Mats Naslund

BraveCanadian

Registered User
Jun 30, 2010
14,521
3,357
Compared to whom? Markus? Probably true if you mean that, but then - even if we remove Lemieux and Gretzky as part of an exercise - Naslund's scoring finishes were:

82/83 56th
83/84 74th
84/85 34th
85/86 6th
86/87 20th
87/88 27th
88/89 27th
89/90 150th

You can see that aside from one year Naslund wasn't ever even really in the scoring race.

Take a look at the top 5 from 85/86 and look at the top 5 in 02/03.

And again, Vancouver was an offensive team in 02/03 (2/30 in the league in scoring, 10/30 in defense) and Montreal (6/21 in offense, 4/21 in defense) was a relatively defensive team in 85/86.

The point being that Mats Naslund is generally underrated. I really don't care which one was better enough to make that argument either way.
 

TheMoreYouKnow

Registered User
May 3, 2007
16,384
3,410
38° N 77° W
Using the era argument to discredit Swedish players from the 80s is silly. Swedish stars in the 70s and 80s went through the same kind of adjustment problems that the former Soviet went through in the early 90s. Just like you can't judge Fetisov or Makarov by what they did in the NHL, you can't judge players like Naslund and Loob by their NHL careers alone.

There's a few problems with that. The Soviets are held to a different standard because they were legally barred from playing professionally and dominated non-NHL international competition. Guys like Makarov and Fetisov came over as over 30 year old guys past their prime and had to make a switch from a communist regime to a free society at the same time.

Swedes like Naslund, Nilsson and Loob came over as young guys in their early 20s, as they could, and simply moved from one country in the West to another. Especially in Naslund and Nilsson's case, they spent their prime years in North America and went back home once they got near 30.

It's not like there's a hugely relevant body of work here outside the NHL so we could say with any certainty that the NHL didn't see the best of those guys.
 

TheMoreYouKnow

Registered User
May 3, 2007
16,384
3,410
38° N 77° W
Take a look at the top 5 from 85/86 and look at the top 5 in 02/03.

And again, Vancouver was an offensive team in 02/03 (2/30 in the league in scoring, 10/30 in defense) and Montreal (6/21 in offense, 4/21 in defense) was a relatively defensive team in 85/86.

The point being that Mats Naslund is generally underrated. I really don't care which one was better enough to make that argument either way.

Vancouver had good offensive stats because they had a great scoring line of which Markus Naslund was basically the anchor. It's not like the early 2000s Canucks were some kind of Oilers-like juggernaut and Naslund was a hanger-on.

The main difference between Markus and Mats is that Markus has a HHOF case (he may not make it, but he has a case) whereas Mats doesn't have even a hint of one.
 

steve141

Registered User
Aug 13, 2009
1,144
240
Swedes like Naslund, Nilsson and Loob came over as young guys in their early 20s, as they could, and simply moved from one country in the West to another. Especially in Naslund and Nilsson's case, they spent their prime years in North America and went back home once they got near 30.

It's not like there's a hugely relevant body of work here outside the NHL so we could say with any certainty that the NHL didn't see the best of those guys.

I don't know what you would consider a "hugely relevant body of work outside the NHL", but Naslund's career outside of the NHL includes:

  • 9 seasons in the SEL
  • 1 in Switzerland
  • 3 Olympics
  • 3 Canada Cups
  • 6 World Championships
  • Youngest player ever to play in the SEL
  • Won the Guldpucken (The SEL equivalent to the Hart Trophy) as a 20 year old
  • Won three SEL championships
  • One of the three original members of the Triple Gold Club

Again, judging the career of Swedish players in the 70s and 80s based purely on what they did in the NHL is rediculous, since that implies that they weren't any good during the rest of their career. I agree that Naslund's prime was in the NHL, but most forwards actually have their offensive peak before the age of 25. Naslund was 23 when he joined the NHL, very very late compared to most players.

I won't bother to list Loob's accomplishments outside the NHL, since you obviously don't know his career very well. Think of him as the Gretzky of the SEL and you will get a hunch. When he retired he held almost every career and single season record in the SEL. If that's not a hugely relevant body of work outside the NHL I don't know what is.

For Kenta Nilsson I don't even know what a prime year would be. He was the best player in the world for five games a year, throughout his career. He still had his incredible stick-handling when playing in Switzerland, even though he was terribly out of shape.
 

steve141

Registered User
Aug 13, 2009
1,144
240
The main difference between Markus and Mats is that Markus has a HHOF case (he may not make it, but he has a case) whereas Mats doesn't have even a hint of one.

The main difference between Mats and Markus is that Markus spent his career not playing as well as expected and Mats spent his playing better than expected. Looking at their careers in total you have to come to the conclusion that maybe one of them was simply overhyped, and the other one underhyped.

I'd take the heart of Le Petit Viking over the snap shot of Nassie any day.
 
Last edited:

TheMoreYouKnow

Registered User
May 3, 2007
16,384
3,410
38° N 77° W
Sorry but I won't really care too much about what some guy does in the SEL with regards to player greatness especially if that guy also has a substantial body of work in the NHL. The SEL is and was a second rate league compared to the NHL and plenty of guys did well there who never made it over or couldn't cut it in North America (Robert Burakovsky, Thomas Sjogren, Thomas Rundqvist etc.).

And to be at all relevant here we'd have to assume that Mats Naslund was better at ages 18-22 and 32-34 in Sweden than he was in the NHL between age 23 and 30 which doesn't seem very likely. Again, a major difference to the Soviets of the Green Unit is that those Swedes came over in their prime and gave the NHL a good shot, the Soviets didn't have that chance.

And it's not like those Swedes didn't play well over in the NHL, I just won't say "oh wow 42 points in the SEL, that changes everything".
 

vadim sharifijanov

Registered User
Oct 10, 2007
28,585
15,948
The main difference between Mats and Markus is that Markus spent his career not playing as well as expected and Mats spent his playing better than expected. Looking at their careers in total you have to come to the conclusion that maybe one of them was simply overhyped, and the other one underhyped.

I'd take the heart of Le Petit Viking over the slap shot of Nassie any day.

it's wrist shot, but i would generally agree. i think mats is getting a little overblown in this thread -- he's not MSL -- but against markus it's a legit conversation. lafontaine or turgeon? elias or kovalev? hell, cammalleri or heatley? pavelski or thornton?
 

TheMoreYouKnow

Registered User
May 3, 2007
16,384
3,410
38° N 77° W
Markus has three 1st team all-star selections, four time top 10 goal scorer, three time top 5 scorer. Mats has one 2nd team selection, one assist and one point top 10 finish (same year).

Markus was 6th in points per game between 98/99 and 05/06 (more than 300 games played). Mats was 26th between 82/83 and 88/89 (more than 300 games played). That's a huge gap and shows that Mats was one of those good but not elite guys through most of his NHL career whereas Markus was one of the elite for that time span.

I don't even like Markus all that much but the gap is just too big to overlook.
 

steve141

Registered User
Aug 13, 2009
1,144
240
Sorry but I won't really care too much about what some guy does in the SEL with regards to player greatness especially if that guy also has a substantial body of work in the NHL. The SEL is and was a second rate league compared to the NHL and plenty of guys did well there who never made it over or couldn't cut it in North America (Robert Burakovsky, Thomas Sjogren, Thomas Rundqvist etc.).

That's a very simplistic view of the history of hockey that does not consider the fact that both the NHL and the SEL have changed since the 80s. The SEL of the 80s was not the watered down league it is today. Most of the good Swedish players played the majority of their career in Sweden. Establishing themselves in North America was the exception, not the expectation for promising young players.

You are not going to convince me that a guy like Rundqvist, who played 267 games for the national team and is 12th all time in SEL scoring, was a worse player than current NHL players like Sjostrom and Stalberg, just because he didn't have an impressive NHL career. Today's players have an entirely different support system that make it easy for them to move to North America. The teams today are also more prepared to spend time and money on developing Swedish players, whereas Swedes in the 80s had to produce from day one or go home.

Anders Eldebrink is another good example. A consensus top 5 Swedish defenceman ever that could not establish himself in the NHL. Are you telling me that Andreas Lilja is the better player just because he has a Stanley Cup?

You are of course free to not consider what players do outside of the NHL, but then you will of course never be able to properly evaluate players who played professionally in other leagues.
 

TheMoreYouKnow

Registered User
May 3, 2007
16,384
3,410
38° N 77° W
I am not gonna deny that some guys who played SEL in the 80s and didn't make it would make it now with more jobs available and NHL teams more open to Europeans but really that's not what this was about.

This is about a Swede who did make it in the NHL and did spend a long time in the league. So the question was whether Naslund's SEL years can elevate his overall evaluation which I just don't think they can given that he spent his prime years in the NHL.
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,362
83,430
Vancouver, BC
Used 1943-44 since that was the introduction of the Red Line which created the modern transition game and impacted on the way LW is played.

Are you really serious about Mats vs Markus. Adjust all you want but the stats clearly indicate that on an assists per game basis Mats had it all over Markus during the regular season 0.59 > 0.42
and during the playoffs 0.56 > ~0.40.

Surely you can see the problem with taking raw assist totals from 50/60/70 game seasons from 1943-67 and comparing them to a guy playing 80 games.

And absolutely, Markus Naslund was a better playmaker than Mats.

Markus finished 4th, 8th, 9th in assists to Mats' solitary 8th.

Markus's 3 best seasons for adjusted assists are 62, 57, 56.
Mats' 3 best seasons for adjusted assists are 53, 49, 47.

And the career numbers are skewed because one spent basically his entire pro career in the NHL (including weak seasons as a young/old player) while the other spent only his 'cream' years between the ages of 23 and 31 in the NHL.

Take an 8-season window on Markus Naslund's A/G from the middle of his career and it climbs to 0.52, only slightly off Mats' number despite playing in a massively lower-scoring era.

You're completely discounting the fact that the Canadiens were not a run and gun like most of the league was during that time.

Adjusted stats aren't even going to be close to the truth for Mats Naslund. (they are generally not close to the truth anyways, but even moreso for people who played on teams going against the grain; see also the 70s Bruins and Habs)

Anyone who saw him play will tell you that he could have scored more if he played for a team that took more risks.

As others have mentioned, Montreal as a 'defensive' team during the 1980s still obliterate anything from the dead puck era in terms of goal scoring.

Adjusted points aren't perfect, but they're a hell of a lot better judge of a player's abilities than simple raw numbers.

Relative standing in comparison to your peers makes the peers matter a lot.

I can say rather emphatically that in looking at their best seasons, Mats Naslund had a lot better competition in the scoring race.

Markus Naslund was top-5 in scoring 3 times. Mats Naslund was top-20 once.

That discrepancy isn't because of 'better competition'.

The main difference between Mats and Markus is that Markus spent his career not playing as well as expected and Mats spent his playing better than expected. Looking at their careers in total you have to come to the conclusion that maybe one of them was simply overhyped, and the other one underhyped.

I'd take the heart of Le Petit Viking over the snap shot of Nassie any day.

That's honestly one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen here.

Markus Naslund was a First-Team All-Star 3 times. He was runner-up for the NHL scoring title twice.

When you look at adjusted points, Markus has 7 of the 8 best seasons put up by the two players.

The careers of the two players aren't even close. The fact that Markus struggled in the NHL from age 20-22 and again in his mid-30s doesn't change that.
 

BraveCanadian

Registered User
Jun 30, 2010
14,521
3,357
Markus Naslund was top-5 in scoring 3 times. Mats Naslund was top-20 once.

That discrepancy isn't because of 'better competition'.

Looking at their best seasons it sure is:

1. Peter Forsberg-COL 106
2. Markus Naslund-VAN 104
3. Joe Thornton-BOS 101
4. Milan Hejduk-COL 98
5. Todd Bertuzzi-VAN 97

vs.

1. Wayne Gretzky*-EDM 215
2. Mario Lemieux*-PIT 141
3. Paul Coffey*-EDM 138
4. Jari Kurri*-EDM 131
5. Mike Bossy*-NYI 123

If you don't see a big difference in the quality of the names on those lists.. I don't know what to say.. 2-3 borderline hall of fame caliber players vs. 5 guys who were all locks.

Markus Naslund was a First-Team All-Star 3 times. He was runner-up for the NHL scoring title twice.

When you look at adjusted points, Markus has 7 of the 8 best seasons put up by the two players.

Adjusted points.

The careers of the two players aren't even close. The fact that Markus struggled in the NHL from age 20-22 and again in his mid-30s doesn't change that.

Markus almost certainly peaked higher but outside his short peak during the reign of a crop of very poor top level forwards in the NHL, he wasn't particularly outstanding.

Mats was certainly the more consistently effective player.

And in the playoffs, it isn't even close. Mats any day and twice on Sunday. I'm sure he'll enjoy his Cup ring more than a couple post season all-stars. ;)
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Playmaking LW

Surely you can see the problem with taking raw assist totals from 50/60/70 game seasons from 1943-67 and comparing them to a guy playing 80 games.

And absolutely, Markus Naslund was a better playmaker than Mats.

Markus finished 4th, 8th, 9th in assists to Mats' solitary 8th.

Markus's 3 best seasons for adjusted assists are 62, 57, 56.
Mats' 3 best seasons for adjusted assists are 53, 49, 47.

And the career numbers are skewed because one spent basically his entire pro career in the NHL (including weak seasons as a young/old player) while the other spent only his 'cream' years between the ages of 23 and 31 in the NHL.

Take an 8-season window on Markus Naslund's A/G from the middle of his career and it climbs to 0.52, only slightly off Mats' number despite playing in a massively lower-scoring era.



As others have mentioned, Montreal as a 'defensive' team during the 1980s still obliterate anything from the dead puck era in terms of goal scoring.

Adjusted points aren't perfect, but they're a hell of a lot better judge of a player's abilities than simple raw numbers.



Markus Naslund was top-5 in scoring 3 times. Mats Naslund was top-20 once.

That discrepancy isn't because of 'better competition'.



That's honestly one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen here.

Markus Naslund was a First-Team All-Star 3 times. He was runner-up for the NHL scoring title twice.

When you look at adjusted points, Markus has 7 of the 8 best seasons put up by the two players.

The careers of the two players aren't even close. The fact that Markus struggled in the NHL from age 20-22 and again in his mid-30s doesn't change that.

You fail to appreciate the distinction between a playmaking LW and the traditional grinder / corner men LW like Olmstead or Cashman who preceeded Mats Naslund. or those who generated high assist totals via rebound assists.

Between 1943-44 and 1989-90, the introduction of the Red :ine to the end of Mats Naslund's career here are the seasonal assist highs for LW:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...al=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=assists

For pure LWs as opposed to two position forwards Mats Naslund has the highest total. The other LWs generated grinder/corner assists or rebound assists.Naslund's were mainly playmaking assists.

Naslund did not have much of a shot nor the physical game of a grinder/corner man but he could carry the puck, relay the puck off the outlet or transition and drive the offense from the LW, especially during the power play. It is an ability that is not a function of era or adjustments. Amongst the LWs that preceeded him or contemporaries only Dickie Moore came close as a playmaker and Moore played some center thru junior.
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,362
83,430
Vancouver, BC
Looking at their best seasons it sure is:

1. Peter Forsberg-COL 106
2. Markus Naslund-VAN 104
3. Joe Thornton-BOS 101
4. Milan Hejduk-COL 98
5. Todd Bertuzzi-VAN 97

vs.

1. Wayne Gretzky*-EDM 215
2. Mario Lemieux*-PIT 141
3. Paul Coffey*-EDM 138
4. Jari Kurri*-EDM 131
5. Mike Bossy*-NYI 123

If you don't see a big difference in the quality of the names on those lists.. I don't know what to say.. 2-3 borderline hall of fame caliber players vs. 5 guys who were all locks.

There were 2 Gretzky-Lemieux level players, not 20.

Absolutely, Mats' 1985-86 season was on a comparable level to Markus' best years. But Mats never had another season anywhere near that level, and Markus had 3 of them.


BraveCanadian said:
Adjusted points.

Yes, adjusted points.

For comparing players from 1970-present, it's *by far* the best measuring stick. Unless you think Patrick Lebeau's peak offensive value is similar to Jarome Iginla's.

It was just blatantly easier to score goals during the 1980s. The goalies were comparatively awful, defensive systems were primitive by comparison.



BraveCanadian said:
Markus almost certainly peaked higher but outside his short peak during the reign of a crop of very poor top level forwards in the NHL, he wasn't particularly outstanding.

Mats was certainly the more consistently effective player.

And in the playoffs, it isn't even close. Mats any day and twice on Sunday. I'm sure he'll enjoy his Cup ring more than a couple post season all-stars. ;)

How was Mats Naslund 'more consistently effective'?

He was good for 7 years, from 1982-89.

Markus was better for 7 seasons, from 1998-2006. While he might not have been at his 2001-2004 levels in the 1998-2001 period, he was easily the best player on a bad team and one of the most dangerous wingers in the NHL.

If Mats Naslund had come into the NHL in 1979 at age 20 and stayed for another 6 seasons after he left, he'd probably be perceived as 'less consistently effective' as well. Again, if you're comparing them, take an 8-season window for both.

Absolutely, Mats has a better playoff record. Although it helps to have Patrick Roy in net with Larry Robinson and Chris Chelios in front of him. Markus was very good in the 2003 and 2004 playoffs, but was let down by nauseating goaltending and endless brain cramps from Ed Jovanovski, Vancouver's #1 defender.


You fail to appreciate the distinction between a playmaking LW and the traditional grinder / corner men LW like Olmstead or Cashman who preceeded Mats Naslund. or those who generated high assist totals via rebound assists.

Between 1943-44 and 1989-90, the introduction of the Red :ine to the end of Mats Naslund's career here are the seasonal assist highs for LW:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...al=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=assists

For pure LWs as opposed to two position forwards Mats Naslund has the highest total. The other LWs generated grinder/corner assists or rebound assists.Naslund's were mainly playmaking assists.

Naslund did not have much of a shot nor the physical game of a grinder/corner man but he could carry the puck, relay the puck off the outlet or transition and drive the offense from the LW, especially during the power play. It is an ability that is not a function of era or adjustments. Amongst the LWs that preceeded him or contemporaries only Dickie Moore came close as a playmaker and Moore played some center thru junior.

I just won't give a guy who had one top-10 finish in assists (8th) and one overall top-20 finish in scoring the title of 'one of the greatest playmaking LWs of all time'. His assist numbers and peak are comparable to Straka and Tanguay, and I wouldn't give them that level of praise, either.

And just because guys like Olmstead or Cashman were great corner guys doesn't mean they weren't great playmakers as well. Same with guys like Kariya and Naslund who were also great shooters. Ted Lindsay could do everything. Just because they had other aspects to their games doesn't mean that their playmaking wasn't elite.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
One Sided

If Mats Naslund had come into the NHL in 1979 at age 20 and stayed for another 6 seasons after he left, he'd probably be perceived as 'less consistently effective' as well. Again, if you're comparing them, take an 8-season window for both.

Absolutely, Mats has a better playoff record. Although it helps to have Patrick Roy in net with Larry Robinson and Chris Chelios in front of him. Markus was very good in the 2003 and 2004 playoffs, but was let down by nauseating goaltending and endless brain cramps from Ed Jovanovski, Vancouver's #1 defender.




I just won't give a guy who had one top-10 finish in assists (8th) and one overall top-20 finish in scoring the title of 'one of the greatest playmaking LWs of all time'. His assist numbers and peak are comparable to Straka and Tanguay, and I wouldn't give them that level of praise, either.

And just because guys like Olmstead or Cashman were great corner guys doesn't mean they weren't great playmakers as well. Same with guys like Kariya and Naslund who were also great shooters. Ted Lindsay could do everything. Just because they had other aspects to their games doesn't mean that their playmaking wasn't elite.

Usual one sided and irrelevent position. Olmstead and Cashman were great corner guys in the context of playing with M' Richard, Beliveau, Geoffrion, Harvey or P.Esposito and Orr. Lindsay played with Howe and Abel plus a young Ullman supported by Kelly.
Straka and Tanguay had Lemieux, Jagr or Sakic Forsberg. Kariya was with Selanne.Olmstead was replaced by Moore who improved the performance level from the number one LW position on the team to the tune of 2 scoring titles.

Mats Naslund generated his assists playing with the likes of Mario Tremblay, Pierre Mondou,Bobby Smith as linemates plus time with Claude Lemieux and Stephane Richer. Not one HHOF level forward in the bunch. his playmaking was evident his first two seasons playing with Mondou and Tremblay. Markus Naslund struggled initially with Pittsburgh even though he had opportunities with HHOF level players, found limited success with Vancouver because he was on a line with pre brain cramp Bertuzzi and then faded away.
 

TheMoreYouKnow

Registered User
May 3, 2007
16,384
3,410
38° N 77° W
Mike Bullard was a better player than Mats Naslund, I don't hear people pimping him to such an unwarranted extent but I guess then he also wasn't a Hab.
 

gifted88

Dante the poet
Feb 12, 2010
7,301
233
Guelph, ON
Wow, he returned in '94 and played with boston? I don't remember that at all...but I guess the out of town teams were never shown on TV in the GTA.
 

Padan

Registered User
Aug 16, 2006
534
2
Wow, he returned in '94 and played with boston? I don't remember that at all...but I guess the out of town teams were never shown on TV in the GTA.

He was offered a contract just because of the game-winning goal that he scored against Gretzky All-Stars in Sweden '94. He retired after one year in Boston.
 

Theokritos

Global Moderator
Apr 6, 2010
12,538
4,911
Using the era argument to discredit Swedish players from the 80s is silly. Swedish stars in the 70s and 80s went through the same kind of adjustment problems that the former Soviet went through in the early 90s. Just like you can't judge Fetisov or Makarov by what they did in the NHL, you can't judge players like Naslund and Loob by their NHL careers alone.

Fetisov and Makarov were (among) the first Russians to enter the NHL in 1989 (never mind Victor Nechaev). By contrast, when Mats Näslund joined the Canadiens in 1982, Swedish players were already established in the NHL for 12 years. Näslunds situation is not similiar to that of Fetisov and Makarov, but to that of Ilya Kovalchuk or Pavel Datsyuk in 2001.

I think that that whole generation of Swedish players (Naslund, Loob, Gustafsson, Kenta Nilsson, Eldebrink) are terribly underrated compared to the 90s generation (Forsberg, Naslund, Alfredsson, Sundin, Lidstrom) because of the circumstances under which they played.
You are not going to convince me that a guy like Rundqvist, who played 267 games for the national team and is 12th all time in SEL scoring, was a worse player than current NHL players like Sjostrom and Stalberg, just because he didn't have an impressive NHL career.
...
Anders Eldebrink is another good example. A consensus top 5 Swedish defenceman ever that could not establish himself in the NHL. Are you telling me that Andreas Lilja is the better player just because he has a Stanley Cup?

I agree here. Guys like Loob, Eldebrink and Rundqvist are underrated due to their lack of an NHL career. Add Jonas Bergqvist. But I don't think anyone is making a case for Sjöström, Stålberg or Lilja over those players anyway. Still less for Nilsson or Gustafsson. As far as I see, Nilsson is renowed as an amazingly talented player, probably one of the most talented ever, on this boards. It's obvious that only his motivation issues prevented him from having a NHL Hall of Fame career. Gustafsson is rarer mentioned, but no one denies that he was a very good two-way player and one of the best forwards in the history of the Washington Capitals franchise.

The SEL in those days was a league that contained all of the best Swedes, minus a handful that took a shot at playing abroad for a couple of years.
The SEL of the 80s was not the watered down league it is today. Most of the good Swedish players played the majority of their career in Sweden.

Surely more Swedish quality players stayed in the Elitserien back then. But it was still more than just "a handful" that went to North America! Take Näslunds rookie season 1982 as a sample. Swedes in the NHL by then: Kent Nilsson, Thomas Gradin, Anders Hedberg, Thomas Steen, Jörgen Pettersson, Patrik Sundström, Willy Lindström, Tomas Jonsson, Kent-Erik Andersson, Stefan Persson, Börje Salming, Bengt-Åke Gustafsson, Andes Håkansson, Lars Lindgren, Bengt Lundholm, Lars Molin, Anders Kallur, Ulf Isaksson, Mats Hallin, Anders Eldebrink, Ulf Nilsson, Hans Helander and Pelle Lindbergh. Plus Mats Näslund. 25 players in total, much more than a "handful"! The watering down of the Elitserien was already a fact by then.
 

brianscot

Registered User
Jan 1, 2003
1,415
17
Halifax, NS
Visit site
He was offered a contract just because of the game-winning goal that he scored against Gretzky All-Stars in Sweden '94. He retired after one year in Boston.

He joined the Bruin's a month into the strike year.

I remember watching his first game on tv against the Whale in Hartford, mostly due to the novelty of a former Hab being a Bruin.

He played the first two periods like he was free-basing caffeine or something and owned more step than anyone else.

Ahh, the "let them in" Lacher days.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/boxscores/199502220HAR.html
 

habsfan92

Registered User
Jun 5, 2005
865
555
winnipeg
Mats was an awesome player. Having watched both Mats & Markus in their primes, I can say that Markus had a heck of a run in Vancouver and was a very good player & goal scorer. Mats was a better playmaker & two-way player. Mats was also one of the top players on a stanley cup winner-which is pretty special in it's own right.
After watching Mats get a record number of assists playing in the alls star game with Lemieux, I had always hoped that he would get traded to play with him. Instead he had to play with Bobby Smith, who was okay, but I can't remember any other player that I saw trip on the blue line when no one else was near him.
Mats was a heck of a carpenter too, before a game at the forum the boards were sticking out a bit and Mats went to the bench and got his tool box and put a few nails in there to even it out. Now that is versatility! Keep in mind that it isn't the NHL hall of fame but the hockey hall of fame, and based on what I hear he is in the IIHF hall of fame, so why not?
 

steve141

Registered User
Aug 13, 2009
1,144
240
Surely more Swedish quality players stayed in the Elitserien back then. But it was still more than just "a handful" that went to North America! Take Näslunds rookie season 1982 as a sample. Swedes in the NHL by then: Kent Nilsson, Thomas Gradin, Anders Hedberg, Thomas Steen, Jörgen Pettersson, Patrik Sundström, Willy Lindström, Tomas Jonsson, Kent-Erik Andersson, Stefan Persson, Börje Salming, Bengt-Åke Gustafsson, Andes Håkansson, Lars Lindgren, Bengt Lundholm, Lars Molin, Anders Kallur, Ulf Isaksson, Mats Hallin, Anders Eldebrink, Ulf Nilsson, Hans Helander and Pelle Lindbergh. Plus Mats Näslund. 25 players in total, much more than a "handful"! The watering down of the Elitserien was already a fact by then.

The point is that they played a large part (often a majority) of their professional careers outside the NHL, which is why you need to look at their careers outside of the NHL aswell to judge their body of work. Of the Swedish players you listed only Salming and Sundstrom played ten or more years in the NHL.

It bothers me that many posters on this board seem to assume that the only reason for the short NHL careers was that they weren't good enough to play longer. In a time were European scouting was almost non-existant players had to establish themselves as a top star in the SEL for 3-4 years before they were invited to play in the NHL. This is vastly different from Swedes today who are often brought over right after the draft and developed carefully.

I also see many people assume that they left the NHL because they were finished as players. That might be true in some cases, but many of them actually moved back to Europe for other reasons. Because of tax rules many of them could make more money playing half as many games in Switzerland. For this reason many of them moved back to Europe once they started getting families. The expectation was also that you give back to your home team by ending your career in the SEL.

That is why it is wrong to look at Mats' and Markus' careers and say that they both had 7 good NHL seasons so their primes are comparable. Another way to look at it would be that even though their careers were roughly equal in length, Mats only had two seasons after he turned twenty when he was not a top 3 scorer on his own team. Markus had eight.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->