When did the future hockey HOF'ers set go live? I didn't even know one was in the works. Just happened to stumbled across it last week. Very nice. Bravo for whoever put it together. There are a few cards that I'd think about adding at some point:
1990 U.D. Pavel Bure 1990 Score Canadian Eric Lindros 1993 U.D. Chris Osgood
I think Bure has a better than average shot to get in considering his multiple 50-goal seasons. Lindros is kind of a wild card at this point. I never liked him, and I personally don't consider him a HOF'er, but I think he will garner some decent consideration. Osgood just gets no respect, despite the fact that he's tied for 10th all time in wins, but I think he's a very good candidate for the HOF one day.
"My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
That was me who requested the set, and I'm glad people are enjoying working on it. I submitted a request to add the 1993 Upper Deck Osgood and 1994 SP Jarome Iginla (very likely the next NHL player to reach 500 goals, in about two or three years I would think). 1990 Upper Deck Bure and 1990 Score Canadian Lindros are good choices as well. I think anyone who has a set registered could request that they be added. Does anyone else have any other suggested additions?
Another possibility that comes to mind is 1996 Upper Deck Joe Thornton. Apart from that, I should add that I considered many younger players who appear to be on track for possible hall of fame careers--Vincent Lecavalier, Dany Heatley, Ilya Kovalchuk, Pavel Datsyuk, Henrik Zetterberg and others--but decided to hold off on them at this time since it seemed maybe a little too early to include them right now.
Is there any support for creating a Hockey Hall Of Fame Players Rookie card set?
This set would include only players who have a true rookie card.
The set would not include the 1985-87 HOF cards which are not real rookie cards and would designate the best regular card as the only card that could be used.
I wonder why unlike Baseball, Basketball and Football; Hockey is the only sport that does not have a registry set designated for rookie cards of players.
MAD
Have shine box will travel ------------ BOBBY ORR THE BEST THERE WAS! THE BEST THERE EVER WILL BE! ------------
I'd be in favor of that, Marc. I'm not a fan of the current set, and I've never liked that you could use Topps cards instead of OPC when the latter is clearly more valuable (except for '89 Topps). The pain will be deciding which cards to use for the foreign players who never played in the NHL. Some of the cards that are used in the set now are not first issues.
"My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
I'm also in favour of a true RC set. The current set is ridiculous to put together, although I do have an unopened set of the 85-87 HOF cards which would probably make up at least 60 cards in the set? I'd rather not bother getting it graded.
Collecting HOF RC's in hockey, baseball, football and basketball. A fool's errand some have said.
OK, if we're ever going to have a real "player" HOF RC set let's get the ball rolling. Has anyone done the research identifying the true RC's for each HOF player. Like the other sports, I think we should leave out the non-players for this particular set.
Marc, how far along have you gotten?
Collecting HOF RC's in hockey, baseball, football and basketball. A fool's errand some have said.
The rookie cards on the PSA registry are accurate except for the foreign players.
The problem if you limit it to one card is going to be with players who have four rookie cards from 1933. What is the true rookie Hamilton Gum, Canadian Gum, OPC, V129 etc.? The V129 might be the most valuable but good luck finding them.
I do not like the idea that you can use the Hall of Fame cards as rookies but I think that started because PSA did not grade the 1939-1940 cards when the Rookie set started on the registry. The only card available for Bill Cowley, for example, would have been the Hall of Fame card. Once PSA started grading the 1939 OPC cards it was unfair to just completely change the rookie card that you needed for the set.
Sorry, I haven't devoted a lot of time to this lately. I've been really busy at work...the owner and his accountant decided to make some year-end accounting changes so I have been working night and weekends on closing 2009.
I have a list which eliminates the non-players and the 1985-87 HOF card-only players.
I will post what I have by Wednesday.
Does everyone want to use one card? Are we all in agrement that the more expensive of the Topps/OPC card is to be used.
For the modern or current players we need to choose the card.
Does everyone want to use the most expensive card?
What do you want to do with foreign born players?
The rookie cards for foreign born players need to be verified.
Please post your thoughts on these and any other issues regarding this set.
Thanks,
Marc
Have shine box will travel ------------ BOBBY ORR THE BEST THERE WAS! THE BEST THERE EVER WILL BE! ------------
I think we start with a players only set and for all the post-war RC's pick one card for each guy. For example, no Dad's Cookies RC for Perreault. I'm for the OPC over the Topps card every year until the expolsion of UD and Score for the newer HOFers that are coming. Not sure the '89 guys should be Topps over OPC though. Although they're more expensive, the difference isn't huge (is it?) -- does anyone know the quantity produced? There'd be millions of 'em in toploaders all over the world.
I'm not in favor of one card for the pre-war guys. In 1933 for example, any of the major isues would be good enough. One thought though, can PSA assign different grading weights to one issue over another? That would be a great way to reward the collector with a crazy low-pop issue over one with higher numbers. Haven't seen it before so don't know if it's possible.
Also not a big fan of using foreign cards as RC's for players. If they're not in the NHL on the card then I'd vote not to use them at all. For some players it will be possible to find a card since they will have played in the NHL at some point, for others (Kharlamov) maybe not so much.
Once we have a master list of the players only, we can all have a look at the RC and discuss.
Cheers.
Collecting HOF RC's in hockey, baseball, football and basketball. A fool's errand some have said.
Is anybody doing the future HOF rookie set? I just checked on it and it does not include Martin Brodeur??????? I did not check all of the rest but what I saw were some interesting names.
Brodeur's a borderline Hall-of-Famer at best, so I agree with his current omission from the set.
LOLOLOL. Kidding, of course. Seriously, I hadn't see that before you mentioned it. Cujo should definitely be in there too. And although I may not agree with it, there is a lof of HOF chatter about Vachon, so he might belong as well. I've collected the entire set minus the guys who I don't think belong (Larmer, Carbonneau, Middleton, Howe, Jarvis and Propp). Kind of on the fence about Iginla still, but I think he's on his way. All in all the future HOF rookies set was put together pretty nicely. A helluva lto better than its basketball counterpart that's for sure.
"My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
I'm not doing the future HOF RC set on the registry but I do collect all RC's of players I think have a chance at the Hall. I think Vachon should get in -- he just happened to play on some pretty brutal LA teams. Had he played on the Habs teams of the 70's he'd be in already. I doubt he will though. Iggy needs at least another 5 All-Star years to get in. Like the other Halls there are a few dodgy's in there as well. Cujo should never even get a sniff of the HOF -- he's Mike Palmateer all over again. Dave Kerr should get in before Cujo.
I was just scouring a few old hockey articles and started making a list (in no particular order):
- Theo Fleury: if he'd stayed off the bottle his stats would have been so much better. Deserves to get in based on his stats and the fact he was consistently one of the best in the league during the 90's. Very little chance but I would vote yes. - Pavel Bure: if Neely's in then Bure gets in, that's the argument. And he was the goal scoring rock star. I wouldn't cough up my lunch if he got in but wouldn't be offended if he stayed on the outside looking in. I'd vote yes. - Mogilny: no way. - Ciccarelli: the guy scored 600+ goals. I don't care how long he played. Or how big his butt was. Let him in already when a weak year comes up. I'd vote yes. - Andreychuk: see above. - Nieuwendyk: he deserves to be in the Hall. - Gilmour: let him in - Oates: let him in with Gilmour - Lindros: talk about a polarizing player. Love him or hate him but nothing in between. I never liked him but he was so dominant before the melon crushing hit he took from Stevens. I would vote yes but with a longer wait. - Housley: why is this guy not in already??? - Bondra: no way. - D. Wilson: Not sure about him but there are plenty of defensemen that should get in before him, including Housley, JC Tremblay and Provost. No from me. - Barrasso: Yes from me although his personality was abrasive to say the least. Voters don't like that -- see JC Tremblay. - Vernon: No from me - just a guy who was very good but not great. - Mark Howe: I'd vote yes and he should already be in. Not sure why the voters keep him on the sidelines. OK I can figure it out but they should let him in. - JC TRemblay: Are you kidding me? Why is he not in?? - Claude Provost: Not many awards but 8 Cups -- eight!!! Let him in. - Rogie Vachon: He was one of the best goalies all through the late 60's through to the late 70's. Enough said. Cujo isn't even in the same league. - P. Turgeon: You can't deny his stats but there are too many guys on this list that deserve it more than him. Forget him for a few years.
Looking forward to this year's class already -- not the easiest to predict. So many older guys that deserve to get in (JC Tremblay, Provost, Brewer) and lots of modern players to choose from.
I think they need a few years of 4 players to get rid of the backlog of deserving players. I'd vote for Gilmour, Oates, Housley and right a wrong by admitting J.C. Tremblay.
Collecting HOF RC's in hockey, baseball, football and basketball. A fool's errand some have said.
<< <i>Cujo should never even get a sniff of the HOF -- he's Mike Palmateer all over again. Dave Kerr should get in before Cujo. >>
Completely disagree on Cujo, Vince. Did he refuse to give you an autograph or something? Mike Palmateer? Come on now! Cujo's fourth all time in wins (454). How do you hold a guy like that out of the Hall of Fame? And I don't think he was just a stat compiler. He had 11 seasons of at least 27 wins and his 2.79 career GAA isn't too shabby. By comparison:
Of course I realize comparing players from slightly different eras and systems isn't ideal, but to say that Cujo is somehow not even in Vachon's league? That's harsh. I believe Cujo is first eligible in 2012 along with Sakic, Shanny and Chelios, which would likely mean he won't be a first ballot guy. But I don't see him having to wait long.
You hit the nail on the head with most of the other guys, and your 2010 class would be perfect with me, but Fleury did not do nearly enough to even warrant consideration IMO.
"My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
My HK knowledge is less than you guys However I do agree with the card & player ideas for this set that vince mentioned. The older guys I really do not know. Trembley why is he mentioned as a hofer? and provost? he seems to have few stats as hof consideration though he did play on a ton of all star games. Does the cups automatically make him a hofer? Lindros is borderline. If he just would have decided to be a defenseman instead of an ice killer he would have stayed healthy. The talent was definately there. I can remember being in Detroit MI ...and that town loves thier HK...and all the sports dealers and fans said he would be the next coming of gretzky. Then he turns down quebec...wow!!!
I give congrats to the Canadians...that was some game yesterday. I almost peed in my pants when Parise tied it up. No sham in a proud silver. Some people are just naturally blessed (as well as extremely talented)...but for Crosby to win it like that is pure storybook.
I think ya got to put cujo in....What a backlog of great candidates.
Collecting PSA... FB,BK,HK,and BB HOF RC sets 1948-76 Topps FB Sets FB & BB HOF Player sets 1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
Andy, we'll have to agree to disagree about Cujo. He was not one of the top 5 goalies of his generation so why even consider him? He never won any major awards, was picked to play in 3 all star games and while he was on 2 Olympic Teams he only played one game -- and we won't mention how badly Sweden spanked him. Brodeur played the rest of the games in 2002 and we all know how that went. He didn't play in 1998. I think he was a very good goalie and had 2-3 seasons where he was top 3 but that's it.
Now Esposito -- 6 All Star games, Calder trophy winner, 3 Vezina trophies, 76 shutouts, 3 first team all star and 2 second team all star nods. Also played a key part in the 1972 Summit Series with 2 wins, 1 loss and 1 tie.
Fuhr -- 5 Cups, 6 All Star games, 1 Vezina and 1 Jennings, one first team allstar and 1 second team allstar nods, part of 2 Canada Cup winning teams and who can forget the 1987 playoffs series against the Russians. Yes he benefitted from some awesome teams but he made the saves when needed. I consider him one of the best of all time -- certainly top 100 of all time.
Vachon -- 1 Vezina, 3 Cups, 3 All Star games, Canada Cup starting goalie in 1976 and named tournament MVP, 2 second team all start nods, Runner up to Bobby Clarke for Hart trophy in 74/75.
Cujo's wins are more a result of longevity, not dominance. He reminds me of Mike Liut. Some great periods of play but not worthy of the Hall. I'd put Vernon or Osgood in ahead of Cujo. I don't dislike Cujo but he's not Hall worthy.
Fleury's case is interesting. I wonder if the voters eventually take into account his off-ice demons. He's a guy that won't get in quick, if ever. At some point there might be a push to get him in but it'll be once the backlog is taken care of. I'd vote yes for him but after a long wait.
Collecting HOF RC's in hockey, baseball, football and basketball. A fool's errand some have said.
Tremblay is probably the most deserving defenceman not in the Hall right now. He's been hurt by his decision to play in the WHL. Call it a blackballing if you will. Also, he wasn't very pleasant. Some would say a genuine SOB. If you listen to some of his peers, like Jean Beliveau, they believe he should be in the Hall already. He won 5 Cups, played in 7 All Star games when that meant something. He was great on both sides of the puck. He suffers from so many Habs already being in the Hall and the fact he was a jerk.
Provost played in 11 All Star games and that should be enough to prove he was one of the best of his era. He also played on 9 Cup winning teams. Some call him the best defensive forward ever. He was Bob Gainey before Bob was.
I'd expect both guys to get in sooner rather than later.
Collecting HOF RC's in hockey, baseball, football and basketball. A fool's errand some have said.
The 2010 Hockey HOF inductees will be announced on Tuesday, June 22nd. Below are the legitimate first-year candidates, as well as the non first-year guys with the best chance of getting in:
1st-Year Eligibles: Nieuwendyk, Turgeon, Lindros, Bondra (though I highly doubt he'll ever get in)
I'm sure I left a few out, but I think these players have the best chance to nab one of the max 4 spots. Of the first-year eligibles, I think only Nieuwendyk and Turgeon are HOF worthy. I seem to be in the minority in thinking that Turgeon is more deserving than Nieuwendyk, but regardless they should both get in at some point. My prediction is that Nieuwendyk goes in right away, and Turgeon has to wait, though I'd do it the other way around.
For the others, I'd go Oates, Gilmour and Andreychuk. I think Ciccarelli, Makarov or Bure could replace any one of them. So my prediction for the class of 2010:
Nieuwendyk, Oates, Gilmour, Andreychuk
But if I had MY way , it would be:
Ciccarelli, Oates, Turgeon, Andreychuk
What's everybody else think?
"My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
It'll be an interesting year after last year's mega-star class. The HOF selection committee gets another chance to elect worthy candidates previously overlooked. I don't think any of the 1st year eligible guys are worthy of 1st ballot entry into the hall -- the main guys being Turgeon, Nieuwendyk and Lindros. I can't see Turgeon or Andreychuk ever getting in (sorry Andy) as he was very good but never great. Lindros should get in eventually but he pissed too many people off so will have to wait a long time I think. Nieuwendyk should get in within 3-4 years but he's no all-time legend. If I was voting I'd put in Makarov, Vachon, JC Tremblay and Claude Provost.
What I think is going to happen is this:
Gilmour gets in but Oates has to wait again. Nieuwendyk gets in because he's a great guy and Lindros waits until hell freezes over. Bure gets in because injuries shouldn't prevent one of the most exciting players of all time from joining his peers.
I only see 3 guys getting the nod. The committee had a chance to vote some of the oldtimers in a couple of years ago because of the lockout and chose not to load up. I don't see them changing course now. I sincerely hope they never let in guys who piled up stats because of longevity, just like I hope they never omit a player who was truly great because his career didn't last more than 8 years.
Of course I'll be way off and they'll let in Oates, Ciccarelli, Lindros and Richter.
Collecting HOF RC's in hockey, baseball, football and basketball. A fool's errand some have said.
I hear what you're saying on Andreychuk, Vince, but it'll be hard to keep a guy with 640 goals out of the HOF for very long.
"My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
Andreychuk and Ciccarelli are in the same boat. The argument about keeping them out pretty much goes out the window if one of them gets in. So if I'm Dino I hope Dave gets in and vice-versa. I also tend to agree that they will get in eventually because their goal totals are silly. What I should've said is "I don't ever want to see them in". Guy Carbonneau deserves entry before those guys. So does Bure, and Lindros, and Gilmour, and Oates, and Vachon, and Makarov, and Turgeon (and I don't think Turgeon should get in either), let's not forget Nieuwendyk, Bondra (he shouldn't get in either) and a whack of others.
Of course there will end up being a big movement from the press or the backchannels to get them in and the committee will cave in. That's how you dilute a Hall of Fame.
Rocket Richard walks in to the legends room in hockey heaven, looks over and sees Gillies and Anderson having a beer and walks out.
Collecting HOF RC's in hockey, baseball, football and basketball. A fool's errand some have said.
Is there any precedent for putting Carbonneau (i.e. a defensive forward whose point totals are very pedestrian) in the HOF? I've heard and read people refer to him as a Hall-of-Famer, and then I look at the stats and it's like, huh??? Then again, I'm very stat driven, so I'd like to hear a compelling argument for Carbonneau for the Hall.
"My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
Oh, and if Dino got along with Scotty Bowman he would have been in the HOF years ago. Bowman apparently has a lot of pull with the voters.
"My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
I did buy a Trembley rc based solely on vince's reccomendation...so I'm ready there. I agree that Bure was very exciting....but is this the hall of should-a be-in if injuries didn't occure ? HOF talent for sure. Lindros coulda been a contendor..but in my eyes he was good for only a short time. He refused to alter his play to stay healthy. I hope Oates gets in..one of the greatest playmakers of all time. A local hero here as he took RPI to the national championship. At some point Dave and Dino get in....kinda like Sutton and Eddie Murray ( I am not a huge fan of longevity numbers). Gilmour and Turgeon get in. They were superb...not no brainers though. Add Joe to that also.
I would like to see someone elected that was passed over in yesteryears.
Collecting PSA... FB,BK,HK,and BB HOF RC sets 1948-76 Topps FB Sets FB & BB HOF Player sets 1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
All of Ciccarelli, Gilmour and Oates can look at their off ice activities as a reason for their Hall exclusion so far but I also believe they're borderline guys. Oates is the most worthy of the three (or least non-worthy) but I still can't see him as an all-time great. I was a hockey lunatic back then and although he was always very good I can't ever remember thinking "Oh crap, Oates is playing us (the Habs) tonight -- gotta watch out". He was a very good player who had three awesome years. A great passer yes, but a member of only 5 all-star games. I can see him getting in over the other 2 but I'd rather not see that.
As for why Carbonneau is Hall worthy -- 3 Selke trophies and 2 runner-up finishes. Over 600 points from a defensive forward. 5 Cup finals and 3 Cup winners. 231 playoff games -- not sure where that ranks but I'd think in the top 5, maybe top 10 for sure. At the time of his retirement, only Mark Messier had played more playoff games. If Bob Gainey and Jacques Lemaire, plus Scott Stevens and Rod Langway can get in for their defensive skill then Carbonneau deserves enshrinement. I think you need to recognize all aspects of the game in the hall and although defense will always get short shrift the all-time greats, the legends of that part of the game, need to get their due. Carbonneau fits that bill without a doubt. If Gainey was the prototypical all-round hockey player, then Carbonneau was his child.
Have I mentioned before how unfair it is for Claude Provost to still need a ticket to see the Hall?
Bure's deserves to get in based on his actual stats, not the projected ones if he'd stayed healthy. Over 400 goals in less than 800 games. That's insane. He was electric. Plenty of HOFers played 12 years or less. He is the epitome of the guy who deserves to be there. Basing worthiness on whether he got to 500 goals doesn't work for me. That would mean instant inclusion for Dino and Dave and let's be honest here -- is there one single person on this earth who would take either of those guys over Pavel? One person? I take Carbonneau over both guys.
I also agree with Jay that there are quite a few guys who need to get in before some of the recent guys.
Let's help Jay's Tremblay RC value and let the guy in. While we're at it, why not Mark Howe? It's the Hockey Hall of Fame, not the NHL Hall of Fame.
M-A-K-A-R-O-V!!
Give Dino and Dave their own TV show.
Collecting HOF RC's in hockey, baseball, football and basketball. A fool's errand some have said.
I believe Bure is the only eligible player with five or more 50-goal seasons not in the HOF. His bests were 60, 60, 59, 58 and 51. I'm all for putting him in the HOF because when he was healthy he was truly dominant. I guess the voters have passed over him until now because those 5 years are his only good years. The dropoff is huge in his 6th-10th best goal-scoring years (34, 23, 22, 20 and 19). I still think he'll get in sooner rather than later.
"My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
Lets not really water down the HOF with WHL coulda-beens Its like alowing cfl into the FB HOF and Japaneese leagues into the BB HOF so no way mr howe
I do agree about HOFERS being someone who you feared playing. In his prime you didn'y say we're playing the Canucks... we're playing the rocket. Not sure about the other Russians who were old men when they came to the NHL. Don't know enough about them.
I have heard a few knowledgable guys mention Carboneau as HOF worthy.....But he doesn't have any stats as Andy mentioned. I simply don't remember him being all that dominant.
I would like to hear a list of the last 5-10 NHL players who you would really be worried about if you had to play them. Not an all time list: last guys like Mario
Collecting PSA... FB,BK,HK,and BB HOF RC sets 1948-76 Topps FB Sets FB & BB HOF Player sets 1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
Congrats to Dino Ciccarelli for FINALLY making it in! He was long overdue. It's nice to see that the two biggest omissions of recent times (Anderson and Dino) have been rectified in a matter of 3 votes. It's pretty disappointing that no other male players made it in this year (Cammi Granato and Angela James made it too), but if I had to cast just one vote it would have been for Dino.
"My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
James and Granato both have earlier Classic issues, but those aren't considered mainstream issues, so I believe the two I have noted above are the correct ones for the HOF rookies set.
"My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
I've given up on the HOF RC set. Too much crap in it. At some point I'll find some time to draft up a proper HOF RC set but it won't include any of the postcards or player issues from after their playing days. You can also strike off the officials, builders and media members.
I'd be in favour of 2 HOF sets -- the true RC one I mention above (without all the non-players) and the full HOF set where crazy cards are allowed, not necessarily just the RC's either. Kind of like the way the football registry works.
Collecting HOF RC's in hockey, baseball, football and basketball. A fool's errand some have said.
<< <i>Good luck finding the 2 woman's cards....even in any psa case. Looks like HK is folloowing BK.....no gender bias. >>
I see no reason to exclude them, Jay, you male chauvinist pig! Kidding, of course Seriously though, they are players, not coaches or administrators, and it IS the hockey Hall of Fame, not the NHL Hall of Fame. I plan on buying some raw copies and submitting to PSA. That's the best route.
No idea on Duncan Keith. And yes, Lindros would be Canadian Score.
"My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
OK - so guys, Rod Brind'amour just retired. He was a 2-time Selke Winner, a captain of a Stanley Cup champion, one of the greatest faceoff men of our time, and a guy with nearly 1200 points. But... he was only an All-Star once. Not a flashy big name guy like some of the others. Is he a HOFer or not? Obviously, as you can see by my avatar, I am biased towards Brindy. But, what do the unbiased say?
"My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
Brindamour was a good player for a long time but never, and I mean never, great. There are 50 guys I'd let in before him.
Then again, they let in Ciccarelli so you never know.
I always use the test, who in the HOF would you trade straight up to get the guy you're letting in. If no one comes to mind (other than Federko, Gillies and their ilk) then vote no.
Collecting HOF RC's in hockey, baseball, football and basketball. A fool's errand some have said.
I have an extra PSA 9 Cammi Granato for the HOF RCs set if anyone is interested. $17.50 delivered.
"My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
Anyone know when the 2011 HOF finalists will be announced? I believe the induction announcement will be in late June.
"My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
<< <i>I don't see any 1st year eligable player getting in this year or any year therafter. >>
Belfour is the only first-year eligible player with a prayer this year, and I do think he'll get in. He deserves it. I'll also go with Bure, Nieuwendyk (though I think he's overrated) and Gilmour. Oates (way overdue) or Andreychuk could slide into Gilmour's spot, but I think they might have to wait until next year.
And speaking of next year, not a lot of room for leftovers with Sakic and Shanahan basically locks for 2 of the 4 spots. Roenick and Vincent's boy CuJo are also eligible next year, but neither were first-ballot players IMO.
"My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
The guys I think should get in are Bure, Gilmour, Oates, JC Tremblay and Rogie Vachon. I think it's way past overdue to get some of the vets into the hall. Jesus -- Clark Gillies and Bernie Federko are in!!
I doubt we'll see the two vets get in so I will sub Joe N and Dave A as the guys to get in. Belfour has an outside shot but he was a bit odd so maybe that costs him this year. He desreves to get in though.
I need to dig up my list but a couple of years ago, after being very frustrated with some of the recent induction classes, I made a list of the guys I thought should get in. I did it mainly to create my own HOF RC set but the research really opened my eyes to the sheer number of vets on the outside looking in!
Collecting HOF RC's in hockey, baseball, football and basketball. A fool's errand some have said.
I'd really like to see Phil Housley get, though he seems years away at best. He put up some silly point totals for a defenseman. In fact, he's fourth all-time behind Bourque, Coffey and MacInnis. I understand the lousy career plus minus rating (-53) is a black mark, but he still had a HOF career IMO.
Speaking of vets, here's one for ya Vince. I have never heard anything mentioned about this guy and the HOF in the same breath, anywhere, but he woudl get my vote. Kent Nilsson. He's 11th all-time in points per game (686 in 553 games). Obviously he didn't have a long NHL career, but he did have two very good WHA seasons and a very distinguished career in Sweden. And, after all, it IS the hockey Hall of Fame, not the NHL Hall of Fame. Whaddya think?
"My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
Good question Andy but I don't put him anywhere near the HOF. He played in an era where the PPG was inflated so I don't really put too much into that. He was certainly a good player though.
His NHL stats are good but he wasn't ever a real threat for the scoring title or any of the major awards. He actually played more in the Swiss league than in Sweden but you're right he did have a decent career there.
I just think he's one of those guys who was good and sometimes very good but never great.
Now Mark Howe is another story.
Collecting HOF RC's in hockey, baseball, football and basketball. A fool's errand some have said.
Comments
Brian
1990 U.D. Pavel Bure
1990 Score Canadian Eric Lindros
1993 U.D. Chris Osgood
I think Bure has a better than average shot to get in considering his multiple 50-goal seasons. Lindros is kind of a wild card at this point. I never liked him, and I personally don't consider him a HOF'er, but I think he will garner some decent consideration. Osgood just gets no respect, despite the fact that he's tied for 10th all time in wins, but I think he's a very good candidate for the HOF one day.
This set would include only players who have a true rookie card.
The set would not include the 1985-87 HOF cards which are not real rookie cards and would designate the best regular card as the only card that could be used.
I wonder why unlike Baseball, Basketball and Football; Hockey is the only sport that does not have a registry set designated for rookie cards of players.
MAD
------------
BOBBY ORR
THE BEST THERE WAS!
THE BEST THERE EVER WILL BE!
------------
Nice to see you posting.
Marc
------------
BOBBY ORR
THE BEST THERE WAS!
THE BEST THERE EVER WILL BE!
------------
Marc, how far along have you gotten?
The problem if you limit it to one card is going to be with players who have four rookie cards from 1933. What is the true rookie Hamilton Gum, Canadian Gum, OPC, V129 etc.? The V129 might be the most valuable but good luck finding them.
I do not like the idea that you can use the Hall of Fame cards as rookies but I think that started because PSA did not grade the 1939-1940 cards when the Rookie set started on the registry. The only card available for Bill Cowley, for example, would have been the Hall of Fame card. Once PSA started grading the 1939 OPC cards it was unfair to just completely change the rookie card that you needed for the set.
I have a list which eliminates the non-players and the 1985-87 HOF card-only players.
I will post what I have by Wednesday.
Does everyone want to use one card?
Are we all in agrement that the more expensive of the Topps/OPC card is to be used.
For the modern or current players we need to choose the card.
Does everyone want to use the most expensive card?
What do you want to do with foreign born players?
The rookie cards for foreign born players need to be verified.
Please post your thoughts on these and any other issues regarding this set.
Thanks,
Marc
------------
BOBBY ORR
THE BEST THERE WAS!
THE BEST THERE EVER WILL BE!
------------
I'm not in favor of one card for the pre-war guys. In 1933 for example, any of the major isues would be good enough. One thought though, can PSA assign different grading weights to one issue over another? That would be a great way to reward the collector with a crazy low-pop issue over one with higher numbers. Haven't seen it before so don't know if it's possible.
Also not a big fan of using foreign cards as RC's for players. If they're not in the NHL on the card then I'd vote not to use them at all. For some players it will be possible to find a card since they will have played in the NHL at some point, for others (Kharlamov) maybe not so much.
Once we have a master list of the players only, we can all have a look at the RC and discuss.
Cheers.
I was just scouring a few old hockey articles and started making a list (in no particular order):
- Theo Fleury: if he'd stayed off the bottle his stats would have been so much better. Deserves to get in based on his stats and the fact he was consistently one of the best in the league during the 90's. Very little chance but I would vote yes.
- Pavel Bure: if Neely's in then Bure gets in, that's the argument. And he was the goal scoring rock star. I wouldn't cough up my lunch if he got in but wouldn't be offended if he stayed on the outside looking in. I'd vote yes.
- Mogilny: no way.
- Ciccarelli: the guy scored 600+ goals. I don't care how long he played. Or how big his butt was. Let him in already when a weak year comes up. I'd vote yes.
- Andreychuk: see above.
- Nieuwendyk: he deserves to be in the Hall.
- Gilmour: let him in
- Oates: let him in with Gilmour
- Lindros: talk about a polarizing player. Love him or hate him but nothing in between. I never liked him but he was so dominant before the melon crushing hit he took from Stevens. I would vote yes but with a longer wait.
- Housley: why is this guy not in already???
- Bondra: no way.
- D. Wilson: Not sure about him but there are plenty of defensemen that should get in before him, including Housley, JC Tremblay and Provost. No from me.
- Barrasso: Yes from me although his personality was abrasive to say the least. Voters don't like that -- see JC Tremblay.
- Vernon: No from me - just a guy who was very good but not great.
- Mark Howe: I'd vote yes and he should already be in. Not sure why the voters keep him on the sidelines. OK I can figure it out but they should let him in.
- JC TRemblay: Are you kidding me? Why is he not in??
- Claude Provost: Not many awards but 8 Cups -- eight!!! Let him in.
- Rogie Vachon: He was one of the best goalies all through the late 60's through to the late 70's. Enough said. Cujo isn't even in the same league.
- P. Turgeon: You can't deny his stats but there are too many guys on this list that deserve it more than him. Forget him for a few years.
Looking forward to this year's class already -- not the easiest to predict. So many older guys that deserve to get in (JC Tremblay, Provost, Brewer) and lots of modern players to choose from.
I think they need a few years of 4 players to get rid of the backlog of deserving players. I'd vote for Gilmour, Oates, Housley and right a wrong by admitting J.C. Tremblay.
<< <i>Cujo should never even get a sniff of the HOF -- he's Mike Palmateer all over again. Dave Kerr should get in before Cujo. >>
Completely disagree on Cujo, Vince. Did he refuse to give you an autograph or something?
Fuhr 403 W, 3.38 GAA
Espo 423 W, 2.92 GAA
Vachon 355 W, 2.99 GAA
Of course I realize comparing players from slightly different eras and systems isn't ideal, but to say that Cujo is somehow not even in Vachon's league? That's harsh. I believe Cujo is first eligible in 2012 along with Sakic, Shanny and Chelios, which would likely mean he won't be a first ballot guy. But I don't see him having to wait long.
You hit the nail on the head with most of the other guys, and your 2010 class would be perfect with me, but Fleury did not do nearly enough to even warrant consideration IMO.
However I do agree with the card & player ideas for this set that vince mentioned.
The older guys I really do not know.
Trembley why is he mentioned as a hofer?
and provost? he seems to have few stats as hof consideration though he did play on a ton of all star games. Does the cups automatically make him a hofer?
Lindros is borderline. If he just would have decided to be a defenseman instead of an ice killer he would have stayed healthy. The talent was definately there.
I can remember being in Detroit MI ...and that town loves thier HK...and all the sports dealers and fans said he would be the next coming of gretzky. Then he turns down quebec...wow!!!
I give congrats to the Canadians...that was some game yesterday. I almost peed in my pants when Parise tied it up. No sham in a proud silver.
Some people are just naturally blessed (as well as extremely talented)...but for Crosby to win it like that is pure storybook.
I think ya got to put cujo in....What a backlog of great candidates.
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
Now Esposito -- 6 All Star games, Calder trophy winner, 3 Vezina trophies, 76 shutouts, 3 first team all star and 2 second team all star nods. Also played a key part in the 1972 Summit Series with 2 wins, 1 loss and 1 tie.
Fuhr -- 5 Cups, 6 All Star games, 1 Vezina and 1 Jennings, one first team allstar and 1 second team allstar nods, part of 2 Canada Cup winning teams and who can forget the 1987 playoffs series against the Russians. Yes he benefitted from some awesome teams but he made the saves when needed. I consider him one of the best of all time -- certainly top 100 of all time.
Vachon -- 1 Vezina, 3 Cups, 3 All Star games, Canada Cup starting goalie in 1976 and named tournament MVP, 2 second team all start nods, Runner up to Bobby Clarke for Hart trophy in 74/75.
Cujo's wins are more a result of longevity, not dominance. He reminds me of Mike Liut. Some great periods of play but not worthy of the Hall. I'd put Vernon or Osgood in ahead of Cujo. I don't dislike Cujo but he's not Hall worthy.
Fleury's case is interesting. I wonder if the voters eventually take into account his off-ice demons. He's a guy that won't get in quick, if ever. At some point there might be a push to get him in but it'll be once the backlog is taken care of. I'd vote yes for him but after a long wait.
Tremblay is probably the most deserving defenceman not in the Hall right now. He's been hurt by his decision to play in the WHL. Call it a blackballing if you will. Also, he wasn't very pleasant. Some would say a genuine SOB. If you listen to some of his peers, like Jean Beliveau, they believe he should be in the Hall already. He won 5 Cups, played in 7 All Star games when that meant something. He was great on both sides of the puck. He suffers from so many Habs already being in the Hall and the fact he was a jerk.
Provost played in 11 All Star games and that should be enough to prove he was one of the best of his era. He also played on 9 Cup winning teams. Some call him the best defensive forward ever. He was Bob Gainey before Bob was.
I'd expect both guys to get in sooner rather than later.
1st-Year Eligibles:
Nieuwendyk, Turgeon, Lindros, Bondra (though I highly doubt he'll ever get in)
Others (Skaters):
Andreychuk, Ciccarelli, Oates, Gilmour, Makarov, Housley, Mogilny, Oates, Lowe
Others (Goalies):
Barrasso, Vachon, Moog, Vernon, Richter, Vanbiesbrouck
I'm sure I left a few out, but I think these players have the best chance to nab one of the max 4 spots. Of the first-year eligibles, I think only Nieuwendyk and Turgeon are HOF worthy. I seem to be in the minority in thinking that Turgeon is more deserving than Nieuwendyk, but regardless they should both get in at some point. My prediction is that Nieuwendyk goes in right away, and Turgeon has to wait, though I'd do it the other way around.
For the others, I'd go Oates, Gilmour and Andreychuk. I think Ciccarelli, Makarov or Bure could replace any one of them. So my prediction for the class of 2010:
Nieuwendyk, Oates, Gilmour, Andreychuk
But if I had MY way
Ciccarelli, Oates, Turgeon, Andreychuk
What's everybody else think?
If I was voting I'd put in Makarov, Vachon, JC Tremblay and Claude Provost.
What I think is going to happen is this:
Gilmour gets in but Oates has to wait again.
Nieuwendyk gets in because he's a great guy and Lindros waits until hell freezes over.
Bure gets in because injuries shouldn't prevent one of the most exciting players of all time from joining his peers.
I only see 3 guys getting the nod. The committee had a chance to vote some of the oldtimers in a couple of years ago because of the lockout and chose not to load up. I don't see them changing course now. I sincerely hope they never let in guys who piled up stats because of longevity, just like I hope they never omit a player who was truly great because his career didn't last more than 8 years.
Of course I'll be way off and they'll let in Oates, Ciccarelli, Lindros and Richter.
Of course there will end up being a big movement from the press or the backchannels to get them in and the committee will cave in. That's how you dilute a Hall of Fame.
Rocket Richard walks in to the legends room in hockey heaven, looks over and sees Gillies and Anderson having a beer and walks out.
I agree that Bure was very exciting....but is this the hall of should-a be-in if injuries didn't occure ? HOF talent for sure.
Lindros coulda been a contendor..but in my eyes he was good for only a short time. He refused to alter his play to stay healthy.
I hope Oates gets in..one of the greatest playmakers of all time. A local hero here as he took RPI to the national championship.
At some point Dave and Dino get in....kinda like Sutton and Eddie Murray ( I am not a huge fan of longevity numbers).
Gilmour and Turgeon get in. They were superb...not no brainers though. Add Joe to that also.
I would like to see someone elected that was passed over in yesteryears.
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
As for why Carbonneau is Hall worthy -- 3 Selke trophies and 2 runner-up finishes. Over 600 points from a defensive forward. 5 Cup finals and 3 Cup winners. 231 playoff games -- not sure where that ranks but I'd think in the top 5, maybe top 10 for sure. At the time of his retirement, only Mark Messier had played more playoff games. If Bob Gainey and Jacques Lemaire, plus Scott Stevens and Rod Langway can get in for their defensive skill then Carbonneau deserves enshrinement. I think you need to recognize all aspects of the game in the hall and although defense will always get short shrift the all-time greats, the legends of that part of the game, need to get their due. Carbonneau fits that bill without a doubt. If Gainey was the prototypical all-round hockey player, then Carbonneau was his child.
Have I mentioned before how unfair it is for Claude Provost to still need a ticket to see the Hall?
Bure's deserves to get in based on his actual stats, not the projected ones if he'd stayed healthy. Over 400 goals in less than 800 games. That's insane. He was electric. Plenty of HOFers played 12 years or less. He is the epitome of the guy who deserves to be there. Basing worthiness on whether he got to 500 goals doesn't work for me. That would mean instant inclusion for Dino and Dave and let's be honest here -- is there one single person on this earth who would take either of those guys over Pavel? One person? I take Carbonneau over both guys.
I also agree with Jay that there are quite a few guys who need to get in before some of the recent guys.
Let's help Jay's Tremblay RC value and let the guy in. While we're at it, why not Mark Howe? It's the Hockey Hall of Fame, not the NHL Hall of Fame.
M-A-K-A-R-O-V!!
Give Dino and Dave their own TV show.
Its like alowing cfl into the FB HOF and Japaneese leagues into the BB HOF
so no way mr howe
I do agree about HOFERS being someone who you feared playing. In his prime you didn'y say we're playing the Canucks...
we're playing the rocket. Not sure about the other Russians who were old men when they came to the NHL. Don't know enough about them.
I have heard a few knowledgable guys mention Carboneau as HOF worthy.....But he doesn't have any stats as Andy mentioned. I simply don't remember him being all that dominant.
I would like to hear a list of the last 5-10 NHL players who you would really be worried about if you had to play them. Not an all time list: last
guys like Mario
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
1981 OPC # 161 Dino Ciccarelli
1997 Upper Deck Collector's Choice # 276 Angela James
2004 Upper Deck # 199 Cammi Granato
James and Granato both have earlier Classic issues, but those aren't considered mainstream issues, so I believe the two I have noted above are the correct ones for the HOF rookies set.
I'd be in favour of 2 HOF sets -- the true RC one I mention above (without all the non-players) and the full HOF set where crazy cards are allowed, not necessarily just the RC's either. Kind of like the way the football registry works.
Looks like HK is folloowing BK.....no gender bias.
what are the best cards for the new NHL trpphy winners? there was a poll for duncan keith. I have no idea and would like to vote correctly.
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
if lindros does make the hall...will his card be score? and will it be canadian version like brodeur or american?
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
<< <i>Good luck finding the 2 woman's cards....even in any psa case.
Looks like HK is folloowing BK.....no gender bias. >>
I see no reason to exclude them, Jay, you male chauvinist pig! Kidding, of course
No idea on Duncan Keith. And yes, Lindros would be Canadian Score.
Then again, they let in Ciccarelli so you never know.
I always use the test, who in the HOF would you trade straight up to get the guy you're letting in. If no one comes to mind (other than Federko, Gillies and their ilk) then vote no.
I don't think I would place him in the top 10 players each year he played.
Using Vince's philosophy If I were building a team....I would trade brindy for Gordie Howe who is in the HOF.
Like...how good could a 87 year old man be on skates anyways.
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
both you guys - andy above & vince are very knowledgable.
who is in your top 10??
Who is the sleeper??
Who is the most deserving most likely not to get in??
Dave A gets in this year. Doug G also
My hopes are Adam O the local RPI hero gets in
I don't see any 1st year eligable player getting in this year or any year therafter.
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
<< <i>I don't see any 1st year eligable player getting in this year or any year therafter. >>
Belfour is the only first-year eligible player with a prayer this year, and I do think he'll get in. He deserves it. I'll also go with Bure, Nieuwendyk (though I think he's overrated) and Gilmour. Oates (way overdue) or Andreychuk could slide into Gilmour's spot, but I think they might have to wait until next year.
And speaking of next year, not a lot of room for leftovers with Sakic and Shanahan basically locks for 2 of the 4 spots. Roenick and Vincent's boy CuJo are also eligible next year, but neither were first-ballot players IMO.
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
I doubt we'll see the two vets get in so I will sub Joe N and Dave A as the guys to get in. Belfour has an outside shot but he was a bit odd so maybe that costs him this year. He desreves to get in though.
I need to dig up my list but a couple of years ago, after being very frustrated with some of the recent induction classes, I made a list of the guys I thought should get in. I did it mainly to create my own HOF RC set but the research really opened my eyes to the sheer number of vets on the outside looking in!
Speaking of vets, here's one for ya Vince. I have never heard anything mentioned about this guy and the HOF in the same breath, anywhere, but he woudl get my vote. Kent Nilsson. He's 11th all-time in points per game (686 in 553 games). Obviously he didn't have a long NHL career, but he did have two very good WHA seasons and a very distinguished career in Sweden. And, after all, it IS the hockey Hall of Fame, not the NHL Hall of Fame. Whaddya think?
His NHL stats are good but he wasn't ever a real threat for the scoring title or any of the major awards. He actually played more in the Swiss league than in Sweden but you're right he did have a decent career there.
I just think he's one of those guys who was good and sometimes very good but never great.
Now Mark Howe is another story.