Logan Morrison wants to honor his dad with a uniform number change. The problem is, the Marlins retired that number almost two decades ago.
Feb 15, 2012 - Miami Marlins outfielder Logan Morrison always seems to make news, somehow.
This week, it's due to his request to change his uniform number from 20 to 5; the request was made, supposedly, to honor Morrison's father, who died in December 2010. The elder Morrison, according to reports, "idolized" Hall of Famer George Brett, who wore No. 5 for the Kansas City Royals.
This would be a great story, except for one thing. The Marlins retired No. 5 at the franchise's very first game to honor team president Carl Barger. And Barger's family isn't happy:
The Florida Marlins retired the No. 5 before the franchise's first game on April 5, 1993, to honor Barger, who had died of a ruptured aorta at baseball's winter meetings four months earlier. Barger was a huge fan of Joe DiMaggio, who wore that number.
"No other Florida Marlin will ever wear No. 5,' then-owner Wayne Huizenga said during a ceremony before that first game.
But now that the team has renamed itself the Miami Marlins as it prepares to move into a new ballpark, the organization decided it was time to grant Morrison's request to honor his dad.
Well. There have been quite a few numbers that have been retired by teams that have moved, or even moved and changed nicknames, and none of those teams have unretired numbers. For example, the Washington Nationals continue to honor several numbers retired by their former incarnation, the Montreal Expos (Gary Carter, Andre Dawson, Rusty Staub and Tim Raines), even though the team neither plays in the same city nor has the same nickname.
So the Marlins move 14 miles down I-95 and it's OK to unretire numbers? Sure, Huizenga said "Florida Marlin" and now the team is called "Miami Marlins", but clearly, it's the same franchise.
Something similar happened in 2010 when Omar Vizquel joined the White Sox. Vizquel had always worn No. 13, but that number had been taken on the Chisox by manager Ozzie Guillen. So Vizquel came up with an idea: Honor his countryman Luis Aparicio by wearing the Hall of Famer's No. 11.
Problem: the White Sox had retired Aparicio's number when he entered the Hall in 1984.
So Omar got in touch with Aparicio and the Hall of Fame shortstop said it was OK with him:
Vizquel contacted Aparicio to see if he would be amenable, according to a White Sox spokesman, who added that the number would go back to being retired whenever Vizquel, who turns 43 in April, leaves the organization.
"If there is one player who I would like to see wear my uniform with the White Sox, it is Omar Vizquel," Aparicio said Monday in a statement. "I have known Omar for a long time. Along with being an outstanding player, he is a good and decent man."
Well, that's great, except what would you have expected Aparicio to say once asked? "No, my number is retired and that's that?" Of course, the Hall of Famer was gracious and agreed. The question should never have been asked. The point of retiring a player's number is so no one will wear it again, to honor a man who has meant something beyond the ordinary to a franchise (or, in the case of men like Greg Maddux, Nolan Ryan and Casey Stengel, to more than one team). Vizquel did wind up wearing No. 11 for his two years with the White Sox; he has now moved on to Toronto, where he'll wear No. 17; No. 11 was previously claimed by Rajai Davis and No. 13 by Brett Lawrie. Lawrie is expected to be a star for the Blue Jays, but Rajai Davis is no Luis Aparicio.
The Marlins need to reconsider; they've insulted, whether intentionally or not, the family of a man who helped create their franchise.
"Nobody has contacted us,' Betzi Barger told The Palm Beach Post on Monday. "It's just a disappointment but there's nothing we can do. We're sorry we didn't find out about it except from you.'
The Marlins plan to honor Barger at their new ballpark with a plaque. The team wants to invite the Barger family to attend, but Betzi Barger isn't sure if they will.
A plaque? Probably out of the way, stuck behind this monstrosity, where no one will see it. I don't blame the Barger family for being upset. The Marlins finally did reach out to the Barger family, but the decision wasn't changed. I'm sure Logan Morrison had the best of intentions, but just as in the Vizquel case, the question should never have been asked.
Retired numbers should stay retired. That's kind of the point.
Pablo Sandoval Swinging, Fielding
Yankees Sign John Maine To Minor-League Deal
Lance Berkman Injury: Out 8-10 Weeks After Knee Surgery
Orioles, Adam Jones Reportedly Agree To Extension +1
Ryan Howard Still Taking Batting Practice
John Danks DL'd With Shoulder Tightness
Austin Jackson Heading To Disabled List +1
Emilio Bonifacio Will Have Thumb Surgery +1
Brewers' Marco Estrada On DL With Quad Strain +1
Rumor: Yankees For Sale, Denied By Team +2
More News »
Comments
C'mon Al, this isn't a real retired number
It was retired because the then team president was a huge fan of Dimaggio. That’s the dumbest reason I’ve heard for retiring a number. Add in that there have been ownership and front office changes since then and it makes even less sense.
Also, we get it, you don’t like the Marlins. 2003 is done, time to get over it.
Hic sunt fortuna dracones
There is only 1 "n" in Hutchison
by JaysfanDL on Feb 15, 2012 11:58 AM EST reply actions
"Real" retired number or not, the team retired it for a specific reason.
It should stay retired. I should also note that the reason Morrison wants it is, essentially, similar: his DAD was a huge fan of George Brett. Not him — his dad. Great to honor someone, sure, but this isn’t a good enough reason.
Should the Angels unretire #26 if someone wants it? After all, Gene Autry is dead now.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
by Al Yellon on Feb 15, 2012 12:31 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, they should...
Because – like in this case with Carl Barger – he never actually wore the number as a player in uniform.
I frankly don’t understand the idea of retiring a “number” when the “number” was never used. If you wish to honor the man, that’s great, and well worth it. Set up a Ring of Honor or name something after the guy (and the Marlins did). But number retirements should be for players, IMHO.
"Sir Stealth, Stay stealth.. Your a moron" (jrod1142), 12/15/11 (the epic FWren Fortitude FanPost)
by carpengui on Feb 15, 2012 12:38 PM EST up reply actions
You might be right.
But since the Marlins actually retired a number to honor Barger, it should stay retired.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
by Al Yellon on Feb 15, 2012 12:53 PM EST up reply actions
It doesn't matter
what they should have done, they did it, so it is stupid and even more disrespectful to the idea behind the system to unretire it
isitspringtrainingyet.com
by imstillhungry95 on Feb 15, 2012 12:54 PM EST up reply actions
in reply to both of you...
Yeah, that was the error: doing it in the first place. And I suppose that you do compound the error by undoing the original error. A nice statement like this should have probably been done…
"The Marlins Organization understands and sympathizes with the request of Logan Morrison. And in hindsight, the retirement of #5 was perhaps done without consideration of future implications. From this point forward, our team policy will be that number retirements shall be used to honor distinguished Marlins’ players, and not others connected with the team.
Nonetheless, we will continue to memorialize the contributions of our first team President, Carl Barger, by reserving the number held in his honor."
But then again, the Marlins haven’t exactly had a great record with public relations. You could probably make a couple of columns devoted to their gaffes, eh, Al?
"Sir Stealth, Stay stealth.. Your a moron" (jrod1142), 12/15/11 (the epic FWren Fortitude FanPost)
by carpengui on Feb 15, 2012 1:22 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Really? I hadn’t thought of it.
:-)
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
by Al Yellon on Feb 15, 2012 1:27 PM EST up reply actions
Meh. It's just the Marlins.
It’d be one thing to unretire numbers from legends of the game who were part of historic franchises. But it’s a mostly arbitrary number for the flippin Marlins. Beyond the Berger family, who cares? There are likely multiple active players right now heading into 2012 who have been playing baseball longer than the Marlins have existed. 2 World Series rings or not, they’ve got a long way to go before they can exhibit any puffery over history and tradition.
More importantly, this wasn’t the number of a former player or manager; it’s a number that represented a player that a founder/owner liked. That’s one step removed from retiring the number 31 because one of the shareholders really likes ice cream.
by Chris_FB on Feb 15, 2012 11:59 AM EST reply actions
A few things.
Until last season, the Nationals did not honor those retired numbers. For the first six years they existed, they shat all over that tradition and wanted nothing to do with their past.
You really need to get over the Aparicio thing. Omar Vizquel wanted to wear his number to honor him because he looked up to Aparicio as a child. This was not some grand amazing slight.
"Many people need desperately to receive this message: 'I feel and think much as you do, care about many of the things you care about, although most people do not care about them. You are not alone.'"
by U-God on Feb 15, 2012 12:12 PM EST reply actions
I understand Vizquel's reason.
But again, the point stands: there’s a specific reason to retire a number, so NO ONE else ever wears it. A retired number should stay retired.
Of course it wasn’t a slight. But again, as I wrote, the question should never have been asked.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
by Al Yellon on Feb 15, 2012 12:30 PM EST up reply actions
There are a few differences between the Morrison situation and the Vizquel situation. Vizquel had already had a long, illustrious career when he asked Aparacio if he could wear his number. He wasn’t some snot-nosed kid two years out of the minor leagues.
As for the Marlins, they didn’t retire #5, as a few previous comments have said, just because Barger liked DiMaggio. They retired it because Barger died before the team ever played a game, and they wanted to honor him.
So I’m with Al on this one. If a team retires a number, that number stops being available. And while I can kind of understand Vizquel getting away with it, I think the Marlins should be ashamed of themselves. No wonder Mrs. Barger is upset.
by chapman_123 on Feb 15, 2012 12:24 PM EST reply actions
A plaque is a better way to honor a team president anyway
He didn’t play the game and I doubt many people know his name- at least with a plaque, he’ll get some deserved recognition. Retire numbers for the players that wore them, not executives.
by crolfer on Feb 15, 2012 12:37 PM EST reply actions
Al Yellon: Covering everything you don't want to know about the Marlins and Cubs since 1908.
"Uh, we're going to win for you tonight...Schottzie."-Chris Sabo
by Yossarian22 on Feb 15, 2012 2:19 PM EST reply actions 4 recs
I agree.
Once a number is retired, it should stay retired. Otherwise, it defeats the whole purpose.
The best husband in the world was on the Championship team at the 2012 Randy Hundley Cubs Fantasy camp!
by katie casey on Feb 15, 2012 2:53 PM EST reply actions
This is something that I really want to get worked up about
but….. just can seem to muster up a damn.
Wear something sexy to my funeral.
by Pops Daniels on Feb 15, 2012 3:04 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
A more appropriate tribute
Awhile back, the A’s wanted to honor the late Walter Haas. He was the owner of the team from 1980-1995, and he was a big deal around here. 3 straight WS trips, helped save the SF Giants by giving them territorial rights, etc.
They put a jersey on the wall next to Catfish Hunter and Rollie Fingers. However rather than picking an arbitrary number that had never been associated with him, they just put an “A’s” logo where the number would be.
Now Haas is memorialized on the wall with the other all-time greats of the organization, but a random number isn’t pointlessly reserved for a man who never wore one. I’m sure that the A’s aren’t the only team who have thought of this idea.
by ahhall on Feb 15, 2012 3:08 PM EST reply actions
The Padres have done something similar.
There’s an RAK on the press box for Ray Kroc and a star for Jerry Coleman.
by Darklighter on Feb 15, 2012 5:36 PM EST up reply actions
Ray Kroc, as in the McDonald's guy?
I never knew he owned the Padres. What a neat piece of trivia!
by ahhall on Feb 15, 2012 6:01 PM EST up reply actions
Brown & Yellow
They picked those colors in the 70s/80s because they’re the colors of a cheeseburger.
http://drawingwalks.wordpress.com/
by YankeeViking on Feb 17, 2012 8:59 AM EST up reply actions
Dead rich guys family offended.
I guess we are lucky it’s not against the law.
by Eastwindquinn on Feb 15, 2012 4:37 PM EST reply actions 5 recs
Best Miami Margins
Who are the best Miami Marlins players of all time? And I mean the AAA Marlins of the International League.
by G H Wolf on Feb 15, 2012 9:16 PM EST via Android app reply actions
I think this will make the Marlins look incompetent or inconsiderate or both, but only to fans who spend more than thirty seconds thinking about this.
I reckon most fans won’t.
We’re talking about a number someone who never played the game never wore. To turn this into a controversy is rather silly.
I’ll make one more wager. Most of those who think this is a controversy today, won’t remember it happened less than a month from now. Many of them will have forgotten it by this weekend.
Even sillier: Retiring the number in the first place.
by RichL on Feb 16, 2012 7:20 AM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed