Baggins 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...
TOMapleLaughs Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Still, you're making a pro-skill argument for Naslund and then go on to say that Bure's superior skill doesn't matter. Straw man argument. Anyway, two major factors in Naslund's offense is 1: The powerplay and 2: Todd Bertuzzi. Without whom, Naslund has no room. Their best season together was powerplay-driven. Hello, Bert push-off play? Bure did it all himself. That seperates star and superstar status. Bure was our only one. That's why he's in the hall and Naslund will not be, despite a shorter career. Won't repeat all the other stuff that makes Bure as worthy as Naslund for jersey retirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowest common denominator Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 If the reason he left was because he was screwed here then please explain why he sat out and demanded a trade after EVERYBODY that screwed him was gone. I don't buy the reason. Also, the teammates he had come to know and trust as friends and confidants were all gone and we were left with a hodgepodge pile of crap lead by Messier the Puke and Keenan. +The Van media had mostly turned on him, in their wholly unproffesional approach, so he was left to fend for himself. Who knows, Bure had had enough crap after giving his all to the team and city and wanted out? You would really have to ask him, but judging from what I can see, he was well within his rights. You don't retire a number for what could have been, you do it for what actually was. What it actually was was a hhof career, elite play for his entire time in the NHL, helped to save the franchise, brought a whole new generation of canuck fans and hockey fans in general. Too bad he only played 500- games, kinda like Orr#4. Making the Naslund/Bure comparison shouldn't Tanti's number have been retired due to Smyl's? He was more skilled, scored more goals blah, blah. Quality over quantity. The truth is Naslund stacks up quite well to the other two numbers up there.12 & 16 are up there for the way they played and the fact they gave it their all, bringing us as close as we could possibly be to greatness and both left everything on the ice. Character, toughness, desire to win and compete, heart, soul, these are qualities of a Canuck Leader. Naslund had none of these qualities. He did have some better than average numbers for a few seasons, that is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowest common denominator Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 scottiecanuck wins. full stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucklehead44 Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Naslund is the longest serving captain and still has the team record for goals and assists. Not to mention he finished near the top 5 in the scoring race three times. Naslund played in a VERY low scoring era. 03-04: 4th 02-03: 2nd 01-02: 2nd I think Bure had a lot more talent than Naslund and I would take a Bure in his prime over a Naslund in his prime but it is hard to argue that Bure had a better tenure here. If he was on the Canucks as long as Naslund he probably would have had his jersey retired already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowest common denominator Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Naslund is the longest serving captain and still has the team record for goals and assists. Not to mention he finished near the top 5 in the scoring race three times. Naslund played in a VERY low scoring era. 03-04: 4th 02-03: 2nd 01-02: 2nd I think Bure had a lot more talent than Naslund and I would take a Bure in his prime over a Naslund in his prime but it is hard to argue that Bure had a better tenure here. If he was on the Canucks as long as Naslund he probably would have had his jersey retired already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drybone Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Baggins is butt hurt because everyone gave him a hard time about retiring Naslunds jersey so now hes got to dish it out for Bure fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 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...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Baggins is butt hurt because everyone gave him a hard time about retiring Naslunds jersey so now hes got to dish it out for Bure fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowest common denominator Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 ^^^^^ This is really really stupid. You don't need to **** talk one guy to glorify another. Naslund was/is worthy of having his jersey retired. If not for all the bull**** surrounding Bure there would be no question about his being retired as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Care to elaborate on why this is stupid? Or are you just going to throw stones from a distance? It's pretty obvious that Naslund's jersey in the rafters is a complete joke/publicity stunt performed by a corporation to maximize profits. The comparisons need to be made because #19 hangs and #10 does not. It hurts, I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Naslund was second best a few times is nice but actually horse crap when speaking in terms of jersey retirement. 800+ games is nothing special. 1200 games? Now you have some basis for glorification if that is your only laurel to rest upon. Again, you have to look at the reasons why Bure played 500- games here, then you will see what a travesty it was for canucks fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Still, you're making a pro-skill argument for Naslund and then go on to say that Bure's superior skill doesn't matter. Straw man argument. Anyway, two major factors in Naslund's offense is 1: The powerplay and 2: Todd Bertuzzi. Without whom, Naslund has no room. Their best season together was powerplay-driven. Hello, Bert push-off play? Bure did it all himself. That seperates star and superstar status. Bure was our only one. That's why he's in the hall and Naslund will not be, despite a shorter career. Won't repeat all the other stuff that makes Bure as worthy as Naslund for jersey retirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowest common denominator Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 How did it maximize profits??? You immediately ran out and bought a Naslund jersey, Canucks cap and jacket, and seasons tickets because a number was retired???? Did the sellouts begin after Naslunds number was retired??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 It was an attempt to create a "rich history" that does not exist, especially doesn't exist with Naslund. It was an attempt to pull on the heart strings of fans, retaining and growing the fan base, thus increasing profits. You obviously fell for it. 800+ gp is squat if thaat is all you got. Get to 1200 and then you have something if your only merrit is the amount of games played. Naslund would actually need 1440 gp cuz he only averaged about 80% effort most of the time. As for your other monotonous line of questioning: If the reason he left was because he was screwed here then please explain why he sat out and demanded a trade after EVERYBODY that screwed him was gone. I don't buy the reason. Also, the teammates he had come to know and trust as friends and confidants were all gone and we were left with a hodgepodge pile of crap lead by Messier the Puke and Keenan. +The Van media had mostly turned on him, in their wholly unproffesional approach, so he was left to fend for himself. Who knows, Bure had had enough crap after giving his all to the team and city and wanted out? You would really have to ask him, but judging from what I can see, he was well within his rights. You don't retire a number for what could have been, you do it for what actually was. What it actually was was a hhof career, elite play for his entire time in the NHL, helped to save the franchise, brought a whole new generation of canuck fans and hockey fans in general. Too bad he only played 500- games, kinda like Orr#4. Making the Naslund/Bure comparison shouldn't Tanti's number have been retired due to Smyl's? He was more skilled, scored more goals blah, blah. Quality over quantity. The truth is Naslund stacks up quite well to the other two numbers up there.12 & 16 are up there for the way they played and the fact they gave it their all, bringing us as close as we could possibly be to greatness and both left everything on the ice. Character, toughness, desire to win and compete, heart, soul, these are qualities of a Canuck Leader. Naslund had none of these qualities. He did have some better than average numbers for a few seasons, that is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowest common denominator Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Good luck. Put a hundred bux on #10 for me would you? Edit: Who goes to LV for a week? Money buys alot of things but taste and class ain't 2 of 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Good luck. Put a hundred bux on #10 for me would you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Meh. It's like you forget every point made after a short while. What's the point in repeating. Have fun in Vegas. Odds of a Bure retired Jersey? Don't bet against it. For the billionth time.... nobody here has disputed Bure's talent. It all comes down to the games played. Which is not enough for the teams highest honor imo. And all around the league Naslund was referred to as a superstar. Which he was in his time. It's sad that the only way you can even attempt to make a case for Bure is to degrade a great Canuck. That's another big difference between the two, great player versus great Canuck. The only argument in Bure's favor is he was talented. Luongo is talented, and also referred to as a superstar. I honestly don't see how we don't retire Luongo's number if Bure's goes up. Two Vezina nominations, a Hart nomination, talent, similar time frame here, and a failed cup run. Hell Lou has more reasons for a number retirement because of those nominations. Which is why talent alone shouldn't be the determining factor. Btw, Naslund had 114 pp goals while Bure had 69. Naslund played around double the games. Do the math and tell me Bure didn't benifit from the pp as well. Talented players tend to score pp goals.That's not news to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ultmatenuckfan17 Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 who is bure plz respond Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bite me Burr Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 lol...irony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.