Jersey Numbers

[BTH]

Further thought - should off-ice contributions be relevant? I don't mean charity work and that sort of thing, but rather coaching/administrative/GM duties.

We have the precedent of Savard and Gainey, but both of those guys probably deserve to have their numbers retired purely on the basis of their contributions as players.

A case such as Blake (or conceivably Carbonneau) muddies the waters a bit. Blake was an outstanding player, but I don't see him as a 'legend' on the scale of Morenz or Robinson. It's his achievements as a coach that really make us want to retire his number - am I right?

My own feeling is that off-ice contributions should not be considered in this decision, in which case Blake should no more be considered than, say, Mats Naslund or Jacques Lemaire. But I could be off-base.

I think his coaching success should count. Retiring numbers is about honouring people who deserve it most. I think Blake as purely a player does not get it and that Blake as purely a coach does not get it - but the combination of his success at both levels should be enough.

That's why I think they would consider retiring Koivu's jersey. Was he a dominant player in the league? No. Does he deserve it? Yes. I think they won't retire his number though - the reason: if they retire #11 then they have to consider retiring #22, #6, #3, etc, etc, etc. It will never end.

[Wamsley01]

I think his coaching success should count. Retiring numbers is about honouring people who deserve it most. I think Blake as purely a player does not get it and that Blake as purely a coach does not get it - but the combination of his success at both levels should be enough.

That's why I think they would consider retiring Koivu's jersey. Was he a dominant player in the league? No. Does he deserve it? Yes. I think they won't retire his number though - the reason: if they retire #11 then they have to consider retiring #22, #6, #3, etc, etc, etc. It will never end.

They seem to have set the standard

To even open the discussion you must be in the Hall of Fame.

Then you have to have contributed to Stanley Cup victories.

Then you have to have been one of the greatest players of all time at your position.

I may be wrong, does anybody not meet this criteria?

[saskhab]

They seem to have set the standard

To even open the discussion you must be in the Hall of Fame.

Then you have to have contributed to Stanley Cup victories.

Then you have to have been one of the greatest players of all time at your position.

I may be wrong, does anybody not meet this criteria?

I wouldn't call Henri Richard one of the best players of all time at his position, but his importance and dedication to the Habs, plus his record number of Cups as a player, seal his place. As a player, he was a very good, not often great, player who consistently contributed to the team's success over a long period of time.

Obviously I can't compare how they played, but I think Toe Blake was similar, if not better than Henri Richard as a player.

Henri Richard had 1046 points in 1259 games, with 129 points in 180 playoff games. He won no major awards aside from the Masterton Trophy in '74. He was a first team all star once, and a second team all star three times.

Toe Blake had 527 points in 567 games (majority of his career there were only 50 games a season), with 62 points in 58 playoff games. He won the Hart and Art Ross in 1938-39, the Lady Byng in 1945-46, and was a first team all star three times and a second team all star twice. He was part of one of the greatest line in Habs history, the Punch line with Maurice Richard and Elmer Lach. He was nicknamed "the Old Lamplighter" because of his goal scoring prowess. He scored the Cup winning goal in overtime in 1944. In the playoffs that year, he had a 2 point per game average, a record that stood until some skinny Brampton kid topped it in the '80s. He was captain from 1940-48, a period of time equal to Gainey's tenure. He was elected to the Hockey Hall of Fame in 1966 AS A PLAYER, not a coach.

Blake's one knock might be this, he was "only" on two Cup winners as a player (1944 & 1946). The Pocket Rocket definitely was part of a lot more Habs success than him.

Edited November 22, 2007 by saskhab

[Wamsley01]

I wouldn't call Henri Richard one of the best players of all time at his position, but his importance and dedication to the Habs, plus his record number of Cups as a player, seal his place. As a player, he was a very good, not often great, player who consistently contributed to the team's success over a long period of time.

Obviously I can't compare how they played, but I think Toe Blake was similar, if not better than Henri Richard as a player.

Henri Richard had 1046 points in 1259 games, with 129 points in 180 playoff games. He won no major awards aside from the Masterton Trophy in '74. He was a first team all star once, and a second team all star three times.

Toe Blake had 527 points in 567 games (majority of his career there were only 50 games a season), with 62 points in 58 playoff games. He won the Hart and Art Ross in 1938-39, the Lady Byng in 1945-46, and was a first team all star three times and a second team all star twice. He was part of one of the greatest line in Habs history, the Punch line with Maurice Richard and Elmer Lach. He was nicknamed "the Old Lamplighter" because of his goal scoring prowess. He scored the Cup winning goal in overtime in 1944. In the playoffs that year, he had a 2 point per game average, a record that stood until some skinny Brampton kid topped it in the '80s. He was captain from 1940-48, a period of time equal to Gainey's tenure. He was elected to the Hockey Hall of Fame in 1966 AS A PLAYER, not a coach.

Blake's one knock might be this, he was "only" on two Cup winners as a player (1944 & 1946). The Pocket Rocket definitely was part of a lot more Habs success than him.

Well, he does not fully meet the criteria, but 11 Stanley Cups will get you a pass.

Feel free anybody to think of any other criteria

[Habsfan]

«That's teh problem when you have soooo many guys who were a part of soo many dynasties within one team. The 50's the 60's and the 70's. we could start naming many other players who on any other of the 29 teams in the NHL would be "no-brainers" to have their numbers retired, but we aren'T talking about the other 29 teams.

I thikn it's pretty safe to say tha after numbers 23 and 33, we won,t be seeing any other numbers retired for at least a decade or 2. It might suck for guys like Butch Bouchard, Lach, Blake and others, but sometimes life just isn'T fair!

Edited November 22, 2007 by Habsfan

[Wamsley01]

«That's teh problem when you have soooo many guys who were a part of soo many dynasties within one team. The 50's the 60's and the 70's. we could start naming many other players who on any other of the 29 teams in the NHL would be "no-brainers" to have their numbers retired, but we aren'T talking about the other 29 teams.

I thikn it's pretty safe to say tha after numbers 23 and 33, we won,t be seeing any other numbers retired for at least a decade or 2. It might suck for guys like Butch Bouchard, Lach, Blake and others, but sometimes life just isn'T fair!

It is like the Baseball Hall of Fame compared to the Hockey Hall of Fame.

Bernie Federko type players aren't even allowed to visit in Cooperstown, Hockey puts Federko and Gillies in.

The standards in Montreal are ridiculously high, and that is what makes the Habs such a storied franchise.

I hope they never change the standard

[saskhab]

I am not arguing for a lowering of the standard. To me, Toe Blake meets the high standard

[Cataclaw]

No Hall of Fame, likely no jersey retirement. If he does win a couple of Cups and squeaks in to the Hall he will be retired for sure.

No chance for Saku short of the Habs stringing together a mini-dynasty in the next few years. He'll get a big ceremony, a portrait, and a lovely parting gift at centre ice (and a long, well-deserved ovation)...but 11 will still be in circulation after he's gone. The bar is just set too high within this franchise.

Koivu would definitely need to win a cup or three and have several more good years under his belt to even be considered for the HHOF, but if he does, i agree, he would be considered for jersey retirement eventually. It's a long stretch, granted, but it's not impossible.

Could #11 be retired officially? It depends what the Habs management decides a decade or two down the line, if/when they run out of dynasty legends to honor. They might turn to Saku and retire his jersey, not out of player ability, but out of all-around impact and greatness during the time he was here. Time will tell.. we're 10-20 years too soon to know for sure.

As to whether #11 could be retired unofficially, among the players, you can bet on it! :hlogo: