Westcoasting Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Canucks treated the kid like crap. I don't blame him he left... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowest common denominator Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 What, no-one wants to touch this now that someone has made sense of it all and pointed out the facts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Heyman Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Actually they didn't, find one other player during that era that ever would agree with Bure... not going to happen. All that b.s. you are believing was the media struggle between Pat Quinn and Tony Gallagher/ Dan Russel who both couldn't stand Quinn and likewise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowest common denominator Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 I was at the season opener for the 40th season vs. the Kings. As always, I was wearing my Bure #10 skate jersey (white). As luck would have it, my seats ended up right directly in front of the alumni box so Pat Quinn had the whole game to reflect on his time with the nux while Bure's name and number stared him back lol Edit: The other signifigant thing to happen at that game was that I'm pretty sure sure it was Tom Larsheids last game and for some reason I missed the announcement until the guy next to me said "Anyone that doesn't stand up and applaud Tom Larsheid is not a canucks fan". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Canucks treated the kid like crap. I don't blame him he left... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tru_Knyte Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Bure brought credibility back to the team, and made Vancouver relevant in the NHL for the first time in over a decade. Without him, I doubt we would have had the run in 94. One of the most electrifying players I've ever seen, in any jersey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M A K A V E L I 96 Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Hall of Fame has to do with this. His best years were obviously here serving this franchise and without those seasons, he is obviously not recognized as a hockey great. Thus being a hockey great, he is the best player this franchise has had. And whether or not a couple seasons were shortened due to factors out of his control should be irrelevant because he's here playing for this team otherwise, padding his stats and helping this team and ultimately his cause for jersey retirement one day. The only real argument against this is the undeniable lack of games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 What has Bure done again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Yes, yes, '10 seasons or a cup', right? Y'know... If we had actually won a cup without Bure, then you're 'he didn't win a cup' argument would apply for this franchise. As it were, we remain cupless. It may sadden you to know that we are just like Buffalo, in that they are cupless as well, and they found it appropiate to hang up Pat Lafontaine's jersey, but it is the truth. Nazzy didn't do much in the playoffs for us. Yet his jersey hangs up? Well okay... But that means Bure's can go up too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Yes, yes, '10 seasons or a cup', right? Y'know... If we had actually won a cup without Bure, then you're 'he didn't win a cup' argument would apply for this franchise. As it were, we remain cupless. It may sadden you to know that we are just like Buffalo, in that they are cupless as well, and they found it appropiate to hang up Pat Lafontaine's jersey, but it is the truth. Nazzy didn't do much in the playoffs for us. Yet his jersey hangs up? Well okay... But that means Bure's can go up too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Was Bure a great player? Yes. Was Bure a great Canuck? No. In my view, he did not care about the crest on the front of the jersey. When I say this, I do not mean to say that he cared more for the name on the back of the jersey, but rather he would have played as he did regardless of the team he was on. Being a Canuck was of no sigificance to Bure. Was Bure mistreated by the Canucks? Maybe. This does not excuse the fact that he was not interested in being here. Did Bure generate a lot of points? Absolutely, just look at his stats! This being said, if Bure is to get his jersey retired because of stats, why not retire Tanti's jersey? He got near to the same number of goals. He hasn't even rated the RoH. Gradin got over 70 more points than Bure over their respective careers, and I don't expect he will get his jersey retired. I think RoH is more than sufficient for Bure and his contribution while he was here. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 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. A cup could well have been the difference between RoH and number retirement for Snepsts. Again, just because you're sister is stupid doesn't mean you have to be. But then Lafontaine was nominated for a Hart and Lady Bing. Plus he won a Bill Masterson. I still don't see it as enough games though. Three of his six seasons there combined total up to 51 games played. Good candidate for ring of honor imo. Had we won a cup with Sundin do we retire his number in similar fashion to Colorado with Bourque? Naslund was here much, much longer. Very significant. Naslund was team captain for more games than Bure was here. Quite significant. Naslund won a Pearson. Significant Naslund holds a boatload of team records. Significant Naslund finished top five in the scoring race 3 consecutive seasons as a Canuck. Significant. There's simply more significant checkmarks. You actually see one failed cup run as significant? You keep those blinders on, they're working great. Honestly, I would have put Shanahan in the HHoF ahead of Bure. 3 Stanley Cups 3 International Gold Medals 1 International Silver Medal King Clancy Trophy Over 1500 NHL games played Over 1300 NHL points 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Boudreau Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 If they don't retire his jersey now that he is already in the Hall of Fame, it will look really bad. This is a no-brainier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 A cup could well have been the difference between RoH and number retirement for Snepsts. Again, just because you're sister is stupid doesn't mean you have to be. But then Lafontaine was nominated for a Hart and Lady Bing. Plus he won a Bill Masterson. I still don't see it as enough games though. Three of his six seasons there combined total up to 51 games played. Good candidate for ring of honor imo. Had we won a cup with Sundin do we retire his number in similar fashion to Colorado with Bourque? Naslund was here much, much longer. Very significant. Naslund was team captain for more games than Bure was here. Quite significant. Naslund won a Pearson. Significant Naslund holds a boatload of team records. Significant Naslund finished top five in the scoring race 3 consecutive seasons as a Canuck. Significant. There's simply more significant checkmarks. You actually see one failed cup run as significant? You keep those blinders on, they're working great. Honestly, I would have put Shanahan in the HHoF ahead of Bure. 3 Stanley Cups 3 International Gold Medals 1 International Silver Medal King Clancy Trophy Over 1500 NHL games played Over 1300 NHL points 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 If they don't retire his jersey now that he is already in the Hall of Fame, it will look really bad. This is a no-brainier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortorella's Rant Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 The HHoF has nothing to do with a franchise. It has to do with a players entire career, including international. It still comes down to 428 games played without anything of great significance pertaining to this franchise. I guess Boston has to retire Adam Oates number because his best years were there and he's in the HHoF now. He played 368 games for Boston. Now he played the same number of seasons for Washington and a few more games there. So does Boston get to say, "Ha! You guys have to retire his number because he played more games with you." Then of course Washington responds with, "His best years were with you so you have to do it". I just don't see majority of career or best years as a reason to retire a number when it comes to 428 games played. That really seems more like clutching for reasons than a substantial reason. Like I said, I see 10 seasons of service as the starting point. Even with 10 seasons there needs to be several checkmarks to go with it if a Stanley Cup isn't in the equation. And a Stanley Cup victory, for a significant contributor, goes a long ways in reducing the needed games played. Otherwise my arguement for retiring Luongo's number has high merit. He has had far more league wide recognition (nominations and awards) than Bure had as a Canuck with a comparable duration here. Maclean played here for 10 seasons, had two Vezina nominations, and still holds 12 Canuck goaltending records. He was every bit as key to the '94 run as Bure. He's in the ring of honor. That's where Bure belongs. Otherwise Kirk got shortchanged. I just don't see a player being talented and/or exciting as enough reason to retire a number. There needs to be something more substantial about his association with the franchise to warrant it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.