Don Cherry HHOF worthy as a builder? (Read mod notes #320, #323)

[Hardyvan123]

Cherry is in Vancouver right now for the CHL draft prospects game and all the buzz is why he isn't in the HHOF as a builder.

Although I don't always agree with Cherry there is little doubt that he is a hockey (and Canadian icon) and should be in the HHOF.

Does he deserve to be in the Hall?

Reasons why or not as well.

will add PK Subban's parity of Cherry (because Subban is one of the greater ambassadors of the game today and the NHL has many of them IMO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPd4FIiGt1s

Click to read more...

 

[Killion]

He should be (and probably will be) awarded the Foster Hewitt Memorial Award for Broadcasting which is an honorarium for inclusion in the HHOF. But as a "Builder"?... No.... wrong category altogether. Nothing really outstanding about his Coaching career. Wasnt an "innovator". Didnt win any Cups. Frankly, no great shakes behind the bench. Good Coach. Players Coach. But certainly in no way outstanding. His contributions to Broadcasting however, sure. Oddball anomaly. Carved out quite the career for himself and arguably in no small part responsible for the excellent ratings CBC's HNIC enjoyed over 30 years in Southern Ontario, the largest market in Canada. Drove ratings, increasing viewership & thus revenues. Lord knows people werent just tuning in to watch the Leafs. His contributions & unique style in terms of delivery (and I suppose sartorially) should be honored, recognized & remembered. His whole life is hockey. Very deserving of the Foster Hewitt Award. Absolutely.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Qualifications

Cherry is in Vancouver right now for the CHL draft prospects game and all the buzz is why he isn't in the HHOF as a builder.

Although I don't always agree with Cherry there is little doubt that he is a hockey (and Canadian icon) and should be in the HHOF.

Does he deserve to be in the Hall?

Reasons why or not as well.

will add PK Subban's parity of Cherry (because Subban is one of the greater ambassadors of the game today and the NHL has many of them IMO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPd4FIiGt1s

Don Cherry does not qualify as a builder. He does qualify for the Media section.

Issue with Don Cherry in the media section is that he is a one trick pony with little depth.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I've seen this argument before and it makes no sense. He didn't build anything. Never a GM. Poor record as a coach (pretty good in Boston, at least until too many men; horrible in Colorado).

They have a HHOF category for media members - that's the only area where Cherry is remotely qualified.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Well he obviously qualifies as a commentator and someone "who helped build the game" (listed as "criteria" for "builders"). I submit he has done enough under both umbrellas to qualify for induction. Love or hate him, he's someone whose legacy deserves to be enshrined for future generations, imo. From Coach's Corner to his work at the grass roots and prospect levels, there's a lot of worthy stuff to go with a very unique persona/lity.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

The only issue I have with including him in any kind of HOF is the brutal way he put down Europeans for years. He's mellowed considerably on that front in recent years but many people aren't old enough to remember just how bigoted this guy's rants used to be.

 

[Killion]

Issue with Don Cherry in the media section is that he is a one trick pony with little depth.

Oh you bet... as I said, an anomaly. No real middle ground with the guy. You either like him or you dont. He has however cut quite the swath for himself in the largest media market in Canada, that "Toronto Thing" if you will.... so ya, I can see him pretty much being a shoe-in along with Ron MacLean as recipients of the Foster Hewitt Award. Likely both receiving it in the same year, inducted together... though I suppose there could be some "objections" (Gary Bettman specifically though I think he's wise enough to accept & acknowledge & then support both) from the League, various members of the BOG's. They however in no way control that process & if they did try to intervene, leaked, cause a considerable stink to put it mildly.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

The only issue I have with including him in any kind of HOF is the brutal way he put down Europeans for years. He's mellowed considerably on that front in recent years but many people aren't old enough to remember just how bigoted this guy's rants used to be.

Meh. Kind of goes with the times. Heck, aren't there people inducted who literally killed Germans during World Wars, for example? He didn't kill Europeans in a World War, he shared opinions of them during a Cold War (okay, and beyond, but like you said, he has PC'd it a little bit over recent years). It's a legitimate reason to not like him, but not to keep him out of the Hall, imo. He's in a very large way a product of his time, which can't be held too much against him.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Don Cherry does not qualify as a builder.

Can you elaborate on that, because I see the following as criteria from the HoF homepage as relates to builders:

"Coaching, managerial or executive ability, or ability in another significant off-ice role, sportsmanship, character and contributions to his or her organization or organizations and to the game of hockey in general."

I see the room for argument as to whether or not he has done enough to qualify. I DON'T, however, see how he is categorically denied from consideration based on the criteria.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Meh. Kind of goes with the times. Heck, aren't there people inducted who literally killed Germans during World Wars, for example? He didn't kill Europeans in a World War, he shared opinions of them during a Cold War (okay, and beyond, but like you said, he has PC'd it a little bit over recent years). It's a legitimate reason to not like him, but not to keep him out of the Hall, imo. He's in a very large way a product of his time, which can't be held too much against him.

A cold war against Sweden and Finland?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Qualifications

Can you elaborate on that, because I see the following as criteria from the HoF homepage as relates to builders:

"Coaching, managerial or executive ability, or ability in another significant off-ice role, sportsmanship, character and contributions to his or her organization or organizations and to the game of hockey in general."

I see the room for argument as to whether or not he has done enough to qualify. I DON'T, however, see how he is categorically denied from consideration based on the criteria.

What you bolded also describes over a thousand people who have made contributions to hockey across Canada and the USA. These people have rinks in community centers, arenas, events, etc named after them. This does not qualify them for HHOF induction as a builder. The operative phrase "contributions to his or her organization or organizations and to the game of hockey in general"

Which organization(s) did Don Cherry devote significant time to? None - few years in the OHL were less than stellar. So the organizational aspect rules him out.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

A cold war against Sweden and Finland?

A cold war against nations that started supplying the NHL with talent after the fall of the Iron Curtain. I believe everything with Cherry starts in the '70s with the Russians, and the embellishing for calls that he criticizes them for. Let's face it, the image/identity of "European hockey" throughout those years was the Russians. Not Swedes. Not Finns. Scandinavians (or whatever the more accurate term is for those from the Nordic countries) who seemed reluctant to get their hands dirty or flopped to get calls (note that a lot of the earliest Atlantic Ocean crossers were talent players trying to survive the NHL landscape of the '70s/80s, not foot soldiers brought in to sway the physical balance) obviously got stroked by the same brush by Cherry, which is a legitimate complaint against his "humanity", but the point remains that he never really spit the vitriol against European players unless they reminded him in some way of the "disgraceful" Russians who likely form the basis of his opinion(s). An exception might be his reaction to Clark being traded for Sundin, but I think that was more about WHO Clark was than WHAT Sundin was, and that it had to do with the Maple Leafs.

 

[MXD]

Jacques Demers has a better case...

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

What you bolded also describes over a thousand people who have made contributions to hockey across Canada and the USA. These people have rinks in community centers, arenas, events, etc named after them. This does not qualify them for HHOF induction as a builder. The operative phrase "contributions to his or her organization or organizations and to the game of hockey in general"

Which organization(s) did Don Cherry devote significant time to? None - few years in the OHL were less than stellar. So the organizational aspect rules him out.

For starters? From his wiki:

"Canadian Hockey chairman Bob MacKinnon thanked Cherry stating "The growing popularity of the women's game in our country owes a great deal to Don and Rose Cherry... Don has been a strong supporter of the female game since the early 1980s and continues to speak out in favour of women's hockey..."

Recognition from the chairman of Hockey Canada for helping grow the women's game not enough to start a conversation - one that can furthermore branch into the CHL prospect level and grass roots education/safety topics? On TOP of his broadcasting/commentating career which also seems to satisfy eligibility, that is.

 

[MS]

I don't particularly like Don Cherry but his influence in the sport over the past 40 years has been massive (in both positive and negative ways) and he absolutely should be in the HHOF, in the media section at worst.

 

[MongolKing]

He beat Wayne Gretzky in the Greatest Canadian Competition.

He is greater than The Great One! Clear HHOFer.

Seriously though - he's been an icon of hockey for 40 years. I know people who couldn't name anyone more than Sidney Crosby and a couple for local star players and they know who Don Cherry is.

 

[Moose Head]

There are far worse choices in the place, especially in the builders category.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

There are far worse choices in the place, especially in the builders category.

Like who?

 

[Moose Head]

Like who?

Ballard
Zeiglar
Norris

 

[Canadiens1958]

Hurricane Hazel

For starters? From his wiki:

"Canadian Hockey chairman Bob MacKinnon thanked Cherry stating "The growing popularity of the women's game in our country owes a great deal to Don and Rose Cherry... Don has been a strong supporter of the female game since the early 1980s and continues to speak out in favour of women's hockey..."

Recognition from the chairman of Hockey Canada for helping grow the women's game not enough to start a conversation - one that can furthermore branch into the CHL prospect level and grass roots education/safety topics? On TOP of his broadcasting/commentating career which also seems to satisfy eligibility, that is.

Still does not compare favourably with Hazel McCallion, longtime Mayor of Mississaugua and what she contributed to hockey, women's hockey internationally, youth hockey in Mississaugua and Ontario plus getting Don Cherry into the OHL.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazel_McCallion

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Ballard
Zeiglar
Norris

I get what you mean. I think those guys are worse HHOFers than Cherry would be in general... but at least as owners/NHL presidents, they are technically "builders." Cherry is strictly a media guy (except for a brief stint as a bad coach), and there is a media category, so why is he even talked about as a builder?

 

[Moose Head]

I get what you mean. I think those guys are worse HHOFers than Cherry would be in general... but at least as owners/NHL presidents, they are technically "builders." Cherry is strictly a media guy (except for a brief stint as a bad coach), and there is a media category, so why is he even talked about as a builder?

OK, I see we're you're coming from.

 

[vadnais1972]

I think his coaching gets overlooked. His five seasons in Boston for points - 94, 113, 106, 113, 100. Sure, no Cup, but that's a pretty impressive 5 year run, especially with that grinding team.

 

[double5son10]

Where is this Cherry was a bad coach stuff coming from? .658 winning % in Boston with two finals and two semi-finals appearances in 5 seasons. He was coach of the year in both the AHL and the NHL. So he took a bad bench minor. It happens.

Are people seriously calling him bad because of a single year with a horribly run franchise here in Colorado, where the GM was actively trying to undermine him? Or are they judging him by his OHL stint when he was almost 70 yrs. old and had been out of coaching for over 20 yrs.? Him running the bench of his Mississauga team was a blunder, sure, but his body of work in Boston, where coaches had a very short leash under Sinden, is, I think, far more representative of his coaching chops than the tire fire that was the Rockies. It's not like that franchise got better once he was shown the door. They were a disaster regardless.

 

[MXD]

Where is this Cherry was a bad coach stuff coming from? .658 winning % in Boston with two finals and two semi-finals appearances in 5 seasons. He was coach of the year in both the AHL and the NHL. So he took a bad bench minor. It happens.

Are people seriously calling him bad because of a single year with a horribly run franchise here in Colorado, where the GM was actively trying to undermine him? Or are they judging him by his OHL stint when he was almost 70 yrs. old and had been out of coaching for over 20 yrs.? Him running the bench of his Mississauga team was a blunder, sure, but his body of work in Boston, where coaches had a very short leash under Sinden, is, I think, far more representative of his coaching chops than the tire fire that was the Rockies. It's not like that franchise got better once he was shown the door. They were a disaster regardless.

Still inferior to Jacques Demers, who isn't in and will probably never be.