It is currently Thu Nov 21, 2024 10:28 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2020 5:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:46 pm
Posts: 33806
pizza_Place: Gioacchino's
I'm watching some who wore it best # thing and they said Eric Lindros was better than Patrick Kane. I don't know if I believe that. He was pretty cute though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2020 5:54 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB

Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:29 pm
Posts: 33998
Spaulding wrote:
I'm watching some who wore it best # thing and they said Eric Lindros was better than Patrick Kane. I don't know if I believe that. He was pretty cute though.


No.

He probably would have been if he didn't have his career end at a young age. I think it was concussions for Lindros. And other things. He was hurt a lot. Here are his stats. First 7 years pretty damn good. He missed a lot of games in the last 4 or 5 years of his career.

https://www.hockey-reference.com/players/l/lindrer01.html

What do I know, though? Curious Hair is probably better to answer this. I don't even know if he was a good two way player. Which Kane isn't.

I do remember the huge hype Lindros had when he came into the NHL. Kane didn't have that amount of hype.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2020 6:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:28 pm
Posts: 3899
Location: Tinley Park
pizza_Place: zzzzzz
Kane but it is relatively close. If Lindros had played a full career and hadn’t missed big chunks of his prime he’d probably get the nod.

_________________
Lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2020 6:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 65745
Location: Darkside Estates
pizza_Place: A cat got an online degree.
Lindros was fucking good. Really fucking good.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2020 6:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 55924
pizza_Place: Barstool One Bite Frozen
Yeah, Kane was hyped as a really good #1OA. Lindros was hyped as the next Gretzky and Lemieux combined.

Kane is easily ahead of Lindros. Lindros put up 100-point seasons at a time when ten or so guys would put up 100 on Flyers teams that ran into better teams and didn't even have the excuse of running into the Detroit/Colorado/Dallas monster, just those bullshit Devils teams that bored everyone to death. Then he ran in place on those worst-team-money-can-buy Rangers teams that didn't even make the playoffs. He was instrumental in two Stanley Cups -- for the Avalanche, because his bitchy ass wouldn't play in Quebec City and the Flyers had to give up so much as to not be worth it.

Kane has three rings and one Conn Smythe, Lindros has zero and zero, Kane never bitched his way out of an OHL assignment (Sault Ste. Marie) AND an NHL assignment (Quebec). Kane is far superior. Case closed.

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2020 6:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 33067
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
I didn’t realize how good Lindros was simply numbers wise....my first instinct was definitely Kane, but it’s not as wide of a margin as I originally thought.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2020 6:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:13 am
Posts: 17583
Location: BLM Lake Forest Chapter
pizza_Place: Quonset
Kaner all day long.

_________________
Don Tiny wrote:
Don't be such a fucking chump.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2020 7:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 8:22 pm
Posts: 24546
pizza_Place: It's gone
Lindros was made of glass. Kane is tougher.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2020 8:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 11:10 am
Posts: 42094
Location: Rock Ridge (splendid!)
pizza_Place: Charlie Fox's / Paisano's
Curious Hair wrote:
Yeah, Kane was hyped as a really good #1OA. Lindros was hyped as the next Gretzky and Lemieux combined.

Kane is easily ahead of Lindros. Lindros put up 100-point seasons at a time when ten or so guys would put up 100 on Flyers teams that ran into better teams and didn't even have the excuse of running into the Detroit/Colorado/Dallas monster, just those bullshit Devils teams that bored everyone to death. Then he ran in place on those worst-team-money-can-buy Rangers teams that didn't even make the playoffs. He was instrumental in two Stanley Cups -- for the Avalanche, because his bitchy ass wouldn't play in Quebec City and the Flyers had to give up so much as to not be worth it.

Kane has three rings and one Conn Smythe, Lindros has zero and zero, Kane never bitched his way out of an OHL assignment (Sault Ste. Marie) AND an NHL assignment (Quebec). Kane is far superior. Case closed.

Image

_________________
Power is always in the hands of the masses of men. What oppresses the masses is their own ignorance, their own short-sighted selfishness.
- Henry George


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2020 7:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:13 am
Posts: 17583
Location: BLM Lake Forest Chapter
pizza_Place: Quonset
Those hands!


_________________
Don Tiny wrote:
Don't be such a fucking chump.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2020 8:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 55924
pizza_Place: Barstool One Bite Frozen
HawaiiYou wrote:
Lindros was made of glass. Kane is tougher.

Kane isn't tough, he's just damn near impossible to lay a good hit on. Like two people have, and one took him out for two months.

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2020 8:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 4:29 pm
Posts: 38682
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Yeah the whole durability issue makes this a moot argument and even straight up, Kane is a better offensive player than Lindros anyway.

_________________
Proud member of the white guy grievance committee

It aint the six minutes. Its what happens in those six minutes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2020 9:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 38609
Location: "Across 110th Street"
No one cares. Ask NBC and ESPN.

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2020 9:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 33067
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
Regular Reader wrote:
No one cares. Ask NBC and ESPN.


It’s a shame. The games flow very well, and they always done in under three hours. I never played hockey, but my family went to a lot games Hawks games as a kid. Being in old Chicago stadium was awesome for hockey.

I have come to love the game, and it is closing in on my favorite sport to watch given all the flow issues with baseball. Football is fun to watch, but there is so little action given how much the clock runs with nothing going on.

I wish I understood hockey better.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2020 10:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 55924
pizza_Place: Barstool One Bite Frozen
The downside to the great pace of play is that there's very little ad inventory for the networks to sell. There are only 18 30-second spots during play. How many minutes of advertising are there in an NBA game, minus halftime? Gotta be more than nine. There are more during intermissions, but there aren't nearly as many eyeballs there. I haven't sat in front of the TV at intermission in over ten years.

Hockey really isn't difficult to understand, some people just gatekeep to make it that way. There are limitations to marketing stars, namely the use-the-whole-buffalo approach to roster construction and the team-oriented nature of the game itself, but that could have been partially overcome. They certainly tried with Eric Lindros and Paul Kariya, but neither of them could stay on the ice.

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2020 3:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 4:26 pm
Posts: 1567
I remember when Lindros first was coming into the league, the Hawks were one of those teams looking to trade for him. I forgot what the supposed Hawks package was but I think it included either Belfour/Hasek and maybe Roenick. I believe this was the year after the Hawks Stanley Cup run. Keenan was the GM at that point, I am sure he was hot to trot for Lindros but I don't think Pulford/Wirtz were as gung ho.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2020 4:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 55924
pizza_Place: Barstool One Bite Frozen
I'll do some research:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct- ... clnk&gl=us

Quote:
Which players the Hawks would have to give to get Lindros is pure speculation. They have grouped different offers, trying not to disrupt their structure too much. Considered to be among those offered are goalie Ed Belfour, defenseman Steve Smith, right wing Steve Larmer, center Brent Sutter, plus young prospects Dean McAmmond and Karl Dykhuis, the Hawks` No. 1 draft picks the last two years. And the draft picks the Hawks surrender probably all would be first-rounders.

The other factor in giving three to four first-round picks for Lindros is that it would end the Hawks` bid to reacquire defenseman Dave Manson from Edmonton. Manson is a free agent whom the Hawks will try to sign for as much as $800,000, but they would have to give up two first-round picks if the Oilers don`t match that salary offer.

The only Hawks that Keenan has told Quebec General Manager Pierre Page he can`t have are center Jeremy Roenick and defenseman Chris Chelios.

As far as how much money Hawks owner Bill Wirtz will have to pay Quebec in addition to players and picks, the estimates start at $15 million.

''The money depends on how many players you give them,'' Pulford said.


Wirtz was not paying $15MM just for the right to sign Lindros, who Pulford also said didn't deserve to make more than Roenick (fair).

I think the Hawks would have come out better than the Flyers did in only losing Belfour, Larmer, Steve Smith, Brent Sutter, McCammond, and four first-rounders. The Hawks didn't really hit big on the next four first-round picks, which the Nordiques, generally a fairly savvy organization even with the mandate to draft heavily from Quebec, probably would have made better use of. However, there's no Peter Forsberg in that package, and I don't think anyone they could have drafted mid-first from '92-'95 would have been close to Peter Forsberg. Maybe in '94 they draft Patrik Elias where the Hawks took Ethan Moreau? Doubtful.

The biggest problem I see is that in Sutter, Smith, and Larmer, you have a great deal of star power. With next to no revenue sharing and a lousy local TV deal (largely sabotaged by the Canadiens, who pretty much ran NHL TV in Canada through a separate subsidiary of Molson), would the Nordiques have had the money to pay them? Would it have taken more cash in the trade to do so? Would they have reported to Quebec City?

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group