Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

hockeyville88

[Report] Canucks MIGHT retire Pavel Bure's #10

499 posts in this topic

When retiring a number I'm sure the committee look at the players off the ice as well as on the ice, I mean if you didn't know who Linden was and looked at his stats you wouldn't be overly impressed (although they are not bad at all). Linden was huge off the ice and i'm sure that is a big reason his number was retired, I'm also sure Naslund was a great guy off the ice too, why else would he have been named captain.

I would rather a better off-ice guy than an on-ice guy as it just makes the team classier, I mean would you rather a team of Linden's or a team of Crosby's, Ovechkins, etc. I would choose Linden any day because of his class.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys can ban people for the speaking the truth if you want, but knowledgable hockey fans are out there and always will be.

DB, your argeument can basically be summed up as Quantity over Quality.

If a player manages to come in and puch the clock for 10 years, suffering few injuries due to their pussyfoot style of play, then in your eyes, he is a hero. GFY

Until the fans stop accepting second rate players as superstars, we're never going to have a banner worth hanging in the rafters. Until then, Pavel Bure's is the closest we can get.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good bunch of arguments each way but for me it is pretty simple. Naslund is up there for on ice and off ice work which he was heavily involved with. Now a lot of that community work comes with being promoted to Captain... and Bure would have never been Captain in his time here even if Linden wasn't here. Too selfish and self centered which doesn't work for team Captaincy. 1

I have been in a fishing boat with one of the players from that era a few times and one thing (of a bunch) mentioned that Pavel rarely showed up even on required community service functions that was/is in their contracts. This caused a huge firestorm with upper management and some of his teamates were not too fond of his actions either. But Quinn and Pavel were friends and he let it slide all the time but everyone else was hopping mad.

So then all these management types get fired and replaced as new ownership comes in...after a couple years Pavel sits out and demands a trade. There was no one left of all the management that 'screwed' him over as people think, 2

None of this behavior seems to point in the direction of a jersey retirement... we all know he was fast and exciting, is that why we retire numbers?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would rather a better off-ice guy than an on-ice guy as it just makes the team classier, I mean would you rather a team of Linden's or a team of Crosby's, Ovechkins, etc. I would choose Linden any day because of his class.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference between us is I don't see 428 games as a signififcant enough contribution to the franchise and there isn't anything significant enough to make up for the lack of games.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't numbers large part of what it's really about Deb? It's typically the reason a player gets his number retired. Number of games played, points, long term captains, team records, Stanley Cups, league awards and nominations, and yes even community involvement. There's a lengthy list with some more important than others. But ultimately numbers do play a large part in it.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they don't seem signifigant to you because you never watched one of them? Hmmm?

For the third time, DB, what exactly is your motivation here?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you'll be like everyone that watched in shocked disbelief as #19 went up there *clap................clap* that was awkward

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously a team doesn't retire every number from winning a cup. But for key contributors it is a factor. Butch Goring won 4 Stanley Cups with the Islanders and was playoff MVP in one of them. A significant contributor? You bet. But he only played 332 games there. The Isles haven't retired his number.

Nor is Goring in the HHoF despite his 4 Stanley Cups, 1 Silver Medal (Canada Cup), a Bill Masterson Trophy, a Lady Bing Trophy, a Conne Smythe Trophy, 1107 games played, 888 points, and the lowest career penalty minutes total (102) in NHL history for a player appearing in more than a thousand games. Former Islander Clarke Gilles is in the HHoF with fewer games played, fewer points and no NHL awards. It makes you wonder what actually gets a player in the HHoF.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pfft, having the stats isn't everything and shouldn't be a reason of having your jersey retired. Ken Daneyko isn't what you called a superstar or brought excitment to a team, but his number is retired by the Devils, because he holds the franchise record for games played as a Devil.

Naslund's number is up in the rafter because he has both the stats and enough games played, not to mention his off ice work in the community. Bure on the other hand, just has the stats.

I'm pretty sure you won't see Kovalchuk's number being retired at the MTS center in Winnipeg, when he's done playing.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

**Because I didn't wanna start my own thread on an already running topic, here's my take on Bure's HOF induction via my blog: http://burestriplede...ger-and-dj.html**

As far as his number being retired here... I'm all for it, but I recognize and understand the reasons why not. I'm torn because as far as the Canucks' unofficial requirements go for jersey retirement (as delineated by Gillis when Nazzy had his retired: on-ice and off-ice contribution), Bure simply doesn't qualify. If it's off-ice character and relationship with the franchise that's equally important, then holding out for a trade automatically disqualifies you.

On the other hand though, I'm not sure that the Canucks need to hold this firmly to the off-ice thing. Sure, it'd be great and it certainly helps your case.. It's why we love our current Canucks (the Sedins' multi-million dollar donation to Children's Hospital, Hamhuis' recent donation and Bieksa's charity game) that much more. But I don't think an obvious absence of it should exclude you from consideration.

I don't know if this has already been brought up in this thread (not gonna look through all 11 pages of it lol), but the obvious parallel here is Patrick Roy and the Canadiens. If Montreal, the most fabled franchise in the history of the NHL, can look past their off-ice differences with Roy and retire his number for the sheer brilliance of his on-ice performance, then I don't see why the Canucks can't do the same.

Anyway, not gonna lie.. I mostly posted just so I could get the link to my blog article in here, so please read that too lol.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I wasn't around in the Islanders' dynasty, but from the sounds of it, Goring should be in the HOF. Though it's also based on more than just numbers/awards.

IMO, the HOF is always going to be questionable after not inducting Pat Burns knowing he won't be around for much longer.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

**Because I didn't wanna start my own thread on an already running topic, here's my take on Bure's HOF induction via my blog: http://burestriplede...ger-and-dj.html**

As far as his number being retired here... I'm all for it, but I recognize and understand the reasons why not. I'm torn because as far as the Canucks' unofficial requirements go for jersey retirement (as delineated by Gillis when Nazzy had his retired: on-ice and off-ice contribution), Bure simply doesn't qualify. If it's off-ice character and relationship with the franchise that's equally important, then holding out for a trade automatically disqualifies you.

On the other hand though, I'm not sure that the Canucks need to hold this firmly to the off-ice thing. Sure, it'd be great and it certainly helps your case.. It's why we love our current Canucks (the Sedins' multi-million dollar donation to Children's Hospital, Hamhuis' recent donation and Bieksa's charity game) that much more. But I don't think an obvious absence of it should exclude you from consideration.

I don't know if this has already been brought up in this thread (not gonna look through all 11 pages of it lol), but the obvious parallel here is Patrick Roy and the Canadiens. If Montreal, the most fabled franchise in the history of the NHL, can look past their off-ice differences with Roy and retire his number for the sheer brilliance of his on-ice performance, then I don't see why the Canucks can't do the same.

Anyway, not gonna lie.. I mostly posted just so I could get the link to my blog article in here, so please read that too lol.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Motivation? Just giving my opinion. And I watched Bure play through the eyes of adulthood as opposed to those of the starstruck childs hero worship. I'd wager most of those here in favor of retiring Bure's number never actually saw him play or have vague memories of childhood. But that's beside the point. To me 488 (ftfy) games isn't enough of a contribution. So how about sticking to facts DS.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually "DS", you don't know anything about what I thought of Naslund getting his number retired, do you?

How many points Bure got, or how many games he played, or his impact as a player is of no consequence to my point of view. The fact is that Bure did not really care about being a Canuck. He was interested in playing in the NHL, and Vancouver was where he happened to wind up, but he did not want to be here. If he had his way, he would have been out of Vancouver well before he played the 488 games for which he did suit up.

Perhaps he had valid grievances against the team management, but this does not change the fact that he did not want to be here.

For this reason, I do not believe that Bure should get his number retired. RoH is more than enough.

regards,

G.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually "DS", you don't know anything about what I thought of Naslund getting his number retired, do you?

How many points Bure got, or how many games he played, or his impact as a player is of no consequence to my point of view. The fact is that Bure did not really care about being a Canuck. He was interested in playing in the NHL, and Vancouver was where he happened to wind up, but he did not want to be here. If he had his way, he would have been out of Vancouver well before he played the 428 games for which he did suit up.

Perhaps he had valid grievances against the team management, but this does not change the fact that he did not want to be here.

For this reason, I do not believe that Bure should get his number retired. RoH is more than enough.

regards,

G.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pavel Bure wanted NOTHING more than to play in Vancouver.

He could have easily stayed in Russia and re entered the draft later. Instead he gets MARRIED to some women he doesnt know all to get a US visa.............all so that Brian Burke can leave him stranded in California for 10 days.

Then Quinn makes him pay his own Russian transfer cash. A move that is outright embarrassing for the Canucks organization.

Bure does everything asked of him, including winning the Calder then scoring 60 goals twice. Quinn refuses to give him a raise until finally Bure asks to be traded out of there.

Bure was USED and Abused by the canucks and yet he still played for us for many years until the team was so TRASHED he couldnt take it anymore.

Linden was trashed, messier and keenan were running the team. Players were all sold off like Courtnall and Ronning.

The guy couldnt take it anymore. Pavel Bure is generational talent we may never see again . He spent from age 20 to age 28 in a Canuck uniform. The best years of his professional life.

If we had treated him like we treat the Sedins, he would have NEVER left.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could, but you would look rather foolish.

Love how your argument has gone from

"Bure doesn't deserve it" to

"Bure has only played 400 games" to

"Bure isn't Bobby Orr"

(1 of these 3 statements is actually true! You get 2 guesses as to which one)

*GASP* He wasn't Bobby Orr???? STOP THE PRESS!!!!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.