I don't get this "he didn't win us one single cup" thing.
A retired number is an individual "award" to the player.
Stanley cup is a team award to the whole team. There is no single player that can carry a team to winning a cup by his own - no matter how great he is. (See Edmonton.)
For those who think that retiring a number of a player who was the face of the franchise for 15 years, a captain over 10 seasons and played his whole career (1000+ games) in the same team is "setting the bar too low" could ask themselves a question: are this kind of players common in the league? Name me even 1 player who has been their teams franchise 1C or 1D for a decade and played 1000+ games for them (let alone only for them) and not gotten their number retired. There might be some, but I don't think that list will be long. Saku Koivu comes close, but he played like 800 games or so with Montreal and spent the last 5 seasons in a Ducks uniform. Even though that his name is often in discussions whether Montreal should retire his number (which they won't do and I think it's the right decision, btw).
There are some organizations that have retired numbers of some average or even marginal players who have happened to die tragically during their active years. IMO this isn't a good decision criteria either.
And if I'm honest, I think the organization already set the bar so low by retiring #1 for "Wild fans" that it can only go up from there.