Who is the worst player to have his # retired by a franchise?

sr edler

gold is not reality
Mar 20, 2010
11,893
6,330
This is quite simply not true by any metric.

I think it is by Hart voting metric.

I had to check in case my mind was failing me, but it does actually appear that Jagr, Shanahan, Bure, Selanne, Neely, Hull, Robitaille, Tkachuk and Recchi were all actually NHL wingers in 1994. Quite a hot take, that.

From this list I would go with Bure in front of a red hot Graves, but only because of personal preference sprinkled with an unhealthy dose of nostalgia for flashy players.

do you think the Canucks would have took a 1:1 trade with Bure and won the cup that year ?

No, because of team dynamics/team needs.
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,595
84,107
Vancouver, BC
I think it is by Hart voting metric.



From this list I would go with Bure in front of a red hot Graves, but only because of personal preference sprinkled with an unhealthy dose of nostalgia for flashy players.



No, because of team dynamics/team needs.

Adam Graves was a borderline first-liner with a good two-way game who whacked in 20 PP goals that year on the Messier-Leetch-Zubov PP.

For that one season he may have been on the fringes of the top 10 wingers in the league but had a career year on paper driven largely by his role on a great team with great linemates.
 

finchster

Registered User
Jul 12, 2006
10,633
2,121
Antalya
Not the worst, but Terry O'Reilly shouldn't have his number retired. Maybe better than Clark, but in the same vein (tough fan favorites) . At least O'Reilly played his whole career in Boston.
 

tony d

Registered User
Jun 23, 2007
76,594
4,555
Behind A Tree
Yvon Labre for me. I can see it for a lot of the players on that wiki list but Labre's # being retired is a real head scratcher.
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,211
15,787
Tokyo, Japan
No, I think its fair to say he only had one truly good season, he certainly only had one season worthy of a player that has had his number retired by a franchise.
I'm not arguing that Clark deserved (or didn't) to have his number retired. I'm just saying, he did a little more than have one good season!

(Btw, he was pacing for 41 goals as a rookie, on a terrible team, in 1985-86. Had he hit that total, he'd have been very, very close to beating Gary Suter for the Calder.)
 

FerrisRox

"Wanna go, Prettyboy?"
Sep 17, 2003
20,297
12,982
Toronto, Ontario
I'm not arguing that Clark deserved (or didn't) to have his number retired. I'm just saying, he did a little more than have one good season!

(Btw, he was pacing for 41 goals as a rookie, on a terrible team, in 1985-86. Had he hit that total, he'd have been very, very close to beating Gary Suter for the Calder.)

As I already pointed out, he was not close to beating him at all. Why do you think five more goals would suddenly make him "very very close?"
 

vadim sharifijanov

Registered User
Oct 10, 2007
28,779
16,223
fwiw, clark was named the hockey news’ rookie of year.

...not worth much actually, as thn also named linden rookie of the year over leetch.
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,211
15,787
Tokyo, Japan
As I already pointed out, he was not close to beating him at all. Why do you think five more goals would suddenly make him "very very close?"
I believe you mean 7 more goals.

As to why... I dunno, maybe 41 goals looks better than 34...? Just at a guess.

There's also that Toronto-centric media market thing.
 

FerrisRox

"Wanna go, Prettyboy?"
Sep 17, 2003
20,297
12,982
Toronto, Ontario
I believe you mean 7 more goals.

As to why... I dunno, maybe 41 goals looks better than 34...? Just at a guess.

There's also that Toronto-centric media market thing.

Gary Suter had 68 points and was a top pairing defenseman on a team that went to the Stanley Cup Final. Clark was a one-dimensional trigger man on a bottom dweller. I don't think there was much competition here, and the voting certainly reflected that.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,981
Brooklyn
My claim was that Clark only had one season where he seperated himself from... a defensive defenseman good enough to be a regular top 4 ES / top 2 PK on a historically strong defensive team.

And that that season was definitely helped by Gilmour.

I mean, was an injury prone 30-35 goal scoring triggerman in the 1980s who sucked in his own end really better than a #4 defensive defenseman who excelled at his role? I don't know the answer.
 
Last edited:

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,211
15,787
Tokyo, Japan
Gary Suter had 68 points and was a top pairing defenseman on a team that went to the Stanley Cup Final. Clark was a one-dimensional trigger man on a bottom dweller. I don't think there was much competition here, and the voting certainly reflected that.
Wow, you really have it in for Wendel Clark!

Look, I'm not sure why we're arguing about this, but as it actually was, Clark got more than half as many first-place Calder votes as Suter. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that it would have been really close if Clark hadn't been injured and cracked 40+ goals. There were 35 first-place votes for Suter, and 18 for Clark. If Clark had scored, say, 41 goals, I would not at all be surprised if, for example, five voters switched their top choice from Suter to Clark. That would make 30 first-place votes for Suter and 23 for Clark, which is starting to get close.

In any case, as it seems to be a matter of great importance to you to prove that all of Clark's NHL seasons were unexceptional except one (all credit to Gilmour), I will let you have the last word and allow our friends to get the thread back on track.
 

FerrisRox

"Wanna go, Prettyboy?"
Sep 17, 2003
20,297
12,982
Toronto, Ontario
Wow, you really have it in for Wendel Clark!

Look, I'm not sure why we're arguing about this, but as it actually was, Clark got more than half as many first-place Calder votes as Suter. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that it would have been really close if Clark hadn't been injured and cracked 40+ goals. There were 35 first-place votes for Suter, and 18 for Clark. If Clark had scored, say, 41 goals, I would not at all be surprised if, for example, five voters switched their top choice from Suter to Clark. That would make 30 first-place votes for Suter and 23 for Clark, which is starting to get close.

In any case, as it seems to be a matter of great importance to you to prove that all of Clark's NHL seasons were unexceptional except one (all credit to Gilmour), I will let you have the last word and allow our friends to get the thread back on track.

I don't have it in for Clark at all and I never even mentioned Doug Gilmour in relation to Clark, so I'm not sure why you're mentioning that.

Clark was incredibly fun to watch - he played such a reckless style and at such a frenzied pace - but his career never approached the heights of the kind of guys that should be getting their sweater number retired. Also, I will say this, I hold Original Six teams to a higher standard when it comes to retiring a players number and I just think it shines a spotlight on the mediocrity of the last fifty years of Maple Leafs hockey that a player like Clark got his number retired.

I don't think it's in anyway an insult to say that Clark wasn't good enough to have his number retired. By definition, that honor should be for the best of the best and he comes nowhere close to that standard.

I also don't think it's in anyway an insult to say that Clark's rookie season wasn't on the level of Gary Suter. Suter was an exceptionally talented defenseman, who, as a rookie, was able to step in on one of the best teams in the league and not only contribute but excel. Keep in mind, only two other defenseman in the history of the NHL put up more points as a rookie than Suter's 68. There's a very good reason why Clark wasn't close in Calder voting ... Suter had a truly exceptional rookie season. For a rookie to even crack that Flames team is impressive, but to then to do what he did is a whole other thing.

Acknowledging these simple facts does not mean I "have it in for Wendel Clark." It's just pointing out the reality of the situation.
 

sr edler

gold is not reality
Mar 20, 2010
11,893
6,330
Yes, that seems like a very reasonable response. I mean, yeah, he had 56 points and wasn't even the leading scoring centre on his mediocre Sharks roster, trailing Todd Elik, but sure, Igor Larionov was a top five center in 1993-94.

Todd Elik had great rink sense (according to one of his coaches). Larionov also only played 60 games that year, then went balls to the wall in the playoffs against the Wings, such a performance they felt they had to acquire him to minimize the risk of it happening again.
 

seekritdude

Registered User
May 3, 2009
201
24
www.facebook.com
Whoa whoa time out, are people really trying to argue what Larionov did for the Sharks? The sharks that I recall in my old man brain now actually only won..... THREE games the entire year when Larionov was not in the line. Also people need to remember at the beginning constantine was hesitant to even let larionov do the 5 person unit he wanted to with garpenlov, makarov, ozolinsh, norton. I think people forget once larionov was in the line up, and ONCE constantine agreed to play the 5 man line, if you look at the stats and im sure ive posted them before, maybe on my youtube at the time when I was still more into hockey, the sharks were the third best team that year only below new york and I forget who else. People really under estimate how much larionov did for that team, and I Think really forget all the drama that went on behind the scenes in the locker room the next year just because of how much pull he had. Which is one of the reasons people like to think that the sharks dismantled so much after that to stop larionov from having so many guys behind him, they even took away his assistant captain role because of this. There was a lot of drama back almost to the point that it makes me wonder if larionov might have had some shady doings himself cuz I remember when errey was traded to the wings and then larionov was on the wings with errey there but I never remember hearing about anything between them. But whatever the case the organization had a lot of drama going on, and larionov was part of that. But its also a fact that the sharks were actually a good team when he was in the line up and all the stats go to prove that as well. Irbe gets a lot of credit, and he should, but people really seem to under estimate just how good larionov was as well at that time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: senior edler

Spurgeon

Registered User
Nov 25, 2014
5,950
1,949
MinneSNOWta
wild-fans.jpg
 

BenchBrawl

Registered User
Jul 26, 2010
30,880
13,671
First gut feeling was that a lot of people would diss on Bob Gainey, but I forgot just how weak some retired numbers were.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad