Leafs jersey number conventions?

[mjmgrand]

I have always wondered what the rules are, and why it should be so conservative if indeed you cannot wear high numbers.

I badly want to see Kadri be #91 on the Leafs. Why not? 

Why was Komarov quietly forced to wear #47 when he had been #87 in the KHL and Finnish league? Ok fine the Crosby thing but Sid the Kid has by no means claimed that number yet at this point in his career.

Why are Leaf legend numbers "honored" but not retired? When did they stop retiring numbers, since clearly some have been?

So many questions when it comes to the Leafs and their particular organizationl traditions surrounding jersey numbers.

 

[Kin]

Considering that Grabo wears 84, Kessel is 81, Antro's been 80 and on and on I think it's safe to say that there isn't any organizational mandate about wearing high numbers. Kadri wearing 43 and Komarov wearing 47 probably just reflect their own choices as opposed to being forced into anything.

 

[bustaheims]

For what it's worth, Kadri wore 13 with the Marlies - a number I'd say is unofficially unavailable for a few more seasons - and he wore 19 with the Kitchener Rangers. He switched to 91 when he was traded to Knights because 19 wasn't available (since they've retired it in honour of Brendan Shanahan). So, I doubt he's particularly attached to the number 91.

As for Komarov, 47 is probably just the number he was randomly assigned by the team, and he may himself have chosen not to wear 87 because of Crosby. He could have chosen 47 himself. I know Burke wasn't a fan of the higher, non-traditional numbers, but, he relinquished that stance when he traded for Kessel.

 

[Deebo]

I have always wondered what the rules are, and why it should be so conservative if indeed you cannot wear high numbers.

I badly want to see Kadri be #91 on the Leafs. Why not? 

Why was Komarov quietly forced to wear #47 when he had been #87 in the KHL and Finnish league? Ok fine the Crosby thing but Sid the Kid has by no means claimed that number yet at this point in his career.

Why are Leaf legend numbers "honored" but not retired? When did they stop retiring numbers, since clearly some have been?

So many questions when it comes to the Leafs and their particular organizationl traditions surrounding jersey numbers.

Two numbers have been retired. Both were of players who suffered career ending incidents while they were active members of the team. Everyone else gets honoured.

 

[ZBBM]

For what it's worth, Kadri wore 13 with the Marlies - a number I'd say is unofficially unavailable for a few more seasons - and he wore 19 with the Kitchener Rangers. He switched to 91 when he was traded to Knights because 19 wasn't available (since they've retired it in honour of Brendan Shanahan). So, I doubt he's particularly attached to the number 91.

As for Komarov, 47 is probably just the number he was randomly assigned by the team, and he may himself have chosen not to wear 87 because of Crosby. He could have chosen 47 himself. I know Burke wasn't a fan of the higher, non-traditional numbers, but, he relinquished that stance when he traded for Kessel.

I love Sundin but I don't see why there'd be any taboo, official or unofficial.  I highly doubt he'd object to Kadri wearing #13, or anybody else for that matter.  How could he, in fact?  It's not a retired number.

BTW I think the Leafs practice of generally not retiring numbers is a good one.    Also incidentally I think the league-wide retirement of 99 is just ridiculous.  Why not #4, #66, or a host of others from earlier eras?  It's so stupid.

 

[Courtnall]

For what it's worth, Kadri wore 13 with the Marlies - a number I'd say is unofficially unavailable for a few more seasons - and he wore 19 with the Kitchener Rangers. He switched to 91 when he was traded to Knights because 19 wasn't available (since they've retired it in honour of Brendan Shanahan). So, I doubt he's particularly attached to the number 91.

As for Komarov, 47 is probably just the number he was randomly assigned by the team, and he may himself have chosen not to wear 87 because of Crosby. He could have chosen 47 himself. I know Burke wasn't a fan of the higher, non-traditional numbers, but, he relinquished that stance when he traded for Kessel.

I love Sundin but I don't see why there'd be any taboo, official or unofficial.  I highly doubt he'd object to Kadri wearing #13, or anybody else for that matter.  How could he, in fact?  It's not a retired number.

BTW I think the Leafs practice of generally not retiring numbers is a good one.    Also incidentally I think the league-wide retirement of 99 is just ridiculous.  Why not #4, #66, or a host of others from earlier eras?  It's so stupid.

Because neither of those players put up numbers like Gretzky. Neither of those players come close to Gretzkys overall points. I'd hardly call it stupid.

 

[Kin]

BTW I think the Leafs practice of generally not retiring numbers is a good one.

I disagree. Retiring a number is sort of a universally acknowledged honor throughout sports and is pretty widely regarded as being the pinnacle of what a team can do for a player(see, for instance, the Blue Jays' "honouring" around a dozen players but only retiring Robbie Alomar's number upon HOF induction). It's a little embarrassing, I think, that the Leafs haven't given Sundin or Keon the honour that, say, the Devils gave Ken Daneyko or the Canucks gave Trevor Linden.

Also incidentally I think the league-wide retirement of 99 is just ridiculous.

I agree with that though. I mean, I understand why MLB did it for Jackie Robinson and how his importance transcends sports but Gretzky? Eh. As far as I'm concerned he's just a guy in the conversation for GOAT among hockey players.

And, if I can link the two, the Leafs' policy especially bugs me considering they consented to the Gretzky nonsense. Gretzky's number is retired by the Leafs, Sundin's isn't. That probably shouldn't be the case.

 

[maplesyrup]

I'm kind of in ZBBM's camp. I don't think the Leafs' current practice is at all disrespectful. 

 

[Bullfrog]

BTW I think the Leafs practice of generally not retiring numbers is a good one.

I disagree. Retiring a number is sort of a universally acknowledged honor throughout sports and is pretty widely regarded as being the pinnacle of what a team can do for a player(see, for instance, the Blue Jays' "honouring" around a dozen players but only retiring Robbie Alomar's number upon HOF induction). It's a little embarrassing, I think, that the Leafs haven't given Sundin or Keon the honour that, say, the Devils gave Ken Daneyko or the Canucks gave Trevor Linden.

I agree with ZBBM and am in agreement with the "honouring" of a number. Whether it's retired or not, that banner is being raised to the roof of the building with a very select few individuals. The honour is still there.

 

[Kin]

I agree with ZBBM and am in agreement with the "honouring" of a number. Whether it's retired or not, that banner is being raised to the roof of the building with a very select few individuals. The honour is still there.

I'm not saying it's not an honour just that I think there's a fairly general consensus throughout sports that it's a lesser honour than having your number retired.

edit: Heck, the Maple Leafs' own policy basically reflects this. It'd be one thing if they didn't retire numbers but instead they seem to think that retiring numbers is something that should be reserved for players in remarkable circumstances such as suffering tragic injury, death or high-sticking Doug Gilmour.

 

[TML fan]

I think 43 was the number that Kadri was assigned when he joined the team. Perhaps he hasn't changed it because he doesn't feel he's earned it? Perhaps he just doesn't care?

 

[Kin]

I think 43 was the number that Kadri was assigned when he joined the team. Perhaps he hasn't changed it because he doesn't feel he's earned it? Perhaps he just doesn't care?

That seems to be the case. Here's a quote:

?No. 9 was always my favourite number because of Paul Kariya ? I was a big fan of his,? said Kadri. ?But I couldn?t get 9 on my junior teams, so I went to 19, 91. I tried to incorporate that 9 in it.?

He admits he thought of asking for a number lower than 43, the one Papineau gave him in his first rookie camp. But now Kadri says 43 has grown on him.

?The more I play with it, the more I like it,? said Kadri. ?I?m not going to go and try to take Sundin?s number. Or (Doug) Gilmour?s number. Those are two legendary players.

http://www.thestar.com/sports/leafs/2012/02/11/maple_leafs_honoured_numbers_reserved_for_special_players.html

 

[Bullfrog]

I agree with ZBBM and am in agreement with the "honouring" of a number. Whether it's retired or not, that banner is being raised to the roof of the building with a very select few individuals. The honour is still there.

I'm not saying it's not an honour just that I think there's a fairly general consensus throughout sports that it's a lesser honour than having your number retired.

Perhaps. But if it's the highest honour the team bestows, is it really less of an honour?

I understand your point of view, but I just don't think it's necessary to have such an honour. It's not particularly meaningful to me that current players can't wear the number of an exceptional player that played 40 years before I was even borne. I truly think that honouring that player by raising his number and likeness to the roof is enough. Generally, those numbers won't be used out of respect of players that come soon after them. Eventually though, I believe they should be free for players to use. Whether that's 5 or 10 years, I'm not sure; probably depends on the impact that player had on the team.

I would love to see someone else where no.13 in the coming years.

 

[Kin]

Perhaps. But if it's the highest honour the team bestows, is it really less of an honour?

I think so, yes. I mean, if there were two different companies, one of which gave their retiring employees a gold watch and the other gave their retiring employees a high-five as they left would those be equal honours just because the second company was consistent in their high-fiving policy?

Regardless, it's not the highest honour they give. It'd be one thing if the Leafs said that they wouldn't retire numbers for any reason but that's not the case. They've retired numbers in the past and I assume they would in the future under similar circumstances.

I understand your point of view, but I just don't think it's necessary to have such an honour. It's not particularly meaningful to me that current players can't wear the number of an exceptional player that played 40 years before I was even borne.

I think it matters to an extent. When I think of #27 on the Leafs the first player who genuinely comes to mind is Shayne Corson. When I think of 21, I think of JVR. 14, to me, is Matt Stajan. If you grew up watching Sittler or Salming or Keon that would probably strike you as nutty but I'm not going to associate guys with a number if they're before my time unless there's no one else to associate with that number by virtue of it being retired. Retiring a number preserves that identity. #3 on the Yankees, #9 on the Red Wings, #16 on the 49ers, it's impossible to associate those numbers with anyone other than the guys who made them famous. I think there's a value in that, preserving that history.

And, I think, in a way that's inarguable. Even you say that there's a question of respect involved with wearing the number of a great player shortly after he gives it up. You can see Kadri say that he'd be reluctant to do so in his quote above. To not retire numbers while acknowledging that, to me, seems to be a half-measure.

 

[Rebel_1812]

if you don't like the retiring of 99 shouldn't your beef be with bettman and the nhl and not the leafs.  Its not like they could have vetoed the decision.  Come on, this isn't like having a competiting franchise in your territory ;-)

 

[Kin]

if you don't like the retiring of 99 shouldn't your beef be with bettman and the nhl and not the leafs.

No because the NHL wouldn't have the power to tell the Leafs to retire anything. They could float the idea but the Leafs and all of the other teams would have had to agree.

 

[LuncheonMeat]

Perhaps. But if it's the highest honour the team bestows, is it really less of an honour?

I think so, yes. I mean, if there were two different companies, one of which gave their retiring employees a gold watch and the other gave their retiring employees a high-five as they left would those be equal honours just because the second company was consistent in their high-fiving policy?

Regardless, it's not the highest honour they give. It'd be one thing if the Leafs said that they wouldn't retire numbers for any reason but that's not the case. They've retired numbers in the past and I assume they would in the future under similar circumstances.

I understand your point of view, but I just don't think it's necessary to have such an honour. It's not particularly meaningful to me that current players can't wear the number of an exceptional player that played 40 years before I was even borne.

I think it matters to an extent. When I think of #27 on the Leafs the first player who genuinely comes to mind is Shayne Corson. When I think of 21, I think of JVR. 14, to me, is Matt Stajan. If you grew up watching Sittler or Salming or Keon that would probably strike you as nutty but I'm not going to associate guys with a number if they're before my time unless there's no one else to associate with that number by virtue of it being retired. Retiring a number preserves that identity. #3 on the Yankees, #9 on the Red Wings, #16 on the 49ers, it's impossible to associate those numbers with anyone other than the guys who made them famous. I think there's a value in that, preserving that history.

And, I think, in a way that's inarguable. Even you say that there's a question of respect involved with wearing the number of a great player shortly after he gives it up. You can see Kadri say that he'd be reluctant to do so in his quote above. To not retire numbers while acknowledging that, to me, seems to be a half-measure.

It's interesting to see Kadri say that he wouldn't wear #13 because of Matts, but when asked about Dave Keon here was his reply:

?I?ve heard of the name, I?ve seen some highlights,? Kadri said. ?Maybe if we put on a good show, he?ll come back.?

He doesn't really know who he is other than he's heard his name before. To me, personally, there would be no greater honor than seeing my likeness raised to the rafters.  Young kids/fans coming to a game aren't going to notice which numbers are missing on the ice, but will likely be awed by seeing the banners hanging above them.  At least I was.

 

[Kin]

He doesn't really know who he is other than he's heard his name before. To me, personally, there would be no greater honor than seeing my likeness raised to the rafters.  Young kids/fans coming to a game aren't going to notice which numbers are missing on the ice, but will likely be awed by seeing the banners hanging above them.  At least I was.

Teams that retire numbers still hang things from the rafters in honour of those players. Including the Leafs, who have Bailey/Barilko there with everyone else.

 

[Bonsixx]

I think a lot of it has to do with the players themselves. I'm guessing the reason why nobody has worn #17 since Wendel Clark left is because nobody wants to place that much scrutiny on themselves. It may not be fair, but it's probably true. Likewise, numbers like 93 and 13 are also still relatively fresh in the minds of fans, so nobody is going to really want to wear them. It'll be interesting to see when it finally does happen.

 

[bakeapples]

The reason for the lack of high numbers in recent years was Burke did not allow it. He let Grabovski keep his (pre-dates Burke) and made an exception for Kessel. That and all the roster changes over the last five years is why you see so many #s from the single digits to the fifties.