RSBPC said:Let me cut to the chase. Simple yes or no question.
Do you think Claude Lemieux was a better hockey player than Cam Neely?
lemieux32 said:Obviously it depends on who you have already, but in general I would say yes. Neely could score and was tough, but Lemieux was clutch, could score, play defense, was tough and the list goes on.
Bring Back Bucky said:Brad Park is in the Hall, has been since 98
Anderson has appeared in court in BC to face the music. I can't remember the outcome, but believe he has no income or interest in earning one to show that he's not a loser as a parent.
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/csitn14.htmFormer Edmonton Oiler Glenn Anderson agreed to an out-of-court child support settlement for his 13-year-old son. Anderson will pay a lump sum of $80,000 and $602 a month, starting January 1st. Child Maintenance authorities in British Columbia said Anderson was more than $125,000 in arrears.
Nope.he can have all the Conn Smythes he wants,he was'nt as good a player as Neely.Your case is closed.Gee Wally said:If you had Cam would you trade him straight up for Claude ?
( I rest my case )
Dr Love said:14. What impact did the player have on hockey history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?
His hit on Kris Draper ignited the fiercest rivalry in hockey in the late 90s.
lemieux32 said:Obviously it depends on who you have already, but in general I would say yes. Neely could score and was tough, but Lemieux was clutch, could score, play defense, was tough and the list goes on.
lemieux32 said:I am biased but what did Neely bring? He was tough and he scored goals, so did Lemieux, not as many, but he did so much more. As I said it depends on what I already have on the team. If I need someone to shut down the opposing scorers and put in some goals, then there is no doubt, if I just need a guy to only score goals then I'd go with Neely. It's pretty simple. I think others anti-Lemieux bias is affecting there judgement.
TransportedUpstater said:I personally do not have an anti-Lemieux bias. I dislike the Devils and Avs (and Wings, regarding the Avs-Wings rivalry) equally and am mostly neutral towards Montreal, although they are one of the teams I like to see win games.
But the fact that Claude did play for teams that I am not a fan of does not contribute to my opinion of him as a player.
People talk about playoffs being the only important thing, but remember, you have to get there first. Also, IMO if there is any one player who deserves the most consideration based on his playoff history it would be Glenn Anderson, not Claude Lemieux.
habs_24x said:the case for him is hard to ignore. He had a great career and incredible success in the playoffs, the time when it really matters. i say he would be a good fit in the hall.
If Neely who never won anything and never did anything remotely resembling Lemieux's heroics in the playoffs got in, i dont see how Lemieux couldnt get in.
The difference is that Claude was an impact player in at least two of the cups he won. IMO the Habs of 86 and at least one of the Devils teams would not have won the cup without his efforts. The guy was quite simply, clutch. That's why he deserves a look. Certainly as much a look as Clark Gillies got. Clark was never the difference maker on a cup team like Claude was on at least two cup winners.jiggs 10 said:He isn't even CLOSE to making the HOF. Neely never should have made it, either, but Clod shouldn't even be considered! So what if he happened to be on a few good teams? Should Gilbert Dionne make it too? He won a Cup in 1993!
Geez, next you people will be saying Tie Domi should make it!
Psycho Papa Joe said:The difference is that Claude was an impact player in at least two of the cups he won. IMO the Habs of 86 and at least one of the Devils teams would not have won the cup without his efforts. The guy was quite simply, clutch. That's why he deserves a look. Certainly as much a look as Clark Gillies got. Clark was never the difference maker on a cup team like Claude was on at least two cup winners.
MS said:Interesting that so many people rate Mike Richter as a HHOFer, but so few would rate Lemieux that way.
To me, they had nearly identical careers. Spotty regular season performers - a couple good seasons, a lot of mediocre ones. Few awards or All-star berths. Similar career duration. And a history of elite performances on championship teams and big-time clutch play.
Neither should get in, but I think Lemieux is a little closer call than some people are willing to admit.
If Richter does, he's going to have to get alot of leeway due to injuries and the Rangers collapsing around him and alot of credit for the Cup and the World Cup.Ogopogo said:Who thinks Richter should be in?
Lemieux and Richter were both good players but not at all HOF worthy.