Poll: Should Fernando Valenzuela's No. 34 be retired by the Dodgers?

In his story on Fernando Valenzuela, Times Dodgers writer Dylan Hernandez mentions that the team has not given out Valenzuela's number, 34, since he left the Dodgers in 1991. Manny Ramirez asked for it when the Dodgers acquired him, and clubhouse manager Mitch Poole told him no, perhaps the greatest contribution Poole has ever made to the Dodgers.

So should the Dodgers go ahead and make it official and retire Valenzuela's number?

 

--Houston Mitchell

Comments

[Manny]

Nobody has used it (since he retired I believe) anyway.

[Since '58]

Since it is the stated policy of the Dodgers to only retire the numbers of Hall of Famers, I still believe they should make an exception in Fernando's case. But it also still pains me to other players wearing Gil Hodges' #14, even though Mike Scioscia wore it with distinction.

[Claude Osteen's Mom]

No.
.
Absolutely not.
.
El Toro does not deserve to have his number retired by the Dodgers---unless the Dodgers want to lower their current standards for a number retirement.
.
Consider this:
.
The Dodgers currently retire only those numbers belonging to those ex Dodgers inducted into baseball's hall of fame (Jim Gilliam is the lone exception and that is an argument for a different time). Fernando was dropped from HOF consideration after only 2 years of eligibility after collecting only a meager 3.8% of the vote.
.
Meanwhile some ex Dodgers currently representing the team in the hall of fame have yet to be honored by the Dodgers (i.e. Leo Durocher wears a Dodger cap on his HOF plaque and he has yet to be honored by the Dodgers) and deserve to be recognized long before Fernando.
.
Next Fernando had some great moments, some remarkable years---but so did a lot of other ex Dodgers that do NOT derserve a number retirement either. If Fernando had more such years then you have a great argument for a number retirement---but he didn't.
.

For example: ex Dodger pitcher Claude Osteen, a lefty like Fernando, who had in many ways a nearly identical Dodger career as Fernando (but without any Claudemania), does not deserve a number retirement either.
.
In 9 years as a Dodger Osteen was 147-126 with a 3.09 ERA. In 10+ years Fernando was 141-116 with a 3.31 ERA.
.
Osteen had winning season records in 6 of 9 Dodger seasons---Fernando had a winning record in only 5 full seasons out of 10.
.
Fernando won 20 games once. Osteen did it twice---in fewer years.
.
Fernando sparked Fernandomania. Osteen had no Claudemania---maybe he should have---but neither deserves a number retirement but rather a big thank you for the memories.
.
Somebody might argue that another Dodger lefty, Sandy Koufax, only had 6 great years out of 12 total---and they would be right. But Sandy was all world in those 6 years and inducted into the HOF as a result with his #32 retired by the Dodgers. Fernando doesn't even come close to Sandy.
.
Dilute the rules then maybe Fernando---and Claude---derserve a number retirement.

[AMJR]

Noooooooooooo!!!

[realistic_dodger_fan]

I agree because Fernandomania sparked a movement that went beyond just the field. He may have not had a career full of domination and sure his hanging on probably hurt his case but for what Fernando meant to the Dodgers organization he belongs to be up. The numbers that are shown in the stadium are a link to the past dodgers who played a part in sculpting Dodgers culture and even though it was in the same scope as Jackie it was still an important time.

[calmlikeabomb]

Fernando was my favorite player when I was a kid. As a Mexican-American, I watched with pride as he broke records & won awards. However, I like the Dodger policy of only retiring numbers of Dodgers who have entered the Hall of Fame. Therefore, I voted no.

http://truetotheblue81.blogspot.com/2011/03/can-we-put-ethier-drama-to-rest.html

[Labeldude]

Oh good. For a second there I thought the question was, Should Fernando pitch for the Dodgers.
.
Crap, think I just gave Ned an idea.

[Houston]

They Dodgers should retire Fernando's #34, but they also need to retire Hershiser's #55.

[Rabo]

yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Chapter 1ne]

Absolutely not!

Club policy is to only retire Hall of Famers, and that policy must stand.

The Dodgers have far more deserving players than Fernando, and here is a short list:

Maury Wills - 30

Steve Garvey - 6

Gil Hodges - 14

Zack Wheat (he is in the HoF, but oddly is not retired by the Blues)

Eric Karros - 23 (club leader in home runs)

Mike Piazza - 31

Those are just some players that come to mind that should have their numbers retired before Fernando.

[Beto Madera]

Hell! Yes! The Dodgers should retire Fernando's number.
And not only the Dodgers, Major League Baseball too!

Babe Ruth made basebell popular.
Fernando Mania saved it.

Nobody cared about baseball after the strike in Fernando's
rookie season.
Until Fernando Mania hit the east coast with overflowing stadiums at each stop, bringing baseball interest back to life from the brink of death.

[Rick G]

The Dodgers didn't even retire Duke Snider's number 4 until he made the Hall of Fame. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think the Dodgers have retired any numbers other than for those who who were enshrined in the Hall. Gil Hodges' number 14, for example, was passed along and eventually worn by Mike Scioscia, so there are two players arguably deserving of the honor of a retired number. Nope, as thrilling as Fernando Mania was, if he's not in the Hall, his number shouldn't be retired.

[alanw19]

Labeldude, you're good, lmao - great post.

On second thought, I'll put a buck and a quarter on Fernando against some of the retreads Flanders is hauling in.

[Since '58]

Not only was my syntax off, but after reading all of the other posts, I've decided to modify my initial response. I believe the way the Dodgers are handling it right now, just not issuing the number to any player, is the best way to do it. Although Chapter 1ne has a good point, I don't necessarily agree that all of the players he listed are MORE deserving than Fernando. One could make an argument for Maury's #30 to be kept out of the rotation, as well. I do believe that Fernando must be recognized for the way he impacted the ball club and the city of Los Angeles. I think him throwing out the first pitch today is a good start. I loved Claude Osteen, but he wasn't the cultural phenom Fernando was. I remember those heady days back in '81. Osteen was a marvelous pitcher, but he never inspired the response Fernando did. That should count for something.

[alanw19]

I voted before reading - that was a mistake.

Knee-jerk vote was to retire it, then remembered only HOF gets retired. So what to do? Like others said, he had a measured meaningful impact. But we should keep the standard for retirement.

Having an unwritten nobody wears it works for me. Maybe its time for our Diamonds of Honor, whereby retired jersey players, special impact people to the franchise are included in some dignified, respectable display that doesn't compete nor take away from the retired jerseys, yet gives credit to the many who have brought honor to the franchise. Vin Scully's mic, Fernando's mania, Lasorda's ambasssor of the game of baseball, Leo Durocher: those are just a couple of examples. Just have the names displayed in honor at the stadium.

Folks above my pay grade can establish criteria. But certainly, there's are some who could/should be honored while we keep the lofty standard for jersey retirement.

[Eric]

I'm borderline on this one. Someone in the thread made the Fernando vs. Osteen argument and it holds a lot of weight. I think that the main difference is that Fernando is and remains a significant figure in franchise lore, wheras Osteen has faded into the background and pitched in the shadows of Koufax and Drysdale. Fernando was The Man in the early 80's and continues to be a significant figure in the franchise as a broadcaster. Of course, I've also always been of the thought that if someone like Fernando should have their number retired, the same consideration should be given to Orel (particularly given his 1988 season.) And obviously, it's harder to make an argument for Orel than for Fernando (despite that magical run in '88) since he was a huge figure in his peak, but never a cultural icon of the sort that Fernando became when he first came up.

So I'm going to say "yes......" but it's not a 100% convinced "yes."