How long until Kiprusoff's jersey is retired?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by pepsishark

Yes, Vancouver. https://postmediacanadadotcom.files....2_29011061.jpg

Try and keep up, I'm not saying they've accomplished more, I'm saying they honour it better. Flames could have more jerseys retired, and more 'Forever A Flame' banners on the ceiling. I remember going to the Dome as a little kid during the 'Young Guns' era and thinking Lanny was literally the only decent player we ever had.

Obviously I'm not talking about the Jets or Sens.
LOL + ? isn't a thing. It has no meaning.

The Canucks have honoured four players in 43 years, and the Flames have honoured four players in 35 years and somehow that means Vancouver "honour(s) [their history] better"?

[TX_Flame]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You missed the point.

25 was never out of circulation. Ever. Bollig was the ninth player to wear it after Nieuwendyk. Nobody has worn 14 after Fleury, and nobody will wear 12 after Iginla. Those numbers are gone and retired.

The tiers are there - retirement and honouring - only hidden. FAF is just what they call the ceremony. Though I expect Iginla is going to force the team into making those tiers explicit when his time comes.

To answer your earlier question, the way Nieuwendyk left was, by itself, why the Flames shouldn't retire 25, and Vernon belongs in the HHOF.

No missed point at all. I am completely aware that 25 was never out of circulation. My point is that there is nothing that says 12, 14 etc. are. Just the fact that nobody has worn those numbers does not guarantee that nobody will. In fact, the FAF program specifically mentions that honoured numbers remain available for use. There are not 2 tiers of honour. Retirement has simply been replaced by FAF which guarantees NOTHING. As to Nieuwendyk's departure, he was traded. Big whoop. It was no more acrimonious than Fleury's departure, who you seem to think has been unofficially "retired". And if a trade away from the franchise, one which worked out very well for us (Iggy) disqualifies Nieuwendyk from getting his # retired for his HOF career, how is it that the Habs were able to put 33 in the rafters?

[habernac]

31?

[CroFlames]

See I was under the impression there were two methods of honoring past players: retire number and FAF. And I thought that was excellent.

It's come to my attention in this thread that FAF was meant to replace number retiring altogether and that is simply wrong. If Iggy, a modern legend of the game, doesn't have his number retired, that would be a travesty akin to changing the Flames name to Heat or Blaze, and an embarrassment to the Flames, and probably to an extent hockey's overall image. I do recall KK explicitly saying that FAF is meant to keep the number in circulation so that a future player can 'honor' the past player. Phooey.

I would be totally fine with two methods. But if FAF is replacing retiring a #, that would one of KK's biggest gaffs.

[Clever_Iggy]

My personal suspicion/belief: FAF has replaced number retirement going forward; ownership is fully supportive of the program and it was be changed again once King is gone; players like Fleury and Iginla (Kipper too?) won't have their numbers worn again until after their respective FAF ceremony. After the ceremony, the number will be back in the rotation.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

My personal suspicion/belief: FAF has replaced number retirement going forward; ownership is fully supportive of the program and it was be changed again once King is gone; players like Fleury and Iginla (Kipper too?) won't have their numbers worn again until after their respective FAF ceremony. After the ceremony, the number will be back in the rotation.

No player in his right mind would ever wear #12 no matter what the Flames do with the number.

Said player would be smart enough to know that fans wouldn't like it. Odd how KK isn't smart enough though.

[bax]

Has there been any proof that FAF is a replacement for number retiring and not just a supplement program? I have an extremely hard time imagining the Flames not retiring # 12. No player will ever wear that number again in Calgary

[getbak]

Originally Posted by bax

Has there been any proof that FAF is a replacement for number retiring and not just a supplement program? I have an extremely hard time imagining the Flames not retiring # 12. No player will ever wear that number again in Calgary

I can't find you some printed evidence (although, it may exist), but I've personally heard Ken King say it at a STH Q&A session.

He also said that in his opinion, there is no distinction between the FAF numbers and the previously retired numbers. In his mind, they're all on the same level and he could foresee a day where someone might wear #9 or #30 for the Flames.

[polak]

Originally Posted by getbak

I can't find you some printed evidence (although, it may exist), but I've personally heard Ken King say it at a STH Q&A session.

He also said that in his opinion, there is no distinction between the FAF numbers and the previously retired numbers. In his mind, they're all on the same level and he could foresee a day where someone might wear #9 or #30 for the Flames.

Stupid as all hell.

[TX_Flame]

Originally Posted by habernac

31?

Sorry, 33. I corrected that now. Phone keyboards. UGH!

[squiggs96]

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.

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.

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.

[TX_Flame]

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.

[Hanna Sniper]

would love to buy one of these crystal balls some members have that gives them the confidence to speak in absolute certainly in how the future will hold in regards to retiring 34/12 or FaF them...

What they say now and what they do when the time comes can be two different things and maybe you're just be conned into not questioning why 2 was not retired.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by TX_Flame

Who is 10? Clement?

or Gary Roberts

[doctajones428]

I would like:

Retired:
2 - MacInnis
9 - McDonald
12 - Iginla
14 - Fleury
30 - Vernon
34 - Kiprusoff

Forever a Flame:
10 - Roberts
12 - Loob
20 - Suter
25 - Nieuwendyk
28 - Regehr

[Sainters7]

I only read the first page so this may have already been said, but if they retired Vernon's, they should retire Kipper's.

I always loved Vernon (especially as a former goalie - and vertically challenged one like him), and he won our lone Cup and is a born & raised Calgarian. I get it. But hands down, Kipper's the best goalie in franchise history. In '04 no way do we get past Detroit without him.

In general I may have been on the fence with Kipper and a full blown jersey retire. But they already set the precedent with Vernon.


Posted from Calgarypuck.com App for Android

[H2SO4(aq)]

Originally Posted by doctajones428

I would like:

Retired:
2 - MacInnis
9 - McDonald
12 - Iginla
14 - Fleury
30 - Vernon
34 - Kiprusoff

Forever a Flame:
10 - Roberts
12 - Loob
20 - Suter
25 - Nieuwendyk
28 - Regehr

I think its goofy when teams have too many player retired. Im not trying to say those players you listed didn't earn the recognition or aren't deserving of being honoured. I just think any franchise should have at MOST 5 jerseys retired /50 years. IMO Lanny, Iginla and MacInnis are the only 3 that should be in our rafters. The fewer jerseys you hoist up top, the more it means. Lets not saturate our ceiling.

[TX_Flame]

Originally Posted by redforever

or Gary Roberts

Of course! :brain fart:

[TX_Flame]

Originally Posted by doctajones428

I would like:

Retired:
2 - MacInnis
9 - McDonald
12 - Iginla
14 - Fleury
30 - Vernon
34 - Kiprusoff

Forever a Flame:
10 - Roberts
12 - Loob
20 - Suter
25 - Nieuwendyk
28 - Regehr

Sounds about right to me. I would have 25 on my retired list, though. I think this would make a good poll question.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by doctajones428

I would like:

Retired:
2 - MacInnis
9 - McDonald
12 - Iginla
14 - Fleury
30 - Vernon
34 - Kiprusoff

Forever a Flame:
10 - Roberts
12 - Loob
20 - Suter
25 - Nieuwendyk
28 - Regehr

I can see why the Flames don't want two separate categories and just stick with only Forever a Flame. Hey we like you Loob, but not that much, so here is your secondary honor. I don't mind staying with only one category, but I wished it was the "Retired Number" category.