Players who don't deserve to have their numbers retired.

[MXD]

There was a time when every team had greats of the game play for them...

Hey, we have Hal Gill in Montreal!!!

... Translator's joke, I guess.

 

[ck26]

There was a time when every team had greats of the game play for them...

I would raise some chicken/egg questions here. Cups and the like weren't spread out as far, the playoffs were shorter, "random" championship distribution would result in an average-to-long career winning two Cups (6 teams), not less than one (30 teams). Shane Doan, Ilya Kovalchuk, Jay Bouwmeester, Eric Staal and Marian Gaborik (PHO, ATL, FLA, CAR, MIN) are five guys I identify with short-history teams; all could have played well -- and would have had more cracks at the Cup -- in the O6 era. I don't think Ilya Kovalchuk (ignore the NJ trade) is any less deserving of the honor than Sid Abel.

If someone come along in 50 years (after Atlanta wins 3 Cups) and has the exact same career as Kovalchuk (huge scoring, no championships), he maybe doesn't get the same recognition--the bar will be higher. But Jean Beliveau's (or Rocket or whoever) status as the greatest Hab of all time is no different than Shane Doan's (or Tkachuk or whoever) status as the greatest Coyote of all-time.

 

[mrhockey193195]

They both absolutely deserved it.

This is a recording: the game of hockey is more than what your stat sheet tells you. Ask Ken Daneyko's teammates and GM what he meant to that franchise. Ask NYC what Adam Graves meant and still means to the community. Some things transcend numbers.

Very fair point Trottier, but ask any Rangers fan, and we'll tell you that we don't need to see Graves number up in the rafters to forever remember him as one of the most beloved athletes of our time. And (as much as I love Gravy), putting his number in the rafters really caused a lot of people to double-take, and say "hey, why aren't Ratelle and Park in the rafters? What about Bathgate and Howell (finally honored)? And Greschner and Hextall and the Cooks and Boucher?"

And sooner or later, you have 15+ guys whose number should/could all be up there.

That's why I really feel that NHL teams should have their own "hall of fames", where they induct the Adam Graves' and the Ken Daneyko's. If it were up to me, I would save the number retirement for the absolute best of the best, the most important guys who ever played for the team. As much as Graves meant to the community throughout his career, and as much as he is loved, and as good of a player as he was, I don't think he fits that category per se.

But either way, I'm not going to complain too much, it's a minor point in my eyes. Whenever Adam Graves gets honored, I love it, and I can't deny that Graves Night was really memorable. But it still is my personal opinion that a "Rangers HOF induction" would have been more suitable than a number retirement.

 

[mrhockey193195]

I'm not sure if other teams have something like this but I think the Stars have a nice concept in the "Walk of Legends". It allows players to be honored for the contributions to the team without giving them the ultimate honor a team can bestow in having their number retired. For example Brett Hull was the first Star to be inducted into the Walk of Legends. Players in the "Walk of Legends" get a plaque displayed at both the AAC and Frisco (where the Stars practice).

This is exactly what I am referring to. It celebrates the history of the team and those players who were influencial, without claiming that Brett Hull was on par with the Broten's and Modano's of North Stars/Stars history.

And on second thought, I might take Daneyko out of the group, since he did set the standard of excellence for the Devil's franchise, and he does hold several records...records that I'm sure will be overtaken, but nonetheless he set the barometer. His number retirement, I have no problems with.

 

[Brodie]

I would raise some chicken/egg questions here. Cups and the like weren't spread out as far, the playoffs were shorter, "random" championship distribution would result in an average-to-long career winning two Cups (6 teams), not less than one (30 teams). Shane Doan, Ilya Kovalchuk, Jay Bouwmeester, Eric Staal and Marian Gaborik (PHO, ATL, FLA, CAR, MIN) are five guys I identify with short-history teams; all could have played well -- and would have had more cracks at the Cup -- in the O6 era. I don't think Ilya Kovalchuk (ignore the NJ trade) is any less deserving of the honor than Sid Abel.

If someone come along in 50 years (after Atlanta wins 3 Cups) and has the exact same career as Kovalchuk (huge scoring, no championships), he maybe doesn't get the same recognition--the bar will be higher. But Jean Beliveau's (or Rocket or whoever) status as the greatest Hab of all time is no different than Shane Doan's (or Tkachuk or whoever) status as the greatest Coyote of all-time.

Truth. There is no arbitrary threshold for team honors like this... how can there be? Shane Doan is the greatest Coyote of all time, he's beloved by their fans in the same way that Steve Yzerman is beloved by Wings fans. It doesn't matter what his HOF chances are, it doesn't matter if his name will be forgotten in 20 years... he is the Phoenix Coyotes.

I don't believe we should elevate number retirement to this "greatest honor that can be bestowed" status. Let the Hall of Fame be the arbitrator of greatness on the ice... number retirements are about the teams, about their fans and about their communities.

 

[mco543]

It never ceases to amaze me how fans (of any sport) have significantly higher standards for those who get their numbers retired and into the HOF than the actual teams and halls do.

 

[NorthStar4Canes]

What kind of a tool is going to try to wear#99 anyway, why not retire it league wide? Gretzky did more to improve and grow hockey than anyone in the history of the game. When it comes to his on ice accomplishments, they are simply out of this world.

#99 shouldn't be retired at any franchise where he didn't play.

Induction to the HOF is the appropriate way to honor a player league-wide for his on-ice accomplishments/records. That's what it's for. As the years go by, the forced, league-wide retirement of #99 seems even more gimmicky and marketing ploy-driven than it did then, especially given who's numbers aren't.

I'm not sure what you mean by "improve and grow hockey more than anyone in the history of the game" other than using it to make a nebulous claim that Gretzky did something more outside of what he actually did to the offensive stat sheets during the Garbage Goalie, 80's expansion era on a stacked team.

Bobby Orr was easily as much as a household name as Gretzky's outside the world of hockey during his time and drew people into the sport, and changed how the game was played. There are other players as well who have "improved and grown hockey" during it's long history. It's silly to think Gretzky is singular in that regard simply because he holds statistical records.

 

[Brodie]

9 is the best example of a number that probably deserves to be retired league wide if Gretzky's is.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

9 is the best example of a number that probably deserves to be retired league wide if Gretzky's is.

For who? So many great players have used the number 9, that retiring it for one or two would be insulting to the others.

That's what was special about 99 - it meant "gretzky" to everyone, in large part because it was such a unique number.

 

[tp71]

9 is the best example of a number that probably deserves to be retired league wide if Gretzky's is.

Because theyre are so many players attributed to that number I'd have to say no. If you wanted a number that possibly could be, then I'd say 66.

Retiring 99 to me it's bettman wanting the NHL to have their Jackie Robinson. Which is kinda rediculous in its own right as his number is much more significant to be retired league wide.

And ironically the first team to retire a number? The Toronto Maple Leafs for Ace Bailey.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

#99 shouldn't be retired at any franchise where he didn't play.[/B]
Induction to the HOF is the appropriate way to honor a player league-wide for his on-ice accomplishments/records. That's what it's for. As the years go by, the forced, league-wide retirement of #99 seems even more gimmicky and marketing ploy-driven than it did then, especially given who's numbers aren't.

I'm not sure what you mean by "improve and grow hockey more than anyone in the history of the game" other than using it to make a nebulous claim that Gretzky did something more outside of what he actually did to the offensive stat sheets during the Garbage Goalie, 80's expansion era on a stacked team.

Bobby Orr was easily as much as a household name as Gretzky's outside the world of hockey during his time and drew people into the sport, and changed how the game was played. There are other players as well who have "improved and grown hockey" during it's long history. It's silly to think Gretzky is singular in that regard simply because he holds statistical records.

In 20 years, the History of Hockey site will be picking the top 100 and one of the arguments for Gretzky will be that his number was retired league-wide, no one else's is.

 

[Brodie]

For who? So many great players have used the number 9, that retiring it for one or two would be insulting to the others.

That's what was special about 99 - it meant "gretzky" to everyone, in large part because it was such a unique number.

Because theyre are so many players attributed to that number I'd have to say no. If you wanted a number that possibly could be, then I'd say 66.

The point of retiring 9 is that the combined accomplishments of even three (Hull, Howe and Richard) of it's wearers far outweighs those of Gretzky. One could argue that anyone who saw The Rocket play would find Marcel Goc wearing his number in bad taste.

66 also makes a travesty of the leaguewide retirement... nobody is ever going to wear it again but there's no cheesy PR move attached. No team would dare to issue it, they don't need to be told that it's inappropriate.

 

[ManOnTheMoon]

I've always liked Toronto's system of honoring numbers, personally. My idea is to honor a number of anyone who meant a great deal to the team, in my team's case, let's say, Milan Hejduk. After Hejduk retires, Colorado should honor his number, 23, raise the banner, have the ceremony, whatever. Then, for the balance of that season, the number wouldn't be issued to another player. The next season, it's fair game.

There are several Avs of the past I think, who could be included in something like this, without the full honor of having a number retired- Adam Deadmarsh, Sylvain Lefebvre, etc.

Joe Sakic is a different story, though. Every fanbase has their own version of Deadmarsh or Keane, or Foote, but not every team has the definitive leader for so long. Who provided equal parts heart/soul, and scoring/skill. So for someone like Sakic, retiring the number completely makes sense. Plus, I don't think anybody coming to Colorado would have the guts to ask for #19.

I'm also of the belief that Bourque's number wouldn't have been retired if it were a low number. (For instance, if he still had #7.) 77 is such an uncommon number, I think it made the decision easier for management just to retire it. It's a difficult situation, I imagine. You have a HOF defender on your team, albeit briefly, and without him you may not have won the championship you just won. His former team is going to retire his number, no question, but he spent less than two seasons with your club, what to do? Personally, I don't think Bourque has "that" quality to Avs fans. We all loved having him on the team, but there was always a sense of "Ray Bourque, formerly of the Bruins..." But as I said, the fact that Bourque wore an uncommon number made it easier just to retire it and move on. I suppose the possible backlash of being called a publicity stunt outweighed the possible backlash of being accused of not honoring one of the all-time greats who helped us win a cup.

Now, I do think the cup-win means everything. We only eeked out the win by two goals in game seven. We needed everybody we had. You could argue that acquiring Blake is what actually put us over the top. But if you take the roster space filled by Ray Bourque, and gave it to one of our other blue-liners-- Foote, Klemm, De Vries, Skoula, or Pratt, well, yeah, we weren't a solid team defensively past the first pairing. So yeah, Bourque was a big part of the championship. And conversely, without the cup win, I doubt we'd be discussing Bourque's number being retired. Hell, we were also the last stops of Jari Kurri and Pierre Turgeon, but most people don't even remember their brief times with the Avs (Kurri 1 season, Turgeon 2.) If we lost to New Jersey, and Bourque left the team, he'd be just another on the list of highly skilled players the Avalanche sold the farm for, and missed the championship with. There'd be no number retired, I firmly believe that.

 

[DaveG]

I agree that NHL should make some rules/restriction for numbers...
Glen Wesley hangs there only because Carolin need "built a history" quick. And hell yeah...it is such good marketing even every year for a franchise!

Sorry dude, but that's just ignorant of what Wesley meant to the Canes and ignorant of how good a player he was. He's #6 in all time games played as a defenseman, most of those as a solid shutdown guy. He anchored the blueline in Carolina from its inception until he retired with the exception of a few (7) games in Toronto. He had 3 more years anchoring the blueline in Hartford for the same franchise. 13 seasons in the same organization, with all but maybe the last 2 or 3 of his career being the key shutdown guy on the defense. Two SCF appearances and one win both in a leadership role.

Had he floated around from team to team like say Phil Housley or Larry Murphy I would likely be right there with you. But Wesley means every bit to Canes history that Bondra or Hunter means to Caps history.

 

[htpwn]

Because theyre are so many players attributed to that number I'd have to say no. If you wanted a number that possibly could be, then I'd say 66.

Retiring 99 to me it's bettman wanting the NHL to have their Jackie Robinson. Which is kinda rediculous in its own right as his number is much more significant to be retired league wide.

And ironically the first team to retire a number? The Toronto Maple Leafs for Ace Bailey.

First team in professional sports wasn't it?

 

[Bring Bak Damphousse]

9 is the best example of a number that probably deserves to be retired league wide if Gretzky's is.

I like this idea, the number 9 has been worn and retired by so many greats that I always do a kind of double take when I see it on a guy like Hagman or Michalek even Gretzky's 99 and in turn Lemieux 66 are directly associated with the #9. If any number is going to be honored by the league my vote would be 9 not 99.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

I would raise some chicken/egg questions here. Cups and the like weren't spread out as far, the playoffs were shorter, "random" championship distribution would result in an average-to-long career winning two Cups (6 teams), not less than one (30 teams). Shane Doan, Ilya Kovalchuk, Jay Bouwmeester, Eric Staal and Marian Gaborik (PHO, ATL, FLA, CAR, MIN) are five guys I identify with short-history teams; all could have played well -- and would have had more cracks at the Cup -- in the O6 era. I don't think Ilya Kovalchuk (ignore the NJ trade) is any less deserving of the honor than Sid Abel.

If someone come along in 50 years (after Atlanta wins 3 Cups) and has the exact same career as Kovalchuk (huge scoring, no championships), he maybe doesn't get the same recognition--the bar will be higher. But Jean Beliveau's (or Rocket or whoever) status as the greatest Hab of all time is no different than Shane Doan's (or Tkachuk or whoever) status as the greatest Coyote of all-time.

That's my point. It is all relative. In a six team league, everyone is going to get a true great come there way every few years.

Where as now we have teams like Vancouver that have gone 40 years and have no one earn their place in the Hall as a Canuck. In a 6 team league that just doesn't happen. Even the Rangers and Hawks did go much more than ten years without a top 100 player.

 

[Hades]

For the Habs it's Bob Gainey. I really doubt he would have received the honour if he hadn't been GM during a retirement heavy era for the Habs. Excellent at what he did, but wasn't a better hockey player than either Provost or Carbonneau and neither are in the HOF or are getting their numbers retired. Those guys were almost as good defensively and had far better offensive abilities. The Habs have had a few other players more deserving of the honour such as Guy Lapointe, J.Lemaire and Bill Durnan.

Let me guess, you didn't watch Bob Gainey play.

Anyways, just because they didn't retire their numbers now doesn't mean it won't happen in the future. Look at Elmer Lach.

 

[Jack DiBiase]

I don't like the idea of retiring numbers anyway. Being a Habs-fan, I hate to see most of our players wear some ridiculous NFL numbers from 40 to 90. Sure I respect the legacy of the franchise and all, but it's not like there would be anything wrong to wear a number of some guy who played in the 50s. IMO retiring Emile Bouchard's number 3 last December was a joke, with all due respect. Personally, I don't think the Habs should have retired all those numbers they did after the mid 1990s. They could have just honor them like the Leafs, for instance, but keep the number in use.

And please, fellow Hab-fans, please don't think I'm pissing on the legacy of the Canadiens. I'm just against for the retiring number thing in general, to a certain extent. It's not like I want to see anyone wear number 9 for the Habs ever again.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Let me guess, you didn't watch Bob Gainey play.

Anyways, just because they didn't retire their numbers now doesn't mean it won't happen in the future. Look at Elmer Lach.

Well guess again. I watched Gainey almost his entire career, including all of his Selke seasons.

 

[bigchief12]

#99 shouldn't be retired at any franchise where he didn't play.

Induction to the HOF is the appropriate way to honor a player league-wide for his on-ice accomplishments/records. That's what it's for. As the years go by, the forced, league-wide retirement of #99 seems even more gimmicky and marketing ploy-driven than it did then, especially given who's numbers aren't.

I'm not sure what you mean by "improve and grow hockey more than anyone in the history of the game" other than using it to make a nebulous claim that Gretzky did something more outside of what he actually did to the offensive stat sheets during the Garbage Goalie, 80's expansion era on a stacked team.

Bobby Orr was easily as much as a household name as Gretzky's outside the world of hockey during his time and drew people into the sport, and changed how the game was played. There are other players as well who have "improved and grown hockey" during it's long history. It's silly to think Gretzky is singular in that regard simply because he holds statistical records.

Bobby Orr was phenomenal, certainly in the same league as Gretzky at least, but he didn't help grow the game to a new market across the states. When Gretz went to LA, his image brought hockey into the mainstream down there. The expansions into California, Phoenix, Texas, Florida, Nashville, Carolina, Columbus...there were only 21 teams when he left the Oilers, his larger than life image and ability to present himself as an ambassador of the game were instrumental in those locations to get fans thinking hockey was a bonified sport, it was cool because Gretzky played hockey and he was "The Great One".

Forced league wide retirement? You do understand how Bettman's power works don't you? He works for the team owners, he doesn't force them into decisions like that, he needs their permission so obviously, the concensus was, it was a good idea.

Now, if Orr and Gretzky switched the eras they played in, the impact Orr had would have been much greater than it was, I'm sure, but that's not the way it happened.