Quote:
Originally Posted by TX_Flame
Great! Let's ahead and retire Murzyn's #5, then!
Really, in today's NHL there are plenty of amazing players who will never win a Cup (Iggy?) and other not so amazing ones who do.
|
He didn't say anyone who won a Cup gets his number retired. He said it was a prerequisite. I think that's a fair point to make, and has some merit. I think you can make special exceptions for guys like Iggy and Kipper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TX_Flame
Not a great comparison. Number 4 is retired in Montreal. They didn't hit "le gros Bill" with a cheesy "Forever a Hab" non-retirement.
|
Maybe because Beliveau is considered one of the 10 best NHLers ever, won 10 Cups as a player, and played every NHL game for the Habs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TX_Flame
My point exactly. FAF is a lesser honour than retirement. It's not the same.
|
I think it should be. I don't see what's wrong with having both retired numbers, and FAF. Many other teams, and in other sports, do the same thing. The San Francisco Giants have a prerequisite that you need to be in the HoF before your number will be retired. They have 9 retired numbers (plus Jackie Robinson's), and 2 players are honoured (played before numbers). It's why Bonds' number hasn't been retired, but still hasn't been reissued. They also have the Wall of Fame, where guys like Jeff Kent, JT Snow, etc. go. Their numbers are still being used, but the team still has a spot for guys who were great contributors to the history of the team. The Patriots have the same where guys like Ty Law, Drew Bledsoe and Tedy Bruschi get honoured, but don't get the number retired. That's reserved for Brady and Vinatieri. These guys don't treat it as being slighted.