The Athletic Hockey Show - The great Hockey Hall of Fame debate

Episode Date: August 19, 2021

Ian Mendes and Sean McIndoe spend the next hour discussing the Hockey Hall of Fame. First, should the selection process be more transparent? Do statistical milestones or rings matter? What about goalies?Then, should past players like Keith Tkachuk or Alex Mogilny be in the HOF? What about current players like Anze Kopitar or Steven Stamkos, will they eventually get there? Do you agree with the guys? Email your thoughts to [e-mail], or leave a VM at [phone]!Save on an annual subscription to The Athletic: theathletic.com/hockeyshow Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We're back, everybody. It's another edition of the Athletic Hockey Show with Ian Mendeshaugh McIndoo with you on a Thursday. And, hey, it's the middle of August. And like we did last week, okay, last episode, we devoted the whole thing to the most likable players in hockey history, right? We came up with a list of 10 likable players. We thought, let's depart from our usual format.

August allows us to be a little bit more creative, a little more flexible, a little more fun. We're going to do the same thing in this episode of the podcast. and I think we're going to end up, you know, maybe having some healthy debates around the Hockey Hall of Fame. Because as people know, it's a really hard thing to try and figure out the criteria for the Hockey Hall of Fame. Sometimes you'll see a guy he's in the Hall of Fame. You're like, why is that guy in? Why is this guy not in?

And so we want to spend this episode debating maybe some of the guys that are on the bubble, maybe some current players, whether or not we project them into being into the Hall of Fame. So, Sean, I know this is often a topic that can get people angry, get them agitated, get them fired up. And I'm speaking of you, of course, because I think you're pretty passionate when it comes to the Hockey Hall of Fame. I love Hall of Fame debates. I don't get angry about them generally. We'll see if that holds true. But I don't get, I just, to me, this is what being a sports fan is.

You argue about this stuff, right? Like who is Hall of Fame worthy? Who isn't? this is the fun stuff. And I'm happy we get to do this. You know, I'm bummed out that we don't have a Hall of Fame class to argue about this year because they made the decision to hold off and not induct anyone this summer. It's two of my favorite times of a typical hockey year.

It's in the summer when you get the induction happens and you get to argue over who's going to get the call, who won't. And then in November when they do the induction and you get to do it all over again. It's always a lot of fun and it's too bad we don't get it this year. But yeah, I'm ready. Bring on the debate. Okay, so part of the debate for me, though, Sean, is the whole process itself. And, you know, if you're listening to this and you're a fan of the Simpsons,

you would know that the stone cutters are these super secret organization that Homer joins and everything is clouded in mystery and nobody really knows what's going on. That's kind of the best analogy for the Hockey Hall of Fame voting process, isn't it? where you have no idea, we kind of have an idea who can, who's on the panel and who votes, but they're not allowed, like, for years, listen, I had Bob McKenzie on my radio show for years or Pierre McGuire would be on our radio station for years. And they would be more than happy to talk about, you know, players and candidacy. But the minute you started asking specific questions about the voting process,

it became like you were talking to somebody who was like in a secret society at like Yale or something like, I don't know what you're talking about. What do you mean? Like, so I guess my first question, before we kind of dive head first into this, kind of should this guy be in, should this guy not be in? Do you think that the process needs to be more transparent when it comes to the Hall of Fame voting process? Yeah, I do. And, you know, as far as what the process is, it's, you know, I feel like we have a better understanding.

Eric Duhatchik has done some great work on this. He was on the committee for years and years. and years and no longer is because there's a term limit on how long you can serve and his recently ended. And he's done some really good stuff on the athletic. Last summer, we did an exercise where we basically formed our own shadow committee. There were 18 of us, the same number as in the real thing. And he walked us through the entire process as far as how nominations happened and then

how the debates go and all of that. So it was really eye-opening. It was really insightful. But I have to say, having gone through it, I walked away going, there's got to be a better way to do this. And part of that is just it's the lack of transparency. It's the secrecy around not so much the process, but what gets discussed? Whose names came up? Who were you talking about?

Who was nominated? Each committee member can nominate one player, throw one name out there. And then they debate it. Well, who gets nominated? Who's even being discussed? There are times where there might be players that are, you know, somebody's favorite player and they're saying like, oh, man, they didn't make the hall this year. I wonder, did they come close? They might not even have been discussed the way the process works because maybe nobody put their name in in that particular year.

And how many times do we see a guy will suddenly get inducted after years and years and years? Right. And you're going like, wait, where do Rogie Vachon come from? Where's, you know, Guy Carbono? where are guys like this coming from? Wouldn't it be great if we knew that, yeah, actually, you know what, Guy Carbono for the last 10 years has been right there. He's been three votes shy and he finally got in.

That would very much change the conversation around those guys, but we don't get that. We get, it's a total black box. We don't know whose name came up. We don't know how many votes they got. We don't know who was one vote short. We don't know any of it other than they come out at the end of the day and say, here is the list of names and that's all you will ever know as far as what got discussed in that room. And it's, it's the wrong way to do it as far as just the transparency and being above

board and all that. But it's also wrong from a fan perspective. It's, this isn't fun for fans when you just hand us a list of names. What is fun, uh, is, is the way that pretty much everyone else does it, right? I mean, you look at baseball. Okay, so baseball is the media that votes and it's, you know, four or five hundred media. members. Maybe you don't want the media doing it fine. But every year, we see the list. We know where the cutoff is. We know who's moving towards it. We know who's moving away. You see guys like Tim Raines a few years ago where he was getting closer and closer and closer and his time was running out. Was he going to make it on the last ballot? That stuff is fun to watch and to argue about and all of that.

And obviously, it's not fun when you don't agree with the result, but that is, that's a much more intriguing and entertaining process than what hockey has. Or you look at football where they've got tears and they basically say, okay, here's the guys that are the finalists. And now here are the guys that are on the final ballot. And now here are the guys who actually made it. So you might have your favorite player and go, all right, he's not in the Hall of Fame, but he's been on the final ballot the last three years. So maybe he's getting close. Maybe this is the year. We don't have that in hockey. In hockey, we, if you're somebody, you want Jeremy Roanick in the Hall of Fame, you want Alexander McGilney in the Hall of Fame

you want Daniel Alpherson in the Hall of Fame nobody could tell you how close they are whether they're one vote shy or five or ten or whether they're even being discussed at all nobody can tell you that other than the 18 men and women in that room and they're sworn to secrecy it's it's not the right way to do something

that ultimately should be for the fans and you know for recognizing those guys it's just it's the wrong process. I really don't like how they do it. Now, another thing that I think a lot of fans think about is, well, if that guy's in the Hall of Fame, then this guy should be in the Hall of Fame. And Guy Carbado's a great example.

I feel like Guy Carbado is like the new Clark Gillies. Clark Gillies for years was in the Hall of Fame. And people are like, well, if Clark Gillies is in, then insert name here, it should be in. Where do you come down on that using guys who are in the Hall of Fame as the benchmark for who should and shouldn't be inducted? Yeah, I mean, that's all you can do. I mean, there isn't any firm set of criteria that's out there.

So that is the fair way to do it. But the problem is you get those outlier picks. And again, this is, it's 18 people on a committee. And you need 14 votes to get in. So you need 14 people in the hockey world to think you're a Hall of Famer and you're a Hall of Famer. And that's it. So whether it's Guy Carbono, Kevin Lowe is another one recently. Good players.

I'm not taking anything away from Guy Carbino or Kevin Lois players. Are they Hall of Famers? Well, 14 people in that room thought so. And especially when you're dealing with guys who went on and had careers past their players, they became coaches, GMs, executives. How many people in that room do they know? How many people in that room do they go golfing with? How many buddies are there?

Do they have a best friend in that room who's going to stand up and go, guys, we got to get Kevin in. We got to do something for Guy. We got to, you know, this player or that player. we don't know. And that's another reason why I, you know, I just, it's, it's what makes it so tough. Because you're right. In theory, we should be able to look at Guy Carbono and say, okay, Guy Carbono is a Hall of Famer. Objectively, that is the decision. Therefore, wherever the bar is set, it's got to be right around his name. Well, if Geekarbono is where you're going to set the bar, I got news for you. You got to build some wider doors on the Hall of Fame because there's

lots and lots of guys that aren't in that need to get. in if all they need to do is be at the key carbonyl level. Yeah. So what I think is interesting too, like when Carbno got in, like I didn't know anything about Vatslav Netamansky. Like I honestly, I didn't know. And then all of a sudden they're like, hey, Vatslav Netamansky is in the Hall of Fame. So look, I know that there's an international element.

That's one thing we need to focus on too. This isn't the NHL Hall of Fame. This is the Hockey Hall of Fame. So there are players who were more dominant on the international stage who are in that Amanski would be a good example. But where do you come down, again, before we kind of dive into this, do statistical milestones matter? I know in baseball, we're very much, hey, 500 home runs is usually your ticket to Cooperstown.

Is that how we feel about hockey? 500 goals, automatic entry. That should be in, 1,000 points, or, you know, maybe it's 400 wins for a goalie or whatever. Like, do you believe in the power of certain statistical milestones to get into a Hall of Fame? I think it's good to have some benchmarks to guide you along the way, especially when you're talking about that kind of player. If you're talking about a goal score to say, yeah, you know, 500 goals is sort of the minimum bar that you should have to cross to be considered if you're a goal score. Okay. You know, a thousand points.

Obviously, you get into issues around era. Obviously, you get into issues comparing certain guys and guys who had elder elements to their game that aren't captured in that. So it's not a hard and fast rule. I've never been someone who says 500 goals you're in under 500 you're not. I mean, ultimately, Peter Bonder had 503 goals. Glenn Anderson had 498. Is that a meaningful difference other than the fact that one number starts with a five and one doesn't? It shouldn't be.

You know, the idea that if Fred McGriff had hit seven more homers and finished his career with 500 instead of 493, he makes the Hall of Fame. But because his numbers started with the four, he drops off the ballot right away. that's crazy. That's that that that's getting putting too much emphasis on the on the the milestones. But as a benchmark as a starting point, yeah, I don't have a problem as someone for example says what about this forward? This forward should be in the Hall of Fame and you go, well, they didn't even get to a thousand points. Now that's not the end of the discussion. That's the start of one because Paul Correa didn't get a thousand points and he of course

was a Hall of Famer. So, uh, their guidelines. Their benchmarks. Um, They can be helpful. They can't be the thing that you use to end a conversation. They're the start of one. Okay. And then what about Stanley Cup rings? Because look, we need to make this card. This is a team sport.

And it's very hard. This isn't, you know, I think it's easier in the NBA to be an individual and dominate a game and maybe carry your team to a championship. I don't think you can do the same in hockey. And yet we somehow seem to hold Stanley Cup rings in such a high regard as to say, you know what, if you didn't win a ring, I don't know if you're in the Hall of Fame. And maybe goalies are probably the best example of that. How much should we weigh Stanley Cup rings and championships as we debate Hall of Famers?

Yeah. So how much should we weigh it? I would say pretty close to not at all, just especially in the modern era. Once you get past 20 teams, you know, we're into an era. There's 32 teams now. what Connor McDavid, as amazing as he is, cannot single-handedly beat 31 other teams. You know, in the original six era, yeah, maybe you look at someone and go, if they didn't win a cup, maybe we wonder about that.

But it's something that we should not. It is a team game. We shouldn't be penalizing guys for not having cups. And, you know, we shouldn't be rewarding guys for having a lot if they just happen be on a great team. Now, what's interesting to me is the question then becomes, well, does the committee do that? And I had somebody, I've got a mailbag I'm working on for this week, and somebody sent in that question. They said, how much do cups actually matter? So I dug into it, and I was a little bit surprised by what I found, because as far as I can tell,

there doesn't seem to be any penalty on players that don't win Stanley Cups. I started making a list of great players who never won a cup, but still got into the Hall of, Fame. And I had to cut it short because I was just going on and on. I think I had 10 names by the time I stopped looking. I mean, you look at Lindrosse, Burry, Korea, you know, on down the list. Mike Gardner. There's there's a ton of guys that made the Hall of Fame that never won Stanley Cups. It doesn't seem to be a factor that they hold against you. Bernie Ferderco was a guy that a lot of people think shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame. Dino Cicerelli is another one that's kind of questionable. Didn't win a cup. Didn't seem to hurt them. The only position it seems to matter with is goaltenders, where, I mean, I think at A. G. Hackman's, the only modern goalie didn't have a cup that went in. But even that's going to change as soon as Alunquist and Luongo are eligible. I think they're going to go in. So that'll change. And so, yeah, if you don't have a cup, it doesn't really matter. If you have one cup, doesn't seem to make a big difference. It's when you get into the guys who have three or five. four or five Stanley Cups. That's where it really seems to matter from what I could find. The guys like Glenn Anderson,

who was a good player, but was never more than the fourth or fifth best player on those Oilers team. But he wins a bunch of cups, and he gets in, even though he didn't crack, this was a scorer in the 80s who didn't crack 500 goals and he gets in. Kevin Lowe is another one. Bob Ganey,

Guy Carbono, you go to Clark Gillies. Those guys, basically, once you get three or more, that seems to be something that gets the attention of the committee. Other than that, I don't actually see it having that big an influence, and it surprised me because I would have thought that it would. Okay, so let's get into it then. We're going to debate some guys who currently are not in the Hall of Fame, and some of them have reached the aforementioned statistical milestones

that we've talked about, the 500 goals, 1,000 points, some of them haven't. Let me start with a guy that I think should be in there in Keith Kachuk. And Keith Kachak, 500 career goals in the national hockey. So he's got the 500 goals, Sean. He's got the 1,000 points. He's a guy who, you know, in his prime, you know, so 538 goals and 1,065 points. In his prime was one of the best power forwards in the game, made Team USA on multiple occasions in best-on-best tournaments. Why is Keith Kachuk not in the Hall of Fame?

Yeah, I think he's a good candidate. And, you know, I'll give you the best argument for Keith Kachuk that I think you can come up with. And that is that among eligible players, Keith Kuchuk has the most goals of any player who's not in the Hall of Fame. Which means, you know, to put that a little bit differently, nobody in the history of hockey has scored as many goals as Keith Kachuk without being a Hall of Famer. And I think that's a pretty strong arm. This guy's 538 career goals.

That's three back of Stan McKita. He's six back of Rocket Richard. He's ahead of Frank Mahavala. He's ahead of Brian Trotche, Dale Howardchuck, guys like that. Shouldn't the guy with the most goals of everyone who's eligible,

shouldn't he be at the front of the line to make the list? And I think that's a good argument. The downside of that, the flip side, is, and this also applies to another guy that we can discuss in Pierre Turgeon, who's the all-time leading points guy among guys who aren't in the list. If you put the guy who's at the top of the list into the Hall of Fame, then you drop down and there's another name there. And do you put that guy in? And if that guy goes in, what about the guy after that? And how far down the list do we go?

And here's the thing. If we put Keith Kach in, the next guy on the list is, I think, Pat Verbeek. is Pat Verbeke a Hall of Famer? If people look at Pat Verbeek is a Hall of Famer. If you put Cher Tréjohn in the Hall of Fame, the next guy down the list after Turgeon, among eligible players is Jeremy Roanuk.

A lot of people think he should be on there, but the next two guys after that are Bernie Nichols and Vincent Daffus. So do we put those guys in the Hall of Fame? At some point, you have to say, this is the guy who just doesn't make the cut. And with Keith Kuchuk, I think the argument against would be

never won a heart trophy, only had a couple of years where he got even a smattering of votes, was a postseason all-star twice. I really look at post-season all-stars, not the mid-season where you've got to pick someone from every team. Forget that. It's meaningless. But at the end of the year, that is what tells you whether this guy was considered one of the very best at his position at any given time.

And, you know, that's what I want to see. I don't want to see a guy who has 20 years and get 60. points every year as an average player and finishes of 1,200. I don't want that guy my Hall of Fame. I want the guy who was the best in the league for three or four or five years. And Keith Kachuk was in that mix for sure. He had two years where he was a second team all-star, was never a first-team all-star, which suggests that Keith Kachuk during his career was considered a very good player, at times one of the best players, but never

really in that top tier of elite stars. And should a guy have to have been there at some point in his career to be considered. Not everyone. There's a guy's in the Hall of Fame who never even got two postseason All-Star, but Keith Kachuk, you know, at the time when you watched him play, he always felt like this is a really good player, a dangerous player, but is he an elite guy? I don't know that I ever felt that way. And apparently the committee hasn't quite felt that way for him either. Yeah. But how much does Kachuk get hurt by the markets that he played in, Winnipeg, Arizona, St. Louis is probably the, you know, the biggest hockey market, but Keith Kachuk didn't get the, maybe the bump that a Cam Neely would have gotten

out of Boston, right? Like, is there something to be said for? It is harder for you to get into the Hall of Fame? Like, is Geek-Harbonneau getting into the Hall of Fame if he spent the majority of his career with the Dallas Stars and one, you know, he still wins three cups, but, you know, two of them are in Dallas and one is somewhere else. I don't know. But I wonder if Keith Kichuk is a little bit of a victim of I never played for an original six team or kind of a team bigger than the St. Louis Blues. Yeah.

And, you know, the other thing with Keith Kachuk is he starts his career. He has five seasons in Winnipeg and then five in Phoenix and it's the same franchise, but different markets. And then he finishes his career. He has a long stretch in St. Louis. It gets broken up though by Atlanta, broken up by the lockout, there does seem to be a bonus

that gets applied to players who are very strongly associated with one market. Guys who played either their whole career or the majority of their career with one market. A lot of those borderline guys, the Bernie Ferdurcos, the Clark Gillies, guys like that have that one market that's associated with them.

And it shouldn't be this way, probably, but around that time, it just feels like you see the fan bases, the media, they start to kind of swell up and say, yeah, this is the year for this guy. This is, we all got to get behind them and that keeps that buzz going, whereas some other guys that bounce around the league a lot more, and Keith Kuchuk kind of is one of those guys where they didn't really have that one place where they were a superstar and they are beloved and that market really gets behind them. that does seem to hurt guys and there are examples of guys who bounced around the league like Dave Anderchuk You look at his numbers

Should have been in much sooner than he got in But he was a guy that never really had a home For the long term in the league And did that It was that why it took so long for him to get in Keith Kachuk could be that guy Again Kach's one of those guys It wouldn't shock me to find out that yeah

He's been one or two votes short He's been real close And Having two kids in the NHL probably doesn't hurt him right now. That name is still out there. You're going to hear that name. You never forget the name Kachuk for the next decade because of his kids. That'll probably help him. I wouldn't be shocked if he gets in. But he's, you know, I think it's fair to say he's a borderline case of a guy who was a really, really good player for a long time. Was he ever one of the absolute greats? And does he need to be to get in?

Okay. So if you are under the, you know, we use their theory of, hey, if you spend the majority of your career with, one franchise and you're associated with that team that can help your cause, then why is Daniel Alpherson not in the Hall of Fame? He's a guy with 1,100 career points, basically a point-of-game guy for the majority of his career, took a team to his Stanley Cup final, has won, you know, has had a season in which he was top five in the Hart Trophy voting. I, you know, obviously being in this market, I'm a big advocate for what he's done here. I would say that he's a Hall of Famer in my estimation, but I also understand that I might look at it in a, you know, maybe less than objective viewpoint coming from this marketplace.

Explain to me why Daniel Alfordson's not in the Hall of Fame. Yeah. I mean, I think Alfredson's a guy who I still think will get in eventually. I'm mildly surprised that he didn't get in already. Again, he's got the one market. I know people are going to say, well, it's Ottawa. If it was Toronto, if it was Montreal. Yeah, maybe.

But there are lots of examples. guys from smaller markets getting in. Alfredson, again, if you were going to build the case against him, you'd say, you know what, this is a guy he played 18 years, didn't crack 500 goals, not even 450, you know, did have 1100 points. But again, that's in an almost two-decade career. You mentioned the one season where he was top five in hard voting. Yeah, there was the one year he finished fifth.

That was the only year that he got significant support for the heart. He had one year where he was a second team, Allister. That's it. And I think the argument that you would make would be that for a long time, Daniel Offerton was a very good player in this league, but was never near the conversation for the best players or even the best wingers in the league. And for that reason, given that his numbers at the end of his career

were very good but weren't so good that, you know, you almost feel like he got to put him in because of the milestones he hit. That's the reason why he is a borderline candidate, not a slam-dug candidate, but borderline candidates still do get in. And I do think Daniel Offertson eventually will probably get in because he does, his numbers are good enough. His reputation is good.

He was a good two-way player, so the fact that he didn't hit the same kind of numbers that some other guys hit helps you. Had international success. Didn't win a cup, but one gold was a good international player. I do think he gets in eventually. But I think there's a not unreasonable case that he should have to wait his turn. You know what, though?

I think what really drives a lot of people nuts in the Ottawa market is why is Matt Sundin, a first ballot hall of famer, no questions asked. Alfredson has to wait on the sideline. And Sundin, uh, listen, he was, he was a, he was a dominant player. He never, he never was top five in a heart trophy. He never got to a Stanley Cup final. Um, you know, I feel like if the roles were reversed, if Daniel Alfordson's career is in Toronto and Matt Sundance is in Ottawa, I think Matt Sundeen is not in the Hall of Fame and I think Daniel Alpherson is. It's, I mean, we'll never know. And again, we'll never know because of the lack of transparency. Maybe Matt Sundeen got in with 14 votes just snuck in and maybe Daniel

Offertson's been hovering at 13 for years. Here's the flip side of that argument. Matt Sundeen had over 200 points more than Daniel Offerton. Matt Sundin beats Daniel Offerton by 100 goals. Matt Sundin, you're right on the heart voting, but he was a second team all-star twice in his career at center, which is a far more important and far more competitive position than winger. So I think that would be your answer or your argument for why Matt Sondy makes it in when when Daniel Robertson doesn't. But again, they're close.

And I would love to know how close they've been as far as the voting. I really wish we had a system where I could know the answer to that. You know, you brought up a name earlier in Jeremy Roanick, who I think has a lot of similar attributes to Keith Kachuk in that, you know, one of the best American players of the 90s, 500 a goal guy. And, you know, let's be honest. So part of this is also the way that he left NBC under less than ideal circumstances. That may very well affect his Hall of Fame candidacy, whether we think it does or it doesn't. I think it probably does. Does Jeremy Roanick deserve to be in the Hall of Fame if we are looking at the on-ice portion of J.R.'s career?

If you're only looking at on-ice, then he's got a good case. 500 goal guy, 1,200 points. And was a guy that, you know, we talked about All-Star. This guy was never a post-season All-Star, although he played in that era. He's drifting into the 80s and 90s where you sort of have to factor in the Gretzky-Lamue factor,

where, you know, centers, there weren't All-Star spots available some years because Gretzky and Lemieux automatically got them, and rightly so. But, you know, he doesn't, have any postseason hardware, but he does have the numbers. And he was, you know, and I almost hate to do this, but sometimes there are guys where you just say, during their career, you thought you were watching a Hall of Famer. And with Jeremy Roanick, you did. He had the personality. He was,

he was a flashy guy, put up the big numbers, and was a key piece of those American teams. And really, you know, to my mind, when I think of those team USA teams, especially the 96 World Cup team, that was kind of the first one to break through and win a best on best tournament. Ronik's a guy I think of before Kachuk. I still feel like Kachuk was more of a supporting guy. Ronik was, along with Brian Leach and Richter and a few guys like that, was kind of the face of that team. I'll say this.

I'm mildly surprised that Jeremy Ronick is not already in. He's been eligible for quite a few years now. I would not have been surprised at all if he had gone in early in his eligibility a few years ago, I would be very surprised if he gets in now. He is not doing himself any favors with how his, not just his exit from NBC, but his,

just his public persona right now, his behavior, I think is, if he was borderline already, I think there are at some point in those committee meetings, somebody's going to say, put up their hand and go, are we really putting this guy in right now,

knowing that we've got, Three or four months between when we put them in and when the induction ceremony, do we know he's not going to tweet or say something stupid that's going to embarrass us during that time? And unfortunately, with Jeremy Roanick, I don't think you can be confident saying that right now. Years down the line, who knows, committee's got long memories. We've seen lots of guys make it in decades after their eligibility started. So the door isn't closed. But I'm a little surprised he didn't make it before.

I would be very surprised if he made it now, given everything that's going on around him. Okay. So look, I'm going to remove Daniel Alpherson from the equation for me because that, if you're telling me, hey, Ian, you get 10 minutes to make an impassioned plea in front of the Hall of Fame committee. You get one guy. I would probably take Alpherson just again, but that's more from a personal and professional standpoint. Removing that, if you're telling me, hey, Ian, you get one guy to advocate for. I think I would go Alexander Mogileney. And I truly think, Sean, Alex McGilney was one of the great, underrated, like kind of underappreciated stars of our time. He wasn't as flashy as Pavel Burry. He wasn't as well-rounded as Sergey Federov, but he was equally as talented as his two Russian counterparts. And when you look at the body of work and you see more than a thousand games and more than a point per game and a big part of a Stanley Cup winning team and multiple 50 goals seasons and you start to add it all up. And you just, I am left scratching my head as we sit here in August of 2021 as to how or why Alexander Mogilny is not in the Hall of Fame.

Yeah, he'd be very high on my list too. And again, not to, I realize this is, this is super subjective. But if you grew up watching hockey when Alexander McGilney was at the height of his powers, there was no question in your mind you were watching a hockey. Hall of Famer. I mean, that 76 goal season, one of the all-time great offensive breakthrough seasons that we've ever seen, a guy who later in his career became, had his game adjust and became more of a two-way player. The argument against him would be, this is a goal score who didn't get to 500 goals. And this is an offensive player who played some of his

prime during the offensive era and he barely scraped by a thousand points. So that's where the milestones come in and he was, he's right around the borderline there. He was a two-time All-Star. So not bad, but certainly nothing that pushes him to the front of the line. Here's the thing for me where it comes to Alexander McGilney. Because you said earlier, it's the Hockey Hall of Fame, not the NHL Hall of Fame. If you're purely looking at NHL numbers, I think I'd still put Alexander McGilney in because of how good he was at his, at the height of his talent. But I could see the argument against him.

But once they put Netamansky in, to me, that seals the deal on McGilney. Because Netamasky was in largely, if people don't know, he had a great international career, but also because of the impact of him coming over to the NHL being one of the first guys. from what was then Czechoslovakia to come over, one of the first Iron Curtain guys to come over to the NHL. And that had a huge impact. And that's a big part of his Hall of Fame case,

his Hall of Fame resume. And I'm absolutely fine with that. But if you're going to put him in, you've got to put the first Russian star to come over, especially a guy McGilney. The whole story of how he defected and how he came over is, it's crazy. It's cloak and dagger stuff.

It's like out of a spy movie. I think you absolutely have got to make that a central part of his case. And, you know, once you've done that, the 70-goal season and the, you know, the All-Star years and the 50 goals in other places, that all just becomes the icing on the cake. He's got to be in. I was really shocked last year that he didn't get in because I thought once Netamansky went in, I thought that that opened the door wide open for McGilney. I was really surprised that he didn't go in. They've got to get him in soon. Okay, one other name, we'll debate one other sort of 80s and 90s, 2000 star,

and then we'll talk about some of the current players and I think the goaltending position is super intriguing. But Theo Fleury, Sean, is a guy who represented Canada four times at best on best tournaments. So you're talking the 91 Canada Cup, the 96 World Cup, the 98 Olympics in Niagara and the 02, Olympics in Salt Lake City. So if you're looking, and I think you and I look at things very similarly on that front,

and if you're playing for your country at a best-on-best tournament multiple times, that's a great indicator that you're one of the better players of your generation. Then you add in Theo Fleury, look, he was a big part of, he was a rookie, but he was a big part of that Flames team that won a cup in 89. He's got a 50-goal season on his resume. Boy, oh, boy, like you start to check some boxes off on Theo Flurry. there's a lot there to suggest he's a Hall of Famer. There is.

And I put him on the list to discuss, partly because I know his is a name that comes up all the time when this discussion happens. And people say, how is he not in the Hall of Fame? To some extent, similar case as McGilney, where you might look at it and go, 450 goals, that's not bad. But for a guy who played some of his career in the 80s and early 90s, it's not all that impressive. had just under 1,100 career points. Again, good. Hall of Fame numbers compared to some other guys. But for a guy who was viewed as an offensive player, it's not numbers that really drop your jaw.

One year as a second team all-star, two years finishing fifth and hard voting. So, you know, that helps you for sure. Had some big years, had the 150 goal year. But is this a guy where you do? just look at it and say, boy, if he had had a couple more good years, you give him, you give him another hundred goals, you give him another 150 points and he's in, but he just didn't quite get there. Like we said, you do have to draw the line somewhere. At some point, maybe you just say that you're knocking at the door, but you can't come in. I would just say

when it comes to Theo Fleury, and, you know, we talked about it with McGilney and some other guys, and you tell me if I'm wrong, because this is, we're the same era. You watch. You watch He watched Theo Fleury in the early 90s, when he was buzzing around there at the flames, this little five-foot nothing guy, you absolutely thought you were watching a Hall of Famer every single time. I mean, he was, this was a guy, you could not take your eyes off him.

If the flames came to town and you had tickets and you went that night, he was the guy that your dad was tapping you on the shoulder, going, watch that guy, because he's going to do something amazing. And, you know, he was phenomenal at his peak. he was good for longer than you think. You know, a lot of people, they act like his career ended once he left Calgary. This guy had a 30-goal season with the Rangers in his 30s.

This guy, you know, he had a pretty good run with Colorado. He had some problems off the ice, but that shouldn't be something that penalizes him. You know, especially if he's overcome those demons, then, you know, we should give him credit for that. He's another guy where every now and then these days he gets in the news. for the wrong reasons because something he said or tweeted or whatever it is and maybe that hurts him in a similar way to Roanick. But to me, he's a great story. And he's, he's one of those guys where I guess at the end of the day, I can't sit here and say that he absolutely must be in the Hall of Fame, that it's a travesty that he isn't. But I feel like it wouldn't surprise

me if he got in one day. And the day that announcement comes, I'm not even going to raise an eyebrow. I will be like, yep, the O'Fleurie Hall of Fame, absolutely. I don't have a single issue with it. He should be in the Hall of Fame for that goal celebration against Edmonton alone. How many guys in the Hall of Fame don't have a moment like that? Yeah. I mean, it's one of the most iconic moments. And he was just, I mean, he was listed at 5-6.

Yeah. In the 80s. I mean, that's like, I'm exaggerating a little bit, but not very much. That'd be like a guy coming in the NHL today who was 410. Like, it's just, it was ridiculous. to see a guy like that. You're looking at him in, in 1991 going, is this like, did somebody let their kid on the ice? What is happening here?

Yeah. And then it was like, oh, but yeah, by the way, he's faster than everyone in the league. And also was a nasty player. This wasn't a guy who was like, you know, I'm going to, I'm the smallest guy in the whole league. I got to stay out of it. This guy was absolutely, he had, this guy, he had a 200 plus penalty minute year. with the Rangers as a 33-year-old. I mean, if there was anyone, at that point,

you've been in the league a decade, you can stay out of this stuff, but he wouldn't do it. He was a nasty player in a very nasty era in the league. He didn't stay out of any of that stuff. Man, he was fun to watch. Yeah, we talked about it too earlier this year on the podcast. He had a game in which he scored a short-handed hat trick.

Like, again, he's had these sort of really unique moments in NHL history. So I would agree with you. I'd be certainly advocating for Theo Fleury. Now, one thing I always hear, Sean, when you hear people, hockey fans talk about the Hall of Fame versus like Cooperstown,

baseball fans will tell you the Hall of Fame is reserved for the best of the best in baseball. The Hockey Hall of Fame is the Hall of really good players. Okay? Where that argument seems to die on the vine is when we talk about goaltenders.

And this is what I want to get into. Because with goaltenders, it seems like you guys, to be like Hachik or Belfour, Patrick Waugh, and if you're not, you're not getting in. Like Chris Osgood's got a Hall of Fame resume, multiple Stanley Cups and, you know, lots of wins, and he's not getting in there. So I want to go back to something you said earlier in this podcast, which was you think Henrik Lundquist and Roberto Luongo are getting into the Hall of Fame.

And I guess my question would be, why did those guys who have never won a Stanley Cup as a starter, why do they get in the Hall of Fame? And then a guy like Chris Oz's good, he's got multiple cups, he's probably not going to get in. I'm starting to think Corey Crawford's probably not going to get in. And maybe we could talk about Jonathan Quick, but how do you figure,

like how are you analyzing the goaltender position when it comes to the Hall of Fame? Yeah, there's not enough goalies in the Hall of Fame. I can't remember the exact stat, but I think I, at one point, I had looked at it and I said that if you started watching hockey in 1972 or something like that, you have seen the debut of something like four or five goalies who made the Hall of Fame

and that's it. It's Grant Fierre, it's Patrick Watts, Martam Broder, it's Dominic Hasick. And that is it as far as goalies who debuted. Billy Smith made it in, but he was already in a lot of. league. Rojie Fashon was already in the league. And Ed Belfour is the other one. So that's the fifth guy. So you're talking 50 years as a hockey fan. You've seen the debut of five Hall of Famers at what most of us would say can be the most important position in the sport.

So there should be more goalies in there. And I do think that Curtis Joseph has a strong case. There's some other guy. I think Tom Barrasso has a strong case. case. Mike Vernon, DeHachic has been banging that drum for a little while now. There is something off as far as how the committee handles goalies. I do think the door is going to swing open. I do think Luongo gets in. I think Lunguiss is a slam dunk. I think Mark Andre Fleury after this season is now a sure thing. So I think we're going to see over the next decade a bunch of goalies go in and maybe that opens the door even further so the guys like Joseph and whoever can get in.

Having said that, I don't think Chris Osgood is a Hall of Famer. I think Chris Osgood is a good goaltender who was on an elite team. I think the fact that he won two cups as a starter is great. Obviously, you know, you want to win cups. But I think there are other guys with two cups as a starter I put in ahead of him. I think Chris Osgood was a real good goalie. You could argue he was the perfect goalie for that Detroit Red Wings team. just solid, dependable guy

that they didn't have to worry about but he was playing, you know, back there behind Nicholas Lidstrom and a virtual all-star team. The 400 wins is nice, but it doesn't impress me enough to get him in the Hall of Fame and I think once he looked past the wins, the case for him kind of falls apart.

You know, you brought up the name of Mike Vernon, and I, this would be the guy I would advocate for at this position. a guy who, Sean, I think when you win a Stanley Cup as a starter for two different franchises, as Vernon did in 89 with Calgary. And then what I think is really important, when he won that cup, that was Detroit's first cup in 97, he gets the Con Smyth Award. So it wasn't like he was just kind of this, you know, extra piece behind a really deep team.

No, he was generally viewed as maybe the most important part. And Mike Vernon was a non-examination. was a number one goalie in this league for a decade. And it was always funny to me, too. Like, I remember thinking, like, way back when, I could be wrong on this. I don't think he ever played for Canada. What's weird is I don't think he ever played for Canada at a best-on-best tournament, which I always thought maybe there was some politics we didn't know about.

But, like, you know, whether it was Nagano or the World Cup of Hockey or the 91 Canada Cup, like, he was one of the best goalies. He was never there. I just look at Mike Vernon's track record. I think there's not, I mean, I'm having a hard time. Help me out here. How many other goalies have won the Stanley Cup as a starter with two different teams? Like, suddenly I'm having a hard time.

I'm drawing a blank. In the modern era, it can't be a long list for sure. And you're right. Like that. And again, this, yeah, that Detroit team in 97 was a real, real good team. And with benefit of hindsight, we look back and you can say, yeah, that was the start of a quasi-dainesty. But you got to go back to that mid-90s. That Detroit team was the team that couldn't get over the hump.

And a lot of it was goaltending, right? Tim Shevolday would come in and, you know, have a bad game and they'd lose a series. And then it was Mike Vernon coming in and becoming the guy who solidified and stabilized that position, a guy who would already want a cup somewhere else. And yeah, he was a key piece of that. I got to be honest, I never viewed Vernon as a Hall of Famer until I started seeing people make the case. And Ed Duhatchik has done it pretty convincingly.

So, yeah, I mean, he's up there. The argument against would be, you know, he never won a Vezina. He was only an All-Star once. Had one season as the Vesna runner up. But no other years as a finalist, although he had two where he finished fourth. so he was close. He was in the conversation for best goalie.

I don't know there was ever really a time where if a brand new hockey fan showed up and said, who's the best goalie in the league that you would have said Mike Vernon? But he would have been a name that would have come to mind at least a couple of years. You know, he's borderline. But again, like, I can't sit here and say

the hockey hall of fame needs to put more goalies in and then slam the door on a guy like Mike Vernon who's got a pretty good resume for it. I think he's more in the conversation than I thought before I saw other people making the case. And just to wrap up the conversation on goalies, you mentioned, look, Broder, Orsa not Brodur, Luongo, and Lunguish get in. I know he didn't win a Stanley Cup this summer, but is Kerry Price going to the Hall of Fame? I mean, he wins a, he wins a heart trophy, he wins a gold medal for Canada at the Olympic Games. he's, you know, all-time leader in wins for, again, one of the most, you know, iconic franchises in all of pro sports.

Is Kerry Price an open and shut case to get into the Hall of Fame? I mean, if Kerry Price retired today, I don't think it's an open and shut case. I think he's, he becomes an interesting question at that point. He's had only one year in his career where he was an All-Star, and that was the year he won of Vezna. But he also won the heart that year. And the list of goalies who won the heart is not a long one. Now, Jose Teodor is on that list, and he didn't get anywhere near the Hall of Fame discussion. So it certainly isn't, doesn't punch your ticket right there.

But, you know, Price is going to be fascinating because let's say he plays a few more years and then you got to be retired three years. It's going to be a while before he's up for discussion. And he might be one of those classic guys where if you never looked at a stat in your life and all you did is go by what you heard. what you read, you'd be convinced that Kerry Price was absolutely the best goaltender of his era because of the way he's talked about, the reverence with which people talk

about this guy, every time they do a player survey, it's always Kerry Price top of what goalie would you want in a game seven. And, you know, I know there's some people who roll their eyes at it because they look at his numbers and they go, he's got, other than that MVP, or he's got very average numbers for his career, at least

I shouldn't say average, he's got good numbers but certainly not slam dunk hall of fame numbers. And every year when it comes time to vote on the Vesna, most years he doesn't show up on a lot of ballots. Remember, that's not the media. That's the GMs voting on that award. So that's the proverbial hockey men themselves aren't putting this guy high on their list. And yet, he's just viewed as one of the very best to an extent that the numbers don't necessarily back up. And six months ago, you probably would have said, well,

yeah, that's why the I test lies to you. But then he goes and does what he did this postseason, where he comes off a year where his numbers aren't very good and then, oh, ho-hum, I'm just going to actually be the carry price that everybody talks about me as, and I'm going to almost single-handedly drag a team

close to a Stanley Cup. I feel like that playoff run really moved the needle for his candidacy. I feel like before that, you could have said this was a good goal. He had one great year, but he wasn't a Hall of Fame-Caliber guy. Now I think that moves it a bit, certainly if he wins another gold medal for Canada as a starter, that helps.

And the fact that he is going to be one of those guys who will have played all or most of his career in one market. And it certainly won't hurt that that market is going to be one of the biggest and loudest out there. I think Kerry Price gets in. I think there's going to be a real interesting debate around whether he should get in. But as far as whether he does, I'm not sure six months ago I would have said this, but now I feel like he's getting pretty close to the territory. where he's much more likely than not.

You know, and when they got to that Stanley Cup final and lost, one of the kind of enduring images was seeing not only Carrie Price, but his teammate Shea Weber, kind of just on the ice. And at the time, we didn't realize it, but looks like that might be it for Shea Weber's career. Now, I got to, we should roll the clip from the Tim Horton's ad in which they say, Shea Weber's all the favor.

No, my God, we won't subject our listeners to that. First ballot. Shea Weber might be the best defenseman. to never win a Norris trophy. I'll certainly hear that argument. Is Shea Weber a Hall of Famer? And this is interesting because, I mean, he and Price kind of go together. And when we were talking about Price, I said, well, if he retired today,

but of course, the other piece of that is Kerry Price will probably play three, four more years and he's going to get up to 400, 450 wins. And by that point, maybe those are slam dunk numbers. We might have said the same thing for Shea Weber until we found out the news of his injuries and the rest of his career is very much in question. So he could be done. He's somebody that we can look at and say, if this is it, has he done enough?

And again, I think this falls into pretty similar territory to carry price in that you can look at the numbers, you can look at the hardware, but then you listen to how people in the hockey world talk about this guy. The hockey world loves Shea Weber. The 200 hockey men, Shea Weber is what they picture when they picture an NHL defenseman. And those are the guys who decide who goes in the Hall of Fame.

The committee, it's not guys like you and me on that committee. It's hockey lifers. And they love Shea Weber. And look, we've talked about, you know, I keep bringing up how many times was this guy an all-star? Well, Shea Weber was an All-Star four times. He was a first team guy twice. He was a second-team guy twice. And that was in the span of five years.

So a five-year span where he was absolutely in the conversation for best defensemen in hockey. He never won the Norris, but he was a runner-up twice, finished third, finish fourth. Some of this was during the Lidstrom era where, you know, hey, what are you going to do? You're just like, I'm not going to penalize a center for not being an all-star over Gretzky and Lemieux. I'm not going to penalize a defenseman for finishing behind Nicholas Littstrom in the Norris voting. Do you need a Norris to make the Hall of Fame? No, you don't. Scott Stevens never won a Norris, and nobody questioned him going in.

Do you need a cup? No, you don't. Brad Park never won a cup or a Norris. Neither did Boris Salming. Nobody questions them going in the Hall of Fame. Shea Weber's numbers offensively are not as good as you think they are when you look at the all-time list. But, I mean, what do we all think of? of Shea Weber, winding up for that slap shot and putting it through the net.

I really think that, I would have said even six months ago, I thought Cheever was pretty close to a lock. And in theory, the fact that his career may be ending early in his numbers that we see now might be what they finish as should, you might think would hurt his case. But I think people are going to look at it and go, man, this guy had really good numbers and his career was cut short by injuries. He's in. I think he's going to be in.

and I'll go one further. I think he's going to be a first ballot guy. Yeah, just so you are the Tim Horton's guy. First ballot, baby. First ballot, baby. He was right. What can I say? Okay, well, of course, Che Weber, Kerry Price,

lose the Stanley Cup this year to the Tampa Bay Lightning. And Stephen Stamcoast is an interesting case for me, Sean, because at the end of the day, and Stephen is, you know, only 31 years old, I believe. And he's going to end up, Stephen Stamcoast has more than 400 goals, okay? So he's going to end up with 500 goals. he's going to end up with a thousand points. He's going to end up with at least two Stanley Cups.

What's interesting is in those two Stanley Cup runs for Tampa, he's not a central figure, right? Like it certainly last year in 2020, he comes in for the kind of his Kirk Gibson moment where he's in for a game, gets a goal, leaves, and then they win the cup essentially without him. This year, I think you could make an argument he was like the fifth or sixth best forward in Tampa's run.

And yet Stephen Stamcoast, if you just took everything away and said, first overall pick, you know, 500 goals, multiple Stanley Cups win, it's all said and done. You're like, yeah, slam dunk Hall of Famer. What do we think of Steven Stamcoe? Slam dunk Hall of Fame? Yeah, he's going to be an interesting case. And I mean, I think the answer here is we just don't know yet.

There had been guys who have followed his sort of career track where they've had a really strong second act. And I think if that's him, if he has five more years as a 30-goal guy, then, you know, we're talking not just 500 goals. We're talking getting near the realm of 600. And to do that in the dead puck era, yeah, slam dunk, easy Hall of Famer. We've also seen guys who have had his kind of career where by the time they got to their late 20s, you were thinking they're on track for the Hall of Fame and then they just, the production just fell off a cliff.

Danny Heatley's a guy that always comes to mind. There was a time where you looked at Danny Ealy and went, this guy's absolutely on track. He's the best goal scorer in the league. And then the production just took a dive. And obviously, he's not even a guy he considered as a candidate. And I don't think, you know, Stephen Stamco's has done more already. And I'm not expecting that he's suddenly going to become a guy who scores 10 goals a year. But it could happen.

We need to see it. Stamcoast is fascinating. I was talking to somebody about this the other day. And I said that if you went back in time to two, 2012 and you were talking to a hockey fan and you said you know what you want to hear a secret the guy who's going to break gretsky's record for goals is already in the league right now that fan every single fan you said that too would have said yeah you're talking about stephen stamco's and not alexander ovechkin because stamkoes had already had the 50 goal year he had just had a 60 goal year he was 21 years old 22 you were thinking the sky is the limit for this guy and it just hasn't, you know, because of injuries, and just, you know, because of how aging curves work, he just hasn't hit that height again,

but he's still been a very good player. Right now, he's on track to be right in that gray zone, right in that borderline area. And I think the second act of his career is going to tell the story. He's either going to have that kind of, I won't say, I was going to say Timos-Salani-level second act. I'm not saying he's got to play into his 40s, but that act where he finds,

he finds his feet and has a few more big years and then he's in. Or he's going to continue kind of down the trend being a guy who has trouble staying healthy. He puts up okay numbers when he plays, but is never really, again, considered the key player on his own team. And then he probably doesn't get in. That's going to be an interesting one to watch. Yeah, I think what could help him is if he somehow, if he gets on to Team Canada for the Olympic Games in Beijing. Yeah, never been on an Olympic team. Never.

Yeah. Think about how like the stars have not aligned for Stephen Stamco's. 2010, he scored 50 goals as whatever, 19 or 20 year old, and they just thought, you know what, you're too young, we're going to leave you off. 2014, he famously breaks his leg just before the Olympics. He isn't play. 2018, we don't send NHLers there.

So that's kind of hurt him a little bit, too, is that you don't have this great sort of team Canada best on best moment with Stephen Stamcoast. And now you wonder, is he even good enough to make the team? You feel like his teammate Braden Point will be on Canada in Beijing, and you're not sure about him. Let's wrap up the show, Sean. There's one guy I want to talk about who I think is really interesting

because when you look at the L.A. Kings, you say, yeah, Drew Doughty, two Stanley Cups, Norris Trophy, yeah, he's probably going to be a Hall of Famer. What about Anse Coupitar? Is Anse Copatar a Hall of Famer? Yeah, that's going to be a real interesting one. So, you know, you look at the numbers right now. He's at a thousand points on the nose. 300 and something goals.

Those are good numbers. Those aren't Hall of Fame numbers necessarily. Never been a postseason all-star. But one of the great two-way players of his era. He's a guy that you could look at and say, throw the offensive numbers out. I mean, a thousand points when you're winning the Selke multiple times, that's where it becomes Hall of Fame numbers.

And I think there's a good case for that. And in fact, I think there's a good case that there aren't enough two-way players in the Hall of Fame, that that is something that isn't recognized enough. That, you know, we've talked about this before where there was a time in hockey where you were either an offensive guy or a defensive guy. And the guys who could do both haven't been appreciated enough. Now, the thing that might help or might hurt Anzi Akop Kop Kopatar is when it's his time to be considered, you're also going to have Patrice Bergeron and you're also going to have

Jonathan Tapes. And those three guys are kind of. of viewed as the ones who, they didn't revolutionize how the game was played, but I feel like they revolutionized how it was appreciated. That we looked at it and said, you know what, if you're a center, you don't have to have 100 points if you're phenomenal in your own end and responsible in your own end. You can be a 60, 70, 80 point guy and you're just as valuable as the 100 point guy who only plays in one end of the ice.

And so my question is, do all three of those guys make it? I feel like Patrice Bergeron is pretty close to sure thing at this point. I felt like Jonathan Taves was it. That might depend on how he comes back. But he's got the international pedigree, and I feel like there'll be a lot of support for him. Is there room for all three of these guys? And if not, do some of the voters say,

you know what, Copartar was real good, but he wasn't quite Berserun, it wasn't quite Taves? Or do they say that about Taves about Bergeron and Copadar or some order? And it might depend on just who gets in front of the voters first. I could see it that really being something where, you know, you could argue it shouldn't matter, but it might where, you know, if Kopachar's the first guy, do they say, okay, we're going to put this guy in and we'll worry about the other two guys later? Did they say, we got to wait until I do all three of the guys, it's possible all three guys could end up in front of the committee at the same time? I'm really interested to see how that plays out.

Right now, you know, Kopitar where he's at in his career, I don't know that he's done enough to be, certainly to be a lot. lock or to even be a favorite, but he's 33, give him three more pretty good years. And he's solidly in the conversation. I think the most likely outcome, if I had to guess, is I think all three of those guys get in. But that's three pretty similar guys, and there's not a lot of these spots. There's room for four guys a year. It's going to be interesting to see if all three of those guys make it. And if not, which ones are the ones left on the outside?

Yeah, listen, we'll leave the conversation there. We hope that everybody enjoyed, again, kind of a different format we've taken here for the month of August. And listen, we'd love to hear from you. If you're adamant or passionate about Alex Mulgillney or, you know, Kerry Price or Shea Weber, or any of the guys we've sort of debated here in this Hall of Fame debate show, hit us up with an email. You can always email us, your thoughts, your opinions, your questions. Get us at The Athletic Hockey Show at gmail.com.

You can also leave us a voicemail, 845444. 8, 4, 59. And if you're not a subscriber with us at The Athletic, you can join us at theathletic.com slash hockey show to save on an annual subscription.