Next Number to be retired

[PavelValerievichDatsyuk 1,935]

If you put Fedorov up there, then you'll have people asking why Shanny isn't up there, or Ozzy...and on-and-on it will go.

btw...I have hopes that this organization will be around in 50-100 years from now, so is there a rush to start filling the rafters??

I've never bought the "you'll open the floodgates" argument.

Shanny would be the next to consider, but - to me - there's a huge difference between Shanny and Feds. Shanny was here 9 years. His legacy is split with his 8 years with the Blues and Devils. maybe NYR as well.

Feds was here 13 years. Started his career here. Had almost all of his prime years here. Is near the top of most all-time categories for the franchise.

As for Ozzy, I (and many others) don't think he was truly great. Don't want to start that debate too much, but i think the fact that it's still often a debate says a lot.

[Detroit # 1 Fan 2,204]

They seem to have a bias for retiring former captains. Literally all the numbers up there were captains at some point except Sawchuck.

Yupp, which is one of the big reasons I think he will eventually. Captaining a Cup before he retires probably makes it a certainty.

[kipwinger 8,524]

I've never bought the "you'll open the floodgates" argument.

Shanny would be the next to consider, but - to me - there's a huge difference between Shanny and Feds. Shanny was here 9 years. His legacy is split with his 8 years with the Blues and Devils. maybe NYR as well.

Feds was here 13 years. Started his career here. Had almost all of his prime years here. Is near the top of most all-time categories for the franchise.

As for Ozzy, I (and many others) don't think he was truly great. Don't want to start that debate too much, but i think the fact that it's still often a debate says a lot.

There really isn't a debate. What's the point of contention? He's got three Stanley Cups. He's got as good or better numbers (regular season and playoffs) than almost all of the top goalies in the league's history. Those are all facts. Every argument I've ever heard against him usually comes down to the ol' eyeball test, or some other such nonsense. "Osgood let in the occasional floater". So did everybody when they were a young goalie. "Osgood played for a good team". So did Roy, Fuhr, and Brodeur.

If Osgood had been some flashy headcase everybody would love him, but instead he just won games. Lots and lots of games.

What's the argument against Osgood?

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

There really isn't a debate. What's the point of contention? He's got three Stanley Cups. He's got as good or better numbers (regular season and playoffs) than almost all of the top goalies in the league's history. Those are all facts. Every argument I've ever heard against him usually comes down to the ol' eyeball test, or some other such nonsense. "Osgood let in the occasional floater". So did everybody when they were a young goalie. "Osgood played for a good team". So did Roy, Fuhr, and Brodeur.

If Osgood had been some flashy headcase everybody would love him, but instead he just won games. Lots and lots of games.

What's the argument against Osgood?

Argument is that hockey history will not rank him as high or as important to the Wings as the other players in the rafters.

Also, this team won Cups with three different goalies during a six year period. That makes it look like they could win regardless of who is playing in net.

The top 10 goalie of all time argument I won't even touch. I hope you were just basing it on total wins.

[kipwinger 8,524]

Argument is that hockey history will not rank him as high or as important to the Wings as the other players in the rafters.

Also, this team won Cups with three different goalies during a six year period. That makes it look like they could win regardless of who is playing in net.

The top 10 goalie of all time argument I won't even touch. I hope you were just basing it on total wins.

Soooo...the argument seems to be that you (and supposedly other people too) don't think he's that great, but not because of any of his accomplishments or stats. Got it.

[Mckinley25 678]

Argument is that hockey history will not rank him as high or as important to the Wings as the other players in the rafters.

Also, this team won Cups with three different goalies during a six year period. That makes it look like they could win regardless of who is playing in net.

The top 10 goalie of all time argument I won't even touch. I hope you were just basing it on total wins.

We couldn't have won regardless who was in net, we may have had 3 different goalies but the two who weren't Osgood were Vernon (already had won a cup) and mother ******* Dominic Hasek. We won with three damn good goalies.

[kipwinger 8,524]

Osgood won the Cup as a starter twice, ten years apart, under two different coaches, systems, and teams (with totally different core players). The "we could have won with anybody" argument doesn't hold water because it makes it seem like he just got that one right in the middle of a dynasty, and then never did s*** again. Fun fact, he outplayed Dominik Hasek to get his second Cup.

Osgood was a system goalie only if you mean that regardless of the system, time, players, and coach, he was perfect for the system he was in.

But I'm happy that GMRwings brought this up. Because it's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. The only arguments against Osgood are dumb ones.

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

Osgood won the Cup as a starter twice, ten years apart, under two different coaches, systems, and teams (with totally different core players). The "we could have won with anybody" argument doesn't hold water because it makes it seem like he just got that one right in the middle of a dynasty, and then never did s*** again. Fun fact, he outplayed Dominik Hasek to get his second Cup.

Osgood was a system goalie only if you mean that regardless of the system, time, players, and coach, he was perfect for the system he was in.

But I'm happy that GMRwings brought this up. Because it's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. The only arguments against Osgood are dumb ones.

Get off your pony. I didn't say he sucked. I just don't think his number belongs up there with the other players the Wings have in the rafters. Most posters here and most knowledgeable hockey people would agree with me that Osgood isn't a Sawchuk or a Lindsey or a Lidstrom.

I also don't seem him being in the HHOF. Osgood is a very good goalie that will never be considered an elite goalie. He was never one of the two or three best goalies in the league. He never won the Vezina. Hell, I think he was only top 3 in Vezina voting once in his career. He is above most of his peers, but below the top echelon of his peers like Hasek, Roy, Brodeur and Belfour. Some would rank him below Cujo as well, despite the latter's lack of team accomplishments.

His numbers are impressive and reflect a great career, but much in the same way that Dave Andreychuk's numbers or Dino Ciccarelli's numbers reflect a great career. Yet, those guys are unable to crack the HHOF or be considered among the greatest forwards in league history. It's not just about numbers.

But hey, those are all dumb arguments, because kipwinger doesn't like them. Let's retire Ozzie number and proclaim him a top 10 all time goalie.

Edited February 17, 2015 by GMRwings1983

[kickazz 5,459]

Most posters here and most knowledgeable hockey people would agree with me that Osgood isn't a Sawchuk or a Lindsey or a Lidstrom.

I also don't seem him being in the HHOF. Osgood is a very good goalie that will never be considered an elite goalie. He was never one of the two or three best goalies in the league. He never won the Vezina. Hell, I think he was only top 3 in Vezina voting once in his career. He is above most of his peers, but below the top echelon of his peers like Hasek, Roy, Brodeur and Belfour.

If the Red Wings retired a goalie's number who never won a Vezina we might as well call ourselves Arizona Coyotes. The franchise would officially be a joke. Sorry but ozzy wud never make the rafters. Unfortunately for him he played in an era of Roy, Hasek, and Brodeur. Hasek won a fricking Hart Trophy for crying out loud. Dude was a beast in his prime. Only reason Ozzy beat him out to win start in 08 was because Hasek was welll past his prime and into stoneage.

Edited February 17, 2015 by kickazz

[kliq 3,755]

If the Red Wings retired a goalie's number who never won a Vezina we might as well call ourselves Arizona Coyotes. The franchise would officially be a joke. Sorry but ozzy wud never make the rafters. Unfortunately for him he played in an era of Roy, Hasek, and Brodeur. Hasek won a fricking Hart Trophy for crying out loud. Dude was a beast in his prime. Only reason Ozzy beat him out to win start in 08 was because Hasek was welll past his prime and into stoneage.

I'm not saying we should or should not retire Osgood's number, but this is not the reason why not to. With this logic, one could say that Yzerman should not have had his jersey retired because he never won a hart.

[kliq 3,755]

Like I said both players (Z and Pasha) should be honored in some form but rafters alongside such alltime greats may be pushing it, which really isn't a knock against either one the bar is so incredible high - as it should be - I really believe it will be a long time till we see someone getting this honor again.

Datsyuk's accomplishments as a Wing: (to date)

- 13 Years as a Wing

- 4 All Star Games

- 2 Stanley Cups

- 4 Lady Byng's

- 3 Selke's

- 1 Plus/Minus award

- Highest Points total 97 (in 07/08 & 08/09) (Both years 4th in the league)

- 6th most points as a Wing all time with 846 Points

- The best forward on our team from 2004-Present (11 years!)

- Not to mention quite possibly the most gifted player of all time when it comes to the things he can do with the puck

Really?

Edited February 17, 2015 by kliq

[frankgrimes 1,836]

Datsyuk's accomplishments as a Wing: (to date)

- 13 Years as a Wing

- 4 All Star Games

- 2 Stanley Cups

- 4 Lady Byng's

- 3 Selke's

- 1 Plus/Minus award

- Highest Points total 97 (in 07/08 & 08/09) (Both years 4th in the league)

- 6th most points as a Wing all time with 846 Points

- The best forward on our team from 2004-Present (11 years!)

- Not to mention quite possibly the most gifted player of all time when it comes to the things he can do with the puck

Really?

Look again I'm not downplaying Z or Pasha - huge fan of both players - I'm just saying the bar is so incredible high that I don't think either will make it, wheter that's fair or unfair is whole other debate. Also it doesn't matter what we as fans think, if the best owner in all of sports believes 13 + 40 should go to the rafters they will simply as that.

[Buppy 1,720]

Get off your pony. I didn't say he sucked. I just don't think his number belongs up there with the other players the Wings have in the rafters. Most posters here and most knowledgeable hockey people would agree with me that Osgood isn't a Sawchuk or a Lindsey or a Lidstrom.

I also don't seem him being in the HHOF. Osgood is a very good goalie that will never be considered an elite goalie. He was never one of the two or three best goalies in the league. He never won the Vezina. Hell, I think he was only top 3 in Vezina voting once in his career. He is above most of his peers, but below the top echelon of his peers like Hasek, Roy, Brodeur and Belfour. Some would rank him below Cujo as well, despite the latter's lack of team accomplishments.

His numbers are impressive and reflect a great career, but much in the same way that Dave Andreychuk's numbers or Dino Ciccarelli's numbers reflect a great career. Yet, those guys are unable to crack the HHOF or be considered among the greatest forwards in league history. It's not just about numbers.

But hey, those are all dumb arguments, because kipwinger doesn't like them. Let's retire Ozzie number and proclaim him a top 10 all time goalie.

Not to say that Osgood belongs in the rafters, but the argument that he shouldn't be because he wasn't better than Hasek, Roy, or Brodeur is a dumb one. All three of those guys could make a strong case for being the best goalie in NHL history. It's like saying Yzerman shouldn't be there because he wasn't better than Gretzky, Lemieux, or Messier.

He shouldn't be up there, imo, not because he wasn't great but because greatness alone isn't enough. The standard should be extraordinary greatness or at least greatness plus extraordinary contribution/significance to a team, though some of the names up there now are debatable by that standard.

Dino is in the HHoF, btw.

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

Not to say that Osgood belongs in the rafters, but the argument that he shouldn't be because he wasn't better than Hasek, Roy, or Brodeur is a dumb one. All three of those guys could make a strong case for being the best goalie in NHL history. It's like saying Yzerman shouldn't be there because he wasn't better than Gretzky, Lemieux, or Messier.

He shouldn't be up there, imo, not because he wasn't great but because greatness alone isn't enough. The standard should be extraordinary greatness or at least greatness plus extraordinary contribution/significance to a team, though some of the names up there now are debatable by that standard.

Dino is in the HHoF, btw.

That's right, I almost forgot. It did take him forever to get in, though. Andreychuk should get in eventually as well.

But yes, the Wings have set an extremely high standard for who should be retired. Osgood is just not on the same level as the other names in the rafters. If you want him to be up there, then the team needs to change its standards. If they do that, they open a Pandora's box.

And I'm sorry to say, how good you were compared to your peers is something that's judged strongly by the HHOF. I think that will be one of the reasons Ozzie doesn't get in is because of Brodeur, Roy and Hasek. It may not be fair, but it will be looked at. Yzerman was also not on the same level as the best centers of his generation, but he was more of a superstar than Osgood and was an easy HHOF induction.

[kliq 3,755]

Look again I'm not downplaying Z or Pasha - huge fan of both players - I'm just saying the bar is so incredible high that I don't think either will make it, wheter that's fair or unfair is whole other debate. Also it doesn't matter what we as fans think, if the best owner in all of sports believes 13 + 40 should go to the rafters they will simply as that.

For the record, my point is only for Datsyuk, not Zetterberg.

I agree with pretty much everything you are saying, BUT I think Datsyuk IS at the same level of guys like Lindsey, Delvecchio, Abel. I dont believe putting #13 up there is lowering any bar.

[kickazz 5,459]

Look again I'm not downplaying Z or Pasha - huge fan of both players - I'm just saying the bar is so incredible high that I don't think either will make it, wheter that's fair or unfair is whole other debate. Also it doesn't matter what we as fans think, if the best owner in all of sports believes 13 + 40 should go to the rafters they will simply as that.

I dont see how the bar is set too high when both Pav and Z already surpassed Lindsays numbers and will most likely surpass Federovs numbers. They will probably end up behind Howie, Yzerman, Delveccio and Lidstrom. I mean if we are just talking about franchise numbers of course.

http://redwings.nhl.com/club/teamstatsleaders.htm?fetchKey=00003DETAAHAll&sort=goals&viewName=careerLeadersForFranchise

^ Z is on the verge of shattering the playoff goals record with much less games played than Stevie!

Edited February 18, 2015 by kickazz

[kickazz 5,459]

I'm not saying we should or should not retire Osgood's number, but this is not the reason why not to. With this logic, one could say that Yzerman should not have had his jersey retired because he never won a hart.

It's not the same comparison because goalies are a much smaller pool than forwards in the league. It's much easier for an elite goalie to win a Vezina MULTIPLE times (Hasek won it what? 6 times?) than it is for countless forwards to compete for the Hart.

[kipwinger 8,524]

It's not the same comparison because goalies are a much smaller pool than forwards in the league. It's much easier for an elite goalie to win a Vezina MULTIPLE times (Hasek won it what? 6 times?) than it is for countless forwards to compete for the Hart.

It's also much easier for one guy to be so good that otherwise amazing players can't win hardware. It's basically the same thing as how Lidstrom effectively blocked a bunch of other, really good defensemen, from winning the Norris. Doesn't mean they didn't deserve it though. There were a number of years when Sergei Zubov was the best defenseman in the world not named Lidstrom. Know how many Norris' he has? None. That's why you should always take those awards with a grain of salt. It's better to look at Cup wins, role on the team, and career stats IMO.

For instance, Pronger has one more Hart Trophy than Lidstrom, Eric Lindros has one more than Yzerman, Hasek has two more than Roy or Brodeur, and Thornton has one more than Datsyuk and Stamkos.

Trophies are misleading.

[kliq 3,755]

It's not the same comparison because goalies are a much smaller pool than forwards in the league. It's much easier for an elite goalie to win a Vezina MULTIPLE times (Hasek won it what? 6 times?) than it is for countless forwards to compete for the Hart.

I see your point, but I disagree. If you had 30 more teams in the NHL, its not as if the goalies for those teams would be better then the one's currently starting. The 30 goalies starting in the NHL for the most part (at least the upper tier) are the best 30 goalies in the world. The ones not starting may crack the top 30, but I doubt any current backups or AHL goalies are better then guys like Price, Rinne etc.

Both awards mean you need to be the best player in the league at your position (I guess the Hart is a tad harder because goalies can win, but it rarely happens).

If anything, it is harder for a goalie because with so few spots its easier to lose your spot. At least with players you can bounce around lines.

Its not easier to win multiple Vezina's then Harts, that's just wrong. Since 1980 21 times the Hart trophy has been won by a multi time winner, 17 times the vezina has been won by a multi time winner. See below.

Hart

Gretzky - 9

Lemieux - 3

Messier - 2

Hasek - 2

Ovie - 3

Crosby - 2

Vezina

Roy - 3

Hasek - 6

Brodeur - 4

Belfour - 2

Thomas - 2

It's also much easier for one guy to be so good that otherwise amazing players can't win hardware. It's basically the same thing as how Lidstrom effectively blocked a bunch of other, really good defensemen, from winning the Norris. Doesn't mean they didn't deserve it though. There were a number of years when Sergei Zubov was the best defenseman in the world not named Lidstrom. Know how many Norris' he has? None. That's why you should always take those awards with a grain of salt. It's better to look at Cup wins, role on the team, and career stats IMO.

For instance, Pronger has one more Hart Trophy than Lidstrom, Eric Lindros has one more than Yzerman, Hasek has two more than Roy or Brodeur, and Thornton has one more than Datsyuk and Stamkos.

Trophies are misleading.

Completely Agree! A trophy should NOT be the deciding factor to wheather or no someone should have their jersey retired.

Edited February 18, 2015 by kliq

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

I dont see how the bar is set too high when both Pav and Z already surpassed Lindsays numbers and will most likely surpass Federovs numbers. They will probably end up behind Howie, Yzerman, Delveccio and Lidstrom. I mean if we are just talking about franchise numbers of course.

http://redwings.nhl.com/club/teamstatsleaders.htm?fetchKey=00003DETAAHAll&sort=goals&viewName=careerLeadersForFranchise

^ Z is on the verge of shattering the playoff goals record with much less games played than Stevie!

Lindsay played in a different era. I talked about this earlier when comparing Reed Larsson's numbers with Pronovost's.

Neither Datsyuk nor Zetterberg are as highly regarded by hockey experts in all time ranking as Ted Lindsay. They're not even close. Lindsay is one of the greatest left wingers of all time. They recently renamed the Pearson award to the Lindsay award.

It's also much easier for one guy to be so good that otherwise amazing players can't win hardware. It's basically the same thing as how Lidstrom effectively blocked a bunch of other, really good defensemen, from winning the Norris. Doesn't mean they didn't deserve it though. There were a number of years when Sergei Zubov was the best defenseman in the world not named Lidstrom. Know how many Norris' he has? None. That's why you should always take those awards with a grain of salt. It's better to look at Cup wins, role on the team, and career stats IMO.

For instance, Pronger has one more Hart Trophy than Lidstrom, Eric Lindros has one more than Yzerman, Hasek has two more than Roy or Brodeur, and Thornton has one more than Datsyuk and Stamkos.

Trophies are misleading.

I see your point, but Hasek is a better goalie than Roy or Brodeur. At his peak, he reached a level those two never did.

Osgood not only never won the Vezina, he was only top 5 in voting once in his career from what I remember. It wasn't just the Hasek's and Roy's holding him back.

Edited February 18, 2015 by GMRwings1983

[kliq 3,755]

Lindsay played in a different era. I talked about this earlier when comparing Reed Larsson's numbers with Pronovost's.

Neither Datsyuk nor Zetterberg are as highly regarded by hockey experts in all time ranking as Ted Lindsay. They're not even close. Lindsay is one of the greatest left wingers of all time. They recently renamed the Pearson award to the Lindsay award.

I also talked about this earlier in this thread, its hard to compare era's. Lindsay played in a much easier era to dominate considering it was pretty much a North American league. Datsyuk is playing against the best of the best. To put this in perspective, imagine how good a guy like Ryan Getzlaf would appear today if guys like Ovie, Malkin, Datsyuk etc. were not even in the league.

[number9 3,297]

Lindsay played in a different era. I talked about this earlier when comparing Reed Larsson's numbers with Pronovost's.

Neither Datsyuk nor Zetterberg are as highly regarded by hockey experts in all time ranking as Ted Lindsay. They're not even close. Lindsay is one of the greatest left wingers of all time. They recently renamed the Pearson award to the Lindsay award.

I see your point, but Hasek is a better goalie than Roy or Brodeur. At his peak, he reached a level those two never did.

Osgood not only never won the Vezina, he was only top 5 in voting once in his career from what I remember. It wasn't just the Hasek's and Roy's holding him back.

Maybe at his peak. That's the thing about Hasek. He got beat out by Osgood at one point. I'd say he's right on par with Roy and Broduer. As much as I loath Patrick Waaaaaaaaa the guy was unreal between the pipes most of his career. And Broduer done changed the game with his style of play.

I also talked about this earlier in this thread, its hard to compare era's. Lindsay played in a much easier era to dominate considering it was pretty much a North American league. Datsyuk is playing against the best of the best. To put this in perspective, imagine how good a guy like Ryan Getzlaf would appear today if guys like Ovie, Malkin, Datsyuk etc. were not even in the league.

It's like people who still think Babe Ruth is the best of all time. Like his fat white *language* wouldn't get handed to him in today's MLB.

That being said. You gotta respect the guy for what he did in HIS era. Was Osgood one of the best of the waning cap period? That can be argued.

[kipwinger 8,524]

Lindsay played in a different era. I talked about this earlier when comparing Reed Larsson's numbers with Pronovost's.

Neither Datsyuk nor Zetterberg are as highly regarded by hockey experts in all time ranking as Ted Lindsay. They're not even close. Lindsay is one of the greatest left wingers of all time. They recently renamed the Pearson award to the Lindsay award.

I see your point, but Hasek is a better goalie than Roy or Brodeur. At his peak, he reached a level those two never did.

Osgood not only never won the Vezina, he was only top 5 in voting once in his career from what I remember. It wasn't just the Hasek's and Roy's holding him back.

Again, I don't really care about those trophies. I wasn't bringing it up to validate Osgood, as much as caution people against putting too much stock in it. Jim Carey, Jose Theodore, and Olaf Kolzig have won Vezinas. Osgood didn't. I'm not sure it means as much as people think it does.

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

Maybe at his peak. That's the thing about Hasek. He got beat out by Osgood at one point. I'd say he's right on par with Roy and Broduer. As much as I loath Patrick Waaaaaaaaa the guy was unreal between the pipes most of his career. And Broduer done changed the game with his style of play.

It's like people who still think Babe Ruth is the best of all time. Like his fat white *language* wouldn't get handed to him in today's MLB.

That being said. You gotta respect the guy for what he did in HIS era. Was Osgood one of the best of the waning cap period? That can be argued.

Dude, Mathie Dandenault transported back to the 1950's would be the best player in the NHL. Doesn't mean he's better all time than Richard or Howe. Babe Ruth is the best baseball player of all time, precisely because he was ahead of his era and better at his era than anyone else at theirs.

[number9 3,297]

Dude, Mathie Dandenault transported back to the 1950's would be the best player in the NHL. Doesn't mean he's better all time than Richard or Howe. Babe Ruth is the best baseball player of all time, precisely because he was ahead of his era and better at his era than anyone else at theirs.

He was ahead of his era probably because African-American players were barred from playing in the same league as him.