Pierre Turgeon Done

[Opie 308]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news;_ylt=Aijp...p&type=lgns

Apparently he just doesn't think he has anything to add anymore.

He was a good player and had a 19 year career.

So long Pierre!

[Zion 93]

*raises a glass for the Gentleman*

[eva unit zero 271]

Turgeon always seemed to be joining the team that recently won a Cup, but never managed to do it himself...

[Guest REDWINGS4LYFE]

i liked baldy

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Turgeon always seemed to be joining the team that recently won a Cup, but never managed to do it himself...

Does he get into the HOF?

He doesn't have alot of personal accolades but his numbers are top notch. I think he should get in personally.

[Opie 308]

I think he goes in, but not a first ballot guy.

[Rob the Badger 0]

The hockey hall of fame is the easiest HOF to get into. They don't call it the 'hockey hall of pretty good' for nothing. Turgeon will be a lock, but probably not his first time up.

[Hank 0]

Does he get into the HOF?

He doesn't have alot of personal accolades but his numbers are top notch. I think he should get in personally.

Rob the Badger said it perfectly. The HHOF is way too easy to get in.

But in my opinion I don't think Turgeon should get in and here's my line of thinking:

On XM Home Ice one of the guys said that to get in the Hall you should be judged against your contemporaries. Besides how many Cups or trophies you won, how did you compare to fellow players, in your era, at your position.

In Turgeon's case, who would you rather have as your #1 centre? Sakic, Modano, Messier, Lafontaine, Yzerman, Francis, Niewendyk, Sundin, Gilmour (just to name a few - I left Wayne and Mario off because those guys can't be compared to anyone and nobody should be judged against their talent).

All of the players I mentioned above were also centermen and were in or around their primes at the same time Turgeon was.

They all played a big chunk of their careers during an era where scoring was pretty high. Turgeon scored over 1300 points but out of that list, many of those guys hit that number or more.

So in that line of thinking, I don't think Turgeon makes the Hall. He never won a cup or any individual awards, was routinely left off National teams because of the depth of centres in his era and I don't think he was on as many All-star rosters as them either. I never considered him to be in the top 5 centres, in the league, during his better years.

I still think he was a very good player and I enjoyed watching him. I think it should also be noted that at one time this guy was supposed to be the next Gretzky or Lemieux. He was the Sidney Crosby of the mid 80's so to speak. In that light, I guess he was a letdown. But he still had a very good, productive career and I wish him well.

Edited September 6, 2007 by Hank

[toby91_ca 620]

Rob the Badger said it perfectly. The HHOF is way too easy to get in.

But in my opinion I don't think Turgeon should get in and here's my line of thinking:

On XM Home Ice one of the guys said that to get in the Hall you should be judged against your contemporaries. Besides how many Cups or trophies you won, how did you compare to fellow players, in your era, at your position.

In Turgeon's case, who would you rather have as your #1 centre? Sakic, Modano, Messier, Lafontaine, Yzerman, Francis, Niewendyk, Sundin, Gilmour (just to name a few - I left Wayne and Mario off because those guys can't be compared to anyone and nobody should be judged against their talent).

All of the players I mentioned above were also centermen and were in or around their primes at the same time Turgeon was.

They all played a big chunk of their careers during an era where scoring was pretty high. Turgeon scored over 1300 points but out of that list, many of those guys hit that number or more.

So in that line of thinking, I don't think Turgeon makes the Hall. He never won a cup or any individual awards, was routinely left off National teams because of the depth of centres in his era and I don't think he was on as many All-star rosters as them either. I never considered him to be in the top 5 centres, in the league, during his better years.

I still think he was a very good player and I enjoyed watching him. I think it should also be noted that at one time this guy was supposed to be the next Gretzky or Lemieux. He was the Sidney Crosby of the mid 80's so to speak. In that light, I guess he was a letdown. But he still had a very good, productive career and I wish him well.

But consider where he stood on the teams he played for. Ignoring his rookie year, he lead his team in scoring in all but 1 of the next 9 years (year he didn't, he was 2nd to Hawerchuk...not a bad player). After that, he only played one more full season in his career and he was the leading scorer for his team that year. He was the 2nd leading scorer for a few years before he really started to decline by only playing in 50-60 games or so.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Rob the Badger said it perfectly. The HHOF is way too easy to get in.

But in my opinion I don't think Turgeon should get in and here's my line of thinking:

On XM Home Ice one of the guys said that to get in the Hall you should be judged against your contemporaries. Besides how many Cups or trophies you won, how did you compare to fellow players, in your era, at your position.

In Turgeon's case, who would you rather have as your #1 centre? Sakic, Modano, Messier, Lafontaine, Yzerman, Francis, Niewendyk, Sundin, Gilmour (just to name a few - I left Wayne and Mario off because those guys can't be compared to anyone and nobody should be judged against their talent).

All of the players I mentioned above were also centermen and were in or around their primes at the same time Turgeon was.

They all played a big chunk of their careers during an era where scoring was pretty high. Turgeon scored over 1300 points but out of that list, many of those guys hit that number or more.

So in that line of thinking, I don't think Turgeon makes the Hall. He never won a cup or any individual awards, was routinely left off National teams because of the depth of centres in his era and I don't think he was on as many All-star rosters as them either. I never considered him to be in the top 5 centres, in the league, during his better years.

I still think he was a very good player and I enjoyed watching him. I think it should also be noted that at one time this guy was supposed to be the next Gretzky or Lemieux. He was the Sidney Crosby of the mid 80's so to speak. In that light, I guess he was a letdown. But he still had a very good, productive career and I wish him well.

That's a very interesting way to look at it. Good info there. Although part of me still feels like you go into the Hall based on your achievements and not those of your contemporaries. Look at it this way, during those 19 years, yes, there were great players like Stevie, Sakic, Francis, etc.....but how many other players played that position during those 19 years? I'd bet Turgeon has better numbers than 99.5% of the players who played center during that 19 year span. So it depends on how you tweak the numbers. Therefore, I think you go in on your own merits regardless of what anybody else did.

1st ballot, prolly not

2nd time, maybe not

3rd time, look at Dino Ciccarelli (f-ing travesty and the Hall people ought to be shot....j/k)

Eventually, I think so but its a tough one.

WHOA: It should be noted that Turgeon is the 27th leading scorer in NHL history. Only Shanahan, Sundin and Modano are closing in on him currently and I doubt Modano will get there unless he plays 2-3 more years. So by the time he's due for 1st ballot status he may still be in the top 30 scorers all-time.

Edited September 6, 2007 by GordieSid&Ted

[wingsfan40 0]

Cheers to a great career

[Opie 308]

This is the problem with Halls of Fame. How do you look at the player? Do you compare him to other greats that are already in the hall? Well if you do that you aren't accounting for changes in equipment, rules etc.....

Do you look at the player in a bubble compared to others in his era? If you do that you are looking at a situation were a guy like Pierre is unfairly put in a class of centers that few will ever live up to.

Do you look at him in basis of what he did for his team? Well then you would punish guys, for instance if the wings never were successful and they were the Dead things for Yzerman's career isn't that unfair to him.

It is so hard to look at a guy like Pierre and say yes or no. I think he should go in, probably on a second or third ballot. But then again what if he goes up against Yzerman, Hull, Robatialle type guys on the ballot, again he is probably not going to make it.

And whether the writers like to admit it or not, the longer a guy gets the snub the harder it will to get in.

Edited September 6, 2007 by Opie

[Hank 0]

This is the problem with Halls of Fame. How do you look at the player? Do you compare him to other greats that are already in the hall? Well if you do that you aren't accounting for changes in equipment, rules etc.....

Do you look at the player in a bubble compared to others in his era? If you do that you are looking at a situation were a guy like Pierre is unfairly put in a class of centers that few will ever live up to.

Do you look at him in basis of what he did for his team? Well then you would punish guys, for instance if the wings never were successful and they were the Dead things for Yzerman's career isn't that unfair to him.

It is so hard to look at a guy like Pierre and say yes or no. I think he should go in, probably on a second or third ballot. But then again what if he goes up against Yzerman, Hull, Robatialle type guys on the ballot, again he is probably not going to make it.

And whether the writers like to admit it or not, the longer a guy gets the snub the harder it will to get in.

Good points. I think the whole thing has to be changed.

Phil Esposito is a big advocate for numbers only and individual awards getting you in the HOF. He says it shouldn't matter if you won 11 Cups or none, as that's a team effort. And the last time he checked the HOF was for individual efforts, not teams. I'm inclined to agree with him.

Because of this, he doesn't believe Jacques Lemaire should be in the HOF. He only recorded 800+ points but he won a number of Cups. But like Espo says, those Cups had a LOT to do with the true class talent around him. Chances are, the Habs would have won those Cups without him. That's debateable, but I do agree that Cups shouldn't be a reason to get in the HOF, which is why Lemaire is in there and Dino is not.

[toby91_ca 620]

That's debateable, but I do agree that Cups shouldn't be a reason to get in the HOF, which is why Lemaire is in there and Dino is not.

Dino not being in the Hall has nothing to do with him not winning a Cup. The guy is a jackass and no one wants to vote for him, simple as that. In my opinion, he probably needs to be there solely because he has scored 600+ goals, but you take that away, what argument do you really have? He's not even a point per game player and he's never won a single individual award in his career.

[Rob the Badger 0]

Anyone who scores 600 goals should be in the hall of fame. Dino was a hot head and a jerk, but you loved him when he was on your team, not so much when he wasn't. But the hall should judge you on your talent, as long as you didn't cheat, your personality shouldn't factor in one way or the other.

[Guest Yzer19]

Anyone who scores 600 goals should be in the hall of fame. Dino was a hot head and a jerk, but you loved him when he was on your team, not so much when he wasn't. But the hall should judge you on your talent, as long as you didn't cheat, your personality shouldn't factor in one way or the other.

Personality does factor in to it. It says it right in the induction rules that character and sportsmanship is one of the criterias. If it wasn't part of the criteria then someone like Claudia Lemieux would get in.

http://www.legendsofhockey.net/html/indelection.htm

Edited September 7, 2007 by Yzer19

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Dino not being in the Hall has nothing to do with him not winning a Cup. The guy is a jackass and no one wants to vote for him, simple as that. In my opinion, he probably needs to be there solely because he has scored 600+ goals, but you take that away, what argument do you really have? He's not even a point per game player and he's never won a single individual award in his career.

I find it odd that my 2 favorite players of my 2 favorite sports share so much in common, Dino Ciccarelli and Will Clark, both wore #22 (predominantly) and both were considered uber competitive and not exactly the nicest of people.

Anyway, Dino should be in the hall for amassing over 1200 career points and over 600 goals. 'Nuff said. However, if that isn't enough to persuade you, consider how Dino did it. He was small, listed a generous 5-10" and about 180lbs. He was slower than balls and nobody wanted him. Let us not forget that Dino wasn't even drafted by an NHL team. You take a tiny guy like that with a fiery demeanor who couldn't even get drafted and he scored 600+ goals in the NHL. How the hell do you not put that guy in the Hall?

I'll tell you right now Dino isn't getting in because he had 1 or 2 off ice incidents that he got in trouble for and he also served that day in jail for plugging Luke Richardson over the head with his stick in a game. There's about 3 incidents keeping him out and I think it really sucks. There are quite a few players who've gotten in trouble and still been enshrined (cough.....cough....Patrick Roy....cough)

[eva unit zero 271]

Well, if we're comparing Turgeon to his contemporaries...I say Turgeon deserves it more than Cam Neely, who is in.

[Opie 308]

I am a huge fan of Cam but he got in on what he could have done, what his potential was, to me that is not right. That would be like if Crosby got a huge knee injury this year and people voted him in because he could have broken Gretz's records.

[eva unit zero 271]

I am a huge fan of Cam but he got in on what he could have done, what his potential was, to me that is not right. That would be like if Crosby got a huge knee injury this year and people voted him in because he could have broken Gretz's records.

My problem with Neely's selection is that he didn't do enough to warrant a selection, and his career was not ended by injury but by a degenerative hip condition that was not hockey related.

[Opie 308]

The hip injury was all related to Ulf's hit, so he says.

[Rob the Badger 0]

Didn't Neely have 3 consecutive 50 goal seasons? He did do a lot in the time he was in the league. I'm on the fence about him being in the HOF, but he was a pretty dynamic player

Edit: Cam had 3 fifty goal seasons, but they weren't back to back to back. He did have 2 fifty goal seasons in a row though, and nearly 400 goals in a fairly short career for a HOF'er.

Edited September 7, 2007 by Rob the Badger

[Hank 0]

Didn't Neely have 3 consecutive 50 goal seasons? He did do a lot in the time he was in the league. I'm on the fence about him being in the HOF, but he was a pretty dynamic player

Edit: Cam had 3 fifty goal seasons, but they weren't back to back to back. He did have 2 fifty goal seasons in a row though, and nearly 400 goals in a fairly short career for a HOF'er.

I agree. I don't think he did enough either. But maybe his 50 goals in 44 games got him in?

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

Cam Neely getting in opened the door for guys like Lindros and Bure, guys that were top stars for a number of years, but had their careers ended prematurely and also never won the Stanley Cup to boot. That is why I didn't want to see Cam get selected, because now the pandora's box is open. As far as Ciccarrelli goes, the problem with him is that he was never really a top star even though he scored 600 goals.

[Opie 308]

I agree. I don't think he did enough either. But maybe his 50 goals in 44 games got him in?

I will never forget that season, I was telling everyone he was back for good and that he was going to tear the league a new one.

I guess we all know how that worked out for me!