Retiring #33

[smon]

What's confusing about it?

It seems that people (I count two instances in the thread) are getting mixed up with the title being "retiring #33" and the actual question which is whether his character should be considered.

So, say if someone thinks that Roy's jersey should be retired, he votes "yes" to the question...even though he should actually vote no.

Anyways, his jersey deserves to be in the rafters. Stubborn and arrogant, or not, Roy did enough to justify that honour.

[Wamsley01]

Hall of fame for sure.

Retired by Montreal, no way.

Roy burned his bridge with this team as far as I'm concerned when he said he would never play here again. I agree with those posters that have said the Roy situation was a mess and all of those involved were at fault. That does not excuse the fact that he turned his back on the team.

Well, if not Roy we are going to become like the Leafs. In 10 years all of our honoured stars will be dead or in their 60s-80s.

As far as him turning his back. 20,000 had no problem booing him over 1 bad game. Pretty unappreciative if you ask me.

But the fans of Montreal deserve class in return right. Not like they booed Saku Koivu before because he didn't introduce

the team in french, or booed Kovalev all last season, or booed Geoffrian because he didn't hand over the scoring title to Richard.

It is amazing how the fanbase demands perfection of an athlete and not from themselves. How they can jump on board with the media

when the same media try's to embarass a great man like Saku Koivu for not saying Bonjour.

But Roy was supposed to suffer the fate of Guy Lafleur and Larry Robinson right. He was to be embarrassed by the organization,

and take it like a good boy. Set out to pasture when they felt the time. The Canadiens organization is not without fault in many things

yet the players are supposed to be perfect?

Roy deserves it. Red Fisher can wax poetic about the glory years of the organization all he wants, times have changed. That standard does not exist anymore.

Why must everybody be Jean Beliveau to have their ######ing number retired? Hate to break it to you Red, THERE IS ONLY ONE JEAN BELIVEAU!

The Canadiens could have chosen Roy over Tremblay, they could have patched the relationship up. Not like they didn't hold the power. Roy was under contract

in an era where Free Agency was totally restrictive. Why cut ties without even trying to patch things up? Why did they have no problem

throwing him to the wolves? I don't recall Roy telling the media what he said, I may be wrong but I heard it for the first time from the post game from

Mario Tremblay's mouth. They were looking to deal him, why did they want to villify him?

Because it would allow them to save face with the public. They wanted him out and this was the perfect way to not look bad to the fans.

Just like Corey and his ridiculous move of hiring two unqualified incompetent boobs to run the Canadiens. Both were great temporary PR move that set the franchise back 10 years.

The hipocrasy of all the individuals (not singling anybody in particular out, but the situation) is amazing to me. How often does it have to come down

to the simplistic self absorbed view that Roy spurned me (the organization) and screw him. Why now is character a factor?

Dryden quits for a year until he gets what he wants, but is not a quitter, Richard punches an official, Lafleur runs around on his wife, drinks and drives and almost kills himself

and is then forced out and publicly berates the organization upon his return to the NHL, Savard, Robinson, Geoffrion all leave the organization on bad terms yet are never deemed quitters.

Please somebody explain to me this obsession with tearing down Roy's legend while ignoring the faults of others? Ridiculous

Edited March 27, 2008 by Wamsley01

[BTH]

Wait... I voted "NO" because I thought "character" here refered to his bad temper...

...

Wamsley01, I think you need to rephrase your poll question!

I'm pretty sure that that IS what this thread is about. Obviously, his character should come into play but has he really done anything bad enough to counter arguably the best career/performance or two from a goalie of all time? definitely not. I don't think he turned the back on the organization - he turned his back on Mario Tremblay, a man most of us have also turned our backs on.

If it weren't for him, this would be our 29th consecutive season without a Cup. Give the man the credit he deserves.

[matsnaslundsuperfan]

I'm pretty sure that that IS what this thread is about. Obviously, his character should come into play but has he really done anything bad enough to counter arguably the best career/performance or two from a goalie of all time? definitely not. I don't think he turned the back on the organization - he turned his back on Mario Tremblay, a man most of us have also turned our backs on.

If it weren't for him, this would be our 29th consecutive season without a Cup. Give the man the credit he deserves.

I have to disagree with you BTH... sure he's won a couple of cups for Montreal... I'm not about to give him entire credit for either of them. The team won in '85 and '93... I'd retire Mats Sundin's number before Roy's... he chose the team over himself at this year's trade dealine. Mr. Roy did not when he lost it that night running from the organization... If he had truly wanted to stay with the team he would have acted professionally and tried to work things out.

I do think it would make a statement to any of the up and comers who may one day have the priviledge to have his number retired that commitment to the organization is very very important.

:hlogo:

[BTH]

I have to disagree with you BTH... sure he's won a couple of cups for Montreal... I'm not about to give him entire credit for either of them. The team won in '85 and '93... I'd retire Mats Sundin's number before Roy's... he chose the team over himself at this year's trade dealine. Mr. Roy did not when he lost it that night running from the organization... If he had truly wanted to stay with the team he would have acted professionally and tried to work things out.

I do think it would make a statement to any of the up and comers who may one day have the priviledge to have his number retired that commitment to the organization is very very important.

:hlogo:

I believe both of them should have their numbers retired. Mats Sundin for being an extremely good player that showed commitment and stuck with his team throughout his entire career (even if sticking to his no-trade clause may have hurt the team in the long run). Meanwhile, Patrick Roy should have his number retired for being one of, if not THE, greatest player ever to play his position. That has to count for something, he was a fierce competitor and he played his heart out when he was with the team. In the end, it was this pride and passion for the game that is getting him into trouble over and over again, but I will always respect the way Roy played the game. It's the way every player should.

If you are going to bring up his antics as a coach, I don't really take those into account. If we're giving so much attention at a player's coaching success/class, then why haven't we retired Toe Blake's number 6 yet? (But seriously, let's retire Blake's number!)

[Wamsley01]

I have to disagree with you BTH... sure he's won a couple of cups for Montreal... I'm not about to give him entire credit for either of them. The team won in '85 and '93... I'd retire Mats Sundin's number before Roy's... he chose the team over himself at this year's trade dealine. Mr. Roy did not when he lost it that night running from the organization... If he had truly wanted to stay with the team he would have acted professionally and tried to work things out.

I do think it would make a statement to any of the up and comers who may one day have the priviledge to have his number retired that commitment to the organization is very very important.

:hlogo:

Well, there is a reason Mats Sundin has never won a Stanley Cup and Patrick Roy has 4. Mats Sundin selfless act would not make a difference

in Montreal because it is quite obvious that he does not meet the criteria of Hall of Famer, Stanley Cup champion, classy individual with zero skeletons in his closet.

BTW, how come Darcy Tucker, Brian McCabe, Tomas Kaberle and Pavel Kubina are not viewed as selfless team players? They did the exact same thing as Mats.

Maybe the focus should be on the management who decided that Rejean Houle and Mario Tremblay better represented the organization, then Patrick Roy.

I have to say I am impressed with the amount of loyal, faultless Habs fans in this world.

Edited March 27, 2008 by Wamsley01

[brboo]

Well, if not Roy we are going to become like the Leafs. In 10 years all of our honoured stars will be dead or in their 60s-80s.

As far as him turning his back. 20,000 had no problem booing him over 1 bad game. Pretty unappreciative if you ask me.

But the fans of Montreal deserve class in return right. Not like they booed Saku Koivu before because he didn't introduce

the team in french, or booed Kovalev all last season, or booed Geoffrian because he didn't hand over the scoring title to Richard.

It is amazing how the fanbase demands perfection of an athlete and not from themselves. How they can jump on board with the media

when the same media try's to embarass a great man like Saku Koivu for not saying Bonjour.

But Roy was supposed to suffer the fate of Guy Lafleur and Larry Robinson right. He was to be embarrassed by the organization,

and take it like a good boy. Set out to pasture when they felt the time. The Canadiens organization is not without fault in many things

yet the players are supposed to be perfect?

Roy deserves it. Red Fisher can wax poetic about the glory years of the organization all he wants, times have changed. That standard does not exist anymore.

Why must everybody be Jean Beliveau to have their ######ing number retired? Hate to break it to you Red, THERE IS ONLY ONE JEAN BELIVEAU!

The Canadiens could have chosen Roy over Tremblay, they could have patched the relationship up. Not like they didn't hold the power. Roy was under contract

in an era where Free Agency was totally restrictive. Why cut ties without even trying to patch things up? Why did they have no problem

throwing him to the wolves? I don't recall Roy telling the media what he said, I may be wrong but I heard it for the first time from the post game from

Mario Tremblay's mouth. They were looking to deal him, why did they want to villify him?

Because it would allow them to save face with the public. They wanted him out and this was the perfect way to not look bad to the fans.

Just like Corey and his ridiculous move of hiring two unqualified incompetent boobs to run the Canadiens. Both were great temporary PR move that set the franchise back 10 years.

The hipocrasy of all the individuals (not singling anybody in particular out, but the situation) is amazing to me. How often does it have to come down

to the simplistic self absorbed view that Roy spurned me (the organization) and screw him. Why now is character a factor?

Dryden quits for a year until he gets what he wants, but is not a quitter, Richard punches an official, Lafleur runs around on his wife, drinks and drives and almost kills himself

and is then forced out and publicly berates the organization upon his return to the NHL, Savard, Robinson, Geoffrion all leave the organization on bad terms yet are never deemed quitters.

Please somebody explain to me this obsession with tearing down Roy's legend while ignoring the faults of others? Ridiculous

Best post ever!

[Zowpeb]

Frankly, I think Roy is one of the greatest players to where the jersey...I think you could even argue he's a top 3, possibly top 2 player in the history of this franchise. I know there is a lot of love for Plante and Dryden, and both were phenomenal, goaltenders but I believe Roy was the better goalie. When you can make an argument that Roy could be ranked ahead of the players whose jersey's are already retired there is NO question that he is deserving.

As for his previous off-ice issues, the trade and his issue, I don't see why it should affect his standing in the history of this organizations success...isn't that what the jersey/number retirement is all about?

Without question his jersey should be retired.

[matsnaslundsuperfan]

I agree that his coaching antics are irrelevent to this discussion,... never entered my mind.

You are right, Sundin may have hurt his team by not allowing himself to be traded...hmm that could be the same thing Roy did only in the opposite... maybe my argument has been nulified.

If they do hang his jersey, good for him... I'll still look at it and wince a bit.

As always BTH keep up the great posts,... you rock!

I believe both of them should have their numbers retired. Mats Sundin for being an extremely good player that showed commitment and stuck with his team throughout his entire career (even if sticking to his no-trade clause may have hurt the team in the long run). Meanwhile, Patrick Roy should have his number retired for being one of, if not THE, greatest player ever to play his position. That has to count for something, he was a fierce competitor and he played his heart out when he was with the team. In the end, it was this pride and passion for the game that is getting him into trouble over and over again, but I will always respect the way Roy played the game. It's the way every player should.

If you are going to bring up his antics as a coach, I don't really take those into account. If we're giving so much attention at a player's coaching success/class, then why haven't we retired Toe Blake's number 6 yet? (But seriously, let's retire Blake's number!)

[Prime Minister Koivu]

Well, if not Roy we are going to become like the Leafs. In 10 years all of our honoured stars will be dead or in their 60s-80s.

As far as him turning his back. 20,000 had no problem booing him over 1 bad game. Pretty unappreciative if you ask me.

But the fans of Montreal deserve class in return right. Not like they booed Saku Koivu before because he didn't introduce

the team in french, or booed Kovalev all last season, or booed Geoffrian because he didn't hand over the scoring title to Richard.

It is amazing how the fanbase demands perfection of an athlete and not from themselves. How they can jump on board with the media

when the same media try's to embarass a great man like Saku Koivu for not saying Bonjour.

But Roy was supposed to suffer the fate of Guy Lafleur and Larry Robinson right. He was to be embarrassed by the organization,

and take it like a good boy. Set out to pasture when they felt the time. The Canadiens organization is not without fault in many things

yet the players are supposed to be perfect?

Roy deserves it. Red Fisher can wax poetic about the glory years of the organization all he wants, times have changed. That standard does not exist anymore.

Why must everybody be Jean Beliveau to have their ######ing number retired? Hate to break it to you Red, THERE IS ONLY ONE JEAN BELIVEAU!

The Canadiens could have chosen Roy over Tremblay, they could have patched the relationship up. Not like they didn't hold the power. Roy was under contract

in an era where Free Agency was totally restrictive. Why cut ties without even trying to patch things up? Why did they have no problem

throwing him to the wolves? I don't recall Roy telling the media what he said, I may be wrong but I heard it for the first time from the post game from

Mario Tremblay's mouth. They were looking to deal him, why did they want to villify him?

Because it would allow them to save face with the public. They wanted him out and this was the perfect way to not look bad to the fans.

Just like Corey and his ridiculous move of hiring two unqualified incompetent boobs to run the Canadiens. Both were great temporary PR move that set the franchise back 10 years.

The hipocrasy of all the individuals (not singling anybody in particular out, but the situation) is amazing to me. How often does it have to come down

to the simplistic self absorbed view that Roy spurned me (the organization) and screw him. Why now is character a factor?

Dryden quits for a year until he gets what he wants, but is not a quitter, Richard punches an official, Lafleur runs around on his wife, drinks and drives and almost kills himself

and is then forced out and publicly berates the organization upon his return to the NHL, Savard, Robinson, Geoffrion all leave the organization on bad terms yet are never deemed quitters.

Please somebody explain to me this obsession with tearing down Roy's legend while ignoring the faults of others? Ridiculous

There is no question that Roy is in the top 2 goalies of all time. His contributions in the 86 cup were nothing short of miraculous. I do not debate that he has the credentials to deserve his number retired.

The examples of past players like Lafleur running around on his wife means about as much to me as Roy's antics as a coach. It does not tarnish what they have done as hockey players to me.

I did not consider that perhaps Tremblay intentionally tried to embarrass Roy. I have always thought that Roy's pride and interest in himself caused that situation. It looked to me like Roy was thinking, "Don't you know who I am? I am Patrick F-ing Roy! How dare you play me when I am not doing well. I am the greatest player of all time. I am the team".

If it was a situation where Tremblay used that opportunity to embarrass Roy it would make a world of difference to me.

[johnnyhasbeen]

There is no question that Roy is in the top 2 goalies of all time. His contributions in the 86 cup were nothing short of miraculous. I do not debate that he has the credentials to deserve his number retired.

The examples of past players like Lafleur running around on his wife means about as much to me as Roy's antics as a coach. It does not tarnish what they have done as hockey players to me.

I did not consider that perhaps Tremblay intentionally tried to embarrass Roy. I have always thought that Roy's pride and interest in himself caused that situation. It looked to me like Roy was thinking, "Don't you know who I am? I am Patrick F-ing Roy! How dare you play me when I am not doing well. I am the greatest player of all time. I am the team".

If it was a situation where Tremblay used that opportunity to embarrass Roy it would make a world of difference to me.

I always though Trembley was in a power struggle with his team and his star. He was trying to take Roy down a notch. 33 had been looking at the bench to be pulled, had skated to the bench on TV timeouts when everyone thought he'd be pulled. He was off and wanted out. His coach wasn't having it. mario blew it, then 30 seconds after he was finally pulled Cory blew it. Mario should have been fire on the spot. he would have gain respect of us fans if he had stepped behind the bench, fired mario on the spot and coached the game himself. It was lost anyway,10-1? If Houle said boo, fired him too and saved us a bunch of years. When his star said "How do you say, trADE

[JLP]

What's confusing about it?

well most intellegent people will get it but i did not ~ we are discussing whether Roy's number should be retired. I assumed the question reflected that and was phrased: "Do you think Roy's number should be retired?"

BUT, actually if you think "yes" the number should be retired then you are meant to vote "no" and vice versa. That confused me because i didn't read the question carefully, so i voted the wrong way

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

We wouldn't be retiring Roy's number as coach of the Quebec Ramparts or whatever. We would be retiring him as QUITE POSSIBLY THE GREATEST GOALIE OF ALL TIME and QUITE POSSIBLY THE GREATEST GOALIE TO WEAR THE HABS' JERSEY. (personally, I rate Plante ahead of him, but let's not split hairs). Oh yes, that, AND THE MAN WHO WAS OVERWHELMINGLY RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR LAST TWO STANLEY CUPS.

To start factoring in 'extracurricular activity' or the fact that he is unquestionably a jerk, and probably violent to boot, is to go down the path of that blithering imbecile Ronald Corey - the festering pus-bag of moronic, moralizing ignorance that saw legends like Guy Carbonneau and Chris Chelios traded out of town because they didn't suit some self-proclaimed image of 'family values.' Roy's attitude is part of what made him so damned great: the last true champion to wear the :hlogo: and the last player truly worthy of the organization's heritage as a dynasty.

Failing to retire his number for petty reasons, like the fact that his exit from town was less than gracious, would be an absolute disgrace.

(Incidentally, Lafleur didn't just sleep around, he also was a drunk driver, and said all sorts of nasty things about the organization in public during and after the unpleasant period of his retirement. And he also happened to be the most explosive player of his era and the game breaker of our last dynasty. What counts for more? You tell me).

[Wamsley01]

There is no question that Roy is in the top 2 goalies of all time. His contributions in the 86 cup were nothing short of miraculous. I do not debate that he has the credentials to deserve his number retired.

The examples of past players like Lafleur running around on his wife means about as much to me as Roy's antics as a coach. It does not tarnish what they have done as hockey players to me.

I did not consider that perhaps Tremblay intentionally tried to embarrass Roy. I have always thought that Roy's pride and interest in himself caused that situation. It looked to me like Roy was thinking, "Don't you know who I am? I am Patrick F-ing Roy! How dare you play me when I am not doing well. I am the greatest player of all time. I am the team".

If it was a situation where Tremblay used that opportunity to embarrass Roy it would make a world of difference to me.

Tremblay set out to show Roy who was boss. That was pretty evident.

It was a power struggle and Corey the idiot who he was backed the wrong horse. Jesus, if you wanted to trade Patrick Roy

how can you find a way to put yourself in the position of vulnerability. The whole thing was screwed up by three incompetents.

Common sense tells you that you don't make a deal when you are backed into a corner. And they intentionally backed themselves

into a corner like the idiots they were. Why in the hell do you tell the press what he said?

So now Roy can't take it back or he looks like an idiot and Tremblay can't accept him back because he showed up the organization.

Do you think Bob Gainey and Guy Carbonneau would have handled that situation in that manner? Are you kidding me?

They would have brought him in right after the game and figured out a way to possibly smooth it over or figure out a way to

help both parties if a settlement could not be reached. Gainey did as much in Dallas when Belfour shot his mouth off about

Ken Hitchcock, or when Belfour bribed a police officer.

The revisionist history that is going on drives me nuts. The glorification of those already in the rafters and the shredding of Roy's

image is absurd.

In my mind Roy did not quit, he was betrayed and his temper exposed himself to being made a scapegoat. All of the three blind

mice's actions proved so in the following three days. Roy has said that one of his biggest regrets was not trying to smooth things

over immediately following the incident. But seeing as Savard had already made overtures to Colorado about dealing him and

Reggie Fool essentially taking a lesser version of that deal without talking to the rest of the league, I tend to believe that was the case.

Who in their right mind does not play Colorado off Detroit in that situation? Who doesn't shop the best goalie in the league to every team?

Who takes 10 cents on the dollar for a surefire Hall of Famer?

I will be disappointed if the Habs bow to media pressure, Roy deserves to be honoured.

Edited March 28, 2008 by Wamsley01

[brboo]

well most intellegent people will get it but i did not ~ we are discussing whether Roy's number should be retired. I assumed the question reflected that and was phrased: "Do you think Roy's number should be retired?"

BUT, actually if you think "yes" the number should be retired then you are meant to vote "no" and vice versa. That confused me because i didn't read the question carefully, so i voted the wrong way

It's ok, I had to read it a couple of times before I got it too.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Who in their right mind does not play Colorado off Detroit in that situation? Who doesn't shop the best goalie in the league to every team?

Who takes 10 cents on the dollar for a surefire Hall of Famer?

Well...Boston does - see the Thorton trade

Don't worry, Gainey will do the right thing. Anyway, in a year, the dust will have settled on this father/son fooforah.

[tokyohabs]

RDS bites Wamsley's poll.

Anyway, non-topic, 33 will be retired, and deservedly so.

Obvious as it was happening that Tremblay was trying to publicly humiliate Roy at home. Any crowd would boo at that performance. Roy blew up, and Corey, Tremblay and Houle went off hiding in the dark, working the one phone line to Gauthier trying desperately to build a Cup-winning team...somewhere.

Anyone who thinks Roy shouldn't have his number retired and Koivu should have his, well, here's a site you might like...

http://www.youppi.ca/index_en.php

[Wamsley01]

Well...Boston does - see the Thorton trade

Don't worry, Gainey will do the right thing. Anyway, in a year, the dust will have settled on this father/son fooforah.

Mike O'Connell and Mike Milbury are right up in the Rejean Houle category.

I agree with you 100%. Gainey played with Roy and won a Cup with him. He knows him fairly well and will look past all

this media nonsense. Look no further than the way he slapped the media and the fans down for their treatment of

Brisebois. If he feels the honour is deserved it will happen next season.

[Prime Minister Koivu]

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...01d&k=99607

Good article by Red Fisher on the subject. A couple of paragraphs that I agree with from the article:

It is not. In my view, Roy abdicated his rights to that honour with his capitulation to irrationalism on Dec. 2, 1995, when a stunned Forum crowd saw him allow nine goals on 26 shots in an 11-1 meltdown to the Detroit Red Wings. It was only then that he was taken out of the game by coach Mario Tremblay.

Anyone who was there or viewed the game on TV can still see a furious Roy shouldering his way past Tremblay to Canadiens president Ronald Corey sitting in the first row behind the players' bench, leaning over and telling him he had played his last game with the team. That film clip has been shown over and over again following last Saturday's hockey version of road rage - and for good reason. It was unprofessional and a gross disrespect for the sweater he wore. Four days later, he was shipped to Colorado.

[Wamsley01]

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...01d&k=99607

Good article by Red Fisher on the subject. A couple of paragraphs that I agree with from the article:

It is not. In my view, Roy abdicated his rights to that honour with his capitulation to irrationalism on Dec. 2, 1995, when a stunned Forum crowd saw him allow nine goals on 26 shots in an 11-1 meltdown to the Detroit Red Wings. It was only then that he was taken out of the game by coach Mario Tremblay.

Anyone who was there or viewed the game on TV can still see a furious Roy shouldering his way past Tremblay to Canadiens president Ronald Corey sitting in the first row behind the players' bench, leaning over and telling him he had played his last game with the team. That film clip has been shown over and over again following last Saturday's hockey version of road rage - and for good reason. It was unprofessional and a gross disrespect for the sweater he wore. Four days later, he was shipped to Colorado.

Hey everybody is entitled to their opinion. But Fisher paints the story as though Roy was unjustified in his reaction.

Roy is not dumb, and he knew exactly the message being sent. It was a power struggle that was exacerbated by the crowd booing him then mock cheering him for an easy save.

It was the perfect storm and Roy's ego exploded. Did he act like a petulant child? Yes. Did he make a mistake? Yes. Should he be villified for eternity by people like Red Fisher? No.

Roy knows where his legend lies and it is not in Colorado. It was as the brightest star in the Hockey Mecca. He laid out the olive branch upon his Hall of Fame induction by stating

it is his greatest regret not sitting down and working it out. He wants back in the family, and I think he should be welcomed back with open arms. But that is my opinion.

All I know is he never quit on the Canadiens every second he wore that jersey until he felt they quit on him. Which seems to be all to easily swept under the rug.

I guess it is just acceptable to embarrass your legends like the Canadiens have a long repuation of. The hipocrasy makes me ill.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Fisher is a legend and deservedly so. But that piece has a decided whiff of 'old fart' about it: a romanticized vision of the heroes of the past, some sort of The Sweater Is Always Right logic that overlooks the points Wamsley so effectively makes about the organization's reciprocal obligation not to crap on its players or betray them with gross incompetence.

Everything I know about Red Fisher leads me to suspect that he himself would not submit to the kind of crap that Roy is being condemned for not submitting to. Would Fisher put up with it if the Gazette publicly humiliated him, or if it were being grossly and obviously run into the ground by underqualified and clearly incompetent management/editors? No. He would skip town and find work elsewhere, probably making his disgruntlement quite publicly known.

Unquestionably Roy handled it badly, but Fisher has clearly failed to put himself in Roy's shoes here.

Beyond that, Fisher had the luxury of living most of his life under Habs' dynasties. The team of the 1970s could afford to withhold honours to players who deserved it (e.g., Larry Robinson) because they were too critical of management or whatever. There were plenty of other greats hanging around. If the Habs fail to honour Roy, they will be doing an injustice not just to him, but to all the fans for whom Patrick Roy is the ONLY player of truly legendary achievement they remember. It's not fair that FISHER get to watch his heroes canonized, gets to have his memories of greatness enshrined in the rafters, but not those of us who came of age during the 80s and 90s.

Furthermore, the effect of dissing Roy in the long run will be bad for the organization. Look at the criticism we got for not retiring Robinson's number earlier, so that his father could see it. Look at the criticisms the Leafs have received over the years for not taking of care of their own alumni. Imagine an elderly, fragile 75-year-old Patrick Roy, his personal pecadilloes forgotten but his greatness undiminished by time, dying, without ever having been properly acknowledged and thanked by the organization he propelled to glory. It would be a disgrace, and it would be seen by future generations as a disgrace.

Retiring numbers should be done with an eye to history and the long run. Not personality or the controversies of the moment. That is why Saku Koivu should never have his number retired (he scored incredibly highly on the 'personality' end, but the on-ice achievement simply is not there). And that is why Roy should have his number retired.

[Wamsley01]

Fisher is a legend and deservedly so. But that piece has a decided whiff of 'old fart' about it: a romanticized vision of the heroes of the past, some sort of The Sweater Is Always Right logic that overlooks the points Wamsley so effectively makes about the organization's reciprocal obligation not to crap on its players or betray them with gross incompetence.

Everything I know about Red Fisher leads me to suspect that he himself would not submit to the kind of crap that Roy is being condemned for not submitting to. Would Fisher put up with it if the Gazette publicly humiliated him, or if it were being grossly and obviously run into the ground by underqualified and clearly incompetent management/editors? No. He would skip town and find work elsewhere, probably making his disgruntlement quite publicly known.

Unquestionably Roy handled it badly, but Fisher has clearly failed to put himself in Roy's shoes here.

Beyond that, Fisher had the luxury of living most of his life under Habs' dynasties. The team of the 1970s could afford to withhold honours to players who deserved it (e.g., Larry Robinson) because they were too critical of management or whatever. There were plenty of other greats hanging around. If the Habs fail to honour Roy, they will be doing an injustice not just to him, but to all the fans for whom Patrick Roy is the ONLY player of truly legendary achievement they remember. It's not fair that FISHER get to watch his heroes canonized, gets to have his memories of greatness enshrined in the rafters, but not those of us who came of age during the 80s and 90s.

Furthermore, the effect of dissing Roy in the long run will be bad for the organization. Look at the criticism we got for not retiring Robinson's number earlier, so that his father could see it. Look at the criticisms the Leafs have received over the years for not taking of care of their own alumni. Imagine an elderly, fragile 75-year-old Patrick Roy, his personal pecadilloes forgotten but his greatness undiminished by time, dying, without ever having been properly acknowledged and thanked by the organization he propelled to glory. It would be a disgrace, and it would be seen by future generations as a disgrace.

Retiring numbers should be done with an eye to history and the long run. Not personality or the controversies of the moment. That is why Saku Koivu should never have his number retired (he scored incredibly highly on the 'personality' end, but the on-ice achievement simply is not there). And that is why Roy should have his number retired.

Great post CC.

I think you encapsulated my feelings better than I have been able to. I couldn't express what they owe me without sounding selfish, so I am glad you did it so eloquently.

As much as Fisher and other generations feel it is their place to define what it is to be a Canadien, it does not make it absolute. Our link to the glorious past is Patrick Roy.

Almost every glorious Habs moment in my life is somehow linked to Patrick Roy. You cannot just remove him from history because you don't like his character.

You insult me and every other fan like me. If they make him wait as punishment, whatever, but what purpose does it serve? It is just as arrogant and self serving

as what they accuse Roy of.

Red is pushing forward his agenda and would in the same circumstance, no different than Roy did in his day. Solid analagy CC.

Edited March 28, 2008 by Wamsley01

[Prime Minister Koivu]

There is still time to make the situation right.

An apology by Roy and Gainey (representing the Habs) could make this right.

Roy admits he was wrong, Habs admit they were wrong. Shake hands and rebuild the relationship.

[Wamsley01]

There is still time to make the situation right.

An apology by Roy and Gainey (representing the Habs) could make this right.

Roy admits he was wrong, Habs admit they were wrong. Shake hands and rebuild the relationship.

Wouldn't that be great

[Habsfan84]

I think that Roy was just too good of a goalie to not get his number retired.