Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Blue Jackets to retire Rick Nash’s No. 61

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, -AJ- said:

It's worth noting that when Columbus is retiring his number, only his tenure with Columbus is relevant, not his entire career.

 

Use the Canucks (who some think have a low bar for number retirement) as a comparison:

 

Stan Smyl: 896 games (673 points)

Trevor Linden: 1140 games (733 points)

Pavel Bure: 428 games (478 points)

Markus Naslund: 884 games (756 points)

Henrik Sedin: 1330 games (1070 points)

Daniel Sedin: 1306 games (1041 points)

 

Rich Nash: 674 games (547 points)

 

Where Nash would fall short is longevity. By Canuck standards, he would fit more in the Ring of Honour level than number retirement category. For instance, Thomas Gradin had 550 points in 613 games and is in the Ring of Honour.

 

The main difference is probably as @McBackup says, in that there is some degree of relativity in which players get their numbers retired from team to team. Nash still stands as the games, goals, assists, and points leader despite leaving the team almost 10 years ago. He also led as team captain for four seasons, a record that was recently surpassed by Nick Foligno. He was an inspiration to the young team, giving them a guy who tied for the Rocket Richard trophy in 2003-04 and something to celebrate and get fans out of their seats so early into their team's existence.

 

I suppose it's merited for the Blue Jackets in retrospect, but wouldn't be for most other current NHL teams.


That’s a fair point about his career not being entirely in Columbus. I don’t think I can agree with you though overall. I disagree with the notion that only when a player plays with the team is what should be considered when teams make decisions regarding jersey retirements. I think an entire career should be evaluated when a team is deciding which player gets honored and in what way. Though he did play for other teams and did play well with them his main team was always the Blue Jackets which would make the most sense where he should be honored.
 

For one example of what my point of view is John Tavares will likely have his jersey retired, but even though he now plays for Toronto the New York Islanders would likely be the team to hang the jersey in the rafters. Does his career playing for the Maple Leafs not matter in deciding whether his jersey is retired? I don’t really see it that way.

 

I agree that CBJ should retire his jersey, but we’ll just have to agree to disagree on what should count in deciding retiring player numbers. I think we see that issue differently then one another. I do appreciate and respect your perspective though.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, StanleyCupOneDay said:


That’s a fair point about his career not being entirely in Columbus. I don’t think I can agree with you though overall. I disagree with the notion that only when a player plays with the team is what should be considered when teams make decisions regarding jersey retirements. I think an entire career should be evaluated when a team is deciding which player gets honored and in what way. Though he did play for other teams and did play well with them his main team was always the Blue Jackets which would make the most sense where he should be honored.
 

For one example of what my point of view is John Tavares will likely have his jersey retired, but even though he now plays for Toronto the New York Islanders would likely be the team to hang the jersey in the rafters. Does his career playing for the Maple Leafs not matter in deciding whether his jersey is retired? I don’t really see it that way.

 

I agree that CBJ should retire his jersey, but we’ll just have to agree to disagree on what should count in deciding retiring player numbers. I think we see that issue differently then one another. I do appreciate and respect your perspective though.

Cheers. I appreciate your congenial manner. I wonder, would you think that those like Larionov, Sundin, or dare I even say, Messier have their numbers retired? All three had legendary careers, but not much in Vancouver. If not, is there a distinction between those three and a guy like Tavares?

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, -AJ- said:

Underrated guy I think by more recent fans. He really was amazing in his prime.

 

That said, I'm on the fence with this one. 547 points in 674 games (289 goals) with the Jackets is impressive, but not usually jersey retirement-worthy. I guess the best case that it's still justified is the sort of "beginning of the franchise" story, much like how Kurtenbach is in the Ring of Honour despite only playing four seasons with the Canucks in the NHL.

 

The other case for him is that his career started in the height of the dead puck era and that the Blue Jackets were basically never better than mediocre while Nash played for them.

I look at it like us and Smyl. Just trying to get that one player up to the rafters that was a fan favourite. 
 

 

 But with Seattle retiring #32 before they’d even played a regular season game, I’ve learned that anything is possible.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Bure_of_94 said:

I look at it like us and Smyl. Just trying to get that one player up to the rafters that was a fan favourite. 
 

 

 But with Seattle retiring #32 before they’d even played a regular season game, I’ve learned that anything is possible.

Yeah, Smyl is probably a good comparable.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, -AJ- said:

Cheers. I appreciate your congenial manner. I wonder, would you think that those like Larionov, Sundin, or dare I even say, Messier have their numbers retired? All three had legendary careers, but not much in Vancouver. If not, is there a distinction between those three and a guy like Tavares?


Arguments or debates need not be personal or to be won or lost, sometimes it’s just about learning a different perspective then your own. I appreciate the discussion. As to your question for me it would depend on which team would be considering their number retirements. If it was for a team they only played a season or two with I’d think not, but if it was with the team they spent most of their career with then I think yes they should.
 

So if you’re asking about Vancouver retiring any of those guys numbers then no we shouldn’t retire any of them imo. Basically how I view jersey retirements and other honors bestowed upon players is the team that had that player the longest is the one that should decide whether to retire the number or not or any other honors. At the same time I also believe a players entire career should be considered when making that decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, -AJ- said:

It's worth noting that when Columbus is retiring his number, only his tenure with Columbus is relevant, not his entire career.

 

Use the Canucks (who some think have a low bar for number retirement) as a comparison:

 

Stan Smyl: 896 games (673 points)

Trevor Linden: 1140 games (733 points)

Pavel Bure: 428 games (478 points)

Markus Naslund: 884 games (756 points)

Henrik Sedin: 1330 games (1070 points)

Daniel Sedin: 1306 games (1041 points)

 

Rich Nash: 674 games (547 points)

 

Where Nash would fall short is longevity. By Canuck standards, he would fit more in the Ring of Honour level than number retirement category. For instance, Thomas Gradin had 550 points in 613 games and is in the Ring of Honour.

 

The main difference is probably as @McBackup says, in that there is some degree of relativity in which players get their numbers retired from team to team. Nash still stands as the games, goals, assists, and points leader despite leaving the team almost 10 years ago. He also led as team captain for four seasons, a record that was recently surpassed by Nick Foligno. He was an inspiration to the young team, giving them a guy who tied for the Rocket Richard trophy in 2003-04 and something to celebrate and get fans out of their seats so early into their team's existence.

 

I suppose it's merited for the Blue Jackets in retrospect, but wouldn't be for most other current NHL teams.

Good post. 

 

Some teams have lower bars, and it's not as if Columbus has had much to celebrate. If he'd had the same career here I wouldn't want his jersey retired, I think we have too many retired jerseys as is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/12/2021 at 1:30 PM, Bure_of_94 said:

 

 But with Seattle retiring #32 before they’d even played a regular season game, I’ve learned that anything is possible.

It’s a Seattle thing, they wanted to have an unique tradition. Just like the Salmon toss into the crowd after winning the game. 
 

VGK retired #58 as memorial due to the shooting incident happened close to home and week prior to first game of the Inaugural season. 

  • Huggy Bear 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Crimson-JH said:

It’s a Seattle thing, they wanted to have an unique tradition. Just like the Salmon toss into the crowd after winning the game. 
 

VGK retired #58 as memorial due to the shooting incident happened close to home and week prior to first game of the Inaugural season. 

Did not know that about Vegas. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What stuck out the most for me with Nash is how hard he was to play against. He was dominant on the boards and a master at protecting the puck.

If he had better skilled line mates to feed the puck to or from, his career points would be much higher but this doesn't diminish how good he was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...