Former Bruins David Krejci announces retirement.

[Donnie Shulzhoffer]

The more the numbers you retire makes them less significant.

 

[PB37]

Part of what made this era special was you had career lifers in Bergeron and Krejci stick around and perform well for so long.

Krejci has always been underrated and that is coming back to hurt him here in what's essentially a popularity poll. When I think of a player getting his number retired by a team, I think it boils down to

1. Are the career numbers there?

2. What were his major accomplishments?

3. What was his importance to the team?

I think Krejci is deserving as anyone to have his number retired but I don't think it's as a sure thing as Chara and Bergeron. Still, I think it would be a special moment in team history if all three had their numbers retired together.

 

[Donnie Shulzhoffer]

When did raising a number turn into a retirement gift?

 

[Aussie Bruin]

There's where I'm at as well with number retirements from that era of players. Number retirement for an organization that has been around as long as Boston's has to be reserved for the elite of the elite. As much of a fan as I was of Timmy I have to admit he was elite for a while, but not for a long enough period to be considered for number retirement. If the Bs had won another Cup and Krejci hadn't been hamstrung with crap RWers for multiple years then his resume probably makes him a strong candidate for number retirement. Didn't work out that way, though.

Bergy won a record number of Selkes and was one of the best two-way centers ever. Chara changed the culture and trajectory of the Bs and arguably was the best-ever shutdown d-man in his prime. Yeah, that's elite enough to get those two players' numbers retired.

Yeah this is pretty much where I'm at too. The rafters have to be for the very elite of the elite, or someone like O'Ree who made a profound impact in other ways. Krejci is oh so close but not quite in my mind. And I say that despite him being my favorite player of the last 15 years. He has the Cup win, the longevity, multiple huge playoff performances, he wore the 'A', very respectable stats. But I feel like there needs to be that little something extra to put a guy over the top, whether that be one more Cup (largely outside his control I know), captaincy, an individual award or two, or production that wasn't just very very good but outright outstanding.

Australian sports don't do number retirements and TBH I find the whole concept a bit odd, and perhaps that colors my judgment. But I'm just not quite sold on the case for DK. If they did retire #46 I would be fully supportive (although it's a great number, would be a shame to lose it!) but I wouldn't vote for it as such. Will probably have the same opinion on Marchand once all's said and done on his career. Rask has a case too, arguably a better one than Thomas in some ways. But again I'm not sure.

It's probably a bit unfair, in a sense, in that those guys played in an exceptional era for the Bruins. There's only so many numbers you can retire from one period. With #37 and #33 already being guarantees, and #88 likely well on the way, how many more can you put up there? These are tough decisions to make, which is probably part of why the whole idea doesn't sit particularly well with me. It creates an unnecessary hierarchy.

 

[dafoomie]

Are they the Patriots now? They have one Cup in the last 50 years. The line that team had with 3 Hall of Famers on it was only the 2nd line behind the go to forward, the points leader, and the minutes leader, David Krejci. If Aaron Rome takes him out instead of Horton it could've easily gone like it did in 2010. Yes you retire his number.

 

[MarchysNoseKnows]

Are they the Patriots now? They have one Cup in the last 50 years. The line that team had with 3 Hall of Famers on it was only the 2nd line behind the go to forward, the points leader, and the minutes leader, David Krejci. If Aaron Rome takes him out instead of Horton it could've easily gone like it did in 2010. Yes you retire his number.

It’s crazy. Terry O’Reilly is in the rafters. What’s the downside of retiring 46? I don’t get it.

 

[Donnie Shulzhoffer]

Keep up this attitude of retiring numbers players will have to start wearing triple digits

 

[MarchysNoseKnows]

Keep up this attitude of retiring numbers players will have to start wearing triple digits

Which of these shouldn’t have been retired?

 

[missingchicklet]

Yeah this is pretty much where I'm at too. The rafters have to be for the very elite of the elite, or someone like O'Ree who made a profound impact in other ways. Krejci is oh so close but not quite in my mind. And I say that despite him being my favorite player of the last 15 years. He has the Cup win, the longevity, multiple huge playoff performances, he wore the 'A', very respectable stats. But I feel like there needs to be that little something extra to put a guy over the top, whether that be one more Cup (largely outside his control I know), captaincy, an individual award or two, or production that wasn't just very very good but outright outstanding.

Australian sports don't do number retirements and TBH I find the whole concept a bit odd, and perhaps that colors my judgment. But I'm just not quite sold on the case for DK. If they did retire #46 I would be fully supportive (although it's a great number, would be a shame to lose it!) but I wouldn't vote for it as such. Will probably have the same opinion on Marchand once all's said and done on his career. Rask has a case too, arguably a better one than Thomas in some ways. But again I'm not sure.

It's probably a bit unfair, in a sense, in that those guys played in an exceptional era for the Bruins. There's only so many numbers you can retire from one period. With #37 and #33 already being guarantees, and #88 likely well on the way, how many more can you put up there? These are tough decisions to make, which is probably part of why the whole idea doesn't sit particularly well with me. It creates an unnecessary hierarchy.

Yeah for sure I won't be upset either if they retire #46. Just don't think guys like he and Marchy are who I would consider the dozen or so greatest Bs over the past 100 years. Doesn't take anything away from their amazing careers.

As for Thomas and Rask, there is no way those guys should have their numbers retired before #1 is retired. Just put Thompson and Brimsek on the #1 banner and call it a day on goalies in the rafters. Bs are the only Original 6 team to not have retired #1 (usually the number goalies wore way back in the day).

 

[Donnie Shulzhoffer]

Which of these shouldn’t have been retired?View attachment 741809

None.

And leave it that.

 

[MarchysNoseKnows]

None.

And leave it that.

Personally I’d retire Chara, Bergeron and Krejci. And Marchand eventually. I’m not sure that devalues the achievement. If not then what’s the standard?

 

[dafoomie]

It’s crazy. Terry O’Reilly is in the rafters. What’s the downside of retiring 46? I don’t get it.

It's not even a good number. It's a training camp number.

 

[Aussie Bruin]

Are they the Patriots now? They have one Cup in the last 50 years. The line that team had with 3 Hall of Famers on it was only the 2nd line behind the go to forward, the points leader, and the minutes leader, David Krejci. If Aaron Rome takes him out instead of Horton it could've easily gone like it did in 2010. Yes you retire his number.

How much value do you place on Cups though in regards to a number retirement? I'd say some but not too much. They're team efforts and while one guy can make a particularly significant contribution to the success, as Krejci did, I wouldn't want to give that too much weight in itself, especially when the mere fact of having the opportunity is almost entirely beyond any one player's control. Pasta may never lift a Cup with the Bruins, should that count against him when the final analysis is made? Most probably not. In that sense then I think a Cup win is relevant but it's not a guarantor. Thomas did more even that DK to bring the Cup back to Boston, but his peak period as a Bruin was shorter. Who is more worthy? Or if it's both, then where do you draw the line then?

Bottom line is I think these judgments are heavily subjective and a lot depends on what your criteria are and how wide or narrow your view is of who's deserving of the rafters. I lean against #46 going up, just, but if it were to happen I'd be very happy, and I can see the arguments in favor. It's really just a matter of opinion.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

None.

And leave it that.

If you use the rationale that those so adamant propose:

- you definitely have to retire Cashman's jersey. He sits higher on the all-time list than Krejci

- how many Bruins have captained the team to a Stanley Cup? Chara needs to be there too

- similarly, Tim Thomas is the only other Bruin aside from Bobby Orr to win a Conn Smythe trophy and was almost universally considered to be the biggest single factor in the only Bruins Cup in 39 years. Certainly an argument can be made that he should be included.

- both Marchand and Bergy are cinches

- can't leave out Tuukka! He sits #1 on so many Bruins goalies records. Required.

- good bet that Pastrnak bests Krejci's career totals in the next two years. By the time he's 30. You have to retire 88.

So that's seven more numbers that should be retired if 46 is. Do we want all eight retired? Seven of eight?

Personally, I don't. Taking nothing from Krejci's great career, I just think it means something more than just a recognition of a great career.

 

[RussellmaniaKW]

Yeah for sure I won't be upset either if they retire #46. Just don't think guys like he and Marchy are who I would consider the dozen or so greatest Bs over the past 100 years. Doesn't take anything away from their amazing careers.

As for Thomas and Rask, there is no way those guys should have their numbers retired before #1 is retired. Just put Thompson and Brimsek on the #1 banner and call it a day on goalies in the rafters. Bs are the only Original 6 team to not have retired #1 (usually the number goalies wore way back in the day).

idk man, kinda hard to argue against 2 guys who currently sit 7th and 9th in all time scoring for the franchise and won their only Cup in 50 years.

 

[PlayMakers]

If you use the rationale that those so adamant propose:

- you definitely have to retire Cashman's jersey. He sits higher on the all-time list than Krejci

- how many Bruins have captained the team to a Stanley Cup? Chara needs to be there too

- similarly, Tim Thomas is the only other Bruin aside from Bobby Orr to win a Conn Smythe trophy and was almost universally considered to be the biggest single factor in the only Bruins Cup in 39 years. Certainly an argument can be made that he should be included.

- both Marchand and Bergy are cinches

- can't leave out Tuukka! He sits #1 on so many Bruins goalies records. Required.

- good bet that Pastrnak bests Krejci's career totals in the next two years. By the time he's 30. You have to retire 88.

So that's seven more numbers that should be retired if 46 is. Do we want all eight retired? Seven of eight?

Personally, I don't. Taking nothing from Krejci's great career, I just think it means something more than just a recognition of a great career.

Yes, retire all 8. 15 years of dominance means you’re going to retire some numbers. There wasn’t anyone who played the decade prior to get excited about and who knows when this team will be that good again.

 

[smithformeragent]

2, 3+ Cups?

Then maybe we’re talking about Krejci, Marchand (and perhaps others’) numbers going up.

 

[Gee Wally]

I think they should retire it. I think he has earned it.

Besides it could be a very long time before we have many more. Or at least Ill get to see.

 

[bearcountry17]

Guys who have led the playoffs in scoring more than once in the last 30 years include,
Malkin
Kucherov
Kopitar
Sakic
Forsberg
Krejci

 

[chizzler]

When did raising a number turn into a retirement gift?

Hello?!

 

[PB37]

If you use the rationale that those so adamant propose:

- you definitely have to retire Cashman's jersey. He sits higher on the all-time list than Krejci

- how many Bruins have captained the team to a Stanley Cup? Chara needs to be there too

- similarly, Tim Thomas is the only other Bruin aside from Bobby Orr to win a Conn Smythe trophy and was almost universally considered to be the biggest single factor in the only Bruins Cup in 39 years. Certainly an argument can be made that he should be included.

- both Marchand and Bergy are cinches

- can't leave out Tuukka! He sits #1 on so many Bruins goalies records. Required.

- good bet that Pastrnak bests Krejci's career totals in the next two years. By the time he's 30. You have to retire 88.

So that's seven more numbers that should be retired if 46 is. Do we want all eight retired? Seven of eight?

Personally, I don't. Taking nothing from Krejci's great career, I just think it means something more than just a recognition of a great career.

If not just a great career, what else would be on your list of things for getting a number raised to the rafters?

 

[Gonzothe7thDman]

I've always liked the idea of honoring #s in the rafters but not necessarily retiring them.

Wait a few years before you let someone wear a # that was just retired but otherwise I never liked them taking a # permanently out of the rotation.

 

[jgatie]

If not just a great career, what else would be on your list of things for getting a number raised to the rafters?

Winning at least one major award.

 

[PB37]

Winning at least one major award.

If that were the case then Middleton, O'Reilly, O'Ree, Neely, Bucyk, Hitchman, and Clapper wouldn't be qualified.

 

[jgatie]

If that were the case then Middleton, O'Reilly, O'Ree, Neely, Bucyk, Hitchman, and Clapper wouldn't be qualified.

I never agreed with O'Reilly. Middleton should be in the HHOF, which is an award in itself. O'Ree is a special case, I don't know why you even listed him. Bucyk, you have a point, but he's also a HOFer. The last two preceded most of the awards.