By now we've all heard that the Celtics are trying to lure Reggie Miller out of retirement. Danny Ainge is doing his best to put together a veteran supporting cast for his new "Big Three" of Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen and Paul Pierce. Miller would assume a bench role behind Allen, filling in as a three-point specialist for short minutes every night. A lot of fans want to see it happen, since Reggie Miller in his prime was one of the NBA's most exciting players and this might be a shot for him to get the championship he never won with the Pacers. This fan, however, is not one of them.

Even though the Bulls are my team, I could never bring myself to hate our division rivals, the Pacers. I always wanted to see them win a championship after the Bulls' run ended. I was disappointed when they lost to the Lakers in the 2000 Finals, since that season was the last chance that particular core of players got and they weren't able to close the deal. Sure, I "hated" the Pacers when they played the Bulls, but I always respected them.

Their leader during all these contending years was Mr. Pacer himself, Reggie Miller. He was a deadly three-point shooter, well-known for coming through in the clutch. He had a cocky persona, but to me it always seemed like an act he was putting on for show. While a lot of basketball stars back then wore numbers 32, 33 or 34 he wore number 31, an unusual prime number without much symmetry that you didn't see stars wear as often. Put it all together and there was something really cool and unique about him that I liked.

When Reggie Miller retired he was a few months short of 40. He had spent 18 years in the NBA, all of them with the Pacers. He had also managed to average double-figure scoring in each of those years, an impressive feat. Ron Artest's suspension during Miller's last season may have helped him there, but the stats are what they are.

His last game was a Playoff loss to the Pistons, and I remember all the talk after it ended. The Pacers lost the series in six games, with Reggie scoring 27 points in the last one. After that performance some speculated that he still had enough to keep playing, but he pointed to his poor performances in Games 4 and 5 as evidence that he didn't. I liked that, since it indicated that he wanted to go out on top. On ESPN radio one of the guys said that Reggie Miller didn't seem to have the ego of a Michael Jordan, who would keep retiring and returning. He was confident that when Reggie retired he planned to stay that way. I hoped it was true, since it seemed like just the right time for him to call it quits.

I'm not sure how serious Reggie Miller is about the possibility of a return, but I don't think it's a good idea. For one thing, he'll be 42 years old next season. Few players have ever played at that age, much less been effective. He might still be able to hit an occasional three-pointer, but he'll also be an injury risk. The argument to counter this is that he won't be asked to play very many minutes, so it shouldn't be as much of a strain on his body. What I wonder though, is what skills a 42-year-old Reggie Miller has that a younger player couldn't provide for the same price? Perhaps Reggie has more "veteran leadership" or something, but who would you rather rely on in the Playoffs? A 30-year-old three-point specialist or a 42-year-old former star playing the role of a three-point specialist? You might take Reggie because of his reputation, but clutch shots can come from anyone. Look at Travis Best against the Bucks during the Pacers' 2000 Finals run. How about Steve Kerr? He was just a journeyman before the Bulls picked him up and gave him some playing time. We remember him now as a dangerous three-point shooter, but his career might have ended had the Bulls not given him a chance. It's my belief that there are plenty of guys who could do the same thing the Celtics are asking Reggie Miller to do for the same price. All they need is the opportunity to prove themselves.

Michael Jordan's stint with the Wizards always comes to mind when the subject o####reat player returning from retirement comes up. I remember all the hype preceding his decision. Analysts loved the idea. They "knew" that Michael Jordan still had the skills to play at the same level. He was arguably the greatest player in NBA history. Who wouldn't want to see him play again? I, for one, didn't want to see him return for many of the same reasons I don't want Reggie to. He'd established himself as the greatest player in the history of one franchise, spending his entire career with them. He'd gone out on top, hitting the game-winner in the NBA Finals. Where else could he go but down? After he announced his return several people picked the Wizards to be a contender. They'd been through some lean years at the time, but they hadn't had a player like Michael Jordan either. The results ended up being pretty much what I'd expected. While Jordan still had the talent to score 20 points a game he just wasn't the same player. If you look at the numbers, he was already starting to decline in his last year with the Bulls. He only got worse in Washington, and the team never made the Playoffs either. Looking back on the whole fiasco I feel like Jordan tainted his career somewhat. While Reggie Miller was never the player Jordan was, I think his career was about as good as one could hope for without winning a championship. I don't want to look back on it and remember that disappointing stint he had with the Celtics.

There are other reasons I don't want Reggie to return which are petty by comparison, but they matter to me. For one thing, he wouldn't be able to wear his familiar number 31. Like too many other numbers the Celtics have retired it, for Cedric Maxwell no less. On a side note, Cedric Maxwell is a stupid number retirement. Sure, he was good. Sure, he had a cool nickname ("Cornbread"). Sure, he was an important contributor on two Celtic championships. Was he ever an elite player? No. Could he have led the Celtics to a championship without Larry Bird? No. Having his number retired would be like the Bulls retiring Toni Kukoc's number, but I digress. I like it when guys wear the same number their entire careers, and I can't see Reggie Miller wearing something other than his old 31.

Another thing is the double-figure scoring average streak. It would almost certainly end with the Celtics, as it was already in jeopardy during his last years with the Pacers. He wouldn't be playing enough minutes or getting enough shots to score at least 10 points consistently, and as we've already covered, he's not getting any younger. You may say that they're just stats, but I think it's cool when the numbers reflect a guy staying above a certain level of play for his entire career. Reggie has that right now, and all it takes is one subpar season to destroy it.

In the same vein, there's the issue of him playing his entire career with one team. Not many guys can say they played 18 years in the NBA, and even fewer can say they spent them all with one team. The only other one I can think of is John Stockton, who spent all 19 of his seasons with the Jazz. This is a rare combination of longevity and loyalty which he'd be giving up by playing for Boston.

If Reggie Miller really wants to return it's his choice. Maybe he'll be a piece to the championship puzzle that was never quite assembled in Indiana. Maybe he'll have fun playing the game he's given so much of his life to again. Maybe he'll even surprise us by averaging 10 points a game. On the other hand, maybe he'll get injured and miss out on everything. Maybe the Celtics will end up like the Larry Brown-era Knicks. Maybe he'll be a shell of his former self that looks out of place on the court. Maybe we'll think of him the same way we remember Babe Ruth with the Braves, Emmitt Smith with the Cardinals or Karl Malone with the Lakers: a once-great athlete sadly hanging on too long. I personally hope he doesn't suit up for the Celtics next season, but it won't shock me if he does. If Reggie returns, he had better hope it's worth it.

The Portland Trail Blazers recently announced that they planned to retire the number of former guard Lionel Hollins at their last regular-season game this year (April 18 against the Warriors). Hollins will become the sixth member of the Blazers' 1976-77 NBA Championship team to have his number retired, and the franchise's eighth retired number overall. I know that that championship team means a lot to Blazer fans, but the level of number retirement given to them borders on ridiculous. Let's look at the other "immortals" from that team who've had their numbers taken out of circulation:

Dave Twardzik, #13: Played four seasons with the Blazers. Averaged 9.5 points per game, 3.4 assists per game and 2.2 rebounds per game while playing just 24.7 minutes per game during that time. He was a very good shooter for a 6'1" guard, with a .552 field-goal percentage, but other than that his stats aren't anything special.

Larry Steele, #15: Spent all nine seasons of his career with the Blazers. Averaged 8.2 PPG, 2.8 APG, 2.9 RPG while playing 24.2 MPG. He was a good ball thief, averaging 1.79 steals per game, but again, his stats are nothing special overall.

Maurice Lucas, #20: Had a 14-year pro basketball career, spending 4½ of them in Portland. His Blazer averages are 15.6 PPG and 8.7 RPG. He's one of the better players on this list, but I would've expected a player who had his number retired to play with the team longer.

Bill Walton, #32: The only Hall of Famer on this list, Walton had a good career limited by injuries. In four seasons with the Blazers he averaged 17.1 PPG, 13.5 RPG, 4.4 APG and shot .510. This core of players didn't stick together very long, did they?

Lloyd Neal, #36: Spent his entire seven-year career with the Blazers. Averaged 11.1 PPG, 7.7 RPG, and .92 blocks per game.

As you can see, most of these number retirements are questionable, as not one of these players spent even ten seasons with the team, and some of them were basically role players. Now they're adding another to the mix:

Lionel Hollins, #14: Spent 4½ seasons in Portland. Averaged 13.9 PPG and 4.4 APG during that time. Pretty good, but hardly great.

It's just my opinion, but if you retire a number it should be someone who played with the team a long time and was consistently productive during that time. If you retire the number of someone without those credentials, he should be someone who meant a lot to the franchise. Like I said earlier, I know that the Blazers' lone championship team means a lot to them, but I have to wonder how much each of those guys individually means to the fans and the franchise. Let's look at another player whose number the Blazers have retired:

Clyde Drexler, #22: Spent 11½ seasons with Portland. Averaged 20.8 PPG, 6.2 RPG, 5.7 APG, and 2.07 steals per game over that period. He never led the team to a championship, but did take them to the NBA Finals twice.

That's the type of player who should have his number retired: a Hall of Famer who was the face of the team for a decade. The Blazers can certainly retire any number they see fit, but if I were running things, most of their retired numbers would still be available.

I'm a Bulls fan, and though my team has won six championships, only two players from that era have had their numbers retired: Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen (unless you count B.J. Armstrong's #10, which was retired in honor of Bob Love). In my opinion, the Bulls have got it right. We don't need to retire the number of everyone who played a significant role on one of those teams. Steve Kerr, Horace Grant, John Paxson, Toni Kukoc, Dennis Rodman, etc. were all important to our success, but retired numbers should be reserved for the elite players.