Jump to content

Devils to Retire #27 12/16/11


Recommended Posts

There has been much speculation of Scott Niedermayer's #27 going up to the rafters this season on 12/16/11.

TG has some interesting info on it per investigating a Twitter source posting a Neids Retirement Night for 12/16 vs. the Dallas Stars. The tweet was later removed in the evening - but Neids did confirm the connection to the Twitter source - but not the scheduled retirement ceremony.

TG Link

Seems like speculation - Nothing Official yet - but where there's smoke....

Thoughts?

Per TG:

Al Dhalla of Super Agent Inc., a Toronto-based sports marketing company, posted Saturday on his Twitter account that Friday, Dec. 16 will be “Scott Niedermayer Night in New Jersey.” The Devils host the Dallas Stars that night.

Reached on the phone this evening, Niedermayer acknowledged that he has had a working relationship with Dhalla (Dhalla also advertised on Twitter the availability of autographed Niedermayer memorabilia), but was uncomfortable talking about his jersey number being retired and said, to his knowledge, nothing had been finalized.

Edited by DevilinLA
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 180
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

He deserves it. Good for him.

Hopefully itll be a special night and people dont act like barbarians and dont appreciate what exactly he did for the franchise. I think it escapes peoples minds after someone has been out of the roster for so long.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If he left in any other way than how he left to play with his brother, I'd say no. The fact that he did so because he wanted to play with his brother just won't let me be upset or hold it against him for leaving that way. He was integral to this organization while he was here and had a big impact, so I think he deserves it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good, hopefully it's true.

He deserves it. Good for him.

Hopefully itll be a special night and people dont act like barbarians and dont appreciate what exactly he did for the franchise. I think it escapes peoples minds after someone has been out of the roster for so long.

Anyone who DOESN'T think Nieds deserves his number retired SHOULDN'T show up. Really simple.

I respect your opinion, but I believe that helping us win 3 cups and then taking a paycut to help his brother win one is enough to overshadow the fact that he didn't stay with us.

Damn straight. And I'm sick of the attitude to the contrary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thrilled his number is possibly getting retired. Hopefully I can make the 7 hr trek to be there. Hopefully the people that don't feel he deserves it will stay home, because their boo's will embarress the devil fans that come to cheer him.

No Nieds, no cup. Two people (that will be in attendance) will agree with this, #4 and #30 and welcome the idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still undecided on Niedermayer. If he finished his career with the Devils I'd be all for it... but just the way he left was so abrupt. Lou preaches loyalty and that is the exact opposite of what he did to the Devils.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still undecided on Niedermayer. If he finished his career with the Devils I'd be all for it... but just the way he left was so abrupt. Lou preaches loyalty and that is the exact opposite of what he did to the Devils.

I realize that loyalty and putting the team first is huge with Lou, but he left to play with his brother, so what about loyalty to family? I'm sure even Lou can't be upset over the way he left. I just cannot make myself even the slightest bit annoyed over his departure. He wanted to play with his brother and he finally got to and then led Anaheim to a Stanley Cup a few years later, so it's a great story and you can't be mad about it. If you still hold it against Niedermayer, then I don't know what to say to you, but he really didn't do anything to "betray" the team or anything, so I don't understand what else there is against him that would make him not worthy of having his number retired.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great, great player!

With that being said, no way should his jersey be hanging from the rafters. It does not matter why he left, just that he left. That right there eliminates him from contention for that honor. Is he a great player, does he deserve to be in the HHOF, was it a great gesture to take a paycut to play with his brother, the answer to all those questions is yes. I still believe however that the jersey ceremony is an honor you bestow on the greats who are dedicated to THIS team. Daneyko, Stevens, Elias, Broduer, etc.

Heres a question for you. How many players wore #4 after Stevens left? Daneykos #3? They didn't retire those jerseys the day the players retired, yet no one got their numbers for the next season. How about Yzerman, Sakic, or Borque? same deal there. Yet Neidemeyer's number has been worn by Tallackson, and Mottau, since Neids departure. If the whole purpose of retiring a jersey number is that no one else could ever wear the number because of Neids' stellar play, why keep reusing it?, and lets be honest it is not like they brought in a future hall of famer to wear that number. They gave it to ordinary players. Doesn't seem like management thought so much of the number that it should be put away until their franchise player retired either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize that loyalty and putting the team first is huge with Lou, but he left to play with his brother, so what about loyalty to family? I'm sure even Lou can't be upset over the way he left. I just cannot make myself even the slightest bit annoyed over his departure. He wanted to play with his brother and he finally got to and then led Anaheim to a Stanley Cup a few years later, so it's a great story and you can't be mad about it. If you still hold it against Niedermayer, then I don't know what to say to you, but he really didn't do anything to "betray" the team or anything, so I don't understand what else there is against him that would make him not worthy of having his number retired.

I'm not mad that he left to go play with his brother, I respect it. I have no doubt in my mind that he has no regrets, hell a part of me feels like he even made the right call but decisions have consequences. By leaving the team I believe Nieds forfeit his chance to have his number hang in the rafters with #3, #4 and eventually #30. Retiring numbers should bee a rare occurrence reserved only for those who make a complete commitment to the team for as long as they are able and unfortunately you can't say that for #27.

Link to post
Share on other sites

By the standard he should never have left to get his number retired Michael Jordan wouldn't have his number retired. Scott Stevens didn't play his whole career too but I guess it's okay if you come here in the middle of your career, you just can't leave in the middle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

By the standard he should never have left to get his number retired Michael Jordan wouldn't have his number retired. Scott Stevens didn't play his whole career too but I guess it's okay if you come here in the middle of your career, you just can't leave in the middle.

Stevens didn't even report when he was first sent to Jersey. He wanted no part of this franchise, and wasn't shy about it either. But good things happened since then that washed the bad taste out of everyone's mouths, and all anyone remembers are the good times with him.

Nieds? Leaving was his final act as a Devil, and some people have a hard time seeing past that. To each his own. I just hope the Nieds naysayers respectfully stay away from the Rock the night #27 goes up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heres a question for you. How many players wore #4 after Stevens left? Daneykos #3? They didn't retire those jerseys the day the players retired, yet no one got their numbers for the next season. How about Yzerman, Sakic, or Borque? same deal there. Yet Neidemeyer's number has been worn by Tallackson, and Mottau, since Neids departure. If the whole purpose of retiring a jersey number is that no one else could ever wear the number because of Neids' stellar play, why keep reusing it?, and lets be honest it is not like they brought in a future hall of famer to wear that number. They gave it to ordinary players. Doesn't seem like management thought so much of the number that it should be put away until their franchise player retired either.

The Bruins thought so highly of Phil Esposito that they never used #7 again after they traded him to the Rangers. Oh, wait, no they didn't, it stayed out of circulation for a couple years but then was used by three other players before the Bruins retired #7 in Espo's honor, most famously by Ray Bourque for the first 8 years of his career.

Point being that not every retired number in the history of man was "unofficially" retired before being "officially" retired.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

As for me, I'm somewhat conflicted. I'm not opposed to retiring #27 eventually, but it still seems too soon to me, if only because of the clear divisions over his legacy. I don't hold his leaving against him, but I understand why those who do feel that way. I'd prefer to wait a few more years, maybe see if he gets into the HOF first. I wouldn't mind an "unofficial" retirement in the meantime, though.

For the sake of argument, let's say the Devils don't plan to retire #27. If the Ducks do it first, does that make us look bad?

Link to post
Share on other sites

By the standard he should never have left to get his number retired Michael Jordan wouldn't have his number retired. Scott Stevens didn't play his whole career too but I guess it's okay if you come here in the middle of your career, you just can't leave in the middle.

Jordan had his number retired before he came back, had spent 3 years away from the game, was in the twilight of his career and was basically playing for charity at that point on a team he owned.

I consider the two situations vastly different.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stevens didn't even report when he was first sent to Jersey. He wanted no part of this franchise, and wasn't shy about it either. But good things happened since then that washed the bad taste out of everyone's mouths, and all anyone remembers are the good times with him.

But you highlight the important difference; Once Stevens got here, he stayed and Nieds started here and left. You can't "fault" Stevens for not being excited to come to a team he didn't know anything about, but you can "fault" Nieds for being on this team, knowing what the Devils brought to the table, and then leaving it behind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bruins thought so highly of Phil Esposito that they never used #7 again after they traded him to the Rangers. Oh, wait, no they didn't, it stayed out of circulation for a couple years but then was used by three other players before the Bruins retired #7 in Espo's honor, most famously by Ray Bourque for the first 8 years of his career.

Point being that not every retired number in the history of man was "unofficially" retired before being "officially" retired.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

As for me, I'm somewhat conflicted. I'm not opposed to retiring #27 eventually, but it still seems too soon to me, if only because of the clear divisions over his legacy. I don't hold his leaving against him, but I understand why those who do feel that way. I'd prefer to wait a few more years, maybe see if he gets into the HOF first. I wouldn't mind an "unofficial" retirement in the meantime, though.

For the sake of argument, let's say the Devils don't plan to retire #27. If the Ducks do it first, does that make us look bad?

Rowdy, to answer your question- yes. Nieds played a lot longer here, and accomplished a lot more here. It would royally piss me off if the Ducks retired his number before the Devils.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I, like Rowdy, have conflicting ideas behind the retirement....but I do feel that if the debate is not on the merit of play but instead on his commitment to the team then it shouldn't be retired. Sure the fan base might be divided on retiring someone like Patty's #, for example, but that debate is based only on whether his actions and achievements warrant retirement. Those arguments aren't made on whether or not he had full commitment to the team...a retired jersey, IMHO, has to exhibit more than just how much did he help the team win.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.