Congrats to Lu - moving up in all time wins - Luuuu

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Fakename70 said:

Didn't I just say that? 

So, you don't think 22 nor 33 belong up there? The question is moot since that's exactly where they're both headed within the next couple years. And rightly so. 

Personally, it's the ROH that I can't stand. I think THAT rewards players might or even might not have been really good during their time in the game/with the franchise, but who ultimately were just fan favourites/loyal soldiers more than anything. 

 

I think you're all wet on the raised-to-the-rafters issue, but, in your defence, I threw up my hands in disgust when the desperate and pathetic Colorado Avalanche retired Ray Bourque's jersey number after he retired. What'd he play there for, a full season and a playoff run before that?

Personally, I don't think ANY player should have had his jersey retired. But as I say, I understand the reasons for the retirements. Do you think it's right for us to have (including the Sedins) six jerseys retired, and zero Cups? Plus the Ring of Honor?

 

Personally, all those with retired jerseys go in the Ring of Honor. It's for very good, but not elite, players with sustained success for the franchise over many years. We haven't had anyone fitting that description yet.

 

And I have no idea what "you're all wet" means, but if it's what I think it means, I can assure you I'm not THAT excited

 

Lu was, and remains, a fantastic goalie. He's a Hall of Famer for sure. But to never have anyone ever wear his number again, I'd want to see at least one Cup in exchange for that.

[Rob_Zepp]

17 hours ago, Fakename70 said:

Blake Price, for one. 1040 debated this very subject one afternoon a couple seasons ago. ROH, not the rafters was the consensus on Lu that day. One of the main issues against him in their view is that he wasn't a Canuck long enough to warrant rafters status. I was too busy shaking my head in disbelief to bother to phone-in with my rebuttal that his supposedly short tenure in Vancouver actually makes his personal accomplishments even more impressive. But they had him level with McLean at best. 

Your media seem to be a collective assortment (not saying all but apparently the bulk) of clowns who would rather troll their own team and stars than ever demonstrate any loyalty and support.    I would imagine it is always a troll feeding frenzy on your call in shows.

[Fakename70]

On 3/22/2018 at 5:32 AM, Captain Azzy said:

Personally, I don't think ANY player should have had his jersey retired. But as I say, I understand the reasons for the retirements. Do you think it's right for us to have (including the Sedins) six jerseys retired, and zero Cups? Plus the Ring of Honor?

 

Personally, all those with retired jerseys go in the Ring of Honor. It's for very good, but not elite, players with sustained success for the franchise over many years. We haven't had anyone fitting that description yet.

 

And I have no idea what "you're all wet" means, but if it's what I think it means, I can assure you I'm not THAT excited

 

Lu was, and remains, a fantastic goalie. He's a Hall of Famer for sure. But to never have anyone ever wear his number again, I'd want to see at least one Cup in exchange for that.

For some reason you keep equating retired numbers with championships. To that end, should only Cup winners be elected to the HHoF? We do agree on the purpose of the RoH, although, I'd love to see that eliminated altogether, as I believe it's primarily for players who weren't quite good enough to reach franchise legend status. "Celebrating mediocrity", as you put it. But, to deny Luongo, the Sedins, The Rocket, Nazzy, and "The Captain" rafter status because none of them ever took a victory lap around the ice while hoisting the Cup is just myopic in theory. These are amongst the absolute best this franchise has ever had, and they should be recognised as such. No where in competitive sport is it required that individual players can't be honoured due to lack of team success. 

Edited March 25, 2018 by Fakename70

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Fakename70 said:

For some reason you keep equating retired numbers with championships. To that end, should only Cup winners be elected to the HHoF? We do agree on the purpose of the RoH, although, I'd love to see that eliminated altogether, as I believe it's primarily for players who weren't quite good enough to reach franchise legend status. "Celebrating mediocrity", as you put it. But, to deny Luongo, the Sedins, The Rocket, Nazzy, and "The Captain" rafter status because none of them ever took a victory lap around the ice while hoisting the Cup is just myopic in theory. These are amongst the absolute best this franchise has ever had, and they should be recognised as such. No where in competitive sport is it required that individual players can't be honoured due to lack of team success. 

HHoF = fame. So really good players upwards. Chris Osgood should be in, for example.

 

But for me, you retire guys'numbers with no Cups, and you're denying every player in future Canucks' history the chance to wear the number. Imagine if a future UFA (an elite player who would be a coup if we signed him) turned us down because his favorite number was already retired? 

 

I just don't agree with tying up our future for the sake of thanking some guys who played well for a while without winning anything. Again, I understand why they've done it. And I likely would retire 22+33 anyway, as an exception. The worst retirement is Naslund, I still can't get my head around why they did that.

[MikeyBoy44]

1 hour ago, Captain Azzy said:

HHoF = fame. So really good players upwards. Chris Osgood should be in, for example.

 

But for me, you retire guys'numbers with no Cups, and you're denying every player in future Canucks' history the chance to wear the number. Imagine if a future UFA (an elite player who would be a coup if we signed him) turned us down because his favorite number was already retired? 

 

I just don't agree with tying up our future for the sake of thanking some guys who played well for a while without winning anything. Again, I understand why they've done it. And I likely would retire 22+33 anyway, as an exception. The worst retirement is Naslund, I still can't get my head around why they did that.

I don't agree with much of your views on this jeresy retirement topic, however I fully agree about Naslund. He was good but I wouldn't say elite. 

[Riviera82]

On 3/16/2018 at 10:15 PM, Fakename70 said:

Absolutely insane that certain people in this market still don't think his name and number belong in the rafters at the Rog after he hangs 'em up. 

Overall Luongo was no good in the playoffs, that's why I dont want Kirk McLean's number in the rafters. Luongo had some great moments for sure but his level of inconsistency in postseason play was remarkable. He had some very good teams to work with and despite that could only backstop his team to 1 lengthy but failed run and looked pretty bad at crucial times doing it. 

 

If there were a 'regular season hall of fame' I'd say say Luongo should go in first ballot along with the Sedins.

[Fakename70]

3 hours ago, Riviera82 said:

Overall Luongo was no good in the playoffs, that's why I dont want Kirk McLean's number in the rafters. Luongo had some great moments for sure but his level of inconsistency in postseason play was remarkable. He had some very good teams to work with and despite that could only backstop his team to 1 lengthy but failed run and looked pretty bad at crucial times doing it. 

 

If there were a 'regular season hall of fame' I'd say say Luongo should go in first ballot along with the Sedins.

If you're going to point fingers at anyone regarding 2011, let's start with the forwards. Luongo plays only 1 end of the ice. He had an uneven series against Boston, sure, but, please don't overlook the lack of offensive punch from the forwards. They were just as up-and-down as Lu was. 8 goals in 7 games. That's Lu's fault too?

[Riviera82]

2 hours ago, Fakename70 said:

If you're going to point fingers at anyone regarding 2011, let's start with the forwards. Luongo plays only 1 end of the ice. He had an uneven series against Boston, sure, but, please don't overlook the lack of offensive punch from the forwards. They were just as up-and-down as Lu was. 8 goals in 7 games. That's Lu's fault too?

Yep, I agree with you, the skaters were not good enough in 2011 but that wasn't all that I was referring to. Luongo's body of work in the playoffs was pretty uneven throughout his time here. 

[Fakename70]

5 hours ago, Riviera82 said:

Yep, I agree with you, the skaters were not good enough in 2011 but that wasn't all that I was referring to. Luongo's body of work in the playoffs was pretty uneven throughout his time here. 

That can be said of the twins as well. And don't get me started on their "leadership". But, I don't hear anyone saying that should disqualify them from the rafters after they've retired. And as for the G position, whose name is atop the list amongst all-time franchise leaders in just about all the pertinent categories? Why is he continually held to a different standard?

[Riviera82]

2 hours ago, Fakename70 said:

That can be said of the twins as well. And don't get me started on their "leadership". But, I don't hear anyone saying that should disqualify them from the rafters after they've retired. And as for the G position, whose name is atop the list amongst all-time franchise leaders in just about all the pertinent categories? Why is he continually held to a different standard?

The bold part I agree with wholeheartedly. The twins should definitely be in the rafters as opposed to Luongo though as they've spent their entire careers here, etc., etc.. I dont necessarily believe that either the Sedins or Luongo belong in the HOF however.

For me at least, Luongo is held to a different standard because he was a highly touted "elite" goaltender who was supposed to be our "answer" in net and yet while he was remarkably consistent during the regular season, the playoffs would always be a rollercoaster ride with him. One game he would be unbeatable and the next he would be Markstrom on a bad day. His meltdowns in crucial games have practically become the stuff of legend.

 

[Fakename70]

23 hours ago, Riviera82 said:

The bold part I agree with wholeheartedly. The twins should definitely be in the rafters as opposed to Luongo though as they've spent their entire careers here, etc., etc.. I dont necessarily believe that either the Sedins or Luongo belong in the HOF however.

For me at least, Luongo is held to a different standard because he was a highly touted "elite" goaltender who was supposed to be our "answer" in net and yet while he was remarkably consistent during the regular season, the playoffs would always be a rollercoaster ride with him. One game he would be unbeatable and the next he would be Markstrom on a bad day. His meltdowns in crucial games have practically become the stuff of legend.

 

I'm pretty sure neither Naslund, Bure nor Linden played in Vancouver for their entire careers. But take a look up at the rafters next time you're at the Rog. 

I actually wouldn't vote the twins into the HHoF either, as I'm under the apparently mistaken impression that H'soF should be reserved for the absolute best players of any given era the league in question has ever seen. All-time greats. I'm not so sure 22 and 33 fit the bill there from a league wide perspective. But, as Canucks? Absolutely. To the rafters when they're finished. However, I can only shake my head in disbelief that anyone can say with a straight face that Luongo doesn't qualify as a franchise great. If you can name me anyone else at that position that the franchise has had who was better than he was, I'll jump to your side of the fence. But I don't think you nor any of his detractors can do it. 

And, as for the HHoF, I think he's far more deserving than either of the twins are, but, I do believe there's a bit of an unfair stigma attached to his name that will always lead certain people who follow the game to wonder aloud "really?" whenever he's a legitimate candidate for any type of honour or award for stellar performance. Same goes for Subban, for example. 

[Riviera82]

1 hour ago, Fakename70 said:

I'm pretty sure neither Naslund, Bure nor Linden played in Vancouver for their entire careers. But take a look up at the rafters next time you're at the Rog. 

I actually wouldn't vote the twins into the HHoF either, as I'm under the apparently mistaken impression that H'soF should be reserved for the absolute best players of any given era the league in question has ever seen. All-time greats. I'm not so sure 22 and 33 fit the bill there from a league wide perspective. But, as Canucks? Absolutely. To the rafters when they're finished. However, I can only shake my head in disbelief that anyone can say with a straight face that Luongo doesn't qualify as a franchise great. If you can name me anyone else at that position that the franchise has had who was better than he was, I'll jump to your side of the fence. But I don't think you nor any of his detractors can do it. 

And, as for the HHoF, I think he's far more deserving than either of the twins are, but, I do believe there's a bit of an unfair stigma attached to his name that will always lead certain people who follow the game to wonder aloud "really?" whenever he's a legitimate candidate for any type of honour or award for stellar performance. Same goes for Subban, for example. 

It seems to me like we're nearly on the same wavelength but could actually end up having an endless debate about this.

 

Firstly, if it we're up to me Naslund wouldn't be in the rafters. Trevor and Bure were iconic players for this franchise who might be the only two I would want up there. For me, Smyl is borderline at best.

If Luongo's number were to be retired here well then it would also have to be retired in Florida. How many cupless goalies can say they've been honored that way by 2 teams? Not only that, if in Vancouver we ever have a goalie who wins a Vezina or leads this team to a Stanley Cup then shouldn't he automatically have his number retired as well even he doesn't have the same long stretch of regular season success that Luongo did?

 

Honestly I cant stand the thought of the #1 being hung from the rafters at the Rog with Luongo's name on it. That was Kirk McLean's number first and before Luongo he led all Vancouver goalies in every category (and still a couple) and all he got was the RoH.

The best players usually define themselves in the playoffs and all things being equal, both #1's had just one long run. McLean was heroic for an underdog team who lost the cup by 1 goal to the Presidents Trophy winning "best team money could buy" while playing in an era of much higher scoring and still posting what would even be sparkling stats by today's standards.

Luongo, while playing for the heavy favorite and yes having some great moments along the way nearly coughed up a hairball again against Chicago after building a virtually insurmountable series lead in the first round. Then of course was made to look foolish in 4 games of the SCF with none of the losses being even close. Yeah I know our team didn't score but the guy at the other end set a record for saves in the cup final which I think had something to do with it.

To your final point, I think I'd probably vote Luongo into the hall before either of the twins too because at least his regular season totals are pretty phenomenal. The Sedins have been really good but their totals dont really "leap off the page" and they've had the same underwhelming postseason success as Luongo did. To me all 3 of them aren't clutch when the games are most important.

 

 

[-Vintage Canuck-]

Roberto Luongo is now three games away from becoming the third goaltender in NHL history to play 1000 career games.

 

1. Martin Brodeur - 1266
2. Patrick Roy - 1029
3. Roberto Luongo - 997
4. Terry Sawchuk - 971
5. Ed Belfour - 963

[Rob_Zepp]

On ‎3‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 2:45 AM, Captain Azzy said:

HHoF = fame. So really good players upwards. Chris Osgood should be in, for example.

 

But for me, you retire guys'numbers with no Cups, and you're denying every player in future Canucks' history the chance to wear the number. Imagine if a future UFA (an elite player who would be a coup if we signed him) turned us down because his favorite number was already retired? 

 

I just don't agree with tying up our future for the sake of thanking some guys who played well for a while without winning anything. Again, I understand why they've done it. And I likely would retire 22+33 anyway, as an exception. The worst retirement is Naslund, I still can't get my head around why they did that.

So if the Oilers continue to be the, well, Oilers for the next 12 to 15 years (until McDavid retires) and he continues his play as he does and never gets past first round of playoffs ever in that period of time, you don't retire his number?    If Bourque didn't have that one last hurrah on a really stacked Avalanche team?  

 

Team sport and no ONE player can make the difference.  

 

Oh, if an a player will not go to a club over a sweater number, he is hardly "elite" as that is far from a team attitude.   Hockey players who are "elite" are first and foremost team players.   Those who worry about things like their number, there is a special term for them.

[Alflives]

3 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

So if the Oilers continue to be the, well, Oilers for the next 12 to 15 years (until McDavid retires) and he continues his play as he does and never gets past first round of playoffs ever in that period of time, you don't retire his number?    If Bourque didn't have that one last hurrah on a really stacked Avalanche team?  

 

Team sport and no ONE player can make the difference.  

 

Oh, if an a player will not go to a club over a sweater number, he is hardly "elite" as that is far from a team attitude.   Hockey players who are "elite" are first and foremost team players.   Those who worry about things like their number, there is a special term for them.

McDavid could be the next Marcel Dionne.  

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

So if the Oilers continue to be the, well, Oilers for the next 12 to 15 years (until McDavid retires) and he continues his play as he does and never gets past first round of playoffs ever in that period of time, you don't retire his number?    If Bourque didn't have that one last hurrah on a really stacked Avalanche team?  

 

Team sport and no ONE player can make the difference.  

 

Oh, if an a player will not go to a club over a sweater number, he is hardly "elite" as that is far from a team attitude.   Hockey players who are "elite" are first and foremost team players.   Those who worry about things like their number, there is a special term for them.

And yet, it happens - Messier being a prime example.

 

If McDavid pots 1,500pts and doesn't win at least one Cup in Edmonton, that to me is HoF but not jersey retirement.

[Rob_Zepp]

2 hours ago, Captain Azzy said:

And yet, it happens - Messier being a prime example.

 

If McDavid pots 1,500pts and doesn't win at least one Cup in Edmonton, that to me is HoF but not jersey retirement.

OK, well with 32 teams soon you will have a lot of empty rafters around the league for a long while then.  

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

OK, well with 32 teams soon you will have a lot of empty rafters around the league for a long while then.  

As it should be. Being inducted to the Hockey Hall of Fame, or Ring of (Dis)Honor, doesn't preclude every single future player in franchise history from wearing a number. If the league somehow lasts another thousand years, do we honestly think there won't be a better #10, #12, #16 or #19, players more worthy of that honor? 

 

Whereas Boston likely wouldn't find a better or more deserving #4, hence the reasonable retirement of Orr's jersey.

 

At the rate this franchise retires numbers, the first Stanley cup-winning player to have his jersey retired will be #274.

[skolozsy2]

3 hours ago, Captain Azzy said:

As it should be. Being inducted to the Hockey Hall of Fame, or Ring of (Dis)Honor, doesn't preclude every single future player in franchise history from wearing a number. If the league somehow lasts another thousand years, do we honestly think there won't be a better #10, #12, #16 or #19, players more worthy of that honor? 

 

Whereas Boston likely wouldn't find a better or more deserving #4, hence the reasonable retirement of Orr's jersey.

 

At the rate this franchise retires numbers, the first Stanley cup-winning player to have his jersey retired will be #274.

I can see your point and I can't really disagree with you. 

 

But I also think retiring of numbers is a good way to ensure a player's legacy gets passed on from generation to generation.....so the contributions that player made to the organization aren't easily forgotten. 

[Rob_Zepp]

11 hours ago, Captain Azzy said:

As it should be. Being inducted to the Hockey Hall of Fame, or Ring of (Dis)Honor, doesn't preclude every single future player in franchise history from wearing a number. If the league somehow lasts another thousand years, do we honestly think there won't be a better #10, #12, #16 or #19, players more worthy of that honor? 

 

Whereas Boston likely wouldn't find a better or more deserving #4, hence the reasonable retirement of Orr's jersey.

 

At the rate this franchise retires numbers, the first Stanley cup-winning player to have his jersey retired will be #274.

OK, I guess you worry about things I don't.   If the league lasts another 1000 years I am sure someone will figure out how to deal with the number thing but, if not, I guess civilization has to end somehow.