Should the Penguins Retire Jaromir Jagr's #68?

Much conversation has been made lately about retired numbers in the NHL and the team's "Ring of Honor". It's common knowledge to most, but the Penguins have only retired two numbers in their history - 66 & 21. Both extremely deserving of the honor and in no way should that be any different.

But what about Jaromir Jagr? Should the Penguins retire his number following his retirement from professional hockey?

Why #68 SHOULD be retired

1. He is one of the best forwards to ever play the game, not just in a Penguin uniform but in any uniform.

2. He is 9th on the all-time scoring list in NHL history, with over 1000 of those points coming in the black and gold.

3. He won two Stanley Cups, providing a significant role in the winning of the second one.

4. He won five Art Ross Trophies as a Penguin.

5. He was a Hart Trophy finalist five times, also winning the award in 1999.

6. He played a huge part in popularizing hockey in Pittsburgh during the 1990s and helped the team to the playoffs in every year up until 2001, serving as team captain in 3 of those years.

Why #68 SHOULD NOT be retired

1. Retired numbers should be reserved for the players who really made a difference to the team and the community.

2. Only a little over half of his professional career has been played in Pittsburgh, the rest coming with Washington/New York/Omsk.

3. Retired numbers should go to the once in a generation player, and Jagr played second fiddle to Lemieux for the vast majority of his Penguin career.

4. His personality, requesting trades toward the end of his career are not the traits a fan wants to see hanging from the Consol Energy Center's ceiling every night.

Poll question is very simple. A small explanation of your choice would be superb as well. Yes or no to Jags?

The content expressed in fanposts does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the staff here at FanPosts are opinions expressed by fans of various teams throughout the league but may be more Pittsburgh-centric for obvious reasons.