How good was Mats Sundin?

[The Panther]

I don't see how Sundin could possibly be rated better than say, seventh among Toronto players unless someone basically disregards the strongest periods in the franchise's history. Sundin was by far the best player during a poor era in Toronto, but that doesn't mean so much when Toronto has great players who played on dynasty level teams.

Look, I'm an Oilers' fan -- I remember the Dynasty. But I don't rate Glenn Anderson above Connor McDavid. At some point, if we're doing player comparisons, we have to attempt separating players from teams. Maybe we can't (and shouldn't) do it entirely, but we have to do it to as large an extent as we can.

(I also don't think the Sundin era was a "poor era" in the team's history. It was probably the team's best era since expansion.)

 

[BadgerBruce]

Mats Sundin was an excellent player and usually a genuine pleasure to watch.

The comparable that comes to mind is Jean Ratelle.

My appreciation of Ratelle is far stronger than most people’s, but he isn’t legitimately a Top 5 all-time Ranger or a Top 100 player of all-time. I still shelled out the cash to see him play against the Sabres back in the early-70s, so I’m hardly disrespecting his game. Worth every penny, but I never lost perspective on just how good he was.

Sundin is a bit like that. Worth the price of a ticket all day long, but not legitimately a Top 5 All-time Leaf or Top 100 player of all-time.

 

[JackSlater]

Look, I'm an Oilers' fan -- I remember the Dynasty. But I don't rate Glenn Anderson above Connor McDavid. At some point, if we're doing player comparisons, we have to attempt separating players from teams. Maybe we can't (and shouldn't) do it entirely, but we have to do it to as large an extent as we can.

(I also don't think the Sundin era was a "poor era" in the team's history. It was probably the team's best era since expansion.)

Sundin isn't McDavid and Keon/Apps/Conacher/Kennedy/Broda/Horton aren't Anderson. Sundin is behind players who had better individual results and actually led dynasties or at least championship teams.

You may be correct that it wasn't a poor era for Toronto, but only because you could call the whole post expansion period more of a poor epoch for Toronto.

 

[scott clam]

Was he not as good in the playoffs? Sittler is before my time, but I'm looking at his 65 points in 64 games, and minus 14, versus Mats' 70 points in 77 games, and plus 7, in the dead puck era. Just based on those stats, I would likely prefer Sundin. (I'm not aware of any particular intangibles Sittler brought to the table besides offense, but I could be wrong.)

In '77 Sittler has a ridiculous 21 points in 9 playoff games, which is even more than I thought he got, when I wrote that.

That's around the time he had the 10 point game, and the 117 point season. Then the next year he leads the Leafs to the semifinal, where predictably they're crushed by the Hab dynasty. Still pretty impressive though, when you consider this is the Harold Ballard Leafs.

This is all about ten years before I was born, but that's a pretty nice peak, if I do say so myself.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I don't understand this opinion at all. It's fine to say you're entrenched in Kennedy over Sundin (or whoever), but you should acknowledge that there's at least a discussion to be had there. Probably a very two-way discussion.

It's a very simple calculation for me: If Sundin is Kennedy's equal or better, then we are severely disrespecting Kennedy's era. This is the history section, I choose to respect all eras.

 

[Fantomas]

Sundin isn't McDavid and Keon/Apps/Conacher/Kennedy/Broda/Horton aren't Anderson. Sundin is behind players who had better individual results and actually led dynasties or at least championship teams.

Leading dynasties, even playing for dynasties, is much harder in today's NHL than in the past. Dynasties don't even exist anymore.

Downgrading Sundin because he didn't lead a dynasty is insanely unreasonable. It's as meaningless as giving a player from the 50s extra credit for winning Stanley cups. In those days, it was merely a matter of ending up on one of the handful of winning teams.

It's not Sundin's fault the Leafs didn't win a championship either. The NHL is a more global and more competitive league, with more teams, more parity. It is harder to win now than ever.

And it's not Sundin's fault that the Leafs organization has been terribly mismanaged for decades. That blame goes to certain guys wearing suits.

 

[JackSlater]

Leading dynasties, even playing for dynasties, is much harder in today's NHL than in the past. Dynasties don't even exist anymore.

Downgrading Sundin because he didn't lead a dynasty is insanely unreasonable. It's as meaningless as giving a player from the 50s extra credit for winning Stanley cups. In those days, it was merely a matter of ending up on one of the handful of winning teams.

It's not Sundin's fault the Leafs didn't win a championship either. The NHL is a more global and more competitive league, with more teams, more parity. It is harder to win now than ever.

And it's not Sundin's fault that the Leafs organization has been terribly mismanaged for decades. That blame goes to certain guys wearing suits.

All of this has essentially nothing to do with what I was talking about. I'm not a cup counter by any means, but I do not think that the various Toronto players who were better than Sundin and led dynasties in some cases should be compared to Glenn Anderson.

 

[Fantomas]

All of this has essentially nothing to do with what I was talking about. I'm not a cup counter by any means, but I do not think that the various Toronto players who were better than Sundin and led dynasties in some cases should be compared to Glenn Anderson.

It shouldn't matter one bit whether someone was on a dynasty team in the 50s, whether leading or otherwise.

 

[JackSlater]

It shouldn't matter one bit whether someone was on a dynasty team in the 50s, whether leading or otherwise.

You still don't understand the post apparently but thanks for the reply.

 

[Fantomas]

You still don't understand the post apparently but thanks for the reply.

I think I understand you just fine. You place some weight on player contributions for winning teams, and my response is that those contributions result from opportunities derived from circumstances they cannot control.

That's apparent in your sentence, which I quoted above verbatim: "Sundin is behind players who had better individual results and actually led dynasties or at least championship teams."

I'm fine with the first part of the sentence, but not so much the second.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Was Ted Kennedy subtly compared to Glenn Anderson?

wow

 

[JackSlater]

I think I understand you just fine. You place some weight on player contributions for winning teams, and my response is that those contributions result from opportunities derived from circumstances they cannot control.

No, you don't understand clearly. The players had better individual results than Sundin and unlike Glenn Anderson they were the leaders of their teams.

 

[Fantomas]

No, you don't understand clearly. The players had better individual results than Sundin and unlike Glenn Anderson they were the leaders of their teams.

Thanks for rearticulating your point, but - again - I was simply replying to what you wrote.

 

[JackSlater]

Thanks for rearticulating your point, but - again - I was simply replying to what you wrote.

Yes and pretty irrelevantly I'll add given what I actually said and my thoughts regarding the subject, but it is a discussion board after all.

 

[Fantomas]

Yes and pretty irrelevantly I'll add given what I actually said and my thoughts regarding the subject, but it is a discussion board after all.

I don't want to bicker over small potatoes, but when you write "Sundin is behind players who had better individual results and actually led dynasties or at least championship teams" and then say "it's not what I mean", that's not my fault.

Discussion is good. Obfuscation, not so much.

 

[Craig Button]

Sundin was a great Player.
Does everything very well.
Great Slapper.
Great Wrister.
Great backhand.
Very good along the boards.
Great behind the net
Great at the front of the net.
Great at the point.

Was very physical when protecting the puck.
Threw checks as well just wasn’t dirty about it.
He wasn’t throwing checks a lot because he mainly had the puck all the time.
When he was an active NHLer he led in Overtime goals and Currently he ‘s 12th all time in Game winning goals.

He was a fantastic player.

unfortunately he played with players that were either past their prime or did not belong in the NHL.
When he played with talent it was with Team Sweden. In Salt Lake where he defeated Canada pretty easily and led in points for the tournament. Unfortunately Sweden had a very bad goalie.
in Torino he was getting old but was still a great player. That Face off win helped Sweden win Gold.

For the Leafs he was the primary playmaker and goal scorer.
So unfortunately he can not get the assist for the plays he creates and scored on.

 

[billybudd]

I don't know about "great," but the value of a big, strong, skilled right-handed center who can finish, can distribute the puck, win faceoffs and has a great backhand shouldn't be understated. Probably every hockey club that ever existed could have found a prominent role for this guy. Solid, franchise center.

 

[wetcoast]

It's a very simple calculation for me: If Sundin is Kennedy's equal or better, then we are severely disrespecting Kennedy's era. This is the history section, I choose to respect all eras.

Exactly how is someone who thinks that Sundin is equal or heck even better than Ted Kennedy disrespecting Kennedy's era?

Everyone should respect all eras but the thing is that eras are different as are the makeup of teams.

In the recent top 100 players of all time project a respected poster brought up the fact that from one team in the 50's 3 players from that single team (Plante the goalie from that team would go on to be voted in at 19 before any other player from those other dynasties would be voted in. Messier would be the first at 21)) were voted into the top 9 yet only a single player (Gretzky) from 3 later dynasties was voted in.

Now that's entirely possible but it also suggests that different eras get somewhat different treatment as well.

 

[JackSlater]

I don't want to bicker over small potatoes, but when you write "Sundin is behind players who had better individual results and actually led dynasties or at least championship teams" and then say "it's not what I mean", that's not my fault.

Discussion is good. Obfuscation, not so much.

Your post might make sense if my original post had been made in isolation and not in direct response to a post talking about Sundin and Anderson. It might even make sense if I thought the things that you randomly railed against in your irrelevant reply, but that isn't the case either. If you wait around for a day or so you'll get plenty of relevant chances to talk about the size of the NHL, don't worry.

 

[The Panther]

I can't believe I have to explain this, but no, I was not comparing Kennedy to Glenn Anderson. THE POINT -- as if you actually missed it -- was that in individual player comparisons we should not assume greater status to the one who played on dynasties. That was all.

Besides the fact that they played on Cup winners (at a time when playing for the Leafs or Habs or Wings automatically meant you had a 50% chance to win the Cup every season), what, as individual performers, do players like Broda, Horton, etc. have over Sundin?

Based on this thread's (better) posts, I'd agree that Sittler seems like about a fair comparison to Sundin.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Leading dynasties, even playing for dynasties, is much harder in today's NHL than in the past. Dynasties don't even exist anymore.

Downgrading Sundin because he didn't lead a dynasty is insanely unreasonable. It's as meaningless as giving a player from the 50s extra credit for winning Stanley cups. In those days, it was merely a matter of ending up on one of the handful of winning teams.

It's not Sundin's fault the Leafs didn't win a championship either. The NHL is a more global and more competitive league, with more teams, more parity. It is harder to win now than ever.

And it's not Sundin's fault that the Leafs organization has been terribly mismanaged for decades. That blame goes to certain guys wearing suits.

the counterargument to it’s not sundin’s fault he never played on a superteam is, well actually it at least kind of was. he was drafted to a team that won two cups and made four other conference finals in a seven year run. and of three hall of fame centers on that roster, he was the one who was deemed expendable.

 

[BenchBrawl]

the counterargument to it’s not sundin’s fault he never played on a superteam is, well actually it at least kind of was. he was drafted to a team that won two cups and made four other conference finals in a seven year run. and of three hall of fame centers on that roster, he was the one who was deemed expendable.

Very good point. Especially ironic in the context of this thread considering Quebec was trying to acquire what was, in essence, a Ted Kennedy type of player = warrior, playoff, etc. If Kennedy was on Quebec, would they have traded him? At age 19 Kennedy in the playoffs scored twice as many goals as anyone on his team to capture his first of many Stanley Cups. Not sure how good defensively he was at that particular age (I'd have to dig it up), but we can suspect he was already pretty good.

 

[Stephen]

the counterargument to it’s not sundin’s fault he never played on a superteam is, well actually it at least kind of was. he was drafted to a team that won two cups and made four other conference finals in a seven year run. and of three hall of fame centers on that roster, he was the one who was deemed expendable.

Pretty comfortable with the scenario that the Colorado Nordiques would have done just fine and won their fair share of Stanley Cups with Mats Sundin instead of Claude Lemieux.

The notion that a player getting traded off a roster that goes onto win success is somehow to blame? That truly belongs buried deep on a random message board.

 

[The Panther]

The notion that a player getting traded off a roster that goes onto win success is somehow to blame? That truly belongs buried deep on a random message board.

That's what I was going to say.

Go back and look at the Maple Leafs' line-up from 1998 to 2004 when they were regularly having 100 point-ish seasons, and then ask yourself where they would have been without Sundin leading on and off the ice. A strong roster that was not.

Now, if the Nords had been smarter, they'd have traded Sundin not for Wendel Clark but for Claude Lemieux plus another good top player.

It's this constant under-appreciation of Sundin by Maple Leafs' people that continually baffles me. I'm not even a Sundin fan per se, but this skewed perception of him drives me nuts.

 

[Johnny Engine]

Now, if the Nords had been smarter, they'd have traded Sundin not for Wendel Clark but for Claude Lemieux plus another good top player.

Small point here - if Wendel Clark=Claude Lemieux (and at very least the Avalanche and Islanders agreed they were at one point in the fall of 1995), they Nordiques did acquire that along with Sylvain Lefebvre - not a flashy name by any means, but a guy capable of being the #3 on a Stanley Cup winning team is something teams are looking for constantly, every year.
(and yes, the trade was more 4 even swaps of star forwards, regular defensemen, prospects, and draft picks, but out of the 6 other pieces that moved, only Lefebvre contributed much going forward).