I agree. Honoring a la Toronto, or even better something like the ‘testimonial’ matches they have in the EPL for retired players who were significant to the team. Either of these would allow the organization and fans to show their respect and appreciation for a player without having to overuse the whole number retirement/HOF route. This would also allow you to save retiring the number for your ‘legends’ and ‘greats’. I.e. The players who are shoe-ins for the retirement, and not the ones that we all need to sit around in our pints debating the pros and cons of.

Markus Naslund was a very, very good player who was for several years the best player on a Canucks team that played wonderful hockey but achieved little. There were some epic storylines and series during his tenure, but he wasn’t consistently great and certainly not a legend.
I owe my Vancouver fandom to him and the rest of the WCE, but my rose colored lenses don’t quite let me drop him into the retirement category. In hindsight, I think, as I’ve mentioned before, the Moore incident is a major factor in this, from both a controversy aspect and that post-Moore his game was never the same. One or two more seasons of his pre-Moore play on a line with the Sedins and we may not have been having this discussion.

This kind of thinking should apply to the HOF in my opinion as well. It needs to be somewhat exclusive to have any value. When there is controversy, it is better that the player be left out than be put in, because the point is to showcase the ‘greats’ and ‘legends’ and those who truly contributed something special to the game. A move to a system of honoring or testimonials would let Vancouver show their appreciation to Bure as well, and give him the kind of send off he deserved for what he gave the city during his time here. I never saw him play, but watching his highlights or play on youtube or on old tapes… it is special, just much, much to short.