Should the Canucks Retire Luongo's #1?

[xRussianrocket]

1 minute ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Hence, the dilemma. 

Low standards. 

Bure the most exciting and best player to ever put on a canucks jersey by a long mile.  

 

Naslund did captain one of the most exciting deep teams we ever had.  Naslund i can kinda hmmm on but bure no doubt is deserving.

 

true the canucks are grasping at straws to retire snd honour players though.

[Gurn]

Smyl

Linden

Bure

Hank

Danny

belong in the rafters

the others shoud  been in the ring

[Tre Mac]

32 minutes ago, CanadianRugby said:

Canucks set NHL record for fewest goals scored in a 7 game series.

Canuck fans blame the goalie. 

Game seven though.  Anywho I don't put the blame on Lou for '11 SCF but the whole year under Torts and the subsequent trade demands because he didn't get to play in the heritage classic is enough for me to dislike him.  If you want to be traded, allow the trade to happen with any team, don't handcuff your club even more by only giving 2 or 3 possible destinations. 

[cbdoubleu]

You mean Kirk McLean's #1

[cbdoubleu]

12 minutes ago, gurn said:

Smyl

Linden

Bure

Hank

Danny

belong in the rafters

the others shoud  been in the ring

 I agree with this because you excluded Naslund.

 

UNRETIRE NUMBER 19

[Team Bagues]

Ring of honour fine.

Retired no.

If his whole career was with the team maybe - but no, not retired.

We already regret the retired #19 hanging in the rafters.

[Dr. Crossbar]

The arrival of Luongo put an end to the goalie graveyard era. That was a massive shift for this organization. We weren't going anywhere with Cloutier, Hedberg, Flaherty, etc, etc, and everyone knew it.

 

For years after McLean our goal was a revolving door of Weekes, Potvin, Burke, Irbe, Sabourin, Essensa, Whitmore, and on and on. Luongo was the missing piece this team lacked for years and he ushered in a new era for this team from a net perspective. Imo, Luongo was the gateway to the 2011 Cup run.

 

That deserves Ring of Honor for sure because his legacy and impact on this organization proves he should be honored.

 

As for retiring his number, the way I see it, we need to wait on that. Luongo's impact could be of greater signifance if we transition from Miller to Markstrom and Demko into a contender or eventual cup winner. Luongo would then be a true cornerstone in the franchise's history, as the gateway to never going backward to the days of languishing in goalie graveyard mediocrity but instead contuning a legacy of great goaltenders into the future. Only time will tell on that one.

 

Imo, this where he differs from McLean and how if the previous paragraph does play out, you could make a better case for retiring his number over McLean.

 

I think it's important to separate his contract, the fact that he didn't win a cup, his exit, and all the emotions from the bigger picture of Luongo's impact and potential future legacy of Canucks goaltending. He's very much like a Bure figure in shifting the franchise into a new era despite any controversy. 

 

And this is where I give Benning credit for signing Miller right after Luongo because he could have easily started over at a much lower standard of goaltending that could have repeated the goalie graveyard cycle. At least Miller gave us the opportunity to develop Markstrom and give Demko more time to get into the system. Without Miller, it would've been much be harder to recalibrate that position at a higher level in just a few short years.

 

 

[GB5]

 

Naslund is there because of his past business relations with Gillis, Bure because it seems we had to because of the HHOF, the other belong on their own merit.

 

Canucks seem way too generous in retiring numbers. I guess we just want something to celebrate. Luongo was arguably the best goalie ever to play as a Canuck but Ohlund was arguably the best defenseman and he was honoured in the ROH which is more appropriate for Lou.

 

For a team with no championships, we could eventually run out of numbers. This with the official retired numbers as well as the unofficial ones.

[Beary Sweet]

I chose yes because he is the best goalie the franchise has ever had. Led us to multiple President's Cup trophies, became Western Conference Champs before putting everything on the line in the Cup finals just to fall just short. He deserves some love over here. without him in between the pipes, we wouldn't have made that far that year. he deserves to get his number retired after all of what he has done to our organization

[butters]

13 hours ago, Lulover88 said:

I have a feeling the banner would be lifted hallway up the rafters on the night , and then choke just before it reached the final position 

If only Luongo hadn't let in so many goals, the 0 goals that the Canucks scored would have carried them....

[ChuckNORRIS4Cup]

1 hour ago, Tre Mac said:

Game seven though.  Anywho I don't put the blame on Lou for '11 SCF but the whole year under Torts and the subsequent trade demands because he didn't get to play in the heritage classic is enough for me to dislike him.  If you want to be traded, allow the trade to happen with any team, don't handcuff your club even more by only giving 2 or 3 possible destinations. 

After the whole Cory Schneider/Luongo thing, Luongo was professional and accepted his role and stuck it out. Then he has to go through it again with a back up named Lack, who is still a back up. Everything he went through he went through with class, then the Heritage Classic.

 

On a team that is struggling and not performing, having a bad season and not going to be making the playoffs, the team has an outdoor game. You have an All Star goalie who will one day be in the HOF has spent many years with the Canucks ups and downs, finally gets a chance to play in an outdoor game a dream for any player. But is told your on the bench for the back up goalie because according to Torts Lack is the better option to win? What?

 

I'm sorry but to this day I still blame Torts it was a stupid move to play Lack in the Heritage game, and I 100% support Luongo and his demand to be traded it was a huge slap in his face and should of never happened. To dislike the guy because of this one thing is ridiculous, especially everything else he went through without complaining, sorry but Luongo was the best goalie this franchise ever has had and it was a HUGE mistake to not play him and still pissed about it.

[Canuck_Fan_52]

Ring of honour.

[Coconuts]

2 hours ago, gurn said:

Smyl

Linden

Bure

Hank

Danny

belong in the rafters

the others shoud  been in the ring

This. We've been too generous when it comes to retiring numbers. I was kinda eh on the Bure retirement too though I understood it.

 

I could see it happening and I understand the argument for it but I'd put him in the ROH.

[TheGuardian_]

Retire Luongo's #, yes.

[Nucker 67]

I hope they don't. Why would they? He whined about wanting out of Vancouver to be with his family in Florida. The Canucks weren't his first choice. It was fun to have Lu here for those "good years", but time to move on.  I suspect some also want to retire Kesler's number (haha)

[Tiger-Hearted]

The first Canucks goalie to get his number retired should also be the club's first Vezina Trophy winner - at least. No disrespect to Loungo but the bar of accomplishments should be set higher.

[xereau]

You don't retire the number of a guy that demanded a trade after he threw a hissy fit over over not getting played in some high profile outdoor game.

[alt kilgore]

43 minutes ago, Tiger-Hearted said:

The first Canucks goalie to get his number retired should also be the club's first Vezina Trophy winner - at least. No disrespect to Loungo but the bar of accomplishments should be set higher.

 

Agreed.

There seems to be some kind of confusion with some.  Just because a goaltender was the best goalie we have had so far does not mean squat.  If say the Colorado Avalanche had never gotten Roy, would they then be contemplating retiring David Aebischer or Jose Théodore's numbers? 

 

And as far as Bure. He was one of, if not the best at what he did, in the the whole league for years, not just using our historically hapless team as the gold standard.

[Xbox]

14 hours ago, khay said:

12, 16, 19, 10... 4 jerseys no?

12,16,19,10... 22,33,1

 

I'm not a huge fan of retiring numbers. Sure, all 7 of those guys are amazing athletes and definitely deserve to be honoured. But as far as actually retired numbers go I'd only retired 16,22,33. 

[cabinessence]

15 hours ago, Adarsh Sant said:

Best goalie in our history in the ROH? Seems a bit odd doesn't it?  I mean that's just my opinion. I wouldn't want his # in the ring of honour. I think his contributions are more than Mclean's.

Then they should have retired Gary Smith's number at the time, because he was their best of all time at some point. The bar has already been set horrendously low. That is the problem. If the team has a good run or two over the next 14-20 years, they will have to retire even more numbers.