HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Who retired with less hardware than they probably deserved?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-13-2016, 11:06 PM
  #126
ChrisK97
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,274
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Panther View Post
1988-89, yes. 1991-92, no.



At the end of the day, nearly every good player won about as much as they "should have". Actually, if you are the Brad Park-type and were sort-of #2 (to Orr and Potvin) for many years, it's perhaps bad luck for your trophy-case, but it doesn't mean you should have won more. Park won as many Norrises as he deserved -- zero.
I hear a lot about Lemieux in '92, but he wasn't even second or third to Messier.

As crazy as this sounds, I would've nominated Brian Leetch for the '92 Hart.

ChrisK97 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2016, 11:22 PM
  #127
The Panther
Registered User
 
The Panther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Country: Japan
Posts: 5,335
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisK97 View Post
I hear a lot about Lemieux in '92, but he wasn't even second or third to Messier.
I think most people saying it weren't "there" at the time. They're just looking at scoring-stats, and ignoring the context, which is that Mario played 38 more games than the year before and the Pens (with Scotty Bowman at the helm, no less) declined 1 point in the standings. When that happens, the top guy isn't going to win the Hart trophy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisK97 View Post
As crazy as this sounds, I would've nominated Brian Leetch for the '92 Hart.
It's not crazy, because Leetch circa 1991 to 1996 was one of the best players in the world. Having said that, I think it's pretty clear that Messier was the staw stirring the Ranger-drink in 1991-92, but Leetch was at times just as (and sometimes more) important. He certainly deserved the 1994 Conn Smythe.

The Panther is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2016, 12:03 AM
  #128
Apanther
Registered User
 
Apanther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 455
vCash: 500
No one deserves anything more than what they never accomplished, atleast pertaining to most of the players mentioned here.

I think a more varied discussion would be "players that are better than their accomplishments or lack of, indicate.

But Dionne woyuld probably win that thread.

Apanther is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2016, 11:13 AM
  #129
tony d
Irish Spring Soap
 
tony d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Behind A Tree
Country: Canada
Posts: 57,563
vCash: 500
I've always thought Lemieux should have won the Hart in 1989.

__________________


Celebrating 10 yrs. at hfboards today. Thanks everyone for making the past decade so memorable. Here's to 10 more years.
tony d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2016, 03:26 PM
  #130
Sprague Cleghorn
User Registered
 
Sprague Cleghorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Edmonton, KY
Country: Ras al-Khaimah
Posts: 2,716
vCash: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisK97 View Post
Ed Giacomin.

His only major hardware was sharing the Vezina with Villemure in '71 (when the Vezina was basically the Jennings Trophy).

In terms of outstanding individual goalies, he probably would have won three straight Vezinas from 1967-1969 if you look at his stats those years.

Rare that a HHOF goalie has such little individual hardware.
There are the 1st AST spots which pretty have almost always gone hand in hand with the Vezina since it was switched to the actual best goalie award (exceptions are 2002 and 2008). Giacomin was a two time 1st team all-star so I think you can surmise that he'd be a two time "actual" Vezina winner. So, two Vezinas which is pretty much HOF hardware there.

Sprague Cleghorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2016, 04:12 PM
  #131
Robbler
#FireHolland
 
Robbler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: London, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,035
vCash: 500
Not that Lidstrom was a bad choice, bu Yzerman should've gotten the Smythe in '02.

Robbler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2017, 04:36 PM
  #132
ChrisK97
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,274
vCash: 500
This may sound a little crazy, but.... Joe Sakic.

1 Hart, 1 Conn Smythe, but other than that..... had a career that was worthy of a bit more hardware IMHO

ChrisK97 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2017, 07:32 AM
  #133
trentmccleary
Registered User
 
trentmccleary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alfie-Ville
Posts: 20,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splatter View Post
Mike Gartner. He's a Hall of Famer, but never won a cup or an NHL award. He was always productive (30 goals for 15 seasons straight) and accumulated some all time great numbers over a career, but was never the best over any season and really under a lot of people's radar considering his peers at the time.
Gartner had 6 Top-10's in G & Pts over 11 seasons (5,9,9,9,10,10) in part because he was iron man who played more than everyone else.

Palffy had 7 top-10's in G & Pts across 7 seasons (5,5,5,8,8,9,10). Actually they were all achieved within 4 relatively healthy seasons and his per game rates suggest a lot more was possible.

I don't think it's surprising that Gartner doesn't have anything. But 3 top-5's for Palffy and he doesn't even have a 2nd AST or a Byng to show for it.

trentmccleary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2017, 05:48 PM
  #134
Voight
#winning
 
Voight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Gyalchester
Country: United Nations
Posts: 15,462
vCash: 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisK97 View Post
This may sound a little crazy, but.... Joe Sakic.

1 Hart, 1 Conn Smythe, but other than that..... had a career that was worthy of a bit more hardware IMHO
He finished second in Selke Voting in 2001, and nearly won the Richard/Ross (off by 5 goals and 3 points IIRC), also lets not forget his prime coincided with Gretzky/Lemieux/Yzerman/Gilmour/Fedorov etc, he wasn't able to get too much award recognition until Lemieux came back from retirement (and wasn't the same obviously).

Voight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2017, 08:37 AM
  #135
MakeTheGoalsLarger
Registered User
 
MakeTheGoalsLarger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Antarctica
Country: Antarctica
Posts: 2,083
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by double5son10 View Post
Rocket Richard--Only one Hart Trophy. That always blows me away, but it's all due to era. There just weren't the trophies that there are now. Anti-Francophone bias and how the Hart was viewed then probably cost Richard two more: Richard finished 2nd & then 3rd when the Hart went to players on losing teams that missed the playoffs. That'd NEVER happen today. Also lack of hardware for goal-scoring (the trophy that obviously bears his name) & for playoff MVP in his era denied him of trophies for what he is best known for. Suspension cost him his only chance at the Art Ross.
Yeah Maurice Richard by far.

then Bobby Hull

MakeTheGoalsLarger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2017, 06:49 PM
  #136
The Panther
Registered User
 
The Panther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Country: Japan
Posts: 5,335
vCash: 500
Yeah, The Rocket's shelf does seem a little light, even given his era (when there was little hardware to win). When a guy is 1st or 2nd-team All Star for 14 seasons in a row, setting the single-season and all-time records for goals scored, while winning 8 Cups as maybe the best playoff-scorer ever, you'd sort of expect him to have more than one trophy to show for it.

Would The Rocket have won a (retro) Conn Smythe in 1944? With 12 goals in 9 games (17 points), you'd think so, but the same playoffs veteran Toe Blake somehow put up 18 points, and in those days an award was more likely to go to the veteran than the kid. Not to mention Bill Durnan had a 1.53 GAA.

It's a similar story in 1946, with The Rocket scoring 7 in 9, but Toe Blake matching him and (the recently deceased) Elmer Lach leading the team in points. So I dunno.

Richard was awesome in 1951 but the Habs lost (so, unlikely). Maybe a Conn Smythe in 1953, although he was outscored by Geoffrion. '56 is Beliveau's year. But The Rocket would definitely have won it in 1958, right?

With 1958 in his pocket, and *probably*, say, one of those earlier three I mentioned, I think The Rocket would have won 2 Conn Smythes (and would have been worthy of three or four, unlikely as it is).

So, that gives him three major awards in today's standard.

Any regular season shenanigans? Well, we all know he would have won the scoring title in 1955 if not for his end-of-year suspension, but I guess that's on him.

He obviously won retro Richard (ha!) awards X 5.

So, that gives him 8 major trophies.

Now, what about the Hart? He won it in 1947. When he had his big 50-in-50 year, he finished 2nd to Lach who outscored him by 7 points... but had 'only' 26 goals, by comparison. I don't see that happening today, even if it was a Gretzky-Kurri thing where people perceived a star center as ballooning a winger's totals (which it probably wasn't). It's more like Oates and Hull in 1991, and we know how that turned out! I say Rocket should have won the 1947 Hart.

The other time he finished 2nd was 1951, when he was the best player on his team but the Canadiens didn't have a good season. I don't think he had any chance there (Howe).

And he finished 3rd in 1950, 1954, and 1955. In 1950 Richard completely dominated his team's scoring, but more Hart votes went to Ted Kennedy (for reasons I don't understand), and the (in)famous Chuck Rayner, goaltender of the Rangers -- who had a losing record and a so-so GAA. I don't know what the Kennedy/Rayner narratives were that season -- and I respect the fact that voters were actually watching all these teams in those days -- but based on the stats (and what we now know was each's player's legacy) I cannot see how Richard didn't win the 1950 Hart trophy. There certainly smacks of some anti-Canadiens bias there, I guess.

In 1954, Rocket finished behind goalie Al Rollins (who had a terrible losing record but was seen as the only good player on the Blackhawks) and Red Kelly, whose stats Rocket (and of course Howe) completely dwarfed.

In 1955, Richard ended up third again behind Kennedy and goalie Harry Lumley, both Maple Leafs whose stats (and team) weren't nearly as impressive as Richard's.


I say (without confidence, since I wasn't there) Richard should have won the 1947, 1950, and 1955 Hart trophies (in addition to the one he actually won in 1947).

So, that would give him 11 major trophies instead of 1.

I think that's about what he should have won, and would have won if the voting standards were comparable to today and if the Richard and Conn Smythe awards existed back then.

The Panther is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2017, 12:07 AM
  #137
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,425
vCash: 500
Hard to believe that Peter Stastny never received a 2nd team all-star. He outscored the center who actually received the 2nd team all-star three straight times (Trottier, Savard and Trottier again). It isn't a big deal, it was a minimal difference in points and I am sure in Trottier's case the defensive play was factored in while Savard and Stastny both had the same production more or less in 1983.

Chris Pronger is a guy that maybe wasn't robbed of another Norris, but had he been healthy he has more than just one. It is amazing that with his career he only has one 1st team all-star and three 2nd team all-stars. You assume it would be more. He has a few high finishes for the Norris outside of this (5th twice and then 4th another time) where you sort of tilt your head and say "Hmmmm, there were 4 defenseman with better years than him that year?" 2006 is one of those years with me. He finished 7th and it still doesn't make sense to me how Redden and Schneider could finish ahead of him. Like it or not, Pronger was one of those guys the media hated and opposing fans hated and it did not do him any favours when it came to the voting finishes.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2017, 04:23 AM
  #138
The Panther
Registered User
 
The Panther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Country: Japan
Posts: 5,335
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Hard to believe that Peter Stastny never received a 2nd team all-star. He outscored the center who actually received the 2nd team all-star three straight times
Yes, not to mention he is the 2nd-highest scoring player of the 1980s! In an offensive time, you'd think that would guarantee at least one 2nd-team All Star. But nada.

As you say, there were reasonable choices above him each time, but still.... Four times, he was top-5 in points (once 2nd to Gretzky) but still nothing.

Then, again when Trottier was +70 and Stastny -10 with slightly higher point totals, you do kinda have to wonder if one guy isn't doing a bit more heavy lifting at both ends. (To be fair, that was just in 1982 -- most years in Quebec, Stastny was a plus.)

You know, Stastny is actually the 2nd-highest scoring player from 1980-81 all the way through 1992-93 (after which, he was basically done). I wonder if there is another player in history who is 2nd in scoring for a 12-year period but never got even one 2nd-team All Star. Might be.

The Panther is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2017, 05:19 AM
  #139
JackSlater
Registered User
 
JackSlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 6,955
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Chris Pronger is a guy that maybe wasn't robbed of another Norris, but had he been healthy he has more than just one. It is amazing that with his career he only has one 1st team all-star and three 2nd team all-stars. You assume it would be more. He has a few high finishes for the Norris outside of this (5th twice and then 4th another time) where you sort of tilt your head and say "Hmmmm, there were 4 defenseman with better years than him that year?" 2006 is one of those years with me. He finished 7th and it still doesn't make sense to me how Redden and Schneider could finish ahead of him. Like it or not, Pronger was one of those guys the media hated and opposing fans hated and it did not do him any favours when it came to the voting finishes.
Pronger is a guy who was treated poorly by media votes. Not the Norris really, since he got hurt two times when he looked to be a lock to win, but definitely when it comes to all star teams. 2004, 2006 and 2010 in particular. For some reason the voters consistently treated Chara better, even though Pronger was better.

JackSlater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2017, 02:11 AM
  #140
Ageless66
Registered User
 
Ageless66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5,776
vCash: 500
I personally believe crosby was robbed of the 12-13 Hart trophy. Lemieux with the 88-89 and 91-92 harts and Lindsay's as well.

Lemieux should have at least 5 harts and 6 Lindsay's imo

Ageless66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2017, 06:39 AM
  #141
The Panther
Registered User
 
The Panther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Country: Japan
Posts: 5,335
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ageless66 View Post
I personally believe crosby was robbed of the 12-13 Hart trophy. Lemieux with the 88-89 and 91-92 harts and Lindsay's as well.

Lemieux should have at least 5 harts and 6 Lindsay's imo
Any particular reasons for these beliefs?

The Panther is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2017, 07:44 AM
  #142
KoozNetsOff 92
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,817
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ageless66 View Post
I personally believe crosby was robbed of the 12-13 Hart trophy. Lemieux with the 88-89 and 91-92 harts and Lindsay's as well.

Lemieux should have at least 5 harts and 6 Lindsay's imo
Crosby wasn't robbed of the 13 hart. He missed 25% of the season but the pens still came 1st in the east by a mile. While the caps were struggling all season then Ovechkin scored something like 22 goals in the last 22 games and dragged them to the playoffs (yes the weak SE div played a part but that's not Ovechkin's fault). Pretty clear who was more valuable. Crosby was the best player that season though and deserved his lindsay.

I think Lemieux should've won in 89, but I understand why Gretzky did. Not sure what happened in 92 though.

KoozNetsOff 92 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2017, 09:10 AM
  #143
The Panther
Registered User
 
The Panther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Country: Japan
Posts: 5,335
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KoozNetsOff 92 View Post
Not sure what happened in 92 though.
(Not sure, but I'm guessing you weren't a fan yet in 1992...?)

Here is what happened:
- Lemieux missed 16 games (right away, this makes it difficult to win the Hart)
- Lemieux's scoring pace -- while typically exceptional -- was noticeably below the pace of his previous Hart win ('89) despite the Pens now being a Cup champion / stacked team (a minor point, perhaps, but one that League-observers would have noticed)

So, those are two matters that somewhat mitigated voters' perception of Lemieux's "team value" that season. Now, on to other matters that were more important:

1) Pens' mediocrity
- Despite having Mario for most of the season, the Pens declined 1 point in the standings (falling from 1st to 3rd in their division). The previous season, without him, they performed better in the regular season. The old line of "They're-nothing-without-Mario" couldn't be true anymore because they were defending Cup champs with a great line-up.

2) Rangers' "Mess-ive" improvement
- Rangers went from 85 points to 105 points (1st overall) largely because of the Messier-effect. When was the last time the Rangers were 1st overall? It was a few months after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.


You also have to factor in the New York-media machine. (Just look at press clippings of Willie Mays vs. Henry Aaron.)


Remember, the best players on teams that perform below expectations rarely win Harts. 'New' players on teams that suddenly surge often win hardware (see: Rod Langway; Gretzky '89; Joe Thornton).

The Panther is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2017, 10:15 AM
  #144
KoozNetsOff 92
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,817
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Panther View Post
(Not sure, but I'm guessing you weren't a fan yet in 1992...?)

Here is what happened:
- Lemieux missed 16 games (right away, this makes it difficult to win the Hart)
- Lemieux's scoring pace -- while typically exceptional -- was noticeably below the pace of his previous Hart win ('89) despite the Pens now being a Cup champion / stacked team (a minor point, perhaps, but one that League-observers would have noticed)

So, those are two matters that somewhat mitigated voters' perception of Lemieux's "team value" that season. Now, on to other matters that were more important:

1) Pens' mediocrity
- Despite having Mario for most of the season, the Pens declined 1 point in the standings (falling from 1st to 3rd in their division). The previous season, without him, they performed better in the regular season. The old line of "They're-nothing-without-Mario" couldn't be true anymore because they were defending Cup champs with a great line-up.

2) Rangers' "Mess-ive" improvement
- Rangers went from 85 points to 105 points (1st overall) largely because of the Messier-effect. When was the last time the Rangers were 1st overall? It was a few months after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.


You also have to factor in the New York-media machine. (Just look at press clippings of Willie Mays vs. Henry Aaron.)


Remember, the best players on teams that perform below expectations rarely win Harts. 'New' players on teams that suddenly surge often win hardware (see: Rod Langway; Gretzky '89; Joe Thornton).
Oh sorry, by "not sure what happened" I was referring to the lindsay (should've specified that). I had already read your reasoning in a previous post as to why Lemieux didn't win the Hart in 92 and I understand. But I think he was the best player that season, or is that wrong? And I find it strange that, despite winning the ross comfortably, he wasn't even top 4 in hart voting? I get that in 93 there was the whole feel good story about his amazing comeback and what not, but in general it was comparable to 92 in that he missed ~20 games, similar ross win margin. I know the pens were 1st overall, but he went from out of the top 4 hart with a 60 game ross win in 92 to winning the hart pretty much unanimously with a 60 game ross win in 93. Did the standings and cancer make that huge difference?

KoozNetsOff 92 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2017, 11:06 AM
  #145
The Panther
Registered User
 
The Panther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Country: Japan
Posts: 5,335
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KoozNetsOff 92 View Post
Oh sorry, by "not sure what happened" I was referring to the lindsay (should've specified that).
Sorry, I got it now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KoozNetsOff 92 View Post
But I think he was the best player that season, or is that wrong?
In my view, Lemieux was the undisputed best player in the world from October 1991 through spring 1997. So, in my view, he was indeed the "best player" in 1991-92. However, being the best player at any given time -- or, even for a whole season -- doesn't necessitate a Hart trophy.

As a contemporary example, see 1989-90. That season, Wayne and Mario are, almost beyond dispute, the two best players in the world. But neither deserved the Hart trophy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KoozNetsOff 92 View Post
And I find it strange that, despite winning the ross comfortably, he wasn't even top 4 in hart voting?
It's rare, but it happens. Two years later, Gretzky won the scoring title and didn't get even one third-place vote. He's the only Art Ross winner, ever, to fail to receive a single Hart vote. How do you explain it? Well, his team crapped out that year and ended up missing the playoffs. But non-playoff players had won Harts before (including Mario in '88). So, sometimes players are judged against their own standards. A Gretzky 130-point season for a non-playoff team doesn't look as great as a 160-something point season for a 1st place team, like three years earlier. It's a bit the same with Mario in 1992. Having said that, I certainly think he should have been up around 2nd, 3rd at worst, in Hart voting. But I would have voted Messier also (as did basically everyone in hockey that season).
Quote:
Originally Posted by KoozNetsOff 92 View Post
... he went from out of the top 4 hart with a 60 game ross win in 92 to winning the hart pretty much unanimously with a 60 game ross win in 93. Did the standings and cancer make that huge difference?
It's a good career-move to recover from cancer, I guess! No, just kidding. I think your suggestion of "the standings" is very important. The Pens in 1992-93 were meeting everyone's expectations of a Cup-winner and were kicking butt. Then, when Mario came back from cancer to win the scoring title, it just makes that much greater of a narrative. Also, the Pens/Mario went on a big surge right at the end of the season, which is also a good way to get hardware.

The Panther is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2017, 07:55 PM
  #146
Ageless66
Registered User
 
Ageless66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5,776
vCash: 500
He outscored messier by 24 points in 91-92. That is a lot of points even with the missed games. Ok if you want to say he missed to many games that's fine. But at least make him a finalist. No doubt he was robbed of the Lindsay though

Ageless66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2017, 09:18 PM
  #147
The Panther
Registered User
 
The Panther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Country: Japan
Posts: 5,335
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ageless66 View Post
He outscored messier by 24 points in 91-92.
It always comes down to points for you, doesn't it? I mean, do you think Phil Housley was better than Scott Stevens?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ageless66 View Post
No doubt he was robbed of the Lindsay though
Can players be "robbed" of the Lindsay, when the NHL players themselves vote on it?

The Panther is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2017, 05:30 AM
  #148
Ageless66
Registered User
 
Ageless66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5,776
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Panther View Post
It always comes down to points for you, doesn't it? I mean, do you think Phil Housley was better than Scott Stevens?

Can players be "robbed" of the Lindsay, when the NHL players themselves vote on it?
It doesn't always come down to points. But if it comes down to 24? Than yes frankly no two way game is gonna negate that point difference. As for the Lindsay how can we say anybody was better than a 131 point in 64 games lemieux?

Ageless66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2017, 05:39 AM
  #149
Plural
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 29,359
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ageless66 View Post
It doesn't always come down to points. But if it comes down to 24? Than yes frankly no two way game is gonna negate that point difference. As for the Lindsay how can we say anybody was better than a 131 point in 64 games lemieux?
That begs the question, did the players have some kind of negative feelings towards Lemieux? Why didn't they think he was the best player that season (or in his 199 season)?

Lemieux did win the Pearson over 215 Gretzky though. So it kind of evens out.

Plural is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2017, 05:56 AM
  #150
Iceman
Registered User
 
Iceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Country: Sweden
Posts: 7,424
vCash: 500
Brad Park and the Norris trophy.
Bobby Clarke should have more selkes (I realize the trophy didn't exist during his best years but still), not that it's holding his legacy back or anything.
Zetterberg will retire without a Selke at all, which he should have won in 2008.

Iginla and a cup.

Iceman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:31 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.