|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 28, 2006 14:32:31 GMT -5
Just came accross some surprising statistics, even for the Leafs.
Most Recent players to have Leafs retired jersey numbers:
Bill Barilko 1946 - 1951
Ace Bailey 1927 - 1934
Most recent players to have Leafs jersey numbers honored:
Darryl Sittler 1971 - 1982
George Armstrong 1950 - 1971
Lots of dust gathering in the Garden.
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jul 28, 2006 19:48:26 GMT -5
I expect to see #28 hanging from the rafters soon. Perhaps the sweater, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 28, 2006 22:28:13 GMT -5
Just came accross some surprising statistics, even for the Leafs. Most Recent players to have Leafs retired jersey numbers: Bill Barilko 1946 - 1951 Ace Bailey 1927 - 1934 Most recent players to have Leafs jersey numbers honored: Darryl Sittler 1971 - 1982 George Armstrong 1950 - 1971 Lots of dust gathering in the Garden. ;D The retired players is not quite fair. The Toronto Maple Leafs only retire numbers if a special player's career is cut short by death or injury. Ace Bailey's career ended after a check in 1933 when he landed head first in the ice that required 16 stitched to close. Bailey was in the hospital for 5 weeks but his career was over .... the birth of the all-star game was for Bailey when his life hung in the balance. Barilko died in a plane crash just months after scoring the Stanley Cup winning goal. There will be alot of honoured numbers for the Leafs in the next 10 years or so .... but the Leafs have currently 10 players honoured and 2 retired. The Habs have 10 retired player jerseys (11 if you count Joilat wearing #4 also). And the Habs last retired jersey came from Moore (1951-63) and Cournoyer (1963-79) ....same time as Sittler. So what are you saying?? |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jul 29, 2006 8:13:41 GMT -5
Just came accross some surprising statistics, even for the Leafs. Most Recent players to have Leafs retired jersey numbers: Bill Barilko 1946 - 1951 Ace Bailey 1927 - 1934 Most recent players to have Leafs jersey numbers honored: Darryl Sittler 1971 - 1982 George Armstrong 1950 - 1971 Lots of dust gathering in the Garden. ;D The retired players is not quite fair. The Toronto Maple Leafs only retire numbers if a special player's career is cut short by death or injury. Ace Bailey's career ended after a check in 1933 when he landed head first in the ice that required 16 stitched to close. Bailey was in the hospital for 5 weeks but his career was over .... the birth of the all-star game was for Bailey when his life hung in the balance. Barilko died in a plane crash just months after scoring the Stanley Cup winning goal. There will be alot of honoured numbers for the Leafs in the next 10 years or so .... but the Leafs have currently 10 players honoured and 2 retired. The Habs have 10 retired player jerseys (11 if you count Joilat wearing #4 also). And the Habs last retired jersey came from Moore (1951-63) and Cournoyer (1963-79) ....same time as Sittler. Actually it was the Boomer's #5. I think this comes down to team philosophies. Montreal believes to truly honor a player the jersey should be retired & I agree. To me, hanging a banner in the rafters but continuing to use the numbers isn't truly recognizing the player's contribution. Toronto has had a number of players worthy of that honor but it's just something they don't do. If they use the criteria you described it is posssible to never retire a number. Jeez, Raycroft gets Bower's #1. Now that's wrong but hey, that's just me. If they want to continue to use those numbers I think they should put a special crest on those jerseys - something like this: 1 - Bower/Broda 7 - Clancy/Horton 10 - Apps/Armstrong 27 - Mahovlich/Sittler 14 - Keon 17- Clark I include Clark because similar to Robinson in Montreal, no one has worn his number since his retirement. Any Toronto fans out there? What do you think? |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 30, 2006 14:49:36 GMT -5
Actually it was the Boomer's #5. You misunderstood. HFinLA stated that the last Leafs jersey honoured was for Sittler and gave Sittler's playing years. The latest Hab (in terms of his playing years) to have his jersey retired was Cournyoner who played the same time as Sittler. Boomer played from 1951-68. I think this comes down to team philosophies. Montreal believes to truly honor a player the jersey should be retired & I agree. To me, hanging a banner in the rafters but continuing to use the numbers isn't truly recognizing the player's contribution. I am a fan of honouring the jersey. It is still up to management if they wish to give a player a jersey. I know Montrealer's arguement that there will always be enough numbers (I believe he says it will take 600 years to retire them all), but I am a guy who prepares for the future. I don't build my deck out of spruce and say I'll get 10 years out of it, when I know I can get a lifetime out of composite beams or 30 years out of pressure treated. I am not a fan of leaving problems for future generations to solve. If the problem can be solved now ...then why not solve it. So what does happen when Montreal has 75 retired numbers? Geoffrion had 769 points as a Hab. (I know alot of people are going to say he won Cups, that is more of a team accomplishment, than a personal reason for retiring a number in my opinion). Koivu has 460 at the moment. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that Koivu will match Geoffrion's stats. Honouring the number would mean more players would have the "honour" bestowed upon them and not have to wait until it is too late to enjoy .... Boomer, Robinson, just to name a few. Toronto has had a number of players worthy of that honor but it's just something they don't do. If they use the criteria you described it is posssible to never retire a number. Yes, but that is their point. Why remove a number from the ice. And here is a link stating that is the criteria they use. barilko.penaltybox.com/ At the bottom under the title "Toronto Maple Leafs Retired and Honoured Numbers - The Leafs Honour Roll" Toronto is not the only people guilty of this. Beliveau wore alot of numbers in his playing days. In fact the last number he wore was #17, not #4. Did the Habs disrespect Newsy Lalonde by letting Auriel Joilet wear number 4? Did the Habs disrespect Joliet by letting 13 other players wear the number before they retired it for Beliveau? Number 2 was retired on October 26, 1985. 6 players wore number 2 after Doug Harvey. They include Laperriere, Chartraw, Nyrop, Gingras, Moe Robinson, and Kent Carlson. Was Doug Harvey disrespected because of this? Do you know how many people wore number 1 after Jacques Plante in 1963? 20 players at least. The last being Brain Hayward, I think. If it takes them that long to recognize the career of someone and that many people after wearing the jersey I say they should honour it anyway and get it done quickly instead of people having to wait for an eternity. Four people wore number 5 after Boomer. (Gilles Trembaly, Ted Harris, Guy Lapointe and Rick Green). Five people wore number 12 after Dickie Moore (Beliveau, Cournoyer, Huck, Acton and Boisvert up till 1987) and three people wore it after Cournoyer up to 1987. To me if the arguement for retiring a number is that you dont want a "bad" player tarnishing the number .... your Raycroft example ... then retire the number asap after a great career. If you are letting people to continue to use it then that arguement is mute. They do More llike Retired Numbers 5- Bill Barilko 1946-1951 6- Irvine "Ace" Bailey 1927-1934 Honoured Numbers 1 - Walter "Turk" Broda 1936-43,45-52 & Johnny Bower 1958-70 7 - Francis "King" Clancy 1930-37 & Tim Horton 1949-79 9 - Ted Kennedy 1942-55,56-57 Charlie Conacher 1929-38 10 - Syl Apps 1936-48 George Armstrong 1949-50,51-71 27 - Frank Mahovlich 1956-68 Darryl Sittler 1971-89 Dave Keon's number is not honoured because he refuses to be a part of anything to do with the Leafs. |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jul 30, 2006 15:47:40 GMT -5
Skilly,
I guess what I meant was that having another player wear a number does not necessarily disrepect the number. But to me, retiring the number is the real honor. We'll have to disagree on this one.
Two questions/comments about your response to my post.
- is there some recognition on the present jerseys ( like #10 for instance). I haven't noticed it.
- Dave Keon- I had heard on one of Howard Berger radio reports in Toronto that part of Keon's displeasure is that they will not retire numbers. Just something I heard although I think the problems go back much further - perhaps to Keon's departure to the WHA during teh Ballard years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 30, 2006 19:07:09 GMT -5
- is there some recognition on the present jerseys ( like #10 for instance). I haven't noticed it. From the website I posted earlier: When a player's number is honoured, the active Leaf who has been assigned that number wears a special Leaf shoulder logo on his jersey. The Maple Leaf outline remains the same, but differs in that the name of the player whose number is honoured is inscribed into the crest of the maple leaf. The special crest is worn only for the duration of the season in which the honoured player is inducted into the Leafs Honour Roll. Obviously they couldn't leave a decal there forever. If they did you could have one numbered jersey with 7 or 8 names on it .. ;D They'd already have 5 jerseys with 2 names. My greatest arguement with retiring jerseys is that you only have 99 numbers to work with and once you set the "benchmark" statistical wise ....well it gets to be a farce when you have a retored number with 700 points ad not retire one who gets more. Eventually there will come a day when all the numbers are gone .... and even if it takes 600 years , what do you do then? |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 31, 2006 1:05:56 GMT -5
- is there some recognition on the present jerseys ( like #10 for instance). I haven't noticed it. From the website I posted earlier: When a player's number is honoured, the active Leaf who has been assigned that number wears a special Leaf shoulder logo on his jersey. The Maple Leaf outline remains the same, but differs in that the name of the player whose number is honoured is inscribed into the crest of the maple leaf. The special crest is worn only for the duration of the season in which the honoured player is inducted into the Leafs Honour Roll. Obviously they couldn't leave a decal there forever. If they did you could have one numbered jersey with 7 or 8 names on it .. ;D They'd already have 5 jerseys with 2 names. My greatest arguement with retiring jerseys is that you only have 99 numbers to work with and once you set the "benchmark" statistical wise ....well it gets to be a farce when you have a retored number with 700 points ad not retire one who gets more. Eventually there will come a day when all the numbers are gone .... and even if it takes 600 years , what do you do then? We should learn from MLB. Then we could retire numbers like 27* and 7*. Next it will be 7 1/2 or 27a. Perhaps like the US secondary school system 4- or 27+ if Sittler is slightly better than Frank Mahovlich. I can't wait for the Kostitsyn and Kastitsyn brothers 47 and 47 jr.  I wasn't comparing the Leafs to the Hab's but merely pointing out how long it's been since Toronto had something to cheer about. Clark was a hard working kid like Steve Begin; but retiring his number?   |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 31, 2006 9:14:49 GMT -5
From the website I posted earlier: When a player's number is honoured, the active Leaf who has been assigned that number wears a special Leaf shoulder logo on his jersey. The Maple Leaf outline remains the same, but differs in that the name of the player whose number is honoured is inscribed into the crest of the maple leaf. The special crest is worn only for the duration of the season in which the honoured player is inducted into the Leafs Honour Roll. Obviously they couldn't leave a decal there forever. If they did you could have one numbered jersey with 7 or 8 names on it .. ;D They'd already have 5 jerseys with 2 names. My greatest arguement with retiring jerseys is that you only have 99 numbers to work with and once you set the "benchmark" statistical wise ....well it gets to be a farce when you have a retored number with 700 points ad not retire one who gets more. Eventually there will come a day when all the numbers are gone .... and even if it takes 600 years , what do you do then? We should learn from MLB. Then we could retire numbers like 27* and 7*. Next it will be 7 1/2 or 27a. Perhaps like the US secondary school system 4- or 27+ if Sittler is slightly better than Frank Mahovlich. I can't wait for the Kostitsyn and Kastitsyn brothers 47 and 47 jr. I wasn't comparing the Leafs to the Hab's but merely pointing out how long it's been since Toronto had something to cheer about. Clark was a hard working kid like Steve Begin; but retiring his number? Yes I realized that. I was merely pointing out that we also havent had much to cheer about, or Toronto honours their numbers more promptly than we retire ours. Boomer had to wait 37 years, almost as long as Toronto's last Cup. Only three players numbers were effectively retired in a prompt manner (M. Richard, Lafleur and H. Richard). Waiting decades to retire a number essentially, IMO, takes away from the accomplishments of that player's career. "Ohhh , what can we do to make our fans happy?" ... Let's retire a number that for the past 40 years wasn't good enough but now al lof a sudden is? EDIT: I know someone is going to say Beliveau's #4 was retired after his playing days. I intentionally left #4 off my list because it has been also "honoured/retired" by the Canadiens for Auriel Joilet ..... who waited 33 yrs for this distinction. If they had to retire #4 promptly, Beliveau may have had #12 or #17 retired now. By waiting as long as Montreal does to retire numbers, you will undoubtably have "shared" privilege with the number. (Joilet and Beliveau, Moore and Cournoyer) .... So it is just as well to honour the number. If the Leafs retired numbers they have 13 of 99 numbers gone, and if the Habs retired numbers within 10 years of a players career ending they'd have 12 numbers out of 99 retired. |
|
|
|
Post by Gogie on Jul 31, 2006 11:00:20 GMT -5
To me if the arguement for retiring a number is that you dont want a "bad" player tarnishing the number .... your Raycroft example ... then retire the number asap after a great career. If you are letting people to continue to use it then that arguement is mute. I don't usually correct spelling or grammar, but I've been seeing this word misused frequently of late. mute:ADJECTIVE: Inflected forms: mut·er, mut·est 1. Refraining from producing speech or vocal sound. 2a. Often Offensive Unable to speak. b. Unable to vocalize, as certain animals. 3. Expressed without speech; unspoken: a mute appeal. 4. Law Refusing to plead when under arraignment. 5. Linguistics a. Not pronounced; silent, as the e in the word house. b. Pronounced with a temporary stoppage of breath, as the sounds (p) and (b); plosive; stopped. NOUN: 1. Often Offensive One who is incapable of speech. 2. Law A defendant who refuses to plead when under arraignment. 3. Music Any of various devices used to muffle or soften the tone of an instrument. 4. Linguistics a. A silent letter. b. A plosive; a stop. TRANSITIVE VERB: Inflected forms: mut·ed, mut·ing, mutes 1. To soften or muffle the sound of. 2. To soften the tone, color, shade, or hue of. ETYMOLOGY: Middle English muet, from Old French, from diminutive of mu, from Latin mtus. moot: NOUN: 1. Law A hypothetical case argued by law students as an exercise. 2. An ancient English meeting, especially a representative meeting of the freemen of a shire. TRANSITIVE VERB: Inflected forms: moot·ed, moot·ing, moots 1a. To bring up as a subject for discussion or debate. b. To discuss or debate. See synonyms at broach1. 2. Law To plead or argue (a case) in a moot court. ADJECTIVE: 1. Subject to debate; arguable: a moot question. 2a. Law Without legal significance, through having been previously decided or settled. b. Of no practical importance; irrelevant. ETYMOLOGY: Middle English, meeting, from Old English mt, gemt. The word you (probably) meant to use is the adjective form of moot. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 31, 2006 12:27:00 GMT -5
To me if the arguement for retiring a number is that you dont want a "bad" player tarnishing the number .... your Raycroft example ... then retire the number asap after a great career. If you are letting people to continue to use it then that arguement is mute. I don't usually correct spelling or grammar, but I've been seeing this word misused frequently of late. mute:ADJECTIVE: Inflected forms: mut·er, mut·est 1. Refraining from producing speech or vocal sound. 2a. Often Offensive Unable to speak. b. Unable to vocalize, as certain animals. 3. Expressed without speech; unspoken: a mute appeal. 4. Law Refusing to plead when under arraignment. 5. Linguistics a. Not pronounced; silent, as the e in the word house. b. Pronounced with a temporary stoppage of breath, as the sounds (p) and (b); plosive; stopped. NOUN: 1. Often Offensive One who is incapable of speech. 2. Law A defendant who refuses to plead when under arraignment. 3. Music Any of various devices used to muffle or soften the tone of an instrument. 4. Linguistics a. A silent letter. b. A plosive; a stop. TRANSITIVE VERB: Inflected forms: mut·ed, mut·ing, mutes 1. To soften or muffle the sound of. 2. To soften the tone, color, shade, or hue of. ETYMOLOGY: Middle English muet, from Old French, from diminutive of mu, from Latin mtus. moot: NOUN: 1. Law A hypothetical case argued by law students as an exercise. 2. An ancient English meeting, especially a representative meeting of the freemen of a shire. TRANSITIVE VERB: Inflected forms: moot·ed, moot·ing, moots 1a. To bring up as a subject for discussion or debate. b. To discuss or debate. See synonyms at broach1. 2. Law To plead or argue (a case) in a moot court. ADJECTIVE: 1. Subject to debate; arguable: a moot question. 2a. Law Without legal significance, through having been previously decided or settled. b. Of no practical importance; irrelevant. ETYMOLOGY: Middle English, meeting, from Old English mt, gemt. The word you (probably) meant to use is the adjective form of moot. You are absolutly factuly correkt; but it is a mooot point. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 31, 2006 15:41:45 GMT -5
To me if the arguement for retiring a number is that you dont want a "bad" player tarnishing the number .... your Raycroft example ... then retire the number asap after a great career. If you are letting people to continue to use it then that arguement is mute. I don't usually correct spelling or grammar, but I've been seeing this word misused frequently of late. mute:ADJECTIVE: Inflected forms: mut·er, mut·est 1. Refraining from producing speech or vocal sound. 2a. Often Offensive Unable to speak. b. Unable to vocalize, as certain animals. 3. Expressed without speech; unspoken: a mute appeal. 4. Law Refusing to plead when under arraignment. 5. Linguistics a. Not pronounced; silent, as the e in the word house. b. Pronounced with a temporary stoppage of breath, as the sounds (p) and (b); plosive; stopped. NOUN: 1. Often Offensive One who is incapable of speech. 2. Law A defendant who refuses to plead when under arraignment. 3. Music Any of various devices used to muffle or soften the tone of an instrument. 4. Linguistics a. A silent letter. b. A plosive; a stop. TRANSITIVE VERB: Inflected forms: mut·ed, mut·ing, mutes 1. To soften or muffle the sound of. 2. To soften the tone, color, shade, or hue of. ETYMOLOGY: Middle English muet, from Old French, from diminutive of mu, from Latin mtus. moot: NOUN: 1. Law A hypothetical case argued by law students as an exercise. 2. An ancient English meeting, especially a representative meeting of the freemen of a shire. TRANSITIVE VERB: Inflected forms: moot·ed, moot·ing, moots 1a. To bring up as a subject for discussion or debate. b. To discuss or debate. See synonyms at broach1. 2. Law To plead or argue (a case) in a moot court. ADJECTIVE: 1. Subject to debate; arguable: a moot question. 2a. Law Without legal significance, through having been previously decided or settled. b. Of no practical importance; irrelevant. ETYMOLOGY: Middle English, meeting, from Old English mt, gemt. The word you (probably) meant to use is the adjective form of moot. I actually meant to use "the arguement is moo" - a cow's opinion .. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Aug 2, 2006 22:04:31 GMT -5
Eventually there will come a day when all the numbers are gone .... and even if it takes 600 years , what do you do then? What about retiring numbers (shortly after a player retires) and then bringing them back after, let's say, 200 years? That way, you never come close to running out of numbers, but no one will use an honored player's number again in his life, or the lives of his children or grandchildren? |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Aug 2, 2006 23:44:00 GMT -5
Eventually there will come a day when all the numbers are gone .... and even if it takes 600 years , what do you do then? What about retiring numbers (shortly after a player retires) and then bringing them back after, let's say, 200 years? That way, you never come close to running out of numbers, but no one will use an honored player's number again in his life, or the lives of his children or grandchildren? I'm not worried about global warming. I am not concerned with radical religeous terrorists who want to kill themselves and me in the process. I'm not worried about hurricanes, tornadoes or asteroid impacts. I'm not concerned about the cost or running out of oil. But; I am very concerned that in 200 years we may run out oflow jersey numbers for hockey players. Instead of retiring players numbers we should have bettman ensure that retired players are honored with 72 virgins in the afterlife. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Aug 3, 2006 6:46:41 GMT -5
Eventually there will come a day when all the numbers are gone .... and even if it takes 600 years , what do you do then? What about retiring numbers (shortly after a player retires) and then bringing them back after, let's say, 200 years? That way, you never come close to running out of numbers, but no one will use an honored player's number again in his life, or the lives of his children or grandchildren? That is an interesting idea .... but where do you draw the line? I would absolutely agree with the idea of "retiring" a number for the duration of the player's life. But the problem is that the Habs do not retire numbers until a player is nearing his death bed or has died .... which to me effectively ruins the honour. It is almost a "pity" type move for the simple fact the player is sick or died. This is an honour players love to share with their families when they can remember their glory days and enjoy it. Not when they are frail. So if the Habs made a decision to retire numbers , say 5 years, after a player retires (that IMO is long enough to decide where a player stands in the history logs of your team, and it is good enough for the HHOF) then yes I would agree that it should not be worn until he passes away unless the player wants it used (say by a relative). Then upon his death they can have a ceremony with the family at the Bell Center, and in 10 yrs after his death "recommission" the number .... but it is likely no one will want to wear it for a long time (which is okay to in some respects). |
|
|
|
Post by Forum Ghost on Aug 6, 2006 12:05:24 GMT -5
This is an honour players love to share with their families when they can remember their glory days and enjoy it. True. Larry Robinson will eventually have his number retired, but it's too bad that his dad won't be there to see it.  Retiring a player's number decades after he finished playing makes no sense to me. Look at players like Bourque, Stevens, Messier, MacInnis and Roy. They all had their numbers retired right away. That's how it should be done. I don't agree at all with way the Habs do it. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Aug 6, 2006 21:37:12 GMT -5
This is an honour players love to share with their families when they can remember their glory days and enjoy it. True. Larry Robinson will eventually have his number retired, but it's too bad that his dad won't be there to see it. Retiring a player's number decades after he finished playing makes no sense to me. Look at players like Bourque, Stevens, Messier, MacInnis and Roy. They all had their numbers retired right away. That's how it should be done. I don't agree at all with way the Habs do it. The Habs may have the best ceremonies in the entire sports world, but they entirely ruin the honour of retiring numbers. If "honouring" the number would make them do it faster, so the player's family can enjoy it, then I say honour the number and forget retiring numbers when players are dead and gone or near their death bed. Eventually , 200 years, 600 years, I dont know when, they will have to re-evaluate the entire process anyway. |
|
