There is no logical argument for retiring Esposito's number. It was a Cinderella run, not a great team. He hated being here. He *****ed about it so much that they made the ****ing Middleton for Hodge trade just to make poor baby Espo happy. He led those Rangers teams in scoring by default, not because he was so good. You may have a romanticized view of the 79 team, but Esposito is a Bruin not a Ranger. Messier came here and was great. Espo came here and was very good. It's not the same thing. Hell, JD carried the 79 team far more than Espo did.
Park and Ratelle miss out on their banners because that stupid trade made them spend half their careers somewhere else. With no cup on their resume, it gets really iffy on retiring their numbers, but I do think they should be honored in some way. Emile Francis should be honored despite the Espo trade, not because of it.
I'm not even sure Worsley is the best Rangers goalie not to have a banner. Rayner and Kerr don't have banners either. At this point, he's far from the most egregious omission.
I'm not even sure Worsley is the best Rangers goalie not to have a banner. Rayner and Kerr don't have banners either. At this point, he's far from the most egregious omission.
Worsley is an all-time great, enshrined in the HOF. Kerr is not.
As far as having a romanticized view of the past,.... Mike Richter has a banner. Yet, if Richter and the Rangers came out on the losing end of game 7 in the '94 SCF,.... does he still get his number retired? I think the answer to that question is fairly obvious.
I was a big Richter fan too, back in the day. But that doesn't blind me to the fact that if one magnificent season ('93-94) didn't happen, then Mike does not catapult past Worsley, or even John Vanbiesbrouck, in most fans' pecking order of Ranger goalie greats.
Leetch's hockey IQ was and still is elite. And by elite I mean among the greats.
Id doesn't matter that Park was more "physical" Leetch did every little thing with pride. His fundamentals were flawless. His positioning and stick work was perfect. He could throw a hip check better than anyone. And he could flat out dominate and control a game. Teams had to create game plans around him, as if he were a forward.
No its not all about points, but at some point they matter. Especially when a DEFENSEMAN puts up well over 1000 points including over 100 in a season.
I've heard many arguments about greatest defensemen of all time on NHL Home Ice. Including Esposito who played against Park. And Espo said Leetch is arguably the best ever. And he's not the only one.
There's a reason Leetch is legendary and Park isn't.
I don't need to hear "you didn't live his career." Arguments. I wasn't alive in the 20s either, and I know who was and wasn't great in that era.
Can't compare eras, that's fine, but consider Leetch racked up his points and dominated as a two way defenseman in a dead puck era. Leetch had to face some of the best goaltenders in history on a regular basis, as well as an era that included some of the greatest players in history, and he still dominated.
He did it longer, he did it with two destroyed ankles. No bad knee excuse for this player. He played through it.
He dominated the playoffs.
He could beat a team with his speed, his hands, his head, and his defensive play. And he did it with respect for his opponent and class at all times.
Park above Leetch? No. Park was great, Leetch was a legend. There's a difference.
Frank Boucher
Bill Cook
Ivan Johnson
Ott Heller
Bryan Hextall
Harry Howell
Andy Bathgate
Ed Giacomin
Rod Gilbert
Mike Richter
Brian Leetch
Mark Messier
Should be that group.
And soon enough Henrik Lundqvist will be added to that list.
Leetch's hockey IQ was and still is elite. And by elite I mean among the greats.
Id doesn't matter that Park was more "physical" Leetch did every little thing with pride. His fundamentals were flawless. His positioning and stick work was perfect. He could throw a hip check better than anyone. And he could flat out dominate and control a game. Teams had to create game plans around him, as if he were a forward.
No its not all about points, but at some point they matter. Especially when a DEFENSEMAN puts up well over 1000 points including over 100 in a season.
I've heard many arguments about greatest defensemen of all time on NHL Home Ice. Including Esposito who played against Park. And Espo said Leetch is arguably the best ever. And he's not the only one.
There's a reason Leetch is legendary and Park isn't.
I don't need to hear "you didn't live his career." Arguments. I wasn't alive in the 20s either, and I know who was and wasn't great in that era.
Can't compare eras, that's fine, but consider Leetch racked up his points and dominated as a two way defenseman in a dead puck era. Leetch had to face some of the best goaltenders in history on a regular basis, as well as an era that included some of the greatest players in history, and he still dominated.
He did it longer, he did it with two destroyed ankles. No bad knee excuse for this player. He played through it.
He dominated the playoffs.
He could beat a team with his speed, his hands, his head, and his defensive play. And he did it with respect for his opponent and class at all times.
Park above Leetch? No. Park was great, Leetch was a legend. There's a difference.
You have a Brian Leetch avatar. It's fair to question your objectivity on the matter. In the first half of the 70s Park was the best defenseman in the world outside of Bobby Orr (runner up to Orr in the Norris voting four times, plus twice to Potvin). Leetch means more to the Rangers, but if you go to the history of hockey board and pit Leetch against Park, Park will win overwhelmingly. Park was a legend as you put it, it's just unfortunate that he split his career between the Rangers and Bruins thanks to the worst trade in Rangers history. By all accounts, Park never reached the offensive heights of Leetch, but he had more elite seasons than Leetch and was better defensively. Plus, Park was no slouch offensively. Park averaged .805 ppg over his career. Leetch averaged .853 ppg for his.
As for the judgment of Esposito, given how he hated coming here, spent the whole time whining, and presided over an almost completely irrelevant era of Rangers history as GM, his opinion means less than nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
Worsley is an all-time great, enshrined in the HOF. Kerr is not.
As far as having a romanticized view of the past,.... Mike Richter has a banner. Yet, if Richter and the Rangers came out on the losing end of game 7 in the '94 SCF,.... does he still get his number retired? I think the answer to that question is fairly obvious.
I was a big Richter fan too, back in the day. But that doesn't blind me to the fact that if one magnificent season ('93-94) didn't happen, then Mike does not catapult past Worsley, or even John Vanbiesbrouck, in most fans' pecking order of Ranger goalie greats.
But Richter did win the cup so he has a banner. Do you honestly think Graves has a banner if they lose game 7? Kerr won a cup. Rayner is a Hall of Famer who won a Hart during a year the Rangers went to game 7 of the finals. Neither have banners. Worsley isn't getting a banner. Honestly, by this point it has been so long and there are so many guys this franchise has forgotten (ie the Bread Line, Hextall), why on Earth is Worsley the one you feel the need to single out?
I love the fans who talk about the 70,s Rangers teams without ever experiencing them and act like they have a good handle on those teams.
In 1970 and 1972 the Rangers just couldn,t get over the hump. Then they lost a 7 game series to the Flyers who were Stanley Cup champs and had overtaken the Rangers in the East. On top of that you had the Islanders getting much better and eventually becoming a dynasty. Rangers management decided that if they were going to win the Cup they were not going to win it with Park and Ratelle along with a rapidly decling Hadfield,Seling and Giacomin. They made the Esposito trade because they figured he was there best chance to move forward and break from the early 70,s Rangers and challenge the Islanders and the Flyers. The Rangers had the Maloneys, Duguay,Greschner Murdoch and Davidson in there pipeline and were planning on making a bid to sign the 2 big Swedes from Winnipeg. The Middleton trade was a disaster and Vadnais was a disapointment but many knowledgable fans agree that the fabric of the team had to be changed if they were going to compete for the Cup going against the Flyers and the Islanders.
They made it to the finals in 1979 and were the toast of the town. Sometimes you have to make trades just to change the team. The 1972 Rangers will always be my favorite team but I don,t think Ratelle and Park would have won a Cup here(they never won one on a very good Boston team). Esposito get unfairly criticized but he was the leader of those late 70,s teams that went to a final. The Rangers in the 70,s got sandwiched between the Great Boston Bruins and a very good Blackhawk team early on then hit the Flyers, Canadiens and Islanders and still competed strongly with less talent.
As someone who lived with those Rangers teams I knew that they were never the best team but would be a contender for the Cup every year and I would sign right now for a 10 year run like that with 3 finals appeareances. A lucky bounce here or there and we could have won a Cup or two.
These teams are underated and I think Emile Francis did a great job transitioning from the early 70,s to the late 70,s. Park and Ratelle put up great numbers after they were traded but if you had the pulse of the team back them the team had to go forward. The 70,s were an awesome time to be a fan of the Blueshirts as every spring you new they had a chance to win it all even though they did not have the best talent.
Lets hope we have another 10 year run like that but win a cup or two!
Yes, winning the cup and,.... nothing else you can think of?
Frankly, I can't think of anything else either that merits a banner. I believe the highest Richter ever came to winning any kind of trophy at all was 5th place in the voting for Vezina. He had several good seasons..... but the bulk of his career was average, at best.
The truth of the matter is that Richter's banner is a result of a myopic decision-maker in the organization. It's the same mentality of Summit Series enthusiasts who continually campaign for Paul Henderson's inclusion into the HOF.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zil
Do you honestly think Graves has a banner if they lose game 7?
Nope. And the same would be true for Messier.
Leetch is the only member of that '94 team who would have been a no-brainer for a banner. Someone who would have become a Ranger legend even w/o a Stanley Cup ring. With that said, I don't know how this thread turned into a Leetch vs. Park debate. Both of those guys were great in their own way. Both of them were legends. I merely thought that since Park does not have his number retired anywhere, it would be nice to at least have a team like the Rangers do so, which would promote his accomplishments to the younger generation of fans who are not familiar with him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zil
Kerr won a cup.
See my Richter comments above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zil
Rayner is a Hall of Famer who won a Hart during a year the Rangers went to game 7 of the finals. Neither have banners. Worsley isn't getting a banner. Honestly, by this point it has been so long and there are so many guys this franchise has forgotten (ie the Bread Line, Hextall), why on Earth is Worsley the one you feel the need to single out?
I'm not singling out Worsley as being more worthy. It's just that my personal knowledge of hockey history going wayyyy back isn't so in-depth. I'm sure that those fans who are experts of those early Ranger Stanley Cup winning teams have very good choices in mind for players worthy of having their a rafter banner hung in their honor.
Yes, winning the cup and,.... nothing else you can think of?
Frankly, I can't think of anything else either that merits a banner. I believe the highest Richter ever came to winning any kind of trophy at all was 5th place in the voting for Vezina. He had several good seasons..... but the bulk of his career was average, at best.
The truth of the matter is that Richter's banner is a result of a myopic decision-maker in the organization. It's the same mentality of Summit Series enthusiasts who continually campaign for Paul Henderson's inclusion into the HOF.
Nope. And the same would be true for Messier.
Leetch is the only member of that '94 team who would have been a no-brainer for a banner. Someone who would have become a Ranger legend even w/o a Stanley Cup ring. With that said, I don't know how this thread turned into a Leetch vs. Park debate. Both of those guys were great in their own way. Both of them were legends. I merely thought that since Park does not have his number retired anywhere, it would be nice to at least have a team like the Rangers do so, which would promote his accomplishments to the younger generation of fans who are not familiar with him.
See my Richter comments above.
I'm not singling out Worsley as being more worthy. It's just that my personal knowledge of hockey history going wayyyy back isn't so in-depth. I'm sure that those fans who are experts of those early Ranger Stanley Cup winning teams have very good choices in mind for players worthy of having their a rafter banner hung in their honor.
richter led the rangers in wins, was a franchise goalie and was huge in 94, helping deliever a cup to an original 6 team that only had 3 and hadn't won in 54 years. he is a no brainer to get his number retired.
For anyone that wants a written account of the Rangers early history from someone who was there, Frank Boucher wrote a great book called "When the Rangers Were Young".
---
If you really want to learn about the early decades of the Rangers, this is the book to get.
---
Worth every penny, despite whatever condition the books are in.
Utterly agree, one of my fav books.
It is a disgrace that this franchise has chosen to ignore its foundation. But that is the current regime - they only made revenue-based decisions and how much can be made by recognizing the old guys when few fans know who they are? On a nightly basis at least half the Garden, if not more, has no idea who Potvin was and why he sucks - much less who Frank Boucher, Bill Cook, et. al. were.
My only hope is that they are given some recognition during the centennial season (which will mistakenly be 25-26 rather than 26-27, going by the 85th anniv nonsense).
It is a disgrace that this franchise has chosen to ignore its foundation. But that is the current regime - they only made revenue-based decisions and how much can be made by recognizing the old guys when few fans know who they are? On a nightly basis at least half the Garden, if not more, has no idea who Potvin was and why he sucks - much less who Frank Boucher, Bill Cook, et. al. were.
My only hope is that they are given some recognition during the centennial season (which will mistakenly be 25-26 rather than 26-27, going by the 85th anniv nonsense).
Is this thee Scotty Hockey? I expect a lot of Del Zotto bashing.
Of all the players...you chose one of the worst people to ever happen to the Rangers organization. If anything there should be a banner slandering Esposito.
The players that deserve banners are:
Frank Boucher
Bill Cook
Fred Cook
Ivan Johnson
Ott Heller
Neil Colville
Lynn Patrick
Bryan Hextall Sr.
Jean Ratelle
Ron Greschner
Lester Patrick
Herb Brooks
Tex Rickard
People like that, who built and shaped the Rangers from the beginning, some who won two, one of which won three Stanley Cups with the Rangers.
Putting in Gresch over Park is beyond absurd unless you think it is an absolute joke that Graves is in the rafters.
The only logic that puts Gresch there is team longevity, something Graves did not have.
Park is in a group of defensemen thst includes Potvin, Bourque, Lidstrom, Chelios etc. Gresch is not in the top 100. Graves is not in the top 100 wingers.
