ruxpin

I actually don't really have anything against Murray. I clearly remember his "choking" thing but even then didn't really have a problem with it (other than the fact it simply wasn't true). But I think no. I just want to stop with the flyers retreads and the good-old-boy network. Move on.

sometimes I hate being right

My guess is that he'll be fined. Not that I think he should be fined; just that I think he will.

It's beyond comical to me that the very first time Milbury is right in his entire life...he has to apologize for it!

No kidding. I mean, I like what he said. I agree with what he said. But...I have to go shower now and use some mouthwash (to rinse the little bit of vomit that just came up in my throat). [that last part was for @Podein25 and @canoli]

Kind of stunned that came from Milbury. The only part that concerns me is that if Milbury agrees with the Flyers' position, it must mean the Flyers are wrong.

I meant the Cup, but fair enough response (since I said he "won nothing') and good points. The longer this goes, the more likely I have to just go back to "because I don't like him!" (which is what @Vanflyer said to begin with).

Agreed. I think it tends to be easier with baseball since it is such a stats-driven sport. Even in baseball, there's some argument I suppose. But in hockey and some of the other sports (football and basketball, in particular), there's so many other tangibles and intangibles to consider. Fun argument. I don't really have an opinion

That's absolutely true. That would be my argument for Flyers' Hall of Fame, though. Not necessarily hockey hall of fame. I think @Vanflyer's point about it being "hockey" hall of fame rather than just "NHL" Hall of Fame is the clincher, though. I think what he did in juniors, for the Canadian Olympic team, and then add on his NHL career...he gets in. Especially when you consider some of the other people in there. He at the very least measures up favorably to some of the players mentioned in this thread.

You make great points regarding Shutt/Gillies vs. Lindros. You're right that dynasties helped them. Won cups, loved by their organization. Two things Lindros doesn't have. Fine, begrudgingly put Lindros in the Hall of Fame. IMO, it weakens the institution, but it's not like that hasn't already been done anyway. No number retired though.

Wholeheartedly disagree. EDIT: I should pull back the "wholeheartedly," but I'll leave it on the post so the rest of this makes at least a little sense. If you remember at the time, the Flyers were playing well with the "fill ins" (White, for example) and there was some controversy as to let Lindros back in. Now, anyone in their right mind looks at Lindros vs. White objectively and says "Lindros!" every time (and twice on Wednesdays). But the re-insertion took the heart and fight right out of that team. It was predictable, and it was palpable. Is it the team's fault for responding that way? Absolutely (with the caveat that it did screw up the lines and the chemistry that was going so well prior to this). But was it understandable? Yes. So is it Lindros' FAULT? I think it's hard to claim that. He can't be faulted for being well enough to play and then actually playing (well, I might add). But his re-insertion screwed that team.

@Dynamo47 I don't think Neely should be in, but he's already there. I don't think you exacerbate a mistake by using it as a reason to make more. Plus, Neely does have one criteria that Lindros does not: He was not run out of town and traded for used toothpicks (happily). Your whole argument seems to be centered around Neely. I think that's an extremely weak argument. And you're absolutely wrong about the NJ series. It was absolutely Lindros coming back (in his defense, it had little to do with him and a lot to do with the team chemistry being screwed up due to the lines all being changed and someone sitting who had been contributing. Kind of like Pittsburgh is now suddenly only 6-4 with Crosby returning. But it was ABSOLUTELY about Lindros coming back and was predictable when they announced his return). @Vanflyer Yeah, when writing you yesterday or whenever I almost typed "hockey hall of fame" three different times and typed it over with "NHL hall of fame" because "hockey HOF" didn't help my argument. I still don't think so, van, but there may be a better case for Lindros for "hockey HOF" because of Olympics and Juniors and then, of course, NHL. But I don't like him in soley for NHL. I think it cheapens the honor. I also think retiring his number will cheapen the honor. And who's going to wear 88 again, anyway?

Sheep ****er.

You've never liked JVR, @flyercanuck. Like I've always said, he's a great player who is only going to get better. We've been lucky to not miss him this year, but only because others have really stepped up. He'll be back next year and tear up the league. You wait and see. (April fools!)

@mojo1917 I can get your points, and i have some good anecdotal memories of Lindros. It's not like it was all bad. I'm not THAT delusional. But I don't think "anecdotal intangibles" should be even considered in a hall of fame discussion (depending upon how we're defining "anecdotal intangibles")

@Vanflyer It's not really about my dislike of Eric Lindros, although now that I'm thinking about it, yes, I have a real guttural dislike for him. I didn't like him before he was drafted; I didn't like his sitting out on Quebec. I didn't like what we traded to get him. I didn't like him as a Flyer, and he was utterly forgettable after being traded from the Flyers. And I disagree with quiply's assertion that he was the best power forward to "ever" play the game. I think that's crap. To your point about criteria to get into the HOF, @Vanflyer, I guess it's not exactly a science. I think at the very least you had to have accomplished something in the grand total of your career. Preferrably, you should have at least WON something, but since I would happily make an argument for Marcel Dionne, winning a cup isn't necessarily required. But in Lindros' case, let's check off the features and forget the name involved. If this were just Generic X player, I don't know that there'd be a discussion: 1) Held out on the team that drafted him and forced a trade 2) Quarreled with the management and ownership of his next team to the point where they traded him for a bunch of nobodies and were happy about it. 3) Holds no top 25 marks in ANY offensive category other than PPG but has far less games than anyone around him, skewing the average. 4) Went to one (1) Stanley Cup Final in his tenure as leader and captain...and lost in a sweep 5) Despite being the fastest to certain point totals, appears in NO career leaders statistics I'm sorry, but for NHL Hall of Fame? No way. I'd rather someone be put in for things ACTUALLY accomplished, not based on "what ifs" including "what if he had a full career?" So for "accomplished" something: Won? No. Like marcel dionne, reached the top echelons of statistical categories but didn't win? No Was liked by his organizations? No, on at least two accounts Longevity? No Dependability? No Self-centered and hostile to superiors and teamates? Yes Yeah, great HOF material right there. For Flyers HOF? A begrudging yes because he did make his mark on the organization and should be there as a matter of history. The target of one, if not THE biggest trade in organization history. Flyers captain for several years. Was the centerpiece of getting the team out of 4 or 5 consecutive years out of the playoffs. Was largely responsible for bringing in enough cash to fund the building of the new arena. All arguments for putting him in an organization's hall of fame, but not the league. Sorry, I just don't even entertain the argument. Sorry, but as a history major, I guess I view the Hall of Fame as some place that should be left for people who really stood out above the rest of the pack and are honored for actual accomplishments. In the grand scheme of things, I think Lindros is utterly forgettable on a league-wide level.

Yes on Neely. No on Lindros. To Mojo's point about his career being cut short due to injuries. I'm sorry, but that's a big reason you DON'T put him there. I know at 43 I'm getting older and the "I don't understand today's society" makes me sound even older yet, but I don't get the handing things out to people for "they would have if not for..." reasons. I don't care how you end that sentence, the trumping point is THEY DIDN'T. Let's not give people high rewards for just showing up and "if not fors.". He doesn't appear in ANY leading statistic category and was put out with the stale moldy pizza by his organization. At least Neely shows up in goals per game at 14 and retired loved by his team and fans. Neely is a weak case, but let's not let every weak case in just because mistakes were made previously.

There is absolutely no way I put Lindros in the NHL HOF. Why would he belong there? Why must we put every single above average player in the Hall of Fame and weaken it even further? There are people who truly deserve to be there. Let's not clutter it with an also-ran. He's not in the top 50 in points. He is 18th in PPG, so we'll give him that one and 20th in playoff points per game. You don't see him anywhere else in offensive statistical leaders. If he'd actually WON something, that might offset the offensive stats, but he won nothing. And all this to the fact he became a pariah to his organization, I don't understand how anyone could argue for NHL Hall of Fame. The "fastest player to xxx" stats are swell, but when he appears NO WHERE on career totals list it clearly shows a career that flamed out. In the story of the Tortoise and the Hare, the Hare was the fastest to every point. Except he lost. Where'd that get him? No way in the hockey hall of fame unless we also put nearly everyone else there just for showing up. As for the the Flyers Hall of Fame, absolutely. But to retire his number? No. I would have argued AGAINST retiring Mark Howe's number, who I really liked and am not real upset they did. But if I would argue against Howe, I'll argue strongly against Lindros. I don't care if he comes back now and everything is glossed over and hunky-dorie. No way. The guy was run out of town for a box of cracker jacks and became a complete ***. I don't care what anyone says, his re-appearance COST us the series against New Jersey and probably the Cup that year. Put his jersey in the garbage, not the rafters.

Just drop into a river while riding a rental bike. Pretend to be your girlfriend getting on your login saying you died from falling into said river. Come back two days later and admit to enjoying reading everyone's sorrow and condolences. Then drop dead again.

He was banned because he didn't die. Let this be a lesson for you and the rest of the posters.

Summers Eve: More dou~che power than John Tortorella

The Holmes Personal Clip Oscillating fan...Buy 10 and have more fans than the New Jersey Devils.

The Toro 15592 Leaf Blower....It blows more than the New York Rangers

Yes, he died on a Friday, was resurrected on Sunday. Then banned. I think I've heard this story somewhere before... I do not have independent confirmation on the reports that @HF101 denied him three times before his c o c k finally crowed.