Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

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


  • Please log in to reply
498 replies to this topic

#301 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,381 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 17 November 2012 - 03:10 AM

A cup could well have been the difference between RoH and number retirement for Snepsts.

Whose career is more deserving of the HHoF? I've always maintained Bure would be in eventually, but I was actually surprised he was selected this year.


One playoff series shouldn't be the difference between ROH and jersey retirement.

And I was surprised Bure got in this year too... then I found out Patt Quinn was part of the decision making process :P

Edited by BUREV, 17 November 2012 - 03:10 AM.

  • 0

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 


#302 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,442 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 17 November 2012 - 05:38 AM

Snepsts? M'kay...

Dodging the point doesn't invalidate it. Since we haven't won a cup at all, Bure not winning one shouldn't count against him when comparing to Naslund. Note that before Naslund's jersey retirement, it was playoff success, such as it was, that determined who got their jersey hung up in this town. Now that Naslund's is up as well, it would seem that the requirements have changed. ie. The requirements aren't set in stone.

Knowing that the requirements are flexible, there is certainly room for both Naslund's and Bure's jerseys.

-Meanwhile, your 'much much longer' equates to just four seasons. Four more seasons for Nazzy as a Canuck. That's it? That's hardly significant.
-Naslund as 'captain' didn't lead this team to anything but one playoff round victory and probably the most humiliating 2nd round loss in team history. You're right. That's significant. Meanwhile, Bure scored the most famous and clutch goal in team history en route to our greatest, most unexpected 'heart-filled' run in team history. Gee, that sounds significant too, although... Kinda better, y'think? (Roberto was Captain. Messier was Captain. The Captain card doesn't get you far here, i'm afraid. Esp. one with almost zero playoff success.)
-Funny how Naslund's winning of a Pearson is significant, but Bure's HOF nod doesn't apply here. Hmmm... I think the second one is a bit more significant, don't you agree?
-Naslund owns Canuck records for all-time goals, all-time points, and all-time powerplay goals. That's three Canuck records.
-Bure owns Canuck records for all-time shorthanded goals, most goals by a rookie, most points by a rookie, most goals in a season, all-time playoff goals, most points in a playoff run and most goals in a playoff run. That's seven Canuck records. Bure seems to have a bigger boatload of team records, y'think?
-Bure scored 60 goals two seasons in a row and has five 50+ goal season, including ones in the dead puck era. Naslund's peak was 48, thanks to the Bertuzzi pushoff play with the man advantage.
-Bure scored more points (107,110) in a season twice than Naslund's peak (104)
-Bure's best +/- is +35 (one off from team record). Naslund's is +22.

The list goes on the more you actually look into it, bud. Yet you think i'm the one with the blinders on? Okay, Harold.


The only reason Naslund's was retired before Bure's was because it was more difficult to patch things up with Bure. Naslund was actually surprised when they retired his jersey and so were a lot of fans, but now that it's done, Bure's will likely go up soon. Esp. after the hall of fame nod, which, really, wasn't surprising at all because it's well-deserved. Just like his jersey retirement here in Vancouver.


I see you as the one dodging the point.

What couints against Bure is the lack of games played. I said winning the cup could have made up for that. In other words something significant (a stanley cup) that makes up fror something significant missing (only 428 games played). In Naslunds case he has a significant length of service (884 games played), which makes up for the lack of a stanley cup. The concept really isn't that difficult.

You don't see winning a Pearson as significant?

I don't see the HHoF as significant to a franchise as it's about a players entire career as opposed to the franchise. I see what a player accomplished with a franchise as significant to retiring his number.

Why didn't the Islanders retire LaFonataine's number? You seem to like bringing him up. He played 530 games there. He had more of his career points there. He led the team in points 4 consecutive seasons. He's in the HHoF. He even has something in common with Bure. In '91 he refused to report to camp and was traded. Why didn't the Isles retire his number? It appears he meets your standard with the Isles.
  • 0

HiromiOshimaB.gif


#303 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,442 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 17 November 2012 - 05:49 AM

One playoff series shouldn't be the difference between ROH and jersey retirement.

And I was surprised Bure got in this year too... then I found out Patt Quinn was part of the decision making process :P

One playoffs series...no. But actually winning a cup can certainly be a factor in retiring a number. A factor that could make up for other factors that are missing. Such as number of games played.


Not to mention Larionov was also on the panel. Maybe they just didn't want to listen to another summer of Valerie crying. :lol:

Edited by Baggins, 17 November 2012 - 05:55 AM.

  • 0

HiromiOshimaB.gif


#304 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,381 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 17 November 2012 - 09:52 AM

One playoffs series...no. But actually winning a cup can certainly be a factor in retiring a number. A factor that could make up for other factors that are missing. Such as number of games played.


Not to mention Larionov was also on the panel. Maybe they just didn't want to listen to another summer of Valerie crying. :lol:


One playoff series would be the difference for someone like Bure, or Snepsts, or which ever other Canucks you were using as an example. Cups are team accomplishments, so I don't think cups should be a factor at all.

And I didn't even know Larionov was a part of it too. Whoever picked him and Quinn must of really wanted Bure in the HOF... or didn't want to hurt Valeri's feelings again :lol:
  • 0

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 


#305 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,917 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 17 November 2012 - 10:47 AM

If games played is the only thing going for Nazzy over Bure, then that is not significant. Esp. when it's only 4 more seasons. And esp. when Bure accomplished more in a shorter span.

Your definition of what significant is flawed in many aspects. 4 more seasons isn't significant. One playoff round won isn't significant. Fewer team records isn't significant. Being captain of an underacheiving team isn't significant. Temporarily leading in all-time points and goals until the Sedins catch him isn't significant.

Just wondering what is really all that significant about Nazzy that his jersey should be retired and Bure's should not?

Oh right. You got nothing.

The thing is, everyone, probably including you, knows that the Naslund jersey retirement opened the door wide for Bure's.
  • 3
Posted Image

#306 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,917 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 17 November 2012 - 10:56 AM

What's sad is that people, including me, have to stoop to a level of disrespecting Nazzy in order to make their point when in fact both he and Bure are tremendous players who have done more than enough for this franchise to be honoured with a jersey retirement alongside Linden and Smyl.

I'll refocus my Nazzy-related points now to say that while his accomplishments here were of course significant, Bure's are just as significant, if not moreso.

For this reason, both of their jerseys are deserving of retirement.
  • 1
Posted Image

#307 Westcoasting

Westcoasting

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,352 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 10

Posted 17 November 2012 - 12:48 PM

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.

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,

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

#308 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,442 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 17 November 2012 - 01:14 PM

If games played is the only thing going for Nazzy over Bure, then that is not significant. Esp. when it's only 4 more seasons. And esp. when Bure accomplished more in a shorter span.

Your definition of what significant is flawed in many aspects. 4 more seasons isn't significant. One playoff round won isn't significant. Fewer team records isn't significant. Being captain of an underacheiving team isn't significant. Temporarily leading in all-time points and goals until the Sedins catch him isn't significant.

Just wondering what is really all that significant about Nazzy that his jersey should be retired and Bure's should not?

Oh right. You got nothing.

The thing is, everyone, probably including you, knows that the Naslund jersey retirement opened the door wide for Bure's.


884 games versus 428 games is quite a significant difference. Naslund was Captain here for more games than Bure played. That is also a very significant difference.

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. Luongo has played 386 games here and he's a goalie. The way I see it, if we retire Bure's number here we'll also have to retire Luongo's.
  • 0

HiromiOshimaB.gif


#309 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,917 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 17 November 2012 - 01:47 PM

Your method of determining relative significance is flawed.

Your games difference looks significant, granted, but the reason is of course related to Bure's injuries. The reality is that there is a 4-season difference between the players' time here. Ie. not enough to be called a significant enough reason to deny Bure's jersey retirement.

Bure was our teams' leading scorer for the 90's.

Naslund was our teams' leading scorer for the 00's.

The Sedins are our leading scorers for the 10's.

You'll find that these contributions to the franchise are all equally significant, and therefore all are equally qualified for a jersey retirement.

Games, schlames. Bure played 64 playoff games compared to Naslund's 45. More important or less important to the franchise? Hint: It's more.

As for Luongo, until recently his jersey retirement here seemed automatic. Perhaps he's just going through what Naslund went through during his last seasons for us. 'What have you done for us lately?'

Actual acheivements will be awarded appropiately nonetheless.

884 games versus 428 games is quite a significant difference. Naslund was Captain here for more games than Bure played. That is also a very significant difference.

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. Luongo has played 386 games here and he's a goalie. The way I see it, if we retire Bure's number here we'll also have to retire Luongo's.


  • 2
Posted Image

#310 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,442 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 17 November 2012 - 06:44 PM

Your method of determining relative significance is flawed.

Your games difference looks significant, granted, but the reason is of course related to Bure's injuries. The reality is that there is a 4-season difference between the players' time here. Ie. not enough to be called a significant enough reason to deny Bure's jersey retirement.

Bure was our teams' leading scorer for the 90's.

Naslund was our teams' leading scorer for the 00's.

The Sedins are our leading scorers for the 10's.

You'll find that these contributions to the franchise are all equally significant, and therefore all are equally qualified for a jersey retirement.

Games, schlames. Bure played 64 playoff games compared to Naslund's 45. More important or less important to the franchise? Hint: It's more.

As for Luongo, until recently his jersey retirement here seemed automatic. Perhaps he's just going through what Naslund went through during his last seasons for us. 'What have you done for us lately?'

Actual acheivements will be awarded appropiately nonetheless.


Bure led the team in points 4 times. Naslund for seven straight seasons.

I've never heard of a player having his number retired for games he could have played if he was wasn't injured. Other than team members that died. But then that's because they died as opposed to the games they could have playedDoes that mean the lockout year counts for Naslund? He could have played that year and he was still team captain after all. The only reference I ever see is games played.
  • 0

HiromiOshimaB.gif


#311 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,917 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 17 November 2012 - 06:59 PM

*
POPULAR

So this has progressed from 'Bure needs a cup to get his jersey retired' to 'Bure needs to be dead to get his jersey retired.'

At this rate he will be dead before you see the light.

Even with those injuries, Bure was still the best Canuck for a decade. He's also the franchise's leading playoff performer. He's also in the HHoF. You can call that pretty significant. Just as significant as Naslund's acheivements that he took more time to accomplish.
  • 5
Posted Image

#312 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,442 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 19 November 2012 - 03:35 AM

So this has progressed from 'Bure needs a cup to get his jersey retired' to 'Bure needs to be dead to get his jersey retired.'

At this rate he will be dead before you see the light.

Even with those injuries, Bure was still the best Canuck for a decade. He's also the franchise's leading playoff performer. He's also in the HHoF. You can call that pretty significant. Just as significant as Naslund's acheivements that he took more time to accomplish.


When did I say Bure needed to be dead in order to retire his number? Not that it applies to Bure anyway as typically teams retire a players number when he dies while a member of their team. But I'll assume you already knew that.

Does Bure hold some team records? Yes. Did have a high level of play here? Yes. But is that really enough to retire a players number that only played 428 games here? That's what it really comes down to. I don't think so.
  • 0

HiromiOshimaB.gif


#313 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,442 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 19 November 2012 - 04:23 AM

One playoff series would be the difference for someone like Bure, or Snepsts, or which ever other Canucks you were using as an example. Cups are team accomplishments, so I don't think cups should be a factor at all.

And I didn't even know Larionov was a part of it too. Whoever picked him and Quinn must of really wanted Bure in the HOF... or didn't want to hurt Valeri's feelings again :lol:


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

HiromiOshimaB.gif


#314 debluvscanucks

debluvscanucks

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,325 posts
  • Joined: 19-February 08

Posted 19 November 2012 - 07:57 AM

I think you're looking at the numbers too much, Baggins. I believe that a candidate is worthy of their jersey retirement based on the impact they had on a team, whatever that may have been. Bure had a significant impact on this team/city, in that he brought a new level of excitement to the game. Anyone who remembers watching him play realizes that he was like no other in how he made you hold your breath every time he was on the ice. Kids idolized him and everyone wanted his jersey/autograph, etc. There was a reason for that and, to this day, people who watched him still hold onto the excitement of that. It was something different.

I don't think there has to be a comparison to others because, quite frankly, I think each consideration for jersey retirement can be based on different reasoning - with the conclusion being the same in that this person can be forever identified with their number.
  • 1

Posted Image


#315 Salmonberries

Salmonberries

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,369 posts
  • Joined: 22-November 11

Posted 19 November 2012 - 08:54 AM

About time!


  • 0

#316 Westcoasting

Westcoasting

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,352 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 10

Posted 19 November 2012 - 09:15 AM

I think you're looking at the numbers too much, Baggins. I believe that a candidate is worthy of their jersey retirement based on the impact they had on a team, whatever that may have been. Bure had a significant impact on this team/city, in that he brought a new level of excitement to the game. Anyone who remembers watching him play realizes that he was like no other in how he made you hold your breath every time he was on the ice. Kids idolized him and everyone wanted his jersey/autograph, etc. There was a reason for that and, to this day, people who watched him still hold onto the excitement of that. It was something different.

I don't think there has to be a comparison to others because, quite frankly, I think each consideration for jersey retirement can be based on different reasoning - with the conclusion being the same in that this person can be forever identified with their number.


From your description, Gino Odjick should have his jersey retired! :)
  • 0

#317 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 19 November 2012 - 09:17 AM

I think you're looking at the numbers too much, Baggins. I believe that a candidate is worthy of their jersey retirement based on the impact they had on a team, whatever that may have been. Bure had a significant impact on this team/city, in that he brought a new level of excitement to the game. Anyone who remembers watching him play realizes that he was like no other in how he made you hold your breath every time he was on the ice. Kids idolized him and everyone wanted his jersey/autograph, etc. There was a reason for that and, to this day, people who watched him still hold onto the excitement of that. It was something different.

I don't think there has to be a comparison to others because, quite frankly, I think each consideration for jersey retirement can be based on different reasoning - with the conclusion being the same in that this person can be forever identified with their number.


Hes spanking the numbers to frame the argument the way he wants.

For every .......Naslund has 880 games to 475 or whatever,.........Bure has two sixty goal seasons and another 50 goal season and Naslund has , well, none of it.

For every Rookie of the Year award at age 21 bure got, well naslund got dry crap wasnt even a regular in the NHL . For every captaincy Naslund got by default because Linden traded Messier took off.................. Bure was alternate under LInden and Messier.

For every 104 point season Naslund choked his way to, Bure got 110 . For every division title Naslund choked, Bure scored arguably the greatest OT goal in canucks history.

And for every hart trophy Naslund somehow fumbled on the final day, he was given the consolation Pearson. Bure didnt get that but i argue it was an embarrassment.

For every time Naslund got clocked by Steve Moore, Bure clocked Shane Churla.

Every time Naslund choked his way out of yet another playoff year, Bure continues to answer questions about game 7 at Madison Square Garden , considered by many to be one of the most entertaining finals since expansion.

So, let Baggins SPIN his selected numbers that he only pulls out when he thinks he can win a stupid internet argument .

Im sure Naslund is 'choking' back the tears watching Bure get elected to the hall of fame. Naslund can always come see the place as a visitor.
  • 3
Posted Image

#318 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,442 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 19 November 2012 - 09:43 AM

Hes spanking the numbers to frame the argument the way he wants.

For every .......Naslund has 880 games to 475 or whatever,.........Bure has two sixty goal seasons and another 50 goal season and Naslund has , well, none of it.

For every Rookie of the Year award at age 21 bure got, well naslund got dry crap wasnt even a regular in the NHL . For every captaincy Naslund got by default because Linden traded Messier took off.................. Bure was alternate under LInden and Messier.

For every 104 point season Naslund choked his way to, Bure got 110 . For every division title Naslund choked, Bure scored arguably the greatest OT goal in canucks history.

And for every hart trophy Naslund somehow fumbled on the final day, he was given the consolation Pearson. Bure didnt get that but i argue it was an embarrassment.

For every time Naslund got clocked by Steve Moore, Bure clocked Shane Churla.

Every time Naslund choked his way out of yet another playoff year, Bure continues to answer questions about game 7 at Madison Square Garden , considered by many to be one of the most entertaining finals since expansion.

So, let Baggins SPIN his selected numbers that he only pulls out when he thinks he can win a stupid internet argument .

Im sure Naslund is 'choking' back the tears watching Bure get elected to the hall of fame. Naslund can always come see the place as a visitor.


And yet I don't have to beliitle players to make my points.
  • 0

HiromiOshimaB.gif


#319 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,442 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 19 November 2012 - 09:52 AM

I think you're looking at the numbers too much, Baggins. I believe that a candidate is worthy of their jersey retirement based on the impact they had on a team, whatever that may have been. Bure had a significant impact on this team/city, in that he brought a new level of excitement to the game. Anyone who remembers watching him play realizes that he was like no other in how he made you hold your breath every time he was on the ice. Kids idolized him and everyone wanted his jersey/autograph, etc. There was a reason for that and, to this day, people who watched him still hold onto the excitement of that. It was something different.

I don't think there has to be a comparison to others because, quite frankly, I think each consideration for jersey retirement can be based on different reasoning - with the conclusion being the same in that this person can be forever identified with their number.


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

HiromiOshimaB.gif


#320 Burnsey

Burnsey

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,863 posts
  • Joined: 08-July 08

Posted 19 November 2012 - 10:13 AM

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.
  • 1

team-canada-jarome-iginla-photo.jpg


#321 Burnsey

Burnsey

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,863 posts
  • Joined: 08-July 08

Posted 19 November 2012 - 10:16 AM

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

team-canada-jarome-iginla-photo.jpg


#322 lowest common denominator

lowest common denominator

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 818 posts
  • Joined: 30-August 06

Posted 19 November 2012 - 01:18 PM

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.

Edited by scottiecanuck, 19 November 2012 - 01:31 PM.

  • 3

#323 lowest common denominator

lowest common denominator

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 818 posts
  • Joined: 30-August 06

Posted 19 November 2012 - 01:29 PM

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?


1 Bure had the A for several years, that shows leadership and respect from teammates no? Bure also trained like no-one else and I wonder how much that had to do with a perceived lack of team involvement. Maybe if certain players spent more time working on their shape and game and less time w/ sick kid photo ops, we would have a cup.

2 The way Bure was treated from even before he arrived in Canada, is it any wonder he didn't want anything to do with the canucks org anymore? Especially after Messier and Keenan got rid most the other players Pavel had come to know as teammates and friends?

I wish Courtnall or Gino or someone would write a book and let all this dirty laundry out into the light so we could just face it head on and then move on....
  • 0

#324 lowest common denominator

lowest common denominator

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 818 posts
  • Joined: 30-August 06

Posted 19 November 2012 - 01:42 PM

Posted Image


However, I suspect he'll get his jersey retired. I won't clap too long when it happens... just enough to be polite.

regards,
G.


Then you'll be like everyone that watched in shocked disbelief as #19 went up there *clap................clap* that was awkward
  • 1

#325 lowest common denominator

lowest common denominator

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 818 posts
  • Joined: 30-August 06

Posted 19 November 2012 - 01:46 PM

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.


I would rather have a team at the head of the class than a team that looks classy.

Like I said earlier, until the fans stop accepting 2nd tier allstars as top notch, we'll never have anything to celebrate.
  • 1

#326 lowest common denominator

lowest common denominator

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 818 posts
  • Joined: 30-August 06

Posted 19 November 2012 - 01:53 PM

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.


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

#327 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,917 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 19 November 2012 - 02:42 PM

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.

Yes, but the impact the player had on the team plays a larger part.

But i've already shown that Bure does have enough numbers to get his number retired. They're just not the same numbers as Nazzy's, but equally important numbers.

The combination of Bure's impact and numbers means he's as equally qualified as Naslund for jersey retirement.
  • 0
Posted Image

#328 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,442 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 19 November 2012 - 11:01 PM

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?


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 428 games isn't enough of a contribution. So how about sticking to facts DS.
  • 0

HiromiOshimaB.gif


#329 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 19 November 2012 - 11:21 PM

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


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.
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#330 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,381 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 19 November 2012 - 11:51 PM

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.


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

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.