If Edler re-signs in Vancouver for 3+ more seasons, does his number get retired?

[Kryten]

Just like Brother Doug.

Doug puts the d in Lister

 

[Kryten]

Doug puts the d in Lister

That sounded better in my head than it does to read

 

[Captain Bowie]

I care. I understand other people don't.

To me it's a stupid practice. I think it makes sense when you have a player wearing a number that is uncommon anyway, like Gretzky wearing #99, to say hey, nobody of any consequence had ever worn this number before, and Gretzky is uniquely identified by this number, so let's preserve that by taking it out of circulation. Obviously this is an exceptionally rare occurrence, and the only time it makes sense to me to take a number out of circulation. I don't like that nobody can wear #16 or #10 again, even though I was a massive Bure fan as a kid. I don't think you need to remove a number from circulation to honour a player. I can see the argument for #22 and #33 as those were less common numbers, but I would still vote against it.

Obviously, I get that a lot of people on here don't care about jersey numbers. I do. It's part of the aesthetic to me and I would prefer Pettersson to be wearing #14 to #40 and Gaunce to be wearing #16 (as he does in Utica) to #50. I don't like that these very nice looking classic numbers are taken away from them (officially or unofficially) just because a Canuck legend wore them in the past. I think that's dumb.

But I get that I'm in the minority on this one. I'm also in the minority of hating the nickname "Canucks" and only ever refer to the team by city. There are certain things that don't matter at all on the ice but are nevertheless part of the team aesthetic and appeal. Jersey numbers falls into the same category of discussion as team nickname, jersey colours and logos, entirely subjective and not really worth arguing about.

Sounds like you have a lot of hate in your heart. I'm here for you buddy.

But seriously, I get what you are saying about numbers. However lets follow through on the logic for a minute.

Let's say two players have great careers as Canucks, Both special enough to have their numbers retired by your standards. But wait! One of them wears 62, and the other wears 9! And player #9 is far and away the best player in our history, winning multiple scoring titles and MVPs. Player #62 still reached your bar for jersey retirement, but not quite the same heights as player #9. What do you do? Retire 62, but not 9? Retire neither? Retire both? It would suck to have a great number like 9 taken out of circulation right?

 

[Fire Benning]

Toooo many retired jerseys already.

Soon our rafters will look like this
1,6,10,12,16,19,22,33,40,53



18.....

You forgot 44 for Gudbranson.

 

[Melvin]

Sounds like you have a lot of hate in your heart. I'm here for you buddy.

But seriously, I get what you are saying about numbers. However lets follow through on the logic for a minute.

Let's say two players have great careers as Canucks, Both special enough to have their numbers retired by your standards. But wait! One of them wears 62, and the other wears 9! And player #9 is far and away the best player in our history, winning multiple scoring titles and MVPs. Player #62 still reached your bar for jersey retirement, but not quite the same heights as player #9. What do you do? Retire 62, but not 9? Retire neither? Retire both? It would suck to have a great number like 9 taken out of circulation right?

I would retire neither. I guess I haven't made this clear enough. I like that Gretzky's 99 is retired. I would not retire any other jerseys.

 

[Captain Bowie]

I would retire neither. I guess I haven't made this clear enough. I like that Gretzky's 99 is retired. I would not retire any other jerseys.

So if Gretzky wore #9 like he originally wanted when he joined the OHL Greyhounds, jersey retirement wouldn't exist in your world?

 

[Melvin]

So if Gretzky wore #9 like he originally wanted when he joined the OHL Greyhounds, jersey retirement wouldn't exist in your world?

Correct.

 

[Javaman]

Sure! I'd love to see the Canucks retire #23.

Thomas Gradin deserves to be honoured for his contributions to the Canucks as both a player and a scout. Thanks to Gradin, the Canucks were able to unearth gems like Alex Edler in the third round!

 

[Hit the post]

Sure! I'd love to see the Canucks retire #23.

Thomas Gradin deserves to be honoured for his contributions to the Canucks as both a player and a scout. Thanks to Gradin, the Canucks were able to unearth gems like Alex Edler in the third round!

Glad somebody has mentioned this. Not that I think Gradin's number should be retired but Edler before Gradin??? Gradin didn't just have a hand in Edler's drafting but the Sedin's as well.

 

[Luck 6]

Bure and the Sedins would be my three choices for jersey retirement. I suppose you can make a case for Linden and Smyl, but neither of them once any league wide accomplishments nor did they win the cup. At least the other three are going to the HHOF.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

[mod]

On retired numbers in general, yes it's ridiculous. We're going to have 6 numbers retired plus 2 more out of circulation after less than 50 seasons.

Only numbers retired should be 16 22 and 33. The Naslund retirement in particular was embarrassing.

co-sign, except i also understand why smyl is there and respect that when he went up it was appropriate.


as for edler, of course not. i wouldn't even put him in the ring of honour. i mean, what has he ever accomplished? among canucks defensemen, ohlund is automatic for ring of honour. harry snepsts is next. lumme meant about as much as edler did but he was a better player, so he goes ahead of him. and if we're talking sentimental favourite, you have to put bieksa ahead too. only then do you get into guys like edler, lidster, kearns, who all played a long time in the uniform and put up okay points but didn't do a lot of winning when they were the main guy.

 

[n00bxQb]

We did lots of winning while Edler was the main guy ...

Edler has led all Vancouver dmen in TOI/G and EV TOI/G every year since '10-'11 (except '13-'14 (#2)), which included two Presidents Trophies and a trip to the Stanley Cup Finals.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

We did lots of winning while Edler was the main guy ...

Edler has led all Vancouver dmen in TOI/G and EV TOI/G every year since '10-'11 (except '13-'14 (#2)), which included two Presidents Trophies and a trip to the Stanley Cup Finals.

i don't think there's a reasonable argument that he was any higher than #3 in importance, behind hamhuis and ehrhoff, in 2011. and you could reasonably put him at 4, maybe even 5 (but i wouldn't).

and by winning, i meant playoff games but i should have been more specific.

 

[M2Beezy]

Yes. The blues are also a terrible, moribund franchise. I'm really not sure what your point is.

Too true MBM

 

[Melvin]

Too true MBM

I mean, they are literally called the blues.

 

[Kirk Mclean]

No way

 

[skyo]

Unless he can help this franchise win a Stanley Cup in the next few years, ROH it is for now.

 

[Archangel]

Ring of Honor is a foregone conclusion for Edler. Right now you could say he is right in line with Ohlund.

Any chance with the games played and Canucks defenseman records that he gets his jersey retired? If he came back for three more seasons and stayed healthy, he could hit 1000GP.

Thinking this might become an interesting discussion if he comes back for a few more seasons.

My gut says that skill-wise, and impact on the franchise, he wasn't as big as Sedins/Naslund/Bure, but I could see him in line with Stan Smyl when it's all said in done, depending on how you weigh things.

Ring of Honour yes. Not retired number

 

[Captain Bowie]

Unless he can help this franchise win a Stanley Cup in the next few years, ROH it is for now.

Even then, he has to get in line behind Ohlund and Salo. Does the last 2 decades really deserve 2 defencemen on the ring? I'd argue no, especially when Edler wasn't consistently better than any other defencemen not named Ohlund and Salo. There were times when Willie Mitchell, Kevin Bieksa, Dan Hamhuis, Chris Tanev and Christian Ehrhoff were more important to the team than Edler.

His best years came during possibly the best era in franchise history, but where did he rank for importance to the team? Definitely behind Sedin, Sedin, Luongo and Kesler. In the next tier, but not ahead of Salo, Burrows, or any of the other defencemen named above.

 

[Melvin]

Why on earth was my post edited? What the f***? Which rule did it break?

 

[LiveeviL]

Retire number might be a stretch, but I do for sure think that you do not need to be a HoF to get the number retired. Some posters state that Edler never have been a #1 D man. I remember some rankings on the main board years ago when he was a top 20 in most posters ranking.

If we see just points he was #7 among D-men regular season 2011/12 (0 in +/-), for sure a 1D that season. He also have some seasons in the +20 range.

I tend to think that Edler gets a rather unjust criticism around here from time to time. He logs big minutes on a team which have had a rather weak D-crew for years so he is often out there versus NHLs top lines, a stressful environment. Even more important is that people had high hopes for him seasons ago while he also played a more physical game (before the back injury) and also had a better support crew with the other D-men so he and Tanev did not have it all on their shoulders. I think he is measured against what people hoped him to be (say a appr. #10 D in points for seasons while laying big hits) and thus people are a bit disappointed in him for no good reason.

 

[nucks88]

Ring of Honour ...

 

[cabinessence]

The bar is so low with this franchise when it comes to retiring numbers and ring of honour talk.

 

[Johnny Canucker]

Not even close.

 

[vanarchy]

Absolutely not would be the answer. And I love Edler.