Retire Brad Park's #?
- Thread starter Section32
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
The sheer fact that you're comparing a forward's scoring to a defenseman's scoring doesn't justify anyone wasting their time responding to you. If you are going to argue the merits, I'd at least suggest comparing apples to apples, defenseman to defenseman if you can't figure it out. Despite being 13th in GP by a NYR d-men, Park sits at second in points per game behind Leetch (.87 to .81) with NYR d-men who've played over 5 seasons with us and 4th in total points. His lack of games played here, something not in his control, is about the only argument anyone can make against him, though it is a legit argument nonetheless. But you look at Park's numbers against fellow NYR d-men and scoring-wise it's basically Leetch and Park, then everyone else...
B. Leetch|1129|0.21|0.66|0.87|+24
B. Park|465|0.20|0.61|0.81|+173
J. Patrick|671|0.15|0.54|0.69|+70
R. Greschner|982|0.18|0.44|0.62|-80
B. Gadsby|457|0.13|0.47|0.60|NA
I can grasp the argument for lack of GP in NY, but any other attempt at a valid argument, especially comparing d-men to forwards, makes zero sense to me.
99% crease.
Permit me to slightly amend, that Orr was not merely a generational talent, but is viewed by many as possibly
best
player
ever
I'm on the fence about Park but have no problem with his number not being retired. If he had a longer tenure and/or won some hardware (Norris Trophies or Cups), then it would be an entirely different discussion. I understand the qualifiers on those statements - that he was traded and didn't decide to leave town on his own, that he was #2 to Orr, etc...but in the end, those justifications don't make someone worthy of retiring their number. I would celebrate the honor if his number was retired but I'm not going to lose sleep over the fact he hasn't been so honored.
I agree with those who think the Rangers have done a bad job honoring their history and, at this point in time, I'm expecting you will only see players honored who played after the 94 Cup team...but I don't think you'll see many of them. So few players stay with teams for long tenures and usually, if a player isn't with a team for a very long time, they typically have to be a key to a Cup victory in order to be so honored.
I don't think it's going out on a limb to predict that Lundqvist will be honored one day.
A few other thoughts:
Grave totally deserved having his number retired. As I posted in the thread where we chose the greatest wingers in Ranger history, I think Graves' "good guy stuff" actually leads people to believe he was a lesser player than he actually was.
* Graves is #2 in career goals for Rangers wingers (also Top 10 in assists and points).
People seem to forget how important Graves' goal scoring was for his Ranger teams.
* He led his teams in goal-scoring 4 times.
* When he set the single season record for goals with 52, no other Ranger even scored 30.
* He wasn't a one-trick pony, he averaged 32 goals for 9 seasons.
* In 7 Ranger playoff runs, he was only out of the team's Top 3 in goal scoring once.
* Team MVP twice.
* And let's not forget that he played two-way hockey, not just offense, and played a robust physical game.
How have the Rangers not officially retired Gretzky's number? Even if you look at it from simply a marketing stand-point - which I would totally expect from the current Ranger regime. His number has been retired by the entire league, so it's retired anyway. I don't understand why they haven't had a ceremony for it and hung a red, white and blue 99 from the rafters.
So the thread question has finally been answered, no banner for Park despite weak comparisons...
I had so much fun watching him play when he was here. Yes, it was the twilight of his career, but there was a lot of what made him so very special still left. A very good friend of my mine hadn't seen him play very much and was somewhat skeptical when I would rave about him. We saw him play a lot the first (and every) season he was here and after a few games she understood why he was The Great One. The man knew where everyone was going to be on the ice, long before they even got there, much less knew they were going to be heading in that direction.
He may not pass the longevity test, but I would not be opposed to hanging 99 in the rafters.
That is somewhat valid, but imho, no. In that case, you retire Orr in Boston and not Park, because you could also argue that Orr was such an easy first choice that not too much thought was put into who was 2nd and onward. Similarly, can you imagine the additional Hart Trophies Trottier might have won w/o Gretzky? Trots was widely regarded as the best two-way center/player in the game, but I don't think, with Park or Trottier, what ifs really work. And in extending the what if issue, Trottier managed to erase them beyond his Hart with Cups and a Smythe and his team performing a thorough thrashing of Gretzky's Oilers, to boot.
The retired number thing should be a combination, imo, of truly great players who had a long tenure/majority of their career with a given team. This is something the Rangers have never gotten right, and still to this day epic fail at. Adding Park just waters down an already watered down group which is missing a large core of players who actually should be retired. If Park wasn't traded, maybe. But the fact is, he was traded.
Crease
Chief Justice of the HFNYR Court
- Jul 12, 2004
- 24,766
- 27,709
Just one more, in '82, according to voting records. But you're correct that Trottier, to his rightful credit, did fend off Gretzky for a period of time, before the Oilers really took off.
The one thing no one has been able to define is the parameters for retiring a number.
An argument against Park is that he only played a little over 7 years. So, how many years is necessary?
The hardware argument is flat-out stupid because he was against the greatest player I ever saw. If no Orr, Park has a bag full of trophies. How can that be held against Park?
If talent as a Ranger is a point to consider, he is at worst the second best talent of the last 50 seasons.
So, does anyone have a set of rules to determine who deserves it? The answer is no.
The single most overrated reason cited is winning a Cup. This Is idiotic. I used to hear that argument used to say that Hasek was not great enough as a Sabre or Boutique great enough as a Bruin.
The truth is that this is all about opinions and we are all using different facts as an argument.
One thing indisputable is that Park was a far, far better player as a Ranger than Graves. Anyone who saw Park knows this to be true. Once Graves got a banner, it all ceased to have real meaning.
An argument against Park is that he only played a little over 7 years. So, how many years is necessary?
The hardware argument is flat-out stupid because he was against the greatest player I ever saw. If no Orr, Park has a bag full of trophies. How can that be held against Park?
If talent as a Ranger is a point to consider, he is at worst the second best talent of the last 50 seasons.
So, does anyone have a set of rules to determine who deserves it? The answer is no.
The single most overrated reason cited is winning a Cup. This Is idiotic. I used to hear that argument used to say that Hasek was not great enough as a Sabre or Boutique great enough as a Bruin.
The truth is that this is all about opinions and we are all using different facts as an argument.
One thing indisputable is that Park was a far, far better player as a Ranger than Graves. Anyone who saw Park knows this to be true. Once Graves got a banner, it all ceased to have real meaning.
I never saw Park play. My father raves about him much in the same way the old-timers on this board do. It speaks volumes.
Im guessing the majority of this board is young - thats fine. Whats not fine is them spouting off like they know anything about a player they never saw take a shift.
Im guessing the majority of this board is young - thats fine. Whats not fine is them spouting off like they know anything about a player they never saw take a shift.
Another point.
Not only was Park a great offensive talent, but he was probably the best checking defenseman I ever saw on the Rangers. He used to routinely flip players over his hip and send them flying through the air, and he did not care who you were. I remember him doing it to Gordie Howe and Beliveau.
Toss in that he would fight any goon in the league and you have a player that if playing today would be revered here.
But Don Maloney is more deserving. Unbelievable. Not really. People often look at a stat book and proclaim certitude never understanding that they don't have a clue.
Not only was Park a great offensive talent, but he was probably the best checking defenseman I ever saw on the Rangers. He used to routinely flip players over his hip and send them flying through the air, and he did not care who you were. I remember him doing it to Gordie Howe and Beliveau.
Toss in that he would fight any goon in the league and you have a player that if playing today would be revered here.
But Don Maloney is more deserving. Unbelievable. Not really. People often look at a stat book and proclaim certitude never understanding that they don't have a clue.
I never spouted off on Park, in fact quite the opposite. However, I maintain my position that he shouldn't get a banner which isn't a popular opinion with the codger crowd but so what.
Last edited by a moderator:
Wrongo.
That is not a statement of fact.
It is a statement about your opinion as to my opinion.
We agree to disagree on the above, at best.
Whoop de do.
His tenure at that point had nothing to do with his desire to impose his will.
Whether it was new or continued.
What you're saying is true in a certain context to a certain extent.
In pre-free agency, players were at mercy of ownership/mgmt.
Given that, and his seniority, you could say it was a team he had already made in his image, at least at some point.
But then there was a little too much attention being paid to the name, skill guys, the celebs.
The fact that he moved Giacomin the way he did with a harsh waiver deal sell out instead of trying to hook him where he wanted to go for a graceful exit, assuming we agree it was time for the reins to be turned over to JD. Disgraceful. Unnecessarily harsh. Selfish. Not classy at all.
We need not quibble.
He wanted to RETAIN and RE-ESTABLISH that it was his team.
Close enough to what I said.
You suggest that the '75-76 season being his last meant he had no upside in putting his imprint on the team prior.
I disagree.
He still had to justify a paycheck.
And he just chose the wrong way to go about it.
It could be argued that so many Ranger fans were incensed about that trade, plus the obvious Giacomin exit fiasco, that he chose to ran before he was forced out of town.
Constant upgrading and tweaking, sure.
But there was no reason to move Park/Ratelle, not at that time for that return.
Espo-Vadnais (and let's not forget Joe Zanussi) were not an upgrade.
Espo had his legit pluses, but his numbers were padded by a healthy(healthier) Orr.
Not that good in Chicago, or here.
And Vadnais was a nice guy and a quality add, but nowhere near Park, even as Park started to decline physically.
If it could be shown it was a true upgrade, that's one thing.
He took less to show he was in charge, apparently able to make change for the sake of change.
I watched that game.
From behind a set, I too voiced my displeasure with "Eddie, Eddie!" chants.
Teams have slow starts. Regardless there are no sacred cows. Should always be willing to move guys for improvement.
But THIS deal did not achieve that, and it can be argued it was for the purposes I described.
Good riddance.
PS if you ever get a chance to speak to guys from that team, get 'em on the side so they can speak freely and ask 'em.
You'll see I'm right.
Brad Park was one of the greatest D-men of all time. Not only one of the best play makers but a great stickhandler who could control the game. Park was also a great defenseman at defending and being physical. He wouldn't hesitate to drop the gloves either and held his own in the fighting department.
Even though it is an old line " If it wasn't for Bobby Orr, Park would have been the best", we all should keep that in perspective. I believe that Brad Park is being more under appreciated as the years go by. Although it is hard to rate generations of players, anyone who is second to the best that ever played, must have been pretty dam good. If he had of won 4 Norris Trophies his popularity would be greater today.
Some interesting facts to add to Brad's accomplishments:
- His 6 time runner-up finish for the Norris is the most of any NHL player for any trophy never to win.
- In the 1978 playoffs tied Bobby Orr's record for 9 post season goals for a D-man. He finished as the Bruins leading playoff scorer with 15 GP, 9 G, 11 A, 20 PTS. If the B's could have won the Stanley Cup he no doubt would have won the Conn Smythe Trophy. That went to Larry Robinson. Once again Brad was runner-up.
I'm not sure if that is enough to have his number retired, but I just hope people remember how good he was.
Even though it is an old line " If it wasn't for Bobby Orr, Park would have been the best", we all should keep that in perspective. I believe that Brad Park is being more under appreciated as the years go by. Although it is hard to rate generations of players, anyone who is second to the best that ever played, must have been pretty dam good. If he had of won 4 Norris Trophies his popularity would be greater today.
Some interesting facts to add to Brad's accomplishments:
- His 6 time runner-up finish for the Norris is the most of any NHL player for any trophy never to win.
- In the 1978 playoffs tied Bobby Orr's record for 9 post season goals for a D-man. He finished as the Bruins leading playoff scorer with 15 GP, 9 G, 11 A, 20 PTS. If the B's could have won the Stanley Cup he no doubt would have won the Conn Smythe Trophy. That went to Larry Robinson. Once again Brad was runner-up.
I'm not sure if that is enough to have his number retired, but I just hope people remember how good he was.
Last edited:
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,070
- 40,920
I'm more than old enough to remember Brad Park playing for both New York and Boston. One thing I can say with certainty is that Brad Park never lifted the Stanley Cup as a Ranger. Mark Messier did. I consider that a major difference--a defining one even--between their careers in New York.
The time to retire Brad Park's number, if there ever was one, came and went almost 30 years ago. To the vast majority of current Rangers fans (and probably Boston fans as well), he is a player who their parents, or even gradparents talked about, nothing more. Sad, maybe. But true. Retiring a player's number is more about how the fans feel about him, rather than a bunch of statistics.
I totally agree with the last post. Messier lead the Rangers to a Cup. Park never sniffed a cup in his long career. As someone who saw Park play almost his whole career he is a Hofer but is not worthy of having his number retired as a Ranger.
The Esposito trade gets bashed all the time but at least he was the leader on a Rangers team that went to the finals. If Brad Park had played his whole career as a Ranger then yes his number would be retired but he didn't .
The Esposito trade gets bashed all the time but at least he was the leader on a Rangers team that went to the finals. If Brad Park had played his whole career as a Ranger then yes his number would be retired but he didn't .
Zil
Shrug
- Feb 9, 2006
- 5,559
- 43
Wait, how was Esposito a great Ranger leader in comparison to Park when they both went to one finals as a Ranger and Park's team came closer to taking the series? My father always insisted that they might've won the cup if Ratelle hadn't hurt his ankle late in the 72 season. He was having his greatest year and was a shell of himself in that finals.
Plus, Epsosito is the reason Rick Middleton scored 400 NHL goals for the Bruins rather than the Rangers. I've made this argument before, but 79 was Middleton's breakout year and Park and Ratelle were still putting up HoF numbers. They might've won in 79, or at least had a better chance without the Esposito trade.
I started following the Rangers in 1970 so I remember the 72 team well. They might have won the Cup if Ratelle didn't hurt his ankle but the argument was about Park and he was not the leader of the 72 team it was Gilbert followed by Ratelle and Hadfield put up 50 goals. The 1979 team might have won the Cup if some as***** Potvin doesn't break Nilsson,s ankle in 79( you might remember the play) but Esposito was the leader of the team that lost to the Canadiens in 1979.
The bottom line is that Esposito and Park should not have their numbers retired but both are Hofers but only one was the leader of a Rangers team that lost in the finals.
