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.

HHOF 2008 Question

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-05-2007, 12:14 PM
  #1
cupcrazyman
42 Long
 
cupcrazyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Leafland
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,843
vCash: 500
HHOF 2008 Question

will Dino Cicarelli ever get in and how many years is it until someone gets taken off of the ballot after years of not being inducted ?

cupcrazyman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2007, 12:45 PM
  #2
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,790
vCash: 500
If you check back on some of ClassicHockey's posts, it's not like Major League Baseball whereby there's a ballot handed out, people vote and announce the inductees. From what I can ascertain, the 18-member committee meets, a committee member tosses out the name of a player, the committee debates, and votes. (You need 14 of 18 votes to get in).

There isn't a fixed number of times a player can be eligible. The only eligibility requirement is three years since his last game. It used to be three years after retirement, but that changed a few years ago. Dick Duff had been eligible for about 30 years when he was inducted in 2006. Valeri Kharlamov had been eligible since the mid-80s when he was inducted in 2005. Back when there was a veteran's committee, a player was eligible for a certain number of years after his retirement, then had to go through the Veteran's Committee. The Veteran's Committee was scrapped in the late 90s, and so now a player has unlimited eligibility).

(While the Veteran's Committee had some rather suspect inductees, they did get it right by inducting guys like Lionel Conacher, Woody Dumart and Bobby Bauer, whose inductions were long overdue).

I wouldn't induct Dino. He's a borderline case, but some of his on-ice and off-ice antics are big strikes. HHOF voters won't hold conduct, character or popularity over the head of a sure-fire candidate's head (Eddie Shore), but for borderline guys, it is an issue. (Witness Glenn Anderson and Carl Brewer).

Igor Larionov and Adam Oates were eligible for the first time in 2007. They'll get in next year. I think the HHOF voters will see a great opportunity and induct Larionov's long-time linemate Sergei Makarov in 2008. Glenn Anderson and Doug Gilmour are two clutch scorers well-deserving of induction. If there's a fourth inductee next year (the selection committee can induct up to four players each year, and it has only happened twice), I say it will be Anderson or Gilmour.

Claude Lemieux was eligible for the first time in 2007, and while Duff's induction does pave the way for clutch, two-way wingers like Lemieux and Esa Tikkanen to be inducted, let's remember that Duff needed more than 30 years before he was enshrined.

God Bless Canada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2007, 05:47 PM
  #3
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,631
vCash: 500
Yeah Ciccarelli wont get in ever IMO. Nor should he. Too many negatives in there already. Yes he had 600 goals but he enver won a Cup was never on Team Canada in Canada Cups and was never a post season all-star. He's a better bet than Andreychuk who needed 22 seasons just to get 600 goals but he's still at about 45% (if 50% lets say was HHOF bound) and that wont change.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2007, 06:48 PM
  #4
cupcrazyman
42 Long
 
cupcrazyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Leafland
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,843
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
If you check back on some of ClassicHockey's posts, it's not like Major League Baseball whereby there's a ballot handed out, people vote and announce the inductees. From what I can ascertain, the 18-member committee meets, a committee member tosses out the name of a player, the committee debates, and votes. (You need 14 of 18 votes to get in).

There isn't a fixed number of times a player can be eligible. The only eligibility requirement is three years since his last game. It used to be three years after retirement, but that changed a few years ago. Dick Duff had been eligible for about 30 years when he was inducted in 2006. Valeri Kharlamov had been eligible since the mid-80s when he was inducted in 2005. Back when there was a veteran's committee, a player was eligible for a certain number of years after his retirement, then had to go through the Veteran's Committee. The Veteran's Committee was scrapped in the late 90s, and so now a player has unlimited eligibility).

(While the Veteran's Committee had some rather suspect inductees, they did get it right by inducting guys like Lionel Conacher, Woody Dumart and Bobby Bauer, whose inductions were long overdue).

I wouldn't induct Dino. He's a borderline case, but some of his on-ice and off-ice antics are big strikes. HHOF voters won't hold conduct, character or popularity over the head of a sure-fire candidate's head (Eddie Shore), but for borderline guys, it is an issue. (Witness Glenn Anderson and Carl Brewer).

Igor Larionov and Adam Oates were eligible for the first time in 2007. They'll get in next year. I think the HHOF voters will see a great opportunity and induct Larionov's long-time linemate Sergei Makarov in 2008. Glenn Anderson and Doug Gilmour are two clutch scorers well-deserving of induction. If there's a fourth inductee next year (the selection committee can induct up to four players each year, and it has only happened twice), I say it will be Anderson or Gilmour.

Claude Lemieux was eligible for the first time in 2007, and while Duff's induction does pave the way for clutch, two-way wingers like Lemieux and Esa Tikkanen to be inducted, let's remember that Duff needed more than 30 years before he was enshrined.
thanks for your post GBC.

cupcrazyman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2007, 07:04 PM
  #5
cupcrazyman
42 Long
 
cupcrazyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Leafland
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,843
vCash: 500
players that should garner some interest or a lot of interest.

Adam Oates 1420 pts
Doug Gilmour 1414 pts
Luc Robitaille 1394 pts
Brett Hull 1391 pts
Dave Andrechuk 1338 pts
Pierre Turgeon 1327 pts

cupcrazyman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2007, 08:07 PM
  #6
salty justice
Registered User
 
salty justice's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Country: Albania
Posts: 7,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupcrazyman View Post
players that should garner some interest or a lot of interest.

Adam Oates 1420 pts
Doug Gilmour 1414 pts
Luc Robitaille 1394 pts
Brett Hull 1391 pts
Dave Andrechuk 1338 pts
Pierre Turgeon 1327 pts
IIRC Luc and Brett wont be eligible until 2009.

salty justice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2007, 09:20 PM
  #7
Makmalkin89
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Canada
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 121
vCash: 500
Pavel Bure!

Makmalkin89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2007, 09:38 PM
  #8
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,631
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupcrazyman View Post
players that should garner some interest or a lot of interest.

Adam Oates 1420 pts
Doug Gilmour 1414 pts
Luc Robitaille 1394 pts
Brett Hull 1391 pts
Dave Andrechuk 1338 pts
Pierre Turgeon 1327 pts
Hmmm, those last two have no place in the Hall. What is there to like about Turgeon? Not saying he wasnt good but how can you justify him being in the Hall of Fame? And Andreychuk? Oh boy, he'd be worse than Duff getting in there. The top 4 are fine but I wish people around here would stop pimping for Andreychuk, I dont and I'm a Leaf fan

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2007, 10:04 PM
  #9
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 19,660
vCash: 500
Doubt Ciccarelli will get in.

Biggest thing he has going for him is obviously the 600 goals, but it doesn't carry the weight it should because of the era and because there aren't enough elite seasons included in that total.

He had 2 elite seasons, 1981-82 and 1986-87, where he finished 4th and 5th in goals, was the '3rd-Team All-Star' at RW both years, and was top-10 in scoring.

Aside from those two seasons, he never finished higher than 13th in goals. He was never top-10 in Hart voting, never won a major award, never won a Cup. He was generally a guy who scored 35-45 goals in an era when 35-45 goals put you 15th-30th overall in league goalscoring.

Was a very strong playoff performer, which helps his case.

Intangibles really work against him. As GBC said, borderline guys have to be perceived as class acts who were good for the game, and Ciccarelli's 1987 stick-swinging incident for which he was jailed sure doesn't help in that regard. Neither do the indecent exposure charges he faced during his career, or his reputation as a dirty player. On top of that, he was an 'ugly' player mainly noted for scoring garbage goals on the PP, and not a guy who really captured anyone's imagination for how he played the game.

MS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2007, 10:07 PM
  #10
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupcrazyman View Post
players that should garner some interest or a lot of interest.

Adam Oates 1420 pts
Doug Gilmour 1414 pts
Luc Robitaille 1394 pts
Brett Hull 1391 pts
Dave Andrechuk 1338 pts
Pierre Turgeon 1327 pts
Andreychuk, Hull and Robitaille come up in 2009. Yzerman and Leetch are also eligible in 2009. Turgeon is in 2010.

I wouldn't vote Andreychuk in, but I wouldn't be livid if he was inducted. I would be livid if Turgeon got in. No HHOFer would have as many negatives associated with his name as Turgeon.

God Bless Canada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2007, 11:51 PM
  #11
cupcrazyman
42 Long
 
cupcrazyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Leafland
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,843
vCash: 500
an arguement could be made for players that racked up the points but never won a cup or other hardware.this would mean more to me than a player that was at the right place at the right time e.g. winning 4 cups,Clark Gillis.if he's not on those teams he's an after thought.

cupcrazyman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2007, 11:54 PM
  #12
cupcrazyman
42 Long
 
cupcrazyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Leafland
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,843
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by salty justice View Post
If I recall correctly Luc and Brett wont be eligible until 2009.
yes i know.check out the top career points leaders and see if you think they're worthy for the HHOF if not there already.


http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/records/minor_record.php3

cupcrazyman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2007, 01:30 AM
  #13
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 19,660
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
I wouldn't vote Andreychuk in, but I wouldn't be livid if he was inducted. I would be livid if Turgeon got in. No HHOFer would have as many negatives associated with his name as Turgeon.
OK, I've been meaning to debate Turgeon for awhile now with you, and now is as good a time as any.

Yes, he has those negatives associated with him. But really, how fair are/were they?

He breaks in with Buffalo, scores 15 points in 11 playoff games there as a teenager. The 'Tim Man' stuff started in the 1990 playoffs, when he scored 2 goals and 6 points in 6 games in the playoffs after 106 points during the regular season as Buffalo were booted.

But look a little deeper in his Buffalo years, and you see the real problem there. Turgeon scores 25 points in 23 games as a Sabre, but his #2 center there is Christian Ruutuu, who is one of the worst playoff performers ever - 4 goals, 13 points in 42 games. In the 1990 playoffs, the Andreychuk-Turgeon-Vaive line scored 8 goals and 19 points in 6 games, and the remaining 3 Sabre lines combined for 2 goals and 4 points, with Ruutuu recording 0 points in 6 games. Did they lose because Turgeon was the 'Tin Man' or because their secondary scoring was absolutely pathetic? But somehow Turgeon takes the fall there.

Goes to NYI, was great in the '93 playoffs until the Hunter cheapshot. Weak playoffs in '94 as the Islanders are swept, but realistically that team was just no match against the NYR powerhouse.

And his playoff performances in St. Louis in 1999 and 2001, when he was clearly the team's best forward as the Blues advanced fairly deep into the playoffs, should have put the negative stuff to rest. Especially 2001, when he was brilliant and was pretty much the entire St. Louis offense as they reached the conference finals despite no-shows from Tkachuk and Demitra. He was excellent in the playoffs for the Blues during that stretch, and it isn't his fault that the team's goaltending sucked.

His reputation has always seemed horribly unfair to me. Class act, never caused any trouble anywhere he went. Wasn't a defensive liability. Produced at a level similar to his regular seasons in the playoffs. Was huge in 2001. Had a couple poor playoffs, but it's hard to find anyone who lasts 20 years who hasn't. Spent most of his career on mediocre teams, and the only time he was actually on a good team in St. Louis he did deliver when it counted.

People just didn't like the way he played - not physical, not emotional, not really a great skater or exciting player. But does that mean he wasn't effective or was some sort of liability because of it? I don't really think so.

To me it's strange that Jean Ratelle was celebrated for playing that style of game during the 1970s - and Ratelle has a far worse playoff record than Turgeon does - while Turgeon is some sort of pariah for it.

I'm not saying that Turgeon should be an HHOFer. Only twice top-10 in scoring, never a post-season All-Star, no major awards, no Cup is a pretty borderline resume. But the crap he takes for the sort of player he was is ridiculous.

MS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2007, 06:50 AM
  #14
brianscot
Registered User
 
brianscot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 1,406
vCash: 500
To me it's strange that Jean Ratelle was celebrated for playing that style of game during the 1970s - and Ratelle has a far worse playoff record than Turgeon does - while Turgeon is some sort of pariah for it.

Ratelle's playoff failures came only during his NY Ranger career.

During his tenure in Boston during the 4 playoff seasons that he was healthy, (while in the 35-39 age range) he averaged more than a point per game while being the number one center on teams that went to the finals 2 times.

It's just stupid that Glenn Anderson isn't in the Hall. He was a winner, scored big goals in big games, and showed up for every shift (at least in the offensive end). He was also entertaining to watch and abrasive to compete against.

Carl Brewer's major off ice offensives appear to be having an independent mind, having the grapefruits to take on Punch Imlach, being an innovator and playing in Finland, plus helping the alumni recoup 40 million dollars owed to them while assisting in bringing Alan Eagleson to justice.

Yeah, he was trouble.

brianscot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2007, 10:12 AM
  #15
rmchahn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 406
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupcrazyman View Post
an arguement could be made for players that racked up the points but never won a cup or other hardware.this would mean more to me than a player that was at the right place at the right time e.g. winning 4 cups,Clark Gillis.if he's not on those teams he's an after thought.
I tend to agree with this post. If Gillies had played for Toronto or Washington and had the same number of points, would he be in? I doubt it.

If Orr accomplished what he did with the California Golden Seals (i.e. same stats but no cups) would he be in? I would hope so.

Or Gainey?

So why the big deal about cup winners, etc.

IMO the HHOF is for individuals and their accomplishments, so if a player is in the hall as a member of team A, he should be in the hall as a member of team Z - all individual stats being equal.

If the HHOF wants to honour a dynasty team such as the 56-60 Habs or the 80-83 Islanders, they should have a separate category and put the whole team in.

rmchahn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2007, 10:14 AM
  #16
tony d
Whatareyousmiling at
 
tony d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Behind A Tree
Country: Canada
Posts: 50,123
vCash: 500
I've always been a fan of Turgeon's and think that if a Clark Gillies-type player can make it into the Hall so should Turgeon.

tony d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2007, 10:16 AM
  #17
Sens Rule
Registered User
 
Sens Rule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,285
vCash: 500
Claude Lemieux is so far from being a Hall of Famer I find it odd that God Bless Canada would continually bring his name up (even if it is to dismiss himas a candidate).

Since this thread was about Ciccarelli I think he is very close, and has been very underrated. He was a massively effective player in the slot. Has had several great playoffs. He was dirty and a super pest. This can be held against him too.... spending time in jail for on ice goonery isn't great for hockey's image. But that kind of play made him hugely effective. Andreychuk had those last year's as Captain and as a leader in Tampa. Surely a great thing but it overshadows Ciccarelli who I think was a significantly better player than Andreychuk for the majority of their careers.

I wouldn't put either in the HHOF but realistically neither are that much different than Gartner and Gartner is a selection no one seems to complain about. I think Dino at his best is better than Gartner ever was. Obviously they played a different style but so what. Gartner in my memory has no great playoff years.

Gilmour has to be a sure thing. He was above Gartner, Dino and Andreychuk or even Federko before he had those insane 93 and 94 seasons. Gilmour was a dominant player on both ends of the ice from the the playoffs of his third season. Gilmour never, ever had a bad playoff even in his twighlight. Gilmour lived for big games, for playoff games and he brought it every night in St. Louis and Calgary before his Toronto superstardom. The 1989 Flames Cup saw Gilmour play Smythe quality throught the whole playoffs. Sure he had other players score a lot but he was dominating on every shift on both ends of the ice the whole playoffs.

Those 72-106 point years before Gilmour's superstardom in Toronto were extremely valuable to his teams. He was the leader and the best player on his teams and in Calgary where their were other great stars Gilmour was by no means the lesser of any of them, he was just one of them. Gilmour has one of the very best playoff records of any player that was not on a dynasty team. His stats don't lie and in fact don't even tell the whole story. Gilmour was a playoff warrior. He was made for the playoffs.

Anderson I'd like to see make the Hall. His lack of paying child support and his devil may care attitude about life should not weigh into his HHOF selection. He was definately the lesser of Kurri, Messier and Coffey...... and possibly even Tikkanen. But who cares? He scored all the time in the playoffs and the regualr season. Even past his prime in Toronto he kept scoring key playoff goals. I could see keeping him out but the fact is Anderson is among the leaders all-time in the most important of statistical categories - playoff goals and points. And it isn't just becuse he played a ton of playoff games. Anderson was money in the playoffs. Never disappeared.

Tikkanen at his peak was HHOF worthy. But his peak was not all that long so their is not a great argument to include him. But the Esa of 1987-1993 was the perfect pest, the ultimate defensive forward. And he could carry a near average team to the third round on his back. He was like Gilmour a playoff warrior. Stats don't tell the story. But again to short of a dominant career to be considered as much as I'd like to see it.

Sens Rule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2007, 10:25 AM
  #18
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
OK, I've been meaning to debate Turgeon for awhile now with you, and now is as good a time as any.

Yes, he has those negatives associated with him. But really, how fair are/were they?

He breaks in with Buffalo, scores 15 points in 11 playoff games there as a teenager. The 'Tim Man' stuff started in the 1990 playoffs, when he scored 2 goals and 6 points in 6 games in the playoffs after 106 points during the regular season as Buffalo were booted.

But look a little deeper in his Buffalo years, and you see the real problem there. Turgeon scores 25 points in 23 games as a Sabre, but his #2 center there is Christian Ruutuu, who is one of the worst playoff performers ever - 4 goals, 13 points in 42 games. In the 1990 playoffs, the Andreychuk-Turgeon-Vaive line scored 8 goals and 19 points in 6 games, and the remaining 3 Sabre lines combined for 2 goals and 4 points, with Ruutuu recording 0 points in 6 games. Did they lose because Turgeon was the 'Tin Man' or because their secondary scoring was absolutely pathetic? But somehow Turgeon takes the fall there.

Goes to NYI, was great in the '93 playoffs until the Hunter cheapshot. Weak playoffs in '94 as the Islanders are swept, but realistically that team was just no match against the NYR powerhouse.

And his playoff performances in St. Louis in 1999 and 2001, when he was clearly the team's best forward as the Blues advanced fairly deep into the playoffs, should have put the negative stuff to rest. Especially 2001, when he was brilliant and was pretty much the entire St. Louis offense as they reached the conference finals despite no-shows from Tkachuk and Demitra. He was excellent in the playoffs for the Blues during that stretch, and it isn't his fault that the team's goaltending sucked.

His reputation has always seemed horribly unfair to me. Class act, never caused any trouble anywhere he went. Wasn't a defensive liability. Produced at a level similar to his regular seasons in the playoffs. Was huge in 2001. Had a couple poor playoffs, but it's hard to find anyone who lasts 20 years who hasn't. Spent most of his career on mediocre teams, and the only time he was actually on a good team in St. Louis he did deliver when it counted.

People just didn't like the way he played - not physical, not emotional, not really a great skater or exciting player. But does that mean he wasn't effective or was some sort of liability because of it? I don't really think so.

To me it's strange that Jean Ratelle was celebrated for playing that style of game during the 1970s - and Ratelle has a far worse playoff record than Turgeon does - while Turgeon is some sort of pariah for it.

I'm not saying that Turgeon should be an HHOFer. Only twice top-10 in scoring, never a post-season All-Star, no major awards, no Cup is a pretty borderline resume. But the crap he takes for the sort of player he was is ridiculous.
I would say Turgeon's biggest problems are inconsistency, work ethic, a lack of intensity and mental toughness. He was a guy who had the potential to be a Denis Savard/Dale Hawerchuk type of player, but at the end, fell way short of that level.

I wish I had my copy of Gary Joyce's book "When the Lights Went Out," because at the end of the book, he documents pretty much every argument why Turgeon won't make the HHOF.

It starts in 1987 when Turgeon sat on the bench during the Punch-Up at Piestany. Buffalo? He was the heir apparent to Gilbert Perreault. He had the breakthrough season in 1989-90, and Buffalo, thinking they were close to taking that final step, brought in Hawerchuk. And Turgeon's play nose-dived. Numbers don't look bad, but stats do lie. If you go back and read any assessment of Turgeon's play in 1990-91, you'll see pretty poor reviews. And his performance in 1990-91 is why Turgeon got shipped to Long Island.

Turgeon had the strong start in Long Island. Hunter's cheapshot happened, and then a funny thing happened to the Islanders. They beat the two-time defending Cup champions, the Pittsburgh Penguins, who were expected to roll over everyone. Turgeon played one game. I'm not going to say that the Islanders won because Turgeon missed six games, but everyone stepped up their play in Turgeon's absence, and Al Arbour outcoached Scotty Bowman.

Don't let stats fool you about Turgeon's play in 1993-94. To paraphrase the Hockey Scouting Report on Turgeon's 1993-94 season: He scored 94 points, but those were 94 of the most invisible points in league history. And the 1994 playoffs? He was atrocious. Turgeon didn't get traded until midway through the 1995 season, but he punched his ticket out of Long Island with his play against the Rangers. Turgeon could have played like Gretzky, and the Islanders still would have lost, because Hextall laid a massive playoff egg, but a little effort from Turgeon would have been nice.

Turgeon got to Montreal and was expected to be the leader for the next generation of the Habs as they moved from the fabeled Forum to the Molson Centre. In most years, the defining shot of the season is the Cup champions team shot. In 1995-96, it was Turgeon, the captain of the Habs, holding The Torch at centre ice, with teammates and legendary Habs captains surrounding him. The Habs blew a 2-0 series lead in the first round, lost to the Rangers in six, and Turgeon, who was supposed to be the flag bearer for the Habs for years to come, was dispatched to St. Louis 10 games into the 1996-97 season.

Turgeon's play in St. Louis was as close to sustained excellence as we've seen from him. He nearly blew it - the Blues were ready to dispatch him in 1999 thanks to his continued soft, inconsistent play. They had no plans to offer him a qualifying effort following the 1999 season. Then a funny thing happened to Turgeon: he got his act together. He played great down the stretch, and played some of the best hockey of his career in the 1999 playoffs. He sustained that play until he left St. Louis in 2001. (I won't blame him for St. Louis' failures in the 2000 playoffs - Pronger's undisciplined play and Turek's meltdown were bigger factors, but I wouldn't say he was the Blues best forward in 2001, either).

He was a flop in Dallas. Whatever he bottled up in his last two-plus years in St. Louis vanished in Dallas. I won't hold Colorado against him, as he was washed up.

Here's the bottom line with Turgeon. What do hockey people think of him. If I asked you, or HO, or the other knowledgeable posters around here, what would come to your mind with Turgeon. Gifted offensive talent. Magnificent playmaker. Terrific stickhandler. Shifty skater. Could dictate the pace of a game. Able to slow it down, then speed it up on a whim. Unfulfilled potential. Inconsistent. Soft. Easily neutralized. Lacking intensity. Played his way out of every city in St. Louis; he was the supposed saviour in two cities where he played his way out of town. Often a non-factor when it mattered most. Lacking in a consistent work ethic. Defensive liability.

A final parting shot on Turgeon. When Patrick Marleau was a prospect with the WHL's Seattle Thunderbirds, THN raved about his skill, but added a caveat: "He has Pierre Turgeon-like intensity."

God Bless Canada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2007, 10:29 AM
  #19
Sens Rule
Registered User
 
Sens Rule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmchahn View Post
I tend to agree with this post. If Gillies had played for Toronto or Washington and had the same number of points, would he be in? I doubt it.

If Orr accomplished what he did with the California Golden Seals (i.e. same stats but no cups) would he be in? I would hope so.

Or Gainey?

So why the big deal about cup winners, etc.

IMO the HHOF is for individuals and their accomplishments, so if a player is in the hall as a member of team A, he should be in the hall as a member of team Z - all individual stats being equal.

If the HHOF wants to honour a dynasty team such as the 56-60 Habs or the 80-83 Islanders, they should have a separate category and put the whole team in.
There is a reason teams are dynasties..... they have a ton of great players. That is why they are dynasties. And that is why their players get so many HHOF selections.

To me the playoffs are what matters. Bourque only won one Cup and Neely none but I rememember them as great playoff warriors in Boston despite never winning a Bruin Cup. Gilmour's legacy is the 1993 and 1994 playoffs where he didn't even make the final but played at a ridiculously high level.

Clearly a player on a dynasty gets more chances to make an impact and a name for himself in the playoffs. And that is fine with me. Gilles to me is not a stain on the Hall. Maybe he should not be there and maybe he should but if you just look at stats you miss what he brought to Bossy and Trottier for a long time.

Stats can lie. Even playoff stats. When you look back at the 2007 playoffs you will see Pahlsson 18th in scoring. 12 points and 3 goals in 21 playoff games. But if you watched the playoffs you would see he could have (and I think should have) won the Conn Smythe trophy. You don't see Rob Niedermeyer being almost as important as is HHOF bound Smythe winning brother looking at stats.

Stats lie. And when you look at the dynasties there are so many players that make their teams win. And winning is what matters. Winning the Cup is so, so much more important than winning the President's trophy or getting a lot of regaulr season points. At least IMO.

Sens Rule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2007, 10:36 AM
  #20
Sens Rule
Registered User
 
Sens Rule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
I would say Turgeon's biggest problems are inconsistency, work ethic, a lack of intensity and mental toughness. He was a guy who had the potential to be a Denis Savard/Dale Hawerchuk type of player, but at the end, fell way short of that level.

I wish I had my copy of Gary Joyce's book "When the Lights Went Out," because at the end of the book, he documents pretty much every argument why Turgeon won't make the HHOF.

It starts in 1987 when Turgeon sat on the bench during the Punch-Up at Piestany. Buffalo? He was the heir apparent to Gilbert Perreault. He had the breakthrough season in 1989-90, and Buffalo, thinking they were close to taking that final step, brought in Hawerchuk. And Turgeon's play nose-dived. Numbers don't look bad, but stats do lie. If you go back and read any assessment of Turgeon's play in 1990-91, you'll see pretty poor reviews. And his performance in 1990-91 is why Turgeon got shipped to Long Island.

Turgeon had the strong start in Long Island. Hunter's cheapshot happened, and then a funny thing happened to the Islanders. They beat the two-time defending Cup champions, the Pittsburgh Penguins, who were expected to roll over everyone. Turgeon played one game. I'm not going to say that the Islanders won because Turgeon missed six games, but everyone stepped up their play in Turgeon's absence, and Al Arbour outcoached Scotty Bowman.

Don't let stats fool you about Turgeon's play in 1993-94. To paraphrase the Hockey Scouting Report on Turgeon's 1993-94 season: He scored 94 points, but those were 94 of the most invisible points in league history. And the 1994 playoffs? He was atrocious. Turgeon didn't get traded until midway through the 1995 season, but he punched his ticket out of Long Island with his play against the Rangers. Turgeon could have played like Gretzky, and the Islanders still would have lost, because Hextall laid a massive playoff egg, but a little effort from Turgeon would have been nice.

Turgeon got to Montreal and was expected to be the leader for the next generation of the Habs as they moved from the fabeled Forum to the Molson Centre. In most years, the defining shot of the season is the Cup champions team shot. In 1995-96, it was Turgeon, the captain of the Habs, holding The Torch at centre ice, with teammates and legendary Habs captains surrounding him. The Habs blew a 2-0 series lead in the first round, lost to the Rangers in six, and Turgeon, who was supposed to be the flag bearer for the Habs for years to come, was dispatched to St. Louis 10 games into the 1996-97 season.

Turgeon's play in St. Louis was as close to sustained excellence as we've seen from him. He nearly blew it - the Blues were ready to dispatch him in 1999 thanks to his continued soft, inconsistent play. They had no plans to offer him a qualifying effort following the 1999 season. Then a funny thing happened to Turgeon: he got his act together. He played great down the stretch, and played some of the best hockey of his career in the 1999 playoffs. He sustained that play until he left St. Louis in 2001. (I won't blame him for St. Louis' failures in the 2000 playoffs - Pronger's undisciplined play and Turek's meltdown were bigger factors, but I wouldn't say he was the Blues best forward in 2001, either).

He was a flop in Dallas. Whatever he bottled up in his last two-plus years in St. Louis vanished in Dallas. I won't hold Colorado against him, as he was washed up.

Here's the bottom line with Turgeon. What do hockey people think of him. If I asked you, or HO, or the other knowledgeable posters around here, what would come to your mind with Turgeon. Gifted offensive talent. Magnificent playmaker. Terrific stickhandler. Shifty skater. Could dictate the pace of a game. Able to slow it down, then speed it up on a whim. Unfulfilled potential. Inconsistent. Soft. Easily neutralized. Lacking intensity. Played his way out of every city in St. Louis; he was the supposed saviour in two cities where he played his way out of town. Often a non-factor when it mattered most. Lacking in a consistent work ethic. Defensive liability.

A final parting shot on Turgeon. When Patrick Marleau was a prospect with the WHL's Seattle Thunderbirds, THN raved about his skill, but added a caveat: "He has Pierre Turgeon-like intensity."
As much as Turgeon had limits as a player he was a very excellent player for a long time. Not a HHOFer but nor is he an embarrassment. He just did not have the intangibles that make for a great winner.

Bringing up Turgeon makes me think of Damphousse. Damphousse to me had the intangibles Turgeon lacked and Vincent got better with those intangiables his entire career. Maybe a little less than Turgeon in raw talent but not by much. He deserves a better chance at the Hall than Turgeon but he likely won't make it either..... but I'd take him before Turgeon.

Sens Rule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2007, 10:55 AM
  #21
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cup 2008 Sens Rule View Post
As much as Turgeon had limits as a player he was a very excellent player for a long time. Not a HHOFer but nor is he an embarrassment. He just did not have the intangibles that make for a great winner.

Bringing up Turgeon makes me think of Damphousse. Damphousse to me had the intangibles Turgeon lacked and Vincent got better with those intangiables his entire career. Maybe a little less than Turgeon in raw talent but not by much. He deserves a better chance at the Hall than Turgeon but he likely won't make it either..... but I'd take him before Turgeon.
I was going to mention that I would induct Damphousse (who was teammates with Turgeon) ahead of Turgeon, but I figured my post was long enough as it is.

I wouldn't induct Damphousse. I don't think he's good enough. He did a great morph job midway through his career, going from an all-offence LW to a top-notch two-way centre. A lot of people forget he played LW until 1995-96. Damphousse was also a notorious slow starter. If he played in the first half like he did in the second half, he might have four or five 100-point seasons.

God Bless Canada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2007, 11:19 AM
  #22
Sens Rule
Registered User
 
Sens Rule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
I was going to mention that I would induct Damphousse (who was teammates with Turgeon) ahead of Turgeon, but I figured my post was long enough as it is.

I wouldn't induct Damphousse. I don't think he's good enough. He did a great morph job midway through his career, going from an all-offence LW to a top-notch two-way centre. A lot of people forget he played LW until 1995-96. Damphousse was also a notorious slow starter. If he played in the first half like he did in the second half, he might have four or five 100-point seasons.
In Middle school I got a Daniel Marois jersey. I thought he was great - a sniper. He was made by a young Damphousse. Damphousse turned him into a 30+ goal scorer. Without Damphousse he was out of the NHL.

To me alot of people focus too much on the HFOF in measuring or remembering great players. Who cares if Turgeon or Damphousse or Wendel Clark or Esa Tikkanen or Andreychuk, or Olcyck or Tim Kerr or Dino or Probert, or Larmer, or Vaive, or whomever was a great player for awhile or even a long time and don't make the Hall of Fame.

I will certainly remember Wendel Clark and Vincent Damphousse and Esa Tikkanen forever. They were astoundingly awesome players for awhile. They and a hundred other players will be remembered and should be remembered for ever or at least several generations as great. Alfredsson likley never makes the HHOF but he was the best player on a good team I cheered for for a decade plus. He is a legend even if he never is in the HHOF. Wendel Clark is a legend. A legend greater than if he was a HHOFer that would not matter to much to his legendary staus. Clark is iconic. He is remembered by so many. Neely would have been remembered anyway by anyone that saw him play. The HHOF doen's in any way increase or decrease his legend. The guy was a force of nature. He dominated playoff games. He fought and scored clutch goals all the time.

What Oiler fan will forget Mclelland and McSorley and MacTavish? What Isles fan will forget Tonelli or Nystrom?

I am an Expos fan and Raines, Dawson, Wallach, Walker, Geurerro, Deshields and most importantly Dennis Martinez. Only Carter and Vlad will probably make the Hall.... maybe Raines but it is not a sure thing. If you saw Raines or Dawson or Walker you knew their greatness and their legend even if the Hall does no elect them.

Sens Rule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2007, 12:12 PM
  #23
cupcrazyman
42 Long
 
cupcrazyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Leafland
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,843
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmchahn View Post
I tend to agree with this post. If Gillies had played for Toronto or Washington and had the same number of points, would he be in? I doubt it.

If Orr accomplished what he did with the California Golden Seals (i.e. same stats but no cups) would he be in? I would hope so.

Or Gainey?

So why the big deal about cup winners, etc.

IMO the HHOF is for individuals and their accomplishments, so if a player is in the hall as a member of team A, he should be in the hall as a member of team Z - all individual stats being equal.

If the HHOF wants to honour a dynasty team such as the 56-60 Habs or the 80-83 Islanders, they should have a separate category and put the whole team in.
i like the idea of a dynasty team being included as a different category.the 72 team canada team would fit into this category.all though i'm sure its of importance to us who are canadians and no one else.i am a leaf fan & it would be nice to see Paul Henderson in the hall but i think the 72 team being inducted is more appropriate.don't know if it will happen though.

cupcrazyman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2007, 01:00 PM
  #24
Passchendaele
Registered User
 
Passchendaele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Laval, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,288
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Yeah Ciccarelli wont get in ever IMO. Nor should he. Too many negatives in there already. Yes he had 600 goals but he enver won a Cup was never on Team Canada in Canada Cups and was never a post season all-star.
woot?

73 goals (11th highest total of all time) in the post season for Ciccarelli.

Passchendaele is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2007, 03:33 AM
  #25
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 19,660
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
I would say Turgeon's biggest problems are inconsistency, work ethic, a lack of intensity and mental toughness. He was a guy who had the potential to be a Denis Savard/Dale Hawerchuk type of player, but at the end, fell way short of that level.

I wish I had my copy of Gary Joyce's book "When the Lights Went Out," because at the end of the book, he documents pretty much every argument why Turgeon won't make the HHOF.

It starts in 1987 when Turgeon sat on the bench during the Punch-Up at Piestany. Buffalo? He was the heir apparent to Gilbert Perreault. He had the breakthrough season in 1989-90, and Buffalo, thinking they were close to taking that final step, brought in Hawerchuk. And Turgeon's play nose-dived. Numbers don't look bad, but stats do lie. If you go back and read any assessment of Turgeon's play in 1990-91, you'll see pretty poor reviews. And his performance in 1990-91 is why Turgeon got shipped to Long Island.

Turgeon had the strong start in Long Island. Hunter's cheapshot happened, and then a funny thing happened to the Islanders. They beat the two-time defending Cup champions, the Pittsburgh Penguins, who were expected to roll over everyone. Turgeon played one game. I'm not going to say that the Islanders won because Turgeon missed six games, but everyone stepped up their play in Turgeon's absence, and Al Arbour outcoached Scotty Bowman.

Don't let stats fool you about Turgeon's play in 1993-94. To paraphrase the Hockey Scouting Report on Turgeon's 1993-94 season: He scored 94 points, but those were 94 of the most invisible points in league history. And the 1994 playoffs? He was atrocious. Turgeon didn't get traded until midway through the 1995 season, but he punched his ticket out of Long Island with his play against the Rangers. Turgeon could have played like Gretzky, and the Islanders still would have lost, because Hextall laid a massive playoff egg, but a little effort from Turgeon would have been nice.

Turgeon got to Montreal and was expected to be the leader for the next generation of the Habs as they moved from the fabeled Forum to the Molson Centre. In most years, the defining shot of the season is the Cup champions team shot. In 1995-96, it was Turgeon, the captain of the Habs, holding The Torch at centre ice, with teammates and legendary Habs captains surrounding him. The Habs blew a 2-0 series lead in the first round, lost to the Rangers in six, and Turgeon, who was supposed to be the flag bearer for the Habs for years to come, was dispatched to St. Louis 10 games into the 1996-97 season.

Turgeon's play in St. Louis was as close to sustained excellence as we've seen from him. He nearly blew it - the Blues were ready to dispatch him in 1999 thanks to his continued soft, inconsistent play. They had no plans to offer him a qualifying effort following the 1999 season. Then a funny thing happened to Turgeon: he got his act together. He played great down the stretch, and played some of the best hockey of his career in the 1999 playoffs. He sustained that play until he left St. Louis in 2001. (I won't blame him for St. Louis' failures in the 2000 playoffs - Pronger's undisciplined play and Turek's meltdown were bigger factors, but I wouldn't say he was the Blues best forward in 2001, either).

He was a flop in Dallas. Whatever he bottled up in his last two-plus years in St. Louis vanished in Dallas. I won't hold Colorado against him, as he was washed up.

Here's the bottom line with Turgeon. What do hockey people think of him. If I asked you, or HO, or the other knowledgeable posters around here, what would come to your mind with Turgeon. Gifted offensive talent. Magnificent playmaker. Terrific stickhandler. Shifty skater. Could dictate the pace of a game. Able to slow it down, then speed it up on a whim. Unfulfilled potential. Inconsistent. Soft. Easily neutralized. Lacking intensity. Played his way out of every city in St. Louis; he was the supposed saviour in two cities where he played his way out of town. Often a non-factor when it mattered most. Lacking in a consistent work ethic. Defensive liability.

A final parting shot on Turgeon. When Patrick Marleau was a prospect with the WHL's Seattle Thunderbirds, THN raved about his skill, but added a caveat: "He has Pierre Turgeon-like intensity."
And again, I don't think most of this stuff is terribly fair, and he seems to be held to an entirely different standard than most other players.

So he had an 'iffy' 80-point season at age 21 in Buffalo. What young player hadn't had an off-year at some point in their first few years? Lecavalier turned in a 37-point effort at the same age. Yzerman had a brutal 3rd pro season. And in Turgeon's situation, his point production was always going to fall that year as the arrival of Hawerchuk - a 27 y/o future HHOFer and franchise center - would have cut his icetime back fairly substantially.

Yes, he had a poor playoffs in 1994 as a member of a completely overmatched NYI team. But that was really the only outright poor playoffs he had through the prime years of his career. To hold their 1993 win over Pittsburgh against him is a little ridiculous, especially after he turned in a great performance in the first round to dispatch the Capitals, who were also fairly heavily favoured. It's just one of those things that happens. Tim Kerr missed most of both of Philly's runs to the finals in the 1980s. Forsberg missed Colorado's 2002 Cup victory. Sometimes teams win with a star player injured.

You get a lot of mileage out of that 'quiet 94 points' comment in a publication at the time. To me, that comment is kind of BS. If he didn't miss 15 games, he scored at a 114-point clip, which would have been good for 3rd in the league. 6 GWG. 4 SHG. +14 on a mediocre team. Seems to me like an easy cheap shot to take at the time given his playoff performance, which may or may not have been true. He was always a cerebral player who killed you with his smarts, not his physical skills, and rarely brought you out of your seat. Hence the 'Sneaky Pete' moniker.

The situation in Montreal was ridiculous, and shows why players are often reluctant to sign there. He goes there, is brilliant down the stretch in 1995. Then he turns in a great season in 1995-96, scores 96 points - which I believe is the highest total any Montreal player has put up in the last 20 years - and should have been the francophone star center they'd been looking for for years. As a mediocre team and 6th seed in their conference, they lose to a better NYR team largely due to mediocre goaltending and a lack of secondary scoring. Like in Buffalo in 1990, the star players actually produced in that series, but the 2nd-liners no-showed - Val Bure, Brian Savage, and Andrei Kovalenko all scored 25 goals that year, and combined for 0 in the playoffs, and Rucinsky was injured. And Turgeon gets absolutely crucified for that loss by their media and basically run out of town.

He was very good his first two seasons in St. Louis - was on pace to be top-5 in league scoring in 1997-98 if not for injury - but delivered a poor regular season in 1998-99. Then totally redeemed himself in the playoffs, and was excellent over his final couple seasons there. There's really nothing during that 5-year stretch in St. Louis you can hold against him, at all. He was very good for that team, both in the regular season and playoffs.
__________

I don't really have too much of a problem with Turgeon's playoff performances. The players I have a problem with are the guys who dropped the ball when they were on good teams - guys like Ratelle, Tkachuk, and the like. It's notoriously difficult to deliver big playoff performances when you're the go-to guy on a mediocre team, as we see from Francis, Dionne, Selanne, and so on.

Turgeon delivered pretty well for the teams he was on. His line scored a bunch in 1990, just no-one else on his team scored. In 1991, Buffalo scored 24 goals in 6 games, but lost because of defense/goaltending. He was excellent in 1993 before the cheapshot. The only two blemishes were 1994, when he was outright poor, and 1996, when he was mediocre although there were bigger problems with that Montreal team.

The only time he was on a really good team in the playoffs, the 1998-01 Blues, he was a standout. Surprised you don't remember how good he was in 2001 - Tkachuk and Demitra, St. Louis' other two 'star' players, combined for 4 goals in 30 games. Turgeon was brilliant, and he and Scott Young - who was being totally carried by Turgeon - were the entire offense as St. Louis reached the Conference Finals. Destroyed Dallas in the first round, which is what got him the monster contract from the Stars the next season.

Again, I'm not saying he's an HHOFer, but that his reputation is unfair. He was a talented player who spend most of his career on mediocre teams, and didn't play the sort of style most fans like to see in a star player. But he wasn't a coach-killer, wasn't a defensive liability, and he produced in the playoffs. And I don't really think his work ethic was a major problem, either.

MS 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 07:08 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.