View Single Post
Old
06-28-2013, 05:02 PM
  #15
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,530
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
The fact that Vanbiesbrouck ended up available in that expansion draft still fascinates me. There's no way it should have happened.

It isn't like he was in a career rut at the time - he was considered one of the top 5-8 goalies in a (now) 26-team league. Several top teams at the time were being let down by rotten goaltending - Detroit (Vanbiesbrouck's hometown team) especially, Washington, Quebec, Philadelphia, and several others. None of those teams made a quality offer.

Instead Vancouver gets him for a song basically to be expansion draft fodder. Mindboggling.

How many Cups does Detroit win if they acquire Vanbiesbrouck in 1993?
There's three facets to Vanbiesbrouck in the expansion draft.

First is that the Rangers had him and Mike Richter. For three or four years, they ran with this tandem and never made up their minds of who they were going to keep and who to trade. The second part of that is that, during the 1992-93 season especially, they never moved one for what would have undoubtedly been a sizable trade return.

Second is that Vancouver got him for "future considerations". This was understood to be directly tied to what the Canucks actually did with him. Letting him go to Florida cost them Doug Lidster. If they'd kept Vanbiesbrouck, it would have undoubtedly been a much more substantial package. Keep in mind this was under the old CBA, when awarding of players as compensation in free agency was still perfectly fine. A dispute between Vancouver and New York would have ended up on the new commissioner's desk, and who knows how that would have gone.

Third is that several teams had opportunities to get Vanbiesbrouck and apparently weren't offering enough. No one knows what those offers may have been, but it still circles right back around to New York not deciding between him and Richter at an earlier point.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote