Quote:
Originally Posted by squiggs96
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.
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.
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.
|
My point is there is more to it than winning a Cup. If Fleury had made the show 1 yr later he wouldn't have won a Cup. To me that would not have diminished anything he did since then.
He used Beliveau's #4 on the ice to defend FAF. My point there is it's not the same. FAF is cheesy by comparison.
Finally, I wouldn't have a problem with a 2 tier system, retire the legend's numbers, honour the next tier of guys. The problem is that's NOT what KK is doing here. FAF is seen by KK as being at the same level as number retirement. He has even brought up the possibility of unretiring 9 and 30. If things stay as they are, Iggy will get a FAF ceremony but #12 won't be retired.