Alan Eagleson must be one of the most hated characters in hockey history. But he couldnÂ´t have been all that bad or could he?! Let me try to be positive for a while. Sure, if I had been a hockey player from Â´60s to Â´80s, I wouldnÂ´t have wanted him near my money. But nevertheless, he did some great things for international hockey. If I have understood correctly, he is the single most important person behind the Summit Series and Canada Cup(s), and without those and other significant exhibition games/tournaments hockey history would be so much duller IMO! I donÂ´t really even care what his motives were when he helped to organize the events. And as a person... probably not the most sophisticated guy in the world (and he could have left some of his antics undone during the Summit), but in the few interviews IÂ´ve seen him in he has appeared to be reasonably educated and not as tunnelvisioned and "black & white" as somebody like, say, Phil Esposito. So should Eagleson get some credit too or does the bad outweigh the good? What are your thoughts on him?