Should any of #91, #13, #40, #30 be retired? Poll/Discussion

[kickazz 5,459]

In his defence, he was great the first year after in Anaheim. His dropoff was when he was traded to Columbus post-lockout. That team was pretty horrible (except Nash's line, which I don't think Feds was ever on) and finished bottom 6-7 each year he was there. I think his pts. in the years:

05-06: 44

06-07: 42

07-08: 41

Would have been higher in a better situation (I'd add 10 with a playoff team). I think he could have had impact in 07 - not a driving force, but a support. I think he would have been 38 at that point. By the time he was in Washington he was definitely not the same player.

Edit: Then Again 38 is pretty old. I remember watching him in Washington and it was kind of sad to see his magic gone (totally understandably due to age). I didn't watch him much in Columbus - maybe that the way he was there too.

I agree with everything you said. But Lefty presented it as though Feds could have changed the outcome of 07/09. We lost those two years for specific reasons and putting Feds in the equation wouldn't have changed much. Maybe the 90s Feds could have changed the outcomes though, that guy ran circles around players on ice. Edited July 19, 2016 by kickazz

[LeftWinger 4,949]

We lost in 07 because we couldn't score on the pp. We lost game 5 due to not scoring on a couple of 5 ok not 3's. We lost 09 by one goal in game 7. Feds could've made a difference in both playoff years. Especially on the pp.

[MabusIncarnate 5,344]

I'd give my opinion on Hasek vs Roy vs Brodeur but Puckloo might call to have me lynched.

I couldn't vote because solely Osgood wasn't an option. I wasn't even a big fan of the guy, but it's very hard to deny the numbers he put up for the team as a whole, and it's about individual team effort, heart, and contribution that puts you among the legends in the rafters.

[kickazz 5,459]

We lost in 07 because we couldn't score on the pp. We lost game 5 due to not scoring on a couple of 5 ok not 3's. We lost 09 by one goal in game 7. Feds could've made a difference in both playoff years. Especially on the pp.

Not really because on the PP we had Lidstrom/Schneider and (Rafalski in 09) who were all better at quarterbacking the PP than 38 or 40 year old Fedorov was. I'm starting to wonder how much of him you actually watched after his stint with Anaheim. Stop living in the past with the guy. Our team and primary players were better than him in 2007 and especially in 2009. He would not have won us the cup, he would have simply been a support piece to a team that got outplayed by Anaheim and a team that lost to a hot goalie named Fleury. If Lidstrom isn't making that point blank shot with 10 seconds left, nobody is.

Edited July 19, 2016 by kickazz

[kickazz 5,459]

I'd give my opinion on Hasek vs Roy vs Brodeur but Puckloo might call to have me lynched.

I couldn't vote because solely Osgood wasn't an option. I wasn't even a big fan of the guy, but it's very hard to deny the numbers he put up for the team as a whole, and it's about individual team effort, heart, and contribution that puts you among the legends in the rafters.

He's an option under "all of them". Unless you think D and Z shouldn't be up like some of the others here.

I guess I made the options that way because of the lack of HOF for Osgood. Maybe if he was in or guaranteed to be in (like Datsyuk is guaranteed with the way NHL talks about him), I would have made Ozzy an individual option.

Edited July 19, 2016 by kickazz

[MabusIncarnate 5,344]

It's always really tough for me in debates like this because we haven't seen a lot of the guys who have received the honors. I surely didn't watch Gordie play 20+ full seasons, Or a full season for half of the other names hanging in the rafters. What truly makes a legend worthy of being permanently enshrined in team history that no other player can wear their number again?

I've been watching since about 1989-1990 when I was old enough to really follow and enjoy the sport. There are two absolutely firm, undeniable champions of this team, and they were Yzerman and Lidstrom. If I am going to war, I want Yzerman as my General. If we are being invaded, I want Lidstrom on the front lines of defense. Both guys, for me, were slam dunks and unquestionable.

I'm not sure I feel that way about any of the 4 in debate in this thread, but if there were one, the most impactful, the most statistically superior and significant, it would be Osgood. You also need to consider that you are stacking one goalie against 18 skaters on each team, and the rarity of having a goaltender outshine the other 18 players on the ice is uncommon. 30 starting goalies compared to 540 skaters each season (obviously not considering call-ups, injuries, changes in starting roles, etc.)

My point being, it's a bigger feat to be a difference maker in net compared to being a difference maker as a skater. In the record books, for wins, playoff wins, if there is a true Red Wing goaltender in the entire history of the team, as both an onlooker looking at the statistics, and a fan of the team that witnessed the accomplishments, he is the 2nd greatest Red Wings goaltender in the history of this team. He wasn't flashy, he had his bad moments (and awful ones) but who hasn't?

Do I personally think he deserves it? Yes. Will he receive the honor? I truly don't know. A case can be made for all 4 of these players.

[Number19 159]

None are generational players IMO. NoNE of the above.

Sergei had the talent to be one. Maybe not the mental. It is kind of a mystery as to why his super elite dominance fell off mid 20s. Lack of focus in the regular season I guess. It always came back for the playoffs though.

[Hockeymom1960 5,107]

Sorry but hell no to Ozzy.

[GMRwings1983 8,793]

What about the old argument that if you have to debate it, that means that person shouldn't be in the rafters?

[Echolalia 2,961]

What about the old argument that if you have to debate it, that means that person shouldn't be in the rafters?

thats typically been my philosophy.

[kickazz 5,459]

What about the old argument that if you have to debate it, that means that person shouldn't be in the rafters?

Well if that's the argument then neither Sawchuck, Lindsay, Delvecchio nor Abel would be on the rafters since neither of their numbers were retired till about 30-40 years after they stopped playing and until the organization discussed the matter. Only Gordie Howe, Steve Yzerman, and Niklas Lidstrom were immediately retired after their retirement no questions asked.

If there's anyone that set the precedent on the rafters it's Howe, Lidstrom and Yzerman.

Edited July 19, 2016 by kickazz

[Hockeymom1960 5,107]

So when did Sawchuck, Lindsey and Howes retired?

[kickazz 5,459]

So when did Sawchuck, Lindsey and Howes retired?

Gordie Howe left the Wings in 1971 and his number was immediately retired in 1972.

Ted Lindsay's number was retired at the Joe in 1991 almost 26 years after he retired from the game.

Sawchuck's number was retired 1994 at the Joe. 24 years after his final season with the Rangers.

Here's the best one. Sid Abel retired from the game in 1953 and his number wasn't retired at the Joe until 1995.

Edited July 19, 2016 by kickazz

[krsmith17 7,191]

I say we retire Fedorov's number in 2032, Osgood's in 2034, and Zetterberg's and Datsyuk's 2070...

[kickazz 5,459]

Lmao I know your joking, but it might actually happen that way. (although not so extreme)

All depends on the owner and the owner alone and what he feels like doing.

Illitch could wake up tomorrow or in 10 years and say "maybe we should retire Fedorovs number" and we would all accept it. And then 30 years from now when asking if some future player should be retired, people will refer to Fedorov, Yzerman and Lidstrom as the "precedent that's been set"

My point is, tying in Lindsay or Delveccio or Abel with Howe, Yzerman or Lidstrom is not the same at all. Some of these guys were retired much much later after the fact and in hindsight of their careers. Only 3 people were retired immediately.

Edited July 19, 2016 by kickazz

[Hockeymom1960 5,107]

Gordie Howe left the Wings in 1971 and his number was immediately retired in 1972.

Ted Lindsay's number was retired at the Joe in 1991 almost 26 years after he retired from the game.

Sawchuck's number was retired 1994 at the Joe. 24 years after his final season with the Rangers.

Here's the best one. Sid Abel retired from the game in 1953 and his number wasn't retired at the Joe until 1995.

Thanks! I still say no way to Ozzy.

[lwing 68]

My two cents (though forum opinions are worth much less). Had Federov stayed, I think this would be simpler question and his stats and contributions warrant serious consideration of a number retirement, but not a lock.

As much as I love Datsyuk and Zetterberg, I'm not sure their stats alone qualify them, but they certainly were a force for the team for many years. However, not equal in impact to Yzerman or Lidstrom. As with Federov, had Datsyuk stayed, I could have seen a future dual hoisting of the Eurotwins numbers to the rafters, but even together I'm not sure they meet the standards set by Yzerman and Lidstrom. Howe is out of the equation in comparisons as there simply are none.

[Ram 240]

30 + 91

[GMRwings1983 8,793]

Well if that's the argument then neither Sawchuck, Lindsay, Delvecchio nor Abel would be on the rafters since neither of their numbers were retired till about 30-40 years after they stopped playing and until the organization discussed the matter. Only Gordie Howe, Steve Yzerman, and Niklas Lidstrom were immediately retired after their retirement no questions asked.

If there's anyone that set the precedent on the rafters it's Howe, Lidstrom and Yzerman.

Not sure why that was the organization's philosophy (maybe they thought retiring numbers was stupid, period), but none of those names are debatable. Osgood, Fedorov, Datsyuk and Zetterberg are debatable.

[kickazz 5,459]

Not sure why that was the organization's philosophy (maybe they thought retiring numbers was stupid, period), but none of those names are debatable. Osgood, Fedorov, Datsyuk and Zetterberg are debatable.

It depends. A lot of people initially thought Lindsay and Abel weren' at the same level as Howe. When they were retiring Abel's number my father wasn't too receptive of it (he was a huge Production line fan as a little kid). Even now he thinks Howe should be the only one retired and everyone else should have another lesser honor.

Depending on the generation, people's perception of "legends" are quite different.

Edited July 20, 2016 by kickazz

[LeftWinger 4,949]

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/DET/leaders_career.html

When you're top 5 in nearly ALL offensive catagories on the team, and the few you arent, you're #6, your numbers has to be retired. #91 must be raised, if not, then ilitch is 100000x more of a stubborn Greek than I thought! Shame on him for keeping this from the fans even this long!

[GMRwings1983 8,793]

It depends. A lot of people initially thought Lindsay and Abel weren' at the same level as Howe. When they were retiring Abel's number my father wasn't too receptive of it (he was a huge Production line fan as a little kid). Even now he thinks Howe should be the only one retired and everyone else should have another lesser honor.

Depending on the generation, people's perception of "legends" are quite different.

They're not. It depends then on how many players the team wants to retire. Yzerman and Lidstrom are also not on the level of Howe. Likewise, Datsyuk and Osgood aren't on the level of Lidstrom and Yzerman. If we retire Datsyuk and Osgood, 30 years from now we'll be retiring mediocre players who played a long time with the franchise and so on.

Howe alone is too narrow a list and too strict a standard. However, we don't need to broaden the list too much. The line has to be drawn somewhere. I don't think there's anything wrong with the line the organization has currently drawn up.

My only beef with the Ilitches is the way they treated Aurie's family. Although he wasn't an elite player, taking someone's number down after it was put up is just wrong.

[kickazz 5,459]

What should the standard be then? As Lefty pointed out in the post above yours, Fedorov is top 5 in almost every category. And no doubt he was also a generational player and a first ballot HOF last year. Is that not enough?

I think #13, #40, #30 are debatable but #91 is above those three in my opinion.

[GMRwings1983 8,793]

What should the standard be then? As Lefty pointed out in the post above yours, Fedorov is top 5 in almost every category. And no doubt he was also a generational player and a first ballot HOF last year. Is that not enough?

From looking at the other names in the rafters, outside of Sawchuk, all the other players played either all or almost all of their NHL careers in Detroit. Red Kelly's number isn't retired for the same reason, and he's better than Fedorov was. If Fedorov stayed in Detroit, of course he'd be up there. Everyone knows that. And before we get to Sawchuk, he's a top 5 all-time goalie and the best goalie in Wings history. That's why he gets a pass despite playing for other original 6 teams.

So the standard seems to be that you have to be a HOF player and have to play pretty much your entire career in Detroit.

[PavelValerievichDatsyuk 1,935]

From looking at the other names in the rafters, outside of Sawchuk, all the other players played either all or almost all of their NHL careers in Detroit. Red Kelly's number isn't retired for the same reason, and he's better than Fedorov was. If Fedorov stayed in Detroit, of course he'd be up there. Everyone knows that. And before we get to Sawchuk, he's a top 5 all-time goalie and the best goalie in Wings history. That's why he gets a pass despite playing for other original 6 teams.

So the standard seems to be that you have to be a HOF player and have to play pretty much your entire career in Detroit.

As you say, Sawchuck played 7 seasons elsewhere, but it is different for goalies and few stay with one team so you're correct in not considering him.

But also, Lindsay played 3 years in Chicago.

Fedorov played 5 years for other teams

Red Kelly played 8 years for the leafs so that's a bit different to me

But also in comparing to other retired numbers, just amount of time in Detroit should matter as much as the percent of their career:

Fedorov played 13 years in the D

Abel only really played 9 full years with the Wings (+ 3 partial years:15gp, 24gp [Overipe policy?], 2gp). 12 if you count those

Lindsay played 14 years here

Sawchuck played 13 years here (+1 year with 7 gp as a prospect)

That would make a case for Red Kelly, though since he played 13 years in Detroit.

Anyway, I think 91 should be retired.

I also think we'll get more numbers retired in the modern era than the past, because it is partially a way for the Ilitches to honor their own legacy as owners and the a golden age they helped create.

Edited July 20, 2016 by PavelValerievichDatsyuk