Pat Burns Does Not Belong in the Hall of Fame

[Leafs Forever]

I'm with the OP on this. I say make a coaches category and induct him, but the outrage on this is ridiculous.

People say "Well, he's so good that he deserves t oget inducted now." Yet 95% of people whining about it would not care if he was not dying/dead about when he gets inducted. And the only reasons I've seen are "Great coach, 3 Adams, a cup". All true, but this is the mark of a great coach, not a great builder, per say.

I believe the HHOF said something like this, and I agree with this- they can't be bias like that and induct a guy over potentially more deserving candidates just because he's dying. It's not really fair to everbody else, and death should not be factored into a decision.

It's a tragic loss to the hockey world, and this guy deserves to get into the hall in a new category. But people need to stop being so outraged about this just because he was dying and had a shot.

 

[Ol' Jase]

Consider there is certainly precedence by the HHOF to take into account careers cut short by injury/illness, this would serve to perhaps strengthen the case for Burns, IMO.

The coaches division is the right step, but I don't see it outlandinsh that Burns can make it in on his own merit.

 

[Flames420]

Burns belongs in the HHOF because he was a HOF coach.

The end.

 

[Leafs Forever]

Burns belongs in the HHOF because he was a HOF coach.

The end.

There isn't a category in the hall for coaches at the moment.

 

[leoleo3535]

There isn't a category in the hall for coaches at the moment.

Yes there is......builders category.

 

[Leafs Forever]

Yes there is......builders category.

Nope. If the "builders" was a "coaches" category, it would be called "coaches" category. There have been many people inducted to the category who never coached or never coached with success, and the people who happened to be coaches who were inducted into the category either helped build the game, or really built their team, either through long tenure or spending time as a manger and/or owner and/or president.

 

[SidGenoMario]

It's incredibly stupid that there isn't a coaches category. No one ever thought that was a good idea? There's a refs category for god's sake..

 

[Leafs Forever]

It's incredibly stupid that there isn't a coaches category. No one ever thought that was a good idea? There's a refs category for god's sake..

This I can agree with.

 

[Buck Aki Berg]

It's incredibly stupid that there isn't a coaches category. No one ever thought that was a good idea? There's a refs category for god's sake..

Absolutely agree.

While I agree that, statistically, Burns falls short of HOF material, but at the same time, it's the "Hockey Hall of Fame", not the "Hockey Hall of The Best". Obviously the selection committee puts little to no weight on simple notoriety of a candidate, which does seem a little strange given the name of the building.

I'm not necessarily suggesting that the selection committee start handing out inductions to everybody that was well-liked (they could name it the Rory Fitzpatrick Wing ) ... notoriety doesn't trump career success, but I think it should be taken into account to some degree.

 

[BLONG7]

This would be an emotional time to discuss this for sure....give it some time, and then discuss guys...

 

[macavoy]

This would be an emotional time to discuss this for sure....give it some time, and then discuss guys...

I've been saying it for almost 2 years, look at most threads about Burns in the last 2 years, I've always said he doesn't fit the current criteria.

He's been battling for a long time, people wanted to make an exemption for him almost 2 years ago to be inducted during a non ceremony time when he was diagnosed again.

There was a huge facebook group, everyone joined in support but I remember pointing out that under the criteria, he wasn't a fit.

Now fast forward to the present, where he's alot closer to his deathbed and its the actual HHOF induction time, guess what he still isn't let in.

I wonder why. Maybe its because he doesn't qualify under the current rules.

 

[habsfan87]

He belongs in the hall of fame. He was considered the best coach in the league 3 times, he won a cup, if his life wasn't cut short he would've probably been coaching for the last 6 years and be amongst the winningest coaches ever. If there's not a coaches category, then make one.

 

[Derick*]

Absolutely agree.

While I agree that, statistically, Burns falls short of HOF material, but at the same time, it's the "Hockey Hall of Fame", not the "Hockey Hall of The Best". Obviously the selection committee puts little to no weight on simple notoriety of a candidate, which does seem a little strange given the name of the building.

I'm not necessarily suggesting that the selection committee start handing out inductions to everybody that was well-liked (they could name it the Rory Fitzpatrick Wing ) ... notoriety doesn't trump career success, but I think it should be taken into account to some degree.

I agree. The Hall of Fame isn't a magazine ranking or a fantasy draft. It's not there to communicate to us who it thinks is good. The point is to remember/honor those players. The purpose is the honoring, not the deciding.

No one should go in just because they're dieing or anything like that. But I think, if someone is probably going to get in eventually anyway, it's sensible to put them in sooner so they have a chance to live to see it. Those are two very different things. And I don't see how Burns doesn't deserve to eventually go in. He coached four teams and won either a Jack Adams or a Cup on every single one.

 

[SidGenoMario]

It's not there to communicate to us who it thinks is good. The point is to remember/honor those players.

No one should go in just because they're dieing or anything like that.

This seems kind of contradictory to me. If the purpose of the hall is to remember people, then that's all the more reason to immediately induct a beloved legend who's dying. If it actually was a ranking of the best players, then that would be a case against inducting Burns.

 

[Derick*]

This seems kind of contradictory to me. If the purpose of the hall is to remember people, then that's all the more reason to immediately induct a beloved legend who's dying. If it actually was a ranking of the best players, then that would be a case against inducting Burns.

Did you read the whole second paragraph? That sentence was a stipulation to the main point of the paragraph, which was consistent. People who will probably be inducted anyway should be inducted sooner because they're dieing.

 

[Mad Habber]

He belongs in the hall of fame. He was considered the best coach in the league 3 times, he won a cup, if his life wasn't cut short he would've probably been coaching for the last 6 years and be amongst the winningest coaches ever. If there's not a coaches category, then make one.

He'd have another cup with NJ. Cam Neely is in there for a shorten career. I have no doubt that Burns would have continued coaching and padded his stats.

 

[Darth Joker]

I'm with the OP on this. I say make a coaches category and induct him, but the outrage on this is ridiculous.

No, it's not ridiculous.

People say "Well, he's so good that he deserves to get inducted now." Yet 95% of people whining about it would not care if he was not dying/dead about when he gets inducted.

Well duh.

People wanted him to get in before he died so that he could be alive to experience being inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame.

If he didn't have cancer and if he wasn't dying/dead, that would obviously not be a concern, and it wouldn't matter when he made it in.

And the only reasons I've seen are "Great coach, 3 Adams, a cup". All true, but this is the mark of a great coach, not a great builder, per say.

Until the HHOF has a coach's category, they should treat great coaches as builders. It's a horrible oversight on the HHOF's part that there isn't a coach's category as it is.

I believe the HHOF said something like this, and I agree with this- they can't be bias like that and induct a guy over potentially more deserving candidates just because he's dying. It's not really fair to everbody else, and death should not be factored into a decision.

I strongly disagree.

If there's a person who is genuinely deserving of HHOF induction - it's only a question of when, not if - and if that person is dying, then fast-track him given the circumstances. The person who has to wait a year because of it will likely still be around when their time for induction arrives.

Now, that's not to say that if somebody is a borderline case that they should be fast-tracked in because of their health conditions; their health conditions has nothing to do with whether or not they were worthy of HHOF induction. They're still a borderline case while other candidates are likely more clear-cut.

But Burns wasn't a borderline case. 3 Jack Adams, 1 Stanley Cup, numerous long playoff runs for teams that he's coached, one of the 20 best NHL coaching records of all-time, and success everywhere he's been.

Unless we're going to discriminate against coaches (which, sadly, the HHOF seems to be doing), Burns clearly deserved to get in, and mark my words, he will get in one day.

If he's going to get in at some point, then doesn't it make sense to put him in when he's still alive and around to benefit from the experience?

Seems like a perfectly good and reasonable argument to me. Too bad that the HHOF committee is too caught up in rules and regulations to recognize it, and hence deprived a man of living to see a deserving honor bestowed upon him.

It's a tragic loss to the hockey world, and this guy deserves to get into the hall in a new category. But people need to stop being so outraged about this just because he was dying and had a shot.

No, the HHOF needs to be more flexible and use some common sense, frankly.

 

[Leafs Forever]

Well duh.

People wanted him to get in before he died so that he could be alive to experience being inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame.

If he didn't have cancer and if he wasn't dying/dead, that would obviously not be a concern, and it wouldn't matter when he made it in.

Yes, I am aware people wanted him to experience it..but I think that goes to show the logic of a lot of people. They don't care as much about his accomplishments so much as they care about the fact he was a great guy who is dieing.

Until the HHOF has a coach's category, they should treat great coaches as builders. It's a horrible oversight on the HHOF's part that there isn't a coach's category as it is.

But not all great coaches are great builders, and it's lying to treat them as such.


I strongly disagree.

If there's a person who is genuinely deserving of HHOF induction - it's only a question of when, not if - and if that person is dying, then fast-track him given the circumstances. The person who has to wait a year because of it will likely still be around when their time for induction arrives.

Here's the thing- do you think the HHOF can predict death?

Let's say Pat Burns did get inducted in the last class, because he was dieing. Then he lives to see the next class after him get inducted, but the guy they snubbed to get Burns in dies. Then they seem like morons, don't they?

Yes, we all knew Pat Burns was going to die soon..but the HHOF doesn't know when, and who knows if the candidates they snub will die before Burns. They can't just assume a guy is going to die before someone else when factoring in.

And that's another thing- your world adds a "How healthy is the guy?" criteria to the HHOF, which is wrong. By your logic, that we should factor in how close a guy is to death and the likelyhood of if they can make it to the next class, will see some stars who just got elgibile for induction get snubbed over lesser players who are older and thus more likely to die. Does that seem right to you? It's the "Hockey Hall of Fame not the Hockey Hall of Fame and Health. Adding a critireria like that, as you seem to want, will just see the HHOF further degrade.

Now, that's not to say that if somebody is a borderline case that they should be fast-tracked in because of their health conditions; their health conditions has nothing to do with whether or not they were worthy of HHOF induction. They're still a borderline case while other candidates are likely more clear-cut.

But Burns wasn't a borderline case. 3 Jack Adams, 1 Stanley Cup, numerous long playoff runs for teams that he's coached, one of the 20 best NHL coaching records of all-time, and success everywhere he's been.

Unless we're going to discriminate against coaches (which, sadly, the HHOF seems to be doing), Burns clearly deserved to get in, and mark my words, he will get in one day.

I agree he will get in one day. I disagree we should have let him in sooner than his due time just because he was very ill.

Here's a question for you- people wanted to induct Pat Burns he can experience all the fame and honour and love, no? Why the heck does Pat Burns need to get into the HHOF in order to give him fame, and for him to get honor, and for him to be loved? The outpouring he saw, I think, did that plenty well enough.

If he's going to get in at some point, then doesn't it make sense to put him in when he's still alive and around to benefit from the experience?

Again, how does the HHOF know if he will be alive for their next class or not? They aren't god.

 

[Epsilon]

I just read an even worse argument on the main board, namely that Dino Ciccarelli's HOF induction should have been fast-tracked years ago because his parents were dying and deserved to see him be inducted. Ciccarelli shouldn't even be there period, let alone be getting greased in so that he parents could be at the induction ceremony.

 

[Leafs Forever]

I just read an even worse argument on the main board, namely that Dino Ciccarelli's HOF induction should have been fast-tracked years ago because his parents were dying and deserved to see him be inducted. Ciccarelli shouldn't even be there period, let alone be getting greased in so that he parents could be at the induction ceremony.

Good to bring this up. I think inducting someone partly because they are dieing is definitely a step towards something like what this poster wants occurring.

We need to induct players on their accomplishments, not their health or their popularity.

 

[SidGenoMario]

Don't act like inducting Pat Burns would start a precedent. Don't act like it would start a slippery slope where inferior candidates will get in because they happen to have a sprained knee. This is a special case. You don't see a legit hall of fame candidate on his deathbed every day.

 

[Big Phil]

He'd have another cup with NJ. Cam Neely is in there for a shorten career. I have no doubt that Burns would have continued coaching and padded his stats.

Neely is a controversial induction. He got in a lot based on sentiment and the "what if" factor as well. His impact as a power forward helped, but he does have a weak HHOF resume overall.

You can't induct Burns on "what ifs" either. I have never seen the argument for inducting a guy based on what he potentially could have done.

I just read an even worse argument on the main board, namely that Dino Ciccarelli's HOF induction should have been fast-tracked years ago because his parents were dying and deserved to see him be inducted. Ciccarelli shouldn't even be there period, let alone be getting greased in so that he parents could be at the induction ceremony.

Ciccarelli commented on that as well. He wishes he got in before his parents died. I don't think he has any resentment, because in all honesty he is a very borderline inductee, but there are people who get a wave of emotion and feel the induction is worth it based on that. I could watch a highlight video of Dave Andreychuk showing him scoring goals and lifting the Cup at the end of the video and in some way shape or form I would think he deserved to get inducted. Then I would come back to earth and remember his actual career. The thing is, some people don't ever come back to earth whether it be voters, writers, etc.

 

[Leafs Forever]

Don't act like inducting Pat Burns would start a precedent. Don't act like it would start a slippery slope where inferior candidates will get in because they happen to have a sprained knee. This is a special case. You don't see a legit hall of fame candidate on his deathbed every day.

It does, though. I mean, why wouldn't we apply the logic to future inductions?

It wouldn't be due to sprained knees, it would be due to more severge injuries/age.

No, you don't see a guy as close to death as Burns was everyday. but the logic can go a lot broader than that.

 

[nnynetpotato]

I'd just like to point out that the "there's no coaches category" argument is a red herring,and a smelly one at that.

Coaches are explicitly included in the builders category.

If anyone doesn't think Burnsie's a good enough coach to be in the HOF,just say it and don't hide behind categories.