Like every Orioles fan, I got the notification on Saturday morning that Adley Rutschman had been promoted from Triple-A and was expected to start for the parent team that evening. A couple hours later, I tuned into MLB Network to see what the national perspective of the No. 1 prospect making his debut was.
I didn’t catch any panel show like I was expecting, but they were simulcasting the feed of New York’s White Sox-Yankees broadcast. Just by luck, the Yankees announcers were actually talking about Rutschman, so I was getting my non-local perspective after all. It turned into a preview of how everyone out of the 410 area code seems to take every opportunity to take shots at the Baltimore Orioles, especially since the franchise blew up the team five years ago and seemingly takes delight in pointing out its losing reputation ever since.
The Yankees announcers made a point of explaining how Rutschman would wear No. 35 (maybe they were on a side call with Buster Olney?) and they immediately went to the Mike Mussina angle. I rarely yell at the television, but it was laughable on how unprepared the broadcasters were to adequately discuss No. 35 history and the Baltimore Orioles. … Their first remark was how Rutschman would be the first to wear the number since Mussina left (absolutely untrue, more than a dozen times over) and how the Orioles’ fans have been clamoring for the team to retire the number ever since Mussina retired (at best, a 50-50 split; hardly a landslide opinion).
But if a big market broadcast team — especially one from New York — throws their version of facts out there, it soon becomes accepted as fact, even if it’s not true. “Perception is reality” is not only a cliché; is a real thing. And the Buster Olneys of the industry are ready to pounce.
Get Your Adley Shirt at Breaking T!
Let’s look at the first assumption that no Oriole has worn the number since Mussina was the Orioles’ ace: Since he left for the Bronx as a free agent, there were actually 12 players who’ve worn No. 35. The fact they gave it out right away — to prospect Josh Towers for the immediate two seasons after Moose signed with the Pinstripes — illustrates perfectly how contentious the sides were back in the 2000 offseason. Since then, the number (count ’em) has been handed off to Rick Helling and Matt Riley (both in 2003), Daniel Cabrera (four seasons), Greg Aquino, Brad Bergesen (three seasons), Bill Hall and Omar Quintanilla (both in 2012), Danny Valencia, Brad Brach (five seasons), Dwight Smith Jr. (two seasons) and Adam Plutko.
Quite a random list of players in different parts of their careers, promising prospects to stopgap farmhands to free agent signings to absolutely forgettable names in the history of the franchise.
Rutschman is hardly in a position to take any luster away from Mussina’s legacy by wearing the number. It’s pretty much been neutered over the last 22 seasons with so many hands passing it along.
As far as Orioles fans demanding the team retire it in his honor, I don’t see that either. … That was a pretty contentious time when Mussina went to the Yankees. It hadn’t been long since his former and new team were bitter rivals in the mid-1990s, and Mussina was the face of the Orioles at that time. It was a tough pill for Orioles fans to swallow, and they stayed bitter for a while. Other teams that Mussina considered, reportedly, at the time were Cleveland and Boston — and I think Orioles’ fans would have been much more accepting of those destinations. (But he’s not signing for any fans; he’s signing for his career and family.)
Long story, short: The road to retiring No. 35 for Mussina has been grown over in weeds and trampled beyond recognition. I see nothing wrong with letting Rutschman give it a new identity.
On a side note, if we really want a good numbers-to-be retired debate (yes, I know the team has a firm protocol on retiring players that limits it to Cooperstown Hall of Famers that are wearing an Orioles hat on the plaque), but there can be exceptions, right? There are a couple numbers that have been dormant for a long time. Here are a couple to consider:
Only Billy Ripken has worn No. 7 since 1988, since he started wearing it after his father was unceremoniously fired as manager a couple weeks into the season. The team has not issued the number ever since, in apparent deference to Cal and Billy and the disrespect they felt with that termination of Cal Sr.
I’m not suggesting it be retired for Cal Sr. (besides, Mark Belanger probably is more worthy of the honor), but maybe it’s time to release it to the active locker room. I’m not sure what the point is of keeping it buried for 30-plus years.
Another popular number on other teams that has been dormant in Baltimore from being worn by players is No. 44, when Elrod Hendricks ended his playing days with the 1979 season. He continued to wear it while working in the bullpen as a coach for decades and was considered the Orioles’ unofficial goodwill ambassador until he died in 2005. No one has worn an Orioles uniform (as a player and coach) than Ellie.
If there’s a number overdue to retire, it’s No. 44 for Hendricks. There’s a clean, unblemished history of it and no one would complain. He was a true Oriole and was faithful to the franchise.
