News Article: Lafreniere, expected No. 1 pick in 2020 NHL Draft, to skip QMJHL season

[broadwayblue]

Rule one in data visualization is for the graphics to be intuitively meaningful. What the f*** am I even looking at with this?

Lafreniere has more bars. More bars = better service.

 

[egelband]

with the Rangers luck, day before the draft Lafreniere he announces he wants to play in Canada due to family reasons.

Well, seems like everyone’s going to be playing in Canada for the foreseeable

 

[wolfgaze]

When you've gone as far as to honor the player with a retired number, the *floor* for the organization's behavior towards the person is quite a bit higher than "not giving offense."

Can you be more specific? Which of Leetch, Richter, Graves would personally object to another NHL player ever wearing their former # for the same organization again? If the players wouldn't object - why does the organization insist on this protocol?

The ceremony and player banner permanently hanging in the rafters isn't deemed enough/sufficient to honor these players?

What happens 40 years from now when the list of retired players has grown by another 5-8 players?
At what point does an organization realize they've prohibited too many hockey numbers and have to reverse course? Is this not the inevitable outcome? Do they then free up all the numbers and start the practice of retiring numbers over again?

 

[Edge]

Can you be more specific? Which of Leetch, Richter, Graves would personally object to another NHL player ever wearing their former # for the same organization again? If the players wouldn't object - why does the organization insist on this protocol?

The ceremony and player banner permanently hanging in the rafters isn't deemed enough/sufficient to honor these players?

What happens 40 years from now when the list of retired players has grown by another 5-8 players?
At what point does an organization realize they've prohibited too many hockey numbers and have to reverse course? Is this not the inevitable outcome? Do they then free up all the numbers and start the practice of retiring numbers over again?

So let’s unravel this one in order.

As a matter of tact, I don’t see the Rangers even approaching them. Especially not for a rookie, I don’t care how talented he is. It’s just not going to happen. To that point, I don’t think anyone wants to put those guys in a situation like that. And I doubt any of them really want to be put in that situation.

As for the Rangers retiring too many numbers, considering that any roster has up to 23 players, and we’ve retired 8 thus far, I really don’t think it will be issue for another 69 or so numbers.

Assuming we retire a jersey number at the remarkable rate of one every five years, I’m sure one of our ancestors can devise a solution in about 3 centuries.

 

[wolfgaze]

As a general rule of thumb, I would say most teams would not want to do this for a variety of reasons.

At what point does an organization decide they have too many retired numbers? 10, 15, 20? Whatever arbitrary # is decided - what happens when this point is reached?

1. They don't want to force a player's hand. Especially one that was respected enough to have his jersey retired.

If the conversation was held privately and simply just 'thrown out there' to gauge someone's opinion - that wouldn't be forcing anyone's hand nor pressuring anyone to make a certain decision...

2. Even if they approached a player, and the player was okay, I think they'd prefer to avoid the awkwardness of have people come back later and feel it was inappropriate.

Which people come back later? The players, post retirement would change their minds?

How is this managed/tolerated in Toronto hockey culture?

3. I don't think there's a desire to put that kind of pressure or expectation on a young kid.

See, I don't think there should be any 'pressure' associated with this at all... What made Messier special was Mark Messier, NOT the number on the back of his jersey... If he had wore #39 we would have loved/appreciate him just the same... I also don't think there should be media hoopla over something like jersey numbers... For me, there's absolutely no sense of a player having to play a certain way or to a certain level because of a jersey # on their back...

4.From a marketing standpoint, a lot of teams like to create new brands around players and numbers.

So Lafreniere wouldn't be just as marketable if he wore #9 or #11 as opposed to wearing #25?

IMHO it's the player himself and not the # on the back of the jersey that makes the player 'marketable' - and that's what drives merchandise sales...

 

[aufheben]

Rule one in data visualization is for the graphics to be intuitively meaningful. What the f*** am I even looking at with this?

I think he like converts points in lower leagues into NHL points.

 

[Tawnos]

Can you be more specific? Which of Leetch, Richter, Graves would personally object to another NHL player ever wearing their former # for the same organization again? If the players wouldn't object - why does the organization insist on this protocol?

The ceremony and player banner permanently hanging in the rafters isn't deemed enough/sufficient to honor these players?

What happens 40 years from now when the list of retired players has grown by another 5-8 players?
At what point does an organization realize they've prohibited too many hockey numbers and have to reverse course? Is this not the inevitable outcome? Do they then free up all the numbers and start the practice of retiring numbers over again?

I mean, it’s really a matter of integrity. You know, doing that thing you said you’d do? In this case, they said they wouldn’t allow another player to wear the number.

It’s the highest honor an organization can bestow on a player. That comes with a certain expectation of respect, class and integrity. Otherwise, why do it at all? It doesn’t matter if they wouldn’t take offense. The point of retiring the number is that they’d never ask.

Spare me the hysteria of worrying about what will happen if they retire too many numbers.

 

[wolfgaze]

As a matter of tact, I don’t see the Rangers even approaching them. Especially not for a rookie, I don’t care how talented he is. It’s just not going to happen. To that point, I don’t think anyone wants to put those guys in a situation like that. And I doubt any of them really want to be put in that situation.

Edge, you are looking at this from a much more narrow/focused perspective than I am... It isn't specifically about Lafreniere - it's that these present circumstances are giving us a reason to visit (re-visit?) this topic/discussion... It could be a prized UFA acquisition that would normally wear #9, or #2 all his career... It doesn't matter to me whether the circumstances revolve around a veteran player joining the team or a rookie #1OA... I'm talking about the BROADER practice of retiring #'s and this practice can't be sustained endlessly...

As for the Rangers retiring too many numbers, considering that any roster has up to 23 players, and we’ve retired 8 thus far, I really don’t think it will be issue for another 69 or so numbers.

So we should continue this practice until it inevitably becomes an issue and then what happens? The organization unretires all the numbers and arrive at the exact same outcome that I'm proposing right now?

Assuming we retire a jersey number at the remarkable rate of one every five years, I’m sure one of our ancestors can devise a solution in about 3 centuries.

Henke's # gets retired... If Zibenajad re-ups with the Rangers and continues his high leven of play/performance - his # will come up for consideration... Should the Rangers win a Stanley Cup with Panarin and he plays out all 7 years of his contract - he could be in the mix... If Shesterkin follows in Henke's footsteps and has a long, successful career with the Rangers, his #31 will get retired.... If one of Kakko/Lanfreniere hits their celing and has a long, successful career - one of their #'s could be retired...

Why so much sentimental attachment to jersey numbers that it bothers people to see those numbers worn again? Why not make the sentimental attachment to the NAME on the back of the jersey instead of obsessing over numbers that have been shared/worn by numerous players over decades?

 

[Edge]

At what point does an organization decide they have too many retired numbers? 10, 15, 20? Whatever arbitrary # is decided - what happens when this point is reached?

Considering that even in those extreme circumstances, they're left with anywhere from 80-90 numbers, it's a non-issue.

Likewise, the concept of running out of numbers is not even a distant star in the universe of conversations that any major sports team in North America is having right now. We're nowhere close it, nor will we be in the lifetime of anyone who is currently posting on these boards.

If the conversation was held privately and simply just 'thrown out there' to gauge someone's opinion - that wouldn't be forcing anyone's hand nor pressuring anyone to make a certain decision...

I can tell you as someone who has worked in the sport, and around the sport for some 25 years, it doesn't usually happen as a matter of tact and business decorum. Simply put, teams won't touch it. In the rare, and I mean very rare instances that they do, it's only because you have a HOF/all-time great joining the team. And even then, it typically isn't done.

Which people come back later? The players, post retirement would change their minds?

How is this managed/tolerated in Toronto hockey culture?

Teams don't want observers, fans, players, anyone coming back and questioning why they un-retired a number. They don't want anyone agreeing, but not being happy with it, they generally just don't go there.

Why? Because it's not worth it. No one even thinks this. And again, they aren't doing it for a rookie.

As for the Toronto line, I honestly have no idea what you're asking there.

I will see these beliefs and approaches are fairly universal though.

See, I don't think there should be any 'pressure' associated with this at all... What made Messier special was Mark Messier, NOT the number on the back of his jersey... If he had wore #39 we would have loved/appreciate him just the same... I also don't think there should be media hoopla over something like jersey numbers... For me, there's absolutely no sense of a player having to play a certain way or to a certain level because of a jersey # on their back...

I really think you're missing the point on this. It's an honor bestowed upon a player. You don't take back an honor. That's just classless. It's really not that nuanced of a concept.

I don't really know what you're getting at in the remainder of the post. It's really hard to follow.

So Lafreniere wouldn't be just as marketable if he wore #9 or #11 as opposed to wearing #25?

IMHO it's the player himself and not the # on the back of the jersey that makes the player 'marketable' - and that's what drives merchandise sales...

Brand building take into account not just the player, but how the player is presented. That includes merchandise, jerseys, milestones, celebrations, etc.

Marketing people want as many unique tools as they can to contribute to their company's bottom line.

So if they can market the hell out of Mark Messier and all things associated with him, and market the hell out of another player and all things associate with that player, that's their ideal.

Whenever possible, they try to avoid doubling up. So yes, I can tell you, from experience, that teams and the league would much rather prefer pushing Messier #11 merchandise and Lafreniere #12 merchandise rather than pushing them both.

Why? Because of silly things like merchandise that as a number, but no name. Things like Teddy Bears, and mugs, or whatever.

There's no incentive for them to want a number un-retired so they can re-brand the association with that number.

And that strategy works.

When I ask a Rangers fan, tell who number 2 on the Rangers is, they're going to tell me Leetch. And he hasn't played a game for the team in more than 16 years. There's brand equity in that. They're not going to abandon it to build a new brand awareness around Miller or Lundkvist.

Same for #11. Messier's name is now synonymous with that number. I guarantee you the men and women working in marketing aren't even thinking about what they could do with Lafreniere wearing that number. They're going to focus on the one he does receive and brand the hell out of it.

 

[DieselBoy]

At what point does an organization decide they have too many retired numbers? 10, 15, 20? Whatever arbitrary # is decided - what happens when this point is reached?

Introducing the captain, #125 Alexis Lafreniere!

 

[wolfgaze]

I mean, it’s really a matter of integrity. You know, doing that thing you said you’d do? In this case, they said they wouldn’t allow another player to wear the number.

Can we please be specific about who is being offended and disrespected if a jersey bearing a certain # but a different nameplate is ever worn again, at any point, by a player playing for the same organization?

Are you saying the Rangers organization loses their integrity if, 10, 20, 30 years from now they announce that they will change policy and make the numbers available?

How long after a player has passed should a jersey # be able to be worn again? Never ever again? The person who has passed (from their vantage point) would still have an attachment to their jersey # and object to it being worn?

It’s the highest honor an organization can bestow on a player. That comes with a certain expectation of respect, class and integrity. Otherwise, why do it at all? It doesn’t matter if they wouldn’t take offense. The point of retiring the number is that they’d never ask.

So the Leafs haven't honored their players because they haven't prohibited those jersey numbers from being worn again?

If the players don't take offense, and the players don't ask for their numbers to be retired/prohibited - can you please specify about who is left to take offense/object to a jersey number being worn again?

Spare me the hysteria of worrying about what will happen if they retire too many numbers.

Sorry, I don't get 'hysterical' over sports jersey numbers... Which is why I'm okay with future players wearing the same numbers as past players...

You won't engage the question about what happens when this practice continues indefinitely because the only logical answer to that question is that an organization discontinues the practice of prohibiting numbers and makes all of them available..

 

[Edge]

Edge, you are looking at this from a much more narrow/focused perspective than I am... It isn't specifically about Lafreniere - it's that these present circumstances are giving us a reason to visit (re-visit?) this topic/discussion... It could be a prized UFA acquisition that would normally wear #9, or #2 all his career... It doesn't matter to me whether the circumstances revolve around a veteran player joining the team or a rookie #1OA... I'm talking about the BROADER practice of retiring #'s and this practice can't be sustained endlessly...

You're literally talking about something that would take 3 centuries to become an issue. There is NO CONCERN about this topic. There's not even an inkling of a reason to be concerned. It's as much of a non-issue as you're ever going to find.

And I can tell you, players simply don't want to go there --- especially hockey players. So if you were sitting next to a bunch of them right now, to a man, I would bet my house that they would tell you, flat out, "it's not a thing dude, don't worry about it."

I have no doubt in my mind about saying that.

So we should continue this practice until it inevitably becomes an issue and then what happens? The organization unretires all the numbers and arrive at the exact same outcome that I'm proposing right now?

Henke's # gets retired... If Zibenajad re-ups with the Rangers and continues his high leven of play/performance - his # will come up for consideration... Should the Rangers win a Stanley Cup with Panarin and he plays out all 7 years of his contract - he could be in the mix... If Shesterkin follows in Henke's footsteps and has a long, successful career with the Rangers, his #31 will get retired.... If one of Kakko/Lanfreniere hits their celing and has a long, successful career - one of their #'s could be retired...

Again, what issue though? You just came up with a grand total of 6 numbers, spread out over the next 20+ years.

And frankly, that's being generous and very optimistic.

But look, I'll even meet you half-way and go with that optimism. The Rangers will one day retire the numbers 30, 24, 31, 93, and 10. I don’t Lafreniere’s number so we’ll exclude it.

That literally means we've retired 13 numbers in the first 120 years of the franchise. At that rate, it would take us 720 years for it to even become a concern.

Seven hundred and twenty years. The year 2740. For a time comparison, that's like someone building the medieval London Bridge and worrying how many horses will use the bridge tomorrow morning.

Why so much sentimental attachment to jersey numbers that it bothers people to see those numbers worn again? Why not make the sentimental attachment to the NAME on the back of the jersey instead of obsessing over numbers that have been shared/worn by numerous players over decades?

There's an attachment because it's the highest honor a team can bestow upon an individual player. Look at the reactions of those who receive the honor. It means a hell of a lot to them.

To go back to them and ask for "backsies" is just...beyond inappropriate. Frankly, it would be classless and the worst kind of publicity for a team. What's the win for the team in all this? There is none. Zero. Period.

It's not an obsession, it's an honor. For the same reason why a police force might retire a badge number. Or a society might name something after someone meaningful. It's high praise and it's not one that is simply undone because someone "doesn't get it."

 

[ColonialsHockey10]

Rule one in data visualization is for the graphics to be intuitively meaningful. What the f*** am I even looking at with this?

This is something nobody in the hockey “analytics” world understands, unfortunately.

 

[Tawnos]

Can we please be specific about who is being offended and disrespected if a jersey bearing a certain # but a different nameplate is ever worn again, at any point, by a player playing for the same organization?

Are you saying the Rangers organization loses their integrity if, 10, 20, 30 years from now they announce that they will change policy and make the numbers available?

How long after a player has passed should a jersey # be able to be worn again? Never ever again? The person who has passed (from their vantage point) would still have an attachment to their jersey # and object to it being worn?



So the Leafs haven't honored their players because they haven't prohibited those jersey numbers from being worn again?

If the players don't take offense, and the players don't ask for their numbers to be retired/prohibited - can you please specify about who is left to take offense/object to a jersey number being worn again?



Sorry, I don't get 'hysterical' over sports jersey numbers... Which is why I'm okay with future players wearing the same numbers as past players...

You won't engage the question about what happens when this practice continues indefinitely because the only logical answer to that question is that an organization discontinues the practice of prohibiting numbers and makes all of them available..

No, we can’t get specific on who is offended. Why? Because it’s not the point. It’s entirely outside of the realm of relevancy to this topic. 100% outside of it.

And yes, I’m saying that if the Rangers go back on their policy and put retired numbers back into circulation, they’ve lost their integrity. Yes, once you retire the number, it should never, ever get worn again. That’s the promise being made by the organization. Even when a player has passed, they probably have a family who should be respected with the honor as well.

The way the Leafs choose to honor their players is also not relevant here. When they honor their players, they don’t promise to take the number out of circulation. Maybe that’s a better way of doing it, but it’s not the Rangers way of doing it. So it’s not relevant. Once you’ve made that promise, you don’t go back on it. I don’t think I need to explain to you why it’s bad to go back on a promise. Do I?

Every post you’ve made on this subject has had an hysterical tinge to it, including the one I’m responding to. I won’t engage on the question of “too many numbers” because it’s too absurd to bother with. I refuse to take seriously something stretched to the ridiculous.

 

[Edge]

No, we can’t get specific on who is offended. Why? Because it’s not the point. It’s entirely outside of the realm of relevancy to this topic. 100% outside of it.

And yes, I’m saying that if the Rangers go back on their policy and put retired numbers back into circulation, they’ve lost their integrity. Yes, once you retire the number, it should never, ever get worn again. That’s the promise being made by the organization. Even when a player has passed, they probably have a family who should be respected with the honor as well.

The way the Leafs choose to honor their players is also not relevant here. When they honor their players, they don’t promise to take the number out of circulation. Maybe that’s a better way of doing it, but it’s not the Rangers way of doing it. So it’s not relevant. Once you’ve made that promise, you don’t go back on it. I don’t think I need to explain to you why it’s bad to go back on a promise. Do I?

Every post you’ve made on this subject has had an hysterical tinge to it, including the one I’m responding to. I won’t engage on the question of “too many numbers” because it’s too absurd to bother with. I refuse to take seriously something stretched to the ridiculous.

And you hit on an excellent point here.

A team may choose not to retire numbers.

A team may choose to end the practice of retiring numbers.

But they aren’t going to go and “take back” numbers that were already retired.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

I know Rangers fans aren’t used to having nice things but he really is that level of player.

I think a few things need to be mentioned.

1. NHLe is.... Inconsistent at best.
2. MacK was crazy young for his draft year. Normally I don't put too much stock in this kind of shit (Laf at 16 and 17 still outproduced him) but it is note worthy (I suppose playing with Drouin kind of neutralizes this though.)
3. MacK had a quantum leap in development from the middle of his draft year to when he started his rookie season. He looked physically immature and overmatched at the WJC and a year and a half later he was terrorizing the Wild in the NHL playoffs.

I will NEVER bet against someone like Lafreniere who has risen to the occasion and exceeded expectations when ever the lights shine the brightest, but I don't think Mackinnon's final production line in the Q really paints the entire story. He was dynamite AF in the playoffs and the Memorial Cup that year.

 

[wolfgaze]

Considering that even in those extreme circumstances, they're left with anywhere from 80-90 numbers, it's a non-issue.

Edge, it's hard to take these replies seriously... So you can in your mind realistically envision a scenario where a team has retired/prohibited 60+ numbers - and they keep going with a small list of availalbe number and say, "It's okay, we've still got another 15 numbers left, let's just continue this practice until there are no spare numbers left to choose from then we'll reconsider"...

Come on man, this practice would be reevaluated and changed much sooner than allowing it to go to that extreme... More like 20-30 numbers retired...

Likewise, the concept of running out of numbers is not even a distant star in the universe of conversations that any major sports team in North America is having right now. We're nowhere close it, nor will we be in the lifetime of anyone who is currently posting on these
boards.

Do me a favor - hypothetically entertain/imagine the end-result of infinitely continuing this practice... What happens? What is the inevitable outcome? No more prohibited numbers, right? Are you only okay with that outcome happening just as long as you're not around (here) to see it and take offense? How will the organization and the fans of that time period move on from no longer retiring/prohibiting jersey numbers? Will the organization and league continue just fine?

I can tell you as someone who has worked in the sport, and around the sport for some 25 years, it doesn't usually happen as a matter of tact and business decorum. Simply put, teams won't touch it.

You said, "it doesn't usually happen as a matter of tact and business decorum"... That's NOT an argument against broaching the subject matter ever... Clearly you're allowing for the fact that it can be done with respect/courtesy - are you suggesting that the Rangers would be incapable of doing it this way? John Davidson wouldn't know how to have a friendly, respectful conversation with ex-players he called the game for and without being disrespectful?

That some teams/organizations handle it the 'wrong way' isn't an argument for never having the conversation/dialogue period...

In the rare, and I mean very rare instances that they do, it's only because you have a HOF/all-time great joining the team. And even then, it typically isn't done.

Okay this is a great example... What is the fallout when this 'rare' example happens? Does the retired player object or take offense? Do the fans that can't handle seeing the same # with a different nameplate above it renounce their fandom? How does the team/organization survive someone wearing the same # that was previously retired? Does the organization shame/guilt itself for disrespecting their classy honor to the prior player?

As for the Toronto line, I honestly have no idea what you're asking there.

I was alluding to how the Maple Leafs organization with its storied history survived for decades without retiring/prohibiting the numbers of retired, ex-Leaf players...

Which of those ex-Leaf players from decades past do you feel would have personally felt disrespected and a 'lack of being honored' due to Toronto's previous tradition of not retiring jersey numbers?

I really think you're missing the point on this. It's an honor bestowed upon a player. You don't take back an honor. That's just classless. It's really not that nuanced of a concept.

Edge, no one is ripping rings off fingers or trophies out of players' homes... No one is calling for banners to be removed from the arena.... We're talking about a finite jersey numbers on the backs of jerseys... Which of the retired players are currently so insecure that they can't feel 'honored' by their former organization unless no one ever wears their jersey number again?

So if they can market the hell out of Mark Messier and all things associated with him, and market the hell out of another player and all things associate with that player, that's their ideal.

Retired player merchandise is of limited and time-sensitive marketing value because as years ago by, he fans of the present become more and more distant from the time period of the retired players... Messier, Leetch, Richter, Graves are still familiar for many of us and thus we're more likely to be interested in related merchandise... Hardly anyone in Rangers fandom is seeking out Giacomin or Gilbert branded merchandise, if any is still currently available (aside from customized jerseys)...

Most merchandise doesn't only contain a number... Number & name... That's how it's differentiated...

A new player (rookie or veteran) wearing #11
isn't going to reduce the prior demand for Messier #11 merchandise... And a new rookie wearing an old familiar number isn't going to reduce the demand/excitement for new player mechandise (especially not if we're talking about a highly touted #1 OA pick)

Whenever possible, they try to avoid doubling up. So yes, I can tell you, from experience, that teams and the league would much rather prefer pushing Messier #11 merchandise and Lafreniere #12 merchandise rather than pushing them both.

Why? Because of silly things like merchandise that as a number, but no name. Things like Teddy Bears, and mugs, or whatever.

So if a current Ranger player wore #7 the marketing department would be up in arms because of all the Gilbert gear they're planning to produce/release ?

Or does this marketing argument only apply to the more recent retired numbers that are thus, still somewhat marketable? Two decades from now there's going to be a significant demand for Richter merchandise?

There's no incentive for them to want a number un-retired so they can re-brand the association with that number.

I didn't make the argument that any organization or department within an organization would push for 'un-retiring' numbers for marketing reasons...

When I ask a Rangers fan, tell who number 2 on the Rangers is, they're going to tell me Leetch. And he hasn't played a game for the team in more than 16 years. There's brand equity in that. They're not going to abandon it to build a new brand awareness around Miller or Lundkvist.

So would you think less of #2 if another player had worn that jersey # after he left the team? Would it tarnish's Leetch's reputation or legacy in your eyes?

Not me...

Same for #11. Messier's name is now synonymous with that number. I guarantee you the men and women working in marketing aren't even thinking about what they could do with Lafreniere wearing that number. They're going to focus on the one he does receive and brand the hell out of it.

I never said anything about the marketing department thinking about a rookie wearing a retired number... Why would they even entertain that thought unless someone from the organization approached them about the possibility?

 

[CasusBelli]

88 is a great number

Speaking of which, I have started wondering over the past few days whether Laf is overrated relative to his peers, to the extent that we could maybe pull a Lindros/Forsberg heist. I get that the circumstances are different — but this appears to be a really deep draft. Maybe it’s worth considering?

All of this to ask: any injury history or susceptibility with Laf? Really don’t want a repeat of Lindros. I just want a 90-100 point franchise player — and, if possible, more.

 

[Edge]

You know what, I think I’m done here.

In the 23 years I’ve been here, this is honestly one of the strangest concerns I’ve ever seen.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Speaking of which, I have started wondering over the past few days whether Laf is overrated relative to his peers, to the extent that we could maybe pull a Lindros/Forsberg heist. I get that the circumstances are different — but this appears to be a really deep draft. Maybe it’s worth considering?

All of this to ask: any injury history or susceptibility with Laf? Really don’t want a repeat of Lindros. I just want a 90-100 point franchise player — and, if possible, more.

He doesn't skate around with his head down all the time, so theres that.

If you want a Foresberg type player, Laffy is your guy.

 

[CasusBelli]

He doesn't skate around with his head down all the time, so theres that.

If you want a Foresberg type player, Laffy is your guy.

Then I’m in love.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Then I’m in love.

Will Scouching probably has my favorite lines about Laf.

"Hes a Hockey Canada create a player" and "He just gets the sport."

 

[Profet]

I do find it amusing that the last time I remember someone wearing a retired number it was also #11. The guy who wore it after it was taken down from the rafters is still one of the most hated players by that fanbase.

 

[CasusBelli]

Will Scouching probably has my favorite lines about Laf.

"Hes a Hockey Canada create a player" and "He just gets the sport."

That sounds like Foppa alright — country of origin aside. Such a shame his career was so plagued by injuries. He could have easily been a 1200 point player.

 

[RangersFan1994]

center like production. hmm interesting words.