HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Notices

Pavel Bure's Number To Be Retired (Post # 31)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-09-2012, 11:05 PM
  #176
Shareefruck
Registered User
 
Shareefruck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,698
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nash View Post
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?
I'm the furthest thing from a Naslund apologist, but Cloutier was every bit as bad as advertised-- Sure he had moments where he seemed like he was turning the corner and if you're defending against beach-ball standards, sure he wasn't as bad as people hyperbolically JOKED about, but it's very hard to argue that he wasn't terrible, even just in the regular season, in my opinion. In the playoffs, he might be the worst I've seen personally.

On average, I'd take nearly every starter in the league right now over him, and probably a number of backups.

Shareefruck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 11:11 PM
  #177
Shareefruck
Registered User
 
Shareefruck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,698
vCash: 500
Breaking down people's impressions of Naslund and Linden as sentimental bias and storytelling, pretending that they both had equal mental toughness is the stupidest thing ever, IMO.

Say what you will about production being the bottom line, but it's like saying there isn't a difference mentally between Toews and Bouwmeester, or Yzerman and Yashin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by craigcaulks View Post
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.
In my opinion, even if it's fair to argue that they were useless, saying that they were equally useless to Cloutier is taking it too far, IMO.


Last edited by Shareefruck: 11-09-2012 at 11:24 PM.
Shareefruck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 02:33 AM
  #178
Wisp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shareefruck View Post
Breaking down people's impressions of Naslund and Linden as sentimental bias and storytelling, pretending that they both had equal mental toughness is the stupidest thing ever, IMO.
I'm not pretending they're equal. I 'm saying I have no idea what goes on inside players heads, so why I should I pretend that I do? Why do you?

There's anecdotal evidence, sure, but there's enough variables (quality of teams, health, league rules, competition, etc) that clouds any conclusion that I don't feel comfortable with them. When we get virtual reality time machine things where I can scenarios that insert Naslund-in-his-prime into 94 Trevor's situation and vice versa, call me.


Last edited by Wisp: 11-10-2012 at 02:44 AM.
Wisp is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 05:56 AM
  #179
Bougieman
Registered User
 
Bougieman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,764
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by M A K A V E L I View Post
He also said it on CBC.

Ronald: "How do you know it happened?"
Cherry: "It happened. Everybody. It's all over everything happened."

That was back in the days when Don hated you if you were born in Russia, and nothing -- not even facts -- would stand in the way of his blatant disregard for your value as a human being. I haven't seen him ranting as much about Russian NHL players in the last while, but back then he was one of the most xenophobic sacks of crap on television.

That anyone would believe Cherry's character assassination about Bure, nationwide platform or not, is just sad. And yet,a s mentioned in this thread, many Canucks fans still do.

Bougieman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 10:47 AM
  #180
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,707
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bougieman View Post
That was back in the days when Don hated you if you were born in Russia, and nothing -- not even facts -- would stand in the way of his blatant disregard for your value as a human being. I haven't seen him ranting as much about Russian NHL players in the last while, but back then he was one of the most xenophobic sacks of crap on television.

That anyone would believe Cherry's character assassination about Bure, nationwide platform or not, is just sad. And yet,a s mentioned in this thread, many Canucks fans still do.
Quote:
Monday, February 15th, 1999
By Don Cherry -- Vancouver Province

Florida is going to get their money back with Pavel Bure in spades. He is bigger than a rock star in Florida. It's a funny thing with Pavel. Remember when I really gave it to him when he kicked the feet out from under Keith Tkachuk, then with the Winnipeg Jets? I said, "He was a little weasel for slew-footing Tkachuk." Couldn't believe it the next game in Vancouver they had thousands of towels with the words "Weasel Power" on them and I really got the boo-birds when I tried to do my opening for Hockey Night in Canada. But a funny thing happened, if you remember -- Pavel hurt his back and in this column I ripped the people for getting all over him and insinuating he was faking it about his back and for all the thrills he has given them. They should be ashamed and get off his back. He doesn't deserve the criticism and give the kid a break. About two months later I was standing in the studio. MacLean was doing the opening out in the Forum and as I was standing looking at the monitor in the empty studio, I felt somebody else's presence. I looked around and here was Pavel standing there in a long black top coat staring at me. I thought, "Oh boy! He's pissed about something. OK, let's get it on." But he stuck out his hand and said, "Thanks for sticking with me, Grapes, when I was having a tough time."

Another time last year when I was walking along the halls at GM Place after the game, coming the other way was Pavel with those four guys he always has around him. As we passed by he broke between his entourage and we shook hands. The people in the hall couldn't believe it. Why did Pavel say hello and seem to like me? One, he knew I was right about Tkachuk and I had stuck with him when he was having a tough time. It's easy to stick with a guy who's flying high, but people always remember when you stick with them when they're struggling. It's funny. When asked why he wanted out of the Vancouver organization, the first thing he mentioned was that the organization never backed him up when people in the media were giving it to him, saying they wonder if his back is really bothering him. So you can see it was a big thing with him. Nothing is worse for an athlete who is a proud guy than to be accused of faking an injury. When I saw he never really got the backing of the organization, I knew he was on his way out. So isn't it ironic that the guy I called a weasel turns into a friend of mine.
at least he admitted he was wrong (and while he didn't explicitly say, "i was wrong," writing an article in the province is basically a public apology to the city of vancouver, right?). more than i can say for pat and brian, anyway.

http://www.pbfc.org/Oldnews/feb99/feb99.html#feb1599

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 12:40 PM
  #181
craigcaulks*
Registered Luser.
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: East Van!
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shareefruck View Post
Breaking down people's impressions of Naslund and Linden as sentimental bias and storytelling, pretending that they both had equal mental toughness is the stupidest thing ever, IMO.

Say what you will about production being the bottom line, but it's like saying there isn't a difference mentally between Toews and Bouwmeester, or Yzerman and Yashin.

In my opinion, even if it's fair to argue that they were useless, saying that they were equally useless to Cloutier is taking it too far, IMO.
When Cloutier let the Lidstrom goal in we were leading the series 2-0. 44 and 19 did nothing from that point on. While that one moment is very easy to remember, it's tough to remember the nothing that our two superstars did.

Bertuzzi never scored a playoff GWG, Naslund had 1 that he scored in the second period to make it 4-1. When you think about all of the OT we played, it's tough to figure out. While no team would have ever won with Cloutier in net, the same can be said if 44 & 19 are your leaders. I'm sticking with equally as useless even if it's a reach.

craigcaulks* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 12:56 PM
  #182
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,595
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
at least he admitted he was wrong (and while he didn't explicitly say, "i was wrong," writing an article in the province is basically a public apology to the city of vancouver, right?). more than i can say for pat and brian, anyway.

http://www.pbfc.org/Oldnews/feb99/feb99.html#feb1599
Think what turned it around for Cherry is that he saw Bure defending himself rather than wait for somebody else to do it (granted easier to do when you've got Gino watching your back in case thing went wrong ). You gave a cheapshot to Bure - he just didn't look at who hit him and wait for the best opportunity to get you back or wait for Gino to get him - Bure himself came right back at you right away (and didn't try and be subtle about it)!


Barney Gumble is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 01:42 PM
  #183
DeveinedPgBc
Registered User
 
DeveinedPgBc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: left of hell pg bc
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,365
vCash: 500
Wetcoaster's take on Pavel Bure

Tried to search for it, cannot find it. Does anyone have a link to Wetcoaster's "what happened with bure and the canucks" post from some time ago? it would be much appreciatted. cheers

DeveinedPgBc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 01:50 PM
  #184
Vankiller Whale
Maybe HE can score
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,821
vCash: 5555
Quote:
As far as Bure finally demanding a trade, blame the Canucks management - they mishandled things with Bure from the day he left Russia. The Canucks would not make Bure a contrct offer so he was unable to get a visa to come to Canada. However he did have a visa to get into the US from his appearance in the 1989 World Juniors held in Anchorage Alaska. He used that visa to slip out of the Soviet Union and travelled to California.

The Canucks forced Bure to pay part of his own transfer fee to the Russian hockey authorities before they would sign him to his initial contract.

They left him dangling and sitting in the USA after he had left Russia with no contact from the Canucks management as they were not sure they wanted to sign him for the season. Brian Burke (then assistant GM) called once and then left him in limbo.

Bure was promised a new contract and substantial raise if he played well so he signed a low ball offer to "prove" himself ($585,360 and $467,820). I suppose the Calder Trophy as top rookie and following up with a 60 goal season did not count because the Canucks broke that promise. A bitter negotiation ensued over the next season during which Bure again scored 60 goals.

When the the new contract was finally prepared the Canucks pulled a "bait and switch" and tried to change the currency to Canadian dollars when no regular NHL players were signing Canadian dollar contracts let alone superstars. Bure finally signed for $4.5 million. He asked that Pat Quinn attend the contract signing so they could shake jhands and put the bad blood behind them - Quinn refused.

Quinn pulled a similar stunt with Wayne Gretzky when his agent, Mik Bartlett had reached a contract in principle in the middle of the night and Quinn demanded that Gretzky be dragged out of bed to sign the deal on the spot. Gretzky then signed with the Rangers. Could you have imagined Gretzky centering Bure???

After Bure finally signed his contract which included a guaranteed salary in the event of a lockout, the Canucks reneged on paying his salary for the lockout period. Bure had to take the Canucks to arbitration to get paid the money legally due to him.

The Canucks had a habit of breaking contracts as with Larionov and Krutov's transfer fee contracts. Arbitration was needed to force payment in that case as well.

BTW Bure never did threaten to hold out during the 1994 play-offs. First Quinn claimed he was told this by "one of my guys" (McPhee???) and then Quinn had to admit that was untrue during the arbitration hearing when he was placed uwnder oath.

Quinn tried to blame the Bure hold out rumour on the media making up stories. It was just another story planted by the Canucks with the Canucks friendly media when the negotiations turned nasty - just like has been done with other players like Linden, Ohlund, Umberger, Klatt, etc.

Given the treatment by Canucks management, it is surprising that Bure had not demanded a trade before he did. When you have a superstar and an elite talent like Bure you do not go out of your way to deliberately PO such a player."
Took this off the main boards.

Vankiller Whale is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 04:40 PM
  #185
Intoewsables
 
 
Intoewsables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,113
vCash: 717
Quote:
Originally Posted by fosterchild420 View Post
Tried to search for it, cannot find it. Does anyone have a link to Wetcoaster's "what happened with bure and the canucks" post from some time ago? it would be much appreciatted. cheers
Not sure if this is the one but I found it on CDC.

In Pavel's own words:
Why I wanted out: Bure finally lists reasons why he demanded trade from Vancouver; [Final C Edition]
Tony Gallagher. The Province. Vancouver, B.C.: Jan 20, 1999. pg. A.52.FR
(Copyright The Province 1999)

NEW YORK -- Pavel Bure's reasons for leaving the Canucks began accumulating before he'd even arrived in Vancouver.

Upon arrival in New York to join the Florida Panthers after his Sunday trade from the Canucks, Bure finally sat down to outline his reasons for wanting to leave.

He was convinced to do so only because he wants Canucks fans to know his reasons had nothing to do with the city, the people or even the rain. In one discussion, he detailed years of pent-up frustration over the silence he's maintained. The litany of neglect from Canucks management seems almost too absurd for words.

For starters, he first asked to be traded in 1993, five years and three months ago. But by far the most significant reason for wanting to leave came when, he said, somebody in Vancouver management made up a story that Bure threatened to withdraw his services during the '94 playoff run to the Cup final.

"Somebody from management planted that story," said Bure.

"They said I threatened not to play and it really pissed me off.

"It's a lie," said Bure with steel in his eyes. "I don't want to say who did it because I don't want to say what I don't know. But I know one thing: I was promised to be traded. The contract was done before the playoffs even started. Ron (Bure's former agent Salcer) agreed with Pat (former GM Quinn) before Calgary. But the story was put out all over and by the time it was denied by Pat Quinn and everybody else, it was too late. It looked like a cover-up."

While Bure would in no way even indicate whom he thought it might be, reason would indicate it was either then-acting assistant GM George McPhee or then-owner Arthur Griffiths. Quinn has indicated to some insiders he was led to believe Bure had threatened to withdraw his services by "my guy" but now says privately and publicly it never happened.

"At that point I just decided to get out for good," said Bure.

"It's just not the way you should do business."

While it might be best to outline Bure's reasons for leaving in order of significance, we have chosen to start from the beginning in order to convey the cumulative effect. And so best to begin when he first left Russia and landed in L.A., where he stayed at Salcer's house.

"I was down there for two weeks before (Canucks management) showed up," Bure said. "It was really hard. I thought they'd be waiting for me when I got there but there was nobody. I'd heard all this about how badly they wanted me and then I'm down there wondering what's going on. Then they finally send down Brian (Burke). We have a quick lunch and then it's another 10 days before they have me fly to San Jose to meet the rest of the guys."

The club was waiting to settle a court case with the Russian Red Army team that had Bure under contract. The Canucks ended up buying out those rights for $250,000. Bure had to chip in $50,000 of it out of his first contract to pay off the Russians.

"In my first year they admitted my first contract ($600,000 Cdn) was not enough, but when we went to talk about it they said, `Hold on, you have to play a little bit more. You have to prove it to us'."

This started a long, torturous period of stonewalling by the Canucks on a new deal, which led to Bure's first request to be traded in November of 1993.

After 17 months of negotiation, a five-year, $14.7-million contract -- almost identical to the ones Sergei Fedorov and Alex Mogilny were signing in Detroit and Buffalo at the time -- was agreed upon.

Or at least Bure thought.

When he sat down to sign it, he found the Canucks had put everything in Canadian funds when in fact Fedorov and Mogilny were getting U.S. funds. No NHL star ever signs a Canadian-funds deal and the Canucks knew this.

"I was really happy with that contract. I would have been happy to sign that deal (in U.S. dollars). But then I finished the season with another 60 goals. And the market was going up."

"About two months later, when I was starting slowly, they (most likely McPhee) told me, `You were lucky to get 60 goals,' and that I would never do it again. They told me I'd be lucky to get 30 again. I told them, `Forget about the contract, just trade me. You don't trust me, just trade me.' "

"After that they said, `Sorry, let's start a whole new relationship.' But then (before he'd even signed the new contract) I'm already hearing how I threatened not to play in the playoffs."

When a $25-million-US, five-year deal with staggering bonuses was finally agreed upon before the '94 playoffs, it was executed just before Game 3 of the final against the Rangers in Vancouver. Quinn apparently was not present at the signing. Bure refused to sign without Quinn there. Quinn was told of this and came in.

"I just felt like he didn't want to give me that contract and I really didn't want the contract.

"I asked for a trade, don't give me a contract! Ronnie said to sign the contract, but I had asked for a trade before that."

"Part of the signing bonus was due on execution of the contract, but they were three months late. I didn't get any money until September."

"I specifically asked Ron to put in (the new deal) that I was to get paid (if there was a lockout) because I thought there probably would be one. And the contract is pretty clear that I was to get paid. But they refused."

Bure remained out of training camp after the lockout for five days, but was talked into going back after the Canucks agreed to negotiate. Quinn claimed he was told by the league not to pay guaranteed contracts until it was settled for all NHL players. But the issue dragged on and on and Bure became increasingly steamed.

"I didn't want to sue the team. I didn't think it would be proper to sue the team you were playing for."

Bure was owed $1.7 million US under the terms of the deal, but after agent Mike Gillis became his agent, he managed to get $1 million of it paid.

"I finally got part of that money three years later."

Before last season Bure met with Quinn and said that after his two seasons of injury maybe he would get an extra push if he was to be traded. Quinn told him he didn't want to trade him, but if that's what he wanted, he would.

Quinn then asked him to get playing well so the club could get market value for him, but 20 games into the season Quinn was fired.

"Every time I asked to be traded, they always agreed to. Nobody ever said, `We're not going to trade you.' But they always lied. They never did."

Enter Mike Keenan. It was at this point Bure said he reconsidered the request quietly to himself because he liked the way Iron Mike was running the show. He was playing 27 or 28 minutes a night and loved it. But he decided there had been too much water under the bridge to turn back.

"I can tell you honestly I had no problem with Mike whatsoever and I loved to play for him. He was the coach and general manager at that time and I had 39 goals and a big bonus for 50. He called me in the office and said, `Listen, don't worry about 50 goals. I'll get you 50. I'll help you to do it.' And he was the general manager. I really like Mike.

He claims Keenan's style didn't bother him much and shrugged off the "you little suck" name-calling incident the coach engaged in during a game in Ottawa last season.

"That didn't bother me," Bure said.

"I played for (Viktor) Tikhonov so that was nothing."

However Keenan did trade his friend Gino Odjick, which was by this time, the icing on the icing of the cake.


Bure speaks out: Tells why he sought trade from Canucks as early as 1993; [Final Edition]
TONY GALLAGHER. The Gazette. Montreal, Que.: Jan 21, 1999. pg. D.2

Full Text (1064 words)
Copyright Southam Publications Inc. Jan 21, 1999

Pavel Bure's reasons for leaving the Canucks began accumulating before he'd even arrived in Vancouver.

Upon arrival in New York to join the Florida Panthers after his Sunday trade from the Canucks, Bure finally sat down to outline his reasons for wanting to leave.

He was convinced to do so only because he wants Canucks fans to know his reasons had nothing to do with the city, the people or even the rain. In one discussion, he detailed years of pent-up frustration over the silence he's maintained. The litany of neglect from Canucks management seems almost too absurd for words.

For starters, he first asked to be traded in 1993, five years and three months ago. But by far the most significant reason for wanting to leave came when, he said, somebody in Vancouver management made up a story that Bure threatened to withdraw his services during the 1994 playoff run to the Cup final.

"Somebody from management planted that story," Bure said. "They said I threatened not to play and it really pissed me off.

`Promised to Be Traded'

"It's a lie," said Bure with steel in his eyes. "I don't want to say who did it because I don't want to say what I don't know. But I know one thing: I was promised to be traded.

"The contract was done before the playoffs even started. Ron (Bure's former agent Salcer) agreed with Pat (former GM Quinn) before Calgary. But the story was put out all over and by the time it was denied by Pat Quinn and everybody else, it was too late. It looked like a cover-up."

Quinn has indicated to some insiders he was led to believe Bure had threatened to withdraw his services by `my guy' but now says privately and publicly it never happened.

"At that point I just decided to get out for good," Bure said. "It's just not the way you should do business."

Let's start from the beginning, when Bure first left Russia and landed in L.A., where he stayed at Salcer's house.

"I was down there for two weeks before (Canucks management) showed up,"

Bure said. "I'd heard all this about how badly they wanted me and then I'm down there wondering what's going on. Then they finally send down Brian (Burke). We have a quick lunch and then it's another 10 days before they have me fly to San Jose to meet the rest of the guys."

The club was waiting to settle a court case with the Russian Red Army team that had Bure under contract. The Canucks ended up buying out those rights for $250,000. Bure had to chip in $50,000 of it out of his first contract to pay off the Russians.

"In my first year they admitted my first contract ($600,000 Canadian) was not enough, but when we went to talk about it, they said, `Hold on, you have to play a little bit more. You have to prove it to us.' "

This started a long, torturous period of stonewalling by the Canucks on a new deal, which led to Bure's first request to be traded in November 1993.

After 17 months of negotiation, a five-year, $14.7-million contract was agreed upon. Or at least Bure thought.

When he sat down to sign it, he found the Canucks had put everything in Canadian funds. No NHL star ever signs a Canadian- funds deal and the Canucks knew this.

"I was really happy with that contract. I would have been happy to sign that deal (in U.S. dollars). But then I finished the season with another 60 goals. And the market was going up.

"About two months later, when I was starting slowly, they told me, `You were lucky to get 60 goals,' and that I would never do it again. They told me I'd be lucky to get 30 again. I told them, `Forget about the contract, just trade me. You don't trust me, just trade me.'

"After that they said, `Sorry, let's start a whole new relationship.' But then (before he'd even signed the new contract), I'm already hearing how I threatened not to play in the playoffs."

When a $25-million (U.S.), five-year deal with staggering bonuses was finally agreed upon before the '94 playoffs, it was executed just before Game 3 of the final against the Rangers in Vancouver. Quinn apparently was not present at the signing. Bure refused to sign without Quinn there. Quinn was told of this and came in.

"I just felt like he didn't want to give me that contract and I really didn't want the contract," Bure said.

"I asked for a trade, don't give me a contract! Ronnie said to sign the contract, but I had asked for a trade before that.

"Part of the signing bonus was due on execution of the contract, but they were three months late. I didn't get any money until September.

"I specifically asked Ron to put in (the new deal) that I was to get paid (if there was a lockout) because I thought there probably would be one. And the contract is pretty clear that I was to get paid.

"But they refused."

Issue Dragged On

Bure remained out of training camp after the lockout for five days, but was talked into going back after the Canucks agreed to negotiate. Quinn claimed he was told by the league not to pay guaranteed contracts until it was settled for all NHL players. But the issue dragged on and Bure became increasingly steamed.

Bure was owed $1.7 million U.S. under the terms of the deal, but after Mike Gillis became his agent, he managed to get $1 million of it paid.

Before last season, Bure met with Quinn and said that after his two seasons of injury, maybe he would get an extra push if he was to be traded. Quinn told him he didn't want to trade him, but if that's what he wanted, he would.

Quinn then asked him to get playing well so the club could get market value for him, but 20 games into the season Quinn was fired.

"Every time I asked to be traded, they always agreed to. Nobody ever said, `We're not going to trade you.' But they always lied."

Intoewsables is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 05:24 PM
  #186
craigcaulks*
Registered Luser.
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: East Van!
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,000
vCash: 500
And there you have it, one side of the story. Case closed, right?

craigcaulks* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 06:23 PM
  #187
vanuck
Griffiths Way Goons
 
vanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 9,907
vCash: 250
So why would the Canucks try and dick him around like that? Any player would want to leave.

vanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 11:47 PM
  #188
*Injektilo
Registered User
 
*Injektilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: France
Posts: 11,662
vCash: 500
We should have never retired numbers anyway. The error was really made with Smyl.

IMO, a number retired is for a player who can be categorized as a legend, who has left a mark on the franchise and the game's history... Orr, Lemieux, Gretzky, Roy. We have never had that caliber play for the Canucks. Bure certainly doesn't belong in that category.

*Injektilo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 11:59 PM
  #189
LiquidSnake
Agent of Chaos...
 
LiquidSnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,589
vCash: 883
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Injektilo View Post
We should have never retired numbers anyway. The error was really made with Smyl.

IMO, a number retired is for a player who can be categorized as a legend, who has left a mark on the franchise and the game's history... Orr, Lemieux, Gretzky, Roy. We have never had that caliber play for the Canucks. Bure certainly doesn't belong in that category.
So there should be around 8 jerseys retired league wide?

LiquidSnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 03:00 AM
  #190
Shareefruck
Registered User
 
Shareefruck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,698
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisp View Post
I'm not pretending they're equal. I 'm saying I have no idea what goes on inside players heads, so why I should I pretend that I do? Why do you?

There's anecdotal evidence, sure, but there's enough variables (quality of teams, health, league rules, competition, etc) that clouds any conclusion that I don't feel comfortable with them. When we get virtual reality time machine things where I can scenarios that insert Naslund-in-his-prime into 94 Trevor's situation and vice versa, call me.
While this is true to some degree, I think the difference between Linden and Naslund under pressure has become pretty clear after so many years. Even if we aren't talking about results under pressure, just view who plays a better game in those moments and it's so very obvious and has happened so many times that I don't think you could write it off as being due to these factors.

It doesn't even have to be about what goes on in players heads specifically-- just how effective their game is on the ice at certain points.

Shareefruck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 03:07 AM
  #191
Shareefruck
Registered User
 
Shareefruck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,698
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigcaulks View Post
When Cloutier let the Lidstrom goal in we were leading the series 2-0. 44 and 19 did nothing from that point on. While that one moment is very easy to remember, it's tough to remember the nothing that our two superstars did.

Bertuzzi never scored a playoff GWG, Naslund had 1 that he scored in the second period to make it 4-1. When you think about all of the OT we played, it's tough to figure out. While no team would have ever won with Cloutier in net, the same can be said if 44 & 19 are your leaders. I'm sticking with equally as useless even if it's a reach.
I think it's easy to remember that they were worthless alot of the time, I'm not apologetic about them, but superstars struggling to score in the playoffs is pretty common, and on top of that, they had some moments. It was never quite the consistently fold-like-a-cheap-tent prevent-your-team-from-having a shot play that Cloutier provided pretty damn often.

Naslund and Bertuzzi often provided NOTHING when we needed it most, but Cloutier was more than that-- he was often spectacularly bad. It's not the same thing, IMO. Put Naslund/Bertuzzi on an otherwise fantastic team playing as bad as they've played and that team still has a solid shot-- Put Cloutier on an otherwise fantastic team and I don't think they have any shot, personally.

Shareefruck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 04:00 AM
  #192
Wisp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shareefruck View Post
While this is true to some degree, I think the difference between Linden and Naslund under pressure has become pretty clear after so many years. Even if we aren't talking about results under pressure, just view who plays a better game in those moments and it's so very obvious and has happened so many times that I don't think you could write it off as being due to these factors.

It doesn't even have to be about what goes on in players heads specifically-- just how effective their game is on the ice at certain points.
The difference you see is anecdotal. Its only clear because we apply context to situations to help understand it better. Additional information could change that context entirely. There's no definitive conclusion we can make as spectators on these sorts of player qualities.

Food for thought. Nothing I say is going to stop sports fan from questioning athletes character. Heck, its probably not even going to stop me, either (I dislike Cody Hodgson and subscribe to all sorts of assumptions about him).

Wisp is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 08:21 AM
  #193
Shareefruck
Registered User
 
Shareefruck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,698
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisp View Post
The difference you see is anecdotal. Its only clear because we apply context to situations to help understand it better. Additional information could change that context entirely. There's no definitive conclusion we can make as spectators on these sorts of player qualities.

Food for thought. Nothing I say is going to stop sports fan from questioning athletes character. Heck, its probably not even going to stop me, either (I dislike Cody Hodgson and subscribe to all sorts of assumptions about him).
It shouldn't stop it, IMO. Since when does everything have to be scientifically and objectively defineable for an opinion to rationally be formed?

I think anecdotal evidence is enough reason to make the assumption until that new information comes to light (although I can't imagine what type of information could convince you of otherwise in this case-- we're not talking about two guys who are neck and neck in that category, we're talking about Linden and Naslund-- I don't think injuries or luck or freak coincidence would be the reason), personally. Wiping that out entirely is totally unfair and inacurrate on its own, IMO. We have subjective conclusions based on what we've seen, analysed, and believe-- anecdotal evidence may not be perfect, but it's still evidence that we should factor in (alot, in my opinion).

Character can't be objectively defined but should that stop us from forming opinions about people we meet?


Last edited by Shareefruck: 11-11-2012 at 08:37 AM.
Shareefruck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 10:58 AM
  #194
craigcaulks*
Registered Luser.
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: East Van!
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shareefruck View Post

Naslund and Bertuzzi often provided NOTHING when we needed it most,...
Actually, Bertuzzi did do a great job of reminding the Wild that the series was 3-1 and that it wouldn't be returning to MN. So he do something.

craigcaulks* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 11:09 AM
  #195
*Injektilo
Registered User
 
*Injektilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: France
Posts: 11,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidSnake View Post
So there should be around 8 jerseys retired league wide?
No. There were more than 8 players that have marked the history of the game and the various franchises... But even if there were, is that a problem?

*Injektilo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 12:33 PM
  #196
Ogie Goldthorpe
Piloted Ogre Hog
 
Ogie Goldthorpe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: NS via BC
Posts: 2,330
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Injektilo View Post
We should have never retired numbers anyway. The error was really made with Smyl.

IMO, a number retired is for a player who can be categorized as a legend, who has left a mark on the franchise and the game's history... Orr, Lemieux, Gretzky, Roy. We have never had that caliber play for the Canucks. Bure certainly doesn't belong in that category.
I have the opposite opinion. The HoF is for honouring the all-time greats. Teams retiring numbers should be all about above and beyond service to the franchise, (somewhat) regardless of of the player's innate talent.

Smyl gave his left nut for the team, game in and game out, for 13 years. He did more with less than any Canuck I ever saw... but, as any sane person would concede, he was never going to get into the HoF without a ticket. Was he one of the greatest hockey players ever? Not a chance. Was he one of the greatest Canucks ever? You bet.

The retiring of Smyl's number did nothing to cheapen the honour or lower the bar for potential future number retirees. Players like him don't come around that often. We'll be lucky if we see another like him. In my books, he's exactly the kind of guy who's number should be retired.


Last edited by Ogie Goldthorpe: 11-11-2012 at 12:38 PM.
Ogie Goldthorpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 01:12 PM
  #197
LiquidSnake
Agent of Chaos...
 
LiquidSnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,589
vCash: 883
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Injektilo View Post
No. There were more than 8 players that have marked the history of the game and the various franchises... But even if there were, is that a problem?
i dont think it's a problem if there were. just like I dont think it's a massive problem with how it is now. Although im not a fan of Naslund being retired.

LiquidSnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 01:29 PM
  #198
*Injektilo
Registered User
 
*Injektilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: France
Posts: 11,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogie Goldthorpe View Post
I have the opposite opinion. The HoF is for honouring the all-time greats. Teams retiring numbers should be all about above and beyond service to the franchise, (somewhat) regardless of of the player's innate talent.

Smyl gave his left nut for the team, game in and game out, for 13 years. He did more with less than any Canuck I ever saw... but, as any sane person would concede, he was never going to get into the HoF without a ticket. Was he one of the greatest hockey players ever? Not a chance. Was he one of the greatest Canucks ever? You bet.

The retiring of Smyl's number did nothing to cheapen the honour or lower the bar for potential future number retirees. Players like him don't come around that often. We'll be lucky if we see another like him. In my books, he's exactly the kind of guy who's number should be retired.
To each their own. At the very least, bringing a SC is a prerequisite to being considered for a number retirement. It's a non-starter otherwise, IMO.

*Injektilo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 03:14 PM
  #199
Ogie Goldthorpe
Piloted Ogre Hog
 
Ogie Goldthorpe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: NS via BC
Posts: 2,330
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Injektilo View Post
To each their own. At the very least, bringing a SC is a prerequisite to being considered for a number retirement. It's a non-starter otherwise, IMO.
To each his own, indeed. Plenty of great players never win an SC. If you were to say "strong playoff performances" would be a requirement, I'd agree with you.

Ogie Goldthorpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 03:32 PM
  #200
Outside99*
Sedins off Kas
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,347
vCash: 796
retired #'s in MTL criteria:

- long career mostly if not only with the Habs
- very good to great player
- won a Cup
- adored by fans
as a factor, community involvement is 5th (McIntyre today makes it sound like its #1 here..)

Had Linden played in MTL, MAYBE his # is retired, despite not winning because he was so good in the playoffs. Smyl I can't say having never seen him play. Naslund, no because he really got nothing done in the playoffs and this will be seen as a negative by fans.

Pavel? great player, did not win a cup but a good po performer. adored by fans, yes. But only 6-7 seasons here, and asked to be traded (fans expect you to suck it up - you don't have to but it will hurt your brand). So I don't think he would make the cut there tbh. IMO

Outside99* is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:12 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.