1 great player does not equal a great team.
Cups and jersey retirements don't go hand in hand. And they shouldn't.
Lots of great players (and people) have their jersey's retired and haven't won cups.
so? if given the opportunity to gripe about many of those retirements, i would do the same. the entire ceremony, to me, is stupid. just a way to sell tickets, create buzz, and manufacture status that otherwise wouldn't be there.
bure was a phenomenal, exciting player. i stood in line to meet him and get his autograph many times. i played hockey on the street with a tacky #10 drawn onto the back of my t-shirt. but that's it, that's "all" he was. just an exciting, explosive player. that, to me, is not justification for retirement. retirement should be reserved for those who embody an organization's philosophy both on and off the ice with an unheralded commitment to the team and its community, while achieving statistical success beyond reasonable compare.
in most cases, retirement should be reserved for those who become larger than the game itself, like gretzky was, and like crosby has sort of become. or, as toronto does, it should be reserved for players who sacrifice more than their glory years for the sport and team.
instead of retiring shirts, why not make them something of a legacy? why not give the #19 to players who fit a certain role, for example? why not create a running legacy within the organization, rather than suggest that a player like naslund will never come along in the duration of this organization? with the canucks' current shallow criteria, the team will have 30 shirts retired before the organization's centennial year.