KesLord Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 Hi all, I pondered this question with a friend and found it really challenging. Here's the setup: "in the Canucks first 50 years, they retired 6 jerseys: - Pavel Bure - Stan Smyl - Trevor Linden - Markus Naslund - Daniel Sedin - Henrik sedin We did some math and found: - Of the original 99 numbers that were available to the Canucks when they became a team, only 93 are available now. - Of the 93 remaining numbers, 20 of them need to be used on current roster players - We need to retire 75 more jersey numbers until there no longer is a number available to a player - Every 8 years and 4 months, the Canucks retire a jersey number. - If the current pattern continues, that means in 625 years the Canucks will have to 'unretire a jersey'. That is because there would be only 19 retired/unwearable jersey numbers available. So the question is this: if you were asked to 'unretire' a jersey from one of 6 Canucks listed above, which jersey number would you 'unretire' first, and why? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwarrior Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 They could play it like "Futurama" and start using fractions. But I'm just spitballing here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickenspear Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 (edited) You forgot about #99 being retired league wide, making it 92 jersey #'s available. So ~617 years from now, less if there's a league wide # retirement every 82 years ('17/'18 - '99/'00). Also, do the unofficially retired ones count too? (11,28,37) Edited March 30 by Chickenspear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toni Zamboni Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 Daniel Sedin 1 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.Am.Ironman Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 For me it's Naslund. ROH worthy for sure, but I don't think 19 should be retired. 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BannedFan Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 42 minutes ago, KesLord said: Hi all, I pondered this question with a friend and found it really challenging. Here's the setup: "in the Canucks first 50 years, they retired 6 jerseys: - Pavel Bure - Stan Smyl - Trevor Linden - Markus Naslund - Daniel Sedin - Henrik sedin We did some math and found: - Of the original 99 numbers that were available to the Canucks when they became a team, only 93 are available now. - Of the 93 remaining numbers, 20 of them need to be used on current roster players - We need to retire 75 more jersey numbers until there no longer is a number available to a player - Every 8 years and 4 months, the Canucks retire a jersey number. - If the current pattern continues, that means in 625 years the Canucks will have to 'unretire a jersey'. That is because there would be only 19 retired/unwearable jersey numbers available. So the question is this: if you were asked to 'unretire' a jersey from one of 6 Canucks listed above, which jersey number would you 'unretire' first, and why? Wow. We already say EP40 and BB06, how come you cant say QH33 and JT22? lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Korea Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 You think the world's gonna live that long? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBatch Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 Probably Bure's. He wore number ten well, like greats of old, but also wore 96 and ten isn't just his number. Not in the same way 12 is Smyl's, 16 Linden's, 22 and 33 the Sedins and even 19 Naslund's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-AJ- Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 It's more likely that they'd either expand to three digits or otherwise just open up all numbers and use the old Toronto method of just "honouring" numbers without retiring them. If I had to pick one though, I'd pick Bure's. Too short a tenure and I think his best days were in Florida anyway. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goalie29 Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 2 minutes ago, -AJ- said: It's more likely that they'd either expand to three digits... Or, what if they included letters too? For example, kids that grew up hearing stories of Bure could wear 10A, 10B, 10C and so on. Imagine the oppotunities! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 You also need to include the numbers taken out of circulation. 11, 28, 37, 38. So it might only be 500 years. If I had to “unretire” numbers, then I would only keep the players that are in the Hall of Fame. That’s how Edmonton does it. Either that or you just honour that player like Toronto used to. ‘ If you keep the Hall of Fame players then you keep Bure, Sedin and Sedin. And you unretire Smyl, Linden and Naslund. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 23 minutes ago, -AJ- said: It's more likely that they'd either expand to three digits or otherwise just open up all numbers and use the old Toronto method of just "honouring" numbers without retiring them. If I had to pick one though, I'd pick Bure's. Too short a tenure and I think his best days were in Florida anyway. Prime Bure in Vancouver is probably one of the 20 greatest players of all time… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 1 minute ago, Elias Pettersson said: Prime Bure in Vancouver is probably one of the 20 greatest players of all time… Bure was one of the best pure goal scorers, and entertaining players in teams history. Probably one of the best players blue line in. However when I was up late watching the Nagano Olympics. Bure was playing at a level I NEVER saw in Vancouver. Not only was he scoring. He was hitting, forechecking like a fiend, he was more a complete hockey player playing for Russia than I ever saw in the NHL. Which was really a shame. Maybe he just preferred the bigger ice surface? However he was not Mike Bossy, Guy Lafleur, Maurice Richard, Gordie Howe, Wayne Gretzky, Bobby Hull, Mario Lemieux, etc. etc. Exciting does not mean best. Bob Gainey was probably the most technically perfect hockey player even the Soviet coaches said that. Vancouver fans seem to only understand goals. Not all the other parts of what makes a great hockey player. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 Bure is listed in the Top 100 players in NHL history. That alone is speaks volumes. https://www.nhl.com/news/100-greatest-nhl-players-of-all-time-286030052 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 3 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said: Bure was one of the best pure goal scorers, and entertaining players in teams history. Probably one of the best players blue line in. However when I was up late watching the Nagano Olympics. Bure was playing at a level I NEVER saw in Vancouver. Not only was he scoring. He was hitting, forechecking like a fiend, he was more a complete hockey player playing for Russia than I ever saw in the NHL. Which was really a shame. Maybe he just preferred the bigger ice surface? However he was not Mike Bossy, Guy Lafleur, Maurice Richard, Gordie Howe, Wayne Gretzky, Bobby Hull, Mario Lemieux, etc. etc. Exciting does not mean best. Bob Gainey was probably the most technically perfect hockey player even the Soviet coaches said that. Vancouver fans seem to only understand goals. Not all the other parts of what makes a great hockey player. I watched him in Nagano too. He was all world in that tournament. I disagree about your assessment. Lemieux was not a good defensive player. In fact, Don Cherry used to shit on him every week in Coaches Corner. Same with Lafleur and Bossy. He was also hitting and forechecking when he was in Vancouver, specifically in 1993-1994. When Bure had the puck nobody could stop him. He was similar to McDavid. And McDavid doesn’t hit or can’t play defence either. But he will be a top 10 or even top 5 greatest player of all time when he retires. Pavel Bure in his prime was one of the 20 greatest players of all time. There is no doubt in my mind. Without the knee injuries he probably hits 60+ goals 5 or 6 times. Not even Lafleur and Bossy did that. Even so, only 5 players in NHL history had more 60 goal season than Bure. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 2 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: I watched him in Nagano too. He was all world in that tournament. I disagree about your assessment. Lemieux was not a good defensive player. In fact, Don Cherry used to shit on him every week in Coaches Corner. Same with Lafleur and Bossy. He was also hitting and forechecking when he was in Vancouver, specifically in 1993-1994. When Bure had the puck nobody could stop him. He was similar to McDavid. And McDavid doesn’t hit or can’t play defence either. But he will be a top 10 or even top 5 greatest player of all time when he retires. Pavel Bure in his prime was one of the 20 greatest players of all time. There is no doubt in my mind. Without the knee injuries he probably hits 60+ goals 5 or 6 times. Not even Lafleur and Bossy did that. Even so, only 5 players in NHL history had more 60 goal season than Bure. https://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=487 Bossy had 5 seasons with 60 goals, and 9 50 goal seasons. Bure got 60 goals twice. https://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=662 You're letting your love of Bure cloud your judgement. Both players paid for that production and had shorter careers because of it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 Just now, Ghostsof1915 said: https://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=487 Bossy had 5 seasons with 60 goals, and 9 50 goal seasons. Bure got 60 goals twice. https://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=662 You're letting your love of Bure cloud your judgement. Both players paid for that production and had shorter careers because of it. Bure had 2 60 goal seasons, but could easily have had 2-3 more. Lafleur only had one. Like I said, even with only 2 60 goal seasons he still has more than all but 5 other NHL players. Bure wasn’t just exciting. He was dominant. Put the puck on his stick and nobody could touch him. He was one of the more dominant players of his generation. He was also dominant short handed. A weapon to score every time we had a penalty. He is already in the 100 greatest NHL players of all time. How many other Vancouver Canucks are on that list? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rip The Mesh Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 25 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: I watched him in Nagano too. He was all world in that tournament. I disagree about your assessment. Lemieux was not a good defensive player. In fact, Don Cherry used to shit on him every week in Coaches Corner. Same with Lafleur and Bossy. He was also hitting and forechecking when he was in Vancouver, specifically in 1993-1994. When Bure had the puck nobody could stop him. He was similar to McDavid. And McDavid doesn’t hit or can’t play defence either. But he will be a top 10 or even top 5 greatest player of all time when he retires. Pavel Bure in his prime was one of the 20 greatest players of all time. There is no doubt in my mind. Without the knee injuries he probably hits 60+ goals 5 or 6 times. Not even Lafleur and Bossy did that. Even so, only 5 players in NHL history had more 60 goal season than Bure. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6of1_halfdozenofother Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 By then, if humans haven't figured out how to exterminate our own species, then Mother Nature will probably do it. No need to unretire any numbers. And if the answer is, "no, you must unretire numbers in order to play this game", then unretire them all. Nobody will know who all those guys are by then, and the game will have changed in such unexpected ways that their records won't be relevant any longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ballisticsports Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 2 hours ago, KesLord said: Hi all, I pondered this question with a friend and found it really challenging. Here's the setup: "in the Canucks first 50 years, they retired 6 jerseys: - Pavel Bure - Stan Smyl - Trevor Linden - Markus Naslund - Daniel Sedin - Henrik sedin We did some math and found: - Of the original 99 numbers that were available to the Canucks when they became a team, only 93 are available now. - Of the 93 remaining numbers, 20 of them need to be used on current roster players - We need to retire 75 more jersey numbers until there no longer is a number available to a player - Every 8 years and 4 months, the Canucks retire a jersey number. - If the current pattern continues, that means in 625 years the Canucks will have to 'unretire a jersey'. That is because there would be only 19 retired/unwearable jersey numbers available. So the question is this: if you were asked to 'unretire' a jersey from one of 6 Canucks listed above, which jersey number would you 'unretire' first, and why? You're stressing me out man Someone needs to notify Aqua and Bettman that this isn't feasible and stop the madness at once ! Lol, you spent some time giving this thought Maybe new math will be invented by them? Hopefully you guys can work on challenges to save the world, hunger, or harder ones like having the Canucks win a cup (and peacefully) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 19 minutes ago, Rip The Mesh said: Thanks for sharing. Notice how every one of those top 10 career highlights are with the Vancouver Canucks and not the Florida Panthers? Also, he literally undressed Nick Lidstrom, Scott Niedermayer and Scott Stevens in those highlights, 3 of the greatest defencemen to ever play the game and all 3 are in the top 100 greatest NHL players of all time. When you look at Bure in this video the only other players who could do what Bure did with the puck at full speed are Jaromir Jagr, Mario Lemieux and Connor McDavid… 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brock Star Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 (edited) If we’re including ones taken out of circulation but not officially retired, I would bring #11 back. Maki’s passing was 50 years ago, and the majority of the fan base wouldn’t have been alive at the time. Going by numbers officially retired, 19. I love Naslund; he was my childhood hero, but I don’t think he did enough to warrant his number being retired compared to the other 5. Sedins and Bure are both hall of famers, and Linden/Smyl became the heart beat of Vancouver. Naslund is the only one in that list as well to not have any measure of playoff success. Edited March 30 by The Brock Star 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brock Star Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 57 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: I watched him in Nagano too. He was all world in that tournament. I disagree about your assessment. Lemieux was not a good defensive player. In fact, Don Cherry used to shit on him every week in Coaches Corner. Same with Lafleur and Bossy. He was also hitting and forechecking when he was in Vancouver, specifically in 1993-1994. When Bure had the puck nobody could stop him. He was similar to McDavid. And McDavid doesn’t hit or can’t play defence either. But he will be a top 10 or even top 5 greatest player of all time when he retires. Pavel Bure in his prime was one of the 20 greatest players of all time. There is no doubt in my mind. Without the knee injuries he probably hits 60+ goals 5 or 6 times. Not even Lafleur and Bossy did that. Even so, only 5 players in NHL history had more 60 goal season than Bure. I don’t think it’s too big of a hot take to say that Bure could’ve hit 800 if he stayed healthy. The fact that he scored 59 and 58 in two of the lowest scoring seasons in NHL history is still absolutely incredible. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diamonds Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 If we're "unretiring" a number, then my vote is Bure. He just didn't have the longevity in a Canucks sweater I think is needed for a jersey retirement. Bure is debatably the most skilled player to ever play for Vancouver. But, he only played about half of his career in Vancouver and just barely over 400 games. Every other jersey retired player has played at least double what he did. It's awesome that he electrified the fans for a few seasons, but jersey retirement should require a long-term service from a player. All the others have that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 1 hour ago, The Brock Star said: If we’re including ones taken out of circulation but not officially retired, I would bring #11 back. Maki’s passing was 50 years ago, and the majority of the fan base wouldn’t have been alive at the time. Going by numbers officially retired, 19. I love Naslund; he was my childhood hero, but I don’t think he did enough to warrant his number being retired compared to the other 5. Sedins and Bure are both hall of famers, and Linden/Smyl became the heart beat of Vancouver. Naslund is the only one in that list as well to not have any measure of playoff success. This is true. Smyl went to the finals in 1982. Linden and Bure went to the finals in 1994. And the Sedins went to the finals in 2011. The only one who didn’t was Naslund. I agree, he would be the first player I would take off the list and I have arguered many times that his number should never have been retired… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.