Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

Pavel meeting with the media today, possible jersey retirement?


  • Please log in to reply
142 replies to this topic

#91 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,624 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 05 April 2013 - 01:37 PM

Other former Canucks in the HHoF:
Messier
Neeley
Larionov

Florida has never retired a players number.


Do try to get something right.


Honored, retired, same thing. It's sad that they at least paid respect to him before we did.

Messier and Neely. Really? You would compare what they did in their time here to Bure? :picard: None of those players went into the Hall of Fame in Canucks colors, I can assure you that. Those weren't "our" players.
  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#92 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,624 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 05 April 2013 - 01:39 PM

Did I miss the announcement? Or are you making an assumption?


You must have missed his interview. He pretty much gave it away that it was going to happen.

He couldn't say anything though cause the Canucks wanna announce it.
  • 2

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#93 Westcoasting

Westcoasting

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,380 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 10

Posted 05 April 2013 - 02:26 PM

287 is about the same number as 437? <_<

Did he have back to back 60 goal, 100+ point seasons? Or lead the Canucks in points on a run to game 7 of the finals?

Bure is in the Hall of Fame. You don't get in the hall of fame unless you were one of the greatest players in the history of the NHL.

I don't see how any intelligent person could argue against not retiring our only Hall of Fame player. Hell, even the Panthers retired his number. It's embarassing the Canucks didn't do it sooner.


As Canucks their numbers are very similar. We are retiring his number based on his Florida results too?
  • 0

#94 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,750 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 05 April 2013 - 02:53 PM

Honored, retired, same thing. It's sad that they at least paid respect to him before we did.

Messier and Neely. Really? You would compare what they did in their time here to Bure? :picard: None of those players went into the Hall of Fame in Canucks colors, I can assure you that. Those weren't "our" players.


You said, "our only Hall of Fame player." Are those listed not former Canucks in the HHoF? If they are then Bure isn't the "only" former Canuck in the HHoF. And as I've said repeatedly, the HHoF is a distinctly different honor from a franchise retiring a players number. One does not make the other automatic.

What did Bure actually do here? He was exciting. He was a very good goal scorer. But what major accomplishments did he have as a Canuck that outweighs how few games he actually played here? That's really the point I've been making all along. Cup victories? Nope. NHL records? Nope. Scoring titles? Nope. League MVP? Nope. So exactly what mighty deeds counter the lack of games played here? Yes a was a very talented player. Yes he was exciting to watch. I just don't see those as reason enough to give the teams highest honor.

Ring of Honor is comparable to what Florida did for him. That's what he should receive here.
  • 0

MentalMidgetSig.jpg


#95 miked1101

miked1101

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 666 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 07

Posted 05 April 2013 - 03:07 PM

*
POPULAR

You said, "our only Hall of Fame player." Are those listed not former Canucks in the HHoF? If they are then Bure isn't the "only" former Canuck in the HHoF. And as I've said repeatedly, the HHoF is a distinctly different honor from a franchise retiring a players number. One does not make the other automatic.

What did Bure actually do here? He was exciting. He was a very good goal scorer. But what major accomplishments did he have as a Canuck that outweighs how few games he actually played here? That's really the point I've been making all along. Cup victories? Nope. NHL records? Nope. Scoring titles? Nope. League MVP? Nope. So exactly what mighty deeds counter the lack of games played here? Yes a was a very talented player. Yes he was exciting to watch. I just don't see those as reason enough to give the teams highest honor.

Ring of Honor is comparable to what Florida did for him. That's what he should receive here.


Edited by miked1101, 05 April 2013 - 03:07 PM.

  • 6

#96 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,750 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 05 April 2013 - 04:01 PM


Well those are Canuck records and really not that many. Compare that to the number franchise records Naslund holds. Yet despite his franchise records combined with the number of games played here, many don't think Naslunds number should have been retired. Regarding NHL recognition as a Canuck, Naslund was a first all star more times, had more all star game appearances, was a Hart finalist and won a Lester B. Pearson. In other words, Naslund had more league wide recognition than Bure in addition to more team records and about double the games played for the Canucks. Naslund actually accomplished more with this franchise.

So again, what sets Bure apart to make up for the lack of games played here? You see when a player doesn't have that length of service to a team there should be some major accomplishments with the franchise to make up for it such as Stanley cups, NHL awards, or NHL records. Bure is lacking in major accomplishments as a Canuck to compensate for the lack of games. The majority of number retirements involve players with either major NHL accomplishments, games played for a franchise, or a combination of the two.
  • 0

MentalMidgetSig.jpg


#97 miked1101

miked1101

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 666 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 07

Posted 05 April 2013 - 04:21 PM

Well those are Canuck records and really not that many. Compare that to the number franchise records Naslund holds. Yet despite his franchise records combined with the number of games played here, many don't think Naslunds number should have been retired. Regarding NHL recognition as a Canuck, Naslund was a first all star more times, had more all star game appearances, was a Hart finalist and won a Lester B. Pearson. In other words, Naslund had more league wide recognition than Bure in addition to more team records and about double the games played for the Canucks. Naslund actually accomplished more with this franchise.

So again, what sets Bure apart to make up for the lack of games played here? You see when a player doesn't have that length of service to a team there should be some major accomplishments with the franchise to make up for it such as Stanley cups, NHL awards, or NHL records. Bure is lacking in major accomplishments as a Canuck to compensate for the lack of games. The majority of number retirements involve players with either major NHL accomplishments, games played for a franchise, or a combination of the two.


I see what you're saying.

Arguably, he accomplished more in less time than most Canucks players (if not all), is not far behind in many franchise record categories, and won the Calder (Something no Canucks player has managed to do before/after).

From your standpoint (NHL accomplishments/Games played for the team) then he shouldn't be,
but there's no set of rules for which a player must accomplish to retire a number. It's up to the team.

Edited by miked1101, 05 April 2013 - 04:22 PM.

  • 0

#98 canuckelhead70

canuckelhead70

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 609 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 12

Posted 05 April 2013 - 06:43 PM

So again, what sets Bure apart to make up for the lack of games played here? You see when a player doesn't have that length of service to a team there should be some major accomplishments with the franchise to make up for it such as Stanley cups, NHL awards, or NHL records. Bure is lacking in major accomplishments as a Canuck to compensate for the lack of games. The majority of number retirements involve players with either major NHL accomplishments, games played for a franchise, or a combination of the two.


1.1 point per game average over his career. That puts him in the top 25 all time in the NHL. The 3rd highest goals per game average all time in the NHL

Highest goal per game average (minimum 30 goals):
.7895 - Pavel Bure (1993-94: 60 goals in 76 games)
.7229 - Pavel Bure (1992-93: 60 goals in 83 games)
.6962 - Alexander Mogilny (1995-96: 55 goals in 79 games)
.6220 - Pavel Bure (1997-98: 51 goals in 82 games)
.5854 - Markus Naslund (2002-03: 48 goals in 82 games)

Edited by canuckelhead70, 05 April 2013 - 07:01 PM.

  • 1

#99 canuckhound73

canuckhound73

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,179 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 04

Posted 05 April 2013 - 10:05 PM

He was elected to the HHoF because of his career as a whole. Number retirement is about a players relationship/accomplishments with a franchise. Two distinctly different honors. One doesn't automatically qualify the other.

I've been following the NHL since the 60's. So I wasn't watching Bure play through the eyes of a star struck child. Being a good player, or being exciting, isn't enough of a reason for a team to give it's highest honor. He just doesn't have the accomplishments as a Canuck to make up for the lack of games played here.


accomplishments? Well then
Three stars award winners
Luongo 5, Bure 4, Brodeur 4, Linden 3, Nassuck 3, Smyl 0

Team MVP
Nassuck 5, Linden 4, Bure 3, Smyl 3, Brodeur 3, Kurtenbach 3

Most exciting player
Bure 5, Tanti 5, Bertuzzi 4, Burrows 3, nassuck 2, Linden 2

ASG appearances/selections
Nassuck 5, Bure 4, Henrik 3, Linden 2, Smyl 0

Notable awards
Nassuck - Lindsay (despite choking the final month of the season to lose Art Ross & division)
Bure - Calder (1994 Goal leader - before Richard trophy existed)
Sedins - Art Ross ea
Henrik - Hart

Playoff career stats in Vancouver
Linden 34-61-95
H. Sedin 22-49-71
Bure 34-32-66
D. Sedin 23-41-64
(11th) Smyl 16-17-33
(12th) Nassuck 13-20-33


To suggest Bure didnt do enough on the team is absurd.
Hes the only Point per game player we have ever had. Our 1st notable award winner, and SHOULD have been our 1st notable double award winner (Richard trophies should be award to all previous winners)
We all know Luongo & the Sedins will get retired someday.
Bure did more than Naslund and Smyl by leaps & bounds. Probably even Linden as well.

No one argued about Smyls number going up at the time.
No one argued about Lindens number going up at the time.
Bure did more than either of them, in less time, and in spite of the team screwing him over not once, but twice while he was here.
He has earned every stitch of a number retirement.

If everyone that is retired right now has earned it, Bure has too.
  • 0
16 16 16 16
16 16 16 16
16 16 16 16
16 16 16 16

#100 lowest common denominator

lowest common denominator

    Comets Star

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

Posted 05 April 2013 - 10:15 PM

Baggins, I don't get you. You say you are a canucks fan but disparage Bure and try to minimize his impact every chance you get. I don't get it man, what happened? Did Bure snub you for an autograpf at some point, maybe you can get that rectified.

I'm picturing you on a rocking chair on your front porch, yelling at traffic and passersby...

Are you really 70+ years old? If so, good on ya for learning the internet but keep your opinions about Bure to yourself, you are embarassing us.

Edited by scottiecanuck, 05 April 2013 - 10:19 PM.

  • 3

#101 Trade Deadline

Trade Deadline

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,474 posts
  • Joined: 03-March 07

Posted 05 April 2013 - 10:18 PM

Long overdue. Regardless of how he left, his number deserves to be retired.

Really hope this happens.
  • 0

Posted Image


#102 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,750 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 06 April 2013 - 12:19 AM

1.1 point per game average over his career. That puts him in the top 25 all time in the NHL. The 3rd highest goals per game average all time in the NHL

Highest goal per game average (minimum 30 goals):
.7895 - Pavel Bure (1993-94: 60 goals in 76 games)
.7229 - Pavel Bure (1992-93: 60 goals in 83 games)
.6962 - Alexander Mogilny (1995-96: 55 goals in 79 games)
.6220 - Pavel Bure (1997-98: 51 goals in 82 games)
.5854 - Markus Naslund (2002-03: 48 goals in 82 games)


His points per game are actually deceiving because because of his shortened career. He packed it in at 31. What would Gretzky's average been had he retired at 31? How about Lemeiux? Add in Dionne, Sakic, Yzerman, and many others who played a full career and experience the point decline that comes with aging. Sorry but points per game is a pointless stat when others more talented played well beyond their prime and experienced the production decline that comes with aging.
  • 0

MentalMidgetSig.jpg


#103 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,750 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 06 April 2013 - 12:33 AM

Baggins, I don't get you. You say you are a canucks fan but disparage Bure and try to minimize his impact every chance you get. I don't get it man, what happened? Did Bure snub you for an autograpf at some point, maybe you can get that rectified.

I'm picturing you on a rocking chair on your front porch, yelling at traffic and passersby...

Are you really 70+ years old? If so, good on ya for learning the internet but keep your opinions about Bure to yourself, you are embarassing us.


Be specific scottie. Where have I actually disparaged Bure? I've referred to him as talented, a great goal scorer, deserving of the HHoF. Most would players would likely be pretty happy with such incredible insults.

Yes, I far older than most on this board. No I've never met Bure but I did see him out on the town and how he treated his fans. I have met and talked to Linden, Naslund, Smyl, Sopel, Luongo, Snepsts, Broduer, Gradin, Burrows and Henrik. All were them were quite friendly and personable. Particularly Linden and Naslund. Myself, I don't need or care about autographs. They're rather meaningless to me. Does that mean I don't know what I'm talking about? Of course not. What's embarrassing is your cheap shots about my age because you have no actual argument to defend your opinion on retiring Bure's number by actually addressing my points for not retiring it. Good work there.

Edited by Baggins, 06 April 2013 - 12:35 AM.

  • 0

MentalMidgetSig.jpg


#104 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,750 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 06 April 2013 - 02:04 AM

Nassuck


That alone tells you lack the maturity to have any intelligent discussion. Come back when you grow up.
  • 0

MentalMidgetSig.jpg


#105 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,750 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 06 April 2013 - 02:33 AM

I see what you're saying.

Arguably, he accomplished more in less time than most Canucks players (if not all), is not far behind in many franchise record categories, and won the Calder (Something no Canucks player has managed to do before/after).

From your standpoint (NHL accomplishments/Games played for the team) then he shouldn't be,
but there's no set of rules for which a player must accomplish to retire a number. It's up to the team.


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.

Edited by Baggins, 06 April 2013 - 03:19 AM.

  • 0

MentalMidgetSig.jpg


#106 canuckelhead70

canuckelhead70

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 609 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 12

Posted 06 April 2013 - 04:49 AM

His points per game are actually deceiving because because of his shortened career. He packed it in at 31. What would Gretzky's average been had he retired at 31? How about Lemeiux? Add in Dionne, Sakic, Yzerman, and many others who played a full career and experience the point decline that comes with aging. Sorry but points per game is a pointless stat when others more talented played well beyond their prime and experienced the production decline that comes with aging.


Injuries also shortened Bure’s career to 702 games, which is about the same length as Bossy (752 games), Cam Neely (726 games) and Bobby Orr (657 games).

No offence to Clake Gillies or Mark Howe, but did anyone ever see these guys getting their numbers retired or HHOF?
  • 1

#107 samurai

samurai

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,377 posts
  • Joined: 20-March 06

Posted 06 April 2013 - 07:29 AM

Obviously a lot of controversy with Bure. I was never a big fan of him as I prefer a different style of hockey, but back in the day he was a very special player in the clutch and grab era. To date I don't think there has been a single player with the nucks who was as popular as he was. He was our first big star and put Van on the hockey map. The nucks are a big time club now and it started with him. As far as retiring his jersey it is undeniable that he has been an important player in the history of the club.
  • 0

#108 lowest common denominator

lowest common denominator

    Comets Star

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

Posted 06 April 2013 - 07:41 AM

Well Baggins, your arguements against Bure are petty at best and actually quite pathetic. Seems to me that you are a very special person who gets to be closer to the team than most so good for you. It's personal to you and Bure never reached in touched your heart like the other players you mentioned. I'm sorry to hear that but it has no bearing on his career and what he gave to Vancouver, BC and all the other fans therein.

You keep bringing up Naslund so it also seems to me that you are actually just pissed that Bure's recognition is shining a light onto what an absolute joke it was retiring #19. What was Naslund's greatest accomplishment in the playoffs?

"We Choked" - Marcus Naslund

I'm not going to go around in circles with you, there is another thread that covered everything.

Here's what I suggest for you, D Bag:

Step1 Build a Bridge

Step 2 Get the frack over it



BURE RULES!!!! Glory days are here again!!!!! :towel: :towel: :towel: :towel: #10 Biatches, dontcha fuggit it!!!!!
  • 0

#109 lowest common denominator

lowest common denominator

    Comets Star

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

Posted 06 April 2013 - 07:53 AM

Whatevs Buggins, it's not up to you and your arbitrary set of "Games played + How nice a guyy are you" criteria. You can keep sucking lemons, grandpa.

Naslund sucked, sulked and was just as dumbfounded as everyone else when his jersey went up. Never will another player of such low calibre have his name hung from the rafters. BTW, has he been back in Van since that joke of a ceremony????

Raise #10 and bring the Canucks one step closer to credibility and respectability.
  • 0

#110 Ride the red Pony

Ride the red Pony

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 516 posts
  • Joined: 09-March 13

Posted 06 April 2013 - 07:53 AM

Baggins, I really enjoy the way you debate a subject, you bring in some great facts and never take anything on face value, although I may disagree with you on this subject, you always bring something to toss around to the table.

In my eyes, it goes far beyond the stats., he was a player that every shift brought you a little closer to the edge of your seat, it seemed the possibilities were endless, we finally had our Gretzky, our Bossy, our Richard, our Orr.

For me he was the only Canuck player to bring me that type of emotion ever, been watching since the mid 70's and I can safely say, he was the only one that stirred that emotion.

Edited by Ride the red Pony, 06 April 2013 - 07:56 AM.

  • 1

#111 RIP Ripper

RIP Ripper

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Joined: 23-September 11

Posted 06 April 2013 - 12:52 PM

Geez I miss Pavel!!

Could you imagine how many games he would have won for us in shoot outs!?

Great to see him home and can't wait to see his number in the rafters.
  • 0

#112 RIP Ripper

RIP Ripper

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Joined: 23-September 11

Posted 06 April 2013 - 12:59 PM

His points per game are actually deceiving because because of his shortened career. He packed it in at 31. What would Gretzky's average been had he retired at 31? How about Lemeiux? Add in Dionne, Sakic, Yzerman, and many others who played a full career and experience the point decline that comes with aging. Sorry but points per game is a pointless stat when others more talented played well beyond their prime and experienced the production decline that comes with aging.


When did Bobby Orr retire? :shock:
  • 0

#113 debluvscanucks

debluvscanucks

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,939 posts
  • Joined: 19-February 08

Posted 06 April 2013 - 01:29 PM

Baggins, I really enjoy the way you debate a subject, you bring in some great facts and never take anything on face value, although I may disagree with you on this subject, you always bring something to toss around to the table.

In my eyes, it goes far beyond the stats., he was a player that every shift brought you a little closer to the edge of your seat, it seemed the possibilities were endless, we finally had our Gretzky, our Bossy, our Richard, our Orr.

For me he was the only Canuck player to bring me that type of emotion ever, been watching since the mid 70's and I can safely say, he was the only one that stirred that emotion.


Very well said. Push aside stats, other players, longevity or lack thereof, etc. Based on pure excitement and making you want to watch, he packed a punch.
  • 2

2421657-1-1-1-1-1.jpg

You can be livin the dream at home. Dont even need to put yer pants on.

-Offensive Threat


#114 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,750 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 06 April 2013 - 02:52 PM

Whatevs Buggins, it's not up to you and your arbitrary set of "Games played + How nice a guyy are you" criteria. You can keep sucking lemons, grandpa.

Naslund sucked, sulked and was just as dumbfounded as everyone else when his jersey went up. Never will another player of such low calibre have his name hung from the rafters. BTW, has he been back in Van since that joke of a ceremony????

Raise #10 and bring the Canucks one step closer to credibility and respectability.


And your maturity just shines through. :lol:
  • 0

MentalMidgetSig.jpg


#115 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,750 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 06 April 2013 - 03:02 PM

Baggins, I really enjoy the way you debate a subject, you bring in some great facts and never take anything on face value, although I may disagree with you on this subject, you always bring something to toss around to the table.

In my eyes, it goes far beyond the stats., he was a player that every shift brought you a little closer to the edge of your seat, it seemed the possibilities were endless, we finally had our Gretzky, our Bossy, our Richard, our Orr.

For me he was the only Canuck player to bring me that type of emotion ever, been watching since the mid 70's and I can safely say, he was the only one that stirred that emotion.


Thanks Pony. Some seem to think I hate Bure, or that I'm bitter about how he left. I loved watching him play and don't think how or why he left has any bearing on retiring his or anybody elses number. I just don't think having talent and being exciting is enough of a reason to retire a players number.

For me it's that games played number that's just too low. And as I've said, he lacks major accomplishments (NHL records, major awards, Stanley Cups) to outweigh the lack of games as a Canuck. To me that lowers the bar on retiring numbers. I can honestly make a better case for retiring Lou's number, which I detailed in the other Bure thread.
  • 0

MentalMidgetSig.jpg


#116 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,624 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 06 April 2013 - 03:04 PM

The decision has been made.

Even if you don't agree with it, if you were a fan of Bure at any point, just support the guy. This is going to be a great night for him.
  • 1

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#117 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,750 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 06 April 2013 - 03:10 PM

Very well said. Push aside stats, other players, longevity or lack thereof, etc. Based on pure excitement and making you want to watch, he packed a punch.


Is that really enough of a reason to retire a players number? That's pretty much my point Deb.
  • 0

MentalMidgetSig.jpg


#118 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,750 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 06 April 2013 - 03:17 PM

The decision has been made.

Even if you don't agree with it, if you were a fan of Bure at any point, just support the guy. This is going to be a great night for him.


I've seen no decision and have just as much right to express my opinion here on the matter as others do. Don't like my opinion? You are always welcome to put me on ignore sir.
  • 0

MentalMidgetSig.jpg


#119 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,624 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 06 April 2013 - 03:24 PM

For me it's that games played number that's just too low. And as I've said, he lacks major accomplishments (NHL records, major awards, Stanley Cups) to outweigh the lack of games as a Canuck.


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.
  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#120 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,624 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 06 April 2013 - 03:26 PM

I've seen no decision and have just as much right to express my opinion here on the matter as others do. Don't like my opinion? You are always welcome to put me on ignore sir.


You must have missed the thread with the article that quotes Acquilini as saying they're going to retire his number...

It's done.
  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"





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.