shadow47 1 Report post Posted October 13, 2009 The real laugh-out-loud moment is how the league decided to retire number 99 from every team... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shadow47 1 Report post Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) The "Roy carried a piece of s*** nothing team" to the Cup argument is such a joke. You do realize that the 93 Habs were one of the top teams in the NHL, right? It's not like they came out of nowhere to beat all the teams they faced. They were a legitimate contender based on their regular season finish and numbers. And it wasn't Roy that got them there in the regular season, either; that was one of his worst regular seasons. The fact that he won the Conn Smythe is because he stepped up his play considerably on a team that was already very good, allowing them to pretty much walk right over whatever was standing in their way. Agreed Roy's Canadiens in '93 drew some damn lucky teams (avoiding top seed Boston, avoiding defending champ Pittsburgh, avoiding Toronto), Gretzky probably deserved the Conn Smythe but Roy could easily have deserved it as well. That said, the Habs were not "all that" in the regular season, c'mon... That said, I wish they'd retire Draper's shirt, that guy has worn the Wings on his sleeve if any player has... Edited October 13, 2009 by shadow47 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casey 145 Report post Posted October 13, 2009 The real laugh-out-loud moment is how the league decided to retire number 99 from every team... Wonder what would happen if Holland basically flipped the league off and gave 99 to some low-level 4th liner. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lamothe 5 Report post Posted October 13, 2009 I'm of the opinion that only #5 deserves to be hanging in the rafters of the players close to retirement (i.e. 35+). No 91, no 24, no 16, no 30, etc. As another poster in this thread said, 'if you need to have a discussion about whether they belong, they don't'. Agreed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Carman 387 Report post Posted October 13, 2009 I'd have no problems with Fedorov or Lidstrom both dominating players with the Wing's. If something political stops Fedorov from getting his #91 retired it would be a shame. Osgood is borderline, if he can get one more cup or at least good years then I wouldn't have any objections, but he certainly can't repeat last regular season again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thedisappearer 291 Report post Posted October 13, 2009 Wonder what would happen if Holland basically flipped the league off and gave 99 to some low-level 4th liner. He can't. Right? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Theophany 110 Report post Posted October 13, 2009 He can't. Right? Right. The number is retired league-wide. You can't put anyone on the roster wearing 99. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Shoreline Report post Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) 24: No. Cheli should probably retire a Blackhawk and have his # hanging at the United Center or wherever they play now. Despite his tenure in Detroit he still obviously loves the Hawks enough to retire one, and I can understand why. 91: f*** no. He was a great player but certainly not deserving of this. And if his relations are strained with the team it's likely for a good reason -- 2003. Would make no sense whatsoever. 16: And no again. He probably has the best case for having his # retired, and of the three mentioned I can understand why he would be tops amongst them, but his career was short and he's been given enough credit for his accomplishments and has been a part of the organization as a symbolic player. Don't think that merits having a number retired. Edited October 13, 2009 by Shoreline Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vladdy16 2,154 Report post Posted October 13, 2009 Didn't anyone notice that May is wearing 24 now instead of 20? Kind of rules out the whole retiring the number thing. Lidstrom's number will probably be retired, but that's it. I'd like to see them hang 6 and 16 somewhere in the arena just as an acknowledgment those numbers won't be used again. What will interest me is who will wear 25. McCarty was a fan favorite like no one in recent memory. It will be weird to see someone else wear it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest mindfly Report post Posted October 13, 2009 How come no one is wearing #66 anyways? it's just retired in pittsburgh.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eva unit zero 271 Report post Posted October 13, 2009 How come no one is wearing #66 anyways? it's just retired in pittsburgh.... Because the players recognize that if Gretzky's number is retired League-wide, then Lemieux's should be as well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
egroen 384 Report post Posted October 13, 2009 Because the players recognize that if Gretzky's number is retired League-wide, then Lemieux's should be as well. Then you would have to retire #9 and #4 league-wide as well. IMO, Lemieux is an easy 4th out of them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hockeytown0001 7,652 Report post Posted October 13, 2009 So you're saying Roy's number doesn't deserve to be retired then? Because his Av numbers were comparable to his Hab numbers. Which would then suggest you don't feel he deserved to be retired as a Hab either. How do you plea? Roy does...Bourqe by Colorado no. His 77 belongs in Boston, not Colorado where he played not even two seasons. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMRwings1983 8,803 Report post Posted October 13, 2009 Then you would have to retire #9 and #4 league-wide as well. IMO, Lemieux is an easy 4th out of them. I'd put Lemieux second or third all time, but the bottom line is that 9 and 4 are worn more frequently around the league, while 66 is a rare number. If Howe wore 66, it'd be the same way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
egroen 384 Report post Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) I'd put Lemieux second or third all time, but the bottom line is that 9 and 4 are worn more frequently around the league, while 66 is a rare number. If Howe wore 66, it'd be the same way. Who would you put him ahead of? Gretzky actualy did everything Lemieux could have done. Howe's peak is similar to Lemieux's, only twice as many good to great years. Orr is simply the greatest two-way player ever with a peak even higher than Lemieux. Edited October 13, 2009 by egroen Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMRwings1983 8,803 Report post Posted October 13, 2009 Who would you put him ahead of? Gretzky actualy did everything Lemieux could have done. Howe's peak is similar to Lemieux's, only twice as many good to great years. Orr is simply the greatest two-way player ever with a peak even higher than Lemieux. Doesn't Lemieux have the highest PPG ever? Besides, the guy was injured a lot and had cancer, yet when he came back he still put up numbers like nothing had happened to him. When he came back in 2001 after 4 years off, it was like he never left to begin with. He was also the most physically gifted player ever in my opinion and an offensive scoring machine. He was also one of the smartest players ever. I'd put him ahead of Howe. Probably not Orr. Don't know what you meant by Howe having twice as many good to great years. Lemieux didn't play nearly as long, so that's a no-brainer that Howe would have more good seasons. Lemieux never had an off year in his career from what I can remember. He was always dominant. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
egroen 384 Report post Posted October 13, 2009 Doesn't Lemieux have the highest PPG ever? No - Gretzky does (1.92 to 1.88 in over 500+ games played) The first time Lemieux retired he would have had it, but then if Gretzky had retired at the same age, Gretzky would have been a lot higher. Besides, the guy was injured a lot and had cancer, yet when he came back he still put up numbers like nothing had happened to him. When he came back in 2001 after 4 years off, it was like he never left to begin with. He was also the most physically gifted player ever in my opinion and an offensive scoring machine. He was also one of the smartest players ever. I'd put him ahead of Howe. Probably not Orr. Lemiuex and Orr both had shortened careers, but Orr was more impressive, IMO. Probably the two most physically gifted players in NHL history (along with Howe and Hull), but if you rate careers, they just can not compete with Howe and Gretzky.... their best years were not better by a huge amount. Don't know what you meant by Howe having twice as many good to great years. Lemieux didn't play nearly as long, so that's a no-brainer that Howe would have more good seasons. Lemieux never had an off year in his career from what I can remember. He was always dominant. Both Lemieux and Howe have 6 Art Rosses, but Howe was Top 5 in points for 20 straight years in the NHL -- which is simply unheard of. Lemieux did it 9 times and even Gretzky did it only 16 times. Lemieux's best season is at a similar level to Howe's best season. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMRwings1983 8,803 Report post Posted October 13, 2009 No - Gretzky does (1.92 to 1.88 in over 500+ games played) The first time Lemieux retired he would have had it, but then if Gretzky had retired at the same age, Gretzky would have been a lot higher. Lemiuex and Orr both had shortened careers, but Orr was more impressive, IMO. Probably the two most physically gifted players in NHL history (along with Howe and Hull), but if you rate careers, they just can not compete with Howe and Gretzky.... their best years were not better by a huge amount. Both Lemieux and Howe have 6 Art Rosses, but Howe was Top 5 in points for 20 straight years in the NHL -- which is simply unheard of. Lemieux did it 9 times and even Gretzky did it only 16 times. Lemieux's best season is at a similar level to Howe's best season. Basically an argument could be made for those 4 players being ranked in any way imaginable. Although, I still think Gretzky is number 1 no matter what. As far as individual awards, Lemieux is hurt by the injuries and the fact that he played in the same era as Gretzky, who practically owned the Art Ross trophy like no one else has. Otherwise, he'd have more individual awards. Anyway, this thread is about number retirement, and like I said, Lemieux and Gretzky wore more unconventional numbers to begin with, that's why those numbers are now associated with them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
egroen 384 Report post Posted October 13, 2009 Basically an argument could be made for those 4 players being ranked in any way imaginable. Although, I still think Gretzky is number 1 no matter what. As far as individual awards, Lemieux is hurt by the injuries and the fact that he played in the same era as Gretzky, who practically owned the Art Ross trophy like no one else has. Otherwise, he'd have more individual awards. Anyway, this thread is about number retirement, and like I said, Lemieux and Gretzky wore more unconventional numbers to begin with, that's why those numbers are now associated with them. I think arguments can be made for Gretzky, Howe and Orr for #1 -- just not Lemiuex -- but he is still better than the best of the rest. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StormJH1 231 Report post Posted October 13, 2009 http://statshockey.homestead.com/alltimegpg.html Actually, Mike Bossy is the all-time leader in GOALS per game, which was the stat you were really thinking of. Mario is 2nd, followed by Pavel Bure, and then Gretzky. It's amazing how easily Europeans and Russians are forgotten...Pavel Bure is one of the prolific goal scorers of all-time, but injuries wrecked his career. Still, think about how hockey wonks talk about Bobby Orr and what could've been and compare that to the rhetoric around Euroffs like Bure or Ziggy Palffy. Orr is treated like Sandy Koufax, while Bure is just another whiny Russian. The 1980's in the NHL are the equivalent of the steroid era in baseball, in my mind. That's the problem with throwing guys like Gretzky and Lemieux up there with Howe and guys from other eras. The 80's were a period where you had two prolific superteams (NYI and EDM) that created turkey shoots for offensive players. Also, you had a point in time where forwards and defenseman were using slapshots and being conditioned as modern atheletes, while goaltender equipment still had not caught up to the point where the butterfly could safely be used as primary strategy all around the league. There's a line of demarcation around the time Brodeur came into the league (around '92 or '93), after which outlandish offensive numbers disappeared from the league. It's always been assumed that Gretzky just got old and Lemieux just got sick, but you see the same thing with younger players like Yzerman, Roenick, and Selanne, whose numbers all tailed off abruptly. It wasn't because the players got worse--the goaltending got significantly better in a hurry. Does anybody truly believe that Teemu Selanne got worse after 1993, or that somebody like Ovechkin today isn't as good as Selanne was in 92-93? Then why did Selanne get 76 goals in that year and never come close to that number later on? It was a different league back then. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StormJH1 231 Report post Posted October 13, 2009 Didn't anyone notice that May is wearing 24 now instead of 20? Kind of rules out the whole retiring the number thing. Lidstrom's number will probably be retired, but that's it. I'd like to see them hang 6 and 16 somewhere in the arena just as an acknowledgment those numbers won't be used again. What will interest me is who will wear 25. McCarty was a fan favorite like no one in recent memory. It will be weird to see someone else wear it. #16 is a tough call b/c nobody's going to dare to wear that number, probably as long as Vladdy is alive, but there's no way that Vladdy's actual career was enough to qualify him for that honor. The Red Wings (much like the Avalanche) in the late 90's have the problem that there were so many Hall of Fame players that came through here, and might have even contributed to winning teams. You really have to reserve the retired numbers for the guys who spent significant portions of their careers as Red Wings and made long-term contributions. I rank the recent Wings deserving of that honor as follows: #5 --> #30 --> #91 --> #14 But really, you could change the lower three there anyway you like and I'd have a tough time arguing with you. It pains me put Chris Osgood up that high b/c he's clearly the beneficiary of many great Wings teams the way that the 2nd tier Oilers players from the 80's benefitted from that team. But the 2008 Cup (and 2009 playoff run) was a Kurt Warner-esque resurgance that really establishes his contribution to this team over nearly two whole decades. Shanhan is treated as the "missing piece" to the Wings getting a Cup, but the team was only in that position (on the cusp) b/c of Fedorov's contributions. And, of course, without Yzerman, the team wasn't even a playoff team. Actually, Shanahan's a guy that I'm not sure totally deserves it solely on the merits, but I feel like his legacy will be as Wings player, unlike a lot of other great players we've had, like Coffey, Chelios, and Larry Murphy. But I think the only "sure bet" out of all those guys is Lidstrom. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StormJH1 231 Report post Posted October 13, 2009 Also, two guys that NEVER come up in these discussions (and shouldn't, given the tough standards of the honor on the Wings) are #8 and #2. No, not Jiri Fischer (although the arguments for Vladdy aren't TOO far superior to the arguments you could make for Fischer, who actually lost his career during a regular season Wings game). But I'm talking about Igor Larionov and Slava Fetisov. Fetisov is not even close (4 seasons w/ Detroit, 2 Cups, unremarkable numbers), but when you consider that he's been said to be one of the 5 greatest all-time defenseman in the world (almost all of which had to do with play outside the NHL), a lesser team might have bestowed that type of token honor on him. Similar argument for Larionov, whose Red Wing contributions were much more significant. No, I don't think either #8 or #2 should even be considered, but I'm simply adding layers of international complexity that underline how complicated the question is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Holmstrom96 347 Report post Posted October 13, 2009 16 - No 24 - No 91 - No 16 - I miss the guy, but numbers should be retired on sympathy 24 - I like the guy, but I don't think he played long enough here 91 - No thanks, once again, he's not a lifer Lidstrom deserves retirement. No other currently Red Wings deserve retirement. Draper - Not good enough McCarty - mainly a goon, not good enough Z and Dats haven't proven themselves yet. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
