Who are the top 10 players in Padres history?
Joel Reuter over at Bleacher Report has his list of the top 10 players in Padres history. I'll let you go and check it out to see what you think. Here's a preview, Adrian Gonzalez comes in at #5. Go read it and come back.
So... This got me to thinking. This is not a great list of players. It includes Phil Nevin and Ryan Klesko, which I'd have trouble arguing against, but at the same time, I feel a little bit ashamed for including. It includes two Hall of Famers (with one pending in Trevor Hoffman). It includes 3 out of our 4 number retirees. Steve Garvey is left completely off, without even an honorable mention.
In any case, considering the fact that Adrian Gonzalez is number five, and would likely be in the top five of anybody's top Padres list, consider this question: Would you retire his number when the time came?
Statistically, he's the best first baseman we've ever had. If he even comes close to continuing his career pace in 2010, he'll be right up there among our best hitters (Tony Gwynn being an outlier).
So a couple points of discussion:
1. Who is in your top 10?
2. Do you retire Adrian Gonzalez's number?
19 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Personally I think we should retire more numbers
for players who have made impacts with the Padres. People like Steve Finley or something.
Nevin being ahead of RJ is a travesty!!!!
And as of right now I say no to retiring Adrians number. He’s only been with us for 4 seasons and was acquired so he wasn’t technically homegrown (and yes I don’t live under a rock and am fully aware he grew up in San Diego, I’m just saying he wasn’t drafted, nor did he spend any time in the Pads minor league system). If he plays out the final 2 years of his deal then I’d have to strongly consider since he would most likely break many of the Padres offensive records if he keeps up his current production.
RJ's Fro - Catch the Fro Fever!!
.400 in '94 - For all your Padres merch needs!
I realize we aren't the freaking Yankees or anything...
But to start talking about Adrian’s number being retired at this point seems wayyyyyy premature. In any respectable baseball market, a player would have to have at least 10 very good years with a team to even start discussing the possibility of having their number retired.
Retiring a guy’s number after 4 1/2 good years (assuming he gets traded before the trade deadline) and a 1-6 playoff record really cheapens the whole thing. Let’s raise our standards a bit.
by theodore donald kerabatsos on Jan 5, 2010 10:17 AM PST reply actions
I am uncomfortable with Garveys # being retired
I remember when Petco first opened, I took a tour. The tour guide had to spend a lot of time explaining to out-of-towners why Garveys Padre number was retired.
I think it cheapens the whole idea
Agreed.
I may make some people here mad for saying this, but I don’t think Garvey’s or Winfield’s numbers should be retired. And I think that Randy’s is questionable.
Garvey’s number being retired is embarrassing. He had 4 decent years here and is beloved for one swing of the bat. Not to take anything away from that homerun, but one shouldn’t earn their number being retired because of one homerun.
Winfield had 7 1/2 good years here. That’s great. Again, not to take away from the impact he had here, but retiring numbers should be reserved for guys who are absolute cornerstones of an organization. It should be an honor ever greater than being in the HOF. For a guy most people remember as being a member of another team, it just doesn’t make sense to have his number retired here.
Jones’ number being retired I can accept, but if it was up to me, I’d probably say that he wasn’t quite up to the standards required for number retirement. He was only here for eight seasons and of those, about half were good or great. The other four were average or poor. Love Randy Jones… but I think maybe the number retirement was a bit premature.
The only “slam dunks” that I see are Gwynn and Hoffman (when he’s done).
by theodore donald kerabatsos on Jan 5, 2010 2:35 PM PST up reply actions
I agree with SDPads_1...
…that it depends on how long he is with us. The team I mean, not alive. It is way too early for number retirement talk regarding Adrian. If he is not dealt however, signs an extension (against all odds), he will eventually be in the realm of those talks.
I was always just embarrassed Klesko was ever on the Padres
And Ken Caminiti should be on the list somewhere considering his importance to the team during his time here. And the legend of the snicker bar. I’d put him in over Benito.
It’ll probably take another 5-7 years of Adrian amazingness to get his numbered retired. Even considering the Padres historic requirements. If the Padres ever make the playoffs while he’s here, and he does some damage then, that will help a bit.
Agreed.
Beyond having a bunch of good years, to have a number retired, a player ought to have a few “signature moments” as well. Garvey’s number is retired because of one signature moment. Adrian still needs to have one (or two or three) of those moments to be considered.
by theodore donald kerabatsos on Jan 5, 2010 10:37 AM PST up reply actions
Having a "signature moment"
is a great way to put it.
I don't agree with the order
and I would either put Bip Roberts, Steve Finley, or Gary Templeton in there instead of Nevin and Klesko.
But how can we not consider putting Adrian’s number? More games already than Garvey, Cammy, and Finley. If he plays next year with us, he’ll pass Nevin and Klesko on the homerun list in 2 less seasons. Adrian just needs that “moment” where he can be remembered, like Garvey’s homerun.
But, like Jake and many or our great/good players, we have build for the future and maximize our assets. Yadda, yadda, yadda…
"It's all part of the plan." Jeff Moorad and The Joker in the Dark Knight.
"I don't feel this team can beat us four times," Mo Williams 5/21
Colbert at #10
That just tells me this guy didn’t spend much time on the list. Ranking him behind Klesko and Nevin and even Peavy is just silly.
Thank you for waving at me.
by Winfield's Ghost on Jan 5, 2010 12:11 PM PST reply actions
I don't think it is silly
for Colbert to be ranked behind Peavy.
I agree though about Klesko and Nevin
I remember
Having a fan post last year about whether Peavy could be in the retired numbers consideration. Jake had a longer tenure that Adrian has had so far and he won a Cy Young Award, led the league in ERA and led the league in strikeouts. He was the opening day starter multiple times, pitched in multiple all star games and started playoff games for the Padres. I just don’t see how Adrian can even compare to that at this point. Sure Adrian was a better player in 2009 than Jake and probably will be in 2010 and he probably is one of the top 10 or 20 players in the game today. But when retiring numbers I think you are looking at the entire body of work or the “signature moment” that was mentioned earlier. I don’t see how Adrian has either of those yet.
I'm the first person to admit that I'm wrong about a lot of things, but I'm going to be the last person to admit I'm wrong about what we're currently talking about.
I am going to go look up
some other teams retired numbers.
I’ll be sure to include some expansion teams.
Roberto Alomar
where is the honorable mention for Alomar…or Rickey Henderson…..but its hard to argue this list, since the padres really never had many standouts to make the list, as short as Klesko and Nevin were as padres, but during that period they did alot of damage by putting up numbers, and the padres were actually winning….padres should of never let go alot of players….like jason bay or X Nady….all if were still padres could of change the top 10 list that is currently posted…..im sure give a few years and if he still is a padre, adrian will move up on the list…..just like if peavy was still a padre

by 












