Re: Cedric Maxwell

[Marc Pierce <karhu@umich.edu>]

> In a message dated 9/28/99 6:03:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time, karhu@umich.edu 
> writes:
> 
> > Should Maxwell's number be retired?
>  It depends.  Many might opine that the Cs have retired too many numbers. 
> What are the criteria?  IIRC, Ed MacCauley's #22 is up there because he 
> agreed to go to SanFrancisco (? St. Louis?) in the deal that brought the 
> Celts the pick that became Russell.  Frank Ramsey was known as a sixth man.  
> Should bench players, no matter how exalted, have numbers retired?  The only 
> franchise close to the Celts in league history, the Lakers, have five numbers 
> on the wall:  Worthy, Wilt, Magic,. Kareem and West.
>    By Laker criteria, Max's number shouldn't be there.  But by Celtic 
> criteria, why not?  And if so, why not DJ and Ainge?  All were starters on 
> championship teams.  With the exception of Parish and McCauley, though, 
> didn't all the rest end their careers with Boston?  (Well, forget Cousy's 
> game or two with Cincinnati/KC/Omaha or whoever)
> 


I don't quibble with any retired numbers (OK, maybe with "Loscy" and Ed
McCauley), but c'mon, most of them are no-brainers.  Can you imagine not
retiring Bird's number?  Or Sam Jones?  
With Maxwell and Ainge I think there's more room for argument.  Personally
I think that Maxwell's performances in the 1981 and 1984 Finals qualify
him.  Plus he was a bridge from the dark days of Rowe and Wicks to the
Bird era.  Ainge I'm not so sure about.

Marc Pierce

Riches may not make you friends, but they greatly increase the class and
variety of your enemies.
        Ian Fleming