So then I'll try once more, hopefully in a more compact form. First the premise I take issue with: despite their largely equal on-ice contributions, one is more worthy of a particular distinction than the other, based on x, x being an ideal of loyalty. In the thread, loyalty is an elevated variable, so it's worth examining more closely. But there is vertical loyalty, employer/employee, and there is horizontal loyalty, teammate/teammate. One should probably not be more or less important than the other, for the particular type of person we're arguing about, and the argument we're making in his favor. If they are to be unbalanced, then if anything the horizontal should carry more weight, since how can you trust loyalty that is bought? But ignore the distinction for now. So if this person of irreproachable character throws his other half, whose career success he owes a large debt to, under the bus (or more accurately just stands there while a bus runs him over), whether that teammate deserves it or not, then said person is really not that type of person he's being painted as, and isn't any more deserving of the honor than the other, if that is the argument we're using to distinguish their worthiness. The ideal is, of course, as you rightly point out, absurd. But Z's moral superiority is supposed to trump Datsyuk's in this particular discussion. And their entangled careers and the method of disentangling them seems particularly pertinent to those who brought it up, it's their whole argument for Z before D. But without equal application to all the parties involved, it doesn't really carry water. It doesn't account for the entirety of the ideal.
And let me be clear, I'm not bashing the Ilitches here, despite my suspicions over the reflexive compulsion to defend their honor in this matter. I can understand any feeling of rebuke they incurred in the dissolution, even if I think its overblown from a healthy, uninvolved distance and their continuing to bear any hostility for much longer would be a detriment to their respectability, which I already have few delusions about. Nevertheless, I understand they did and do a lot for the city of Detroit, even if one could find fault in the tact they've taken in some of their endeavors in amassing and leveraging their clout, but that evokes strong feelings, particularly to the citizens of the city who have benefited. I conceded it's all at the mercy of their will in any case. I am, again, only mildly obsessed with the sloppiness of the application of the standard of what is being held up as a rigid metric, regarding what we mean by loyalty. The owners haven't always maintained their own standard, so if we ignore it for them, we have to ignore it for Datsyuk. If we apply it evenly across the board, then Z-before-D doesn't hold up to rigorous logic. Z betrays the ideal, the argument that Team Z is using to vault him ahead of D, the moment he accepts the honor before he's certain his partner and friend, to whom he owes considerable portion of his success (and vice versa, obviously, but not of importance to the argument), is afforded the same. Even if Dats might not deserve such loyalty, even if Z justly deserves his moment of "selfish" basking in celebration of his part in the success they garnered together. But at the end of the day it's a similar betrayal of the High Ideal. You can argue a manner of degrees, conceded, but in converting from a binary to spectrum, the argument is consumed by a squabble over the subjective jockeying over at which point can we draw the cutoff. If total loyalty is no longer the minimum threshold, than what's just loyal enough? It just makes the distinction look that much more petty and subjective.
Now, if all that really counts in this discussion is one-way vertical loyalty, player to owner, then I submit Osgood for the honor above any of them. He got kicked to the curb by the franchise when Hasek smiled our way; Ilitch valued another Cup over one of his loyal employees. Maybe we should see some hands, who was ready to burn down the Joe over it? What? No one? But loyalty! Ah loyalty--that soldier came back, for peanuts, a fraction of his real value to the team over the next few years, played his heart out for us, won another Cup for sweet ol Mr. I. and the City of Detroit, deserved a Conn Smythe in 09, second all time in team wins, and pretty much every other franchise goaltending category. And he'd feel ridiculous for having his number retired before any of them, probably wouldn't accept it. A guy who felt so bad about losing a playoff series in his youth he wept in the locker room afterwards, because he felt he let his teammates and employer down. And was ridiculed for it by a lot of fans. And eventually won some respect. But probably less than he deserves. That strikes me as a narratively compelling display of character, worthy of what we're crediting to Zetterberg here. None of them could be argued with any sincerity as being the greatest players in franchise history anyway, but a) overall skill seems less important in this particular evaluation, and b) placed in context together, Osgood isn't really so far off, in terms of career accomplishments, especially compared with Z. Zetterberg, briefly had an okay argument as the best of his position in the league, Dats somewhat more so, but other than that I wouldn't say there is a gulf between them, in terms of what they gave to the franchise. Z has his Smythe, but again Osgood deserved one. Yet according to our nebulous standard we're testing here, he doesn't get serious consideration at all, Datsyuk gets a maybe, someday, with an if and a but, while Z is the lock. Even though D was probably a slightly better player statistically speaking, certainly in terms of absolute skill by a small margin, and O was at least as dedicated, while not being thousands or even hundreds of miles behind in terms of impact and value, particularly for a good portion of his second stint.
And yeah, okay, I'm having a little fun in the absolutism of it all. I get a little carried away. I know Zetterberg will mean everything he says about every teammate he played with, he'll be humble and gracious. And Datysuk will be there and tell a funny joke in broken english, and express similar sentiments as best he can, and there will be laughter and tears and hugs. It's all fine, in the realm of reality, where things aren't perfect but life goes on. Neither of them or any of us will lose much sleep over it, if Datysuk doesn't get his number up in the rafters of an arena he never played in thousands of miles away from his home. But here in the land of pseudo-intellectual dissertations on the applied metrics pertaining to number retirement, where we pretend to reason and objectivity in the construction of our elaborate cases for and against, it doesn't seem egregious of me to question how fairly our standards are being meted out. Though again, I do so long-windedly, with apologies. But I'd like to feel it's out of respect to the adversarial position, and for the people related to the subject, to articulate my objection to full extent as best as I am able. We're all entitled to feel how we feel, you think Z deserves it more because your feelings, that's cool. You don't really have to explain that, it's valid human emotion. My own personal belief is they should go up together, or not at all. But we can't use a ridiculously narrow and subjective and messy application of an abstract concept like loyalty as the sole logical linchpin of an attempt to promote those feelings to the the authority of Sound Logic and win at the internet, without being criticized and challenged on it.
And, it begs the question again, if feelings are the only true deciding factor here, if all the logical posturing we engage is pointless (doing my fair share here), and it's ultimately just a popularity contest with the owners as judge supreme, then what is the honor really worth, to us? We get no vote or say in it, so why does it matter? But it was our money too once, what the I's poured into the franchise. If public funds are involved at all at the city or state level, shouldn't citizens have some say in what hangs in the rafters of the building we paid for, at least in part? Even if we don't get to say who can wear what number, it seems a somewhat more meaningful display of respect in the grand scheme than the current arrangement. Why not put it on the ballot at election time? And why don't similarly loyal, if less-skilled soldiers get their numbers raised, if they gave everything they had, for the greatness of the team, and the owner feels warm and fuzzy about them? That's kind of a dick thing to hold over them, that they weren't blessed with the convergence of genetics and opportunity that makes an Yzerman or a Lidstrom. The Drapers, Proberts, McCartys, etc gave as much relatively, and suffered more for it, I'd say. Some say it's a high standard; I used to think so too, but in picking it apart like this, it's really not. It's really not much of anything. More a silly lie we use to try to elevate our fandom to a make-believe moral high ground to lord over the inferior franchises. It suddenly feels cultish and stupid to me, which isn't to dissuade or demean those who hold it in more esteem. As our feelings, so to our games and diversions, our artificial constructs, our hierarchies and lists, and jersey number retirements. But I find here after a million and one unsolicited words on the subject, I have no enthusiasm left for it any of it. So maybe it's time to agree to disagree, go back to adulating the retiring hero.
