Former Canucks Thread

[vadim sharifijanov]

re: the 2003 draft, i think if it were up to me, i'm not sure how many, if any, guys would make the hall of fame other than bergeron.

but in the real world, where recent hall of famers include kevin lowe, dave andreychuk, phil housley, sergei zubov, and doug wilson, i think they'll find a way to induct a crapload of them.

fleury, staal, getzlaf, and weber are absolute locks.

fleury is 5th all time in goalie wins and it's very likely he'll retire #3, and that's even with his career being interrupted by two lockouts and a pandemic. he's also 5th all time in playoff wins, and has three cups and two finals. now it's a valid point that he only started in one and a half of his cup runs. but the hockey hall of fame cares not for valid points, they care about narrative. and fleury's narrative is three cups with pittsburgh, unceremoniously dumped in the expansion draft, where he showed the world by making the finals again.

staal, 1,000 points. objectively, there's not that much to choose from between staal or someone like jason spezza. but how many guys from the 2000 draft on are going to score 1,000 points? right now, the four guys other than staal are crosby, ovechkin, malkin, and kane. he'll likely be joined by getzlaf, kopitar, and backstrom, and likely bergeron, kessel, and stamkos, but that's still a very short list. add being the leading scorer on a cup winner and being the face of a nontraditional franchise success story and he checks all the boxes that need to be checked.

if/when he hits 1,000, getzlaf is a rich man's staal.

weber has the string of high norris placements, all-star nods, and international success. now that he's (successfully) captained the habs, he's over the top no questions asked.

that leaves suter (who will get a face of the franchise bump for minnesota and in all honesty was the best dman in this draft), burns (norris and more all-star nods than you'd think), and perry (hart trophy and all the team trophies) as strong maybes.

at the top of the unlikely pile are corey crawford and pavelski.

but even having said all this, with potentially eight hall of famers from this draft, it's weird to look back and think of a time when mike richards and dion phaneuf looked like locks early on, and a guy like zach parise looked like a strong bet, and vanek and kesler had a shot.

 

[F A N]

Guy certainly looked like Jacques Plante in his prime when he was ‘on’ but also looked liked Dan Cloutier at his worst sometimes. At least from my POV. Certainly many times more good than bad; but to me, not often average.

Fleury is *highly* questionable.

As noted, 0 post-season All-Star selections, 0 times a Vezina finalist. If inducted, that would make him a *massive* outlier.

He's always had a high pedigree and name value for being a #1 pick + the goalie on the Crosby/Malkin teams, but when you look at his career as a whole, it looks closer to something between Mike Richter and Chris Osgood than it does to the actual elite HHOF guys like Brodeur/Roy/Belfour/Hasek.

The standards on goalies have traditionally been higher than for position players. Richter, Vernon, Barrasso, Joseph all not in.

GSAA is an interesting new stat that is probably as close as you can get to a WAR stat for goalies - basically it's the amount of goals 'saved' by how far +/- your save % was to the league average. For their careers, the recent HHOF guys (and Luongo, who will get in) stand out from the pack :

Roy - 460
Hasek - 412
Luongo - 270
Brodeur - 206
Belfour - 173

Joseph - 126
Price - 110
Richter - 109
Kolzig - 99

Fleury - 46
Osgood - -15 (although he was at +25 until his last two terrible seasons)
Vernon - -34 (!)

Agree that comparatively, goalies have had it rough. There are plenty of forwards who had a great NHL career like Mark Recchi who were not among the best players in the league but yet entered the HOF. It's kind of not fair.

 

[kaiser matias]

Fleury is a hall of fame lock, can't believe anyone would even question that. Fifth all time in wins good shot to end up third, three cup wins and other finals appearances, high career save percentage, high career shutouts.

Easy first ballot entrance unless he's pissed off the writers who vote.

Not really writers who vote for the hall of fame, but a collection of people, mostly executives and the like (some writers though). It also does switch people out every few years, though not nearly enough.

Legends of Hockey - Induction Showcase - Selection Commitee

 

[kaiser matias]

Ya. A lot of players did (unexpectedly) peak early. It's like the game changed or something. It's still a very deep draft where you could throw drafts at a board and come away with an NHL player in the first round.

As for the HOF discussion, I actually think 1-3 of them would get in. It is an interesting debate though. A player like Eric Staal peaked early but had a long career. Won a Cup, appeared in all star games, no individual wards. Chances are his career totals will look better than Henrik's. But Henrik has won the Hart and Art Ross. There are some players with better career offensive totals who are not in the HOF.

Speaking of the Hart trophy, now that Lindros is in, besides Jose Theodore, every single retired player who has won the Hart trophy is in the HHOF thus far. So where does that leave Corey Perry?

Two older Hart winners are still looking in: Tommy Anderson and Al Rollins, and neither of them are getting in anytime soon (that you didn't know who they were says enough about how strong their chances are).

 

[RobertKron]

Agree that comparatively, goalies have had it rough. There are plenty of forwards who had a great NHL career like Mark Recchi who were not among the best players in the league but yet entered the HOF. It's kind of not fair.

I'd suggest that - depending on your definition - Recchi was "among the best players in the league" from ~90-94 finishing top 10 in points three times and once in goals. He also had a serious resurgence with a 3rd place point total ten years later during the dead puck era, and then played a significant role on a cup winner to close out his career in a totally different era another ten years after that. That's pretty remarkable. 12th all-time in points.

 

[Hit the post]

Two older Hart winners are still looking in: Tommy Anderson and Al Rollins, and neither of them are getting in anytime soon (that you didn't know who they were says enough about how strong their chances are).

Tells you just how good those original six years were like. A guy who won the Hart (Rollins) where his team was 12-47 (I mean, imagine how terrible they were REALLY if they didn't have him). Mostly three competitve teams & three meh-to-awful teams for long stretches. So much for the Laffs 13 Cups during this era.

I'd suggest that - depending on your definition - Recchi was "among the best players in the league" from ~90-93/4 finishing top 10 in points 3 times and once in goals. He also had a serious resurgence with a 3rd place point total ten years later during the dead puck era, and then played a significant role on a cup winner to close out his career in a totally different era another ten years after that. That's pretty remarkable.

As well as a practising physician. How many players in any sport can perform those dual roles?

 

[RobertKron]

As well as a practising physician. How many players in any sport can perform those dual roles?

I came back to this thread to edit in a jab about that. He was like a forward version of Randy Gregg.

Also, I got curious about the timeline of Gregg's medical degree, and found this hilarious passage from his Wiki article which should get him inducted to the hall, TBH:

Gregg continued to be a solid contributor over the next few seasons for the Oilers as they dominated the NHL and won the 1985 Stanley Cup, although he would be slowed somewhat by injuries. However, hockey was still something of a temporary career for Gregg, and he was conflicted about when he should leave the sport and take up his medical career[citation needed]. He retired after the Oilers' disappointing loss in the 1986 playoffs, but changed his mind six weeks into the season and helped Edmonton win their third championship in 1986–87.[4] He retired from professional hockey again for the 1987–88 campaign to enter a residency program in orthopedic surgery as well as represent Canada at the 1988 Winter Olympics, but re-joined Edmonton for the playoffs to win another Stanley Cup.
Gregg spent two more years with the Oilers as a solid depth defender, helping the team win their fifth Stanley Cup in seven years in 1990. He was one of seven players to play for all five championship teams. Exposed in the NHL Waiver Draft in 1990, he was claimed by the Vancouver Canucks but decided again to retire. However, after a year away from the sport, he signed with the Canucks for the 1991–92 campaign, appearing in 21 games and providing valued veteran leadership for a young improving team, before retiring for good following the season.[5]

Exposed in the NHL Waiver Draft in 1990, he was claimed by the Vancouver Canucks but decided again to retire.

 

[kaiser matias]

Tells you just how good those original six years were like. A guy who won the Hart (Rollins) where his team was 12-47 (I mean, imagine how terrible they were REALLY if they didn't have him). Mostly three competitve teams & three meh-to-awful teams for long stretches. So much for the Laffs 13 Cups during this era.


As well as a practising physician. How many players in any sport can perform those dual roles?

The consensus for Rollins is that the Hawks would have been even worse had he not been there. Hard to imagine that being possible, but there is logic to it. That also may have been one of the years when they still did two votes: one at the half way point of the season, and one at the end, but I would have to look at it some more. It's been discussed on the History board here before, and contemporary news reports were not surprised at all that he won.

What it did do though is mess up the couple year: Ted Kennedy had a strong season in 1953-54, but didn't win the Hart. He was given it in 1954-55 when he retired (he came back for a few games in 1956-57). That was seen not for that season but more a recognition of his career, which is ridiculous on the whole.

 

[MS]

fleury, staal, getzlaf, and weber are absolute locks.

The HHOF have had several years to put in Elias and Alfredsson and have not. Both (IMO) were better than Staal and have better resumes than Staal, so there is no way Staal can be considered an absolute lock.

See my post on Fleury just above. He might make it on reputation, but his resume is seriously suspect. He's closer to Chris Osgood than to the recent goalie HHOF inductees.

 

[MS]

The point was not about their awards voting but that the same folks would leave Malkin off a list in place of Toews because reasons.

Same folks gave Corey Perry a Hart because they were loathed to give it to the deserving because reasons.

Ah, I get what you're saying but I don't really think there's another way. It's the best we have in terms of hard evidence and it's usually pretty close to correct.

It's also worth nothing that there are usually multiple votes on excellence in a given year made by different groups.

Pearson vs. Hart, Norris/Vezina vs. All-Star voting, etc.

 

[F A N]

I'd suggest that - depending on your definition - Recchi was "among the best players in the league" from ~90-94 finishing top 10 in points three times and once in goals. He also had a serious resurgence with a 3rd place point total ten years later during the dead puck era, and then played a significant role on a cup winner to close out his career in a totally different era another ten years after that. That's pretty remarkable. 12th all-time in points.

How much of Recchi's production came from playing happened playing with Lemieux and Jagr or playing behind them?

Regardless, there's no doubt that Recchi had a great career but you can apply the arguments you just made to Fleury. At what point was Recchi considered in contention for best player in the game? Top 3? Using the same arguments you advanced, I would suggest that Fleury was "among the best" goaltenders in the league as in he was a top 10 goalie for most of his prime. He also backstopped the expansion team Vegas to the Cup Finals. He's #5 now in all time regular season wins among goalies and has a good chance of finishing #3 when his career is over. He's 6th all time in playoff wins. But for COVID, MAF might have a good chance of finishing ahead of Roy in career regular season wins. Statistically that's a HOF resume.

 

[RobertKron]

How much of Recchi's production came from playing happened playing with Lemieux and Jagr or playing behind them?

Regardless, there's no doubt that Recchi had a great career but you can apply the arguments you just made to Fleury. At what point was Recchi considered in contention for best player in the game? Top 3? Using the same arguments you advanced, I would suggest that Fleury was "among the best" goaltenders in the league as in he was a top 10 goalie for most of his prime. He also backstopped the expansion team Vegas to the Cup Finals. He's #5 now in all time regular season wins among goalies and has a good chance of finishing #3 when his career is over. He's 6th all time in playoff wins. But for COVID, MAF might have a good chance of finishing ahead of Roy in career regular season wins. Statistically that's a HOF resume.

I don't really care about Fleury. I'm commenting on Mark Recchi.

In 90-91, Lemieux played 26 regular season games. Recchi scored 13 more goals, and twice as many points as Jagr in 2 fewer games.
The next year he led Jagr in PPG with the Pens and then he went midseason to a pre-Lindros Philly, and led them in PPG.
The following year, he led Philly in goals and points.
The next year he still led Philly in points, although Lindros scored at a higher rate.
The year after that, he was traded to Montreal and still led them in goals and points despite only playing like 80% of their games. He continued to be a top end player for the Habs and then closed out the century with a whopper of a year back in Philly where he was a finalist for the Pearson.

It might have been the BC boy hype, but Recchi was a legit star in his own right in the early 90s, and was certainly considered to be among the best players in the league at times.

 

[MS]

Agree that comparatively, goalies have had it rough. There are plenty of forwards who had a great NHL career like Mark Recchi who were not among the best players in the league but yet entered the HOF. It's kind of not fair.

It's a hard thing to measure because the 10th best defender in the game is absolutely elite, while the 10th best goalie is ... pretty average.

I am basically the president of the Mike Liut fanclub as he's a goalie who should 100% be a HHOFer. Best goalie of the 1980s, full stop. But played on terrible teams and was unfairly scapegoated for the 1981 Canada Cup, so hasn't gotten in.

I'd be OK with Joseph or Richter getting in. Would not be ok with Vernon, Osgood, or Barrasso. Fleury ... ehhhhh. I would have been a 'no' during his Pittsburgh years but his first season in Vegas was exceptional and really added to his legacy.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

How much of Recchi's production came from playing happened playing with Lemieux and Jagr or playing behind them?

almost none.

you should really take a close look at mark recchi's career, you'd be super surprised.

he played less than three seasons in pittsburgh, before being traded to philly. in his rookie year, mario missed 1/4 of the season but if you want to give mario credit for recchi's rookie stats that doesn't make much of a dent in his career stats. his second year was jagr's rookie year, where jagr scored half the number of points recchi did. mario missed all but something like 25 games that year. in recchi's year three, he was traded midway through the season to philly.

recchi's three best years are '91 and '00.

in '91, he led the penguins to the playoffs with mario out almost all year. he finished fourth in points, behind gretzky and peak hull and oates. if not for recchi, pittsburgh might not have even made the playoffs, so mario owes him just as much as he owes mario. but yes, he was on mario and kevin stevens' line in the playoffs, where he put up the fifth highest scoring playoff run of all time by anyone not named wayne or mario.

in '00, with lindros out all year, recchi finished third in scoring, behind jagr and bure. then he is far and away the best flyer and leads them to within a goal of the stanley cup finals.

so yeah, that guy could carry the mail. i once looked up the effect on recchi's stats in his high scoring philly years (his third and fourth best years were 10th/123 points in '93, 5th/107 points in '94) and recchi's scoring actually goes significantly up when lindros was out of the lineup, which happened iirc during three prolonged periods in those two years.

 

[Hit the post]

The consensus for Rollins is that the Hawks would have been even worse had he not been there. Hard to imagine that being possible, but there is logic to it. That also may have been one of the years when they still did two votes: one at the half way point of the season, and one at the end, but I would have to look at it some more. It's been discussed on the History board here before, and contemporary news reports were not surprised at all that he won.

What it did do though is mess up the couple year: Ted Kennedy had a strong season in 1953-54, but didn't win the Hart. He was given it in 1954-55 when he retired (he came back for a few games in 1956-57). That was seen not for that season but more a recognition of his career, which is ridiculous on the whole.

Appreciate the summation of the history involved. Thanks.

 

[MS]

Mark Recchi and Larry Murphy had very similar careers. Marginal peak value for a HHOFer and almost zero star power or legacy - both guys were essentially 'journeyman stars' - but ended with massive career value and a pile of Cup rings.

 

[RobertKron]

Mark Recchi and Larry Murphy had very similar careers. Marginal peak value for a HHOFer and almost zero star power or legacy - both guys were essentially 'journeyman stars' - but ended with massive career value and a pile of Cup rings.

Part of it is that if you fast forward 10-15 years, almost everyone except for a very few era-defining players get lost in the shuffle - especially, I think, when you're talking about guys who ended up having long careers, and didn't spend the entire time at the top.

 

[MS]

Part of it is that if you fast forward 10-15 years, almost everyone except for a very few era-defining players get lost in the shuffle - especially, I think, when you're talking about guys who ended up having long careers, and didn't spend the entire time at the top.

I can't think of many (any?) HHOF-calibre guys of the past decade who jumped around and had as little star quality or identity as those two did.

If either had had a normal downturn at age 30 through an age 35 retirement, they wouldn't be in the HHOF. Both are in for their career numbers and Cups.

 

[Hit the post]

Mark Recchi and Larry Murphy had very similar careers. Marginal peak value for a HHOFer and almost zero star power or legacy - both guys were essentially 'journeyman stars' - but ended with massive career value and a pile of Cup rings.

Hey, Murphy was a great decoy on this shift:

 

[RobertKron]

I can't think of many (any?) HHOF-calibre guys of the past decade who jumped around and had as little star quality or identity as those two did.

If either had had a normal downturn at age 30 through an age 35 retirement, they wouldn't be in the HHOF. Both are in for their career numbers and Cups.

But they didn't have that happen, though. Recchi had arguably his best season at 31. He put up like 800+ points, and played significant roles in two cup wins after the age of 30. That's remarkable in itself, TBH.

 

[MS]

But they didn't have that happen, though. Recchi had arguably his best season at 31. He put up like 800+ points, and played significant roles in two cup wins after the age of 30. That's remarkable in itself, TBH.

I'm not saying Recchi shouldn't be in the HHOF. I'm just saying why he made it.

 

[RobertKron]

I'm not saying Recchi shouldn't be in the HHOF. I'm just saying why he made it.

I do remember finding my old hockey magazines at some point, though, and being surprised at the company in which Recchi was mentioned in the early 90s.

I also kind of don't get the weird reverence people have for the HHOF. Like, okay cool some guy scored 25 goals with a weird haircut and kids started doing the same thing for a year? Let him in. Who cares? Get Mellanby's rat in there.

Everyone will remember Crosby or whoever, but I wish there'd be a bit more effort to chronicling fleeting moments like Gilbert Dionne's goal celebration or Dan Blackburn's two blockers or whatever, and recognizing the greatness of those lower tier stars who really help to flesh out an era.

 

[F A N]

I can't think of many (any?) HHOF-calibre guys of the past decade who jumped around and had as little star quality or identity as those two did.

If either had had a normal downturn at age 30 through an age 35 retirement, they wouldn't be in the HHOF. Both are in for their career numbers and Cups.

That's kind of my general feeling as well. Recchi was kind of like Andreychuk. Did they have some seasons where they ranked as one of the top point producers / goal scorers in the league? Yes. But they didn't have that star quality you speak of. Kind of like if John LeClair had 1-2 more prime seasons in him.

 

[Jyrki21]

The very idea of who is in the HoF and who isn’t is one of the weirdest distinctions/debates to me. Like, they get a small panel in a building in Toronto that none of us ever go to, and that’s really about it. It’s not like it changes anything about their career one way or the other...

 

[RobertKron]

If the criteria for the HHOF was "star quality" there'd be like twenty guys in there.