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

#361 bure's triple deke

bure's triple deke

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Joined: 19-May 12

Posted 20 November 2012 - 05:50 PM

Not entirely accurate.....

Shortly after arriving in North America from Moscow with his father and brother on September 6, 1991 (his mother Tatiana arrived two months later),[8] Bure married an American fashion model in a civil ceremony five days later. The model was later revealed to be Jayme Bohn. The marriage was allegedly set up by Bure's agents as a preventative measure against deportation in the event Bure and the Canucks could not come to terms with a contract.


The Canucks management and officials from the Soviet Ice Hockey Federation met in late-October 1991 in a Detroit court, where they bartered for a cash settlement. After the Canucks offered $200,000, Bure stood up in the courtroom to offer an additional $50,000, bringing the total to $250,000. The Soviet officials accepted, and Canucks management paid the full $250,000.[3][25] Bure signed a four-year contract worth a reported $2.7 million with an $800,000 signing bonus soon thereafter.[8] The deal made Bure the Canucks' second highest paid player behind team captain Trevor Linden, who had just recently signed a four-year, $3.7 million contract.
http://en.wikipedia....99.2C_p._18_7-0

He didn't get married to get into the US, he got married to stay in the US in case he couldn't come to contract terms withs the Canucks.

At the time it was reported Bure "offered" to pay the $50k difference out of his $800k signing bonus because he wanted the contract and get playing.


I'm not so sure Bure "wanted nothing more than to play in Vancouver". It was well known he hated the attention he got every time he went out here. In a recent interview Gino even mentioned that Bure loved the fact that he could go out in Florida and not be recognized.

So you are getting your information from wikipaedia?

That figures.


Actually, Bure's Wikipedia page is completely and properly cited from reputable sources. I know because I wrote it lol (figured I should make it a point to defend something that took me quite a bit of time). The specific information in question was reported in Bure's biography, The Riddle of the Russian Rocket, from 1999. Mind you, even biographies from reputable publishers aren't always completely accurate, so take it with a grain of salt.

Edited by bure's triple deke, 20 November 2012 - 05:52 PM.

  • 0

#362 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 20 November 2012 - 05:58 PM

I think the owner meeting with Bure says it all.
  • 0
Posted Image

#363 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,892 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 20 November 2012 - 09:50 PM

You could liken Goring to Kesler. The total package. Good speed, put up points, hit, and great on the PK. The difference is he just didn't take penalties doing it. The Isles had a very good team for several years but kept getting knocked out in the second or third round. Trading for Goring was certainly a factor in winning those four consecutive cups as he really improved the Isles PK.


Ok, thanks for the info. So would you say that he is deserving of the HOF? or Clarke Gillies for that matter?

AS for his jersey retirement, the Isles had several star players on their team, so Goring was probably never the best player on their team. I could be wrong of course. But if that's true that could be the difference between the Isles retiring his number as opposed to the Canucks retiring Bure's.
  • 0

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 


#364 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,007 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 21 November 2012 - 03:50 AM

So you are getting your information from wikipaedia?

That figures.


Wikipedia is not what it use to be. Take a look, all those little numbers in sections note verifiable sources. It's a considerably better source than your memories and opinions.
  • 0
Posted Image

#365 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,007 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 21 November 2012 - 04:08 AM

Your post does little to alter the actual narrative. You are reduced to stating 'he got married to STAY in the US like some big difference ' You are parsing small aspects of the actual facts that do not change the merit as a whole.

The only actual point you brought up is that he did not expect such a drastic fishbowl celebrity in Vancouver . However, I think its reasonable that if the canucks had treated him with anywhere near the same respect that the Canucks now show players like the twins , then he could and would have retired in Vancouver.

My post was simply a little more accurate in the details.


Purely speculative. Or perhaps wishful thinking. My speculation is based on the timing. Several years of the fishbowl he hated, and Gino being traded = I want out. Based on the timing I don't see Canuck management as a truthful reason. They were all gone after all.

But again, I don't see how or why Bure left as a reason to, or not to, retire his number. That should be based only on his time and accomplishments while he played here.

Edited by Baggins, 21 November 2012 - 05:40 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#366 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,007 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 21 November 2012 - 05:37 AM

Ok, thanks for the info. So would you say that he is deserving of the HOF? or Clarke Gillies for that matter?

AS for his jersey retirement, the Isles had several star players on their team, so Goring was probably never the best player on their team. I could be wrong of course. But if that's true that could be the difference between the Isles retiring his number as opposed to the Canucks retiring Bure's.


The way I see it, the HHoF is about a players career. If you compare Gillies and Goring one would have to say Goring had more accomplishments in his career. I started following the Islanders when they came back from 3-0 in the series against Pittsburgh. Great team to watch and Gillies was my favorite player on the team. He was a top line player that could (and would) drop the gloves with the toughest in the NHL. He wasn't a superstar, but he was a good player. The same could be said about Goring, not a superstar, but a good player. Both fell into the team guy/leader category.

As to number retirement Gilles was with the Isles for 12 seasons. Goring for only 6 seasons and only 12 games left in the season he was acquired. My guess would be that Goring only playing 332 games for the Isles is why his number isn't in the rafters. Which certainly ties in with why I don't think Bure's belongs in our rafters.
  • 0
Posted Image

#367 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,007 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 21 November 2012 - 06:24 AM

Fair enough. Roy's resumé with Montreal is quite a bit more illustrious than Bure's with Vancouver. I do think a fair comparison is there, however. I mostly wanted to point out that Roy sets the kind of precedent that Bure seems to need to get his number retired (ie. teams retiring player's numbers despite extreme off-ice differences).


"A bit" more illustrious??? That's like saying Bure is "a bit" better than Raymond. :lol:

I don't really see how or why Bure left as a real issue. A bit of a dark spot. Sure. But it shouldn't really have an effect on retiring his number. It's really about games played and accomplishments as a Canuck. If he had half of Roy's Hab resume there would certainly be a case to be made. Yet the only real case for Bure is he was talented and exciting.
  • 0
Posted Image

#368 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,007 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 21 November 2012 - 07:22 AM

Wow leave it to D Baggins to get the facts twisted up into an unrecognizable knot! Whatever suits your intention, Darlin'.

Why you keep saying 428?

You compared Bure to Orr not 2 pages back!


Actually I listed his accomplishments to point out why he's so highly regarded in comparison to Gretzky. Although I did ask what had Bure accomplished. Bure doesn't compare to either of those players with the exception perhaps in noting a shortened career like Orr. Any similarity ends there.

I keep saying 428 because that's how many games he played here. Maybe you haven't followed that long but regular season games is what is typically quoted when talking about a players career.
  • 0
Posted Image

#369 lowest common denominator

lowest common denominator

    Comets Star

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

Posted 21 November 2012 - 07:48 AM

How convenient for you when pumping up our illustrious leader who only once made it to the 2nd round.

Maybe you should get on wikipaedia and type in there that Bure played a mere 400 games for the canucks.

Hey! You can cite yourself as the reference! BLISS!!!!
  • 0

#370 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,007 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 21 November 2012 - 09:56 AM

How convenient for you when pumping up our illustrious leader who only once made it to the 2nd round.

Maybe you should get on wikipaedia and type in there that Bure played a mere 400 games for the canucks.

Hey! You can cite yourself as the reference! BLISS!!!!


Quite the case you're making. Good work.

I find 1138, 896, and 894 considerably more significant than 428. So terribly sorry if that offends you so.
  • 0
Posted Image

#371 J.R.

J.R.

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,292 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 21 November 2012 - 10:15 AM

Really what it comes down to, is that for many reasons (some actual and some imagined) both Naslund and Bure have people who won't be happy that their numbers are retired. Yet they also both (for differing reasons) have many reasons FOR their numbers to be retired.

There's no way to make everyone happy there. But I suppose it does make for good message board arguing back and forth over the same statistics, stories and outside analyses of personalities etc for countless pages.

Personally I think the "sour grapes" one way or the other is largely a waste of time. They were both fantastic players for our beloved Canucks in their respective ways and both deserve to be honored for what they gave to us. Whether you personally believe that should be jersey retirement or "Ring of Honour" etc is largely academic. None of us get to choose anyway.

I for one will be glad to see the most exciting and talented player the Canucks have ever had and our first/only HHOF player to be honoured in whatever way the club and he agree on.
  • 0

"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

jg4428.jpg2s9up7p.jpg


#372 Mauii

Mauii

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,156 posts
  • Joined: 28-January 06

Posted 21 November 2012 - 03:46 PM

All I can say is I doubt I'd have any interest in hockey today had Bure not stepped on the ice. Believe me I had an ex who was a passionate Canucks fan try for 5 years without any luck. To this day no one has paralleled his skill nor the excitement he brought to the game and to the Canucks. How can you not honor such a player who has brought much success to this organization on and off the ice. Such a person cannot and should not be left unrecognized.
  • 0
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."

#373 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,924 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 21 November 2012 - 05:30 PM

I find 1138, 896, and 894 considerably more significant than 428. So terribly sorry if that offends you so.


Is 11 (seasons) considerably more significant than 7? Not really.

Not enough to say this player should have this jersey retired while the other should not. Esp. when both players, Naslund and Bure had parallel or 'of equal value' accomplishments for this franchise.

428 games and he still leads all Canucks in scoring for the 90's? I'd say that is considerably more significant that merely showing up for games, if that is the standard you're sticking to.
  • 0
Posted Image

#374 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 21 November 2012 - 05:34 PM

All I can say is I doubt I'd have any interest in hockey today had Bure not stepped on the ice. Believe me I had an ex who was a passionate Canucks fan try for 5 years without any luck. To this day no one has paralleled his skill nor the excitement he brought to the game and to the Canucks. How can you not honor such a player who has brought much success to this organization on and off the ice. Such a person cannot and should not be left unrecognized.


He is the greatest player to ever play here. Period. I think the only way he doesnt get it retired is if Bure himself doesnt want it.
  • 0
Posted Image

#375 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,892 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 21 November 2012 - 05:56 PM

The way I see it, the HHoF is about a players career. If you compare Gillies and Goring one would have to say Goring had more accomplishments in his career. I started following the Islanders when they came back from 3-0 in the series against Pittsburgh. Great team to watch and Gillies was my favorite player on the team. He was a top line player that could (and would) drop the gloves with the toughest in the NHL. He wasn't a superstar, but he was a good player. The same could be said about Goring, not a superstar, but a good player. Both fell into the team guy/leader category.

As to number retirement Gilles was with the Isles for 12 seasons. Goring for only 6 seasons and only 12 games left in the season he was acquired. My guess would be that Goring only playing 332 games for the Isles is why his number isn't in the rafters. Which certainly ties in with why I don't think Bure's belongs in our rafters.


That doesn't answer if you think they should be in the HOF or not.

And like I said, Goring was a good player on a stacked team, whereas Bure wasn't. I also didn't think Bure's number should be retired at first, I actually thought the ROH would be perfect for him. But he's definitely more deserving than the ROH by this point considering who's in the ROH now.
  • 0

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 


#376 lowest common denominator

lowest common denominator

    Comets Star

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

Posted 21 November 2012 - 06:27 PM

He is the greatest player to ever play here. Period. I think the only way he doesnt get it retired is if Bure himself doesnt want it.


I hope that's not the case. Bure and Quinn seem to have built a bridge and got over it so hopefully Bure would accept the honour if it's offered.

Then he can come and salute the fans one last time and take his rightful place in Canuck history, rafters or not.
  • Posted ImageVancity_77, on 24 September 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

    But as a bad team player and cancer in the room I still say it was Pavel.

    WeatherWise said:
  • Certainly not. If being the most effective player for the team and being one of the sole reasons they reach the 1994 Stanley Cup Finals is being a cancer, I'm curious how you view every other player on that roster. Throughout his time here, Pavel was a team player -- he killed penalties, sparked the team when they needed offense, and was well-liked by his teammates.

    Here's his best friend, Gino Odjick, on Pavel's personality.

    http://www.theprovin...5222/story.html


    Quote

    “I knew he was going to be a good player when I watched him play, but after listening to him talk and hearing his mentality on things, I knew he was going to be great,” said Odjick. “He made himself into a superstar with training and hard work.”

    Odjick witnessed Bure’s two 60-goal seasons and many of his other electrifying highlights while a Canuck, but one of the strongest memories was in Game 3 of the Stanley Cup final against the Rangers in 1994 when he was ejected for high-sticking Jay Wells.

    “We went back in the room where they sharpen skates and he cried a little bit,” said Odjick, who didn’t dress for the game.

    “We knew how important those games were and how big an opportunity it was. I remember the desire he had to bring a Stanley Cup to Vancouver.”

    Odjick said he hadn’t spoken yet with Bure, who’s currently in Russia, but will be at the HHOF induction ceremony in November in Toronto.

    “The friendship we created with each other is something that was special,” said Odjick.
    Here's Geoff Courtnall:


    Quote

    Courtnall also had a special bond with Bure, who arrived in Vancouver as a 20-year-old speaking little English. Nine years older, Courtnall helped with the transition.

    “I helped him get his apartment, arranged for all his cable TV and phone and set up his banking,” said Courtnall. “When he got here I was one of the older guys and just wanted to help him out. I knew he was going to be a huge part of our team.”

    ...

    “The biggest thing that I saw from Pavel — he had all the skill and the talent — but his commitment to the game and to getting better and winning was amazing,” said Courtnall.

    “I trained with him in the summer a few times and it was crazy how hard he worked out. I’d work out with him early in the morning and I’d ask him what he was going to do in the afternoon. He’d say, ‘Oh, I’m playing tennis and then I’ve got another workout at 4.’

    “He was just a phenomenal player. To watch him, there wasn’t anybody who could skate as fast or stick­handle as fast and have the skill to finish.”

    The two became good friends who still keep in touch.

    “He came to my retirement in St. Louis,” said Courtnall.

    “He was crying, just as much as I was. We’re still close. I’m just happy for him.
    Pavel, as an individual, was very loyal to those who treated him well. He distanced himself, meanwhile, from those who tried to take advantage of him. On being a team player, Pavel backchecked, had incredible vision and above-average playmaking abilities, and demonstrated grit and tenacity. He played for his team, for the fans; his objective was to entertain the audience. He was hardly selfish.

    At the very end of his tenure in Vancouver, he played in spite of the many baseless rumors circulating in the media. One can argue it was his worst season, though he still finished with the most assists on the team and amongst the highest +/- ratings on the roster.

    Pavel was not a cancer. He always tried to honor his contracts and move on, but the team always manipulated the terms of his contracts and disputed every agreement they had made with him. The organization ultimately painted him as the villain and people took the bait.

    It's an absolute disgrace to call Pavel Bure a cancer or a bad team player. He played for the team. He was excited when the team experienced success. He wanted to share the Stanley Cup with this city as badly as anybody else in the room.

Edited by scottiecanuck, 21 November 2012 - 06:31 PM.

  • 2

#377 M A K A V E L I 96

M A K A V E L I 96

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,521 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 11

Posted 21 November 2012 - 08:15 PM




  • 1
Posted Image

#378 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 21 November 2012 - 08:31 PM

I hope that's not the case. Bure and Quinn seem to have built a bridge and got over it so hopefully Bure would accept the honour if it's offered.

Then he can come and salute the fans one last time and take his rightful place in Canuck history, rafters or not.

  • Posted ImageVancity_77, on 24 September 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

    But as a bad team player and cancer in the room I still say it was Pavel.

    WeatherWise said:
  • Certainly not. If being the most effective player for the team and being one of the sole reasons they reach the 1994 Stanley Cup Finals is being a cancer, I'm curious how you view every other player on that roster. Throughout his time here, Pavel was a team player -- he killed penalties, sparked the team when they needed offense, and was well-liked by his teammates.

    Here's his best friend, Gino Odjick, on Pavel's personality.

    http://www.theprovin...5222/story.html


    Quote

    “I knew he was going to be a good player when I watched him play, but after listening to him talk and hearing his mentality on things, I knew he was going to be great,” said Odjick. “He made himself into a superstar with training and hard work.”

    Odjick witnessed Bure’s two 60-goal seasons and many of his other electrifying highlights while a Canuck, but one of the strongest memories was in Game 3 of the Stanley Cup final against the Rangers in 1994 when he was ejected for high-sticking Jay Wells.

    “We went back in the room where they sharpen skates and he cried a little bit,” said Odjick, who didn’t dress for the game.

    “We knew how important those games were and how big an opportunity it was. I remember the desire he had to bring a Stanley Cup to Vancouver.”

    Odjick said he hadn’t spoken yet with Bure, who’s currently in Russia, but will be at the HHOF induction ceremony in November in Toronto.

    “The friendship we created with each other is something that was special,” said Odjick.
    Here's Geoff Courtnall:


    Quote

    Courtnall also had a special bond with Bure, who arrived in Vancouver as a 20-year-old speaking little English. Nine years older, Courtnall helped with the transition.

    “I helped him get his apartment, arranged for all his cable TV and phone and set up his banking,” said Courtnall. “When he got here I was one of the older guys and just wanted to help him out. I knew he was going to be a huge part of our team.”

    ...

    “The biggest thing that I saw from Pavel — he had all the skill and the talent — but his commitment to the game and to getting better and winning was amazing,” said Courtnall.

    “I trained with him in the summer a few times and it was crazy how hard he worked out. I’d work out with him early in the morning and I’d ask him what he was going to do in the afternoon. He’d say, ‘Oh, I’m playing tennis and then I’ve got another workout at 4.’

    “He was just a phenomenal player. To watch him, there wasn’t anybody who could skate as fast or stick­handle as fast and have the skill to finish.”

    The two became good friends who still keep in touch.

    “He came to my retirement in St. Louis,” said Courtnall.

    “He was crying, just as much as I was. We’re still close. I’m just happy for him.
    Pavel, as an individual, was very loyal to those who treated him well. He distanced himself, meanwhile, from those who tried to take advantage of him. On being a team player, Pavel backchecked, had incredible vision and above-average playmaking abilities, and demonstrated grit and tenacity. He played for his team, for the fans; his objective was to entertain the audience. He was hardly selfish.

    At the very end of his tenure in Vancouver, he played in spite of the many baseless rumors circulating in the media. One can argue it was his worst season, though he still finished with the most assists on the team and amongst the highest +/- ratings on the roster.

    Pavel was not a cancer. He always tried to honor his contracts and move on, but the team always manipulated the terms of his contracts and disputed every agreement they had made with him. The organization ultimately painted him as the villain and people took the bait.

    It's an absolute disgrace to call Pavel Bure a cancer or a bad team player. He played for the team. He was excited when the team experienced success. He wanted to share the Stanley Cup with this city as badly as anybody else in the room.


Very good post. +1

The Pavel Bure I saw was NOT perfect. But his flaws were miniscule compared to how much he gave to this city and his team. He put up with all kinds of crap from the Canucks management early in his career.

In fact, Larionov had to constantly talk him down off the cliff because Bure thought he was getting sent down to the minors all the time.
  • 0
Posted Image

#379 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,007 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 22 November 2012 - 06:56 AM

Is 11 (seasons) considerably more significant than 7? Not really.

Not enough to say this player should have this jersey retired while the other should not. Esp. when both players, Naslund and Bure had parallel or 'of equal value' accomplishments for this franchise.

428 games and he still leads all Canucks in scoring for the 90's? I'd say that is considerably more significant that merely showing up for games, if that is the standard you're sticking to.


Um, Naslund led the team in points 7 straight seasons. Also, over a 5 year period, nobody IN THE ENTIRE LEAGUE put up more points than Naslund. And he played double the games here.
  • 0
Posted Image

#380 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,007 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 22 November 2012 - 07:29 AM

That doesn't answer if you think they should be in the HOF or not.

And like I said, Goring was a good player on a stacked team, whereas Bure wasn't. I also didn't think Bure's number should be retired at first, I actually thought the ROH would be perfect for him. But he's definitely more deserving than the ROH by this point considering who's in the ROH now.


Well is the HHoF to celebrate great players or great careers? The two aren't always the one and the same. I'm not really sold Gilles should be in the HHoF. But if he was deemed worthy, how could he be more worthy than Goring? There's been many inducted in HHoF that have made me scratch the old dome. Then there's others that get passed over for years like Howe.

The same could be said of retiring a number. Should it be for great players, or great Canucks? Messier was a great player, not really a great Canuck. Mogilny was a great player, but not really a great Canuck. Linden wasn't a great player but was a great Canuck. Bure was a great player, but I don't see him as a great Canuck.

Honestly, ten years ago when asked about great Canucks it was always 3 names came immediately to mind: Smyl, Snepsts and Linden. Tanti was more talented than Smyl shouldn't we be retiring his number? Yes talent should play into it but it's not all about talent alone.
  • 0
Posted Image

#381 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,924 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 22 November 2012 - 09:36 AM

You're misremembering. Bure was a great Canuck.
  • 3
Posted Image

#382 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,924 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 22 November 2012 - 09:41 AM

And while you're capitalizing Naslund's team accomplishments relative to the league, you're still ignoring Bure's accomplishments that matter to the Canucks. fyi. Capitalizing doesn't make those accomplishments considerably more significant than they were.

Meanwhile, you make it important that Naslund's performance relative to the league is considerably significant, but then brush off Bure's HHOF nod as unimportant, because it doesn't involve the Canucks? Straw man argument.

Take off the blinders and you'll realize that Bure's significance to this franchise at least rivals Naslund's.
  • 0
Posted Image

#383 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,555 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 22 November 2012 - 09:49 AM

Personally, if I had to pick one of them in their prime to be on our team right now, it would be Bure in a heartbeat.
Naslund was impressive but Bure was magnificent.
  • 0

#384 M A K A V E L I 96

M A K A V E L I 96

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,521 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 11

Posted 22 November 2012 - 10:14 AM

Over a 5 year period, nobody IN THE ENTIRE LEAGUE put up more points than Naslund.


What 5 year period are you talking about? Naslund's best point totals were from 2000-2006. He had 432 points during this time. Thornton had more (438). Other players like Forsberg, Jagr, and Sakic would have more as well if they weren't injured.
  • 0
Posted Image

#385 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,892 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 22 November 2012 - 04:31 PM

Well is the HHoF to celebrate great players or great careers? The two aren't always the one and the same. I'm not really sold Gilles should be in the HHoF. But if he was deemed worthy, how could he be more worthy than Goring? There's been many inducted in HHoF that have made me scratch the old dome. Then there's others that get passed over for years like Howe.

The same could be said of retiring a number. Should it be for great players, or great Canucks? Messier was a great player, not really a great Canuck. Mogilny was a great player, but not really a great Canuck. Linden wasn't a great player but was a great Canuck. Bure was a great player, but I don't see him as a great Canuck.

Honestly, ten years ago when asked about great Canucks it was always 3 names came immediately to mind: Smyl, Snepsts and Linden. Tanti was more talented than Smyl shouldn't we be retiring his number? Yes talent should play into it but it's not all about talent alone.


It appears that the HHOF is to celebrate both. I personally think it should be for great players with great careers, but the HOF's standards keep getting lower and lower.

Based on what you've said, I agree that if Gillies is in then Goring should be too. Maybe neither would be the best option.

And for retiring numbers, it should definitely be for great Canucks. Bure's on the fence with this one. Since he was one of the best players we've ever had, but then he didn't play that many games. Though I think he's more deserving than the ROH, so jersey retirement is the only proper thing to do at this point.
  • 0

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 


#386 lowest common denominator

lowest common denominator

    Comets Star

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

Posted 22 November 2012 - 09:01 PM

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


Your whole point in this thread is to belittle Pavel Bure.
  • 0

#387 lowest common denominator

lowest common denominator

    Comets Star

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

Posted 22 November 2012 - 09:16 PM

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.


  • 0

#388 lowest common denominator

lowest common denominator

    Comets Star

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

Posted 22 November 2012 - 09:42 PM

Quite the case you're making. Good work.

I find 1138, 896, and 894 considerably more significant than 428. So terribly sorry if that offends you so.


Quantity over QUALITY

cheers

Edited by scottiecanuck, 22 November 2012 - 09:43 PM.

  • 0

#389 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,007 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 23 November 2012 - 02:59 AM

And while you're capitalizing Naslund's team accomplishments relative to the league, you're still ignoring Bure's accomplishments that matter to the Canucks. fyi. Capitalizing doesn't make those accomplishments considerably more significant than they were.

Meanwhile, you make it important that Naslund's performance relative to the league is considerably significant, but then brush off Bure's HHOF nod as unimportant, because it doesn't involve the Canucks? Straw man argument.

Take off the blinders and you'll realize that Bure's significance to this franchise at least rivals Naslund's.


You seem to be confused by the difference between a league wide accomplishment as a Canuck and career accomplishment as a player. Bure is in the HHoF because of his entire career, not because he was a Canuck.


Bure led the Canucks in points 4 times
Naslund led the Canucks in points 7 consecutive years

Does one of those seem more significant than the other?


Bure played 428 games for the Canucks
Naslund played 894 games for the Canucks

Does one of those seem more significant than the other?

Edited by Baggins, 23 November 2012 - 03:49 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#390 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,007 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 23 November 2012 - 03:06 AM

Your whole point in this thread is to belittle Pavel Bure.


Yes, calling Bure a great player, talented, exciting is all very belittling.


Quantity over QUALITY

cheers


You have great employee that moves on to a new employer after 5 years, and a very good employee that stays for 25 years. Who gets the gold watch?
  • 0
Posted Image




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.