View Single Post
11-14-2012, 10:30 PM
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,553
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by livewell68 View Post
When the season unfolded, it did seem more like a weak argument but only because Jagr made that Rangers team "that good". I think so many forget just how weak that Rangers team looked on paper. During training camp most projected the Rangers to battle for the lottery pick and asked Jagr how it felt for him to play on a rebuilding team and his response was "I don't think we will be a rebuilding team, I think I can challenge for the Art Ross and in doing so help my team make the playoffs". He made good on that promise 100%.

As for Jagr having already won the Hart before, that was a poor reason not to vote for him. It's sad that Jagr will most likely enter the Hall with just 1 Hart when he easily deserved 3 (1999-00 and 2005-06) with possibly 1994-95 being another deserving season and to a lesser extent 1997-98.
I'm not saying that I agree with it but some voters have vastly different criteria and standards for voting on the Hart over time.

It should be more transparent IMO.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote