Boston Bruins Should the Bruins raise #40 to the rafters

[Dennis Bonvie]

I agree on the bolded since it’s an uncommon number unlike 1, 30, and 33.

One reason why Tiny Thompson & Frank Brimsek didn't get their numbers retired was that all the goalies wore number 1 in those days.

 

[smithformeragent]

I’m a “small hall” guy,

There are going to be some interesting calls as to retired numbers with this core.

The one Cup muddles a lot IMO.

Bergy and Z are locks.

Krejci seems likely.

Marchand?

 

[Deal Law]

Guy's the winningest goalie in team history and his other stats aren't too shabby either.

How is this a debate?

 

[UncleRico]

He also has two Vezina trophies, a William Jennings trophy, a Stanley Cup that he helped drag the Bruins to, and a Conn Smythe after posting the best GAA and save percentage in the playoffs (after doing so in the regular season too) since Bernie Parent. All of which happened in a shorter stretch than Rask.

Fact of the matter is that Tim Thomas had a better stretch at the peak of his career than Tuukka Rask did and Timmy should have his number in the rafters before Rask.

He also had a much better team and defense in front of him than Rask ever had in half as many seasons as rask.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Yes but they never will because the Bruins sh*t on all great goalies in their history.

Thompson, Cheevers and Brimsek aren't retired and doubt Thomas will be either.

 

[EvilDead]

He also had a much better team and defense in front of him than Rask ever had in half as many seasons as rask.

The Bruins could've had a better defensive group if they weren't devoting $10 million+ of the cap on goaltender with the majority of that going to Rask. The Bruins reaped what they sowed when they constructed the defensive half of their roster around the goalie. Now it would have helped if the Bruins knew how to draft on defense to replace the bodies they lost. That said when you get paid $7 million per, you need to perform up to the contract and play above and beyond like Roy and Hasek. Unfortunately, Rask never did that.

 

[UncleRico]

The Bruins could've had a better defensive group if they weren't devoting $10 million+ of the cap on goaltender with the majority of that going to Rask. The Bruins reaped what they sowed when they constructed the defensive half of their roster around the goalie. Now it would have helped if the Bruins knew how to draft on defense to replace the bodies they lost. That said when you get paid $7 million per, you need to perform up to the contract and play above and beyond like Roy and Hasek. Unfortunately, Rask never did that.

I guess having the 3rd best save percentage all time and 9th best in the playoffs isn’t living up to a couple tract which wasn’t even the highest or close to the highest among NHL goalies.

The guys legitimately had the highest save percentage among his peers and wasn’t paid the most.

 

[EvilDead]

Guy's the winningest goalie in team history and his other stats aren't too shabby either.

How is this a debate?

Because Rask never won the Bruins a cup as a starter. He never helped pull the team over the line when they needed him to like Cheevers and Thomas did.

Sorry if that seems unfair, but that is a major sticking point. Especially when there are guys in Bruins' past who have done that and didn't get a jersey retirement. Rask not winning the big one, coupled with him in fact being part of the reason why they missed the playoffs some years, along with Thomas and Cheevers not being in the rafters, should block him from getting his jersey retired.

 

[UncleRico]

Because Rask never won the Bruins a cup as a starter. He never helped pull the team over the line when they needed him to like Cheevers and Thomas did.

Sorry if that seems unfair, but that is a major sticking point. Especially when there are guys in Bruins' past who have done that and didn't get a jersey retirement. Rask not winning the big one, coupled with him in fact being part of the reason why they missed the playoffs some years, along with Thomas and Cheevers not being in the rafters, should block him from getting his jersey retired.

Tim Thomas had one of the deepest forward groups of all time and a top line and 2nd line that could have been first lines on 28 teams in the NHL. Thomas also had a Norris trophy winner in his prime with a legit defensive pair next to him in seidenberg.

It’s not even comparable to the teams Thomas had compared to Rask. Hell the Bruins 3rd line of pevs-Kelly-Ryder were out performing most 2nd line forward groups that Tuukka had.

 

[smithformeragent]

As I stated in the other thread, TB12 changed how we label “success” in these parts.

The bar has been raised significantly the past two decades.

Gotta have the rings to go with the stats.
You can throw Ortiz in that group as well.

 

[EvilDead]

Tim Thomas had one of the deepest forward groups of all time and a top line and 2nd line that could have been first lines on 28 teams in the NHL. Thomas also had a Norris trophy winner in his prime with a legit defensive pair next to him in seidenberg.

It’s not even comparable to the teams Thomas had compared to Rask. Hell the Bruins 3rd line of pevs-Kelly-Ryder were out performing most 2nd line forward groups that Tuukka had.

So because the team was better built and a more complete unit, that's a demerit against Thomas all of a sudden? The Conn Smythe winner of the Bruins cup team? Are you high?

I don't think getting a sub 2 goals against average throughout the playoffs along with a 940 save percentage, first guy since Bernie Parent to do so in the playoffs, means Thomas was a passenger on that Cup team dude. I think it says he had a lot to do with bailing the Bruins out of tough series. I remember more often than not Thomas throwing his body in front of slapshots to prevent goals and keep the Bruins in nail biters. A lot more than Rask did.

Also if Thomas was just a passenger on a well built team, then why couldn't Rask duplicate that kind of run against the Blackhawks in 2013 with virtually the same team? Fact of the matter is that Thomas played his ass off in net and when the team needed him to go into another gear, he delivered. That's just facts. Not a knock on Rask, because Thomas played by the seat of his pants and was a wild man in net while Tuuks was more even keel. It's just that the even keel nature of Rask didn't translate for the Bruins in the playoffs.

 

[EvilDead]

BTW, just in case people have forgot about how unreal Tim Thomas was in net at the peak of his powers...here's a quick refresher.

 

[Deal Law]

Because Rask never won the Bruins a cup as a starter. He never helped pull the team over the line when they needed him to like Cheevers and Thomas did.

Sorry if that seems unfair, but that is a major sticking point. Especially when there are guys in Bruins' past who have done that and didn't get a jersey retirement. Rask not winning the big one, coupled with him in fact being part of the reason why they missed the playoffs some years, along with Thomas and Cheevers not being in the rafters, should block him from getting his jersey retired.

Cam Neely and Ray Bourque never did anything to "help pull the team over the line when they needed" them either. Their numbers are retired. Ray Bourque specifically asked to be traded so he could win a cup somewhere else and then, in one of the most embarrassing episodes I have witnessed in person, brought the cup back and paraded it around Government Center. Did you have issue with their numbers being retired? Bourque was one of the greatest defenseman ever to play and arguable the second greatest in team history but did nothing to help win a cup here. Cam Neely (who despite my hatred for him as an executive, was my childhood hero and my son's namesake) didn't do anything to help win a cup here as a player. Both were great players, deserving of their accolades.

If you want to make the argument that they're both hall of famers, fine, I get that, but you didn't. Your argument is based entirely on emotion and a subjective view of fundamental "fairness." It doesn't have to be either or; they can all get their numbers up, and arguably all deserve to. I don't care the order in which it happens. The question for the thread was "Should the Bruins Raise #40 to the Rafters?" The answer is undoubtedly yes.

 

[roflstomper]

I treat jersey retirement as a, if you have to ask then no, type of thing. Rask, at best, is the 4th best goalie in our history and none of the others are retired.

 

[Healthy Wrap]

I just hope the Bruins number retirement never turns into a joke like the Celtics, who seemingly retire any half-decent player’s number

 

[EvilDead]

Cam Neely and Ray Bourque never did anything to "help pull the team over the line when they needed" them either. Their numbers are retired. Ray Bourque specifically asked to be traded so he could win a cup somewhere else and then, in one of the most embarrassing episodes I have witnessed in person, brought the cup back and paraded it around Government Center. Did you have issue with their numbers being retired? Bourque was one of the greatest defenseman ever to play and arguable the second greatest in team history but did nothing to help win a cup here. Cam Neely (who despite my hatred for him as an executive, was my childhood hero and my son's namesake) didn't do anything to help win a cup here as a player. Both were great players, deserving of their accolades.

If you want to make the argument that they're both hall of famers, fine, I get that, but you didn't. Your argument is based entirely on emotion and a subjective view of fundamental "fairness." It doesn't have to be either or; they can all get their numbers up, and arguably all deserve to. I don't care the order in which it happens. The question for the thread was "Should the Bruins Raise #40 to the Rafters?" The answer is undoubtedly yes.

Bourque is different because he was a transcendent talent on a team being held back by cheap ownership in a pre salary cap league and set all time numbers in the league. And as for Neely, I wouldn't have retired his number quite frankly because I didn't think he played long enough because of his injuries to be up there. But since the Bruins thought it was a good idea to put Terry O'Reilly up there, you effectively lower the bar where Neely has to be up there.

Also...like smithformeragent said, that attitude towards how we treat career accomplishments the way we do now changed the moment that the city's sports teams experienced the wave of success that they did starting with Brady-Belichick dynasty of the New England Patriots and the success of the Boston Red Sox. So sorry, but Rask not pulling the Bruins over the finish line hurts him because he couldn't do what his former teammate was able to do. Which is even more damning for him given the individual accomplishments Tuukka had. For that level of individual achievement, Rask should have won more. He didn't. So, at least in my mind, he rates lower than Thomas.

Also, I always value championship success more than individual accomplishments in most sports.

 

[EvilDead]

I just hope the Bruins number retirement never turns into a joke like the Celtics, who seemingly retire any half-decent player’s number

They already did when they put Terry O'Reilly's number in the rafters.

 

[mjhfb]

Cam Neely and Ray Bourque never did anything to "help pull the team over the line when they needed" them either. Their numbers are retired. Ray Bourque specifically asked to be traded so he could win a cup somewhere else and then, in one of the most embarrassing episodes I have witnessed in person, brought the cup back and paraded it around Government Center. Did you have issue with their numbers being retired? Bourque was one of the greatest defenseman ever to play and arguable the second greatest in team history but did nothing to help win a cup here. Cam Neely (who despite my hatred for him as an executive, was my childhood hero and my son's namesake) didn't do anything to help win a cup here as a player. Both were great players, deserving of their accolades.

If you want to make the argument that they're both hall of famers, fine, I get that, but you didn't. Your argument is based entirely on emotion and a subjective view of fundamental "fairness." It doesn't have to be either or; they can all get their numbers up, and arguably all deserve to. I don't care the order in which it happens. The question for the thread was "Should the Bruins Raise #40 to the Rafters?" The answer is undoubtedly yes.

If you ever watched Ray play, and I did, like May 15, 1990, you really need to rephrase that.

 

[Deal Law]

Bourque is different because he was a transcendent talent on a team being held back by cheap ownership in a pre salary cap league and set all time numbers in the league. And as for Neely, I wouldn't have retired his number quite frankly because I didn't think he played long enough because of his injuries to be up there. But since the Bruins thought it was a good idea to put Terry O'Reilly up there, you effectively lower the bar where Neely has to be up there.

Also...like smithformeragent said, that attitude towards how we treat career accomplishments the way we do now changed the moment that the city's sports teams experienced the wave of success that they did starting with Brady-Belichick dynasty of the New England Patriots and the success of the Boston Red Sox. So sorry, but Rask not pulling the Bruins over the finish line hurts him because he couldn't do what his former teammate was able to do. Which is even more damning for him given the individual accomplishments Tuukka had. For that level of individual achievement, Rask should have won more. He didn't. So, at least in my mind, he rates lower than Thomas.

Also, I always value championship success more than individual accomplishments in most sports.

You can make a valid and convincing argument that he rates lower than Thomas because of the Cup (also Thomas' two Vezinas and the Conn Smythe). I grant you that. I'm also not saying Cheevers and Thomas don't deserve to be up there; they do. I'm just saying all three should be and I don't really care which order you do it in.

But Rask's career numbers are elite, playing 15 years for the same organization. All-times team wins leader. 3rd all-time save percentage. 12th all-time GAA. Those, to me, are "retire-able" stats.

Agree to disagree I guess.

 

[Deal Law]

If you ever watched Ray play, and I did, like May 15, 1990, you really need to rephrase that.

I don't need to do anything. Did they win the cup in '90? That seems to be the standard being set.

 

[CDJ]

Tough call. If they wanted to retire his number after Bergeron and Chara then I’d be cool with it.

I think the number retirements should be reserved for the truly spectacular. He’s on that edge of great and spectacular imo

 

[nORRis8]

Not having Cheesie, Frankie Bremsik, Tiny Thompson not retired is something that's actually quite annoying.

Honorable mention to Eddie Johnson who suffered thru the lean years of the early 60's.

Tuukka does deserve his # retired but sheesh....with the aforementioned guys not up there...it's almost a snub towards them.

 

[SPLBRUIN]

No to Rask and Krejci, yes to Chara, Bergeron and Marchand.

 

[missingchicklet]

I am a huge Tuukka fan and consider him to be one of the elite goalies of all time. His numbers back that up. His longevity and loyalty to the Bs amazing. That said, I don't want his number retired until several other Bs goalie greats have their numbers retired. Wouldn't make any sense.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

Frankly, I think this debate is a little ridiculous.

All time franchise leader in games played, wins, save percentage,shut outs, playoff games, playoff wins...

If the all time leading scorer of a near 100 year old franchise held the record for games played, goals, assists, playoff points, etc. retired, would we even be having the conversation? Or would it simply go without saying?