HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The History of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=126)
-   -   Tomas Sandstrom (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=112147)

silver_made* 11-05-2004 03:31 AM

Tomas Sandstrom
 
Just looking for some opnions and insights about him. Glanced over his '93 playoff stats and he was more productive that postseason than i recall. who today might make for a good comparison. i'd prefer to discount his career after pittsburgh, seeing as he was really washed up by the time he was a duck. were the kings better off with him than bernie nicholls, looking back at that trade? share your thoughts, por favor.

Form and Substance 11-08-2004 09:45 PM

He was one of those pretty talented players who mostly stood in the shadows of bigger stars (ie Gretzky in LA, Lemieux in Pittsburgh, Kariya, Selanne ANA, etc...) People think of him as a perimeter player. I don't.

silver_made* 11-09-2004 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leachmeister2000
He was one of those pretty talented players who mostly stood in the shadows of bigger stars (ie Gretzky in LA, Lemieux in Pittsburgh, Kariya, Selanne ANA, etc...) People think of him as a perimeter player. I don't.

as i think back, tomas holmstrom reminds me of sandy, except sandy IMO had much more offensive talent. both relentless european net crashers.

Sammy* 11-09-2004 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silver_made
as i think back, tomas holmstrom reminds me of sandy, except sandy IMO had much more offensive talent. both relentless european net crashers.

Pretyy good comparison, but I dont think Sandstrom was as physical as Holmstrom (he was physical but more of an agitator) & Sandstrom was a waaaay better skater (& as u say, had way more offensive talent).

#66 11-09-2004 02:10 PM

The things that I remembered about Sandstrom were a huge slapshot, great skating and that he was a very dirty player. Does anyone else remember the Dave Brown cross check? I loved Dave Brown just because of that.

MS 11-09-2004 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leachmeister2000
He was one of those pretty talented players who mostly stood in the shadows of bigger stars (ie Gretzky in LA, Lemieux in Pittsburgh, Kariya, Selanne ANA, etc...) People think of him as a perimeter player. I don't.

I don't think anyone thought of him as a perimeter player. In his prime he was in the same class as Tikkanen and Claude Lemieux - elite pests with first-line offensive skill. Sandstrom was probably the most talented of the three, though.

His legacy would be better if he wasn't injured so much. 7 seasons where he missed more than 10 games, 4 missing more than 20. If he doesn't miss ~200 games due to injury over the course of his career, he clears 1000 points in all likelihood. He also had several seasons where he was on pace for 50 goals or 100 points, and fell short due to injury ... in fact every time he's having a huge season he has the misfortune of getting hurt. 40 goals in 64 games in 86-87, 89 points in 68 games in 90-91, 52 points in 39 games in 92-93, 70 points in 58 games in 95-96.

As for the original poster's question, IMO yes the Kings were better off from that trade. Sandstrom and Granato were outstanding for several seasons in LA, and both were huge factors in the 93 playoff run. Nicholls was very good, but I don't think his impact was what those two could do combined.

Form and Substance 11-10-2004 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS
I don't think anyone thought of him as a perimeter player. In his prime he was in the same class as Tikkanen and Claude Lemieux - elite pests with first-line offensive skill. Sandstrom was probably the most talented of the three, though.

His legacy would be better if he wasn't injured so much. 7 seasons where he missed more than 10 games, 4 missing more than 20. If he doesn't miss ~200 games due to injury over the course of his career, he clears 1000 points in all likelihood. He also had several seasons where he was on pace for 50 goals or 100 points, and fell short due to injury ... in fact every time he's having a huge season he has the misfortune of getting hurt. 40 goals in 64 games in 86-87, 89 points in 68 games in 90-91, 52 points in 39 games in 92-93, 70 points in 58 games in 95-96.

As for the original poster's question, IMO yes the Kings were better off from that trade. Sandstrom and Granato were outstanding for several seasons in LA, and both were huge factors in the 93 playoff run. Nicholls was very good, but I don't think his impact was what those two could do combined.


92-93 was an anomaly, the 10th best scorer had 123 points and Pavel Bure barely skirted the top 20.

MS 11-11-2004 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leachmeister2000
92-93 was an anomaly, the 10th best scorer had 123 points and Pavel Bure barely skirted the top 20.

Yeah, but he was also on pace for 50 goals in 86-87, over 100 points in 90-91, and about 100 points in 95-96. And had 88 points in 88-89. In the 10 year period between 1986 and 1996 he averaged over a point per game. It's not that much of an anomaly.

mattihp 11-11-2004 06:55 AM

Sandström was an awesome backhand-stickhandler... I've only seen one guy do better tricks on their backhand, that is Niklas 'the hurricane' Hagman


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:53 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.