HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Langway/Walter trade

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-06-2008, 06:27 PM
  #26
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thornton_19 View Post
We can agree to disagree about who was what defensively in the 80's.

As for the bolded part......Really?
Chelios had 73 points and was rock solid defensively(We can at least agree that he was still stellar defensively, if not agree who was the best on his team.

Macinnis had 74 points, and was a notch below on the defensive side. A problem in Calgary was that voters were splitting votes for the Norris due to the teams terrific play on their end of the ice(McCrimmon and Suter were snagging the odd votes, which is nice since McCrimmon is criminally underrated). But even if you gave Al Mac all of their votes combined, he was still coming out behind Chelios.


Macinnis I often stand up for because many seem to think he was defensively inept back then, which is just not the case, but he also was not in the Chelios/Bourque league defensively. Best comparison I can think of for Macinnis is that he was around the same level defensively as Stevens before Stevens started playing stay at home hockey(Obviously, Macinnis did not have the physicality. I just mean on a scale of 1-10). Stevens was a bit more raw, and a chance taker in his early days, and it affected his defense visibly compared to his later years when he sacrificed his offense in order to become a Langway type.

Back then, on a 1/10 scale, Macinnis was a 7.5/10 Defensively, and I would say Chelios was a 9/10(We can disagree on this)
I know how good Chelios was in his prime. But it always bothered me that a player could win the Norris Trophy with his penalty totals. In '93 he had 282 PIMs and he wasn't a fighter. You can't help but hurt your team taking that many penalties. Even in '89 he had 185 PIMs. Those are the 2 highest totals of any Norris winners by far.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2008, 07:40 PM
  #27
CapsCrazyX17
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Potomac, MD
Country: United States
Posts: 321
vCash: 500
The Washington Capitals wouldn't be around today if it wasn't for this trade. Just wanted to point that out.

CapsCrazyX17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2008, 09:42 PM
  #28
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,928
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
I know how good Chelios was in his prime. But it always bothered me that a player could win the Norris Trophy with his penalty totals. In '93 he had 282 PIMs and he wasn't a fighter. You can't help but hurt your team taking that many penalties. Even in '89 he had 185 PIMs. Those are the 2 highest totals of any Norris winners by far.
Eddie Shore also had massive PIM totals considering they only played 44-48 games back then. But he was a 4 time Hart winner, and would have been a 7 time Norris winner.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2008, 09:47 AM
  #29
mcphee
Registered User
 
mcphee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 19,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
I know how good Chelios was in his prime. But it always bothered me that a player could win the Norris Trophy with his penalty totals. In '93 he had 282 PIMs and he wasn't a fighter. You can't help but hurt your team taking that many penalties. Even in '89 he had 185 PIMs. Those are the 2 highest totals of any Norris winners by far.
If you would have asked what his highest penalty total was as a trivia question, I would've guessed about 150 minutes. He wasn'tr much of a fighter, but he'd get in fights, you remember how it often was then, 2 guys fighting meant it was probable that 2 or 4 more would go and whoever was with Chelly wouldn't be inclined to make small talk.

I'd be curious as to whether in 93, there were a few incidents where he had multiple misconducts tacked on, or was part of a few large brawls.

mcphee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2008, 08:21 PM
  #30
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thornton_19 View Post
Eddie Shore also had massive PIM totals considering they only played 44-48 games back then. But he was a 4 time Hart winner, and would have been a 7 time Norris winner.
But Shore didn't have massive PIM totals when he won the Hart.
102, 32, 61 and 42 PIM totals for those 4 years.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2008, 10:17 PM
  #31
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,928
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
But Shore didn't have massive PIM totals when he won the Hart.
102, 32, 61 and 42 PIM totals for those 4 years.
102 PIM averages to 178 PIM in Chelios's Era.

And his Hart Years were not his only Norris caliber years. He had 6 years where he was a lock for the Norris, and 2 more debatable years.

As per Pnep's Retro Norris
Norris

1917-18 Harry Cameron
1918-19 Harry Cameron
1919-20 Sprague Cleghorn
1920-21 Eddie Gerard
1921-22 George Boucher
1922-23 George Boucher
1923-24 George Boucher
1924-25 Sprague Cleghorn
1925-26 George Boucher
1926-27 Herb Gardiner
1927-28 Eddie Shore 165 PIM in 44 games = 315 PIM in Chelios Era.
1928-29 Eddie Shore 96 PIM in 39 games = 206 PIM in Chelios Era.
1929-30 King Clancy
1930-31 Eddie Shore 105PIM in 44 games = 200 PIM in Chelios Era.
1931-32 Eddie Shore 80 PIM in 44 games = 152 PIM in Chelios Era
1932-33 Eddie Shore 102 PIM in 48 games = 178 PIM in Chelios Era.

1933-34 King Clancy
1934-35 Eddie Shore
1935-36 Eddie Shore
1936-37 Albert Siebert
1937-38 Eddie Shore
1938-39 Aubbrey Clapper
1939-40 Ebbie Goodfellow
1940-41 Aubbrey Clapper
1941-42 Tom Anderson
1942-43 Earl Seibert
1943-44 Earl Seibert
1944-45 William Hollett
1945-46 Émile Bouchard
1946-47 Ken Reardon
1947-48 Jack Stewart
1948-49 Jack Stewart
1949-50 Ken Reardon
1950-51 Red Kelly
1951-52 Red Kelly
1952-53 Doug Harvey

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 01:37 PM
  #32
skeena1
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 833
vCash: 500
I heard Walter on the radio once saying what a big deal the trade was in Montreal at the time. He got off the plane and the headline in the first English newspaper he saw was:

"WORST TRADE IN HOCKEY HISTORY!"

Welcome to Montreal.

skeena1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 02:58 PM
  #33
mcphee
Registered User
 
mcphee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 19,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeena1 View Post
I heard Walter on the radio once saying what a big deal the trade was in Montreal at the time. He got off the plane and the headline in the first English newspaper he saw was:

"WORST TRADE IN HOCKEY HISTORY!"

Welcome to Montreal.
Walter actually said that ? I'd be curious as to which paper ran that headline.

It was tough to make a deal, still is, when the word is out that a player wanted out. Langway had heavy financial responsibilities and Quebec was enetering into a tax situation that wasn't freindly to high income guys. It was clear that he had requested a trade and that affected market value, I would think.

Leading up to the deal, Langway was a really good d man, but hadn't reached the status he soon reached in Washington.

mcphee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 04:57 PM
  #34
reckoning
Registered User
 
reckoning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,275
vCash: 500
At the time Montreal had 3 young defencemen (all French-Canadian) who hadn't quite matured into solid defenders but had been highly regarded coming out of junior. Robert Picard, Gilbert Delorme and Gaston Gingras.

It's possible that Grundman may have thought he could get away with the trade because maybe he had hoped those players may develop to the point where one or two of them could be able to fill the void Langway and Engblom left. Unfortunately it didn't happen and within two years all three of those players had been traded away.

reckoning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 05:23 PM
  #35
GNick42
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,427
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcphee View Post
Walter actually said that ? I'd be curious as to which paper ran that headline.

It was tough to make a deal, still is, when the word is out that a player wanted out. Langway had heavy financial responsibilities and Quebec was enetering into a tax situation that wasn't freindly to high income guys. It was clear that he had requested a trade and that affected market value, I would think.

Leading up to the deal, Langway was a really good d man, but hadn't reached the status he soon reached in Washington.
Is the tax situation the same today in Quebec?

GNick42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 06:52 PM
  #36
mcphee
Registered User
 
mcphee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 19,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GNick42 View Post
Is the tax situation the same today in Quebec?
I've been in Eastern Ont. since 93, I believe that it's a little tougher, but not to the extent it was early 80's. Someone more versed in these things than I am could explain, but there was a particular deduction that was taken away at some point. It may have been a Canadian thing as much as a Quebec thing, but a lot of players had a major issue at the time.

Langway was responsible for his entire family, sisters,brothers. I remember reading the story and being very impressed with Langway's character, but I can't quite remember the specifics.

mcphee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 07:50 PM
  #37
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
 
Psycho Papa Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cesspool, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by reckoning View Post
At the time Montreal had 3 young defencemen (all French-Canadian) who hadn't quite matured into solid defenders but had been highly regarded coming out of junior. Robert Picard, Gilbert Delorme and Gaston Gingras.

It's possible that Grundman may have thought he could get away with the trade because maybe he had hoped those players may develop to the point where one or two of them could be able to fill the void Langway and Engblom left. Unfortunately it didn't happen and within two years all three of those players had been traded away.
Hey the pick they got for Picard turned out to be Pat Roy, so it didn't work out so bad.

Psycho Papa Joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2008, 11:56 AM
  #38
skeena1
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcphee View Post
Walter actually said that ? I'd be curious as to which paper ran that headline.

It was tough to make a deal, still is, when the word is out that a player wanted out. Langway had heavy financial responsibilities and Quebec was enetering into a tax situation that wasn't freindly to high income guys. It was clear that he had requested a trade and that affected market value, I would think.

Leading up to the deal, Langway was a really good d man, but hadn't reached the status he soon reached in Washington.
Back then, it would have been the Gazette or the now-defunct Star. i believe they were the two English papers in the early 80's.

skeena1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2008, 12:32 PM
  #39
mcphee
Registered User
 
mcphee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 19,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeena1 View Post
Back then, it would have been the Gazette or the now-defunct Star. i believe they were the two English papers in the early 80's.
I think Walter was taking poetic license to dramatize how intense the media scrutiny is/was in Montreal. I'd be pretty surprised if that was actually a headline. It was big news at the time, there were certainly pro and con reactions, but I don't think it was met with that much immediate negative reaction.

mcphee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2008, 08:00 PM
  #40
skeena1
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcphee View Post
I think Walter was taking poetic license to dramatize how intense the media scrutiny is/was in Montreal. I'd be pretty surprised if that was actually a headline. It was big news at the time, there were certainly pro and con reactions, but I don't think it was met with that much immediate negative reaction.
Just going by what the man said.

skeena1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2008, 11:58 PM
  #41
Canadiens Fan
Registered User
 
Canadiens Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 735
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeena1 View Post
Back then, it would have been the Gazette or the now-defunct Star. i believe they were the two English papers in the early 80's.
It would have to be the Gazette, the Star closed it's doors for good in 1979.

Canadiens Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2008, 02:32 PM
  #42
GNick42
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,427
vCash: 500
Anyway to find old articles?

GNick42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2008, 07:08 PM
  #43
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,928
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by GNick42 View Post
Anyway to find old articles?
Library card.

Just go to your library's website and you will have access to some archives.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2008, 07:56 PM
  #44
mcphee
Registered User
 
mcphee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 19,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thornton_19 View Post
Library card.

Just go to your library's website and you will have access to some archives.
Maybe even get to live out some hot librarian fantasies.

mcphee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2008, 09:00 PM
  #45
mcphee
Registered User
 
mcphee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 19,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeena1 View Post
Just going by what the man said.
skeena, I'm not doubting you. I just think Walter was trying to dramatize a bit to show how he was received in Montreal. Montreal seemed to be looking for a big tough lw'er, they did for awhile and Walter wasn't an immediate hit. I think he'd lost a step after a knee injury, and while he was reasonably productive, he played more of a grinding style than fans expected. Maybe a year later, when Green was hurt, Walter was playing average hockey and Washington's franchise had turned around, I could see a headline like that.

mcphee is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:08 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.