It’s two days after seven people – and seven families – celebrated, rejoiced … induction into the Hockey Hall of Fame.
What the last 48 hours have, in fact, become is not a celebration of the seven, but rather the disappointment and criticism about those who didn’t make the cut. And it was avoidable.Why Turgeon? Why not Mogilny? Or Roenick? Have you forgotten Henderson or Larmer?
I am not here to whine about one player over the other … although, I do believe Alexander Mogilny should be in the Hall of Fame. Nor am I here to criticize the 18-person panel that anguishes over the final decisions of who is to be inducted at the November ceremony. No, what needs to occur, is a much better understanding of the process of the Hall’s balloting and increased transparency in understanding who is eligible for the Hall, and if, in fact, they are nominated.Mogilny nominated? Don’t know. Larmer? Henderson? We just don’t know.It’s difficult to level criticism, constructive criticism, at the Hall and its committee if we don’t know all of the ground rules and all the pertinent information.It’s incumbent on the Hall of Fame to shed some light on the process and the people, in order to stop the rampant criticism the day after. This is 2023, not 1973, and the rules of engagement have to reflect the times we are in.In the meantime, celebrate Lacroix, Hitchcock, Lundqvist, Barasso, Vernon, Turgeon and Ouelette. They deserve our respect.