Mats Sundin to join Legend's Row

[Peter D.]

Just saw Rob on TV in the Sundin interview scrum.  :)

[Wendel's Fist]

Even though I agree with Mats Sundin getting a spot on legend's row, I don't get the whole, "Gilmour and Clark not worthy of the honour."

Doug Gilmour still holds the record for most points in a season by any Leaf ever and is the last one to ever win hardware for the team with the Selke trophy. How does that not fit into the definition of 'legend'?.............Mats never did that in all the extended time he was here.

I remember when Wendel Clark was drafted. My brother still has the newspaper clipping of the day. To say that what he brought to a fan base that had absolutely ZERO to cheer about for years, is now suddenly worth less than what Mats did is quite frankly..........just stupid.

I'm not bringing this up to knock Mats Sundin as I think he deserves what was given to him but don't tell me or anyone who's actually watched this team a little longer than some of you, that he was more deserving than others, or that those others aren't deserving, because of your criteria.

Your criteria, to say the least, is way off and I'm sure Mats himself would agree with that.

[OldTimeHockey]

I also feel that Clark deserves a spot, though I'm not sure if that's because he is truly a legend, or just a legend to me when I was at an age when my hockey hero's meant everything.

[Potvin29]

Even though I agree with Mats Sundin getting a spot on legend's row, I don't get the whole, "Gilmour and Clark not worthy of the honour."

Doug Gilmour still holds the record for most points in a season by any Leaf ever and is the last one to ever win hardware for the team with the Selke trophy. How does that not fit into the definition of 'legend'?.............Mats never did that in all the extended time he was here.

I remember when Wendel Clark was drafted. My brother still has the newspaper clipping of the day. To say that what he brought to a fan base that had absolutely ZERO to cheer about for years, is now suddenly worth less than what Mats did is quite frankly..........just stupid.

I'm not bringing this up to knock Mats Sundin as I think he deserves what was given to him but don't tell me or anyone who's actually watched this team a little longer than some of you, that he was more deserving than others, or that those others aren't deserving, because of your criteria.

Your criteria, to say the least, is way off and I'm sure Mats himself would agree with that.

Gilmour had a few historic seasons for the Leafs, but IMO that does not compare at all with being the team's all-time leader in goals and points.

Not every player you could conceivably call a legend will get a statue, or else I'd be arguing that Felix Potvin should get one based on the number of people my age who had Potvin posters on their walls.

[OldTimeHockey]

Not every player you could conceivably call a legend will get a statue, or else I'd be arguing that Felix Potvin should get one based on the number of people my age who had Potvin posters on their walls.

That's my feeling with Wendal Clark. I get what he means to this organization and what he meant to kids around my age but I'm not sure if that equals an all time Legend or just a legend in my own eyes.

If they're only planning 10 statues, at some point, someone is going to get left off. The team has a 100 year history with some fantastic hockey players being part of it. It's hard to fit them all.

[Deebo]

Gilmour had a few historic seasons for the Leafs, but IMO that does not compare at all with being the team's all-time leader in goals and points.

I think that Gilmour's time as a Leaf is too short to be considered for a statue. 393 games and only 6 seasons (excluding the one shift return in 2003). Everyone else on the row so far had at least 10 seasons. The only other members with under 500 games are Apps, who played most of seasons with 40 game seasons and a few with 60, and goalie Johnny Bower. Everyone else has 696+ games.

[Joe]

I was swept up in Gilmour mania as much as anyone at the time but the reality is he had 2 out of this world seasons and then returned to his career averages.

Knowing this town he'll be there eventually but I don't personally believes he deserves it.

[Nik]

I was swept up in Gilmour mania as much as anyone at the time but the reality is he had 2 out of this world seasons and then returned to his career averages.

And I don't think the context of when he had those seasons can be ignored. A lot of players had ridiculous seasons in 92-93, to the point that Gilmour's 127 points had him tied for 7th in the league.

Gilmour's best season as a Leaf had him finishing 7th in the league in points. His highest finish as a Leaf was 4th. Sundin's best season as a Leaf had him finishing 7th in the league in points. His highest finish as a Leaf was 4th.

[RobDM]

Just saw Rob on TV in the Sundin interview scrum.  :)

The camera never gets my good side.

Oh wait, I don't have a good side.

[Nik]

Even though I agree with Mats Sundin getting a spot on legend's row, I don't get the whole, "Gilmour and Clark not worthy of the honour."

Doug Gilmour still holds the record for most points in a season by any Leaf ever and is the last one to ever win hardware for the team with the Selke trophy. How does that not fit into the definition of 'legend'?.............Mats never did that in all the extended time he was here.

I remember when Wendel Clark was drafted. My brother still has the newspaper clipping of the day. To say that what he brought to a fan base that had absolutely ZERO to cheer about for years, is now suddenly worth less than what Mats did is quite frankly..........just stupid.

I'm not bringing this up to knock Mats Sundin as I think he deserves what was given to him but don't tell me or anyone who's actually watched this team a little longer than some of you, that he was more deserving than others, or that those others aren't deserving, because of your criteria.

Your criteria, to say the least, is way off and I'm sure Mats himself would agree with that.

I think the criteria the majority of people, including the people making the selections, are using is a pretty simple and straightforward one. Namely, it's trying to identify the best players in Maple Leafs history who spent the majority of their careers as Maple Leafs. Sundin is a pretty easy qualifier on both counts. It's hard for me to see what's "way off" or even mildly controversial about that.

I was a Leafs fan through both the Clark and Gilmour eras and I'm pretty comfortable with that. Gilmour was a Leaf for 26% of his career and while Clark was extraordinarily fun to watch, I can separate that from the sort of greatness they want to represent.

[jdh1]

Even though I agree with Mats Sundin getting a spot on legend's row, I don't get the whole, "Gilmour and Clark not worthy of the honour."

Doug Gilmour still holds the record for most points in a season by any Leaf ever and is the last one to ever win hardware for the team with the Selke trophy. How does that not fit into the definition of 'legend'?.............Mats never did that in all the extended time he was here.

I remember when Wendel Clark was drafted. My brother still has the newspaper clipping of the day. To say that what he brought to a fan base that had absolutely ZERO to cheer about for years, is now suddenly worth less than what Mats did is quite frankly..........just stupid.

I'm not bringing this up to knock Mats Sundin as I think he deserves what was given to him but don't tell me or anyone who's actually watched this team a little longer than some of you, that he was more deserving than others, or that those others aren't deserving, because of your criteria.

Your criteria, to say the least, is way off and I'm sure Mats himself would agree with that.

I think the criteria the majority of people, including the people making the selections, are using is a pretty simple and straightforward one. Namely, it's trying to identify the best players in Maple Leafs history who spent the majority of their careers as Maple Leafs. Sundin is a pretty easy qualifier on both counts. It's hard for me to see what's "way off" or even mildly controversial about that.

I was a Leafs fan through both the Clark and Gilmour eras and I'm pretty comfortable with that. Gilmour was a Leaf for 26% of his career and while Clark was extraordinarily fun to watch, I can separate that from the sort of greatness they want to represent.

To me Wendel Clark represents the heart of a hockey soldier.He put every ounce of his strength in his game and was always one of the best players on the team.Why he would not be included ?is just not right.
I don't want to take away from some of the players selected that won a cup.Pre 1968 players got into the playoffs 2/3rds of the time and only needed to win two playoff series to win the cup.
Wendel won two and three playoff series and still didn't win the cup all because of playoff formats changed.That in no way should be the criteria to keep him out of legends row.

[Nik]

To me Wendel Clark represents the heart of a hockey soldier.He put every ounce of his strength in his game and was always one of the best players on the team.Why he would not be included ?is just not right.
I don't want to take away from some of the players selected that won a cup.Pre 1968 players got into the playoffs 2/3rds of the time and only needed to win two playoff series to win the cup.
Wendel won two and three playoff series and still didn't win the cup all because of playoff formats changed.That in no way should be the criteria to keep him out of legends row.

...sure?

I don't think Clark was a better hockey player than anyone selected so far and there are still a bunch of guys not selected(Keon, Mahovlich, McDonald, Horton) who were better at playing hockey. That's the criteria I'm advocating.

EDIT: And just to be clear, the only Leafs jersey I own is a #17, I've watched "All Heart" roughly 8 billion times and for a while Bob Cole saying "Woah! Clark is nailing McSorly" was my ringtone. So this isn't about Clark not registering with me.

[jdh1]

To me Wendel Clark represents the heart of a hockey soldier.He put every ounce of his strength in his game and was always one of the best players on the team.Why he would not be included ?is just not right.
I don't want to take away from some of the players selected that won a cup.Pre 1968 players got into the playoffs 2/3rds of the time and only needed to win two playoff series to win the cup.
Wendel won two and three playoff series and still didn't win the cup all because of playoff formats changed.That in no way should be the criteria to keep him out of legends row.

...sure?

I don't think Clark was a better hockey player than anyone selected so far and there are still a bunch of guys not selected(Keon, Mahovlich, McDonald, Horton) who were better at playing hockey. That's the criteria I'm advocating.

I think George Armstrong was a good player that was fortunate to be on some Leaf teams that won the cup.To say that he was better than Wendel is a bit much.

I do agree with you on the other players you mentioned as being worthy to be on legends row.

[Nik]

I think George Armstrong was a good player that was fortunate to be on some Leaf teams that won the cup.To say that he was better than Wendel is a bit much.

Good thing I didn't say that then.

[jdh1]

I think George Armstrong was a good player that was fortunate to be on some Leaf teams that won the cup.To say that he was better than Wendel is a bit much.

Good thing I didn't say that then.

Would you put Bob Pulford ahead of Wendel?