33 replies to this topic

[DStebb]

When people talk about the great's in Buffalo's history, his name almost never comes up. But the fact is the guy had the second most points out of any Sabre in history. He was remarkebly consistent, does he deserve it?

[MattPie]

My initial thought is no, since he didn't spend *that* many years here, although it was more than half of his seasons. The points argument is valid though.

[K-9]

I don't think so. And not because he doesn't necessarily deserve the honor. It's just that I'm not a big fan of retiring numbers. I'd want current players to aspire to wear the numbers of past greats and to be doing everything in their power to earn the privilege. Instead of retiring them, I'd kinda hold them in reserve if you will.

I'm willing to make exceptions for those numbers worn by players that transcended the game. Players like Bert and Hasek come to mind.

Anyway, I would certainly never begrudge retiring a number if that's what happens.

GO SABRES!!!

Edited by K-9, 17 July 2012 - 06:26 PM.

[deluca67]

DStebb, on 17 July 2012 - 05:15 PM, said:

When people talk about the great's in Buffalo's history, his name almost never comes up. But the fact is the guy had the second most points out of any Sabre in history. He was remarkebly consistent, does he deserve it?

Absolutely YES!

[Arcsabresfan41]

I think the retired #s should be 11, 39, and 2. Nothing else until the first sabre hoists the cup over his head.

[wjag]

I'll go with yes.  That would give him 2 teams. How many times has that happened?

[PASabreFan]

He's already in the Sabres Hall of Fame. That seems about right, unless you believe in carrying on the tradition of watering down the honor of retiring a number.

Arc has the numbers right IMHO -- I would disagree about no more retirements until a Cup.

Edited by PASabreFan, 17 July 2012 - 06:10 PM.

[ThirtyEight]

Why should Tim Horton's number be retired? He barely played for us

[nobody]

wjag, on 17 July 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

I'll go with yes.  That would give him 2 teams. How many times has that happened?

Let's not think about '99'

[dudacek]

Numbers are retired way too easily in the NHL
Only elite, Hockey Hall of Fame-level players who are unquestionably identified with the team.
In other words, only 11 and 39.
(Horton's being left empty as a sign of respect is fine, as long as it's not hanging from the rafters.)

And while we are on numbers, Lou Lamoriello's got it right. Bring back number one for goalies, 2-6 for D-men and above 35 only for players who haven't really made their place in the league yet. Make high numbers a goal for the young guys to shoot for. Who the ###### wears 63 except a ###### lineman? ###### Gretzky ruined everything.

Now excuse me, I have to go yell at the kids who looked at my lawn...

Edited by dudacek, 17 July 2012 - 07:15 PM.

[MattPie]

dudacek, on 17 July 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

And while we are on numbers, Lou Lamoriello's got it right. Bring back number one for goalies, 2-6 for D-men and above 35 only for players who haven't really made their place in the league yet. Make high numbers a goal for the young guys to shoot for. Who the ###### wears 63 except a ###### lineman? ###### Gretzky ruined everything.

2-6 is only 5 spots...

[DStebb]

I have a hard time with this one. I think only the absolute best of the best should get their numbers retired-- he's second in points. But then my second stipulation is that they changed the culture and alterred the history of the team... he didn't do that. My gut says no. The statistics say yes. That's why it's not all about stats.

I think the french connection, 39 and 2 should all be retired. I think VERY few players deserve the honor. I'm not opposed to Patty having his retired, though.

ThirtyEight, on 17 July 2012 - 06:24 PM, said:

Why should Tim Horton's number be retired? He barely played for us

He died while on the roster. It's more a respect and then who would want to wear that number?

[dudacek]

MattPie, on 17 July 2012 - 08:59 PM, said:

2-6 is only 5 spots...

Playfair can wear 27.

[weave]

Ugh.  No to Andy.  Lets not dilute the honor any further than we already have.  This team hasn't had the success to justify all the numbers up in the rafters as it is.

[Rico7]

No. Good player. Deserves to be in HOF. Retired number? No.

Next question......

[DStebb]

If the team wins the cup next season, is there anybody on the team RIGHT NOW that would deserve their number retired with the Stanley Cup added to their resume?

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

DStebb, on 17 July 2012 - 11:11 PM, said:

If the team wins the cup next season, is there anybody on the team RIGHT NOW that would deserve their number retired with the Stanley Cup added to their resume?

If THIS team wins the cup next season, the Vatican will retire ALL their numbers and build them statues.

[Vanek-Man]

Arcsabresfan41, on 17 July 2012 - 05:55 PM, said:

I think the retired #s should be 11, 39, and 2. Nothing else until the first sabre hoists the cup over his head.

They should never unretire any jersey, but you're onto something here. For a organization who hasn't won anything yet, we do have a lot of numbers retired. I remember WGR was making jokes about it during our Presidents' trophy winning season, if we won the Cup that year, who from that team would go up in rafters after they retired? 23? 48? 30?

Since Mikhail Grigorenko probably won't call up Moginly and ask for #89, he's supposedly going to be wearing #25. I remember reading a tweet about it from one of the US based-Russian reporters.

[RazielSabre]

K-9, on 17 July 2012 - 05:47 PM, said:

I don't think so. And not because he doesn't necessarily deserve the honor. It's just that I'm not a big fan of retiring numbers. I'd want current players to aspire to wear the numbers of past greats and to be doing everything in their power to earn the privilege. Instead of retiring them, I'd kinda hold them in reserve if you will.

I'm willing to make exceptions for those numbers worn by players that transcended the game. Players like Bert and Hasek come to mind.

Anyway, I would certainly never begrudge retiring a number if that's what happens.

GO SABRES!!!

No Ernie?

DStebb, on 17 July 2012 - 11:11 PM, said:

If the team wins the cup next season, is there anybody on the team RIGHT NOW that would deserve their number retired with the Stanley Cup added to their resume?

Vanek, Pominville, Miller and Myers come to mind without too much thought.

[Eleven]

dudacek, on 17 July 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

Numbers are retired way too easily in the NHL
Only elite, Hockey Hall of Fame-level players who are unquestionably identified with the team.
In other words, only 11 and 39.
(Horton's being left empty as a sign of respect is fine, as long as it's not hanging from the rafters.)

And while we are on numbers, Lou Lamoriello's got it right. Bring back number one for goalies, 2-6 for D-men and above 35 only for players who haven't really made their place in the league yet. Make high numbers a goal for the young guys to shoot for. Who the ###### wears 63 except a ###### lineman? ###### Gretzky ruined everything.

Now excuse me, I have to go yell at the kids who looked at my lawn...

Agree that retiring numbers should be for the best of the best.  A "Hall of Fame Plus."

And I think about 10 years ago, Ottawa had a rule:  No numbers above 49, period.  I always liked that.

[shrader]

DStebb, on 17 July 2012 - 09:10 PM, said:

He died while on the roster. It's more a respect and then who would want to wear that number?

He died while breaking the law.  I'm not so sure that deserves respect.

[elcrusho]

shrader, on 18 July 2012 - 08:39 AM, said:

He died while breaking the law.  I'm not so sure that deserves respect.

It was a Canadian law though.....

[Taro T]

No.

There are already a few too many retired sweaters as it is.  Of course, I don't think being consistantly good for a long time warrants HoF entry either, and I expect he'll get there eventually.

[DR HOLLIDAY]

shrader, on 18 July 2012 - 08:39 AM, said:

He died while breaking the law.  I'm not so sure that deserves respect.

It was barely a law back then

[shrader]

DR HOLLIDAY, on 20 July 2012 - 01:13 PM, said:

It was barely a law back then

That's all well and good as long as you're not offering that as a defense.

[buftex]

Honestly, with the Sabres, Andreychuk was good...not great...to me, he was kind of a symbol of a very disappointing era of Sabres hockey...I say "no"!  Let him retire in Florida!

[X. Benedict]

Nope. Not before Mike Ramsey.

[Punch]

buftex, on 20 July 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:

Honestly, with the Sabres, Andreychuk was good...not great...to me, he was kind of a symbol of a very disappointing era of Sabres hockey...I say "no"!  Let him retire in Florida!

I've always hated the Andreychuk for Fuhr trade, especially considering Hasek was already on the roster. That 1992-3 team might've gone a bit further if Dom was allowed to get in a groove and Andreychuk stayed on a line with LaFontaine and Mogilny. In retrospect though, your bolded statement is exactly right. He actually lit it up with the Leafs that postseason, but he was invisible in the playoffs as a Sabre.

Even though he scored a hell of a lot of goals in Buffalo in 11 seasons, it's not enough to hang his number from the rafters. He is to the Sabres what Dave Kingman was to the Oakland Athletics.

X. Benedict, on 20 July 2012 - 02:50 PM, said:

Nope. Not before Mike Ramsey.

My alltime favorite Sabre--- and the first jersey/sweater I ever bought.

[Tyrannustyrannus]

He's first all time in power play goals, and was a great player.  I don't think we should retire his number though, he had his best moments with other teams.  I do think he'll be in the HHOF some day

DStebb, on 17 July 2012 - 11:11 PM, said:

If the team wins the cup next season, is there anybody on the team RIGHT NOW that would deserve their number retired with the Stanley Cup added to their resume?

Miller is first all time in wins for the team, and I doubt we would win a cup without great goaltending, so yes.  If we won a cup with Miller in net #30 is retired as soon as he hangs up the skates.

Edited by Tyrannustyrannus, 20 July 2012 - 03:43 PM.

[JKB1646]

No. Did I miss something here? Did he win the Cup playing for us?

NO

NO

NO

[etiennep99]

Punch, on 20 July 2012 - 02:52 PM, said:

I've always hated the Andreychuk for Fuhr trade, especially considering Hasek was already on the roster.

Ditto.  What a horrible trade that was. Muckler wanted his cronies on board.  I never bought into the Fuhr hype.  He was good. He made timely saves.
But I don't consider him a superstar (such as Hasek and Roy, for example.)

[North Buffalo]

I think he should be honored in someway, rookie of the year in Buff etc... Just agree retiring numbers is goofy.

[DStebb]

JKB1646, on 20 July 2012 - 04:30 PM, said:

No. Did I miss something here? Did he win the Cup playing for us?

NO

NO

NO

Did anybody? Ever? I guess they should take Gil's number down.

[drunken idiot]

No.

Only the truly great ones should have their number retired. As far as i'm concerned there has only been 2 truly great ones worthy that have donned the sabres crest and that is, Gil and Dom.

#11 and #39 were legends, can't be said for anyone else.