Although hockey immortality is often handed out like candy, Eric Lindros does not deserve a piece.
By Jim Kelley, Sportsnet.ca
As we say goodbye to Eric Lindros and his 13-year NHL career, the inevitable question of whether or not he belongs in the Hockey Hall of Fame must be addressed.
As in all things Lindros, the answer is complicated.
But being complicated doesn't settle the question as to whether or not Lindros actually belongs among the game's all-time greats. The view from this writer's perspective (and I was a frequent observer and chronicler of his career from the time he was in junior through to the time when he became just a shell of a shell of a shell of his former self) is that he does not.
I base that statement on the fact that on the occasions when Lindros was presented with the opportunity to be great, he couldn't or wouldn't answer the call.
Now, if there was a Hall of Fame for boat rockers, no problem, he's in on the first pass. Lindros -- admittedly with the help of a controlling father and an outspoken mother -- blazed a legendary trail in terms of standing up for change. The Lindros clan didn't play by the rules, not when it came to playing junior hockey, not when it came to the draft, not when it came to challenging the status quo and even the medical practices of the Philadelphia Flyers and the National Hockey League in general.
A lot of people will tell you that Lindros was nothing more than a spoiled brat and the product of an disturbing trend in hockey. The athlete as a privileged species wasn't exactly new to sport, but it was certainly new to the NHL until the Lindros family came along.
Unlike a lot of sports writers, I have no particular problem with all of that. Hockey to this day still considers the athlete, the very essence of the game, as little more than cattle. On most every level a hockey player is used, often abused and, in the end, sent away like some old cow to slaughter.
On many occasions, Lindros took a stand against the existing stereotypes. He challenged the minor-league system that though decidedly better than in the past, still enslaved the youth of a nation for the profit of individual team owners.
He challenged the draft. Not legally, or in a way that would have had lasting implications for him and generations to come, but he at least took a stand in arguing that a player should he be willing to stand up and speak his mind. Lindros was in position to make the argument that incoming players shouldn't have to submit to a system that determines their fate and their future without any personal input. It was largely self-serving, but he did it.
He did the same in exposing the seemingly careless approach the Flyers took regarding his health and challenged the NHL to be more aware of the problems associated with head hunting, concussions and their long term effects. That took guts and gumption; and for that alone, he is in my personal Hall of Fame.
Lindros pioneered the process to made hockey safer for all who never had the courage to speak up or speak out and he did it seemingly without the blessings of the National Hockey League Players Association, a group that he likely will now help lead.
There is much to be said for that.
But in regards to the question as to whether or not he is hockey Hall of Fame material, it's a different Eric Lindros.
Chances are that he will someday get that nod, voters are not normally a demanding sort. People get in for a variety of reasons. Owning a team is almost always a ticket simply waiting to be punched. Being a Commissioner or a longtime league employee doesn't hurt. Being good is often good enough. Being famous usually does the trick as well.
In that regard, Lindros, at least for a portion of his career was good. He won the Hart and Lester Pearson Trophies in one season, a badge of honour worthy of a pass to the HOF. He also helped spur interest in the game in the United States, an accomplishment voters often acknowledge. The fact that he helped get a new building and a television network launched for Philadelphia ownership works in his favour even though he did present a few problems for each along the way.
Having Bobby Clarke's endorsement doesn't exactly suck either.
Certainly he racked up points, quite a few in his glory years, but he wasn't consistent, and that matters to voters. He wasn't durable, and that matters too. The HOF is often an argument about numbers. Lindros has some, but he drops off in durability and the ability to produce over a long period of time. Rick Martin was one of the greatest wingers I ever saw play the game, he had a shot every bit as hard as Lindros and he could snap it off every bit as quick. He had blazing speed coming in off the wing and he could fire on the fly with such incredible accuracy that defensemen cowered at the thought of his challenging them one-on-one and goalies lost sleep counting the crevices he might exploit whenever he bore down upon them.
Like Lindros, Martin's career was cut short by head and knee injuries. He was a sure Hall-of-Famer, but he didn't pass the test of time.
 |
|
| Eric Lindros played his best hockey in Philadelphia. (Getty) |
And then there's that leadership thing.
I was there when Lindros, the captain of the Flyers, brought the team to the Cup final in 1997. The Detroit Red Wings unceremoniously swept his team and it wasn't just because the Wings were the better team. A big part of that defeat was that Lindros didn't answer the call to greatness. Not on the ice where he was virtually invisible. Not in the locker room where it was left to aging goalie Ron Hextall to try and rally a team that desperately looked for Lindros to lead. That team was so disappointed in his effort that even the coach, Terry Murray, found himself speaking of "choking dogs." Murray didn't name names and the remark eventually cost him his job, but few in attendance that season didn't believe that Murray was calling out Lindros.
Those things happen in a career, especially when a player is new to leadership and new to the Cup finals, but it wasn't long after that that Lindros was named captain of Team Canada for the 1998 Olympics in Nagano and again failed to answer the call.
Canada lost any chance for a gold medal in that series, the first in decades to use pros from the NHL and it came down to one pivotal loss. You can't finger him for not being able to beat Dominik Hasek and the Czech Republic in that memorable game even though Lindros did miss on a shootout chance that could have turned things Canada's way. Other hockey legends missed as well and Clarke, who managed the team at the time and Marc Crawford, who led the coaching staff, had the audacity to leave Wayne Gretzky, the greatest player the game may ever know, on the bench during the shootout.
But the moment that stands out in my mind was afterward. Once all hope for a gold medal was lost, Canada came out flat, dispirited and disinterested and lost any chance to win the bronze.
Now it's a given that Canada holds itself to a gold standard in international competition and that's a fine standard.
But as that day dawned, it needed to be made clear that any medal would be better than none and that for many on the team this would be their one and only Olympic competition. To go home with a medal in their hands, a medal of any sort, would be an accomplishment for all time.
Team Canada needed a leader to make that happen. It needed a captain to stand up and demand nothing less than the team's best. It didn't happen. Canada played like it didn't care. The team went home empty handed. Two great chances to lead and for Eric Lindros, it didn't happen either time.
There were other occasions. In the two seasons following that loss to the Red Wings, a still good Flyers team, led by Lindros, lost in the first round. In 2000, a team that seemed destined to get back to the finals without Lindros (injured) fell apart when Lindros forced his way back into the playoffs against New Jersey. The Flyers lost a pivotal Game 6 with Lindros in the lineup and then were wiped out in Game 7, a game that featured a horrific hit from Scott Stevens that again put Lindros on the shelf.
Those who were there at the time will tell you that Lindros disrupted team chemistry by making that series about him and forcing his way into the lineup despite the fact the coaching staff was against it.
After that he never played for the Flyers again. A stint with the New York Rangers started out well, but has to be deemed a failure. Stops in Toronto and Dallas were little more than playing out a string.
I know there's an argument that says winning it all shouldn't be the end all and be all for a hockey player and certainly many point to Boston's legendary winger Cam Neely who is in the Hall and whose numbers (in part because of injury) are less than the sum of his game.
But here's the difference: Though Neely never won a Cup or an Olympic medal, he made teams and players better.
 |
|
| Some argue that Lindros arrived too late in Toronto. (Getty) |
Neely brought one Boston team to the Cup finals that had no right to even be there, let alone win it. He gave everything he had every game, every night, every shift and the injuries he suffered came about because that was the way he played: all out, all the time, for the sole purpose of winning every game, every period, every battle.
That's what a Hall of Fame player does.
When it comes time to mark the ballot for Eric Lindros, can you honestly say the same?
