| Author |
 Topic  |
|
MSC
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
601 Posts |
 Posted - 11/18/2008 : 11:46:00
|
| steroids |
 |
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2008 : 16:28:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest5447
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Why is Lemieux your #2?? What did his game have that was better than Gretzky or Howe for that matter??
Just for my own morbid curiousity. And although I don't think you are a blowhard as the guest seems to think, I do think you have an unhealthy hate-on for WG.
I'll hinder a guess. Is it because WG doesn't really look like a hockey player? He's got none of the physical attributes of those named in the top 4. He skates awkward. He doesn't appear to do anything special or look all that threatening. My guess is probably why he has the same hate on for Lidstrom as one of the greatest defender of all time.
Well remember the 1st couple of MMA fight? Who won it? Royce Gracie. He didn't look like a fighter. He was awkward looking. Not very muscular. Didn't look all that threatening. Then BAM!! his opponents submits.
I wonder if Willus would ever consider Gracie as the greatest MMA fighter of all time? I'm guessing no.
It's interesting how it's assumed I have a hate on for players because I don't happen to hold them in as high regard as most(read the Gretzky Generation). Get over yourselves. I consider Gretzky 4th because I watched these guys play. I've probably been watching and playing hockey longer than you've been alive and to be quite honest I don't really care if you disagree where I place Gretzky and why.
The bottom line is I don't respect how he accomplished what he did as much as I do the other three. How does that grab ya?
As for the MMA, well I really couldn't care less about a sport.
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2008 : 18:33:43
|
Willus, I mean do disrespect by saying you have a hate-on for Gretzky. It's just in my experience that you have placed most of the great Oilers from the 80's to a lower standards that most people. In the past, you have made comments about Coffey, Anderson, Kurri, Gretzky, and Messier as lower than most other players. Now, I know we have been usually comparing these Oilers to the best of all time in our conversations, but it's still pretty apparent that those players are lower on your list than most others.
Again, no disrespect to you intended.
And, I am still curious at how Lemiuex is ahead of Gretzky (and Howe for that matter) on the all time list. I know why you put Orr as #1 and that arguement is more than dead. But Lemieux ahead of Gretzky??? I don't see it. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2008 : 19:17:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Willus, I mean do disrespect by saying you have a hate-on for Gretzky. It's just in my experience that you have placed most of the great Oilers from the 80's to a lower standards that most people. In the past, you have made comments about Coffey, Anderson, Kurri, Gretzky, and Messier as lower than most other players. Now, I know we have been usually comparing these Oilers to the best of all time in our conversations, but it's still pretty apparent that those players are lower on your list than most others.
Again, no disrespect to you intended.
And, I am still curious at how Lemiuex is ahead of Gretzky (and Howe for that matter) on the all time list. I know why you put Orr as #1 and that arguement is more than dead. But Lemieux ahead of Gretzky??? I don't see it.
I think the world of Kurri and Anderson. They are fantastic players. Coffey's offense is second to only Orr. I respect that a great deal.
I don't consider Messier as good as Howe. Believe me I'm not in the minority there.
So really it's only Gretzky.
I'll tell you why Gretzky is 4th. All three guys that I say are better played the game the way it was supposed to be played and they could all take care of themselves. Gretzky could have played in the womens league and wouldn't have had to change his style at all. I'm sure people will whine and say I'm taking cheap shots at Gretzky. So be it. I'm just telling it like it is. The Gretzky guys don't much like that though. Always makes me laugh that you can point out flaws in any other players game but say something about Gretzky and it's sacrilege. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2008 : 19:31:06
|
Hey, I resemble that comment!!! 
I am not arguing your views of Gretzky. Really I am not. But I do kinda question that you knock Gretzky for not "playing the game it is supposed to be played" but in the other breath, Lemieux is ahead of Gretzky. That is the knock I most hear about Lemieux is that he had the size and strength to play physically, but he really didn't. Sure, he took it strong to the net, but I don't recall Gretzky taking it weakly.......
And maybe I just didn't see as many games from out east during Mario's career, so I might be completely out to lunch, but I don't recall Lemieux "taking care of himself" a ton.
Honestly, as a Gretzky guy this is hard to admit, but Mario very well COULD have been better than Gretzky. I don't think he had half of Gretzky's desire to win and I don't think he used his physical gifts as well as he could have. Granted, his injuries changed his style of play about 1/2 way through his career. Lemieux, in my opinion, was Gretzky with not as good vision for the game (but just as good if not better in mostly any other thing)less heart, less work ethic, and less determination to win. All of which put Lemieux behind WG.
But, as we have done one most everything else, I think we shall agree to disagree. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2008 : 10:57:00
|
Lemieux took far more abuse and did not shy away from physical contact. He didn't avoid certain areas because he would get hit there.
I have a different take on people's view that Lemieux lacked drive. With maybe the exception of his first few years, before he hit his prime, I don't think we ever saw him play 100% healthy. Now I'm not referring to how the physical injury affects play. I'm talking about the mental side. If you've ever had a nagging injury you'll know what I mean. It affects you. I have a bad neck which flares up from time to time. When it does it affects me mentally and emotionally. It puts a strain on the mind as well as your body. I can get quite miserable because of it. I don't think most people realize just how much it can affect a person's performance.
I'm not saying I'm right about Lemieux, but that is my take on it. |
|
|
|
Alex
PickupHockey All-Star
Canada
2816 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2008 : 16:00:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
Lemieux took far more abuse and did not shy away from physical contact. He didn't avoid certain areas because he would get hit there.
I have a different take on people's view that Lemieux lacked drive. With maybe the exception of his first few years, before he hit his prime, I don't think we ever saw him play 100% healthy. Now I'm not referring to how the physical injury affects play. I'm talking about the mental side. If you've ever had a nagging injury you'll know what I mean. It affects you. I have a bad neck which flares up from time to time. When it does it affects me mentally and emotionally. It puts a strain on the mind as well as your body. I can get quite miserable because of it. I don't think most people realize just how much it can affect a person's performance.
I'm not saying I'm right about Lemieux, but that is my take on it.
Not choosing any sides here boys, but to add to Willus' argument: there is another 'mental' aspect involved in an injury.
Let me give you an example. I snapped my neck last year so badly that it was stuck in one position for three days. It's called 'acute wry neck' and it hurt like a bitch. I had just woken up, gotten out of bed awkwardly (wasn't even out of the bed yet) and SNAP!
I finally recovered, and was able to play hockey within two weeks. However, realizing how easily I snapped my neck in the first place, do you think I wasn't nervous to do it again? To this day as a defender, I am reluctant to keep my head 'on the swivel' as we are instructed to do. I do it much slower than I should, which could eventually cost our team a goal. One second a forward is in the corner, the next he's in front of our net and I don't see him.
All because of an injury I once had that I am scared to re-aggravate.
Make sure to cast your votes in the PickUpHockey Hall of Fame |
Edited by - Alex on 11/19/2008 16:02:02 |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2008 : 16:12:49
|
That's very true Alex. I know exactly what you mean. You end up restricting yourself and you may not even be aware you are doing it.
I get people asking me if I have a stiff neck quite often when in fact I don't. But obviously I move like I do. |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2008 : 06:16:13
|
The interesting thing about a Gretzky-Lemieux debate, for moi anyway, is that it kind of points out that if Bobby Orr is not your GOAT guy, he shouldn't be your Number 2 guy either. Why? Well, whether one tends to lean to the Willus school of thought favoring Mario or the Beans school of thought favoring Wayne, I think just about anybody on either side would be more than very happy with either one of these guys to fit their team's need for an offensive superduperstar. In that sense, two guys on opposite sides of this issue can kind of put aside the debate, and just flip a coin. If a Willus-side guy says heads for Lemieux and it comes up tails, the Willus-side guy still walks with #99 to serve his offensive superduperstar role. If a Beans-side guy says tails for Gretzky and it comes up heads, the Beans-side guy still walks away with #66 to serve his offensive superduperstar role. Although it's an interesting discussion, when you come right down to it, just how significant is the trade off there either way?
But throw Orr into the picture vis-a-vis either guy and the trade-off question becomes much more compelling, no matter which side you favor. If you're like me, and want a guy who is exellent at both offense AND defense, you certainly do NOT want to leave the Orr-Gretzky, or Orr-Lemieux decision to a flip of a coin. Similarly, I would think that if you are like Beans, and want a guy who is an wonderkind offensive forward, you certainly do not want to leave the Gretzky-Orr OR the Lemieux-Orr decision to a flip of the coin.
So my question to you Beans-san is this? Why is Bobby Orr your Number 2 player if Wayne Gretzky is your Number 1 player? |
|
|
|
Guest4526
( )
|
Posted - 12/21/2008 : 06:54:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest8977
quote:
Originally posted by Trevman12
Who wouldn't vote for gretzky?
apparently a few people voted Orr Lemiux and Howe *cough* no hockey knowledge.
Orr was the best ever. Defense is so much harder to play than Offense. So much more physical. Orr was a racehorse. So flawless in everything he did. Rating anyone {Gretzky} behind Orr is no insult.
I saw both their careers from start to finish. Orr played full strength, shorhanded, power play, injured, and always against the other team's 1st line.
With all that to deal with----his PLUS / Minus numbers stagger the imagination. Gretzky's Oilers are all Hall of Famers. They even won a Cup without him. Not so with Orr. The guy was flawless, sorry to break so many hearts here----but Orr was that good. Gretzky only recently retired. History will sort this out. In the history of hockey---no player ever won over a CAREER----what Bobby Orr won in 1 season, 1970. Even Gretzky fans must appreciate that fact. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2008 : 07:06:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4526
quote:
Originally posted by Guest8977
quote:
Originally posted by Trevman12
Who wouldn't vote for gretzky?
apparently a few people voted Orr Lemiux and Howe *cough* no hockey knowledge.
Orr was the best ever. Defense is so much harder to play than Offense. So much more physical. Orr was a racehorse. So flawless in everything he did. Rating anyone {Gretzky} behind Orr is no insult.
I saw both their careers from start to finish. Orr played full strength, shorhanded, power play, injured, and always against the other team's 1st line.
With all that to deal with----his PLUS / Minus numbers stagger the imagination. Gretzky's Oilers are all Hall of Famers. They even won a Cup without him. Not so with Orr. The guy was flawless, sorry to break so many hearts here----but Orr was that good. Gretzky only recently retired. History will sort this out. In the history of hockey---no player ever won over a CAREER----what Bobby Orr won in 1 season, 1970. Even Gretzky fans must appreciate that fact.
Can you explain what you mean by "no player ever won over a CAREER - what Bobby Orr won in 1 season, 1970." I'd like to understand what that means. |
|
|
|
Guest9955
( )
|
Posted - 12/22/2008 : 09:01:38
|
gretsky isnt even in the same league as richard and orr
|
|
|
|
Guest8322
( )
|
Posted - 12/22/2008 : 09:18:25
|
| Darcy Tucker, or Sean Avery, its too close to call... Hence why I voted 'other' |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2008 : 17:14:35
|
Beansy - reread the last few posts here and noticed you never answered my question above.
Put in more simple English. If Gretzky is greater than Orr, than why too is Lemieux not greater than Orr?
As you know, I"ll take Orr over either one of those essentially "offensive" players, but I'm curious about your reasoning on this.
If you take Gretzky over Orr (thereby prioritizing "one of a kind" offense over all else), don't you also have to take Mario over Bobby too?
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2008 : 18:18:33
|
Nope, I have Orr ahead of Lemieux. Couple of reasons.
Realistically, both played a limited career due to injury/illness. Both could have and should have been higher on the list of record holders. Both had a reasonable amount of success and both had success on fairly decent teams.
One difference that would put Orr ahead of Lemiuex is more so the impact on the game. Orr completely revolutionized the position he played and the way the game was played. Lemiuex, although one of the best ever, didn't have the same effect. He was one of the first players with serious size that was more than a hired goon, but that's not a change of the game in my opinion. But he didn't do things that completely changed the way the game was played. Orr (and Gretzky for that matter) did.
Another reason is that I can't get passed Lemiuex's attitude. A lot like Crosby today, he came into the league with this kind of attitude of entitlement. And even though I might get beat up for this, Lemieux always came across as a guy that only put everything into it when he could win. If he couldn't win, the same passion and competativeness wasn't there. Maybe it's a weak arguement, but he really came across to me as a guy who played the game because he was good, not because he loved it.
I guess to put it simply. WG is #1 in my book as there will never be another player that is a gifted offensively and have the ability to read (or see the game if you will). Orr is #2 as there will never be a player that will be able to dominate either side of the puck like Orr. Lemieus is my #3 because he has been the next best to this point. But, I would not be surprised to see another player like Lemieux in my life time. He was amazing at what he did, but not special like Orr and Gretz. No one will ever take over the #1 or #2 spot.
Does that make sense??? |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2008 : 19:10:56
|
I disagree on Lemieux's willingness to try without a chance at winning. How could could that be when he had a 199 point season on a team that had zero chance of winning anything?
"Society, have mercy on me. Hope you're not angry if I disagree." - Jerry Hannan |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2008 : 07:40:06
|
As I expected, my homie Willus has a differing opinion than mine. I just don't think this would be as much fun for me without Willus!
Although I can not argue that Lemiuex could produce points at will. It is the reason that he is so high on my list. But, just because he scored doesn't mean it was to win.
Maybe I am wrong, and I would be able to admit so. But Lemiuex has always seems to be the kind of player that would rather have 5 points and lose the game than have 2 points and win.
As I said, maybe I'm wrong but that is the perception I have always had of Lemiuex. More selfish than Orr, which puts Orr ahead on my list. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2008 : 09:15:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
As I expected, my homie Willus has a differing opinion than mine. I just don't think this would be as much fun for me without Willus!
Although I can not argue that Lemiuex could produce points at will. It is the reason that he is so high on my list. But, just because he scored doesn't mean it was to win.
Maybe I am wrong, and I would be able to admit so. But Lemiuex has always seems to be the kind of player that would rather have 5 points and lose the game than have 2 points and win.
As I said, maybe I'm wrong but that is the perception I have always had of Lemiuex. More selfish than Orr, which puts Orr ahead on my list.
Are you now insinuating Orr was selfish? It sounds like it. Maybe just a poor choice of words.
"Society, have mercy on me. Hope you're not angry if I disagree." - Jerry Hannan |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2008 : 10:32:38
|
No no, not saying Orr was selfish. I think that all superduper stars have a degree of selfishness, per se. But no, Orr was far from a selfish player and would give up most any stat, record, or personal accolade to win. Although Gretzky had a determination to break records, he too would give up most anything to win. Lemieux, on the other hand, was most selfish than both of those guys. Not saying completely selfish, but definately early in his career, it was more important to him to have prestige than to win. In the middle part of his career, more focus was on winning. But even later in his career, why did he come back?? Did he come back to win or to prove to everyone that he could come back??
But no Willus, not saying Orr was any more selfish than any other superduper star. In fact, he was most likely the least selfish of the GOAT's. |
|
|
|
Alex
PickupHockey All-Star
Canada
2816 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2008 : 10:49:42
|
I would venture to say that the vast majority of players, especially when we are talking about the NHL, are only focused on one thing: winning. When your eight, maybe you're going out for personal glory, but as you start to get older, the focus changes.
After all, that's why you're on the team. A goal is only a means by which to accomplish the bigger picture task, ie., winning the game. That's just sports. Especially when you get to the NHL, where you're getting paid good money because someone trusts that you're the guy that can contribute towards winning.
I've always gotten more satisfaction out of winning than out of playing well individually. For example, last game I drew three penalties in one shift (I'm incredibly good at that.) I've scored my fair share of goals in my ''career'' - in fact I have one in every game I've played forward this year - but I'm not lying when I say that being an effective role player that makes a difference in a close game is more rewarding than scoring a bunch of goals and losing , or having a hat-trick in a lopsided victory.
If you don't agree, you're probably playing hockey for the wrong reasons.
Make sure to cast your votes in the PickUpHockey Hall of Fame |
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2008 : 10:54:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
...But even later in his career, why did he come back?? Did he come back to win or to prove to everyone that he could come back??.....
Beans you know I have your back on the Gretzky vs. Orr debate, but regarding your last comment about Lemieux being selfish in his comeback I have to disagree. He came back to save a franchise. That's about as unselfish as can be (yes he owned the club, but he only owned it because the former owners owed him millions $)
Willus and Andy haven't seen you around in a while. Of course a good Orr vs Gretzky (with shades of Lemieux) discussion would bring you kind fellas back to life! haha! Nice to have you home boys, dinner's on the table. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2008 : 10:57:49
|
| Ok Leigh, to your point, if Lemieux doesn't have a financial interest in Pittburgh does he come back?? Or does he come back to them??? Of course we will never know the answer to that question, but it does make a guy think. |
|
|
|
Guest9770
( )
|
Posted - 12/23/2008 : 10:59:51
|
| Gretzky won the scoring title on his assists alone 4 times. That is crazy dominance. |
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2008 : 13:21:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Ok Leigh, to your point, if Lemieux doesn't have a financial interest in Pittburgh does he come back?? Or does he come back to them??? Of course we will never know the answer to that question, but it does make a guy think.
Every player has a financial interest in playing, each relative to their own abilities (it's a matter of scale) I'm pretty sure he came back because he loved the game too. He wasn't positioned to break any records at the time so it wasn't for personal glory. He's a competitor who was driven out of the game for health reasons and each time he felt better he thought he could play the game again. Unfortunately attempt was short lived. It's hard to take the race out of the horse.
Aside from his interest in the team, and his passion for the game, you might also say that he came back to help Crosby get off on the right foot. It's not every year (or even decade) a veteran SUPERSTAR gets that opportunity to show the ropes to another future superstar. We're not talking about a pretty good player, we're talking about potentially one on the same level as himself. That must have been very motivating for Lemieux.
I'm not saying there weren't time when he didn't seem very motivated in the early/mid part of his career, but certainly at the end he was the posterchild for determination and I think you unfairly said he was selfish at that time. |
|
|
|
Matt_Roberts85
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
936 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2008 : 13:46:01
|
Gretzky would still be the all time points leader in NHL history even if he never scored a goal. Thats f***in' ridiculous. The fact that messier is in second place in all-time points also shows how much of an effect Wayne had on guys around him.
Ronnie Francis is 3rd all time (i think....maybe 4th...) in total points but his name rarley comes up in these types of debates. While Its obvious why people don't put him in the same category as the afformentioned, he is definatley one of the most consistant players of all time.....but I guess that doesn't really mean much in this debate.
There is no "I" in team, but there is an "M" and an "E". |
|
|
|
Guest5229
( )
|
Posted - 12/24/2008 : 21:51:01
|
Just to momentariy divert ths topic from Gretzky, who I think, is the greatest!... there are criteria other than 'stats' that help to define the greatest hockey player... how about being the best offensive player on a team that wins 5 Stanley Cups in a row or ten Stanley Cups lifetime? A player that scores all five goals in a 5 to 1 win or that has the most goals/points in the playoffs? I don't have time to do the research for the exact numbers/dates, but I know that "The Rocket" did these things. It's the guy who can score goals while 'carrying' an opposing defenseman on his back who is the 'greatest'. Or a guy who can win a game singlehandedly. The greatest player is not the one with the most records/points/stats, but the one who, because of him, helps his team to win games/Stanley Cups. Maurice Richard was this kind of player. Go see the movie, "The Rocket" if you're too young to know better and you'll see what it takes to make a great player. Gretzky was a 'primadonna' in comparison.
Still, I respect all of the great players and here's my top 10 list:
1/ Maurice Richard
2/ Gordie Howe
3/ Wayne Gretzky
4/ Mario Lemieux
5/ Bobby Orr
6/ Howie Morenz
7/ Marcel Dionne
8/ Mark Messier
9/ Peter Forsberg
10/ all the rest |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 12/25/2008 : 07:15:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest5229
Just to momentariy divert ths topic from Gretzky, who I think, is the greatest!... there are criteria other than 'stats' that help to define the greatest hockey player... how about being the best offensive player on a team that wins 5 Stanley Cups in a row or ten Stanley Cups lifetime? A player that scores all five goals in a 5 to 1 win or that has the most goals/points in the playoffs? I don't have time to do the research for the exact numbers/dates, but I know that "The Rocket" did these things. It's the guy who can score goals while 'carrying' an opposing defenseman on his back who is the 'greatest'. Or a guy who can win a game singlehandedly. The greatest player is not the one with the most records/points/stats, but the one who, because of him, helps his team to win games/Stanley Cups. Maurice Richard was this kind of player. Go see the movie, "The Rocket" if you're too young to know better and you'll see what it takes to make a great player. Gretzky was a 'primadonna' in comparison.
Still, I respect all of the great players and here's my top 10 list:
1/ Maurice Richard
2/ Gordie Howe
3/ Wayne Gretzky
4/ Mario Lemieux
5/ Bobby Orr
6/ Howie Morenz
7/ Marcel Dionne
8/ Mark Messier
9/ Peter Forsberg
10/ all the rest
If those are the criteria you use to judge players I'm guessing you don't know much about Robert Gordon Orr.
"Society, have mercy on me. Hope you're not angry if I disagree." - Jerry Hannan |
|
|
|
Guest4631
( )
|
Posted - 01/16/2009 : 19:52:14
|
beans you say lemieux didnt score to win? what do you think he scored trying to lose games? and for a guy to play through all the injuries he had and to come back from cancer shows nothing but heart and love for playing the game, so to say he didnt have that desire is rediculous. and he came back to play to help the team not for money, if it was all about money he wouldnt have played his whole career for the same team, and then buy them to save them. now that as loyalty.
and i respect fact that he doesnt assume he is a coach just because he was a great player. Gretzky making himself the coach, now that is a selfish act because he clearly was not yet deserving to be an nhl coach |
|
|
|
Guest9278
( )
|
Posted - 01/16/2009 : 22:04:40
|
| maurice richard.... no one played the game the way he did while getting wacked in the head by sticks every night! Thats playing with some heart! |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2009 : 09:11:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4631
beans you say lemieux didnt score to win? what do you think he scored trying to lose games? and for a guy to play through all the injuries he had and to come back from cancer shows nothing but heart and love for playing the game, so to say he didnt have that desire is rediculous. and he came back to play to help the team not for money, if it was all about money he wouldnt have played his whole career for the same team, and then buy them to save them. now that as loyalty.
and i respect fact that he doesnt assume he is a coach just because he was a great player. Gretzky making himself the coach, now that is a selfish act because he clearly was not yet deserving to be an nhl coach
Do a little more research on history my friend.
When Lemieux did his comeback after his successful bout with Hodgkin'sm the Penguin's were in financial shambles and owed Mario millions. The Penguin's filed from Chapter 11 bankruptcy and Lemieux become one of the primary creditors due to years of deffered salary. He basically turned that defered salary into equity in the team and became a part owner. The only way for him to get the money he basically already earned by playing was to do this and get the value of the team up. Or, he would have played most of the 90's for nothing!
If he didn't have that kind of motivation to return, I don't think he would have. At least not to the Penguins.
In my humble opinion. |
|
|
|
Guest4631
( )
|
Posted - 01/17/2009 : 09:40:44
|
well your humble opinion is wrong,
I know the history of the penguins and about the bankruptcy, but thanks for the update on that , He returned because he wanted to play the game its what he loved to do, and he never had any intentions of going to play n e where else other then pittsburgh. everything he ever did was to help the team, gretzky on the other hand does things for himself |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2009 : 09:49:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4631
well your humble opinion is wrong,
I know the history of the penguins and about the bankruptcy, but thanks for the update on that , He returned because he wanted to play the game its what he loved to do, and he never had any intentions of going to play n e where else other then pittsburgh. everything he ever did was to help the team, gretzky on the other hand does things for himself
So, for you to say that my opinion is wrong, you must know Mario pretty well and be able to know all of his reasons for returning.
Ultimately, this was a lead down to if he played to win or not. If he played to win, he would not have returned to Pitt.He returned to Pitt(in my humble yet completely wrong opinion) to make sure he got the money that was owed to him. If he was paid completely in full, he never would have put himself on the line for a team in bankruptcy.
And to say that Gretzky did things for himself?? Sure. You must also know WG well enough to know why he did what he did. That is seriously the funniest thing I have ever heard. Might want to look into history on that as well and tell me how many times he was a UFA and had the ultimate say in where he played.
What a joke. |
|
|
|
Guest4631
( )
|
Posted - 01/17/2009 : 20:07:13
|
ok first of all you knock me saying i must know lemieux because i say what i think his reasons for coming back...
then you tell me the "real" reason why he came back because u must know him.
then you knock me saying i must know gretzky because of what i think his reasons were.............. way to not contradict yourself.
lemieux came back to help the penguins organization win not just win for himself . if all he cared about was money he could have sign with a team like toronto that would have paid more money then he was owed by the penguins.
as for gretzky not being selfish? he became an nhl coach because he was qualified to be one? i dont think so wayne "take the empty net goal for myself" gretzky became an nhl coach because he decided he wanted to |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2009 : 10:47:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4631
ok first of all you knock me saying i must know lemieux because i say what i think his reasons for coming back...
then you tell me the "real" reason why he came back because u must know him.
then you knock me saying i must know gretzky because of what i think his reasons were.............. way to not contradict yourself.
lemieux came back to help the penguins organization win not just win for himself . if all he cared about was money he could have sign with a team like toronto that would have paid more money then he was owed by the penguins.
as for gretzky not being selfish? he became an nhl coach because he was qualified to be one? i dont think so wayne "take the empty net goal for myself" gretzky became an nhl coach because he decided he wanted to
I am knocking you because you can't just say an opinion is wrong because you feel like it. You have said nothing to justify your opinion or debate mine.
And how can you say that Lemieux came back to help the Penguins win?? They didn't win did they??? My point is that I 'think' he would have went to a different team if Pitt wasn't into him for so much loot. The value of the PItt Franchise is somewhere in the range of $130 million, to which Lemieux has a reasonably large piece off. I am not faulting him for the business decision. Anyone who would have done something differently would be a complete moron. My point is that if he came back because he loved to win so much, and there was no money involved at all, Pitt would have been the last team he would have played for.
As for Gretzky is Phoenix, you are right that he did not have any coaching background in the NHL. But every single coach who is in the NHL at one time or another had zero NHL coaching experience. So, I fail to see the point. Another difference between the two is that Gretzky already had his money invested in Phoenix. And the biggest difference is that Gretzky did not lace up the skates to save the operation.
All I am saying is that there appears to be some other motivating factors (basically his salary though the 90's) for Lemieux to comeback. Nothing against it, I would have done the same.
Just don't tell me that he only came back to win, because I can not be convinced otherwise. |
|
|
|
Guest4631
( )
|
Posted - 01/18/2009 : 12:17:53
|
well he didnt come back to lose, and he came back pittsburgh because it is the only team he ever wanted to play for, he has been the savior of that franchise more than once.
and your right at some point all coaches have no nhl experience. but in gretzky's case he just had no coaching experience. it would be one thing if he was hired with no experience by someone else. but he basically hired himself because he decided he wanted to be a coach, if thats not selfish i dont know what is, its not winning that motivated him to do that,
and im not saying he was not a great player he was, but he was not in a league of his own like some ppl feel he was, and given a choice of a player to have on a team i would take orr, or lemieux ahead of him and that would be a hard decision, but they were both more well rounded hockey players then gretzky ever was. |
|
|
|
Porkchop73
PickupHockey Pro
640 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2009 : 12:21:07
|
| I hate to break into a great argument but I can't resist. In this case between Lemieux and Gretzky (the greatest player to play) Beans15 is mostly correct about Lemieux. I very clearly remember when Lemieux came back. The main reason was, as he stated, he still wanted to play and felt good enough to compete albeit he was not going to play back to back as well as sit every third game (originally). Now since Pittsburg was not able to pay him and still owed him money they had given him controlling interest in the team. I will find the interview with TSN from back then but Lemieux did say why would play for someone else instead of himself. Its like buying the competitors product instead of your own. It does not make sense. So, Lemieux did come back because he wanted to play but he came back to Pitt because he was the owner and it only made sense to make money for himself instead of another owner, common sense. Otherwise he would have went elsewhere to a team that could have afforded to pay him. Still does not make him the greatest player ever...... that is Wayne Gretzky who is not selfish at all. For any fan to say that certainly has not followed the great ones career very well. How could anyone call the man that has more career assists then the next person in career points has points selfish. By definition an assist is not selfish!!! |
Edited by - Porkchop73 on 01/18/2009 12:27:31 |
|
|
|
Guest4991
( )
|
Posted - 01/18/2009 : 14:38:14
|
Maurice Richard is the best player ever . he had to go through so much it was incredible . He scored like 50 goals in 40 games every year with no curve on his stick and he played with almost no gear on . And his backhand was insane .. ni one beats him ..
the only reason people say gretzky is cause he got a lot of points .. but he played so many more games then maurice richard did ..
AND .. Richard did it for almost no money AND HE SAVED THE NHL FROM CORRUPTING ... hes an obvious pick |
|
|
|
Guest6030
( )
|
Posted - 01/18/2009 : 16:44:13
|
The question is too vague. If we are only talking about records, well the answer is obvious. If we are talking about overall (defensive/offensive/talent/etc) I would have to choose Mario Lemieux.
This guy made Robby Brown a star, Kevin stevens a star, and many more. Its unbelievable what he did in his short career. I say short because he had health issues and even when he played, he played with a damaged back. |
|
|
|
Guest6611
( )
|
Posted - 01/18/2009 : 17:38:34
|
| Did you guys come to a unanimous decision yet? LOL. |
|
|
|
Guest5443
( )
|
Posted - 01/18/2009 : 17:40:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest6030
...Mario Lemieux.
This guy made Robby Brown a star, Kevin stevens a star, and many more. Its unbelievable what he did in his short career. I say short because he had health issues and even when he played, he played with a damaged back.
And Gretzky made many around him a star. Most notably he made Bernie Nicholls a 50+ goal and 150 point scorer. Bernie Nicholls who had less talent than Brown and Stevens combined (ok exaggeration). Can you even phatom how rare a 150 points a season scorer is? There are only about 6 players ever to play the game to achieve that plateau. EVER. and Nicholls is one of them because of Gretz. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Greatest hockey player ever 
