2020

Philsmania 2020-02-04 16:09:12 UTC #1

In honor of the late Roy Halladay on the 10th anniversary of his perfect game.

zambonir 2020-02-04 17:13:51 UTC #2

I feel like this should ultimately open the door to more retirements (of the '08 core) even though Roy himself already meets the HoF threshold. Think they'll do Curt?

VoteForKalas 2020-02-04 17:14:16 UTC #3

Loved Halladay as a pitcher for the Phils, but I disagree with this move. Smells like PR mostly to me.

There are multiple players more deserving of this highest honor. Halladay was here for such a short time, was not on the WS team of 2008 and is going into the HOF as a Blue Jay which is proper.

Lawman 2020-02-04 17:32:35 UTC #4

Halladay is going into the HoF with no logo on the cap.

Lawman 2020-02-04 17:34:58 UTC #5

And, yes, it's PR. But, so what? He's a HoF who solidified his credentials with the Phillies, and had two signature moments. Including a no hitter in the post-season. Yes, purely from a team perspective, there are players that deserve the honor more. But, Halladay is a) a Hall of Famer and b) dead.

I have no problems with this.

andyb 2020-02-04 17:58:22 UTC #6

I do think they will do Curt. The big question for me is Rolen who they would not think of doing if he did not make the HOF. But if he does, he has a lesser case to retire his number probably than any of Rollins, Utley, Howard, or Hamels.

The Phillies really need to back away from their HOF policy about retired numbers. They probably should not have done Halladay also, as he really did not play for the club enough and furthermore was not on a world series winner.

VoteForKalas 2020-02-04 17:58:27 UTC #7

Thank you, did not know that. I had read it would be as a Blue Jay since most of his career and accomplishments happened there.

zambonir 2020-02-04 18:09:08 UTC #8

The reality is Halladay may not have even gotten into the HOF first-ballot (though it still would have been close) and wouldn't already be on the Phillies Wall of Fame so quickly had he not died. But so it is.

I think the policy kind of forces them to do it, especially since the family chose to have him go in with no cap. And once Bryce didn't take the number it was obviously coming.

My guess is the Phillies will retire Howard et. al before Rolen actually gets into the Hall.

Philsmania 2020-02-04 20:03:01 UTC #9

I don't think they ever retire #38 or #17. Too much water under the bridge for both of those guys. They both accumulated the lions' share of their numbers here but their greatest seasons and moments were elsewhere. The closest precedent to retiring their numbers would be the Sixers with Barkley who also left town via a messy franchise-athlete divorce. But, in my opinion, there is as much an argument for "no" as there is for "yes" in terms of retiring their numbers. Plus, let's face it, public opinion is a factor as well. Neither one of them is particularly beloved in Philadelphia. Rolen rubbed people the wrong way on his way out of town and Schilling's '93 exploits were a lifetime ago and, in addition, he now goes over like a lead balloon in a somewhat liberal city like Philadelphia.

zambonir 2020-02-04 20:16:23 UTC #10

I think the water under the bridge is the reason why it could happen, though once they retire Howard and Utley and Rollins, it will seem less mandatory to retire any Phillie who is in the HOF if they weren't here long enough. Rolen seems less likely, great player who didn't achieve anything here. Schilling is no less important than Halladay was, but, politics aside, he doesn't seem to have maintained a relationship with the organization.

The analogue for Schill is Bunning, but he chose to go into the Hall with a Phillies cap (even though the Hall itself still lists his primary team as the Tigers). The Halladay approach might work for Curt given he'd have to choose between Arizona and Boston but we all know which one he probably prefers.

bkeich 2020-02-04 23:24:48 UTC #11

Simply put, and no disrespect intended, but this is not a good idea. They are greatly lowering the bar for what a retired number should be. He was a great player and the Blue Jays should do this, but his time with Philly, while intense in its success was simply too short for this honor.
He was great ina Phillies uniform, but others have also had wonderful short careers. It simply is not justified, even with a perfect game and no hitter in the playoffs.

zambonir 2020-02-05 01:53:51 UTC #12

I think Halladay and Bunning are also similiar. Bunning did finish his career here (albeit badly) and was a fair bit better than Roy over four seasons (Roy only had two elite ones) but Roy's highs were arguably higher (both individually and because his team was regularly in the post-season).

It's a product of the free agency era as much as anything. Players aren't going to stay on the same team long enough for these decisions to be clear-cut, and this Schilling/Rolen/Halladay generation is, broadly, the first to put it to the test.

Funny that Bunning wore the same number as Rose because he certainly would have been added to the wall if he hadn't been banned and made the Hall, and (as we've discussed plenty) Pete was both a short-timer and not especially good individually during his Phillies career. But, the ring. Which unfortunately Roy and Cliff Lee don't even have.

fish 2020-02-05 02:22:30 UTC #13

Halladay's dominance in general may not be as long as you remember. To put it in perspective, 25% of his 8 great years came as a Phillie.

zambonir 2020-02-05 20:44:55 UTC #14

Speak of the devil, Pete has applied for reinstatement again, in what appears to be a "two wrongs make a right" defense.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/pete-rose-is-asking-the-right-questions-200630085.html

Of course he was already eligible to go on the Phillies wall of fame or have his number retired, the news stories about his teenage girlfriend are what scotched that.

julio 2020-02-05 20:49:11 UTC #15

The man is the biggest creep in a couple of generations associated with MLB. If he were capable of shame, he'd disappear from public life.