Number 33 retired this november

[Habsfan]

There are rumours flying around town that Number 33 will be retired this November.

An Article written by Richard labbé from LaPresse, says that the Habs will retire Patrick Roy's number this november.

If that is the case, I say he deserves it! Without King Patrick, our last cup would have been won in may 1979, almost 30 years ago!

Here's the link

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20080829...30/CPACTUALITES

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

I can't believe there's even any debate about this. Roy is the last of the all-time great Montreal Canadiens, a man who carried the team on his back to two championships, could completely intimidate the opposition, and is universally recognized as both one of the greatest goalies in the history of the game and perhaps its ultimate "money goalie". As for the manner of his departure - give me a break, he was confronted with The Blueberry and Reggie Fool: in a contest between winner Roy and those blithering jackanapses, I know where my sympathies lie. Go Saint Patrick!!

[Habsfan]

I can't believe there's even any debate about this. Roy is the last of the all-time great Montreal Canadiens, a man who carried the team on his back to two championships, could completely intimidate the opposition, and is universally recognized as both one of the greatest goalies in the history of the game and perhaps its ultimate "money goalie". As for the manner of his departure - give me a break, he was confronted with The Blueberry and Reggie Fool: in a contest between winner Roy and those blithering jackanapses, I know where my sympathies lie. Go Saint Patrick!!

definitely agree with you on this.

[JLP]

I can't believe there's even any debate about this. Roy is the last of the all-time great Montreal Canadiens, a man who carried the team on his back to two championships, could completely intimidate the opposition, and is universally recognized as both one of the greatest goalies in the history of the game and perhaps its ultimate "money goalie". As for the manner of his departure - give me a break, he was confronted with The Blueberry and Reggie Fool: in a contest between winner Roy and those blithering jackanapses, I know where my sympathies lie. Go Saint Patrick!!

[Habsfan]

from TSN.ca

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=247864&amp...s=secStory_main

REPORT: CANADIENS TO RETIRE ROY'S NO. 33 JERSEY

THE CANADIAN PRESS

8/29/2008 11:41:04 AM

MONTREAL - The Montreal Canadiens plan to retire jersey No. 33 of goaltender Patrick Roy in November, Montreal La Presse reported Friday.

A Canadiens spokesman would not confirm the report, saying the team does not comment on jersey retirements.

Roy, meanwhile, told the newspaper that he was unaware of any plans to retire his number.

"I don't know what's going on with that," said the Hall of Famer. "For sure it would be a great honour."

Roy led Montreal to Stanley Cups in 1986 and 1993 and is considered as one of the top goaltenders in NHL history, posting a record 551 wins in 19 seasons with the Canadiens and the Colorado Avalanche.

However, his career in Montreal ended abruptly in Dec. 1995, when he reacted with anger when left in goal by coach Mario Tremblay while being shelled by the Detroit Red Wings. He demanded a trade and was sent to Colorado, where he won a Cup with the Avalanche that season.

The Canadiens have been retiring numbers of their past greats each year leading up to their 100th anniversary in December 2009. Roy's jersey would be the 15th to be taken out of circulation.

Roy's jersey was retired by the Avalanche in 2003.

Since his retirement as a player in 2003, the 42-year-old Quebec City native has become a controversial figure in the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League for a series of incidents on and off the ice. Roy is part-owner and coach of the junior Quebec Remparts.

The most recent came during the playoffs last spring when his son Jonathan skated the length of the ice and pounded opposing goaltender Bobby Nadeau of the Chicoutimi Sagueneens in an incident that was replayed countless times on television and led to a provincial government-ordered crackdown on violence in minor and junior hockey. Both Patrick and Jonathan Roy were suspended by the league.

It appeared that there was bad blood between the Canadiens and Roy, who has not attended other jersey retirement ceremonies in recent years. Roy said it was only because he was too busy with the Remparts.

"I don't know why people think there's a problem," said Roy. "I made a choice to run a junior team in Quebec City and because of that, I didn't have time to go to the Bell Centre.

"I would have like to have gone to some events, like the jersey retirements of Bob Gainey and Serge Savard. I would have liked to go see (ex-Rempart) Alexander Radulov play against the Canadiens, but each time, it was impossible."

The Canadiens are to announce events for their centennial season on Sept. 24, but it isn't certain that they'll make known any new jersey retirements at that time.

[saskhab]

Too soon. I agree it should happen, but if Boom Boom, The Roadrunner, and Big Bird had to wait as long as they did, then Patty should have to pay his dues.

Also, we still haven't honoured Toe Blake, which is just ridiculous.

[CerebusClone]

I actually think it's ridiculous how many numbers we are retiring simply because the 100th anniversary is coming. Basically any good to very good player who won a Stanley Cup in Montreal now has a chance to see his number retired.

I'm not saying we shouldn't recognize our best players, but a jersey above the rink at the Bell centre - like most other teams do - would have been enough for most of those players. I'm not saying that Bob Gainey wasn't a great player, but do we really need to retire the number of a third line defensive forward who hardly reached the 500-points plateau. Is Guy Carbonneau next?

There's no doubt that Yvan Cournoyer was a very good offensive player in his time, but he wasn't even what we would call a franchise player, nor did he ever lead the league in scoring. Would it really be sacriligious if another Habs player was to wear his number 12 today?

At least we used to retire the numbers of players who have spent almost the entire career in a Habs uniform. There's no doubt that Patrick Roy is one of the best goaltenders of all time, and perhaps the best "money player". However, he hardly spent half his career in Montreal, and actually had a lot more success with the Colorado Avalanche (at least on paper).

To me, retiring a number should only be to honor a handful of elite players that have marked the history of the franchise to the point where it would make people incomfortable to see another player wear their numbers. The only one I'm 100% positive about is Rocket Richard for his impact in hockey and also the Quebec society. Then perhaps Jacque Plante because he's obvisouly had a huge impact for the goalie position, maybe Boom Boom, and that could be it for me. Sure Robinson, Savard, Lafleur, etc were terrific hockey players, but I don't think they've changed the game of hockey; they deverve to be honored... I just don't think it should have been by retirig tjeir numbers.

Anyways... I know many will not appreciate what I've just written, but that's my opinion...

Edited August 29, 2008 by CerebusClone

[MAK]

Too soon. I agree it should happen, but if Boom Boom, The Roadrunner, and Big Bird had to wait as long as they did, then Patty should have to pay his dues.

Also, we still haven't honoured Toe Blake, which is just ridiculous.

good point about Toe. you can put Butch Bouchard in there as well.

they should try to honour great coaches such as Toe, Dick and Scotty.

If players like boom boom and Robinson weren't retired before, blame Savard, corey and the rest of the gang.

[saskhab]

I actually think it's ridiculous how many numbers we are retiring simply because the 100th anniversary is coming. Basically any good to very good player who won a Stanley Cup in Montreal now has a chance to see his number retired.

I'm not saying we shouldn't recognize our best players, but a jersey above the rink at the Bell centre - like most other teams do - would have been enough for most of those players. I'm not saying that Bob Gainey wasn't a great player, but do we really need to retire the number of a third line defensive forward who hardly reached the 500-points plateau. Is Guy Carbonneau next?

There's no doubt that Yvan Cournoyer was a very good offensive player in his time, but he wasn't even what we would call a franchise player, nor did he ever lead the league in scoring. Would it really be sacriligious if another Habs player was to wear his number 12 today?

At least we used to retire the numbers of players who have spent almost the entire career in a Habs uniform. There's no doubt that Patrick Roy is one of the best goaltenders of all time, and perhaps the best "money player". However, he hardly spent half his career in Montreal, and actually had a lot more success with the Colorado Avalanche (at least on paper).

To me, retiring a number should only be to honor a handful of elite players that have marked the history of the franchise to the point where it would make people incomfortable to see another player wear their numbers. The only one I'm 100% positive about is Rocket Richard for his impact in hockey and also the Quebec society. Then perhaps Jacque Plante because he's obvisouly had a huge impact for the goalie position, maybe Boom Boom, and that could be it for me. Sure Robinson, Savard, Lafleur, etc were terrific hockey players, but I don't think they've changed the game of hockey; they deverve to be honored... I just don't think it should have been by retirig tjeir numbers.

Anyways... I know many will not appreciate what I've just written, but that's my opinion...

The captaincy means a lot. For this franchise, it isn't just representative of a passing fad. The Roadrunner and Gainey represented the franchise with incredible class, resolve, and performance. They weren't at the level of Beliveau or Richard in terms of talent, but they passed on the same torch.

The amount of players that have "changed the game of hockey" is a ridiculously small list. By that standard, I don't think Mario Lemieux would have his number retired.

[CerebusClone]

The captaincy means a lot. For this franchise, it isn't just representative of a passing fad. The Roadrunner and Gainey represented the franchise with incredible class, resolve, and performance. They weren't at the level of Beliveau or Richard in terms of talent, but they passed on the same torch.

The amount of players that have "changed the game of hockey" is a ridiculously small list. By that standard, I don't think Mario Lemieux would have his number retired.

I agree.. and that list should indeed be very small in my opinion... I mean it is ridiculous that Pat Lafontaine had his number retired in Buffalo when he played about three full seasons with that team... or even Mark Messier in New York where he really only gave 6 strong seasons to the Rangers (not counting the last 4 seasons where he was overpaid, and didn't bring much).

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Interesting arguments.

I don't accept that one has to have "changed the game" to have the number retired. Sure, it helps. But by that critereon, Mario Lemieux wouldn't have his number retired by the Habs, even though he would have shattered every scoring record in team history. Give me a break. Guy Lafleur didn't "change the game" either. He was merely the best player in the NHL for five or six years, the game-breaker on a dynasty, and won four Cups.

I can see the argument that the Habs are now retiring any excellent player's number. The main examples are #12 and #18.

Now, Roadrunner benefitted from sharing his number with Moore. I agree that both of these, taken on their own, are slightly dodgy picks, but between the two of them you can certainly make the case that #12 should indeed be retired. Think about it this way. Saku Koivu does not deserve to have his number retired. But what if another #11 comes along who is equally special and has an equally enduring impact on the franchise? Then you might be able to make a case for retiring the #11.

Special pleading? Maybe. But it doesn't bother me to have #12 up there.

Savard won the Conn Smythe, and was close to Robinson/Salming/Potvin in that troika of great 1970s defencemen. Nonetheless, if he hadn't been a long-serving and good GM, it's debatable if he'd be up there. Should that kind of off-ice service be considered? Not sure. And I DON'T think Toe Blake should have his number retired.

Robinson was the greatest defenceman of his era, or certainly top-3 with Salming and Potvin, and clearly the greatest defenceman after Harvey in Canadiens history. A bit of a no-brainer here.

Gainey was an interesting choice. But he is an important player in both Habs' history, and the history of hockey, having single-handedly defined and legitimized the concept of the defensive forward, and done it better than anyone else. He is also, along with perhaps Jean Beliveau, one of the most universally admired human beings ever to have worn the CH, and one of two or three of the greatest on- and off-ice leaders in Habs' history. I can see the argument against, but it's not all that convincing. He deserves it. We sometimes forget just how extraordinary the 1970s dynasty was. Gainey was its heart and soul.

Dryden's inclusion is like Robinson's, a no brainer.

And so is Roy's. Now, as for the delay - I'm not sure you can make the case that it was defensible to make Robinson wait so long in the first place. It's not like waiting around accomplishes anything; the player's achievements remain the same no matter how long you dawdle.

Edited August 29, 2008 by The Chicoutimi Cucumber

[CerebusClone]

Interesting arguments.

I don't accept that one has to have "changed the game" to have the number retired. Sure, it helps. But by that critereon, Mario Lemieux wouldn't have his number retired by the Habs, even though he would have shattered every scoring record in team history. Give me a break. Guy Lafleur didn't "change the game" either. He was merely the best player in the NHL for five or six years, the game-breaker on a dynasty, and won four Cups.

I can see the argument that the Habs are now retiring any excellent player's number. The main examples are #12 and #18.

Now, Roadrunner benefitted from sharing his number with Moore. I agree that both of these, taken on their own, are slightly dodgy picks, but between the two of them you can certainly make the case that #12 should indeed be retired. Think about it this way. Saku Koivu does not deserve to have his number retired. But what if another #11 comes along who is equally special and has an equally enduring impact on the franchise? Then you might be able to make a case for retiring the #11.

Special pleading? Maybe. But it doesn't bother me to have #12 up there.

Savard won the Conn Smythe, and was close to Robinson/Salming/Potvin in that troika of great 1970s defencemen. Nonetheless, if he hadn't been a long-serving and good GM, it's debatable if he'd be up there. Should that kind of off-ice service be considered? Not sure. And I DON'T think Toe Blake should have his number retired.

Robinson was the greatest defenceman of his era, or certainly top-3 with Salming and Potvin, and clearly the greatest defenceman after Harvey in Canadiens history. A bit of a no-brainer here.

Gainey was an interesting choice. But he is an important player in both Habs' history, and the history of hockey, having single-handedly defined and legitimized the concept of the defensive forward, and done it better than anyone else. He is also, along with perhaps Jean Beliveau, one of the most universally admired human beings ever to have worn the CH, and one of two or three of the greatest on- and off-ice leaders in Habs' history. I can see the argument against, but it's not all that convincing. He deserves it. We sometimes forget just how extraordinary the 1970s dynasty was. Gainey was its heart and soul.

Dryden's inclusion is like Robinson's, a no brainer.

And so is Roy's. Now, as for the delay - I'm not sure you can make the case that it was defensible to make Robinson wait so long in the first place. It's not like waiting around accomplishes anything; the player's achievements remain the same no matter how long you dawdle.

You bring very interesting arguments as well, and I'm not saying that these players were not great, see even the best of their time. However, a great player remains just a great player.... we see them every year in the NHL. I agree they should to be acknowledged... however perhaps not by retiring their number. With that said, I see nothing wrong with celebrating the career of a Patrick Roy, a Bob Gainey, or eventually even a Saku Koivu before a game, and perhaps displaying his jersey with other past great players at the top of the Bell centre.

Again in my opinion, retiring a number should be an honor reserved for truly remarkable achievements, not just being a great player. Also, if you are going to retire a number, it should be for a player who spent close to his entire career with the organization, not hardly half like Patrick Roy did. Otherwise, we'll soon have to retire the numbers of players like Markov and Kovalev...

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

You bring very interesting arguments as well, and I'm not saying that these players were not great, see even the best of their time. However, a great player remains just a great player.... we see them every year in the NHL. I agree they should to be acknowledged... however perhaps not by retiring their number. With that said, I see nothing wrong with celebrating the career of a Patrick Roy, a Bob Gainey, or eventually even a Saku Koivu before a game, and perhaps displaying his jersey with other past great players at the top of the Bell centre.

Again in my opinion, retiring a number should be an honor reserved for truly remarkable achievements, not just being a great player.

Fair enough, but just to be clear...since Guy Lafleur was "merely" a great player, you wouldn't retire his number, right?

[Ecurb]

I don't how you define whether a number should be retired.

The Habs had 2 great dynasties, it was my pleasure to see the

last one.

During the late 70's the Habs dominated the NHL. I saw them

do it.

They even dominated the Red Army. Think of all the best

Russian players now in the NHL on 1 team. Ok, maybe not

all, some would be considered subversoff.

If you had seen Gainey play in those times you might have

thought they should name an award after him.

[CerebusClone]

Fair enough, but just to be clear...since Guy Lafleur was "merely" a great player, you wouldn't retire his number, right?

I didn't quite mean it like that... but I'm not sure I would have. Unless they perform absolutely incredible achievements, I'm don't think I would retire the number of current great players either, including the likes of Joe Thornton, Alex Ovechkin, Vinny Lecavalier, Jarome Iginla, etc even if they spend the rest of their careers with their current team.

Maybe Lidstrom in Detroit considering he spend his entire career with Detoit, had tremendous sucess, is arguably the best European player in NHL history, and mostly that he became the very first European captain to lead his team to the Stanley Cup... and I'm saying maybe...

I'm not saying this to take anything away from some of the greatest players of the past, I just think retiring a jersey should be reserved for truly special - and almost unique - achievements. There probably shouldn't be one for almost every team... come on, Glen Wesley!?!..., and certainly not 15 if we now retire #33.

As I mentionned, the only former Habs player I believe 100% that he deserved this is the Rocket. Not only was he a fantastic player, but he also become the first player to score 50 goals, and more importantly he had a significant impact on the Quebec society. In his case, I do agree that no other player should ever wear his number.

[Habsfan]

it should be for a player who spent close to his entire career with the organization, not hardly half like Patrick Roy did. Otherwise, we'll soon have to retire the numbers of players like Markov and Kovalev...

SO using your logic, Gretzky's number should not be retired in Edmonton? After all, he only spent 9 of his 21 seasons in Edmonton? which isn'T even half. At least Roy played 11 of his 19 season with the habs.

You said a player neds to have chnaged hockey in some way...just look at the influence roy and the Butterfly style had on all the QUébec born Golaies who have poped up in the league over the past 15 years! I call that having an impact on the game!

[CerebusClone]

SO using your logic, Gretzky's number should not be retired in Edmonton? After all, he only spent 9 of his 21 seasons in Edmonton? which isn'T even half. At least Roy played 11 of his 19 season with the habs.

You're right, and having the NHL retire number should perhaps have been enough Gretzky (there's no point for a team to retire a number if the league already has). With that said, what Gretzky accomplished in those 9 years in Edmonton was so extraordinary that he probably qualifies for an exception, no?

At least the Rangers and the Blues didn't...

[Habsfan]

what Gretzky accomplished in those 9 years in Edmonton was so extraordinary that he probably qualifies for an exception, no?

I'm not sayng that what Roy did was as impresive as what Gretzky did, however I do believe he revolutionized the position of goalies in the NHL. I don't know if you remember what Hockey was like in the early and mid 80's, but I do. All players had to do was take a good slap shot that was low to the ground on the blocker side, and 9 times out of 10, it would go in. Goalies used to suck bad in the early 80's! When ROy arrived, that all changed. Other teams noticed that GOalies were an important part of a team...adn now today, the most important position in the game is in nets.

That alone deserves having his number up there with the other greats! I won't even talk about his 3 Conn Smythes (something the Great One never achieved) Trophies.

[Mont Royale]

It seems the criteria for retiring a number places an enormous emphasis on winning Cups, in addition to being a great player. While one could argue whether this should be a deciding criterion, there is no doubt that Roy qualifies under it.

[Ecurb]

As I mentionned, the only former Habs player I believe 100% that he deserved this is the Rocket. Not only was he a fantastic player, but he also become the first player to score 50 goals, and more importantly he had a significant impact on the Quebec society. In his case, I do agree that no other player should ever wear his number.

I never knew you saw the Rocket play?? You are able to make a valid comparsion on

numbers, disregarding each era.

Well done !!!

[CerebusClone]

As I mentionned, the only former Habs player I believe 100% that he deserved this is the Rocket. Not only was he a fantastic player, but he also become the first player to score 50 goals, and more importantly he had a significant impact on the Quebec society. In his case, I do agree that no other player should ever wear his number.

I never knew you saw the Rocket play?? You are able to make a valid comparsion on

numbers, disregarding each era.

Well done !!!

???

When did I mention numbers... that's probably the last thing I use to compare players, especially from different eras. It's actually quite easy to compare players from different times, you simply look at the impact they had in the league in opposition to other players playing at the same time.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Actually, I think Cerebus makes a sensible argument. There's nothing wrong with saying that number retirement should be an extraordinarily select honour available only to one or two players, if even that, every 100 years.

The problem is that no team does it that way, and it has never been done that way. Even the Habs - the team with the highest standards for sweater retirements - retired Beliveau's 4, Lafleur's 10, etc., in addition to The Rocket's, long before the current wave of retirements began. So Cerebus' view is a bit like arguing that Montreal should have kept the Maroons instead of the Canadiens; or to be more chartiable, that honorary degrees should only be given to that select few who make contributions of truly world-historical, epochal significance, like Darwin or Guttenberg, instead of "merely" great and excellent poets and scientists and authors of the day. A perfectly plausible notion, but not terribly relevant.

Myself, I think the more fruitful debate to have is whether the current festival of retirements debases the currency as it has traditionally been understood in Montreal. Thus, historically the Habs retired the numbers of players who were absolutely mythical in their greatness - spine-tingling players from out of the mists of time and memory - like Morenz, Richard, Harvey, Plante, and Lafleur. Truly players for the ages, names that any hockey fan would hold in awe. By that standard, Geffrion, I think, belongs. So do Dryden, Robinson, and Roy. Gainey, Moore, and Cournoyer? Maybe not.

Edited August 29, 2008 by The Chicoutimi Cucumber

[Ecurb]

???

When did I mention numbers... that's probably the last thing I use to compare players, especially from different eras. It's actually quite easy to compare players from different times, you simply look at the impact they had in the league in opposition to other players playing at the same time.

Ok, I get where your coming from.

I don't want to pick on you, your right to a certain extent. But, if we

went by numbers we wouldn't understand what Gainey was.

It wasn't the numbers Gainey put up against comparable players, its

just the numbers they didn't put up against him. And what argument

isn't based on numbers, these days.

Just my personal opinion.

[simonus]

[quote name='CerebusClone' date='Aug 29 2008, 01:50 PM' post='310000'

At least we used to retire the numbers of players who have spent almost the entire career in a Habs uniform.

should Doug Harvey's number be retired?

[CerebusClone]

[quote name='CerebusClone' date='Aug 29 2008, 01:50 PM' post='310000'

At least we used to retire the numbers of players who have spent almost the entire career in a Habs uniform.

should Doug Harvey's number be retired?

By by standards, no. However, as The Chicoutimi Cucumber mentioned, you have to take into consideration what teams have done in the past, and not what we think they should have. Therefore, the answer is probably yes, after all he did win the Norris 7 times with Montreal.