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

#241 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,955 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 14 November 2012 - 10:27 AM

So, by those standards, I'm expecting Fin's jersey retirement announcement soon?

Honestly, Bure was touted a superstar in the NHL for a reason....and you're right....it wasn't for any off ice contributions that he was making. Leaving only his brilliance on ice to capture that status, right? People can say what they want (although, none of us really has the full, behind the scenes story), but there is NO denying his talent. Anyone trying to do that just makes themself look foolish. He is truly deserving of the recognition he's currently getting. And to suggest he "liked" being a superstar completely goes against his actions. He hated the fishbowl and that was no secret. He also has moved off into obscurity vs sticking on the scene flogging himself, which also proves his desire for privacy and to simply lead his life. Nothing wrong with that.....


I don't know how many times it has to be said Deb, NOBODY is questioning Bure's talent. The question is: is talent enough to retire his number. If your answer is yes then I'll make a case for Luongo.

Six seasons with the franchise
2 Vezina Nominations (2007, 2011)
1 Hart Nomination (2007)
1 Pearson nomination (2007)
1 Jennings Trophy Win (2011)
1 Mark Messier Leadership Award (2007)

That's more league wide elite level recognition as a Canuck than Bure had in his entire NHL career.


Canuck Goaltending Records:
Most career wins franchise
Most shutouts franchise
Most games played single season
Most wins single season
Most shutouts single season
Longest shoutout streak
Most playoff wins in one playoffs (tied Maclean)
Most shutout in one playoffs (tied Maclean)
Most shots faced in a playoff game
Most saves in a playoff game


My knock on Luongo: Without a Stanley Cup victory on his resume he wasn't here long enough. But based on the above, if Bure's number is retired, then Loungo's has to be as well.
  • 0
Posted Image

#242 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,955 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 14 November 2012 - 10:34 AM

The problem is, of course, the Buffalo Sabres aren't idiots. But let's put their collective hockey wisdom aside and trust in the wisdom of Baggins, right? And the wisdom regarding regarding the Lafontaine jersey retirement was what? 'It is a mystery to me' I see. Well, Sherlock, i think i've solved it for you already. See: Three major factors already listed above.

These criteria are very high indeed.


As for who 'saved the franchise', well it was the Arthur Griffiths, of course, who financed the building of GM Place. He took on more than he could handle, bringing in the NBA, etc., but nobody can deny that he was a hero for this town.

However, would GM Place have gotten the go-ahead without a superstar golden ticket onboard? It can be said that GM Place was the house that Bure built. Bure was the highlight reel. He was the reason people around the league went to Canuck road games. Hell, he was the Canucks for a significant period of the franchise's history.

Certainly he did as much as Naslund did. It's interesting that some label Naslund a 'team saviour' after the Messier era now when in his prime years he received much of the same criticism as Bure. Not a real leader? Vacant personality? etc. Remember that? When Naslund had his jersey hung up, that opened the door for Bure. Bure had done more for this team in a shorter amount of time than Naslund ever did. Certainly that should be respected and honoured with a jersey retirement.

I'm not buying what your selling. GM Place was in planning before Bure was even here. The endgame was the NBA franchise and Griffiths was rolling the dice on it. The attendance numbers show that Bure did not put butts in the seats here.

A simple question: Do you agree with the Avs retiring Bourques number?
  • 0
Posted Image

#243 M A K A V E L I 96

M A K A V E L I 96

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,519 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 11

Posted 14 November 2012 - 10:56 AM

You guys need to stop arguing with Baggins. He's in Glenn Beck territory. Just walk away.
  • 1
Posted Image

#244 lowest common denominator

lowest common denominator

    Comets Star

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

Posted 14 November 2012 - 10:56 AM

The way I see it, there were several reasons to retire the Smyl, Linden, and Naslunds numbers. Length of service, high level of play, community service, long term captains, franchise records. I've only seen one reason to retire Bures. High level of play. I just don't see that as enough of a reason for a guy that only played a little more than 400 games here. You see I'm not ignoring anything. I'm looking at the overall picture of Bure's time here. Other than talent, I don't see much on the checklist.


Bure played 488 regseason/playoff games here. Why are you trying to minimize his impact here?

What is your motivation?

So how many games is enough if you ruled the world D Baggins? 500? 489?

If it wasn't due to manipulative, deceitful management and gullible, amateurish media, Bure would have played alot longer for the true fans here and there is a chance he could have retired here.

Also, Bure is misunderstood due to poor english, shyness and maybe some anxiety under the spotlight. None of which detract from him as a person, or more importantly, as a hockey player. He grew up in Russia,where they speak Russian.

Did you know you will never meet a swede who doesn't speak fluent english? That's right, they start teaching english at a very young age in Svedia. This leads to the twins and nazzy being more cute n cuddly in the fans eyes and more media friendly to the hacks in vancity, which leads to an inflated image of their abilities as north american hockey players.

The canucks organizations has bombarded the city and fans with twins/nazzy idol propaganda for over a decade and most of the casual, uneducated fans have gobbled it up.

The Gillis quote you provided is evidence that he ramrodded Nazzys jersey to the rafters against the wishes of many fans. Maybe it was part of the deal to keep Nazzy around a few years longer when it was obviously an effort for him to stay here.

Nazy might be the reason that you watch the nux but he sure as hell didn't save the franchise. You are highly opinionated and severely uninformed, I'm afraid.

Bure has been recognized and honoured in the highest possible way by the NHL and by his peers as one of the exceptionally elite players of his time. What more do you need?
  • 0

#245 lowest common denominator

lowest common denominator

    Comets Star

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

Posted 14 November 2012 - 11:01 AM

You guys need to stop arguing with Baggins. He's in Glenn Beck territory. Just walk away.


But he makes it so easy to argue for Bure. Maybe he's actually a huge Bure fan and is playing devils advocate just to get everyone to realize how great a player Bure actually was?

Well played, Douche Baggins, well played
  • 0

#246 lowest common denominator

lowest common denominator

    Comets Star

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

Posted 14 November 2012 - 11:05 AM

I don't know how many times it has to be said Deb, NOBODY is questioning Bure's talent. The question is: is talent enough to retire his number. If your answer is yes then I'll make a case for Luongo.

Six seasons with the franchise
2 Vezina Nominations (2007, 2011)
1 Hart Nomination (2007)
1 Pearson nomination (2007)
1 Jennings Trophy Win (2011)
1 Mark Messier Leadership Award (2007)

That's more league wide elite level recognition as a Canuck than Bure had in his entire NHL career.


Canuck Goaltending Records:
Most career wins franchise
Most shutouts franchise
Most games played single season
Most wins single season
Most shutouts single season
Longest shoutout streak
Most playoff wins in one playoffs (tied Maclean)
Most shutout in one playoffs (tied Maclean)
Most shots faced in a playoff game
Most saves in a playoff game


My knock on Luongo: Without a Stanley Cup victory on his resume he wasn't here long enough. But based on the above, if Bure's number is retired, then Loungo's has to be as well.


Here is the difference between the 94 players and the 2011 players.

IN 94, we made it to the final based on heart, determination and skill and came up short after leaving everything on the ice.

2011 made it on skill alone, then Luongo crap the bed in the biggest games of his career and the Sedins got thumped out, making the Canucks into the biggest joke in locker rooms across the NHL
  • 2

#247 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 14 November 2012 - 11:09 AM

If Bure can make the HHoF, then the Sedins can too. They have just as many league trophys each as Bure and have made a Cup Final. They'll likely finish their NHL careers with over 1000 games played, close to a PPG pace, and they've done more for the community than Bure.

As for reasons for retiring their jerseys: They'll be the top 2 scorers in franchise history, they've both won the Art Ross, and have a Hart and Lindsay between them, they were the leaders of a Canucks team that made it to Game 7 of the Cup Final, all at a time where Crosby, Ovechkin, and Malkin are in their prime.


I would also add that with the exception of the Bryan brothers in tennis, the Sedin twins have never been seen before in professional sports working in tandem like that.

Identical twins zooming around the ice working in tandem. They BOTH win the scoring title to boot? There is a 100% chance (barring some kind of scandal) the twins will make the hockey hall of fame.

They are so unique its not only a testament to their play, but also enhances NHL history .
  • 0
Posted Image

#248 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,402 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 14 November 2012 - 11:15 AM

But he makes it so easy to argue for Bure. Maybe he's actually a huge Bure fan and is playing devils advocate just to get everyone to realize how great a player Bure actually was?

Well played, Douche Baggins, well played

Didn't he pretty clearly say he was not referring to Bure's talent?

Yes...yes he did.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#249 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,759 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 14 November 2012 - 12:18 PM

I'm not buying what your selling. GM Place was in planning before Bure was even here. The endgame was the NBA franchise and Griffiths was rolling the dice on it. The attendance numbers show that Bure did not put butts in the seats here.

A simple question: Do you agree with the Avs retiring Bourques number?

Of course it was in planning, but it was solidified when Bure was here. You can discount Bure's impact in this regard if you choose, but nevertheless, Bure was very important when it came to team marketing locally and across the league for a significant amount of time.

Attendance numbers are interpretive. It might seem insignificant to you, but the numbers did in fact rise during Bure's first season and the numbers could very well have started declining then. That being said, the numbers did decline later on during the Messier era. The Messier era was bad. (Duh.)

A simple question that relates more to the Bure situation than Ray Bourque's jersery hanging up in Colorado: Is Pat Lafontaine's jersey hanging up in Buffalo justifiable or not?
  • 0
Posted Image

#250 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,759 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 14 November 2012 - 12:20 PM

Hell, is the Naslund jersey retirement justified or not?

Remembering a lengthly debate about this as well, and in the end the Canucks chose the high road. Probably for the best.
  • 0
Posted Image

#251 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,759 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 14 November 2012 - 12:41 PM

Here's a snippet from a whiney local blog about the Naslund jersey retirement, and how it 'lowers the bar.'

It is easy to argue that Naslund does not belong in the company of Smyl and Linden simply because as a leader he did not accomplish the post season success that they did. Nor did he embody their workman-like heart and soul; qualities that are typically more likely to win over the adoration of the fan base in this market.


First off, what post-season success? Linden, Smyl, Naslund and Bure have one thing in common: No cups.

So enter the 'workman-like heart and soul.' ie. Things that loser franchise fans hang onto when they're skill-deprived. These intangibles are things that a lot of former Canucks have had, yet do not have their jersey's hung up. Are they really all that important compared to superstar-level skill? Or is that a good ol' Vancouver myth?

In either case, the Naslund retirement opens the door for a Bure retirement and everyone knew that when it happened.

imo A Bure retirement raises the bar, considering he is our only superstar. But you keep your workman-like 'heart and sole' players in your old treasure chest if you want. Perhaps Dan Cloutier should be honoured. He had heart. Jovo? Greg Adams? Cliffy? They all had heart too. Where exactly does the 'he had heart' argument end? It doesn't. Because it's a freakin' myth.
  • 0
Posted Image

#252 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,955 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 14 November 2012 - 01:05 PM

Here is the difference between the 94 players and the 2011 players.

IN 94, we made it to the final based on heart, determination and skill and came up short after leaving everything on the ice.

2011 made it on skill alone, then Luongo crap the bed in the biggest games of his career and the Sedins got thumped out, making the Canucks into the biggest joke in locker rooms across the NHL


No heart? Did you see how beat up this team was? The 2011 team made to game 7 with a team of walking wounded. Good God people here see what they want. Game 7 versus the Rangers where was Bure's heart? That's way too simple. The real joke here is the fans.
  • 0
Posted Image

#253 lowest common denominator

lowest common denominator

    Comets Star

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

Posted 14 November 2012 - 01:31 PM

No heart? Did you see how beat up this team was? The 2011 team made to game 7 with a team of walking wounded. Good God people here see what they want. Game 7 versus the Rangers where was Bure's heart? That's way too simple. The real joke here is the fans.


Oh dear, now I've gone and upset the children.

Does anyone have a pacifier?
  • 1

#254 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,759 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 14 November 2012 - 01:42 PM

I kinda agree that the real joke is the fans.

A lot of people around here misremember '94 and think that we actually won.
  • 1
Posted Image

#255 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,955 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 14 November 2012 - 02:13 PM

Here's a snippet from a whiney local blog about the Naslund jersey retirement, and how it 'lowers the bar.'



First off, what post-season success? Linden, Smyl, Naslund and Bure have one thing in common: No cups.

So enter the 'workman-like heart and soul.' ie. Things that loser franchise fans hang onto when they're skill-deprived. These intangibles are things that a lot of former Canucks have had, yet do not have their jersey's hung up. Are they really all that important compared to superstar-level skill? Or is that a good ol' Vancouver myth?

In either case, the Naslund retirement opens the door for a Bure retirement and everyone knew that when it happened.

imo A Bure retirement raises the bar, considering he is our only superstar. But you keep your workman-like 'heart and sole' players in your old treasure chest if you want. Perhaps Dan Cloutier should be honoured. He had heart. Jovo? Greg Adams? Cliffy? They all had heart too. Where exactly does the 'he had heart' argument end? It doesn't. Because it's a freakin' myth.


Naslund played 12 seasons here. Is that significant? He played 884 games here. Is that signifcant? He was captain here for 8 years. Is that significant? He finished top 5 in the league 3 consecutive seasons here. Is that significant? Over a five season period he put up more points than any other player in the league. Is that significant? He won a Pearson here. Is that significant? He retired with a rather large number of team records. Is that significant? He went far, far beyond his duty in the community here. Is that significant? Retiring Naslunds number wasn't lowering the bar at all. I don't think retiring Naslunds number had anything to do with taking "the high road". It had to do with a lot of checkmarks of significance.

I think it's that fans here have a need for somebody to blame for not getting the deep playoff run during the time we had one of the best lines in the league. Remember Cloutier being vilified during his time here? How about Sopel? Yet when that era passed Naslund was to blame. The truth is we had the best line in the league but not the best team. It was going to take the stars aligning for the team to make the finals, never mind win a cup. But stranger things have happened so there was hope. But it's easier to blame Naslund and use vagaries like bad leader and no heart. I agree with you that it's a myth.

Btw, Naslund, Luongo, and the Sedins have all been referred to as superstars during their careers.
  • 0
Posted Image

#256 lowest common denominator

lowest common denominator

    Comets Star

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

Posted 14 November 2012 - 02:39 PM

Btw, Naslund, Luongo, and the Sedins have all been referred to as superstars during their careers.


Referred to, but never remembered as.

And who is doing the referring? 100' tall posters planted on Griffiths way? Or the media members who suckhole and tow the company line?
  • 2

#257 winacup

winacup

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 12

Posted 14 November 2012 - 02:42 PM

Naslund, Luongo, and the Sedins all have one thing in common, the inability to get it done when it matters most.
  • 2
Posted Image

#258 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,759 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 14 November 2012 - 03:08 PM

Naslund was a significant Canuck. So was Bure. But what's most significant about Naslund's jersey retirement as it pertains to this thread is that it has opened the door to Bure's jersey retirement, on account of the reasons already explained in why Naslund's apparently 'lowered the bar.' Was Naslund's jersey retirement here as automatic as you claim? Nope. On account of the lack of playoff success.

Again, Bure and Naslund have had similar impacts on this franchise. Bure just had a shorter amount of time to accomplish what he did. Yes, you keep beating this games played thing over our heads, and while it's important to hang around, it's also important to be great, to be successful, and to get the city behind you in celebration. Bure did all those things while he was here, moreso than Naslund in terms of playoff success especially.

Bure ticks off the playoff success checkmark, including franchise playoff run records for goals and points, while Naslund ticks off the longevity checkmark, including his regular season totals. The two cancel each other out.

Bure ticks off the hall of fame checkmark, while Naslund ticks off this 'who cares?' community service as captain checkmark.

The two jersey's can both go up.


Meanwhile, you've touched on this, but one fairly important aspect of Naslund's success here was Todd Bertuzzi. While Bure had (and needed) virtually no support to score all those goals, Naslund prospered greatly from Big Todd rumbling up the ice with him. Fyi, Bure being able to do it all on his own is generally regarded as a much better superstar-quality player than Naslund, the Sedins, who have each other or any other Canuck ever. Not many players in hockey history could do what Bure did. PS. It's why he's in the hall of fame and Naslund will not be. (Will the Sedins get into the hall? We'll see.)

In any event, if a jersey retirement for Lafontaine and Naslund was based on the 'checkmarks' acheived for their respective franchises, then Bure is equally qualified, if not moreso, on account of his playoff successes.

If the Naslund retired jersey opened the door for a Bure one, then the Bure hall-of-fame nod likely made it a done deal. And it's well-deserved. He's done enough for this franchise and city. He scored the greatest goal in franchise history, without which Linden's rise to any playoff success would not be at all possible. Sortof a comparison that you won't agree with, but us not honouring Bure is like Canada shunning Paul Henderson if he left for the states. Yeah i know, it's a stretch. But the point is that Bure is indeed worthy of the honour just as much as Naslund, certainly.
  • 1
Posted Image

#259 lowest common denominator

lowest common denominator

    Comets Star

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

Posted 14 November 2012 - 03:09 PM

Naslund, Luongo, and the Sedins all have one thing in common, the inability to get it done when it matters most.


Super duper nice guys though
  • 0

#260 lowest common denominator

lowest common denominator

    Comets Star

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

Posted 14 November 2012 - 03:16 PM

Naslund was a significant Canuck. So was Bure. But what's most significant about Naslund's jersey retirement as it pertains to this thread is that it has opened the door to Bure's jersey retirement, on account of the reasons already explained in why Naslund's apparently 'lowered the bar.' Was Naslund's jersey retirement here as automatic as you claim? Nope. On account of the lack of playoff success.


I'm not sure that 19 has so much opened up the door to 10 but it sure has left a gaping hole of credibility within the organization. This is a wrong that needs to be righted. Someone here earlier referred to it as "the curse of Bure" or something like that.

19 has definitely opened the door and then some for the Sedins.

I think it was lack of regular season success that led to lack of playoff success for Nazzy. Maybe we should just leave it at lack of success.

And Cloutier...don't get me started lol
  • 0

#261 lowest common denominator

lowest common denominator

    Comets Star

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

Posted 14 November 2012 - 03:21 PM

I kinda agree that the real joke is the fans.

A lot of people around here misremember '94 and think that we actually won.


I don't think anyone thinks we won in 94.

It's all about the journey, how did we get there? How did we achieve what we achieved? And in the end, why did we fail?

One team was well rounded, full of character and left everything on the ice.

The other team, isn't quite history yet.
  • 0

#262 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,759 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 14 November 2012 - 04:02 PM

Naslund, Luongo, and the Sedins all have one thing in common, the inability to get it done when it matters most.

Don't you mean Naslund, Luongo, the Sedins, Linden, Smyl, Bure and every Canuck ever to wear a Canuck jersey, until they are no longer Canucks, and then they might have a chance to get it done? Because that's the reality at the moment, unfortunately.

If the bar is winning a cup, then no jersey's should be hung in Rogers Arena. Yet, there is. Now what?

Well, we retire the jersies of Canucks who deserve it the most, i guess. That includes Smyl, Linden, Naslund, Bure, the Sedins and quite possibly even Luongo. Kesler maybe as well, but we'll see if he improves after last seasons' brutality.
  • 0
Posted Image

#263 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,166 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 14 November 2012 - 05:14 PM

Personally I think the return of the fans had more to do with Linden. Notice the large jump in attendance the season following Linden finishing second in rookie of the year honors to Leetch. Or perhaps making it back into the playoffs Lindens rookie season. But the fact is, the fans came back before Bure was here.


Who says they wouldn't have left right away if Bure didn't come here.

He spiked it up about 700 on average, and through tough ecomonic times in Canada we still we able to maintain good attendence with Bure leading the show on the ice. The big drop in 94-95 was a lockout year, similar to now, Fans were probably just fed up, and with the economy still struggling there are plenty of reasons to explain it.

GM Place was in the planning stages before Bure ever stepped on the ice here. Although it would benefit the Canucks, it had more to do with Griffiths desire to bring in an NBA franchise. To do that he needed the new arena. His desire to be a bigger fish in the sports pond ultimately cost him the Canucks franchise. Griffiths lobbied the Provincial government for some time for financial assistance to build GM Place. When that failed he turned to the city for assistance which also failed. Then he lobbied both for tax breaks which was also declined. He then had to turn to private financing and went heavily into debt.


Imagine if he went through all that without Bure, every one knew we needed a new arena, the PC was aging and it was only a matter of time, it doesn't surprise me that the wheels really started rolling on the process once Bure established himself as a true superstar and the face of the Franchise. Coincidence? I think not.

As TO said don't you think it would have been much much more difficult to get the financing for the building without a franchise face like Bure, we are lucky that we had Bure or else it could have been much worse than Griffiths having to sell the team to owners who actuallly wanted to keep the team here.

If Bure wasn't here how much less apealing do you think it would have been to own the team here? There's no promise without him. Atleast with Bure who you know is a huge marketable face in the city and league wide there's promise and you know you have someone that will attract and build the fan base without him we wouldn't have as many fans as we already did back then, and then with him he created new fans & got them hooked on the team.

Do you not think it would have been alot tougher to get the Arena put up and to keep the team in Vancouver without Bure? I certaintly do.

This kinda leads into the next point too but do you think we would be having the same success (Revenue wise) today without Bure? Very unlikely.

Every generation from the very beginning has a player that impacted their becoming a fan. Not so sure you can use that as a reason to retire a players number.


every other generational player of Bure's stature seems to have his Jersey retired with the team he is most affilated with and did the most for.

Why shouldn't Bure?

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 14 November 2012 - 05:17 PM.

  • 0

zackass.png


#264 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,554 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 14 November 2012 - 06:50 PM

I kinda agree that the real joke is the fans.

A lot of people around here misremember '94 and think that we actually won.


That was as close as we've ever come to a win and since that '94 team was not expected to do anything in the playoffs, that made the run extra special.
Personally I think if we were not facing the Rags and their 54 year curse, to go along with the suspect officiating, that cup would've been ours for sure.
  • 0

#265 MoneypuckOverlord

MoneypuckOverlord

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,360 posts
  • Joined: 24-September 09

Posted 14 November 2012 - 09:50 PM

Naslund, Luongo, and the Sedins all have one thing in common, the inability to get it done when it matters most.


Luongo and the Sedins both have a gold medal btw. That's as big as it gets, of course it's no Stanley.
  • 0

Players Nikolaj Ehlers have been compared too by the fan base of the Vancouver Canucks.

 

1 Pavel Bure

2 Markus Naslund

3 Nathan Mackkinon

4 Jonathan Drouin.

5 Jonathan Tavares

 

http://bleacherrepor...d-top-prospects

combine results.  Ehlers 5'11 162 lbs of solid rock.  


#266 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,955 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 14 November 2012 - 10:46 PM

Why shouldn't Bure?


The answer remains the same. The glaring difference between Bure and the other three is games played here. And that's a significant difference.
  • 0
Posted Image

#267 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,955 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 14 November 2012 - 10:54 PM

Naslund, Luongo, and the Sedins all have one thing in common, the inability to get it done when it matters most.


Funny, I don't recall Bure 'getting it done when it mattered most'. Buit the others were here a hell of a lot longer.
  • 0
Posted Image

#268 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,166 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 14 November 2012 - 10:56 PM

The answer remains the same. The glaring difference between Bure and the other three is games played here. And that's a significant difference.


He's played enough games IMO, and he was better than all 3. He's the greatest player we have ever had, and he really legitimized us as a good franchise, And greatly impacted our future fan base, revenue and stability in this market. As I went into earlier.

IMO it's an easy decision to retire it. But I respect your opinion & I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.
  • 0

zackass.png


#269 soshified

soshified

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,277 posts
  • Joined: 11-March 09

Posted 14 November 2012 - 11:01 PM

Referred to, but never remembered as.

And who is doing the referring? 100' tall posters planted on Griffiths way? Or the media members who suckhole and tow the company line?


I remembered Naslund as a superstar or an offensive juggernaut.

The way he shot the puck, was just unbelievable.
  • 0



Posted Image


#270 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,130 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 15 November 2012 - 12:41 AM

The guy is a Hall of Famer and the most skilled and electrifying player the Canucks have ever had. That's tough to admit given I'm a huge Naslund fan. Plus, he played here for 7 seasons. If that isn't worthy of jersey retirement, what is?
  • 1
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.