Graves Mistake

I realize that launching a new blog with a post about a sport that no one south of St. Catherine Street really cares about could be a mistake. However, I started this blog to give myself a forum for whatever is on my mind (usually sports and random pop culture), and I'm hoping it will be a destination for all of you when you think you've run out of shit to read on the Internet.

Like much of the free world, I haven't cared much about the NHL for years. My interest has waned since the Rangers won the Stanly Cup 14 years ago, and I will readily admit that makes me a fair-weather fan. When it comes to hockey, I’m OK with that.

The bottom line is that I'm pretty out of the NHL loop. For example, I had no clue that the NHL All-Star game was this weekend. I work at sports magazine, and I wouldn't have known unless I stumbled across the skills competition Saturday night on "Versus." Once I realized I didn't know any of the players, I kept on the flipping.

That being said, I still have a soft spot for the Rangers. And now that I am back in New York after a three-year hiatus and armed with a 42-inch HD TV, I figured I would give hockey another shot. And what better way to re-connect with the Rangers glory years (year?) than watching Brian Leetch's number-retirement ceremony, which was on this past week.

Much like the Mark Messier ceremony from a few years back, it was way too long and self-aggrandizing. What should have taken no more than 25 minutes took 51. Leetch was a great player and a fine man, but we don't need to hear about it from every member of the 1994 Rangers.

That wasn't what really annoyed me though, because that is what these ceremonies have become. What stuck in my craw was the announcement that the Rangers would be retiring Adam Graves' No. 9 next year.

At the risk of sounding like an old-fashioned curmudgeon, what happened to the time when having your number retired meant something? Don't get me wrong, I loved the grind-out-style of Gravesy, but he finished his career with 329 goals. For some perspective, former teammate Steve Larmer finished his career with 441 goals, and you don't see No. 28 hanging anywhere except in Mama Larmer's closet.

On a side note, hockey players have a silly system for creating nicknames. My understanding is that if your name ends with a "y," it's gets shortened by a syllable. For example, Wayne Gretzky was "Gretz." On the flip side, every player whose name doesn't end with a "y" gets a "y" added on to create their new name. This means Brian Leetch is "Leetchy" and Adam Graves is "Gravesy." Stupidy.

Back to Graves and his sham of a number retirement. I've always liked the fact that my favorite teams are very selective when it comes to retiring numbers. The Mets have four retired, and the Rangers had just two (Eddie Giacomin and Rod Gilbert) until Messier and Mike Richter received the honor in the past couple of years.

Adam Graves just isn’t on that level.

I’m usually inclined to prove statements like that with some sort of statistical argument, but in this case I don’t feel as though it’s necessary. Graves was an excellent, but not great, player. And even though the fans loved him and he was active in the community, I can’t shake the feeling that seeing Graves’ number retired diminishes the honor.

The best argument in his favor is that he set the Rangers’ single-season record for goals in their Stanley Cup year, but that seems pretty flimsy.

Todd Hundley holds the Mets single-season home run record, and I’m pretty sure No. 9 is in no danger of being plastered on the walls of the Mets new stadium.