Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Knicks Beat Lakers With Familiar Strategy

Poll: Worst Trade 1980-1989

Douggilmour3_medium

Second in a series. Go here for a more in-depth description of most of the trades. Go here for the first poll.

 

Comment 14 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I’m surprised the Gretzky trade is on the list, I didn’t think it was that bad a trade for the Kings.

by m_and_m on Feb 9, 2010 2:12 PM PST reply actions  

Which is odd since they were able to win a Cup without him. I think the reason for the Oiler’s slow burn demise can be attributed more to poor drafting and their reluctance to spend the necessary lettuce to retain their players.

I also think it’s important to note that Kevin Stevens, Cam Neely and Brett Hull weren’t regarded very highly as players when they were traded. Three very good examples for all Kings fans that want Lombardi to trade for someone splashy now.

And Quisp, I’m glad you put Scott Niedermayer on the poll. I remember when he was drafted 3rd overall in the draft that year there were questions about a knee injury or two that he endured during his junior career. I have a hunch that there will be a team or two that ends up regretting not selecting Jared Cowen in the last draft much like San Jose probably does for selecting Pat Falloon over Nieds.

by Irish Pat on Feb 9, 2010 2:58 PM PST up reply actions  

Really? ...

… I would have thought that getting Carson, Gelinas, and the picks was a damned sight better for Oiler fans than seeing Gretzky go for nothing in the free agent market.

And, as has been stated here, the Oil won a Cup two years after the Gretzky trade. So for those fans who requested that the trade be listed here: Buck up, little campers.

by JT_Dutch on Feb 9, 2010 10:24 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

There’s a precedent already set for Edmontonians being over-emotional…

2009-10 Kings Hockey: Delivering Milk Steaks from the Meat Train at an arena near you!

by DodgerBlueBalls on Feb 10, 2010 8:06 AM PST up reply actions  

Huh, Gretzky had four years to run on that contract, and we had every reason to anticipate more than one measly Cup in that span.

Still, I voted for Neely and Wesley for Pederson, who had been a great player until he got that tumour in his arm.

Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries

"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg

by Bruce McCurdy on Feb 10, 2010 4:30 PM PST up reply actions  

There's no question that you're right

The Oilers would have been able to continue to be dominant for several more years. Although I appreciate and would not want to underestimate the whole “Gretzky trade brought hockey to non-hockey markets” argument, it’s not to hard for me to imagine a preferable alternate reality in which the Kings don’t make that trade and all the subsequent deals to bring in Kurri, Coffey and Fuhr and instead use those three picks to build a team that would have been peaking at the time the Gretzky Kings were crapping out.

Usually, this fantasy involves the Kings using those picks to select Bobby Holik, Markus Naslund and Jason Allison, not to mention taking Keith Tkachuk in ’90 (instead of Darryl Sydor), Sergei Gonchar in ’92 instead of trading the pick for Paul Coffey, and Jeff Friesen in ’94 (not Jamie Storr). OBVIOUSLY EVERYTHING I JUST TYPED IS STUPID. I get that. But still, if you paid thousands of dollars on season tickets to watch Kristich, Ray Ferraro, Yachmanev and Tsyplakov, you would forgive me for picturing an upgraded ’95 Kings consisting of Robitaille, Holik, Gelinas, Carson, Naslund, Lang, Blake, Zhitnik, Gonchar and Allison.

Of course, everyone in every city can play the same thought experiment and come up with virtually the same team.

Wait till this year.

by Quisp on Feb 10, 2010 5:44 PM PST up reply actions  

Wasn't the $15M in USD important in that deal?

My recollection is that Peter Pocklington needed the money really, really badly, and that’s why he made the trade. From the point of view of Oilers fans, yes, that deal wound up being Gretzky and two proven supporting players for two journeymen (Gelinas and Ruscinsky) and the flameout of Jimmy Carson. But surely, Pocklington got something else that was very important to him at the time?

by DougX on Feb 10, 2010 10:49 PM PST up reply actions  

Yes, that's my memory, too.

Which is why many people say Gretzky wasn’t traded, he was sold.

Wait till this year.

by Quisp on Feb 11, 2010 7:09 AM PST up reply actions  

Does anybody look at context anymore?

Jimmy Carson was 19 years old and just finished a 50-goal season!!! 3 1st round picks?! And straight cash, homey??!! And Gelinas (like Carson, a 1st round pick) was considered a bit more of a project, but still a legit prospect and 18 years old!!

I think it’s befitting, if you realize that nobody (and I mean NOBODY) would fetch that kind of return right now. The Kovy talk was 2 1st rounders and a prospect, even for teams that had the money to re-sign him.

Bettman's Nightmare: A Blog Where Hockey Aficionados Dismantle That Mighty Empire, One Balsillie at a Time

http://bettmansnightmare.blogspot.com/

by Bettman's Nightmare on Feb 14, 2010 8:28 AM PST reply actions  

Additionally

I don’t know how we view 1st round picks; should a team be condemned for trading away a 1st round pick if the pick becomes good, but excused if the pick is a bust?

I’m obviously venting over the current results, but the arguments aren’t any less valid.

Bettman's Nightmare: A Blog Where Hockey Aficionados Dismantle That Mighty Empire, One Balsillie at a Time

http://bettmansnightmare.blogspot.com/

by Bettman's Nightmare on Feb 14, 2010 8:30 AM PST up reply actions  

Here's how I view them

If it’s a high 1st round pick, then, yes, a team can be judged for trading it away, since (depending on the year) it may well be pretty clear what they may be giving up. Otherwise, no, you really can’t judge them too harshly. That said, it’s always worth noting what those picks (say, late round picks) were used for; not to say that the team that traded away said pick was foolish to do so, but simply to remind everyone what’s possible, what those non-1st round picks mean, and how years later it’s often not the big pieces of the trade that stand out, but the afterthoughts, the picks thrown in.

Wait till this year.

by Quisp on Feb 15, 2010 12:25 AM PST up reply actions  

I assume the folks saying the trade was bad are Edmonton fans

and that of course is their right. Me, I acknowledge the importance of the trade to, well, everything — but I would have preferred the Kings keep the picks and then pick wisely. Since that probably would have been too much to ask (the “pick wisely” part), the trade worked out well for the Kings. You’re right that Edmonton got a huge return; for the fans there, nothing was going to ease the pain of losing Gretzky.

Wait till this year.

by Quisp on Feb 15, 2010 12:21 AM PST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Is it time to stop lurking and jump into the conversation? YES!

Ran Game

Icon_crop_3_small Quisp

Redo It

Pumpernicholl_small Niesy