I don't get the fuss about TJ Brodie wearing No. 66. If players can wear 4 (Orr) or 9 (Howe, Richard, Hull), they can wear 66.And he's right.
While many will say that Lemieux was second to Wayne Gretzky in iconic personalities of hockey in the modern era, but I believe that he was great for the Penguins; but the league wide-appeal wasn't there like it was for Gretzky. Gretzky brought hockey to the unrelated market of Los Angeles, thus expanding the game to what we see today.....while that's not a glowing endorsement, it exposed hockey to areas that no one had thought and created a buzz that the sport didn't have in the longest time.
And you know what-- Gretzky's number shouldn't have been widely retired, because it's a slippery slope. Then, when will people say that other numbers like #4, #9, or even #19 be retired. Hell, Ron Francis, Mark Messier, and Marcel Dionne have more points than Lemieux; so when should they retire their numbers?? It should be a case-by-case basis and by the teams they played on. They shouldn't put it in the league's hand to make these decisions because different numbers mean something to different people/teams.
I, for one, support Brodie wearing the #66, if for nothing else but to pester Penguins fans. Plus, why should he change it?? There has to be some reason why he picked the number and to be honest-- why are people trying to take this possible sentimental number off his back and give him a number that won't mean anything to him. Sure, it's a silly explanation-- but so is league-wide number retirement.