I assume this is substantiated by the fact that he was one of the keys to the 2001 Cup combined with the fact that he is one of the all-time great defenseman.

Posted by NHLJeff from Boston, MA on 03/11/08 at 05:13 PM ET

That image caption says

he tallied just 15 goals in 84 games there

.
Um...that’s pretty good for a defenseman, definitely not bad.

Posted by NHLJeff from Boston, MA on 03/11/08 at 05:14 PM ET

Fair point, and I understand that this is the accepted reasoning. (And no, his numbers aren’t bad at all; nor would I debate the fact that he’s one of the great defenseman.)

But—to be a smartass—I’m happy to challenge the Avs on the notion that 84 games played for the club makes his number retireable as their great defenseman. Stanley Cup or not.

Someone with a better memory for these things than I have (pretty much everyone, I’d guess) must have some good examples of players whose numbers have never been retired by a club, despite much more extensive time and contributions to a team. No?

Posted by Alanah McGinley from British Columbia on 03/11/08 at 05:26 PM ET

I don;t think they tried to make him “their” defenseman, did they?  I doubt they were opposed to the Bruins also retiring his number...Everyone knows Ray Bourque is a Bruin, hence why he is back as a representative of the team…

Posted by NHLJeff from Boston, MA on 03/11/08 at 05:35 PM ET

That is ridiculous! especially the fact that NHLJeff is trying to justify it. another sobbing dive appologist.

Posted by Jockey full of bourbon on 03/11/08 at 05:55 PM ET

It’s called respect get over it wingie fans is it ok to respect a great player hmmmmmm is it?

nice bait artical are you scraping the bottom of the barrel?

Posted by cupster33 on 03/11/08 at 05:59 PM ET

I just think it makes the organization seem kind of desparate for tradition and history. To me retiring a number is a team saying thank you for your dedication and all you have given to this team and city and for that no one will ever wear your number again. don’t get me wrong he brought alot to that cup team but I think his number is going to look a little silly up there once Sakic’s (a great player who gave the his career to the organization)number gets retired.

Posted by Jockey full of bourbon on 03/11/08 at 06:07 PM ET

I think (as an Avs fan) it’s a bit silly. But, I also really don’t care. I mean ... it’s a retired number. Just off the top of my head, I can think of one hillion jillion billion more important things to worry about. Let ‘em retire Warren Rychel’s number if they see fit.

Posted by Greg from Atlanta on 03/11/08 at 06:10 PM ET

Hold on, you lost me at ‘Avs’ then ‘expertise’

Say what?

Posted by Laker from dapuddle on 03/11/08 at 06:33 PM ET

Detroit had Cujo for a couple years… maybe they should retire his number too?  Larry Murphy as well, perhaps?

Roy, Sakic, Forsberg… there are enough guys the Avs can legitimately celebrate without tainting the whole tradition by throwing jerseys up there of dudes that played 94 regular season games with the club.

I mean… come on.  The guy played less than 6% of his career games with the Avs.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 03/11/08 at 06:48 PM ET

I agree it seems a bit dodgy for the Avs to retire his number.  I had to do some research, but I did find out that the Bruins also retired his number (good reliable Wikipedia).  How much that would have added to this discussion if Boston hadn’t even retired it?!

Another note, Gretzky’s number was retired by 30ish teams he didn’t even play for I realize we’re comparing apples to oranges...(av’s fans to canuck’s fans)… but, hey.

Posted by LOUiE from Cowtown on 03/11/08 at 06:56 PM ET

Greg -- Well, of course it’s silly. It’s all silly; this is hockey fandom. The fact that we debate any of this stuff at all is probably pretty nuts. (Doesn’t stop me from doing it, however.)

P.S. You mean Warren Rychel’s number isn’t retired...?? Wtf? 

LOUiE -- Are Canucks fans the apples or the oranges? And why is it that someone in this comment thread (you know who you are!) frequently refers to me as “alanah banana”? 

Suddenly I feel like I’ve been left out of some cool club, dammit…

Posted by Alanah McGinley from British Columbia on 03/11/08 at 07:06 PM ET

Canuck’s fans are whichever is better and healthier for you

Posted by LOUiE from Cowtown on 03/11/08 at 07:09 PM ET

Another note, Gretzky’s number was retired by 30ish teams he didn’t even play for

Well, to be fair, Gretzky’s number was retired on behalf of twentysomething teams he didn’t play for--I don’t think the teams had much to say in the matter.

Bourque’s another story completely, unless it was Bettman-mandated somehow.

Posted by Earl Sleek from Los Angeles, CA on 03/11/08 at 07:15 PM ET

If the nucks had won the cup in ‘94 would they have retired messier’s number?

Would it have been ok if they did? He spread his career around somewhat?

I think no, but........I think Edmonton is where his should be retired, maybe you could argue New York but even that seems a bit weird.

Posted by Laker from Dapuddle on 03/11/08 at 07:50 PM ET

I’d say most Avs fans find it a bit odd but 100% - within a small margin of error - are fine with it

“unless it was Bettman-mandated somehow”

Bettman had to tell Sakic what to do with the Cup even though everyone knew what he was going to do with it anyways so it wouldn’t surprise me

Posted by Shane from Saskatoon on 03/12/08 at 01:03 AM ET

Another case for a jersey retirement that would seem logical yet probably won’t happen is Brendan Shanahan’s #14 in Detroit. Nine seasons, three Stanley Cups (including 1996-97, when many would argue he was the piece that finally put the team over the top).

While the fact that Shanahan is still playing is a mitigating factor, it seems fairly unlikely that his number will be retired when the Wings have already given it to Derek Meech. Not that Meech couldn’t/wouldn’t give it up if asked; but why bother assigning it to another player if you plan to retire it in a few years?

Posted by YzermanZetterberg on 03/12/08 at 09:13 AM ET

the whole point of retiring a number is that a number gets so associated with a particular player that you can’t imagine any other player from your franchise ever wearing it. It wouldn’t be right for anyone other than yzerman to be 19 in detroit, for example. bourque didn’t play in colorado long enough to warrant retiring it. the player has to not only have been in integral part of the team (cup run or not) but he has to have captured the fans imagination to the point where a generation of people see that number and associate it with the player. In vancouver people have talked about retiring Bure’s number because he’s clearly the most talented player we’ve ever had. But they never will, because Bure doesn’t resonate with the fans anymore because of the way he left. Linden will be the next player to go to the rafters--because seriously are we going to let another guy wear 16? no chance. 10? sure. 11? damn right--the sooner the better. But not 16, man--hands off.
on a related note--other stupidest jersey retirements are the league wide ban on #99 (what a stupid precedent to set), and Gretz retiring #19 from Team Canada. Sorry but 19 is Yzerman’s only in Detroit. On team Canada it is as much Sakic as Yzerman.

Posted by philb on 03/12/08 at 10:13 AM ET

“pretty good for a defenseman, definitely not bad” -NHLJeff

Seriously? That’s the requirement for retiring a jersey?

Posted by philb on 03/12/08 at 10:16 AM ET

PhilB,
Good job taking what I said entirely out of context. I was reffering to the caption that said Borque only had 15 goals in 84 games with the Avs, implying that that isn’t good, but those numbers definitely are not sub-par for a defenseman. That was merely a comment on the caption, not a substantiation of the jersey retirement.

Posted by NHLJeff from Boston, MA on 03/12/08 at 01:18 PM ET