Richard88 0 Report post Posted October 11, 2009 The numbers you posted are pretty comparable, don't act like it's all that cut-and-dried. I won't suggest that Yzerman was the better player, but how about if I suggest that that's a horrible argument instead? Yzerman was putting up sick numbers pre-1989 and was still with the team after 2003, when Feds made his cash grab. Feds was in his prime at the time Yzerman was past his, at least statistically. Hey! Brett Hull was a better player than Yzerman during his tenure with the Wings! Retire #17! Great plan. Someone mentioned Ted Lindsay leaving, which is true, his union activities got him a bus ticket to Siberia (Chicago). But he did later come back for a season and was also GM. And that all happened under Norris ownership anyway. Yzerman put up "Sick numbers" in the highest scoring era of all time and didn't play defense. You honestly believe Fedorov couldn't score 150 points in the 80s if he didn't have any commitment to defense? And what "cash grab"? Fedorov left for less money..and lets not act like Yzerman was somehow playing for crumbs at the time. Making $6.5 million as a third liner and not nearly as effective as before his knee injury. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nc19 0 Report post Posted October 11, 2009 That argument is only used AGAINST Fedorov. When discussing Yzerman people act as if he was a one man show that "Lead" the team to a cup. Yzerman was an offensive dynamo and nothing more. Fedorov came to town, played insane two way hockey and scored 140 points, THEN Yzerman changed his game. If anything it was Fedorov's game that made even the discussion of trading away Yzerman possible. No Fedorov, no cups. No yzerman, no cups either. Both amazing players, but Yzerman was a more crucial part of our team Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Richard88 0 Report post Posted October 11, 2009 No yzerman, no cups either. Both amazing players, but Yzerman was a more crucial part of our team Nothing more than opinion... nearly identical stats, nearly identical award shelf. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nc19 0 Report post Posted October 11, 2009 Nothing more than opinion... nearly identical stats, nearly identical award shelf. obviously its an opinion, both players were absolutely incredible and I agree the Federov was a huge part of our team and should have his number retired. But his stats dont come close to touching Yzermans 80s stats Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casey 145 Report post Posted October 11, 2009 Lock to retire: 5. Could happen, given more stats or time: 30, 91. Should be "honored" but not retired: 4 (Red Kelly), 6 (Larry Aurie- specifically un-retired by Ilitch) and 16 for Konstantinov. I could easily argue 4 and 6 should be in the rafters. 24, 26? No. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cusimano_brothers 1,655 Report post Posted October 11, 2009 In answer to the OP: no, no, no. They should make Hockey Hall of Fame induction levels so teams could tell what numbers to retire. Immediate induction (Yzerman/Lidstrom type players)= team should retire the number immediately. One year wait (Fedorov type players) - team should retire number most of the time. Standard waiting period (Shanahan type players) = team should retire number rarely. And what NHL team would retire Vladislav Tretiak's number twenty? Remember, it's the Hockey Hall of Fame, not just the NHL Hockey Hall of Fame. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akustyk 84 Report post Posted October 11, 2009 #5 belongs here. and that's it. and speaking of Chelli - Chicago deserves to have his number, hands down. we're not Avalanche to hang numbers of players whose careers blossomed in different cities. period Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
C-TownWing 0 Report post Posted October 11, 2009 Yzerman put up "Sick numbers" in the highest scoring era of all time and didn't play defense. You honestly believe Fedorov couldn't score 150 points in the 80s if he didn't have any commitment to defense? And what "cash grab"? Fedorov left for less money..and lets not act like Yzerman was somehow playing for crumbs at the time. Making $6.5 million as a third liner and not nearly as effective as before his knee injury. Oh ok, so now we deal with hypothetical stats, my bad. Didn't know that was part of the number retirement selection process. Can I give Yzerman robot knees? One more thing: arguing stats is pretty pointless with things like this. Norm Ullman had more points as a Wing than Ted Lindsay. Several people have more points as a Wing than Sid Abel and aren't retired. There's more to it than that. Yzerman and Lidstrom have a certain intangible quality to them that Feds doesn't, as great of a player as he was. I vote for #5, #16 and #30. I see a lot of people saying #30 if he wins another Cup...weren't we saying that before 2008? Also, I think it's dumb to differentiate between "retired" and "out of circulation." If you're not giving out the number, it's retired. Hang a banner. #91 will probably get there at some point too, but not because I have a say. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AtomicPunk 296 Report post Posted October 12, 2009 I would be all for #16 getting retired. But let's do it while people still remember how great he was, please. Not 25 years later like Sid Abel. #5, too, obviously. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SouthernWingsFan 854 Report post Posted October 12, 2009 None of the above. If Konstantinov's number was retired, it would've been done by now. Would love to see it happen, but I just think it's going to stay out of circulation. Chelios' number would get retired in Chicago long before getting retired here. Slim/none for Fedorov, due to the bad way him leaving Detroit went down, where he and other parts of the organization played a part in his departure. I'm not going to get in a debate about who was right/wrong, innocent/guilty because nobody will ever know and it'd be a pointless endless debate. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mitchmac33 103 Report post Posted October 12, 2009 I would love to see Ozzie's retired. However, i don't think it will happen, and i'm not sure that it deserves to be done either. Don't get me wrong he was a great goalie here, I just don't think he's one of the greats. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Theophany 110 Report post Posted October 12, 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'. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
egroen 384 Report post Posted October 12, 2009 I actually think it is a travesty Red Kelly's #4 is not already hanging in the rafters. Larry Aurie's #6 was officially retired in the 30s and needs to go back. I would love to see Ebbie Goodfellow's number retired - but that is #5. I am perfectly fine with Fedorov's number being retired, and Osgood most likely needs to earn the HoF if he is to go up -- which he is still on the edge. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
egroen 384 Report post Posted October 12, 2009 Eva Unit Zero Osgood with Detroit has more finals appearances, and was second in Conn Smythe voting in all three appearances. They do not publish the votes, so you can't know this. I would say he was in the running for all 3, and definitely would have won in '09 were the Wings victorious. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FinWing 26 Report post Posted October 12, 2009 If Fedorov comes back to the Wings and retires a Wing... maybe. I still think no one should wear that number because no one will be able to live up to it as a Wing. Chelios, No! Vladdy, since he doesn't have HOF numbers #16 will not hang from the rafters, even though it is sentimentally retired. Like #6. #5 will be retired. And if Ozzie wins another Cup so will #30. He already "retired" to play in Russia and I seriously doubt him coming back, he is getting up there in age. Fedorov's number will be retired, but not Chelios. In Columbus? Anaheim? Washington? Most certainly not in Detroit. 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'. This. #5 and maybe #13 and #40 depending on how the next 10 years or so play out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jake Ryan 1 Report post Posted October 12, 2009 What about Maltby and Draper? 33 and 18? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
egroen 384 Report post Posted October 12, 2009 What about Maltby and Draper? 33 and 18? Sure. They'll be right up there hanging next to your buddy Holmstrom's #96. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Uncle Danny 155 Report post Posted October 12, 2009 Random question... why is #19 the only number listed there with the C? The majority of the other players honored were captain at one point or another as well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FinWing 26 Report post Posted October 12, 2009 Random question... why is #19 the only number listed there with the C? The majority of the other players honored were captain at one point or another as well. Yzerman is THE Captain. The Wings won't be seeing another captain with such a tenure in a looooong time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
egroen 384 Report post Posted October 12, 2009 (edited) Random question... why is #19 the only number listed there with the C? The majority of the other players honored were captain at one point or another as well. Homage to "THE Captain". Yzerman was captain for 20 years -- the next closest was Delvecchio with 11 years. Abel - 6; G. Howe - 4; Lindsay - 4 Edited October 12, 2009 by egroen Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eva unit zero 271 Report post Posted October 12, 2009 Habs would never win 93 Cup without Roy. He won Conn Smythe in Colorado too. As for Brodeur, I do not consider him great playoff goalie, his playoff performance without Scott Stevens is nothing special. Roy is so much better than Osgood that it isn't even funny. You are trying to compare top3 goalie of all time and Osgood? Really? Osgood is solid goaltender, but he is not elite goalie, never was and never will be. It would be an insult to Howe, Lindsay, Yzerman, Sawchuk, Delvecchio, Abel and Lidstrom to see Osgood's number up there. He might have the most wins and whetver, but he never won Vezina or any other major individual award. Sawchuk is still MUCH better, no contest. 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eva unit zero 271 Report post Posted October 12, 2009 They do not publish the votes, so you can't know this. I would say he was in the running for all 3, and definitely would have won in '09 were the Wings victorious. It was mentioned in an article or two in all three years, so either it was fabricated journalism or a fact. Not saying it couldn't have been made up, but one would think an editor would catch that sort of thing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eva unit zero 271 Report post Posted October 12, 2009 Yzerman put up "Sick numbers" in the highest scoring era of all time and didn't play defense. You honestly believe Fedorov couldn't score 150 points in the 80s if he didn't have any commitment to defense? And what "cash grab"? Fedorov left for less money..and lets not act like Yzerman was somehow playing for crumbs at the time. Making $6.5 million as a third liner and not nearly as effective as before his knee injury. Players who don't play defense don't get first place votes for the Selke award. Yzerman, OTOH, is the only player in league history to receive first place votes AND score 150+ points in the same season. He played a very strong two-way game his entire career; Bryan Murray actually got in a heated discussion with Yzerman during the 93 playoffs because Yzerman was playing too defensively while shadowing Gilmour, and not attacking enough. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
egroen 384 Report post Posted October 12, 2009 It was mentioned in an article or two in all three years, so either it was fabricated journalism or a fact. Not saying it couldn't have been made up, but one would think an editor would catch that sort of thing. Conn Smythe and Pearson votes are never made public, much to my annoyance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Theophany 110 Report post Posted October 12, 2009 This. #5 and maybe #13 and #40 depending on how the next 10 years or so play out. I think barring career-ending injuries, you have to consider #13 and #40, but as you said, we need to see how the next 10 years go. If they keep going as they are, I don't see why they wouldn't be retired when the time comes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
