| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
 Posted - 07/08/2010 : 09:45:06
|
So, it appears that the Canucks are retiring Nazzy's number next year. Now, I'm all over Naslund, he was an exceptional player on (at the time) an exceptional team that had its chances. He is currently the highest scoring Canuck (a distinction that he will certainly lose in a couple of years), and was our captain for 8 years. He won the LBP award in 2002, and was an all star 3 years.
However... He never won a cup - in fact, he never went beyond the second round. He never won a scoring title in the league, and the LBP was his only major award during his tenure.
Is that enough to get your number retired? Should that be enough to get your number retired?
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2010 : 09:52:54
|
IMO, I don't think a player's number should be retired unless:
- you have won a cup with that team
- you have won a scoring title of some kind, or been a *truly premier* player in the league for several years
- you have been an exceptional part of the community and had a very long duration with the team (ie, 15+ years)
I know its hard to clearly categorize players in this way, and some will fall thru the cracks and be exceptions to the rule, but that is how I see it. I get the feeling that we're becoming too retirement-happy with numbers. |
 |
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2010 : 09:58:18
|
Based on the numbers they have already retired, Stan Smyl and Trevor Linden, I think it's a good choice to honor Naslund in the same fashion. He was the face of the Canucks for a while and his contributions to the team and the community deserve this.
The Canucks are a classy organization when it comes to these tributes, with the retiring of young Luc Bourdon's number and Wayne Maki's as well. It's not always about winning championships and titles, |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2010 : 18:49:10
|
I echo Fat Elvis' thoughts and i'm okay with it. There's too many things to look into really to make the call. Some are easy ones like the obvious, Sakic, Yzerman, Gretzky, Lemieux, etc, etc.... But where do you draw the line?
What if a guy like Tavares became a 70 goal / 110 point guy for the next ten years but never made it out of the first round because the rest of his team wasn't very good?
Or how bout a guy who avg's 50 points / year and suddenly goes on a tear in the playoffs scoring 30 points with 20 goals and 12 game winners and takes home the cup? Are they suddenly having their number retired?
While i know these things are not likely, i'm just trying to emphasize the difficulty in distinguishing the protocol. It really has to be on a team to team basis. Now, if Naslund's is retired, and then maybe Bure's, fine, but if the Canucks somehow became a mini dynasty and they had to change the guidelines of the team when concerned with retiring a number, so be it! |
|
|
|
Tiller33
PickupHockey Pro
389 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2010 : 18:52:41
|
| I agree Alex look at a guy like Wendel Clark. He never won a cup but he played like a warrior for Toronto teams that for the most part were horrible he definately deserved to have his # retired (honoured as they call it in Toronto), Cam Neely too 50 goal scorer and carried those Boston teams of the early 90's on his back. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2010 : 22:15:27
|
OK, fair enough - I did qualify by saying that there will be exceptions to the rule - Wendell Clark is one, Trevor Linden is another. Luc Bourdon was exceptional for a different reason, and it was a classy move.
So in that regard, I see Naslund as a Trevor Linden type retirement... except lacking in pretty much every way that matters to Linden. Was he really so good and important that no other Canuck should ever be able to wear #19? I argue no.
In my mind, we're lowering the bar for entry into what should be a very elite group of players for any organization.
On a side note, the Canucks have started something called the "Ring of Honour" next year - basically players that have done great things for the team over the years, but fall short of the requirements to have their number retired. There has been talk that Bure will get in, and there had been talk that Naslund should also be there. First inductee is Kurtenbach, the Canucks first captain. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2010 : 22:16:37
|
oh, also speaking of classy - the Canucks have chosen Dec 11 for the Naslund retirement, which is the TB game - likely so Ohlund could be there as well. Nice touch.
As much as I don't agree that Naslund should have his number retired, I will definitely be at that game  |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2010 : 22:29:44
|
nuxfan.....listened to the Team1040 a bunch today and the debate was all about Nazzy's jersey being retired as well as whether or not Bure's should be?
Personally, i think they should strongly consider Bure's and for sure he ought to be in the "Ring of Honour"! He, hands down, was the most exciting player to wear a Canucks jersey and was a top 5 player in his prime. Yeah, his departure here wasn't great but you can't deny his goals per game stats and his overall numbers here. There's a big debate about him making the Hockey Hall of Fame one day. Can you imagine him making that and not having his number retired here? Seems like a strange thing to me... |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2010 : 23:11:15
|
| yeah, I've been hearing talk about Bure for the last year or so... as I said, if you retire Naslund, and lower the bar some, then it becomes hard to not add players like Bure. Did Nazzy do much more than Bure as a Canuck? |
|
|
|
irvine
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1315 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2010 : 00:26:15
|
To me, having your jersey retired by a team should be held to very, very special players. It should be a very tough thing to accomplish.
It should be held to players such as Lemieux, Bourque, Orr, Gretzky, Lidstrom, etc...'s of the world.
Guys who have played years for a franchise and did great things while there. Mainly on the ice, but also off the ice a bit.
Guys who put up exceptional numbers and were loved by the fans for many years.
To me, Naslund isn't that guy.
A guy like former Toronto Maple Leaf, Mats Sundin may be. (In Toronto, of course).
Guys who put their heart and soul in to a franchise for many years, almost or for their entire careers.
Guys who showed class, skill & leadership during the best and worst of times. Guys you could not help but notice to be the heart and soul of the franchise.
It's hard to explain in words, for me anyways. I can think of guys that are, to me, worthy. And others, who may have been exceptional players, but should just remain that.
Retiring a number from a team (never to worn again), is to me, something that should be done very, very rarely. And, for only those who you can not help but embrace.
A guy who, when you join that team, you know you can never wear that number anyways.
A guy joining the Boston Bruins (without #77 retired), knows that he can't (and out of respect), isn't going to wear #77 anyways. Allowed to or not.
Because of the greatness in Boston that was and still is, Ray Bourque.
You should only retire numbers that guys are never going to use anyways, out of the everlasting respect that is instilled by the former greatness that was.
As I said, hard for me to explain in words. There are just guys you that cut it. And some who, although solid even great players for their franchise, don't make it.
Irvine/prez. |
Edited by - irvine on 07/09/2010 00:26:59 |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2010 : 10:08:45
|
Just a quick blurb from the ever resourceful, and sometimes semi-correct Wikepedia...
"Originally drafted in the first round by the Penguins, Näslund was traded to Vancouver in 1996, where he spent twelve years, including seven as team captain. He was named team MVP five times and led the team in scoring for seven consecutive seasons—both team records—en route to becoming the franchise leader in goals and points."
It's the Canucks franchise retiring his number, not the league. In terms of contributions to the franchise, the above puts him in pretty high regard I would think.
I do agree with what some of you are saying regarding the sanctity of what determines a retried number, but I also think any player who can be a clear leader, as Naslund was, should get considered, regardless of league stature and or statistics.
A number on a sweater is only that, and if the player being bandied about, is automatically associated with that number, for that team, IMO, it makes it more automatic, and a small sacrifice for the team considering the contribution of the player. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
When do you retire numbers? 
