GDT: [GM30] Canucks vs Panthers | Thur. Dec 14th, 7pm | SNP | Lou Ring of Honour Night
- Thread starter Vector
- Start date
- Status
Bojack Horvatman
IAMGROOT
- Jun 15, 2016
- 4,114
- 7,254
- Aug 28, 2011
- 15,904
- 19,084
Ring of Honor for Luongo is appropriate. One of the best goaltenders in the history of this franchise. His 2006-07 performance was unreal and he singlehandedly carried a mediocre team to the 2nd round on his own. Dominant regular season goaltender during most of his stay but unfortunately had moments in the playoffs that were remembered for the wrong reasons (2011 aside). Additionally, the goaltending situation between 2013-2014 was horribly managed, and then later negatively compounded by Tortorella's shenanigans.
If we go based on what's already up in the rafters, I think there's a legitimate case for him to have his number retired. However in reality, he spent under 8 seasons here (compared to his 11 seasons in Florida), and the relationship he had with the city and organization was clearly strained after his departure.
If we go based on what's already up in the rafters, I think there's a legitimate case for him to have his number retired. However in reality, he spent under 8 seasons here (compared to his 11 seasons in Florida), and the relationship he had with the city and organization was clearly strained after his departure.
Canucks standards for jersey retirements is a lower bar. So I get the argument from the pro Lu crowd based on that. But I’d like to see higher standards.
Like for Smyl, no offence good loyal player on bad teams for a long time…. Naslund was one of the top players for a short period of time. Bure one of the best for longer.
Either you are a great player for a while but like a Dionne the team around you isn’t great or you are a very good player and the team has success and you are a big reason for that success.
Bure/Nazzy we’re great but shorter period of time here.
Like for Smyl, no offence good loyal player on bad teams for a long time…. Naslund was one of the top players for a short period of time. Bure one of the best for longer.
Either you are a great player for a while but like a Dionne the team around you isn’t great or you are a very good player and the team has success and you are a big reason for that success.
Bure/Nazzy we’re great but shorter period of time here.
I’m very happy that we aren’t repeating the embarrassing Naslund number retirement situation with Luongo.
Also we already did ROH for Kirk McLean and there isn’t really much to separate their Canuck careers on paper - 2x Vezina finalists, 2nd Team AS, one long playoff run losing in Game 7 of the Finals. Luongo was better overall in the regular season but McLean was much better in his playoff run.
Also we already did ROH for Kirk McLean and there isn’t really much to separate their Canuck careers on paper - 2x Vezina finalists, 2nd Team AS, one long playoff run losing in Game 7 of the Finals. Luongo was better overall in the regular season but McLean was much better in his playoff run.
Ernie
Registered User
- Aug 3, 2004
- 12,831
- 2,277
I think you should only jersey retire Hall of Flame level players that primarily identify with the Canucks as their team.
That would leave the Sedins as the only players to have their numbers retired, and I'd be fine with that. Luongo had some good years here but he's definitely more connected with the Panthers. The fact that they already retired his jersey should disqualify him automatically. Linden, Naslund and Smyl are just not good enough.
Bure is an edge case for me. Wasn't loved by the end of his tenure but that's not solely on him, the organization treated him poorly. Clear Hall of Fame talent, had playoff success with the team. If the organization hadn't gone to the dark side I think he would have been here a long time and would easily meet the standard.
That would leave the Sedins as the only players to have their numbers retired, and I'd be fine with that. Luongo had some good years here but he's definitely more connected with the Panthers. The fact that they already retired his jersey should disqualify him automatically. Linden, Naslund and Smyl are just not good enough.
Bure is an edge case for me. Wasn't loved by the end of his tenure but that's not solely on him, the organization treated him poorly. Clear Hall of Fame talent, had playoff success with the team. If the organization hadn't gone to the dark side I think he would have been here a long time and would easily meet the standard.
I’d only have 16/22/33 there and nobody else even close.
I just can’t reconcile ROH for McLean vs. number retirement for Luongo.
I was the biggest Bure backer you’d ever find for the HHOF when that was still a debate but to me he forfeited a number retirement - the highest honour a team can give a player - when he held out when under contract.
Linden I wouldn’t retire for his on-ice contributions alone but the off-ice/charity work he did here was immense and set a standard and a culture here that has continued to this day and that legacy plays into why I’d retire his number. A lot of sick kids had better lives because of Trevor Linden.
Josepho
i want the bartkowski thread back
I might've mentioned this before but here are my criteria for retiring a number and I think you need to hit 4/5.
- Spends a very long time with the team (like, 10+ years)
- Solid amount of team success (obviously not necessarily a cup)
- HOF/elite level talent
- No sort of off-ice controversy, charitable stuff, etc.
- Good pro, never skimps on effort or mails it in
Last edited:
Ernie
Registered User
- Aug 3, 2004
- 12,831
- 2,277
That's just the thing about Bure though, if the Canucks didn't dick him around none of that would have happened. If this management treated Pettersson the same way I'd be furious.
Linden may be a good person but his hockey talent was just not there. Never got close to sniffing a major trophy.
I was never really a huge Luongo fan and the finals made me resent him. I still honestly believe that his finals performance particularly game 6 and 7 were the worst I’ve ever seen from a goalie in the playoffs— let alone a cup clinching game. We lost both games by mid 1st period because he didn’t come prepared to play. The team was deflated, played with no confidence because he wasn’t able to provide that stability. His tendency to crack under pressure during big games really casts a dark cloud in an otherwise HHOF-ish career.
That said, he was an entertaining goalie to watch and genuinely a likeable person off the ice. And he’s genuinely a funny guy. He definitely deserves the ring of honour but nothing more than that.
That said, he was an entertaining goalie to watch and genuinely a likeable person off the ice. And he’s genuinely a funny guy. He definitely deserves the ring of honour but nothing more than that.
Ernie
Registered User
- Aug 3, 2004
- 12,831
- 2,277
These criteria are fine but #3 should be weighted much higher than the others, and should be the deciding factor.
There are definitely two sides to the Bure thing but he wasn’t a saint in it either and is a complicated person with a complicated legacy.
Re: Linden, it isn’t the HHOF. A guy like Ken Daneyko was a much worse player than Linden and is to me a totally justifiable number retirement for the character and heart he brought to his team for a very long time.
I mean, excellence is a huge part of it. But there are exceptions for guys who find other ways to leave a huge legacy and have a massive connection with the city and fans.
1. Again, Linden’s off-ice/charity contributions were on a different level from anyone else in the history of the franchise and set a standard and culture, and that’s a huge legacy.
2. This team was drawing 9000 fans in the mid-80s and were behind the BC Lions in popularity, and three people were mostly behind the titanic chance in franchise profile in this market by 1994 : Pat Quinn, Trevor Linden, and Pavel Bure. And again, that legacy is enormous.
Linden is also the best playoff performer in franchise history by a fair margin.
Usually they recommend you get there an hour early for special occasions such as this. Doors open at 5:30pm so, if you can, get there sometime just after that to guarantee yourself a bobblehead.
Canucker
Go Hawks!
I think a guy like Stan Smyl falls into a category like this...on the surface, his on-ice contributions really don't measure up to the type of player who would be seen as a ROH or retired number sort of player, but you probably won't find someone who bleeds Canucks colors as much as, or for as long as, Stan Smyl.
Originally, I found it kind of embarassing that Smyl's number was retired...but after all this time with the organization through all the ups and downs, I think he's a very worthy candidate even if his numbers aren't up to snuff.
Hollywood Burrows
Registered User
He was awful in Boston. But Lou also had two shutouts in the Final. It's probably a sweep without Lou, or 4-1 at best.
Luongo was never considered particularly likeable when he was here - prickly and distant, if anything - and his rep only changed when he started being funny on social media after he left.
Breakers
Make Mirrored Visors Legal Again
I don't have a problem with Naslund or Smyl getting retired. To me, retiring a number for a club is something more than just on-ice excellence (although of course it is a component). I think a big part of the criteria should be importance to the team over a long tenure, enmeshing and embracing the community, and truly being "a Canuck". I think Smyl and Naslund fall in that, while Bure and Luongo do not.
I kinda disagree. That's what the HHOF is for.
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
GAME 5 - Pelicans Lahti @ Tappara Tampere - Tappara leads series 3-1Wagers: 2Staked: $1,359.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
-