The Cardinals need guidelines for retiring numbers, honoring legends

It's about time the Cardinals unretire Whitey Herzog's number 24. Your read that correctly. I wrote unretire it, along with a few other numbers on the wall at Busch.

While some Cardinals fans lobby hard for more numbers to be taken out of circulation permanently (hello, all you Willie McGee fans out there), I've migrated in the opposite direction. With the recent additions of Bruce Sutter and Herzog, the Cards are in danger of watering down the highest form of individual recognition bestowed by the organization.

It's not that I don't think the world of Bruce and Whitey. I do. I even have two of Whitey's jerseys, one of which is on loan to the National Baseball Hall of Fame (NBHOF). So, I'm a fan. Sutter and Herzog deserve special recognition for their accomplishments and status as Hall of Famers. I just happen to believe that number retirement should be reserved for players with long and distinguished careers. Whitey didn't play for the Birds and Bruce was here just four seasons.

I mean, c'mon -- how many fans actually knew Whitey's number before the media blitz that followed his election to Cooperstown last January? Honestly, did more than a handful of people ever stare at Eric Davis, Bobby Bonilla or Rick Ankiel and think, "He's wearing Whitey's number!"

As Cardinals fans, we're extremely fortunate our team has had so many great players and managers wear the birds on bat through the years. Having too many retired numbers is a problem most teams wish they had. Some apparently retire numbers, I suppose, just to create a sense of team history (Really, Tampa Bay? Wade Boggs?). We don't have to resort to gimmicks in St. Louis; plenty of our guys deserve to have their digits retired. But, our good fortune has a flip side.

With the retirement of Herzog's number on July 31, the Cardinals now have 11 numbers out of circulation. They include: 1 (Smith), 2 (Schoendienst), 6 (Musial), 9 (Slaughter), 14 (Boyer), 17 (Dean), 20 (Brock), 24 (Herzog), 42 (Sutter), 45 (Gibson) and 85 (Busch). That honored group will include 5 (Pujols) and 10 (La Russa) in the near future.

Add to those soon-to-be 13 retired numbers 25 roster players, 15 guys who come and go during the season, a manager and seven coaches. That gets you up to 61 (60 excluding Gussie's number 85). Then consider the unused but not retired digits -- 25 (McGwire, who likely will leave when La Russa does), 32 (Hancock), 51 (McGee) and 57 (Kile). Finally, ponder the possibility that even more deserving Hall of Famers -- Frisch (3), Medwick (7), Bottomley/Hornsby (4) among them -- could have their numbers retired. Or that Major League Baseball could deep six another number leaguewide as it did with Jackie Robinson; Roberto Clemente's 21 comes to mind.

Some new players almost surely will adopt the numbers left behind by guys who are traded or released. Still, the point remains that the Cardinals are more limited than most teams with the numbers they can assign (they're second to only the Yankees in retired numbers). So, if they prefer to continue doling out low uniform numbers into the future, they should consider putting a few shelved digits back into circulation. The idea is not without precedent.

—The Cincinnati Reds retired Willard Hershberger's number 5 in 1940 after the catcher committed suicide during the season, but it was unretired two years later. The number 5 is now put aside for another catcher, Johnny Bench.

—Larry Aurie of the Detroit Red Wings has had his number 6 disappear from the list of the team's retired numbers, though nobody is really sure why owner Mike Illitch chose to do so.

—Just this season, the White Sox unretired Luis Aparico's number 11, with his blessing, so it would be worn by fellow Venezuelan shortstop Omar Vizquel. Steve Largent granted the same favor to Jerry Rice when he joined the Seattle Seahawks.

—In some instances, digits have been reactivated so that sons could wear their fathers' numbers -- Bobby and Brett Hull for the Phoenix Coyotes (formally the Winnipeg Jets), for example.

—While the Coyotes honored the Jets' retired numbers after the franchise relocated, some other moves resulted in numbers being unretired. This happened when the Quebec Nordiques became the Colorado Avalanche, and again when the Hartford Whalers became the Carolina Hurricanes.

—Finally, there's the annual ritual when hundreds of players wear Jackie Robinson's supposedly retired number 42. True, it's not officially unretired. But, when everyone on the team is wearing the number, doesn't that conflict with the purpose of retirement? Exactly what's the honor -- having your number worn or not worn? This recent custom is especially strange in St. Louis, where 42 also is retired for Sutter.

Granted, some of those examples reflect temporary situations where the numbers were again removed from circulation after reassignment. Still, they serve as evidence that retired numbers aren't exactly sacrosanct.

The million-dollar question, of course, is how could the Cardinals unretire any number and not incur the wrath of fans, family members and, in some cases, living players who were given the ultimate honor? Allow me to offer a few ideas.

—First, acknowledge that, in the absence of a better tribute, the retired number has been the go-to accolade. That's why the team eighty-sixed 85 for Gussie Busch (in honor of his 85th birthday, which is represents the pinnacle of silly) and put a microphone and an old team logo on the wall to salute Jack Buck and Rogers Hornsby. Other than number retirement, there simply hasn't been another way to recognize Redbird legends. Yes, I know there also are statues outside the ballpark. But, except for George Sisler and Cool Papa Bell, those shrines supposedly are reserved for Cardinals in the National Baseball Hall of Fame who have their numbers retired. That explains the absence of a Boyer statue, but doesn't explain why we haven't seen Sutter's fuzzy face immortalized in bronze. Besides, nobody keeps track of which players have statues. A retired uniform number is on a plateau of its own.

—Next, establish a true team Hall of Fame. Yes, the team has the Hall of Fame Museum, but it is just a museum. A great museum. Perhaps the best baseball museum this side of Cooperstown (before it was put into storage in 2009). But, there is no hall, there are no plaques, and there have been no induction ceremonies. Team President Bill DeWitt III said recently the team is committed to the idea, but, "We want to get moving on the actual building before we jump into formal planning for our Hall of Fame." Once there's a team Hall of Fame, then guys like McGee and Ted Simmons and other Cardinals greats can have their days in the sun and their likenesses preserved for future fans.

—The new Hall of Fame could have different "wings," similar to Cooperstown. There could be one for managers and coaches; one for broadcasters and other media; one for team owners and employees; one for players who are identified with the Cardinals; and a wing to honor the game's greats whose time in St. Louis was short-lived (perhaps less than five full seasons).

—Within the new Hall of Fame, there also could be an upper chamber. Let's call it the "Pantheon of Legends." This is where the team could honor the best of the best from all wings, whether they wore a number or not. Luminaries such as Jack Buck, Branch Rickey, George Kissell and Butch Yatkeman could be eligible to be immortalized alongside Rogers Hornsby and Stan Musial, and nobody would have to come up with contrived symbols to represent retired "numbers." These legends would be represented inside Busch Stadium -- perhaps with their likenesses appearing on the outfield wall or their names affixed to the structure the way "rings of honor" are featured in some stadiums. (Note the St. Louis Rams have a Hall of Fame, a Ring of Fame and a set of retired numbers.) Or, perhaps "legend" status would guarantee a statue at Clark and Eighth. Either way, guys like Whitey could still have their names and/or faces visible to future generations. Just not their numbers.

—In conjunction with the new Hall of Fame, introduce new clear, concise guidelines for eligibility into the Hall of Fame and the Pantheon of Legends, as well as criteria for number retirement and having a statue. I understand the Cardinals have given thought to putting number retirement standards in writing, but am not sure what progress has been made to date.

My own, simple criteria for number retirement would be this: At least 10 seasons as a player in a Cardinals uniform with at least 7 seasons wearing one identifiable number, plus membership in Cooperstown. For purposes of this exercise, I define "season" as being on the 25-man roster for more than 45 games (excluding time on the disabled list), having more than 130 at-bats or pitching more than 50 innings. If those targets sound familiar, they're the thresholds at which players are considered rookies or not. Using these standards, the team's retired number roster would look like this:

1 -- Ozzie Smith (15 years with team, 15 years wearing the number)
2 -- Red Schoendienst (13/12)
6 -- Stan Musial (21/21)
7 -- Joe Medwick (10/7)
9 -- Enos Slaughter (13/13)
20 -- Lou Brock (16/16)
42 -- Jackie Robinson (retired leaguewide)
45 -- Bob Gibson (17/16)

Boyer (11/11) would miss the cut because he's not in the NBHOF. But, if he ever made it to Cooperstown via the Old Timer's Committee, he has the other qualifications necessary and would have his number retired. Dean (8/6) and Sutter (4/4) also miss the cut because their Cardinals careers simply were too short (it's worth noting that Joe Garagiola wore number 17 almost as long as Dean, after Dean). Buck, Busch and Herzog were not players. And, though he briefly wore numbers 4 and 6, Hornsby (13/2) wasn't identified with either of those digits.

Medwick played only nine full seasons for the Cardinals. However, his 158 pre-trade at-bats in 1940 qualifies him for a tenth season in uniform. By today's standards, because of his limited playing time in 1932, he still would have been considered a rookie in 1933.

Along with Hornsby, other Hall of Fame players who satisfy one condition but not the other include:

3 -- Frank Frisch (11 year with team, 6 years wearing the number)
4 -- Jim Bottomley (10/3)
16 -- Jesse Haines (18/6)

For the record, I chose the 10/7 standard before looking at the roster of potential retirees. There was no intentional attempt to keep Frisch, Bottomley or Haines off the wall or to put Medwick on it. They all belong in the Pantheon of Legends, but six years wearing a number just doesn't seem long enough to justify retirement. Arbitrary? Sure. But, the line needs to be drawn somewhere.

The simple 10/7/NBHOF player criteria I offer would make the decision process much easier. For example, if an active player or coach died, the guidelines would prohibit a reactionary number retirement (suspending use of the number for five years seems like a more appropriate gesture). There would be no temptation to retire non-existent numbers for non-players. And there would be no lobbying for fan favorites who, in all honesty, were simply above-average major leaguers.

Reinstating retired uniform numbers obviously would be a delicate undertaking that couldn't be done hastily. Having a team Hall of Fame is a necessity -- and at the moment, Ballpark Village is still a parking lot/softball field. Without a building, there can be no Hall of Fame or Pantheon of Legends. And without those recognition vehicles in place, it would be unconscionable to strip anyone of his retired number. Even when a brick-and-mortar Hall of Fame rises and players begin being inducted, it still wouldn't be right to unretire anyone's number while he is still living. For that reason, I'd propose:

—Everyone whose number (or symbol) currently is retired would automatically be part of the Pantheon of Legends.

—The numbers of those individuals who don't meet the new retired number criteria and already have passed would be reinstated five years after their induction to the Pantheon of Legends.

—The numbers of those individuals who don't meet the new retired number criteria but are still alive would not be reinstated until 10 years after their passing.

Using these guidelines and an estimated completion date for a new Hall of Fame Museum in 2014, Dean's and Boyer's numbers would become available in 2019, while Sutter's and Herzog's digits would remain out of circulation until at least 2020 (of course, Sutter's #42 would remain retired for Robinson). These criteria could be adjusted depending on when the new Hall of Fame becomes a reality.

With that much lead time, a clearly reasoned case for change and an appropriate alternative method of honoring great Cardinals of the past, the front office could bring numbers out of retirement without overwhelming public outcry.

Clearly, the criteria is open for debate. I prefer the 10/7/NBHOF player criteria, but the team ultimately could choose something much different. They may decide that managers should be eligible for number retirement, for example, or that individuals don't need to be in the NBHOF. Whatever the guidelines, though, the point is that there needs to be objective criteria in place for retiring uniform numbers and, beyond that, for honoring the baseball greats who have passed through St. Louis.

If those new standards mean some retired numbers come off the wall, then so be it. I could be wrong, which is why I'd focus group these concepts with many, many fans, players, employees, media types and, of course, the families of those individuals who would be affected. But, if I'm right, the Cardinals could remove the ambiguity from the way celebrated players are recognized and ensure my great-grandchildren won't be rooting for nine guys wearing numbers in the 80s.