I'll make the homer argument that Sundin was better, since his prime years in Toronto allowed the Leafs to construct a pretty decent contending club around him, while Bure's Vancouver or Florida peak, take whichever or both, did not have the same level of stability that Sundin brought during 1998-2004 in Toronto. Sundin's one great statistical year, 1993, which is often overlooked, was also better than anything Bure put together.
-The Canucks from 92-95 were probably better than any era of the Leafs Sundin was on, and they got further (1 post away from overtime game 7 of the finals).
-Bure's 1994 season is definitely the best season either player ever mustered up.
I'm a leaf fan but if I had a contending team and could either sign a 1 year deal for the 1992-95 Bure or Sundin at any point in his career I take Bure in a heart beat. Sundin was containable to an extent but there was no stopping Bure when he was at his best; in the 1994 stars/canucks series, the Stars literally put all their resources into stopping Bure and still lost in 5 games. Bure was good enough to win the conn smythe in 1994 and could have won a hart trophy in a year with weaker competition, Sundin never came close to that level.
That being said if I had the option of drafting Sundin or Bure for a career I do take Sundin. He had 15 solid years from 1992-2008. Bure had about 5 and once you factor things like defense and team play, Sundin wins those intangables hands down. Sundin never became a distraction and wasn't nearly as hard to keep happy.
But then, Sundin at his worst > Bure at his worst. Bure's peak was without question better than Sundin's. He was the more talented player, and there aren't many that can rival his top performances. But the argument can be made that Sundin had the better career. Consistency and longevity have to count for something.
Game 7 overtime, give me Bure 10 times out of 10. Starting a franchise from scratch, give me Sundin to build around.
Gun to my head, I pick Bure as the better player and I think that is obvious, but I'll take Sundin for the long haul. In my personal opinion, this matchup is really quite close.
But then, Sundin at his worst > Bure at his worst. Bure's peak was without question better than Sundin's. He was the more talented player, and there aren't many that can rival his top performances. But the argument can be made that Sundin had the better career. Consistency and longevity have to count for something.
Game 7 overtime, give me Bure 10 times out of 10. Starting a franchise from scratch, give me Sundin to build around.
Gun to my head, I pick Bure as the better player and I think that is obvious, but I'll take Sundin for the long haul. In my personal opinion, this matchup is really quite close.
Oh i don't doubt that one bit, Sundins prime was also 3 times longer than Bure's but the topic is whom was a better player in their primes.
Bure was no doubt the more skilled player, but Mats had incredible consistency.
I would take Mats and his 12 straight 70 + point seasons (Which should actually be 16 straight years, because if the 94/95 season wasn't shortened he would have reached 70 that year as well) to build my team around though.
What is this. I'll tell you right now that that is probably one of the areas where Sundin could actually rival Bure in their primes. I'm not telling you to forget Bures 1994 Playoffs, but Sundin was a clearcut winner and it was the Leafs that s****d and that's why he has no cups. On Team Sweden Sundin showed this many times over, as a matter of fact he had 15 years of prime Bure when it comes to that. I'm a great Bure supporter but give me a break.
What is this. I'll tell you right now that that is probably one of the areas where Sundin could actually rival Bure in their primes. I'm not telling you to forget Bures 1994 Playoffs, but Sundin was a clearcut winner and it was the Leafs that s****d and that's why he has no cups. On Team Sweden Sundin showed this many times over, as a matter of fact he had 15 years of prime Bure when it comes to that. I'm a great Bure supporter but give me a break.
Not to mention the fact that in an OT situation, Sundin is far less likely to get scored ON.
Pavel Bure. In his prime perhaps one of the purest goal scorers of all time.
__________________
Exhibit A as to how hockey doesn't matter on ESPN:
Last night an ESPN program was discussing how the Detroit Pistons needed a hero citing the heroes on the Detroit Tigers, Detroit Lions and no mention of the Detroit Red Wings. All this despite the Red Wings probably being the most succesful team in Detroit right now.
Not to mention the fact that in an OT situation, Sundin is far less likely to get scored ON.
Pavel Bure, at least in his prime, was not a defensive liability. In fact, he was a primary contributor to the Canucks' defense. I will have definitive proof of this shortly. While I can't say yet whether or not he was a problem in Florida, I have about 30 minutes of footage from three games showcasing his two-way game early in his career.
I wouldn't have expected anything less from him. He was trained in the Soviet system, and I do believe the defensive aspects of hockey were taught to him there. If I were to blame anyone for ruining him, it would be the Canucks' management and coaching staff at the time.
Bure on the Rangers was still the deadliest player on the ice, most nights...playing basically in a wheelchair.
Bure's offensive skills DESTROY that of Sundin. Sundin just stayed healthier, longer. If Bure had remained healthy, these two would NEVER be compared by anyone who wishes others to take them seriously.
Pavel Bure, at least in his prime, was not a defensive liability. In fact, he was a primary contributor to the Canucks' defense. I will have definitive proof of this shortly. While I can't say yet whether or not he was a problem in Florida, I have about 30 minutes of footage from three games showcasing his two-way game early in his career.
I wouldn't have expected anything less from him. He was trained in the Soviet system, and I do believe the defensive aspects of hockey were taught to him there. If I were to blame anyone for ruining him, it would be the Canucks' management and coaching staff at the time.
+1. Bure was a freaking machine with the Canucks, oftentimes the first forward back to break up a play after singlehandedly creating a scoring chance at the other end. He definitely cherrypicked more with the Panthers but wasn't nearly as bad as the HF groupthink would have you believe, plus he was riddled with injuries at that time and still carried a very mediocre team (Peter Worrell got regular minutes!) into the playoffs.
+1. Bure was a freaking machine with the Canucks, oftentimes the first forward back to break up a play after singlehandedly creating a scoring chance at the other end. He definitely cherrypicked more with the Panthers but wasn't nearly as bad as the HF groupthink would have you believe, plus he was riddled with injuries at that time and still carried a very mediocre team (Peter Worrell got regular minutes!) into the playoffs.
This is pure revisionism, the trade with St. Louis really was the start of the turnaround for the Canucks, Bure had a great start in Vancouver and was an electrifying player but there is some crap going on here in his description and impact on a team.
Linden was the true leader and inspiration on that team and lead the Canucks in scoring in 92 followed by Ronning and with good contributions, especially in the playoffs, by Courtnall and Momessio.
Lumme was also a very good addition and captain Kirk found his stride in 92 as well.
Little kids and uniformed people would look to the bright shiny new object Bure, and man he was very electrifying to say the least, but this attempt at a rewrite of his impact on the team is just plain revisionism to say the least.
What is this. I'll tell you right now that that is probably one of the areas where Sundin could actually rival Bure in their primes. I'm not telling you to forget Bures 1994 Playoffs, but Sundin was a clearcut winner and it was the Leafs that s****d and that's why he has no cups. On Team Sweden Sundin showed this many times over, as a matter of fact he had 15 years of prime Bure when it comes to that. I'm a great Bure supporter but give me a break.
There aren't many people who know Sundin's career, his game winning goals and overtime heroics, better than me. I idolized the guy growing up and to this day he is my favourite player. But when I want someone to score a goal, I go Bure. As good as Mats was, Bure was far more of a game breaker.
This is pure revisionism, the trade with St. Louis really was the start of the turnaround for the Canucks, Bure had a great start in Vancouver and was an electrifying player but there is some crap going on here in his description and impact on a team.
Linden was the true leader and inspiration on that team and lead the Canucks in scoring in 92 followed by Ronning and with good contributions, especially in the playoffs, by Courtnall and Momessio.
Lumme was also a very good addition and captain Kirk found his stride in 92 as well.
Little kids and uniformed people would look to the bright shiny new object Bure, and man he was very electrifying to say the least, but this attempt at a rewrite of his impact on the team is just plain revisionism to say the least.
Uh okay, more revisionism and yes Pavel was great that year but teams still make playoffs not any single player.
The biggest difference was that Florida while scoring more goals than in 99 also cut down on goals allowed but it all came to a halt in the 1st round.
Where in my post did I downplay Linden's role and say that the Canucks were a one-man team? I was only responding to people's claims that Bure sat at the blueline and waited for outlet passes, THAT is revionist history.
As for Worrell, he had no business being in the NHL let alone playing 70+ games and averaging almost 10 minutes a game. By "regularly" I meant that he was frequently in the lineup, not that he played a ton of minutes.
Hardyfan 123 is correct though I have a lot of respect for Bure.Sometimes people on this over hype or under-hype a player.We say a particular player was a drinker or a smoker and ignore other players to fit their arguement
This is pure revisionism, the trade with St. Louis really was the start of the turnaround for the Canucks, Bure had a great start in Vancouver and was an electrifying player but there is some crap going on here in his description and impact on a team.
Linden was the true leader and inspiration on that team and lead the Canucks in scoring in 92 followed by Ronning and with good contributions, especially in the playoffs, by Courtnall and Momessio.
Lumme was also a very good addition and captain Kirk found his stride in 92 as well.
Little kids and uniformed people would look to the bright shiny new object Bure, and man he was very electrifying to say the least, but this attempt at a rewrite of his impact on the team is just plain revisionism to say the least.
Maybe not in his rookie season (where he lead the team in goals) but Bure easily carried the Vancouver offence until his 1995 injury.
I'm a big Pavel Bure fan. Bure will stick out immediately in your head because you can visualize two or three highlights that are unique to him.
But Mats Sundin played at a high level for nearly twice as long as Pavel.
Bure - 702 games played, 779 points
Sundin - 1346 games played, 1349 points
If I was starting a franchise, I'd take Sundin over Bure.
Lets say hypothetically injuries were not a concern, I would take Bure..
I would still probably take Bure if I'm starting a franchise.
I think history shows that if your team is built around Mats Sundin, you will be a bubble playoff team that won't really come close to winning the Cup, as long as Mats is your best player. When the Leafs were actually competitors, I thought Curtis Joseph was their best player.
With Bure, you don't have him for nearly as long, but if he's your best player (and playing like he cares, which he didn't always do), you have a legit shot at contending for the Cup (like in 1994). And if your team is otherwise total garbage, he might be able to carry you into the playoffs anyway (like 2000). Basically, I see Sundin as an above average #1 center for a long time, but not a difference-maker in the way that a motivated Pavel Bure was.
Getting that big, strong, talented center is just so much harder to come by than finding a speedy winger that can score, even one of Bure's level.
Take any number of years at random during Sundin's career, it will surprise you how many times he was actually the leading scoring among centers or close to it.
Bure fares much, much worse vs other Wingers because as I said, they are much more common.
I'm obviously a Habs fan and "we" have been looking for a center like Sundin since a certain #4 retired over 40 years ago.
I guess it just makes me appreciate the rarity of it that much more.
Also why us silly Hab fans are so excited about Galchenyuk and why the Lecavalier rumours just never seemed to die all those years.
So while I see how the flash of a Bure might blind someone a bit imo, I would take the center every time. Just so much more valuable over the long haul and in many more situations.
Last edited by Rhiessan71: 01-02-2013 at 10:03 PM.
Getting that big, strong, talented center is just so much harder to come by than finding a speedy winger that can score, even one of Bure's level.
Take any number of years at random during Sundin's career, it will surprise you how many times he was actually the leading scoring among centers or close to it.
Bure fares much, much worse vs other Wingers because as I said, they are much more common.
I'm obviously a Habs fan and "we" have been looking for a center like Sundin since a certain #4 retired over 40 years ago.
I guess it just makes me appreciate the rarity of it that much more.
Also why us silly Hab fans are so excited about Galchenyuk and why the Lecavalier rumours just never seemed to die all those years.
So while I see how the flash of a Bure might blind someone a bit imo, I would take the center every time. Just so much more valuable over the long haul and in many more situations.
I'd agree here 100%.
TDMM alluded a bit to how Toronto fared with Sundin being the centerpiece but let's be a bit fair here, Bure's Canuck teams were much more balanced and just plain better than most of the Sundin lead Leaf teams.
Sundin also showed what he could do on a world stage, with supporting talent in best on best situations.
Consistency matters and for me a 16 year prime like Sundin ahd is just plain amazing and heck he has 2 straight 5 and 2 straight 7 years primes that are better than any of Bur's straight 5 or 7 year prime.
If consecutive years don't matter then sure I can see why people are taking Bure, he was an ELITE goal scorer in the 90's.
Bure was 15th in goals in the 90's, ironically right behind Mats Sundin but he was 4th in GPG and the other top 5 guys, except Selanne played and padded that stat a bit in 91.
TDMM alluded a bit to how Toronto fared with Sundin being the centerpiece but let's be a bit fair here, Bure's Canuck teams were much more balanced and just plain better than most of the Sundin lead Leaf teams.
