Yeah, it's open season really. I don't think you agree with me on Bure and that he should not be honored, but can anyone disagree how silly the amount of retired numbers we are going to have because of precedents set?
It's kind of disappointing. I can really tell that Gillis is trying to make this franchise not only successful today and for years to come, but with a real legacy like all the greats. I don't really see the amount of retired numbers (and inevitable ones) given the overall track record of our team fitting in with that.
My own personal feeling is that only 16 should be retired to the rafters. But as soon as 19 went up the whole thing became a joke. Now we have to retire 22, 33 (in addition to 12, 16, 19) and 1 at least.
__________________
I told ya so. I was right all along!
My own personal feeling is that only 16 should be retired to the rafters. But as soon as 19 went up the whole thing became a joke. Now we have to retire 22, 33 (in addition to 12, 16, 19) and 1 at least.
My own personal feeling is that only 16 should be retired to the rafters. But as soon as 19 went up the whole thing became a joke. Now we have to retire 22, 33 (in addition to 12, 16, 19) and 1 at least.
No disrespect to Henrik or Daniel but Pavel Bure is the greatest hockey player who's ever donned a Canucks jersey.
One of the greatest pure goal scorers of all time. Even though he never had a Gretzky, Oates, Orr, etc.. feeding him the puck, his goals per game is like 3rd all time.
Bure's first game as a Canuck at Pacific Coliseum will never be forgotten by all who attended - he made the other players look like pylons. A surreal experience.
My own personal feeling is that only 16 should be retired to the rafters. But as soon as 19 went up the whole thing became a joke. Now we have to retire 22, 33 (in addition to 12, 16, 19) and 1 at least.
Let's worry about 22 and 33's numbers in a decade and see where they stand then.Lots can happen - I doubt the status quo will resemble the present and we might have a very different perspective of them far down the line.
For now: Bure. People are embarrassed about the number of numbers we have retired, but I think Bure is the sort of player few outsiders will scrutinize. Bure as a proper retirement that few will question.
Let's worry about 22 and 33's numbers in a decade and see where they stand then.Lots can happen - I doubt the status quo will resemble the present and we might have a very different perspective of them far down the line.
For now: Bure. People are embarrassed about the number of numbers we have retired, but I think Bure is the sort of player few outsiders will scrutinize. Bure as a proper retirement that few will question.
As a Leafs fan, I agree. Bure had plenty of drama with the organization, but on the ice he was clearly the best Nucks player ever, as well as one of the best goal scorers in league history. He spent 7 seasons in Vancouver, which isn't a full career, but still a solid amount of time. The real "head scratcher" retirements are Smyl, and to a certain extent Naslund.
Based on a lot of arguments I saw in favour of 19 being retired, those argument would apply to 1. Not saying it should be, but we have 19 up so why not 1.
1. Linden - It would be an absolute joke not to retire his number
2. H. Sedin - I think he should be a shoe-in by the time his career is over
3. Bure - Would be nice to see him retired, but not a shoe-in for something like a team jersey retirement, even though he was dynamite
4. D. Sedin - Probably is in by default
5. Smyl - Probably shouldn't be in based on talent, but I like it as a sentimental pick
6. Naslund - Doesn't deserve it, but it's a bit of a borderline case I GUESS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nash
McLean in 1994 season:
.891
Luongo in 2010 season:
.913
Cloutier's 3 years as a starter:
.901
.908
.914
I'm not arguing that Cloutier is anywhere in the class of Luongo and a lesser extent to McLean, but he certainly wasn't a pylon back there or as bad as people make him out to be. Those prime years, it is a cop out to blame him.
I feel like you must not have watched Cloutier try to play hockey.
Last edited by Shareefruck: 11-08-2012 at 11:23 PM.
As a Leafs fan, I agree. Bure had plenty of drama with the organization, but on the ice he was clearly the best Nucks player ever, as well as one of the best goal scorers in league history. He spent 7 seasons in Vancouver, which isn't a full career, but still a solid amount of time. The real "head scratcher" retirements are Smyl, and to a certain extent Naslund.
Smyl makes more sense to me than Naslund, honestly. He does represent a milestone for a young franchise.
(I won't complain about Naslund being there, though. I'd have liked him to achieve more, but his team's era helped cement Vancouver's status as a hockey city. )
I feel like you must not have watched Cloutier try to play hockey.
Unfortunately, I have watched plenty of disappointments play on this team ever since I was a kid playing street hockey with an Ivan Hlinka curve on my stick. Sure that includes Cloutier, especially in the playoffs. But it certainly doesn't exclude Naslund, who was just as much of a post season flop to me. Again, this is increased moreso by the fact that he was the captain that lead so many disappointing results in the post season.
The original arguement was why Naslund is a failure in comparison to Linden and Sedin. To me, it is a pretty lame excuse to blame Cloutier, who was only a starter in 3 of Naslund's years here. Was it Luongo's fault for Naslund's annual drastic drop in production in 2007 when Pyatt statistically better post season?
You aren't going *anywhere* in the post-season with a goalie like Cloutier (liked his fighting ability/spirit but he really was average at best). McLean was one of the (not the only) reasons the Canucks got as far as they did in that year (if McLean didn't make that fantastic save - there wouldn't have been that fantastic Bure series winning goal against the Flames).
A big ole lol.
Naslund was brutal in the playoffs. He ended his career with ONE playoff GWG. That was a 4-1 goal in a game we won 4-3. As fun as it is to blame Cloutier, Naslund was useless in those series. After the Lidstrom goal, 19 did NOTHING. Same goes for the Wild series. Markus Naslund's crowning playoff achievement is an assist on a game tying goal that we lost anyways that needed the help of a fan throwing a jersey on the ice and BMo blatantly interfering with Iginla. That's it. Even a serious Naslund fan can't recall anything else because THERE IS NOTHING ELSE. Oh, except when he waved to the crowd on crutches in 2001 or whatever.
It's fun to blame Clouts, but 44 & 19 were equally as useless. They are possibly the best October - March players we've ever had.
As a Leafs fan, I agree. Bure had plenty of drama with the organization, but on the ice he was clearly the best Nucks player ever, as well as one of the best goal scorers in league history. He spent 7 seasons in Vancouver, which isn't a full career, but still a solid amount of time. The real "head scratcher" retirements are Smyl, and to a certain extent Naslund.
You should have stopped after "as a Leafs fan". As a Leafs fan, your opinion on Canuck retirements is completely useless. That isn't meant as an insult, just a simple observation.
I thought Naslund was a great skilled player. For that, I was a fan. However, he should have never been named captain as he was not cut out to be a leader. He wasn't a great speaker and he wasn't the all out effort lead by example type, so other than being our top scorer, I'm not sure how fit he was to inspire and lead a team to victory. For as great as his accomplishments were as a scorer, you have to judge him on his role with the club. In that regard, he was a failure. The Canucks won all of 2 playoff rounds over the course of his career here. His "choke" speech after losing the division title was a low point to me as a fan. I can't imagine how it felt as one of his teammates watching him stumble, all mopey, in his public address to the crowd.
I agree that Naslund's number should've not been retired. I also agree that he was a bad captain for this team, but only after the lockout when the level of his play dropped. Even though he still worked hard, possibly even harder than before, he didn't really lead by example anymore. He wasn't the best player on the team anymore. Just a declining veteran, and the fact that he couldn't be a difference maker anymore seemed to take a major toll on him that surely the dragged the team down aswell (in addition to completely screwing the salary cap with his contract) and eventually led to a cold and controversial farewell. And he didn't have other captain-like qualities either to compensate.
During the 3-4 seasons when he was in his prime, best player in the team and one of the best players in the league, I have absolutely zero problem having that kind of guy as the team captain (also, what other options the team had?). He worked hard, lead by example, was great in the community and was the face of the franchise. A lot like other swede captains (Hank, Lidstrom). Basically, when rookies came up, that's the kind of guy you want they to learn stuff from. Even though these guys might not strike as the popular "leader" type that fans have in their minds, the leadership, integrity and the whole "doing the right thing" mindset they provide equals being a great captain.
I'm still baffled they retired his jersey, but during his prime years (ended up being very short period of time but still) I would take that kind of player as the captain any time.
To me, it is a pretty lame excuse to blame Cloutier, who was only a starter in 3 of Naslund's years here. Was it Luongo's fault for Naslund's annual drastic drop in production in 2007 when Pyatt statistically better post season?
Problem is, the goalies that were in net in the other prime Naslund years were even worse (eg., Potvin, Snow, etc., basically all the crap goalies that Burke brought in). Yeah, Cloutier was the best of a bad lot but that is hardly an accomplishment given the competition. Guess people have been spoiled by Luongo (and hopefully Schneider) to remember how medicore the goaltending was in those years.
No argument here that by 2007, Naslund was well on the decline - when we had a real goalie in net (was never the same after the Moore hit). His cap hit was a fairly big anchor during those last few seasons (re: value of cap hit vs performance). Moore's career wasn't the only one essentially ended.
Last edited by Barney Gumble: 11-09-2012 at 09:40 AM.
Finally someone else thinks Tiger's number should be up there.
but that's the problem: Bob "Scummy" Mano won't let them do it, not even for $10,000.
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of Anarchy
I guess you missed the part of me not caring?
Its nice to get a response. I've noticed that pretty much everyone is ignoring each other on this thread. I bet Pavel isn't even paying attention. I'm trying to remember the last time he was in Vancouver.
--
Also, Cloutier has every right to blame Crow and Burke for their decision to not put a defense system in front of him. Naslund&Co. can also put the blame squarely there because all offense on one line won't win you many playoff rounds.
It speaks volumes about the type of player Bure was that noone has trolled the thread on the main boards yet (albeit in the limited number of posts). Figured there would be some Canucks-bashing by now
they still think it is Florida who is doing the retiring
You should have stopped after "as a Leafs fan". As a Leafs fan, your opinion on Canuck retirements is completely useless. That isn't meant as an insult, just a simple observation.
Well, I was responding to this post, which was specifically about the opinion of outsiders:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisp
Let's worry about 22 and 33's numbers in a decade and see where they stand then.Lots can happen - I doubt the status quo will resemble the present and we might have a very different perspective of them far down the line.
For now: Bure. People are embarrassed about the number of numbers we have retired, but I think Bure is the sort of player few outsiders will scrutinize. Bure as a proper retirement that few will question.
Also, I've lived in Vancouver for the last 8 years, and follow the Nucks more closely than most Nucks fans I know.
I think of retiring numbers this way: would people feel comfortable watching another player wear it?
16, 10: hell no
12: maybe
19: probably
As craigcaulks pointed out, 12 is a little hard for some of us (myself included) to really comprehend as we were just too young, or in some cases, not even born yet. Smyl was one of the first and few to play his entire career with the Canucks, and his franchise marks stood for a good number of years.
I agree on 16. We've already seen a number of people wear #10, so it wouldn't be/hasn't been too weird for me.
I have a question about the Bure banner/jersey that will get retired in the rafters.
Will the colour scheme be:
a) Black/Yellow/Red (skate jersey) that Bure spent the early part of his career wearing;
b) Black/Red/Blue/Silver (orca jersey) that Bure ended his career in Vancouver wearing; or
c) the current Canucks colour scheme of Blue/Green/White
Last edited by Shakey Rustie: 11-09-2012 at 12:15 PM.
Reason: brackets
My own personal feeling is that only 16 should be retired to the rafters. But as soon as 19 went up the whole thing became a joke. Now we have to retire 22, 33 (in addition to 12, 16, 19) and 1 at least.
#16 deserves his number retired but #19 is a joke? this makes no sense at all. There was a time where Naslund was one of the top 5 players in the world. There was NEVER any time that #16 even remotely registered on any 'best player' list. He peaked as a teen/early 20's and was a role player for the rest of his career. Naslund helped bring the fans back and started the sellout streak we're still enjoying. I'd like to hear you justify any way that Linden was more important to the franchise (without talking about off ice events)
to everything!
