I don't expect you to like Eric Lindros. It is not the easiest thing to do. He dug his own hole, taking unpopular stances about dictating where he was going to play. He's guarded, moody, abrupt and has no visibly likable personality, and he pissed off a lot of fans and a lot of hockey people along the way.
But I did like Eric Lindros. And, given the watered-down Hall of Fame we deal with in reality, he does belong in the Hockey Hall of Fame. I explain it all in my latest player profile as I feature "The Big E," Eric Lindros.
And just for kicks I've also added oft-injured linemates John LeClair and Mikael Renberg.
This will certainly emerge as one of the biggest debates of all-time: does Eric Lindros deserve to be enshrined in the HHOF? Lindros did put up lofty numbers, and at his prime could beat anybody with is size and skill......But like you said, he dug his own holes, was lambasted by Flyer fans and by the press when he didn't live up to expectations, and leaves behind a sour legacy filled not only with concussions/injuries but with controversy and scandal.
People made such a big fuss when Cam Neely was inducted, since he hardly played for very long. However, Neely's legacy was virtually all positive. He was beloved like none other in Boston, for both his on-ice, blue-collar work ethic and for his off-ice dedication to fighting cancer. It also didn't hurt that Neely performed in the playoffs. Lindros was a tremendous power forward, but he was no Cam Neely in this regard.
Beyond longevity and statistics, the type of legacy a player leaves behind plays a HUGE role in the selection process, which is why I don't think Lindros ought to (or will) enter the Hall.
Post a Comment