Bite me Burr Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Yes, Naslund's departure wasn't a highlight Canucks moment. However neither was Bure's. Meh. Just supports the argument that both are worthy of jersey retirement if Naslund's already is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowest common denominator Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Yes, Naslund's departure wasn't a highlight Canucks moment. However neither was Bure's. Meh. Just supports the argument that both are worthy of jersey retirement if Naslund's already is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Nah. Naslund's jersey is retirement-worthy. So is Bure's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowest common denominator Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Jersey retirement is supposed to be about the embodiement of what it means to be a Canuck. A player who strives to be in top physical form. A player who strives to be the Best at their position. A player who will do what it takes to win, no matter the consequence to the body. A player who stands up for himself when things get rough, no matter the size or reputation of your opponent.. A playeer with the desire to win. A player who shows up every night and gives 110% for their team. A player who shows up every night and gives 110% for the fans. A player who shows courage and leadership in adverse circumstance. A player who exemplifies skill at a level like no-one else. A player who displays a joy and love for the game and for winning. These are the things that I think best personifies a hockey player, and I wish more canucks would strive for these character qualities. These are the qualities that make champions. Not merely showing up and punching a clock for 10 years. Bure checks all of these boxes, Naslund not a one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Meh. Naslund's jersey is retired, so that's that. What's important is that Bure's time here is equally honourable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Jersey retirement is supposed to be about the embodiement of what it means to be a Canuck. A player who strives to be in top physical form. A player who strives to be the Best at their position. A player who will do what it takes to win, no matter the consequence to the body. A player who stands up for himself when things get rough, no matter the size or reputation of your opponent.. A playeer with the desire to win. A player who shows up every night and gives 110% for their team. A player who shows up every night and gives 110% for the fans. A player who shows courage and leadership in adverse circumstance. A player who exemplifies skill at a level like no-one else. A player who displays a joy and love for the game and for winning. These are the things that I think best personifies a hockey player, and I wish more canucks would strive for these character qualities. These are the qualities that make champions. Not merely showing up and punching a clock for 10 years. Bure checks all of these boxes, Naslund not a one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Emasculating the sport and using debating skillz on the internet to project Naslund as more than Bure is ok if you are admitting that THE WAY YOU PLAY THE GAME is no longer a factor in summing up a body of work and career. Go on, look up and remember his tax deductable charity work and his classy reputation and his so-so point totals when you see his number. Just tell it straight to your grandkid one day that Naslund also quit the Canucks; that he was a UFA NTC captain who bailed and left us dry, like Bure, the bad guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Y'mean 488. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Y'mean 488. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowest common denominator Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Btw, Naslund's "so-so" numbers put him second in league scoring twice. Fourth was Bure's highest finish. Smyl and Linden never once cracked the top ten in league scoring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowest common denominator Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 So a player like Gretzky wouldn't have his number retired here. No scoring titles/NHL records makes Bure's skill level like nobody else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M A K A V E L I 96 Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Y'mean 488. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowest common denominator Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Baggins, I apologize for calling you Douche Baggins. It's just too damned juicy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 A player like Gretzky probably wouldn't have his number retired here because of the small but vocal few, like yourself, who seem to accept second best as great and run true superstars out of town. I knew you had never watched Bure play from the first post of yours that I read, this just proves it. Your google machine doesn't have all the answers, you gotta get out in the real world and take some lumps, kid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bite me Burr Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Who said Naslund was "more" than Bure? Naslund left as a UFA without an offer made from the Canucks. That's telling it straight. Not that either situation really factors into this discussion at all. Completely irrelevant to retiring a number as far as I'm concerned. What does "how you played" have to do with anything? Did Gretzky and Messier play the same way? Did Trottier and Bossy play the same way? In both cases one is was grittier (or chippier) and more physical than the other. I like physical skilled players as well, but I don't see less physical skilled players as unworthy. My primary reason for the no to Bure is the number: 428. He just didn't play enough games here. I haven't argued his talent nor have I had to resort to mud slinging or demeaning him. That ball is in the pro Bure court. It seems you guys can only justify retiring Bure's number by attempting to demean those who have their numbers retired here. Or by customizing a repetitive list suited to glorifying Bure's manhood. How about sticking to facts instead. Btw, Naslund's "so-so" numbers put him second in league scoring twice. Fourth was Bure's highest finish. Smyl and Linden never once cracked the top ten in league scoring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Whats this about Naslund, the NTC unwaiving UFA leaving because he had no offer from the Canucks? Didn't he sign on July 1? Perhaps I don't see it as clean as you.Also, when you mention those stats, like Naslund was some kind of offesnsive machine, just how many 80+ pont seasons did he have... as a one dimensional offensive player? 4? I understand your claims here, but 4 80+ point seasons should not qualify a jersey in the rafters if you didnt also bleed. Because when Naslund wasnt scoring he wasnt out there being a Steamer or a Linden.Bure was raped by this team, if he had a NTC, Im sure he would have waived it, unlike our Captain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Wondering what Naslund being top-5 in NHL scoring in a season has to do with Canucks-related accomplishments. If we're putting league-related accomplishments on the table, then Bure's HOF nod trumps anything Naslund has done. But if we're talking Canucks-related accomplishments, then Bure has done enough to be honoured by the Canucks as much as Naslund. Hey, meanwhile there's no hockey. This could be a long thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowest common denominator Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 So go ahead and convince me 400+ games is enough to retire a number. That's the real stumbling block, not Bure's skill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CookieCrumbs Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 scottiecanuck wins. full stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 It really is more of a 500- than a 400+ The you think, hmmm... if Bure wasn't so royally phukked by the Nuxmanagement in every way from the very beginning, maybe he would have played his entire career in Vancouver. And when you start to compare Bure to Naslund (which wouldn't have to be done if #19 wasn't in the rafters(I know it is painful for some)), you come to some realizations Quantity over quality Good enough rather than best B vs A+ Pretty good vs stand up out of your seat cuz that was awesome Bures 488 gp >>>>>>>>Naslund 1000gp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.