A “night” next season at the ACC is one thing but is Mats Sundin a Hall-of-Famer?

Sometimes we make assumptions in the midst of a good player’s career.  One of those assumptions is that we project that they will be a sure-thing to get into the “Hall-of-Fame”, as though it was a slam-dunk that all guys having nice careers almost automatically make it.

Yet so many players have great careers.  But not everyone can get into the Hall.  Some guys get in as soon as they are eligible; others have to wait quite a long time (Dino Ciccarelli being a recent example). Others, like former Leaf Doug Gilmour, are still waiting.

One of the ever-engaging ongoing debates in sports, and certainly in hockey, is: who is truly Hall-worthy?  For me, not to be a Grinch, but I never believed Mike Gartner, for example, despite his 700+ goals, had a Hall-of-Fame career.  Nice skater and all that, but not someone who I looked to as the guy you needed in the playoffs.

Glenn Anderson, who waited a long, long time to get in, was a highly skilled and talented winger with those outstanding Oiler teams in the 1980s.  He also was a huge impact guy in the playoffs.  In my mind he deserved to be in—but as we all know, had to wait many years to get the “call”.

Some people didn’t—and don’t—think certain old-time players such as Bert Olmstead and Bob Pulford, two honored former Leafs, deserved to get in.  I think both did, again based on their being elite players over lengthy, productive careers but also, like Anderson, having been real impact players in the playoffs.

Olmstead (see the great old 1950s "Bee Hive" photo at right) was a grinding winger better known as a Hab, where he helped those great Montreal teams win several Cups in the 1950s.  He brought a winning pedigree and attitude to the blue and white when he joined them in the late 1950s and helped them win a Cup in 1962.   For his part, Pulford was a tough as nails center through mosty of his career.  He was a fierce checker who also scored many hugely important goals in the playoffs while helping Toronto win those four Cups in the 1960s.

But that’s always the argument.  Should the Hall be almost impossible to get into?  Should long-time Islander winger Clark Gillies (his case was much like Olmstead and Pulford’s) be in?  He is.  But should he be?  He was a big, bruising forward who could score, a real power forward.  Did he help make the Islanders champions, or was he fortunate to be on a great team?  Would he have been just another a good player somewhere else?

What about Bernie Federko, the fine St. Louis forward in the 1980s?  He’s in but some, like me, think he should be in there with the really, really good, but not Hall-of Fame level players.  (That said, I would have been more than happy had he played with the Maple Leafs in his hey-day.)

It’s more, for me, than just about regular-season stats, though “numbers” are important, I realize.

So before long, (2014?) Mats Sundin will be eligible.  We just heard that MLSE will honor the long-time captain with a night next season.  But what about the bigger and more significant honor—the Hall-of-Fame?

Here in Toronto we’re still waiting, as I mentioned above,  for Gilmour to get the call.  And Doug had an excellent career, including that Cup in 1989 with Calgary.  Though his pure numbers aren’t startling, we all know he was a gritty player who would do just about anything to try to win.  For a couple of years in Toronto, he may have been, if not the best, certainly the most valuable player in the game—a leader by sheer force of will.

But is that enough to make him Hall-worthy?  For me, his entire body of work makes him worthy, not just his good play in Toronto. (Click here to read my earlier assessment of how the careers and Steve Yzerman and Gilmour have seemingly gone in different directions and are looked at differently.)

Yzerman got into the Hall-of-Fame right away.  He played his entire career with one team and is now the GM in Tampa.  Doug played on half a dozen or so teams.  (He's now coaching in junior hockey.)  Is that why he’s waiting?

In any event, what do we do with Sundin?  If you are among those who think winning a Cup is the litmus test, I guess he doesn’t get in.  But we shouldn’t ignore the fact that he carried the Maple Leafs for more than a decade.  He was a fine captain, and did put up “numbers”, including over 500 goals and about 1350 regular-season points.  He averaged almost a point a game in 90+ playoff games and was a “plus” player in the playoffs—as well as in his regular season career.

He had size and used it,  when so moved.  He could skate and make brilliant plays.  He scored some very important goals with the Leafs, regular-season and playoffs.  He almost took them to the mountain top, with a fairly modest supporting cast.

But in the end, he didn’t.  So does he get in?

Most of us believe that, with better linemates, he would have been even more impactful.  That said, he did play with some elite guys like Mogilny and Gary Roberts, though Roberts was more of a high-end plugger, I guess we could say

To me, Sundin, as a captain and as an individual, was class on and off the ice.  While not a Cup-winner he was invaluable in some of the international success Sweden achieved, including the 2006 Olympic Gold medal.

What’s your verdict?  Does he get in?