TRIBUTE: Rangers to retire #19 for Jean Ratelle

[VanIslander]

why be selfish about it and take the # away from other players? frankly i think the process is flat out stupid.

I am glad the NHL has retired #99.

 

[bigbuffalo313]

why be selfish about it and take the # away from other players? frankly i think the process is flat out stupid.

Thinking it's dumb is fine, but it's still honoring the player

 

[Tawnos]

why be selfish about it and take the # away from other players? frankly i think the process is flat out stupid.

Who is being selfish? Not the player. And honoring someone is not selfish.

Are there questionable retirements out there? Sure. Mistakes are made. Maybe Bourque's number shouldn't be retired in Colorado. I can understand why people on the outside might wonder why Graves has a banner in NY.

 

[Iapyi]

I am glad the NHL has retired #99.

i admit i'm a bit torn on this one. he was so much better then any other player ever that it isn't that far of a stretch to do it for him. at the same time i'm usually not into making exceptions.

 

[Iapyi]

Thinking it's dumb is fine, but it's still honoring the player

i know what the intent is. i'm saying there is a better way to do it. hang a banner for the player, leave the # for other players.

 

[Iapyi]

Who is being selfish? Not the player. And honoring someone is not selfish.

Are there questionable retirements out there? Sure. Mistakes are made. Maybe Bourque's number shouldn't be retired in Colorado. I can understand why people on the outside might wonder why Graves has a banner in NY.

leave the # for future players. it is selfish to eliminate the use of the #.

if i grew up wearing #9 my whole life and went to a team where the # was ridiculously retired because some other player 40 years before me happened to be an exceptional player i wouldn't be all that happy about it.

it is selfish to take away the use of a # when someone else wants to use it.

 

[Johnny Engine]

If you're upset that the team took away your special number, it's you that's thinking about yourself.

If a team retires a number, it's the honoured player that they're thinking of.

Ergo, retiring a number is the opposite of selfish behaviour.

You ned to come up with a better word for what rubs you wrong about the practice, because "selfish" doesn't work at all.

 

[VanIslander]

i'm saying there is a better way to do it. hang a banner for the player,...

Yeah, with modern technology, a great black and white image can be put on cloth and just add his name at the top and the years he played for the franchise at the bottom.

Their faces would be better than their numbers.

After all, it is supposed to be to honor and remember the player!

Put up a banner that looks like this image on the right of the mural (b&w pic, name and years):

Instead of this:

Make the pics all b&w to be consistent between the old timers (e.g., Eddie Shore) and modern players in terms of color scheme... plus it's symbolic: like when the Big Brother pics change from color to b&w when a houseguest is evicted.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Retiring numbers is an excellent move if deserved.Imagine a 3rd liner coming up in Pittsburgh wearing #66.It would rub everyone the wrong way.Of course maybe you'd argue the franchise wouldn't allow it, in which case why not officially retire it? Then maybe you'd argue a young superstar might use it.But then what if he busts? And why not just have your own identity and picking a number of your own?

Retiring numbers is a solid tradition.I wouldn't want anyone wearing #9, #4 or #10 in Montreal, for example.I only used those three because they're the biggest stars (in the eyes of the public), but the same is true for #2, #7, #33 and so on.

 

[MarkStone]

Meh I think it would have been cool for several generations of Canadiens stars to have worn the same number. I'll use a soccer example and bring up how many great players have worn the number seven for Liverpool. Keegan, Dalglish, Aldridge, Beardsley, McManaman, Suarez. You rarely if ever get that passing of the torch in hockey, and I think something is lost by not having that process.

 

[Killion]

Meh I think it would have been cool for several generations of Canadiens stars to have worn the same number. I'll use a soccer example and bring up how many great players have worn the number seven for Liverpool. Keegan, Dalglish, Aldridge, Beardsley, McManaman, Suarez. You rarely if ever get that passing of the torch in hockey, and I think something is lost by not having that process.

Yeah this is an interesting psychological phenomena that can be tied directly to performance. Liverpool with its famous #7.... hockey with most notably #9 which is transcendent of just team like Richard & Montreal, Hull & Chicago, #4 with Orr & Boston etc etc to the point that if you see a guy wearing #9 with say Anaheim, Colorado, Nashville or wherever well, you just naturally expect that hey, that guy better be pretty good with that number huh? A certain standard set. The minds a funny thing.

.... more here... www.drstankovich.com/learn-about-the-psychology-of-a-sports-uniform-number/

It's a fun question. To retire numbers or not to retire numbers? Honestly I dont know the answer. There are positives & negatives in doing so. At one time (and not long ago) hockey numbers were assigned generally based on position. 2-7 Defencemen. Starting Goalie always #1, Backup #30. Forwards 8-27. The better the player, the stronger the identification, projection of the number. The identification between the player & the number inseparable particularly so before the players names were added to the backs of the jerseys though in the "oddball" number cases like 99, 66 since names were added you dont need the name to know who you or someone else is referring to or talking about.

So I dont know. Conflicted. There are benefits, advantages to keep numbers active as outlined in the article linked above & with various examples from a variety of sports whereby numbers are not retired.... while on the other hand, yes indeed, it only seems fitting & proper that certain players numbers be retired as the individual & their numbers are part of a whole, the number a trigger to a host of memories & past glories, the number itself iconic. No name needed. You see a Habs jersey or banner hanging at the Bell Center with no name, just the #4, 9, 10 or whatever, you know who that is, who owns it. Who's being honored or who it is some random fan wearing a #9 Blackhawks jersey with no name on it's favorite player of all-time is. No name required. Bobby Hull is #9, #9 is Bobby Hull. To see another Hawk wearing it, well, just doesnt sit right no matter how good they are..... so ya.... conflicted.

 

[vikash1987]

Interesting points raised in this thread---including a curious reference to the Lincoln assassination!

I think Ratelle is very deserving to have his #19 go to the rafters. One of the classiest, most gentlemanly players of any era. That said, the timing is very odd, and I've always found it odd when you've had a string of many other players in the org. go on to wear the same number in the interim. Doesn't Jesper Fast wear #19 today?

 

[Iapyi]

Retiring numbers is an excellent move if deserved.Imagine a 3rd liner coming up in Pittsburgh wearing #66.It would rub everyone the wrong way.Of course maybe you'd argue the franchise wouldn't allow it, in which case why not officially retire it? Then maybe you'd argue a young superstar might use it.But then what if he busts? And why not just have your own identity and picking a number of your own?

Retiring numbers is a solid tradition.I wouldn't want anyone wearing #9, #4 or #10 in Montreal, for example.I only used those three because they're the biggest stars (in the eyes of the public), but the same is true for #2, #7, #33 and so on.

it wouldn't rub everyone the wrong way. i for one wouldn't give it a 2nd thought. some folk these days are looking for reasons to be offended.

 

[The Panther]

I'm not sure where I stand on the retiring-numbers thing. On the one hand, I like the gesture and how it unites the fanbase around an exceptional franchise-type player, forever, as it were. On the other hand, I admit I do tire of every player nowadays wearing number 25, 47, 58 and whatnot when they could be wearing 2, 4, 6, 9, which is easier and better for fan-recognition. Maybe there's a middle-ground there, where the player/number can still go to the rafters permanently but where the numbers themselves can still be in use. Might be some way to do it.

 

[Killion]

Might be some way to do it.

... like 99?

 

[The Panther]

... like 99?

The League-wide retiring of "99" was, and remains, an abomination. No player should be elevated to 'bigger than the League' by the League.

 

[Sentinel]

leave the # for future players. it is selfish to eliminate the use of the #.

if i grew up wearing #9 my whole life and went to a team where the # was ridiculously retired because some other player 40 years before me happened to be an exceptional player i wouldn't be all that happy about it.

it is selfish to take away the use of a # when someone else wants to use it.

This is the oddest use of the word "selfish" I've ever seen. You are one being selfish in this example, not the club.

 

[Big Phil]

The League-wide retiring of "99" was, and remains, an abomination. No player should be elevated to 'bigger than the League' by the League.

I think Gretzky is a little bit different than everyone else don't you think? Coming from the Oiler fan, I would figure you'd be all for it. A couple of things, #99 was unique as it was. Wilf Paiemant wore it in 1981 in sort of a smart alecky way but no one ever did it after, I believe. So it isn't like #9 or #4 that have been worn by many. #66 isn't retired, but it is sort of one of those unwritten rules that you leave that one alone too.

Plus Gretzky was the game's best player in the history of the sport. He demolished records, and then demolished his OWN records. He was consistent too. He won a ton of awards, won Cups, dominated even when he lost. Too special of a guy and if they have to pick one number I am glad it was this one.

Jackie Robinson, while a different story altogether, has his #42 retired across baseball. Mariano Rivera was the last one to wear it as they grandfathered it in. I am fine with Robinson having his number retired because while he wasn't the best baseball player of all-time, he was great in his own right (the BHOF plaque doesn't mention him breaking he colour barrier because he got in the HOF on his own right) and of course opened the door for every black player since.

 

[Big Phil]

By the way, is anyone else shocked that Ratelle didn't have his number retired by the Rangers yet? It was just one of those names I never felt the need to check because I assume he would be done right away. He definitely deserves it. But man, is it just me or do the Rangers wait a long time to honour these guys? Bathgate was another one who seemingly only had his number retired because Graves was getting the same number done.

Points from 1955-'64:
Howe - 704
Bathgate - 702

I mean, this is pretty impressive. 2nd in points over a 9 year span and the first guy is Mr. Hockey?

 

[Kane One]

I think Gretzky is a little bit different than everyone else don't you think? Coming from the Oiler fan, I would figure you'd be all for it. A couple of things, #99 was unique as it was. Wilf Paiemant wore it in 1981 in sort of a smart alecky way but no one ever did it after, I believe. So it isn't like #9 or #4 that have been worn by many. #66 isn't retired, but it is sort of one of those unwritten rules that you leave that one alone too.

Plus Gretzky was the game's best player in the history of the sport. He demolished records, and then demolished his OWN records. He was consistent too. He won a ton of awards, won Cups, dominated even when he lost. Too special of a guy and if they have to pick one number I am glad it was this one.

Jackie Robinson, while a different story altogether, has his #42 retired across baseball. Mariano Rivera was the last one to wear it as they grandfathered it in. I am fine with Robinson having his number retired because while he wasn't the best baseball player of all-time, he was great in his own right (the BHOF plaque doesn't mention him breaking he colour barrier because he got in the HOF on his own right) and of course opened the door for every black player since.

Yes it does but it was changed. Although that doesn't change anything. He's the only athlete who deserves a league-wide retired number.

 

[Larrybiv]

The League-wide retiring of "99" was, and remains, an abomination. No player should be elevated to 'bigger than the League' by the League.

No one "should be", but it is a done deal already.......and i suppose if anyone.......Gretzky, yeah.
Also think if there was any "one player" that helped the NHL survive tough times......then he would deserve that honor as well. So, with that said..... maybe some might say that #99 really "elevated" the sport, especially here in the states.
Just for the sake of argument......why wasnt #4 retired league wide? Bobby revolutionized hockey into what is going on today, where defenseman are a huge part of offense, more than it ever was. And mind you......I am a huge Rangers/Brad Park fan.