Pavel meeting with the media today, possible jersey retirement?

[co]

It has to be 10 , retiring 96 would be a joke because it was all a PR stunt just like MJ changing to 45 and Kobe to 24

[The Sieve]

Wonder what everyone thinks about Declan Hill's comments on page 3 of his book entitled, "The Fix". He mentions Bure's name and I was just wondering what everyone thinks about these comments.

Declan Hill is a sports journalist who has a PH D is journalism and has covered international sports for several years. Thoughts?

[-DLC-]

Is that really enough of a reason to retire a players number? That's pretty much my point Deb.

Yes, it is.

If you ask many in this town who the best ever Canuck was, many will say Bure. So why not?

TS: can you post it for us?

[-DLC-]

That was very cool, WW....my son and I were there (it was at BC Place)...we were front row.

It was like we'd won the cup...the atmosphere was electric and it was very much a celebration of that team. Was a proud moment.

[TheRocket18]

Good, most exciting player we have ever had.

#10 in the rafters - about time.

[Baggins]

Calder Memorial Trophy?

5 All-Star appearances as a Canuck?

World Junior and Championship gold. Plus Olympic silver.

Only 1 of 8 players in NHL history to have back-to-back 60 goal seasons. Did it as a Canuck.

If management hadn't screwed him, he likely would have retired a Canuck, and there would be no argument. Bottom line is, he's still the best player this team has ever drafted and developed, and we should honor him.

[Baggins]

Yes, it is.

If you ask many in this town who the best ever Canuck was, many will say Bure. So why not?

TS: can you post it for us?

[Baggins]

Some people forget he played a huge role in developing Vancouver into the hockey community it is today. This city's incredible passion for hockey is largely due to Pavel. He filled seats, helped bring this team to the Stanley Cup Final, and changed how the city supported its team. People adored him on a level greater than any other player in this team's history. With the organization's financial woes, the team might not even have survived had he not been here. His jersey retirement will be tremendous. Without a doubt, he is the greatest Canuck.

[-DLC-]

Baggins, you've likely made your point....you don't support this. But you likely won't convince the many of us who think this is the right thing to do. I think you're wasting your time presenting your case, as those of us who have made up our mind won't be swayed by your opinion.

[Baggins]

If the value of the Canadian dollar and the ballooning cost of GM Place's construction had anything to do with ticket prices, one can see what might have stagnated attendance levels. Pacific Coliseum's capacity is 16,281.

In 1991, the Canadian dollar rose from an average of 0.857 cents US to 0.872 cents US. This was recorded just as Bure arrived in Vancouver, at the end of the 1991 calendar year.

In 1992, the Canadian dollar dropped nearly five cents, from 0.872 to 0.828 cents. This correlates with the slight drop in attendance in 1992-93.

By the middle of the 1993-94 season, the dollar had dropped another five cents, to 0.775 cents US. The following year (1994-95 season), it dropped again, to 0.732 cents US. And the following season (1995-96), it fell to 0.728 cents US. The team moved to GM Place that season.

http://www.canadianf...y-average-rates

You can see the weakening of the Canadian economy highly correlates with your attendance records. At the same time as the 1994 season, the Griffiths family was struggling to finance the construction of GM Place, and were looking for money wherever they could:

http://www.lcshockey...7/feature10.asp

You can imagine ticket prices soaring in Bure's years with the Canucks. Despite this, the attendance never dropped to its levels from the 1980s, staying at only 1,000 from capacity until the catastrophic drop in the Canadian dollar to 0.73 cents US between 1994 and 1995 -- even then, only 2,000 seats from capacity.

The real world took its toll on people; despite this, the amount of fan support for the team grew exponentially during Bure's time with the Canucks, and one can see that had he not been there, attendance might have decreased rapidly based on Canada's financial crisis. The Edmonton Oilers faced a similar challenge, dipping to all-time lows in attendance in the mid-1990s; the Winnipeg Jets struggled with 13,000 in attendance as well. The Ottawa Senators, meanwhile, had all-time lows in attendance right off the bat.

The financial woes of the Griffiths family only made matters worse as they desperately tried anything they could to pay for GM Place's construction. This struggle eventually led to the Griffiths losing ownership of the team, as is well documented. Bure may have been one of the reasons the team didn't bleed money, which would have forced the team to perhaps relocate.

[spartacus]

It might be a step towards sweater retirement but I doubt they would do that right off the bat. Pavel has been absent from the Canucks organization for over a decade now. They need to re-establish a relationship with him in order for any sort of "retirement" or "Ring of Honour" type gesture to really feel legit

Press conference can be streamed live here at 11:45

[spartacus]

I have heard from a pretty good source that the Canucks have approached Bure a couple of times about raising him to the Ring of Honour, and retirng his number, only to be refused by Bure.

[Baggins]

Baggins, you've likely made your point....you don't support this. But you likely won't convince the many of us who think this is the right thing to do. I think you're wasting your time presenting your case, as those of us who have made up our mind won't be swayed by your opinion.

[dirk diggler]

I don't know why but I thought he was dead.

[Baggins]

[

And no, Pavel's relationship with Keenan was not as pleasant as you've suggested:

Ultimately, Keenan only made Pavel's situation with the team worse. He had already had problems with past management. Once Keenan was fired only to be replaced by Burke, it was easy to see the situation would not improve. Bure finally held out at the start of the 1998-99 season.

I will agree that was one of the reasons. The entire city had been turned against him despite his injury problems. Issues with management fuelled his frustration with the organization, though, prompting him to rightfully desire a trade.

Also, here's a bit about ticket sales in relation to Bure from the 1998-99 season:

And Bure stating clearly that Mike Gillis had authority over the entire situation:

Bure could have held out as early as the start of the 1997-98 season. With new agent Mike Gillis, Pavel took a more aggressive approach to negotiating with management. At this point, rumors began to spread that Pavel wanted a trade, though one must remember at this time Alexander Mogilny was holding out for a new contract and had set a precedent for using it as a tactic. Pavel was vilified by the media and management, and consequently the city turned against him.

Mike Keenan's tenure did nothing to resolve any of this tension, and in fact fuelled it. When Keenan was fired, Burke, former assistant GM of the Canucks, was hired, and it was clear Pavel would be continue to be trapped in the city with no resolution. He and Gillis made the decision that a holdout was necessary. Management issues were the reason for this vicious fight between Gillis and the Canucks, ultimately resulting in Pavel being moved.

Were there trust issues? Absolutely.

[Baggins]

Pavel held out precisely when Brian Burke was hired -- former assistant GM of the Vancouver Canucks from 1987 to 1992. Burke was part of the management group that kept Pavel stuck in LA for two weeks. He was the one who brought him to Vancouver in the first place. Burke had obvious ties to Quinn, and has always said he is one of Quinn's disciples.

His decision to holdout may not have entirely been his own idea, either. His agent, Mike Gillis, played a huge role in that, suggesting it to be a possibility as early as when he had been hired by Bure. Gillis dealt with Quinn, and some of the issues with management are documented here:

http://www.pbfc.org/oldnews.html

On October 18, 1997, this report was released:

Of course, the money Pavel received was not the entire sum he was owed:

[nuck nit]

The vast majority of fans love Pavel,despise the corporate side of the story and we love to see Pavel back here where he belongs.

It makes Pavel happy.

It makes most of us happy.

Aquilini is facilitating what MOST Vancouver fans have wanted for decades-Pavel welcomed back and honored in a manner that is befitting his contributions and legendary status as an elite level hockey player in a Canucks uniform.

[Boudrias]

I don't actually see him as accomplishing more in less time either. One of the arguments about retiring Naslunds number was he only had a few years as an elite player. Naslund in fact had a smaller career window as an elite player, but within that window he actually had more league wide recognition than Bure had as a Canuck. Three time 1st all star team selections to Bure's one. Bure played for the Canucks for seven seasons and led the team in scoring four times. Naslund led the team in scoring for seven consecutive seasons. Bure won a Calder open only to rookies which is a very small percentage of the leagues players. Naslund won a Lester B Pearson and was nominated for an Art Ross. Both of which are open to all NHL players and thus more prestigious.

So how exactly did Bure accomplish more as a Canuck in less time?

As I've already said, the two biggest reasons for retiring a number are major accomplishments (Stanley Cups, NHL awards, NHL records), and games played for a franchise or a combination of the two. Bure is rather lacking in both as a Canuck.

You're correct there are absolutely no set rules for a franchise retiring a number. It's completely up to each individual franchise who gets their number retired and why. There are some that are certainly questionable and those you also wonder why it hasn't happened. I'm talking purely the typical reasons stated above. If you agree it should be based on accomplishments and /or games played for a franchise then wouldn't Bure fall in the "why was his number retired" category as opposed to the "it makes complete sense" category?

He deserves to be in the HHoF for his hockey career. But with this franchise and what he accomplished here I'd say he falls short of our highest honor but deserves to be in the ring of honor.

Let me ask you this: Has Luongo earned his number being retired here? If your answer is no let me make a case for him based on Bure's number being retired.

402 games played as a Canuck (26 less than Bure)

Holds 3 NHL records as a Canuck

Holds 8 franchise records

3 all-star game appearances as a Canuck

2 Vezina nominations as a Canuck

1 Hart trophy nomination as a Canuck

1 Lester B Pearson Nomination as a Canuck

1 William Jennings trophy win as a Canuck

He's played a similar number of games here as Bure, holds more team records, more league records, and has a considerably better league recognition resume, I'd say if Bure's number is retired then we have to retire Luongo's as well as he has a similar number of games with more personal accomplishments. If you can argue against that logic then you're not being logical about retiring Bure's number.

[nuck nit]

Baggins` opinions are hardly reflective of Vancouver Canucks fans and Bure well wishers collective mind set.

Who cares about Montreal and what they did,frankly.

Who cares about Luongo and what you think you requirements are for others.You are not making the rules.

The owner does and in this case he is doing what the vast majority think is the least the city can do for Pavel.

This is about Bure,the love the city has for him and doing something that is reflective of our respect and admiration for his talent and body of work in a Canucks uniform.

I actually note the case to honor Luo is realistic but Pavel has been gone for decades,ostracized and shunned on his departure.

This is about Pavel.