View Single Post
09-07-2012, 11:03 AM
Student Of The Game
seventieslord's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 31,032
vCash: 500
Although I still find the assertion that Larose "peaked higher" than Sandford to be bordering on ridiculous, there are definitely redeeming qualities in Larose's favour that may make him a more attractive player:

- peak seasons aside, his adjusted production is very similar
- he played in the NHL almost twice as long*
- his defensive reputation is just as strong or stronger (isn't it?)
- he was a contributor to very strong teams, winning five cups,
- his production with a weaker team for one season in his prime suggests that being on a stronger team hindered his production, and his numbers don't truly reflect his talent level.

* now the asterisk is, expansion obviously contributed to him playing in the NHL for longer, as it did for a multitude of other players. The question is, how much did it help? As of 1968, he was a part-time Hab who actually spent 10 games in the minors. Without the trade to Minnesota that apparently revitalized him and made him an attractive acquisition once again for the habs, does he get stuck in the minors forever? (probably not, but it's something his GM should at least have to answer for)

The Ron Murphy comparison is also interesting. Murphy did outproduce Sandford and for much longer, but hasn't been a very popular MLD/AAA player. Part of it is because we know so little about what non-offense value he brought to the table. If he was your standard up-and-down winger who played responsible and reasonably physical hockey, then he was just as valuable as Sandford but for longer (save for one spike playoff).

Sandford seems like a really poor man's Harry Watson but I'm having a hard time determining just how poor.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote