In a league with such a high turnover of players, I have a hard time retiring numbers unless in cases such as Mickey Renaud and Paul Fendlay.
Also, does a number get retired because of career excellence or excellence only at the OHL level? Up for debate. Varies from team to team.
I’d be much more in favour of honouring a player with the number worn being secondary.
That being said, in Kitchener, there are two retired numbers, sort of, I think.
#21 - Gary Crosby.
#22 - Jim McGeachie.
Both lost their lives. McGeachie as a member of the Rangers and Crosby two or three years after having played here. Crosby was traded to the Marlboros and then played a couple years at Michigan Tech. But once a Ranger, always a Ranger.
I said “sort of, I think” above because even though these numbers have been retired, players have worn #21 here and there. Ben Shutron comes to mind. I have no recollection if #22 has been worn since.
But if they are both retired (or remembered as an article on Crosby mentions, or raised as another article on McGeachie mentions), why has #21 been worn?
Also, about the banners we’ve raised honouring former Rangers who’ve been elected to the Hockey Hall of Fame. They have on the banners the numbers those players wore when they played here …… except for Larry Robinson. Instead, they have his #19 that he wore in the NHL. Why? Who knows? I can only suspect that the brass at the time had no idea the number he wore here, could find no pictures with him in uniform where the number was visible, and were too embarrassed to ask him what his number was as a Ranger.
And yes, the idiocy and embarrassment of the “fans” #1 being retired. When it is evident most often that fan consideration comes last.