Should Eric Lindros, Pavel Bure be in the 2010 Hockey Hall of Fame class?

24 Comments

bure.jpgOn Tuesday, the Hockey Hall of Fame will announce the 2010 inductees
and this year should boast a very impressive class with a number of
great players entering their first year of eligibility.

Yet there is seemingly just one lock for the Hall of Fame this year,
as Joe Nieuwendyk is sure to be a first-ballot inductee. The 1999 Conn
Smythe winner was a three-time Stanley Cup champion with three different
teams and personified the leadership, production and class that you
would expect to be present in a Hall of Fame player.

After Nieuwendyk, however, are a number of players sure to draw
debate. It’s unlikely that Pierre Turgeon, Mike Ricci, Arturs Irbe or
Peter Bondra make in in their first year of eligibility. It’s possible
that Tom Barrasso, Ron Hextall, Andy Moog, Felix Potvin, Dave Andreychuk
or even Dino Ciccarelli finally get the call.

But two names, Pavel Bure and Eric Lindros, will be the subject of
most debate. Brandon and I have two differing opinions on Bure and
Lindros, and we’ll each give our argument for both below.

James:

Pavel Bure was Dominique Wilkins on ice. He scored highlight reel goals, possessed locomotive speed and an excellent sense of “The Moment.” Maybe he didn’t persist with Recchi-like longevity, but he dazzled like few others.

Eric Lindros was supposed to be “The Next One.” Few will forget – and many will never forgive – that Lindros held out as the No.1 pick of the Quebec Nordiques, only to be traded for a bunch of players including Peter Forsberg. The Lindros family over-involvement and squabbles with Bobby Clarke certainly did not impress.

But during his years in Philadelphia, Lindros was an irresistible force. With fellow power forward John LeClair and hockey trivia filler Mikael Renberg, Lindros formed the feared “Legion of Doom” line, perhaps the last combo of players to earn a spectacular nickname. As a young Penguins fan, I grew to despise Lindros, but that perhaps that only underscores his greatness.

Bure and Lindros couldn’t have been more different – everything from their playing styles and national origin are complete opposites. They do, however, share at least three traits: they both fell short of a Stanley Cup, had injury ravaged careers and most importantly … they both deserve to be in the Hockey Hall of Fame.

There are only a handful of players in each generation who can change the course of a game or playoff series by sheer force of will. Bure and Lindros were two of those players, even if they didn’t do it for 15 years. Still, if you really need it, there are some numbers that help their cases.

Both Bure and Lindros fell well short of 1,000 career points, but they both averaged more than a point per game in the regular season (Bure: 779 in 702 GP; Lindros: 865 in 760 GP) AND in the playoffs (Bure: 70 in 64 GP; Lindros: 57 in 53 GP).

In the trap-ravaged, obstruction era of the NHL Bure still managed two 60 goal seasons (92-93 and 93-94), as well as 59, 58 and 51-goal seasons. Keep in mind, two of those 50-goal seasons came as the only real offensive threat on profoundly awful Florida Panthers teams. And Bure also managed one of the greatest scores a Russian athlete could hope for: Anna Kournikova. If that’s not HoF worthy, what is?

Hall of Fame voters tend to fixate on arbitrary milestones that reward longevity instead of brilliance. There are some players who manage a combination of both, but when it comes down to a choice between the two, I’ll take the stars that shined the brightest rather than the longest.

After the jump, Brandon tells us why they shouldn’t be in the Hall of Fame.

lindros.jpgBrandon:

I understand the love for Eric Lindros and
Pavel Bure for this year’s HOF class; I can’t argue that when they were
at their best they were two of the most exciting offensive players in
the NHL. Yet when you look at all of the players eligible this year I
can’t help but come up with a lengthy list of players who deserve to be
in the HOF over these two. Before I get to that, I’ll argue against each
separately.

Pavel Bure was perhaps the most electric forward of
the 1990’s. What he could do with the puck was nothing short of
remarkable, and his combination of talent and speed was nearly untouched
during his heyday. But he was also a player who put up incredible
individual numbers while never enjoying team success. Through no exact
fault of his own, as hockey is ultimately a team sport, he never
experienced the overwhelming postseason success that you consider when
it comes to Hall of Fame players

He was never considered a great leader on the ice and was nothing
but a pure goal scorer; not exactly a knock on Bure but when thinking
about Hall of Fame players you have to consider factors other than just
his numbers. I will admit that when he did go deep into the postseason
— in 1994 he had 31 points in 24 playoff games with Vancouver — he
shined, but those moments weren’t often, especially later in his career.

If
I had my choice however, I would instantly vote Bure in over other
player in this debate: Eric Lindros.

Look, I know his numbers were
great. In his career he had more points per game that Mark Messier, Luc
Robitaille and Brett Hull. When he was healthy, especially early in his
career, he was perhaps the most dominant offensive player in the NHL.
Yet that was for just a short amount of time, as injuries and and a
horrid off-ice persona became the story of the latter part of his
career.

It’s true that he HOF seems to reward players who were
really good for a long time, instead of players who were great for a
short time. But you can’t sit there and tell me that Eric Lindros —
perhaps one of the worst on-ice leaders we’ve seen in the NHL —
deserves to be in the Hall of Fame over Dave Andreychuk (640 career
goals), or Andy Moog, Dino Ciccarelli and perhaps the most glaring
omission: Doug Gilmour.

The thought that Eric Lindros would be in
the Hall of Fame before Gilmour makes me frankly a bit sick.

Does
Lindros deserve to ultimately be in the HOF? Certainly, but I highly
doubt he makes it this summer anyways. He’ll get there eventually, and
I’d like to the think the voters decide that Bure will get there first.
I’d like to see others get voted in before either of those two, but
there’s no doubt that Bure would be higher on my list than Lindros

What
do you think?

These 2017 NHL Draft picks lacked hype … but not swagger

Getty
2 Comments

The interview process for draft prospects must be a real beating. Then again, it’s also an opportunity for hopefuls to push back.

In the case of two smaller prospects, it meant providing some swagger in their answers, possibly impressing their new teams. If nothing else, Kailer Yamamoto and Michael DiPietro generated some refreshingly confident quotes.

One would assume that the Edmonton Oilers picked Yamamoto with the 22nd choice for more than just a great answer alone … but still.

Nice, right?

Sportsnet’s Jeff Marek related a similar story about DiPietro, who the Vancouver Canucks nabbed with the 64th pick.

Funny story: When one team at the NHL told him “We don’t think you can play in the NHL with our team, you’re too small” at the combine, he fired back with “well, I guess you have a problem with winning, then.” How do you not like that?

If nothing else, those two aren’t shy.

As a bonus story, check out the bumpy path Will Reilly – aka the “Mr. Irrelevant” of the 2017 NHL Draft – took to being chosen last overall by the Pittsburgh Penguins, via Puck Daddy’s Sean Leahy. From the sound of things, there are worse feelings than going 217th.

The 2017 NHL Draft may have been “pumped down” from a hype perspective, yet it sounds like many of these prospects at least bring some moxie to the table.

Kings, Golden Knights labeled 2017 NHL Draft winners; Bruins, not so much

Getty
7 Comments

It’s nearly certain that we won’t be able to determine the “winners and losers” of the 2017 NHL Draft until, say, 2022. If not later.

Still, what fun is that?

Quite a few outlets pegged some winners and losers, though sometimes the choices were more about themes like nations or player types than specific teams.

For example: Puck Daddy gives a thumbs down to the “green room” experiment.

Let’s take a look at some of the consensus picks.

Winners

Vegas Golden Knights

GM George McPhee was dealt a bad hand when it comes to the lottery draft, so he instead made his own luck. And then he selected three players who could improve this team going forward.

Sportsnet’s Jeff Marek especially liked the last two of their three first-rounders (Nick Suzuki and Erik Brannstrom), viewing Cody Glass as more of a no-brainer. Plenty of others were on board.

Los Angeles Kings

Gabe Vilardi fell to Los Angeles, whether it was because of shaky skating or some other reason. That potential steal (and some other shrewd moves) impressed the Hockey News’ Ryan Kennedy, who assembled draft profiles for PHT.

Again, Vilardi’s loss was considered the Kings’ gain, as slower skaters were considered losers by the likes of Post Media’s Michael Traikos.

Philadelphia Flyers

Boy, Ron Hextall is good at this thing, isn’t he? Philly drew high marks even beyond the layup of landing Nolan Patrick. The main area of disagreement revolved around the Brayden Schenn trade, though plenty came out on Hextall’s side there, too.

Arizona Coyotes

Boy, that negative press didn’t last long, did it? Between landing Niklas Hjalmarsson, Derek Stepan, and Antti Raanta in trades and savvy picks, they were a popular choice.

Themes

Smaller players, Sweden, and Finland drew semi-serious mentions as “winners.”

Losers

Boston Bruins

The perception is that they played it too safe.

Colorado Avalanche, for now?

OK, this was more about draft weekend than picks, but people are criticizing Joe Sakic for standing pat. That could change, but the negative sentiment is there.

Detroit Red Wings

Another common choice. Some believe that their draft was the worst of them all, which isn’t great considering the declining opinion of GM Ken Holland overall.

New York Rangers

Lias Andersson was viewed as a reach by plenty, and his connection to the trade to Arizona might intensify the scrutiny.

Themes

Not a great draft for Russian-born players and/or guys who don’t skate quite swiftly.

***

So, those are some of the near-consensus choices for winners and losers, via the brave souls who made rapid reactions to the 2017 NHL Draft.

Ducks ink D Holzer to two-year deal reportedly worth $1.8M

Getty
2 Comments

As the dust settled on the expansion draft, the Anaheim Ducks’ defense is coming into focus.

Sunday continued that pattern; the Ducks signed Korbinian Holzer to a two-year contract worth $1.8 million, according to TVA’s Renaud Lavoie.

You can break down the Ducks defense as more expensive players (Hampus Lindholm, Sami Vatanen, Cam Fowler, and Kevin Bieksa) and cheaper ones (Holzer, Brandon Montour, and Josh Manson).

Only Vatanen, Lindholm and Holzer see contracts that go beyond 2017-18 – at least without an extension yet for the likes of Fowler and Manson – so Holzer provides a little bit of certainty.

Is the $900K a minor overpay, though? Holzer played in 32 games for the Ducks this season after appearing in 29 in 2015-16. His impact has been pretty minimal, generating seven points while averaging 13:31 in ice time per contest (down from 14:45 the previous season).

Granted he may get more opportunities to show what he’s capable of if the Ducks lose another piece. Then again, at 29, the Ducks likely know what they have.

2017 Hockey Hall of Fame class to be named Monday; Selanne + who?

Getty
14 Comments

The 2017 Hockey Hall of Fame class is expected to be announced on Monday, and every indication is that Teemu Selanne will be on the list. Beyond that, well, there are a lot of question marks.

NHL.com notes that there’s at least a possibility that Selanne will be the only NHL name to be part of this class, which would mark a first since 2010 (when Dino Ciccarelli was the lone addition).

It’s a nice way to continue what’s been a buffet for hockey fans: the 2017 Stanley Cup Final’s conclusion, the expansion draft and then the 2017 NHL Draft. The HHOF announcements are a nice appetizer before free agency gets, well, frenzied?

“The Finnish Flash” was also an obvious top choice in last year’s poll to see who should be in the class.

Now, that doesn’t mean he is the only interesting name.

For one thing, Daniel Alfredsson will be eligible for the first time, much like Selanne. “Alf” falls in the “Maybe” category with some interesting, debatable other options: Mark Recchi, Dave Andreychuk, Alex Mogilny, Jeremy Roenick, Paul Kariya, Chris Osgood, and more.

The 2016 Hockey Hall of Fame class included Eric Lindros, Rogie Vachon, Sergei Makarov, and Pat Quinn.