Steve Larmer

[mrhockey193195]

I frankly don't think there's a lot separating Larmer from his cup-winning teammate Glenn Anderson. Fantastic players that you want on your team to win a cup - not as your best player, but as a complementary 3rd or 4th best forward.

 

[decma]

You want to win games? Load up on Steve Larmers.

Bolded is what describes him best.

Good player, but was he really a winner? Playing in (by far) the weakest division in hockey, Chicago was barely over .500 in Larmer's time there. And his playoff series record with the Hawks was 11-11.
Yeah, the got a Cup with the NYR, but during his 11 seasons in Chicago he was not exactly a winner.

 

[Tarantula]

Good player, but was he really a winner? Playing in (by far) the weakest division in hockey, Chicago was barely over .500 in Larmer's time there. And his playoff series record with the Hawks was 11-11.
Yeah, the got a Cup with the NYR, but during his 11 seasons in Chicago he was not exactly a winner.

I put that more on the Black Hawks as a team then Larmer, in fact they likely wind up under 500 and win considerably less in the playoffs, IMO.

 

[Hobnobs]

Good player, but was he really a winner? Playing in (by far) the weakest division in hockey, Chicago was barely over .500 in Larmer's time there. And his playoff series record with the Hawks was 11-11.
Yeah, the got a Cup with the NYR, but during his 11 seasons in Chicago he was not exactly a winner.

Larmer won everything there is to win except in junior. Calder, Canada and Stanley Cup.

 

[mrhockey193195]

Good player, but was he really a winner? Playing in (by far) the weakest division in hockey, Chicago was barely over .500 in Larmer's time there. And his playoff series record with the Hawks was 11-11.
Yeah, the got a Cup with the NYR, but during his 11 seasons in Chicago he was not exactly a winner.

He was a winner insofar as if he's a top 3 or 4 forward on your team (or maybe better put, a top 2 winger on your team), you can definitely contend for the cup. Steve Larmer as your best player or second best player won't lead you to much success, ditto for Anderson or Claude Lemieux or Tikkanen or other great complementary wingers who were playoff monsters. But he played a 200 foot game, was gritty, a great leader (by all accounts), and a hell of a scorer.

 

[CHIP72]

Good player, but was he really a winner? Playing in (by far) the weakest division in hockey, Chicago was barely over .500 in Larmer's time there. And his playoff series record with the Hawks was 11-11.
Yeah, the got a Cup with the NYR, but during his 11 seasons in Chicago he was not exactly a winner.

I guess using your criteria someone like Ron Francis, whose Hartford teams did very little in the playoffs in the first 9 seasons of his career, wasn't really a winning player either.

There are many, many very good or even great players who played on poor teams whose teams didn't have playoff success. In many of those cases though, that lack of success was due to not having enough other good players on the team.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

not stylistically but in terms of versatility and dirty work-doing, i think of patrick sharp as a modern day larmer.

 

[wetcoast]

Good player, but was he really a winner? Playing in (by far) the weakest division in hockey, Chicago was barely over .500 in Larmer's time there. And his playoff series record with the Hawks was 11-11.
Yeah, the got a Cup with the NYR, but during his 11 seasons in Chicago he was not exactly a winner.

I'm talking about him as a player, not the teams that he played for.

All too often people only associate player types with team outcomes.

Linden was never a winner in the NHL but his teams never lost because of his lack of effort, drive ect..

Larmer was that type of guy.

 

[Jim MacDonald]

I like when I looked at his numbers it was a good model of consistency for the most part year-to-year....solid plus minus numbers and seen some Selke votes sparkled in there to back-up your guys' facts of a solid two-way game. I don't really agree with the thoughts that this guy wasn't a winner......he had a few playoff appearances where his teams had deep runs (with one cup to boot!)

 

[DJN21]

Watching the rangers road to victory DVD about there cup win and was wondering about larmer myself so decided to search for other threads before making my own. Hoping to bump this for more info in the player...what caused his hold out with Chicago etc?

 

[Jumptheshark]

Hey guys and gals,

I hope everyone has had a good weekend!

I wanted to learn a bit about Steve Larmer, as with a lot of the guys I ask about Larmer played just before I got into hockey. I know he played on the Hawks and Rangers (and maybe even more teams), a left had shot and I'm thinking he was a left wing. What did Larmer bring to the table/what skill set did he have? I know Keenan really liked him (got him on the Rangers in 94 after coaching him on the Hawks). Strengths, weaknesses, watershed moments would be welcome to learn from you guys as always! Look forward to the feedback!-Jim

P.S. I could be off on this...but at a passing glance could Larmer and Gary Suter be easy to confuse appearance-wise?

My view

1) very good two way player
2) Durable and reliable
3) He would have beaten Jarvis' record if he was not for the contract problem
4) He was to Savard as Kurri was to the Great one-they just clicked
5) His defensive play is underrated

 

[brachyrynchos]

Watching the rangers road to victory DVD about there cup win and was wondering about larmer myself so decided to search for other threads before making my own. Hoping to bump this for more info in the player...what caused his hold out with Chicago etc?

Hopefully some Hawks fans could chime in and answer your question better than me.
Larmer was making $790K heading into his option year, and felt that Chicago wasn't willing to pay his contract demands. So he asked to be traded, some reports have him saying that he wanted to be in a winning environment and that Larmer believed that Chicago was no longer that place.
Traded to Hartford, Holmgren wasn't able to meet Larmer's contractual request of ~$1.3M which is said to be why he was sent to New York.

 

[Jim MacDonald]

My view

1) very good two way player
2) Durable and reliable
3) He would have beaten Jarvis' record if he was not for the contract problem
4) He was to Savard as Kurri was to the Great one-they just clicked
5) His defensive play is underrated

What record of Jarvis' would Larmer have broken Lord Falstaff? My guess is the consecutive games played streak perhaps?

 

[Jumptheshark]

What record of Jarvis' would Larmer have broken Lord Falstaff? My guess is the consecutive games played streak perhaps?

Yep that one.

 

[Dread Clawz]

One of, if not the most under rated player in history.

Quietly went about his business and was good at everything.

An amusing little anecdote, I saw him score on a slap shot on a penatly shot.

I always think of Larmer as the most underrated player in history too. Mark Howe is up there too. Without Larmer, there's no way the Rangers win the Cup in 94. He came close in 92 too. He provided a stabilizing veteran prescence to that 2nd line so that the Messier-Graves-Kovy line wasnt the only threat.