, it will be retired for both of them.

The following players wore #31 in between Jenkins' two Cub stints, and in between Maddux' two Cub stints (yet another thing Fergie and Greg had in common):

Tom Dettore, Joe Coleman, Jim Todd, Davey Johnson, Ray Fontenot, Kevin Foster, Bobby Ayala, Brad Woodall, Mike Fyhrie, Donovan Osborne, and Mark Guthrie

(Courtesy of BCB reader kaseyi's All-Time Cubs Uniform Number Page)

by Al on Dec 17, 2006 4:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Further note

Sullivan's article is wrong. Jon Lieber never wore #31 -- he wore #32 throughout his four-year Cub career.

by Al on Dec 17, 2006 4:32 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

If Jenkins was 31 then the number should be

retired for him. Maddux' best years were with the Braves. Instead of retiring anything for Maddux we need a reminder to GMs that you don't let guys like this walk away to FA. Maybe a statue of Maddux in a Braves uniform in the GM's office as a reminder? Or a statue of Z in a Yankees uniform?

Jobs are opening up everywhere these days in professional sports. The Cubs are looking for an assistant GM for Hendry, and I heard that with the recent killing of the bodyguard of Chicago Bears DT Tank Johnson that he's looking for a new bodyguard, too....Wait, it was just announced that Tank was so impressed that he hired the shooter on the spot.

by DudeVf1 on Dec 16, 2006 10:15 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

That

wasn't funny.

"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!" -Homer J. Simpson

by Whitebacon on Dec 16, 2006 11:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I wasn't trying to be humorous...

I was trying to say that Tank is clueless. Maybe I am clueless? He's just raising his family the best way he can with weapons, drugs, pitbulls, armed protectors and a wad of cash from his NFL employer...Does the guy play football for a living or run drugs? I guess you can do both, it's a free country.

by DudeVf1 on Dec 17, 2006 10:33 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs