Talk:Gord Kluzak

Article Start
Note that I've just started this. A lot more will come over the next few days/weeks. Yankees76 19:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

POV
I think the POV is questionable where the wisdom of drafting Kluzak first is discussed:


 * Sinden passed up on Kitchener Rangers star Brian Bellows, who was the popular choice amongst Bruin fans, and Gary Nylund of the Portland Winter Hawks, who many felt was the better defenceman.
 * In hindsight, taking Kluzak 1st overall has been questioned by hockey fans. Bellows went on to become a star for Minnesota and finished his career with 485 goals and 1022 points. Nylund was drafted by the Toronto Maple Leafs and ended his career with 608 games under his belt.

I've been a Bruins fan since the mid-70s, and my recollection is that the choice of Kluzak was regarded as a good one at the time. Also, the #1 decision was really Bellows or Kluzak - I don't remember Nylund being seriously considered. Certainly in hindsight it would have been better to take Bellows, but Sinden had no way of knowing that injuries would end Kluzak's career so early. As I recall, many people felt that Kluzak was well on his way to becoming an all-star level defenseman by the 1987-88 season. In short, the article seems to suggest that Sinden made a bad selection by picking Kluzak, but I don't think there's any strong evidence that this is the case. Dsreyn 14:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The stats back it up. Bellows is nearly a 500 goal scorer and Nylund was well on his way to a better career, but also go hurt in his rookie season. Plus he played for a weak Maple Leafs Team. Sinden took a gamble that didn't pay off. Kluzak had already missed nearly an entire season of junior hockey with a knee injury before being taken 1st. Bellows was a can't miss prospect, and Kluzak wasn't even the top rated prospect by Bruins scouts after that injury. Sinden even said that the Bruins were nearly scared off of Kluzak but drafted him anyways because his "heart was set on him". He talks about this in old issues of The Hockey News. The key point though is that Nylund was a WHL First All-Star and had 66 points in 65 games in 1982 before being drafted 3rd. He was rated in The Hockey News draft preview issue as the No. 2 overall prospect and No. 1 WHL prospect for the 1982 NHL draft. So I'm pretty sure he was on the radar of hockey fans at the time as a serious top pick consideration. Plus when you consider that Kluzak was picked ahed of Ron Sutter, Scott Stevens, Phil Housley, Dave Andreychuk and Ken Daneyko, it definitely looks like a bad selection - and I didn't even mention that in the article. Yankees76 16:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course the stats back it up - but primarily because Kluzak got injured. I realize Kluzak missed most of a season of junior hockey.  But the next injury was the one that did him in, as you mentioned in the article:
 * However on Oct. 7, 1984, Kluzak tore ligaments in his left knee when he collided in mid-ice with Devils defenseman Dave Lewis. This required major reconstructive surgery and forced Kluzak to miss the entire 1984-85 regular season and 1985 playoffs. He would re-injure the knee again in September 1986 and miss another season.
 * Are you suggesting that Sinden should have known before the fact that Kluzak would have the 1984-85 injury (which was *not* a reaggravation of the previous injury)? Of course, hindsight is always 20-20.  But again, I make the point that Kluzak was well on his way to becoming an upper echelon defenseman by 1987-88. Dsreyn 17:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course it is. Otherwise Brian Lawton never makes the NHL and Alexandre Daigle is a 5th round pick. But then again, Bellows was the consensus #1. Gluzak was rated third. Nylund had a better junior career and was the firt-team All-Star the year that Kluzak was the second team. At best, with the torn knee ligaments, Kluzak was a third overall pick - and with Scott Stevens going 5th overall and being the 5th rated prospect and 2nd rated OHL prospect, you have to wonder how much Sinden was swayed by Kluzak's performance at the World Juniors.


 * I wonder if I should put in the article that Kluzak played in fewer games (299 from 1982-90) than any other No. 1 pick in NHL history? Yankees76 17:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That it would certainly be a factual statement, which is much better than saying "questioned by hockey fans". The latter comes across more as a way of forcing an opinion into the article.  If such a statement could be attributed to a hockey insider (e.g., a GM, writer, etc.), it would carry substantially more weight. Dsreyn 17:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but a casual search on Google for the words Gord Kluzak and "bust" will show quite a few hockey forums where he is listed as a bust, etc. Easily enough to back up the statement "questioned by hockey fans". Yankees76 18:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you should read the policy on Verifiability. In particular, the three items in the shaded box under "The policy" seem relevant here.  Also, this snippet under "Self-published sources":   Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.
 * For that matter, consider how much value this really adds to the article. The article should be addressing the questions "who was Gord Kluzak, what did he do, and why was he notable", and I don't think speculation about the wisdom of picking him first is really required to answer those questions. Dsreyn 19:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm familiar with the policy - I've removed the sentence in question as I've only found one sports writer who directly labels Kluzak as bust (that's what happens when you're a fan favorite). I've reworded it using only verifiable facts. Yankees76 20:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)