Jump to content

Hall of Fame- yes or no?


Guest Vanflyer
 Share

  

47 members have voted

  1. 1. Should 88 be in the NHL Hall of Fame?

  2. 2. Should 88 be in the Flyers Hall of Fame?

  3. 3. Should #88 be retired for the Flyers?



Recommended Posts

Now that the prodigal "90's" son is back in the fold, its perhaps time to ask the question of Hall of Fame / Number retirement. I just watched this video that encapsulates what a mean dirty SOB he was with hands like feathers when it came to passing or scoring. I never saw Gordie. In my lifetime, I have never seen a player like this, and am coming to the conclusion that perhaps I will never again (in my lifetime).

Here is the Vid (20min long- sorry).

Edited by Vanflyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eric Lindros' time with the Flyers was marred by the constant bickering of his "agents" with Bobby Clarke and the entire Flyers Organization. As a player, he was a game changer and for a time was the face of the NHL. I believe his skating in Toronto with the Flyers the other day is Ed Snider's way of bringing him back into the fold so to speak to set the stage for him to be put into the Flyers HOF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@flyerrod

So, retire his number as a Flyer too?

What about NHL HOF?

I think he belongs in the HOF, both Flyers and NHL...I am not as big on retiring his number although I am not against it. I think that would be a very bitter pill for Bobby Clarke to swallow seeing the 88 hanging in the rafters along with his.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@flyerrod-

"I am not against it. I think that would be a very bitter pill for Bobby Clarke to swallow seeing the 88 hanging in the rafters along with his....."

Interesting point and I had never thought of that.

Better to do it now rather than when bobby rolls over in his grave (then again it might put him IN the grave).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I look at when it comes to greatness is, who was player x peers with and did player x dominate for a sustained period and what was the league like, dead ball era of the 70's in baseball,... The only factor working against Big E is his length of time dominating was cut short due to injuries, his career numbers have him on the cusp anyway. There was no one in the league you'd have traded him for, John LeClair owes him for his popularity in Philadelphia , he played during the clutch and grab trap era. I view him as hockey's version of Gayle Sayers a bright light that when it shined was blinding. I say he deserves yes votes on all counts

Edited by mojo1917
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think Cam Neely deserves to be in the NHL HOF??

That has always been my argument for Lindros. If Neely is in...and we can discuss whether or not he should be...BUT he is in, so, Lindros should be in. Simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@DaGreatGazoo

I could not agree more. I liked Neely allot- and you are correct that we can argue the merits of his HOF election. However, if he is in, then Lindros should definitely be in.

I was going to wait to use my silver bullet for the NHL HOF, but here it is anyway:

Career Achievements:

4th fastest player in NHL history to score 300 points (210 GP) behind Wayne Gretzky (159), Mario Lemieux (186) & Peter Stastny (186)

4th fastest player in NHL history to score 400 points (277 GP) behind Wayne Gretzky (197), Mario Lemieux (240) & Peter Stastny (247)

5th fastest player in NHL history to score 500 points (352 GP) behind Wayne Gretzky (234), Mario Lemieux (287) & Peter Stastny (322) & Mike Bossy (349)

6th fastest player in NHL history to score 600 points (429 GP) behind Wayne Gretzky (273), Mario Lemieux (323) & Peter Stastny (394), Mike Bossy (400) & Jari Kurri (419)

So, we have names like Gretzky, Lemieux, Stastny, Bossy and Kurri. Add into it that Lindros did it in the clutch and grab era and just rolled over people.

If you go watch the video I posted AND look at the above, how can one (not you) possibly think that the E-train does not belong in the NHL HOF- regardless of Neely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Digityman

Why not the NHL HOF??

Do you think Cam Neely deserves to be in the NHL HOF??

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ruxpin

I guess the question begs: what is the criteria that one should have to be anointed to the NHL HOF?

I mean, I can go through this list and say WTF about quite a number of electees:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_Hockey_Hall_of_Fame#Players

Lets start with what we can agree on the criteria should be for election and then we can go from there.

(but boy, you REALLY don't like lindros!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ruxpin

i see your arguement and it makes sense. being a blind homer though, i still disagree. i think Lindros is a player whose anecdotal intangibles make his case more compelling to just look at his stats alone does him a disservice, the part you mention where the Flyers didn't treat him as a franchise player has more to to with REC than anything else, i don't care about carl and bonnie and neither should have clarkie. admittedly i don't remember much of all the nastiness that transpired other than the flyers witchdoctor medical staff , being called into question after lindros' lung collapsed.

Ideally if he had 2 more healthy years i think he's a shoo-in...there is no one from his era i'd have rather had play on my team than him, he had 4 monster years where no one in the league was as close to being as dominant as he was, he was a bo jackson type at worst, I guess in 20 years he'll be a frozen moment on the nhl channel, the guy was a force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ruxpin-

You bring up some good points and I am really torn. The one thing I would put out there (and I had not realized this before) is that its the Hockey Hall of Fame, not the NHL Hall of Fame. In that vein, it encompasses contributions to hockey overall (thus how Cammi Granato got in).

Lindros did accomplish allot at the international level. I wonder if that would sway you at all?

The one thing that is compelling for me is what Clarkie had to say:

""Yes, based on his ability to play the game and based on his contributions as a player, I think you have to separate all the crap that went on. Particularly when he played for the Flyers, it was just outstanding, dominant hockey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lindros absolutely belongs in the Hockey Hall of Fame for one reason - Cam Neely being elected and the circumstances in their careers.

Both players were huge and could dominate a game physically. Both players careers were shortened by injuries.

But when you compare their numbers there is no comparison. If Neely gets in then they can't possibly keep Lindros out.

Cam Neely got in with these stats

NHL Totals 726 395 299 694 1241

Teams went to two Stanley Cup finals and lost both by a combined 8 games to 1

Masterton Trophy winner

He earned four NHL Second-Team All-Star berths

Lindros

NHL Totals 760 372 493 865 1398

In only 34 more games Lindros had 171 more points

In addition Lindros won the Hart and Person trophies

Lindros went to the all star game 6 times

Lindros led the league in playoff scoring when he led the Flyers to the finals

Other factors, Lindros by far made the players around him better.

* He made a 3rd line winger in John Leclair a 50 goal scorer and all star. Prior to playing with Lindros Leclair's top goal scoring year was 19 goals

* Lindros made Trent Klatt and Brent Fedyk 20 goal scorers.

So if you compare him to Cam Neely he was better statistically and a far better player then Cam. Given the circumstances of the style they played and their careers being shortened by injury, if Cam is in there is no way to keep Lindros out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Because if Neely is there and they played a similar style game, Lindros' stats dwarf Neely's

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.

Neither Did Neely and he is in the hall of fame. If your argument would be that Neely doesn't deserve to be in then I can see your argument for Lindros but based on stats, style of play, and injury shortened careers, if he is in then Lindros should be with better numbers, more all star appearances, more International play, more hardware

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.

I hardly think averaging over a point a game and being one of the most physically dominant players the league has ever had qualifies as just 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 think his jersey should be retired by the team. If he were healthy all of the Flyers team records would have been his. I also think Howe and Hextall's need to be retired.

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.

See my post Rux. If Neely is in with his stats and career shortened by injury then there is no way you cannot vote Lindros on. Had Lindros remained healthy his entire career, he would have put up all time numbers. If you elect Neely due to what If scenario's then you can't keep Lindros out as his stats and impact on the game far exceed Cam's (and I loved Neely as a player). .

His coming back against NJ cost us the series? Are you serious Rux? The TEAM cost us the series not Lindros coming back. All he did was come back in Game 6 in New Jersey and score 2 goals (one that counted and the second that SHOULD have counted) and was one of the best players on the ice. That is his fault that he came back and was the best player on the team? The team should have been inspired and busted their asses seeing how he played that first game back. Instead they were flat and it cost us not only game 6 but the series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ruxpin

Agreed on not retiring his number, I think that's an honor that is decided based more on positive emotional attachment between player and team. We can say all we want about mending fences and bringing him back into the organization, and I do think that's a good thing, but this doesn't change the negatives that nearly ripped an organization apart.

Flyers HOF, absolutely appropriate and I hope they do it soon. NHL HOF, maybe. But no number retirement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lindros absolutely belongs in the Hockey Hall of Fame for one reason - Cam Neely being elected and the circumstances in their careers

How about Steve Shutt? He was a good player on some epically great Canadiens teams, and he's in. Lindros averaged well over a point a game for his career (that alone should get him in), Shutt? 0.88 pts/gm. Lindros played in 6 all star games, Shutt played in 3. Lindros in his prime was arguably the most dominating player in the game. If a player like him doesn't get in then the concept of a "Hall of Fame" is pretty meaningless. And I say all of that as someone who was very happy when the Flyers finally traded him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...