Solving the Boston Celtics Retired Number Problem

Boston Celtics first-round pick Chris Cenac Jr. will wear number 12 with the Celtics.

He wore number 5 in college, but that's hanging in the rafters for Kevin Garnett. There are photos of him on the internet wearing numbers 1, 3, and 10 in high school in New Orleans, but those numbers were all retired in honor of Walter Brown, Dennis Johnson, and JoJo White. He wore number 0 at Link Academy, but Jayson Tatum is going to be the last player to ever wear that number. And Cenac wore number 11 on Team USA’s under-19 national team, but Payton Pritchard isn’t giving that number up.

So how did he settle on 12?

“I think that was the best number that was available, honestly,” he said earlier this summer.

The Celtics have retired so many numbers, they actually retired one twice. Jim Loscutuff’s number 18 was going to be retired by the Celtics in the mid-60’s when they went on their number-retiring binge, but he refused the honor so someone else could wear the number. So the Celtics put his nickname, “LOSCY” on the retired number banner, issued 18 to Dave Cowens in 1970, and retired it in his honor.

Retired numbers are among any sport’s greatest honors. The concept is simple: A player was so good that no one else could live up to that number, and seeing it on someone else would feel wrong. In the 60’s, the Celtics also used it as a culture-building, pseudo-marketing ploy to sell the image of a storied franchise as they were writing the story.

We know they don’t hang division or conference-winning banners at TD Garden, but they used to in the early days of the old Boston Garden. There are photos, like this one, with a bunch of “Eastern Division Champs” banners in the background. You can also see the retired numbers at that point: 14 for Bob Cousy, 15 for Tommy Heinsohn, 21 for Bill Sharman, 22 for Ed Macauley, and 23 for Frank Ramsey, plus the big number 1 banner for Walter Brown. Sam Jones (24), Satch Sanders (16), John Havlicek (17), and Bill Russell (6) are all on the floor.

That photo is believed to be from the 1966 Eastern Division Finals against the Sixers. Heinsohn retired at the end of the previous season. Cousy retired in 1963. The Celtics didn’t wait long back then to hang a number in the rafters. They wanted teams walking in the building to feel the weight of the history already being written in Boston. They wanted teams to walk in and see banners and numbers and think they were in a special place.

The Celtics were obviously the most successful franchise of the day, but Red Auerbach wanted everyone to know it. It was part of his mind games.

At the point this photo was taken, the league was just about 16 years old and the Celtics franchise was 19, but it shows 10 numbers that were either retired or on the chests of the last people to wear them. Not pictured in that photo: Don Nelson and KC Jones, whose numbers 19 and 24 would also eventually be retired.

Twelve numbers out of circulation by 1966. Sixty years later, it’s put new Celtics players in a bit of a bind when it comes to choosing a number. The only currently available, unassigned numbers between 0 (or 00, Robert Parish’s retired number) and 35 (Reggie Lewis’ retired number) are 7, 26, and 29 … and I’d be surprised if they handed out 7 again.

The current non-retired numbers between 0-35 that are assigned to players are 0 (Jayson Tatum), 4 (Mitchell Robinson), 8 (Ron Harper Jr., who traded his old number to Paul George), 9 (Derrick White), 11 (Payton Pritchard), 12 (Chris Cenac Jr.), 13 (Paul George, who gets to continue the PG-13 nickname), 20 (Dillon Mitchell), 27 (Jordan Walsh), 28 (Hugo Gonzalez), and 30 (Sam Hauser).

Some of these will certainly return to circulation at some point, but the Celtics still have most of their “good” numbers locked up and unavailable. This isn’t the NFL with huge rosters and numbers in the 90’s that make sense. Basketball is about teams of 15, so those numbers traditionally stayed fairly low. A few crept into the 40’s and 50’s, but that was it. The Celtics have had four players wear the number 77, seven players wear the number 99, and another six players wearing other numbers in the 90’s.

It’s time to fix this, so here are three ideas to alleviate this number logjam.

Build a Hall of Fame

The Celtics need a place to honor players without having to take a number out of circulation. A Celtics Hall of Fame is the answer.

Of course, that opens up another question: Where would they put it? I don’t think that can be answered until the team figures out if Causeway Street is their permanent home, or if Bill Chisholm and partners will explore a new home for the team.

The Boston Globe recently reported on a new potential option: The US Postal annex outside of South Station. The Postal Service may be considering selling the 15-acre parcel, and moving across town and still above a transit hub would be a huge win for the team. It would keep the team on the same side of the Harbor but open up an avenue to Seaport entertainment options.

If the Celtics do find a new home, it’s going to have to start picking up steam soon. Their lease ends after the 2035-36 season, which gives them just enough time to scout a location, buy it, jump through all the political hoops, raze whatever is there, and build a new facility. All that stuff takes a lot of time.

Once all THAT is done, then they can plan a Hall of Fame attraction at the new facility.

If they DON’T build a new home and stay where they are, then they have to get creative. Do they add something to the arena that can serve as an exhibit? Do they buy a building nearby and turn it into a Celtics Hall of Fame? Do they put it somewhere else in Boston?

I think it would be a massive draw for Celtics fans. They could even do it in conjunction with the Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame as a sort of satellite exhibit that promotes trips out to the full Hall.

However they do it, it would be a great way to honor great players and moments without having to retire a number to do it. Think of Isaiah Thomas, who had two of the best seasons this franchise has ever seen. He would be a great addition to the Celtics Hall of Fame, but he also definitely didn’t do enough to get his number retired. A player like Marcus Smart or Derrick White fits the bill as well.

Celtics history is full of important players who accomplished a lot but didn’t do enough to get their jerseys in the rafters. A Hall of Fame honors all of them.

Un-retire a few numbers

This always gets sticky, because reintroducing a retired number just feels disrespectful. At the same time, Auerbach’s zeal for adding numbers to that banner might have gone a bit too far.

In fact, let’s start with Auerbach himself. The number 2 is retired in his honor, but why? There are a million ways to honor a guy like Auerbach. He is the patriarch of the franchise, but he never played a second of NBA basketball. Why take away a number for that?

The same goes for Walter Brown. He created the Celtics and helped build the BAA and NBA, but is retiring a number for him the best way to honor his legacy?

A Celtics Hall of Fame should have three busts at the front door: Brown, Auerbach, and Bill Russell. One of those guys should have his number retired.

There may be a few others who meet the Hall of Fame criteria but are iffy as retired numbers. Returning a few to circulation wouldn’t be the worst thing. But even if we say what’s done is done with the guys on the floor, the numbers 1 and 2 should be allowed.

Add zeroes to single-digits

I’ve never understood the logic of allowing 0 and 00 but not 3 and 03.

The Celtics could add a zero in front of all their single-digit numbers and put them in circulation. You can avoid confusion by not allowing a 4 and 04 at the same time, for example, but this would give the Celtics a new crop of numbers to work with. I think keeping 06 out of the mix, just because Bill Russell was SO good that we don’t want to infringe on his legacy, makes sense. But I’m cool with adding the 0 in front of all the other and putting them out there.

The Celtics are in a unique spot with the numbers, but there are answers to be had. It’s either that, or field a starting five 20 years from now where everyone is wearing something in the 50’s or 60’s.

Add us as a preferred source on Google