The Rangers retired Messier’s No. 11 after he already had a Hall of Fame career in Edmonton, solely based on the 1994 championship because that run revolved around him same as the Wings 2002 run revolved primarily around Hasek.

That’s exactly the problem I have with retiring numbers like that. And the Avs retiring Ray Bourque’s number.  They’re riding on the player’s previous successes, not really what the player achieved with that team. It cheapens the meaning of retiring a number. While we love our CMOI, it wouldn’t be appropriate to retire his number (for all the reasons you so eloquently detailed Chief).

And of course he doesn’t care about what fans or readers have to say. Living in a vacuum of your own thoughts is so much easier.

Posted by Jennemy of the Skate from putting the b*tches in the box on 06/10/08 at 07:25 PM ET

Well, GREAT that we have heard a full response!
Looking at both sides of the argument makes the idea of a Hasek sweater retirement no less ludicrous than when I had read only the original post. Some ideas are thought provoking. Others just make you laugh and point.

This isn’t a matter of respectful disagreement, Drew. Your idea lacks the insight or intelligence to even merit respectful consideration, IMO.

Posted by dougie on 06/10/08 at 07:34 PM ET

I guess if you’re a fan, and much less if your a fan of the team Sharp’s talking about, it makes you incapable of, how did he put it, “disagreeing respectfully”.

I disagree.  Respectfully.  Well, mostly

I think it’s ridiculous that he dismisses the possibility of players playing for one team.  AO is inked for 12, 13 seasons with Washington?  Sounds like most of a career commitment to me.  Datsyuk is locked in for six more, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he is a Wing for life.

Oh well, I’m a fan.  That officially makes my viewpoint null.  That’s okay, I can take it.

Posted by ludmeister on 06/10/08 at 07:42 PM ET

If someone doesn’t care what someone else thinks due to an emotional connection or the lack thereof with a team, organization, or whatever...I don’t believe that that person has any right whatsoever to tell anyone the way things “are” or “should be.”

If you don’t respect the people with whom you engage in conversation, then the conversation itself is worthless and meaningless.  It’s nothing more than talking to hear yourself talk.

Posted by George James Malik from South Lyon, MI on 06/10/08 at 07:42 PM ET

The 2002 championship did not revolve primarily around Hasek.  That team was a star system the likes of which will probably never be seen again in the NHL.  Apparently Sharp can’t remember, or is unaware, that it was Yzerman in the locker room and Lidstrom on the ice who woke the Red Wings after they fell into an 0-2 hole in the first round.  Or that it was Lidstrom who won the Conn Smythe that year.

That Hasek is “without doubt one of the top two goaltenders to ever wear the Winged Wheel, along with Terry Sawchuk” is arguable at best, especially considering he was past his prime in 2001 and beyond.  Having been one of the best goaltenders of all time grants Hasek the honor of enshrinement in the Hall of Fame; having been a member of the Red Wings for a few years and winning two Cups warrants fond memories.  Too bad for Dom there are a number of bad memories as well.

Furthermore, the fact remains that the Red Wings have an incredibly high standard for what numbers are retired.  The six numbers hanging from the rafters at the Joe represent the absolute pantheon of Wings legends.  Hasek doesn’t belong there.

Posted by monkey on 06/10/08 at 07:45 PM ET

Wow. That guy is an idiot. Doesn’t care about the fans?!?!?  Who is he writing to? Gary? Himself?!?  I am really at a loss here. I mean, is he writing to people who have never watched a hockey game before?  No… Because they might become a fan and I would bet that if his audience isn’t fans it isn’t potential fans either.

I think we would have it pretty good if his stated reason the county is so effed up was true.

Someone PAYS this guy?  I wonder what his editor would have to say about his response… This truly is the dumbing down of America.

Posted by eyesris from Chestertown, MD on 06/10/08 at 07:52 PM ET

That’s cheapening greatness because it isn’t consistent with an ideal that was true in the 50’s and 60’s.

Respectfully, Mr. Sharp, I’ll disagree. In fact, I will say what cheapens greatness is the retirement of the number of a player who contributed two and half years of service to a team. A player who backstopped the Red Wings to one Stanley cup victory, and wore a towel around his neck for the other. Mr. Sharp, the franchise player is not a dead breed. While perhaps not as prevalent as 50s and 60s --the apparent source of our ideals in regards to greatness-- they do exist. Datsyuk’s inked, Zetterberg has made every indication of wanting to stick with the team. Ovechkin and Crosby have a good chance of staying with their respective teams.

Posted by pilgrim from Ontario Plates on 06/10/08 at 07:52 PM ET

Accidental submittal- Continued below:

However, I don’t actually buy the idea that you believe Hasek’s 39 should be retired. I believe that you purposely write drivel to invoke responses such as the one from Bill and the rest of us here. Columnist must present ideas that unpopular and debatable. Your notion is utterly ridiculous and embarrassment to the Free Press.  Simply, it shows a lack of integrity on par with a common internet troll. Quit lighting fires and present your real opinion.

Posted by pilgrim from Ontario Plates on 06/10/08 at 08:00 PM ET

It’s nothing more than talking to hear yourself talk.

Drew Sharp would never do that.

And interesting to hear Dats, Z, and Kronner are all gonna leave via free agency mid-career because, you know, it’s kinda hard to make it on $7 mil per year.

Count me under “not paying attention.”

Posted by mudshark from Divetown, Colorado on 06/10/08 at 08:02 PM ET

Now this is a completely objective and detached opinion, so it should count for something ...

But of all the unemotional, coldly logical decisions a team has to make, retiring a number is the most emotional decision a team can make.  It costs nothing in salary cap dollars, it doesn’t require hiring additional scouting staff, it doesn’t require giving less to someone else - it is purely a recognition of how much a player meant to an organization over the course of his time there (even if it wasn’t his entire career, it should be a substantial portion of it).

If it is the judgement of many in the organization, purely on an emotional level, that they can’t see anyone else on the team wearing that number because one particular player is so associated with it, then consider retiring it.  Otherwise don’t because the impression he made wasn’t an indelible one.

I wonder if he is getting the bloggers mixed up with the commenters on his article that wonder how many pounds of cocaine he snorts each day?

Also, if he “doesn’t care what fans think” then isn’t he as guilty of ignoring a viewpoint as “stupid” instead of participating in the “argumentative thrust and parry” himself?  If you have no respect for the opinions of fans, but want to engage your readers, then who the hell does he think is reading his articles - music majors?  He’s writing about sports - the only people interested in his articles are sports fans.

What a contradictory dork.  I’m having a hard time discerning a logical argument.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 06/10/08 at 08:05 PM ET

Um, if anything, franchise players are even more prevalent now than then. Didn’t Rick DiPietro just sign a 15-year deal? Mike Richards? Ovechkin, Crosby, every young star in the next few years who’s going to get a 10+ year deal?

Gordie Howe, possibly the most iconic Red Wing (before Yzerman) didn’t play his whole career here. Neither did Ted Lindsay. Neither did Terry Sawchuk. Players got traded around a lot more often back then than they do now in the Cap Era. Steve Yzerman and Nick Lidstrom are rarities in any generation.

As I said at my own blog, just ask Mike Vernon what being a hall-of-famer who wins one cup for a team in the twilight if his career gets you: a lot of respect, but not your number in the rafters.

If we raise 39, we must raise 29, as well as 24, 14 (sorry Meech), 8, 91, 2, 4 (Red Kelly), 17 (Hull), 20 (Robitaille), 55 (Murphy, sorry Kronner), all HoFers who won at least one cup here, and while we’re at it we ought to take care of the non-HoF lifer-Wings who won 3-4 Cups here: 18, 25, 30, 33, 96.

I’m not saying every one of those players doesn’t deserve to be honored. But look at it this way: if we don’t retire their numbers, how much does it say about 1, 7, 9, 10, 12 and 19?

Posted by Pete K from Chicago, IL on 06/10/08 at 08:06 PM ET

After recently discovering that Claude Lemieux is likely to be inducted to the HOF this year, it seems quite fitting that we retire the #39 into the rafters.

Oh...wait....we are Hockeytown.

We ARE tradition..

We hold excellence at a different standard than the rest of the league....Thanks Gary.Ass.

Is it any wonder that in this day and age of everyone deserving an A+ so nobody feels inferior that a typical libtard like Mr. Sharp would spout his drivel towards us?

I’d sooner retire the #69 Kwame Kilpatrick jersey.

Hell, he bought everyone beer the other day from what i heard on youtube....that’s gotta qualify for his name on the Cup too don’t you think?

Wait a minute, that has me thinking. Was it YOU that was behind attempting to get Rory Fitzpatrick on the All Star team?

You slick devil....you’re up to something…

Don’t cheapen MY sport Mr. Sharp. Gary’s doing just fine as it is without your help.

Posted by Scott H from Kalamazoo on 06/10/08 at 08:07 PM ET

He also didn’t answer the questions.

Did anyone from the Red Wings punch him in the temple?  These are the answers readers really want to know!

I’d give him a “D” for not actually fulfilling the requirements of the assignment. 

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 06/10/08 at 08:13 PM ET

Apologies if someone else has already said it, but if Hasek’s number should be retired just for 2002, then Mike Vernon’s should be for 1997.

Applying the standard of being a core component of at least a single Cup win, the following numbers should (or should shortly) be retired in Detroit:

5 - Nicklas Lidstrom (which will anyway)
8 - Igor Larionov
13 - Vyacheslav Kozlov / Pavel Datsyuk
14 - Brendan Shanahan
17 - Brett Hull
18 - Kirk Maltby
20 - Martin Lapointe / Luc Robitaille
24 - Chris Chelios
25 - Darren McCarty
29 - Mike Vernon
30 - Chris Osgood
33 - Kris Draper
39 - Dominik Hasek
40 - Henrik Zetterberg
55 - Larry Murphy / Niklas Kronwall
91 - Sergei Fedorov
93 - Johan Franzen
96 - Tomas Holmstrom

That list includes the goalies and top scorers of each Cup run, and the role players (especially those from more than one Cup).  I’m probably missing some.  That is a hell of a lot of numbers, which is exactly why there is a higher standard than that.

Posted by Clark on 06/10/08 at 08:14 PM ET

Goddamnit, Pete had to make my point while I was typing.

“46person” - as in the number of people who would be honored in the rafters if such a lax standard was in place.

Posted by Clark on 06/10/08 at 08:16 PM ET

The Mark Messier argument doesn’t hold up. Yes he won only won the one Stanley Cup with NY, but he led that team to the Cup, he played 10 seasons as a Ranger, and is regarded as one of the best leaders to ever lace up a pair of skates, some have said in all of sports. That is why his number is retired in New York, and that is why there is no way you can compare Hasek to Messier.

Posted by JAMESinMI on 06/10/08 at 08:23 PM ET

Retiring #39?  Gimme a damn break!  Retiring a number means something exceptional that the player who wore the number in question did for the franchise and the community throughout his career.  And to give this award to every great player that spent a few years in a given town is not right!!! Why else do you think #66 is all by itself up above the ice in the Mellon Arena?  Being biased (and native Russian), I could see Fetisov’s or Larionov’s numbers to be forever hung at the Joe’s ceiling, but it still would not be right!!!

Now to Mr. Sharp.  I do respect your right to speak your mind in the press or any other place (God Bless America for that!).  But there are a few things I would like to point out.  First, the word “reporter” means reporting things that people don’t know about and would like to find out.  Second, being unbiased and non-emotional helps when one provides the analysis… With all due respect, Barry Melrose provides more analysis and we all know what that’s worth.  Third, if you are a reporter for DFP writing about the Wings and you aren’t emotional about the subject… Well, I don’t know… Maybe you should start writing about politics, and leave reporting on the Wings to the people that care!!!  I think the Chief is doing better job than you guys do.

Posted by Green Bay Mike from Wisconsin on 06/10/08 at 08:23 PM ET

Don’t worry, guys, Drew’s “Mats Sundin must become a Red Wing or Detroit will never make the playoffs again” column is scheduled for next week

Posted by George James Malik from South Lyon, MI on 06/10/08 at 08:29 PM ET

Don’t worry, guys, Drew’s “Mats Sundin must become a Red Wing or Detroit will never make the playoffs again” column is scheduled for next week

Oh, goody.

I can’t wait.

Can’t be too hard - couldn’t he just replace all the times he wrote “Hossa” with “Sundin” and change the date for an earlier article?

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 06/10/08 at 08:40 PM ET

Don’t worry, guys, Drew’s “Mats Sundin must become a Red Wing or Detroit will never make the playoffs again” column is scheduled for next week

That’s merciful… I’ve heard enough BS from him for at least one week.

Posted by ludmeister on 06/10/08 at 08:44 PM ET

Using your standard for retiring numbers, Lidstrom will the be the last number retired because he’ll be the last 15-year guy playing a great career with one team that we’ll see in this city because of free agency.

does anybody doubt Zetterberg will be a Red Wing for his entire career?

Datsyuk?

Draper spent three seasons in Winnipeg and will retire as a Red Wing after more than 15 seasons with the team.

the list goes on.

this idea that career players for one team is over, is IMO a much-repeated meme.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 06/10/08 at 08:54 PM ET

Umm, not to change the subject but, I’m just a fan see and speaking of changing the subject...anybody else see this....

Court documents filed by Donaghy’s lawyer detailed the “inner-workings” of a plot in which top league executives used referees to manipulate the games. Donaghy claims two referees were “company men” whose job was to extend a playoff series in 2002 to a seventh game.

Thanks gawd that will never happen in Hockey.

Posted by Rumbear from the den.... on 06/10/08 at 08:59 PM ET

Thanks gawd that will never happen in Hockey.

do you mean that they’ll never fix games or that they’ll never get caught and have someone testify about it?

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 06/10/08 at 09:11 PM ET

I agree that the standard that the Wings hold for retiring numbers is a good one (and I didn’t always).  Especially now that the Wings have such a roster of champions and champion teams, it makes sense to stick with the standard of players who are Hall of Fame caliber and have spent a meaningful amount of time with Detroit.

Having said that, there are two numbers which absolutely should be hanging from the rafters and are not:

#6 - Larry Aurie.  Aurie was the club’s offensive star during its first two Stanley Cups in the 1930’s.  Aurie’s jersey was the first one officially retired by the team.  The current management has refused to honor that retirement, presumably because Aurie never made the Hall of Fame, but this is unfair.  Aurie was a great player, and he led the franchise to its first Stanley Cup.  As his family says, raise the number or unretire it—don’t leave him in limbo like this.

#4 - Red Kelly.  Kelly won 4 Stanley Cups with Detroit, and was the first recipient of the Norris Trophy.  A Hall of Famer.  Presumably the reason his number isn’t up there is because he won 4 more cups with Toronto.  But the reason he ended up in Toronto was because Jack Adams traded him in a fit of pique.  Toronto has retired his number after 8 seasons there.  He played in Detroit for 13 seasons.  Sid Abel played in Detroit for 12.  Sawchuk played for 14.  Ted Lindsay played for 14.  It is ridiculous that Kelly’s #4 isn’t retired.

Posted by Anonymous from New York, NY on 06/10/08 at 09:14 PM ET

No one is clamoring for Hasek’s number to be retired in Detroit. Not the fans, not the bloggers, no one on message boards, not anyone else in the media. Not a soul, other than Sharp.

Sharp would never admit it, but his job as the Freep’s resident contrarian is to get hits on the website, and sell ink stained newsprint. Period. Common sense be damned. 

If that means he has to come up with asinine opinions that do nothing more than push the buttons of fans, so be it. And it’s obviously worked, as his opinion, half baked it may be, has us talking about him, and checking out the column. I feel so...so...used.

Honestly, tripe like Sharp’s column is just another example as to why papers are dying a painful and noisy death. I can find all the EDUCATED hockey coverage and opinion (And every other sport, for that matter) I need on the web.

Posted by Big Al from Somewhere in he Detroit suburbs on 06/10/08 at 09:17 PM ET

Count me under “not paying attention.”

Amen

We (you too Chief) have given this clown way too much thought, time and ink (bytes?) today.  Worse yet, we gave him exactly what he wanted when he wrote it.  He does the same thing to both his alma mater and their fanbase - for exactly the same reason.  It generates ridiculous hits on his column and generates all kinds of chatter from blogs and radio.

He is not a fan, he is not a professional sports writer; he’s a manipulator.  He manipulates the most passionate fanbases in his region to generate traffic/publicity - that’s his schtick.  It’s that simple.

We gave him exactly what he wanted.  Stop it already, we’re pissing me off.

Posted by Hoser from Downer Peninsula, Michigan on 06/10/08 at 09:25 PM ET

Hoser, I couldn’t agree more.  I’m a weak man.  One more beer and I’m off to bed.  No.  Two more.

Posted by IwoCPO from Washington, DC on 06/10/08 at 09:28 PM ET

this idea that career players for one team is over, is IMO a much-repeated meme.

I think it’s relatively true for most teams though. They won’t have career players anymore due to the caps. There will be exceptions to that rule though and Detroit is definitely one team that has worked to create an environment where more players than not want to stay for their careers if they can. Lids will definitely retire a Wing. I think it’s early to predict anything for Z and Dats (think Federov), but it would be great if they stayed for their careers and I think the Illitches will want them to.

Posted by Jennemy of the Skate from putting the b*tches in the box on 06/10/08 at 09:30 PM ET

By Mr. Sharp’s...logic?...one could extend this to say that, had Hasek moved around the league more than he did, there could be five or six teams that should retire his number. Should Chicago? Should Buffalo? What about Ottawa?

(OK, maybe Buffalo, even if he didn’t leave on good terms.)

The notion of the “franchise” player dying out is only partially correct. Players tend to have longer careers these days, and there’s more of them. Of /course/ there’s going to be some movement. As has already been pointed out, numbers have been retired of players who /didn’t/ spend their careers only in one city.

And Sharp should be commended for not letting negative opinions get to him. I’m so proud. On the Internet, that’s practically a damn requirement in order to function in the federally-protected Ignorance Reserves known as web forums. But there’s a difference between having a thick skin and “not caring what fans and bloggers think.” Without fans, some of whom become bloggers, commercial sports don’t exist. And neither do people who write about them.

Posted by Matt from Tennessee on 06/10/08 at 09:34 PM ET

With all due discretion, I really don’t care what fans or bloggers think. Fans have an emotional connection to a team. I don’t. That’s why I can look at a situation more objectively.

The MSM folks love to flaunt their impartiality. Apparently, objectivity is some secret skill that alludes us common folk, like ballroom dancing or eating with silverware.

Posted by That hyphenated guy who likes the Avs on 06/10/08 at 09:46 PM ET

There are so many things amiss by Sharp’s response: the condescending tone, his resentment that mere bloggers and fans should disturb him in his journalistic fortress, the easy dismissal of fan sentiments.  Sharp’s attitude is typical of modern print writers astonished and appalled that the rabble now has a voice.

Of course, his rationale regarding the basic premise of his column fails on the facts.  Hasek was important to the 2002 Cup, and he’ll always be valued for that and have his place in Wings history, but Hasek didn’t even win the Conn Smythe that year.  Lidstrom did. 

As Bill noted, Sharp’s response exposes him more completely than any blogger could.  He sure doesn’t know anything about the Wings.  Really, can’t he write about home decorating or something?

Posted by JimS on 06/10/08 at 09:56 PM ET

I think it’s early to predict anything for Z and Dats (think Federov)

I don’t think either of them are dating 14 year old Russian girls who live on the west coast.

I didn’t know until I just looked, but Datsyuk is married and has a daughter.  his wife’s name is Svetlana but I can’t find any photos.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 06/10/08 at 10:15 PM ET

here we go…

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 06/10/08 at 10:36 PM ET

Retiring Hasek’s number would be the equivalent of the Pistons retiring Vinny Johnson’s number.  An emotional response that doesn’t really make much sense in the big picture.

Drew really does smoke a lot of crack!

Posted by Squiboda from Port Huron, MI on 06/10/08 at 11:11 PM ET

umm...I won’t even ask how you got a hold of that photo Paul.

So, everyone has already stolen my points so a big thank/efff you for that.

Just want to add one thing. Sharp argues that he values argumentative sparring, but doesn’t perform one of the oldest rules of rhetoric there is; swallow the counterargument. He doesn’t anticipate the most obvious counterarguments and have answers for them in his column, and comes up with only the most feeble attempt in his response.

TIMMAY!

Posted by Osrt on 06/10/08 at 11:18 PM ET

Sharp could not have made a worse argument. He claims that using the “standard for retiring numbers” will not credit enough people and that Lidstrom’s #5 will be the last to be retired. Obviously, you can’t prove what will happen in the future but Datsyuk (recent 7-year contract) and Zetterberg (hopefully similar contract coming) look to be on that track. As for around the league, there are players like Joe Sakic who will get that kind of recognition deservedly and others who could get that recognition in the future for playing on the same team for many, many years (Crosby or Ovechkin, perhaps?). Having your number retired is one of the highest honors you can receive as a player. It shows not only your skill but how well respected you were by fans and other players. If all teams start to listen to Sharp and retire unnecessary players’ numbers, jerseys will soon have to fit three digits on the back. With all due respect to Hasek and what he’s done for the Red Wings, if he should get his number retired anywhere (he shouldn’t) it should be in Buffalo, where he starred for many years and brought back hockey fans in Buffalo while coming oh so close to winning a Stanley Cup.

Posted by ckittle from Durham, New Hampshire on 06/10/08 at 11:42 PM ET

I’m fine with Sharp not caring what sports fans and bloggers think of him. I’m even fine with him not caring if people agree or disagree with him. What makes Sharp a moron in this instance is that he is under the impression the article he wrote actually made an argument. Sharp just threw statements out like a drunk monkey throwing feces at a dartboard. He provided no support for his argument. If he actually thinks Hasek deserves his number retired, fine. Back it up with clear and concise arguments. Throwing out statements just because he can just makes Sharp a bad writer.

And Clark, you forgot Fetisov. I can’t remember what number he wore but it needs to be on the Sharp list of future retiring numbers.

Posted by UMFan from Colorado on 06/10/08 at 11:50 PM ET

Fetisov wore 2.

Posted by Osrt on 06/10/08 at 11:54 PM ET

I respect Drew alot, he says many well thought things and he’s a good voice in this town. Way off the mark with this idea.

The whole subject here depends on how you think a person qualifies for number retirement. I think a number being retired should be saved for the players who’ve contributed something above and beyond to a team. I think the names retired so far for the Wings is dead-on correct. Hasek has not been a heart-and-soul Red Wing like Howe, Lindsay and Yzerman, he’s come and gone. And beyond a couple of good years, hasn’t done that much to add to the Red Wing legacy. I’d much rather see Konstantinov’s number retired if you’re talking about an emotional connection to a player and team. Shanahan is a far better Winged warrior than Dom for that consideration. Retiring a number of someone like Dom cheapens the whole concept.

That said, I really like Drew’s comment that you can’t have an argument anymore with a discussion of the points. It seems everyone wants to plant a WWF KO on you if you disagree.

Posted by Alan Brown from Lincoln Park, MI on 06/11/08 at 06:52 AM ET

I don’t care about what fans think.

Well, I’m never reading Drew Sharp’s work again.  If he can say ‘F*ck you’ to your face and mine, I can do the same to him.  And I can lobby for the Freep to get rid of someone who says sh*t like that to fans who buy their paper.

I’m still slightly perplexed by why he even wrote the article other than to take the opposite view.  He didn’t back it up, nobody’s agreed with him, and his argument wasn’t insightful enough to provoke any sort of debate.  Just abuse.

Typical.  He won’t even back down.

Oh, and George, I’m not registered on MLive so can’t comment, but I hope everything’s okay with the family emergency.  Hang in there.

Posted by AndrewFromAnnArbor from the park, burning a stack of Freeps on 06/11/08 at 07:53 AM ET

How can a number be retired for a player (regardless of whom they were or are) be retired if they QUIT on the team more than once? Retire once ok, but the drama of that revolving door seems to have been forgotten. The numbers hanging in The Joe are guys who gave everything they possibly had as a Wing and to be a Wing.

Dom was a big part of ‘02, hence the etched letters on the silver chalice.
He had MANY great years with different teams, sounds worthy of the HOF.
Simple.
Agreed with Hoser, us giving Drew this much thought is pissing me off too. Just what the little troll wants, piss us off so he can wrap himself in his smug little blanket of “I’m a writer and I am great”. Maybe we should all e-mail him one by one… all 19 of us. Just to bug him....

Posted by MOWingsfan19 on 06/11/08 at 07:58 AM ET

Difference between Messier and Hasek is that Hasek game to a team that had already won two Cups in five years and was trying to fill out the current roster for one last go with the same core group. Dom was great that year, but didn’t put the team on his back for extended periods of time.

For the Rangers, Mess did just that. There was the guarantee. The seventh games. The biggest media market in (maybe) the world. The snapshots short side balancing on the wobbly off-leg. Oh, and winning a Cup for a franchise that hadn’t won a Cup in ages. That’s the biggest difference.

Give me a counter argument instead of merely saying that I shouldn’t write about hockey because I don’t know what I’m talking about.

Drew, if you really want us to, there are 19 of us that could probably get together and come up with a novella filled with quotes from your articles, radio appearances, and TV appearances that prove your ignorance when it comes to hockey.

Hell, the easiest thing in the world is telling people strictly what they want to hear.

And it’s just as easy to tell them the opposite of what they want to hear, because once you know what they want… it’s pretty simple to flip the script.

Posted by Nathan from Jonny Ericsson's ice cream truck on 06/11/08 at 08:19 AM ET

The Rangers retired Messier’s number almost solely because they hadn’t had a player worth retiring a number for in eons.

That’s like saying that because the WhalerCanes retired Ulf Samuelsson’s number, that the Wings should too.

Posted by Primis on 06/11/08 at 08:30 AM ET

that’s a cop out for a columnist entrusted with stirring debate and discussion.

um, you can stir debate and discussion simply by asking questions.  you don’t have to throw your own ignorant opinion into the mix.  all that does is make the discussion about what an idiot you are, rather than the question at hand.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 06/11/08 at 08:58 AM ET

This guy’s original article and response is complete lunacy!  You cannot compare Mark Messier to Dom Hasek.  I think what is lost in all of this is that Dom was a great goalie...if anyone should be retiring his number it should be Buffalo, and yet I hear no mention of this nor do I think you will.  I agree with one point that with free agency you will not see a lot of players spending 15 years with one team, but so be it.  Retiring a number is a speacial accomplishment, that should only be bestowed on the most special of players.  Just because you were a great player, doesn’t necessarily mean you should have your number retired.  When I think of a retired number I think of Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, Steve Yzerman just to name a few...guys who were special not only because of their stats but becuase of what they brought to a franchise, a city and a league!

Posted by Mac from Canada on 06/11/08 at 09:03 AM ET

agreed, Mac.  if the only qualification for getting your jersey retired is “you were a great player” then as mentioned before there’d be no numbers left to wear.  there have been many, many great players in the history of the league.  it’s the ones that transcend greatness - the Yzermans, Gretzkys, Lemieuxs, etc who deserve it.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 06/11/08 at 09:27 AM ET

I was going to say that Sharp is probably right, that players being with the same team for 98% of their careers is going to become (or has become) the exception and not the norm. And honestly he is right.

But isn’t retiring a player’s number the exception, not the norm? In a league where the separation of skill between the 1st line guy and 3rd or 4th line guy is becoming blurrier and will only become more so, why shouldn’t length of quality time spent with a team become a criterium?

Posted by rwingscup19 from Dallas on 06/11/08 at 09:42 AM ET

Had Professor Sharp deigned to visit the comment section of your blog, he would have found the “thrust and parry” he bemoans the loss of in our society. Unfortunately, his opening sentence betrays the disregard he feels for the great unwashed who comprise your commenters and his readership.
The arguments he offers in his response are specious, at best. Players, stars or otherwise, staying their entire career in a single city has never been the norm in any professional sport (particularly hockey)- the Kalines, Dumars, and Yzermans have always been an exception. Old time owners and GMs, for instance the Norris family and Jack Adams, were notorious for their vindictiveness and seeming capriciousness when sending their serfs- er, players-packing. As has been stated above, the Messier and Hasek situation couldn’t be more different. Messier, often cited as perhaps the most effective captain in hockey history, spent a decade in a New York that was hungry for hockey heroes, virtually single-handedly willing the Rangers to their first Cup in decades. Hasek popped in for a couple cups of coffee, HELPING a team loaded with HoF-bound players to it’s third Cup in twice as many years. Vernon is in fact a more appropriate comparison.
There’s one counter-argument, Drew. And by the way, when it comes to hockey, you DON’T know what you’re talking about. I’ll stand by an assertion I made on a previous post- your schtick is simply to be the contrarian. Unfortunately for you, this new medium gives your frequently more erudite audience the opportunity to point out when the emperor is bare-a**ed, share it with each other, and leave you red-a**ed. It’s your loss that you’re too impressed with your status to listen and learn.

Posted by BobS. on 06/11/08 at 10:55 AM ET

I caught a headline from Yahoo about the Red Wings retiring Hasek’s number.  The first thing that I thought was why would Detroit retire it?

I think that teams are way too quick to retire numbers now.  (No worse example than #1 hanging from the rafters of the Xcel Energy Center for the fans).

Does Hasek deserve to have his number retired?  Probably.  But that should be the decision of the Buffalo Sabres, not the Red Wings.  Hasek played a huge portion of his career in Buffalo and they should be the only team making the decision.

Posted by Scott from State of Hockey on 06/11/08 at 08:43 PM ET

As much as I hate to say it...Claude probably does belong in the Hall.  He has the numbers to back it up and he was a valuable contribution to both the Devils and Avs in their Cup runs.

Posted by Ken from Ypsilanti, MI on 06/12/08 at 12:07 AM ET