Leafs jersey number conventions?
- Thread starter mjmgrand
- Start date
Britishbulldog said:
I think it's a lot like Federal versus Provincial governance. There are things that the Federal government lays out such as the number of players you must dress and how much you must spend on your team give or take a few million, and there are things that the Provincial government lays out such as the building name that is your home arena, and when exactly you are going to have a car drive out on to the ice filled with players that won the Stanley cup in 1963.
Bullfrog
Active member
Nik Gida said:
Sure they should have, because they're exceptional situations (as you've pointed out.) Bailey got his retired a few months after having his skull fractured on the ice and Barilko because of his death and the strange coincidence of the timing of stanley cup victories. I'm not sure of my opinion on Gretzky's number being retired by the Leafs. Bailey's number was the first ever to be retired; so a tradition of retiring or honouring numbers didn't exist prior to then so I'm not sure it even warrants consideration in the context of retiring numbers eighty years later.
Kin
New member
Bullfrog said:
But, and humour me on this one, in what way does their different situations mandate a separate honour? If you believe "honouring" numbers to be the better or preferable means of honouring a player what is different about that for a player who is injured like Bailey, killed like Barilko and deemed of sufficient, all-encompassing greatness like Gretzky?
Bullfrog
Active member
What is different? Well, the retiring of the number is more of a memorial to those who had career-ending injuries or death while being a member of the team.
the honouring of the others is pretty straight-forward.
How does it mandate a separate honour? Well, I believe it's a matter of respect.
I'm sure you can see that Ace Bailey and Barilko's situations are unique.
the honouring of the others is pretty straight-forward.
How does it mandate a separate honour? Well, I believe it's a matter of respect.
I'm sure you can see that Ace Bailey and Barilko's situations are unique.
Bullfrog
Active member
I'd argue that while it's an equal honour, it's also a different honour. By being retired, and therefore unique amongst the other "honoured" players, they're highlighting the uniqueness of the situations for which they're being honoured. I really don't think it's any more complicated than that.
Unique situation.......unique honour.
Unique situation.......unique honour.
Kin
New member
Bullfrog said:
I have to be honest, compared to "When you have great players, you retire their numbers" that actually sounds pretty gd complicated.
Anyways, that doesn't really answer the question. When those numbers were retired it wasn't done to highlight the uniqueness of anything. They were just retired because that's what you did for players who you honoured. Everyone else got nothing. My question is about why, when the Leafs decided to do something to honour Bailey and Barilko, did they decide to retire their numbers as opposed to "honouring" them.
Fact is, the Leafs decided to start "honouring" numbers well after retiring numbers was acknowledged as the standard of what you did for your greatest players.
edit: Also, just strictly in a brass tacks sort of sense, you can't really argue that the two are equal, can you? I mean, honoured numbers get their numbers and likenesses raised on a banner to the rafters. Retired numbers get that too and something in addition to that. Unless the act of retiring a number is fundamentally meaningless, the two can't be equal and given that a guy who's on the very short list for the best player in Leafs history is emphatically stating that retiring a number isn't meaningless, well, I'm not entirely sure there's a case there.
Kin
New member
The thing of it is, and I fully admit that what I'm about to write isn't rational in the strictest sense, but man I really think the Keon thing creates some bad mojo for the club. The guy is one of the greatest Leafs in history, the last Conn Smythe winner the team had, and who was legitimately grieved by the jackass who chased him out of town.
Now the team has a chance to reconcile with him, bury the last outstanding hatchet that's still outstanding from the Ballard years and it's not going to happen? He's not demanding the Leafs build him a statue, something that actually wouldn't be all that outside the norm for a great athlete. He's just saying the Leafs should honour their great players the same way that just about every other pro sports franchise, including the previously mentioned particularly exemplary ones.
Keon's not a young man. Just retire his friggin' number already. I think he deserves better than some wishy-washy, middle-management-esque "Hey man, we've got this policy in place..."
Now the team has a chance to reconcile with him, bury the last outstanding hatchet that's still outstanding from the Ballard years and it's not going to happen? He's not demanding the Leafs build him a statue, something that actually wouldn't be all that outside the norm for a great athlete. He's just saying the Leafs should honour their great players the same way that just about every other pro sports franchise, including the previously mentioned particularly exemplary ones.
Keon's not a young man. Just retire his friggin' number already. I think he deserves better than some wishy-washy, middle-management-esque "Hey man, we've got this policy in place..."
Bullfrog
Active member
Nik Gida said:
Perhaps it's just me, but this doesn't sound even remotely complicated.
I can see you're obviously passionate about this issue, but to me I see very little difference between having a number honoured or retired. And I'm not overly concerned about what the "other guys" do. There's at least 4 (or 5?) other NHL clubs that seem to feel the same.
Kin
New member
Bullfrog said:
I think it's pretty clear in that quote that I'm referring to your post about "highlighting uniqueness".
Bullfrog said:
Fair enough. I hope, though, that you'll understand that when one of the greatest players in franchise history is emphatically saying that there is a great difference it's very difficult for me to not see it as a fact that he's right.
Bullfrog said:
Which ones would those be?
Nik Gida said:
I guess it boils down to difference you place between the values of retiring and honouring. I don't think its anywhere close the relative difference between a high five and a gold watch. I think they more like 2 different brands of gold watches that are of equal value.
Why you feel the way you do has obviously been addressed in the thread so I don't think anyone is changing their mind here.
riff raff
New member
The Leafs have their own policy - they only retire the numbers of players who die or are grievously injured while a member of the team. As long as they are consistent in the application of this policy, I don't have a problem with it. It's not as if the team has been secretive about how they make the decision.
If Dave Keon wants to sulk because the team won't change its policy for him, I think that's on him more than it's on the team.
And I'm not sure why everyone thinks the Leafs have to follow the same policies as every other team on things like this.
If Dave Keon wants to sulk because the team won't change its policy for him, I think that's on him more than it's on the team.
And I'm not sure why everyone thinks the Leafs have to follow the same policies as every other team on things like this.