Was Sundin regarded as good as Sakic in 1993?

[Albatros]

John Blue?

The Christian Hextall.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Thats weird since he quite famously elbowed Desjardins that series and then knocked over Roy. The fact is that Page was caught yelling at several players. What did the players have in common? Being european of course. He was caught twice iirc yelling at Sundin, Kovalenko and Rucinsky. Page was eventually fired after the team missing the playoffs in 1994 but according to sources it was that incident that turned management against him since it affected team morale that Page was yelling at young Sundin like that. Basically what you are saying is a long standing myth that canadian media ran with at the time which got dispelled once Sundin arrived in Toronto.

i'll let you to post that video you shared with me. tbh i have no recollection of that happening, but it was early in the deciding game 6. if i had to guess, pagé probably challenged the team to play tougher, and probably personally challenged sundin as the second best player and leading scorer to assert himself more. and so he does, elbowing desjardins in the face and then magically making roy fall over the same way hasek would almost ten years later. but was that a wise thing to do? probably not. he was lucky not to get a major there, or a double minor for drawing blood (i didn't see it, but the announcer said desjardins needed a trip to the dentist so if he lost a tooth he must have been bleeding). that was definitely not something the mature sundin would have done (but something that the "mature" nolan would have stupidly done out of frustration). but then again this was a 21 year old kid in his first playoffs against a very veteran defensive team; i don't think anyone should crucify him for having not a great series under those circumstances.

but i also don't think we should pretend he acquitted himself well there.

There's no myth there. He was unquestionably soft in those playoffs. He was unquestionably not engaged. He was unquestionably lacking in the drive you require from your best players. I'm not sure how anyone could watch that series and arrive at any other conclusion.

You're right. The guy that got a roughing and a elbowing penalty while scoring 4 points must be the one that was soft. Not the good ol canadian boy Nolan that was invicible the entire series.

given your previous discussion on this topic, including upthread, i think you're overplaying the european card here. people thinking sundin wasn't a heart and soul player in '93, which he wasn't, doesn't mean that people thought sakic was (nobody thought that either, iirc). nolan being terrible in the playoffs doesn't make sundin's performance in '93 any less disappointing. and as for blaming nolan, his entire freakin' career people talked about how bad nolan was in the playoffs, including in '93. if you want a good reason for the sundin trade, one huge one is big, bad, built-for-the-playoffs owen nolan unfathomably sucked in the playoffs.

so yeah, sundin deserves to wear that loss. his regular season was one of the great extended hot streaks ever. he was expected to do better. but sure, nolan wears that loss too, kovalenko wears it, rucinsky wears it. why is there that video footage of pagé yelling at sundin, kovalenko, and rucinsky in particular? does he hates europeans? maybe, but a more likely explanation is because they were a line and they got ventilated that series. by contrast, sakic was ok, not especially good or bad, and his wingers nolan and kamensky didn't do much of anything, but other than game six, they weren't the team's minus leaders every game.

which young star nordiques forward didn't wear that '93 loss? mike ricci, but he was like a young kirk muller. what are you going to do?

anyway, now that i think on this more, if you want ground zero for the sakic = clutch narrative, '94 was sakic's breakout as a guy people thought was more than just a one-dimensional skill center. not the regular season, which was a disaster, but in the world championships that spring. that was the first high profile evidence of sakic's clutchness.



^ here's the shootout

sundin, as he always did, had a great tournament too, and led it in scoring. but sakic (and ranford of course) was all anyone talked about during the medal rounds.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Basically all their wingers except Young turned invisible. But I think Kamensky struggled with injuries that year(?). Its funny though that Sundin suddenly turned soft in that playoff series when he wasnt as a younger player in the CC and WC in 91 nor after that series. Very strange indeed.

claude lapointe too.

man, lapointe - ricci - young... if the first two lines had pulled their weight that's a stanley cup third line right there. anyone know why the avs gave away claude lapointe for basically nothing during the '96 season?

(although ironically the player they got with that 7th round pick turned out to be an even better role player than lapointe: samme pahlsson; and the guy they ended up getting when they eventually traded pahlsson: one ray bourque)

 

[FerrisRox]

You're right. The guy that got a roughing and a elbowing penalty while scoring 4 points must be the one that was soft. Not the good ol canadian boy Nolan that was invicible the entire series.

So you think elbowing a player makes someone tough?

Is that seriously what you are pitching here? That's ridiculous.

 

[FerrisRox]

Basically all their wingers except Young turned invisible. But I think Kamensky struggled with injuries that year(?). Its funny though that Sundin suddenly turned soft in that playoff series when he wasnt as a younger player in the CC and WC in 91 nor after that series. Very strange indeed.

What's strange is that you're pretending that there's some sort of narrative that he "turned" soft in that series or that he wasn't considered (and demonstrably) soft before and after that series.

The guy had 14 penalty minutes his first year in Toronto for crying out loud.

Even more odd is how you keep awkwardly shoe-horning in the fact that Mats Sundin is European. It's has nothing to do with anything. Seems like you are setting up a straw man here to pretend that the criticism is about his birth certificate, not his performance.

 

[Hobnobs]

What's strange is that you're pretending that there's some sort of narrative that he "turned" soft in that series or that he wasn't considered (and demonstrably) soft before and after that series.

The guy had 14 penalty minutes his first year in Toronto for crying out loud.

First you say penalties is not indicative of being tough then you say they are. Good job.

 

[FerrisRox]

First you say penalties is not indicative of being tough then you say they are. Good job.

When did I say penalties were not indicative of being tough?

Are you just manufacturing both sides of your straw man argument now?

I said him cowardly elbowing someone in the face was not indicative of being tough and asked you if that was really what you were suggesting.

You're going off the rails here.

 

[Hobnobs]

When did I say penalties were not indicative of being tough?

Are you just manufacturing both sides of your straw man argument now?

I said him cowardly elbowing someone in the face was not indicative of being tough and asked you if that was really what you were suggesting.

You're going off the rails here.

I'm not the one saying Sundin is soft based on penalties. The game is played on the ice.

 

[FerrisRox]

I'm not the one saying Sundin is soft based on penalties. The game is played on the ice.

No, you're the one saying he isn't soft because he elbowed someone in the face.

And for the record, yet again you are manufacturing both sides of the argument. I didn't say he was soft because of a lack of penalties. I pointed to the fact that he had 14 penalty minutes in a (lockout) season, and that would be extremely difficult to do if you played a physically engaged game.

What I did say was that he was soft because he played intimidated, shied away from physical contact, didn't engage and was largely invisible throughout that series.

 

[sr edler]

So you think elbowing a player makes someone tough?

It doesn't necessarily make you tough, but it makes you engaged and executed under right circumstances it can be quite an effective tool. For reference watch Dallas/Vancouver series round 2 from 1994 SC playoffs, specifically game 2. Or just Mark Messier's career.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

on the other hand, ahem raffi torres, it can have the opposite effect.

not willing to adjudicate on sundin there because, as i said earlier, i have no recollection that it ever happened and i legitimately followed that series at the time.

 

[Hobnobs]

No, you're the one saying he isn't soft because he elbowed someone in the face.

And for the record, yet again you are manufacturing both sides of the argument. I didn't say he was soft because of a lack of penalties. I pointed to the fact that he had 14 penalty minutes in a (lockout) season, and that would be extremely difficult to do if you played a physically engaged game.

What I did say was that he was soft because he played intimidated, shied away from physical contact, didn't engage and was largely invisible throughout that series.

And Im saying giving someone an elbow to the face as well as getting a roughing penalty shows engaged play. You were the one that mentioned toughness. Yet Im accused of strawmen.

 

[Troubadour]

Tommy Söderström and John Blue?



Housley second best stickhandler in the league? Better than Mario Lemieux? What?

Hey, it was a PC game card set dealt out as a bonus with the (94) NHL hockey.

 

[FerrisRox]

And Im saying giving someone an elbow to the face as well as getting a roughing penalty shows engaged play. You were the one that mentioned toughness. Yet Im accused of strawmen.

I think it shows cowardly play.

I think it looks like the kind of thing a soft player, who's challenged by his coach to be tougher does in lieu of actually playing a heavy game.

It's a silly argument. If you want to pretend he wasn't soft in the series, you are certainly entitled to do so. Where it gets a little ridiculous is where you then pretend that everyone else that also arrived at the conclusion are part of a shadowy conspiracy to create a "long standing myth that canadian media ran with at the time."

So everyone else is wrong and colluding together to smear his name and you're right.

Got it. That makes perfect sense.

 

[Troubadour]

I kinda wish NHL would work out a publicly accessible digital archive of (im)possibly all full matches that have not gone unrecorded so (hopefully most of) the nineties' and newer games could be re-watched and reassessed with somewhat sober and objective perspective.

In such an ideal world, guys like you two could sit down, re-watch the series and excitedly share all the cool moments disregarding whether these support or negate your original agenda, and you could work something out.

I mean, let's not kid ourselves. Nobody really remembers 1993. It's been an eternity.

 

[Hobnobs]

I think it shows cowardly play.

I think it looks like the kind of thing a soft player, who's challenged by his coach to be tougher does in lieu of actually playing a heavy game.

It's a silly argument. If you want to pretend he wasn't soft in the series, you are certainly entitled to do so. Where it gets a little ridiculous is where you then pretend that everyone else that also arrived at the conclusion are part of a shadowy conspiracy to create a "long standing myth that canadian media ran with at the time."

So everyone else is wrong and colluding together to smear his name and you're right.

Got it. That makes perfect sense.

Messier was a a soft player, who's challenged by his coach to be tougher does in lieu of actually playing a heavy game. Got it.

Yes, because canadian media calling euros soft in the 90s wasnt a thing. Got it.

 

[sr edler]

Nobody really remembers 1993.

I do.

 

[FerrisRox]

Messier was a a soft player, who's challenged by his coach to be tougher does in lieu of actually playing a heavy game. Got it.

Yes, because canadian media calling euros soft in the 90s wasnt a thing. Got it.

I would say about 70 percent of the Europeans that played in the early 90's were soft, so it makes sense that the hockey media would label them soft.

As for that nonsense about Mark Messier ... I don't know what to tell you other than I don't think that's even a sentence and it's bizarre and feels kind of desperate.

 

[Hobnobs]

I would say about 70 percent of the Europeans that played in the early 90's were soft, so it makes sense that the hockey media would label them soft.

As for that nonsense about Mark Messier ... I don't know what to tell you other than it's bizarre and feels kind of desperate.

I have nothing to add to this. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[86Habs]

I kinda wish NHL would work out a publicly accessible digital archive of (im)possibly all full matches that have not gone unrecorded so (hopefully most of) the nineties' and newer games could be re-watched and reassessed with somewhat sober and objective perspective.

In such an ideal world, guys like you two could sit down, re-watch the series and excitedly share all the cool moments disregarding whether these support or negate your original agenda, and you could work something out.

I mean, let's not kid ourselves. Nobody really remembers 1993. It's been an eternity.

I'm not sure about that. It was actually a very memorable season in hockey history. Mario coming back from cancer to win the Art Ross, the Canadiens winning the Cup, McSorley's illegal curve, Teemu's and Mogilny's 76 goal seasons, the Islanders upsetting the Penguins, Gilmour and the Leafs making their crazy run, the ridiculous amount of scoring. May Day, May Day. A ton of stuff happened that season. It was great!

 

[sr edler]

I would say about 70 percent of the Europeans that played in the early 90's were soft, so it makes sense that the hockey media would label them soft.

Can you give more examples of these players? (outside of Sundin) I'm not saying I disagree there were some soft players from Europe but, you know, different people may have different criteria for what constitutes something.

Fedorov, soft? Bure? Selänne?

Elaborate.

 

[Hobnobs]

I'm not sure about that. It was actually a very memorable season in hockey history. Mario coming back from cancer to win the Art Ross, the Canadiens winning the Cup, McSorley's illegal curve, Teemu's and Mogilny's 76 goal seasons, the Islanders upsetting the Penguins, Gilmour and the Leafs making their crazy run, the ridiculous amount of scoring. May Day, May Day. A ton of stuff happened that season. It was great!

Obviously the great stuff will be remembered but I think a lot of memories will be iffy on who was the best players on Sens, how well Zalapski played during the end of the season and so on

 

[Hobnobs]

Can you give more examples of these players? (outside of Sundin) I'm not saying I disagree there were some soft players from Europe but, you know, different people may have different criteria for what constitutes something.

Fedorov, soft? Bure? Selänne?

Elaborate.

The list of soft euro defensemen will be interesting.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I kinda wish NHL would work out a publicly accessible digital archive of (im)possibly all full matches that have not gone unrecorded so (hopefully most of) the nineties' and newer games could be re-watched and reassessed with somewhat sober and objective perspective.

In such an ideal world, guys like you two could sit down, re-watch the series and excitedly share all the cool moments disregarding whether these support or negate your original agenda, and you could work something out.

I mean, let's not kid ourselves. Nobody really remembers 1993. It's been an eternity.

haha, paging todd danault

he's posted here right?

 

[Troubadour]

I'm not sure about that. It was actually a very memorable season in hockey history. Mario coming back from cancer to win the Art Ross, the Canadiens winning the Cup, McSorley's illegal curve, Teemu's and Mogilny's 76 goal seasons, the Islanders upsetting the Penguins, Gilmour and the Leafs making their crazy run, the ridiculous amount of scoring. May Day, May Day. A ton of stuff happened that season. It was great!

Yes, it was a very, very eventful and memorable and number-padded year which does not change the fact we're a quarter of century away, and I at least don't remember any game from 2000 in such a vivid and colorful detail that I could argue anything but scores, facts or some crazy outstanding events.

Let alone 1993 or 1994.

Contrasting stances on little things like "Sundin played that series like a marshmallow" and "he in fact licked someone good here and there"... These are the things we reliably recall from maybe yesteryear... But 25 years after? Seems dangerously undependable. I believe that more nuanced debates regarding specific matches can be had for a couple of years after they take place. Soon after, time crooks it and we all fantasize based on failed or readjusted or worn out memories.

haha, paging todd danault

he's posted here right?

Would be cool tho, wouldn't it.

On a serious note, it could be perfectly doable even without the help of the official circles as long as they don't intervene; one could somehow mobilize fans to donate/lend their tapes for the sake of creating a gigantic and indexed video archive.