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
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Which teams "screwed up" by NOT trading for Lindros

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-16-2005, 07:57 PM
  #1
salzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Which teams "screwed up" by NOT trading for Lindros

Okay, we all know the Lindros trade worked out great for Colorado and I think in the long run it worked out pretty well for Philly too. Whether or not Philly should have made the trade in hindsight can be argued all day long (believe me, I've actually done it). But here's the question:

Philly gave up a few decent warm bodies, but mainly it was a ton of picks and prospects that it seems, miraculously, ALL panned out for the Avs. Looking back at the players, picks and prospects that Philly gave up, which teams had assets that, at the time were thought to be similar or better than what Philly gave up, but for whatever reason, they just didn't pan out. So if they had made a similar deal at the time to what Philly made, in hindsight, they'd have made out like bandits.

Here's what I've got:

Boston
Glenn Murray
Don Sweeney
Greg Hawgood
Andy Moog
Joe Juneau
+ same draft picks Philly gave

Glenn Murray was their most recent #1 - he never panned out for them and was traded away. He never really became much of a player until long after that, so as far as being a Bruins pick is concerned, he would have to have been considered a bust. Turned it around somewhat as a late bloomer, but he was not a factor for the Bruins until he was reacquired years later. I look at Sweeney and Hawgood as the Duchesne and Huffman of the deal, Moog - Hextall, and Juneau - Ricci. Forsberg wasn't quite established as the uber-prospect he developed into the following season, but I think he was still worth more than Murray at the time. I think that difference in value (in 92 terms) is made up for in other areas of the deal.
Subsequently, Boston took household names like Kvartalnov (26 when they drafted him!), Kevyn Adams and Ryabchikov in the first round. Boston SHOULD have made this deal. But they'd have never parted with the cash Aubut got from Philly. Also, they were semi-finalists that year, so it would have been a pretty tough deal to sell. Still, they'd have gotten the biggest star the Boston Gardens had seen since Bobby Orr retired.

Chicago
Fresh out of an appearance in the SCF, it would have been even more difficult for the Hawks to make a deal. But if you believe rumours at the time, they were one of the teams in the running. A package of

Steve Smith
Ed Belfour
Dean McAmmond
Cam Russell
Stephane Matteau
+ the picks

no doubt would have knocked Philly out of the running. They subsequently drafted poorly too, so losing those picks wouldn't have hurt them. Give up Belfour in 1992!? BLASPHEMY! You say? Lest we forget, that would have freed the nets for his backup, Dominic Hasek. And the Hawks would have had a 1-2 punch of Lindros-Roenick for the next 15 years. I suspect that team, with Chelios anchoring the defense and Hasek the All World goalie, would have won a Cup or 2. I also suspect the $15 million was what ultimately scared of Wirtz.

That's just the 2 I came up with. I'm sure there's more. IIRC, the Rangers were said to have offered Kovalev, Amonte, Weight, Vanbiesbrouck and James Patrick. It's no wonder Aubut tried to weasel out of the deal with the Flyers and take that one! Lucky for the Rangers, the arbitrator ruled in the Flyers favour, since they won a Cup 2 years later.

salzy is offline  
Old
06-16-2005, 08:36 PM
  #2
Hedberg
MLD Glue Guy
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BC, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,363
vCash: 500
Nobody screwed up for not trading for Lindros

Hedberg is offline  
Old
06-16-2005, 08:57 PM
  #3
salzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hedberg16
Nobody screwed up for not trading for Lindros
Thanks for the great contribution. He never did anything for the Flyers franchise, so he CERTAINLY couldn't have helped any other team of the last 15 years.


Last edited by salzy: 06-16-2005 at 09:12 PM.
salzy is offline  
Old
06-16-2005, 09:08 PM
  #4
sunb
Registered User
 
sunb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Yale University
Country: China
Posts: 3,232
vCash: 500
I think Boston would've scored big but it would've been pretty hard for them to part with Joe Juneau.

He scored 102 points as a rookie for them and had superstar potential.

sunb is offline  
Old
06-16-2005, 09:12 PM
  #5
salzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jovanovski = Norris
I think Boston would've scored big but it would've been pretty hard for them to part with Joe Juneau.

He scored 102 points as a rookie for them and had superstar potential.
True, but that wasn't until the season AFTER the Lindros trade. Wow, something just dawned on me - picture a line of Lindros-Neely-Whoever. Dear god, they'd have been unstoppable.

salzy is offline  
Old
06-16-2005, 09:20 PM
  #6
Bender
TheHockeyProspector
 
Bender's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,709
vCash: 50
I'm confused. What do you mean "it worked out pretty well for Philly too" ??

Imagine had they NOT done the trade and just kept Forsberg and the gang ?? How freaking good they would have been ??? Both in their primes, most NHL general managers picked Forsberg over Lindros (was in the hockey news) so I can't imagine this deal being a 'good thing' for the Flyers.

Whenever a thread pops up with the 'worst trades of all time', invariably this trade is at the top or near the top of the list.

Bender is offline  
Old
06-16-2005, 11:08 PM
  #7
salzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bender
I'm confused. What do you mean "it worked out pretty well for Philly too" ??

Imagine had they NOT done the trade and just kept Forsberg and the gang ?? How freaking good they would have been ??? Both in their primes, most NHL general managers picked Forsberg over Lindros (was in the hockey news) so I can't imagine this deal being a 'good thing' for the Flyers.

Whenever a thread pops up with the 'worst trades of all time', invariably this trade is at the top or near the top of the list.
Like I said, I don't want to turn this into another debate about the trade that actually happened. Suffice to say Lindros turned them from a team that missed the playoffs 5 years in a row to a team that is a contender every year. And he enabled them to build an arena that allows them the revenues that have kept them at the level for a long time. When that trade pops up in 'worst trades of all time' threads, it's simply because the participants are hopelessly misinformed.

salzy is offline  
Old
06-16-2005, 11:37 PM
  #8
sparr0w
Registered User
 
sparr0w's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 16,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by salzy
Like I said, I don't want to turn this into another debate about the trade that actually happened. Suffice to say Lindros turned them from a team that missed the playoffs 5 years in a row to a team that is a contender every year. And he enabled them to build an arena that allows them the revenues that have kept them at the level for a long time. When that trade pops up in 'worst trades of all time' threads, it's simply because the participants are hopelessly misinformed.
It's plain to see why you don't want to make it a debate about the actual trade.

Perhaps it would have worked out better for a different team to have made that trade.

sparr0w is offline  
Old
06-16-2005, 11:41 PM
  #9
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,951
vCash: 500
Trading for Lindros is a mistake for any team. You cannot win a Stanley Cup with that kind of selfish attitude. That destroys team chemistry.

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
06-16-2005, 11:59 PM
  #10
Hawker14
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,082
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by salzy
Okay, we all know the Lindros trade worked out great for Colorado and I think in the long run it worked out pretty well for Philly too. Whether or not Philly should have made the trade in hindsight can be argued all day long (believe me, I've actually done it). But here's the question:

Philly gave up a few decent warm bodies, but mainly it was a ton of picks and prospects that it seems, miraculously, ALL panned out for the Avs. Looking back at the players, picks and prospects that Philly gave up, which teams had assets that, at the time were thought to be similar or better than what Philly gave up, but for whatever reason, they just didn't pan out. So if they had made a similar deal at the time to what Philly made, in hindsight, they'd have made out like bandits.

Here's what I've got:

Boston
Glenn Murray
Don Sweeney
Greg Hawgood
Andy Moog
Joe Juneau
+ same draft picks Philly gave

Glenn Murray was their most recent #1 - he never panned out for them and was traded away. He never really became much of a player until long after that, so as far as being a Bruins pick is concerned, he would have to have been considered a bust. Turned it around somewhat as a late bloomer, but he was not a factor for the Bruins until he was reacquired years later. I look at Sweeney and Hawgood as the Duchesne and Huffman of the deal, Moog - Hextall, and Juneau - Ricci. Forsberg wasn't quite established as the uber-prospect he developed into the following season, but I think he was still worth more than Murray at the time. I think that difference in value (in 92 terms) is made up for in other areas of the deal.
Subsequently, Boston took household names like Kvartalnov (26 when they drafted him!), Kevyn Adams and Ryabchikov in the first round. Boston SHOULD have made this deal. But they'd have never parted with the cash Aubut got from Philly. Also, they were semi-finalists that year, so it would have been a pretty tough deal to sell. Still, they'd have gotten the biggest star the Boston Gardens had seen since Bobby Orr retired.

Chicago
Fresh out of an appearance in the SCF, it would have been even more difficult for the Hawks to make a deal. But if you believe rumours at the time, they were one of the teams in the running. A package of

Steve Smith
Ed Belfour
Dean McAmmond
Cam Russell
Stephane Matteau
+ the picks

no doubt would have knocked Philly out of the running. They subsequently drafted poorly too, so losing those picks wouldn't have hurt them. Give up Belfour in 1992!? BLASPHEMY! You say? Lest we forget, that would have freed the nets for his backup, Dominic Hasek. And the Hawks would have had a 1-2 punch of Lindros-Roenick for the next 15 years. I suspect that team, with Chelios anchoring the defense and Hasek the All World goalie, would have won a Cup or 2. I also suspect the $15 million was what ultimately scared of Wirtz.

That's just the 2 I came up with. I'm sure there's more. IIRC, the Rangers were said to have offered Kovalev, Amonte, Weight, Vanbiesbrouck and James Patrick. It's no wonder Aubut tried to weasel out of the deal with the Flyers and take that one! Lucky for the Rangers, the arbitrator ruled in the Flyers favour, since they won a Cup 2 years later.
under these scenarios, chicago would've become awesome.

just another reason why chicagoans hate wirtz i guess.

Hawker14 is offline  
Old
06-16-2005, 11:59 PM
  #11
salzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by norrisnick
It's plain to see why you don't want to make it a debate about the actual trade.
Huh?

Quote:
Originally Posted by norrisnick
Perhaps it would have worked out better for a different team to have made that trade.
Yes, perhaps with another team he would have been had a teammate that would have been able to disuade guys from taking runs at him (a la Semenko). Another reason Chicago would have been a good fit, since the had Probert. Perhaps a management team that wouldn't pressure him to come back so quickly from injuries because they had built and arena and sold out luxury suites based on the fact that he'd be in the lineup.

salzy is offline  
Old
06-17-2005, 12:02 AM
  #12
salzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
Trading for Lindros is a mistake for any team. You cannot win a Stanley Cup with that kind of selfish attitude. That destroys team chemistry.
Yes, who would want a guy who would work his ass off for months to get back in shape after suffering 3 concussions in a matter of a couple months, just so he could rejoin the team and try to help them win the Stanley Cup. I mean, who has any use for the kind of shady character that would his own well being at risk like that, just to try to win a trophy! How selfish can you get.

salzy is offline  
Old
06-17-2005, 12:06 AM
  #13
sparr0w
Registered User
 
sparr0w's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 16,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by salzy
Huh?



Yes, perhaps with another team he would have been had a teammate that would have been able to disuade guys from taking runs at him (a la Semenko). Another reason Chicago would have been a good fit, since the had Probert. Perhaps a management team that wouldn't pressure him to come back so quickly from injuries because they had built and arena and sold out luxury suites based on the fact that he'd be in the lineup.
I mean there is pretty much no aspect of that trade where Philly was the winner.

You say Lindros helped them get into the playoffs after missing for 5 straight seasons (2 of which after Eric showed up). Good.

Quebec was near dead last for a 4-5 season stretch and was instantly vaulted to 3rd overall with Duchesne (80+ pts 3rd team scoring), Ricci (70+ pts 4th team scoring), and Hextall (29 wins as the starter) playing HUGE roles. I'm aware of the other picks associated with that stretch of poor finishes but last to 3rd is a huge step and not possible without that trade.

Eric made Philly a contender and helped them finance an arena to remain contenders. Good.

Same goes for Quebec/Colorado and they actually won a couple Cups.

Anything you can do, I can do better. Is the tune of this trade. Though I guess I'm just misinformed.

sparr0w is offline  
Old
06-17-2005, 12:19 AM
  #14
salzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by norrisnick
I mean there is pretty much no aspect of that trade where Philly was the winner.

You say Lindros helped them get into the playoffs after missing for 5 straight seasons (2 of which after Eric showed up). Good.

Quebec was near dead last for a 4-5 season stretch and was instantly vaulted to 3rd overall with Duchesne (80+ pts 3rd team scoring), Ricci (70+ pts 4th team scoring), and Hextall (29 wins as the starter) playing HUGE roles. I'm aware of the other picks associated with that stretch of poor finishes but last to 3rd is a huge step and not possible without that trade.

Eric made Philly a contender and helped them finance an arena to remain contenders. Good.

Same goes for Quebec/Colorado and they actually won a couple Cups.

Anything you can do, I can do better. Is the tune of this trade. Though I guess I'm just misinformed.
What the hell? Why are you hijacking this thread. That trade has been discussed to death! Nobody said Philly WON the trade. Just because it worked out great for the Avalanche doesn't mean it didn't ALSO work out great for the Flyers. I can't believe you don't see the difference between getting the short end of a trade that worked out well for both team and one of "the worst trades of all time". The trade helped both team - A LOT!

salzy is offline  
Old
06-17-2005, 12:26 AM
  #15
JSmith81x
Your weapon is guilt
 
JSmith81x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,727
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by salzy
Chicago
Fresh out of an appearance in the SCF, it would have been even more difficult for the Hawks to make a deal. But if you believe rumours at the time, they were one of the teams in the running. A package of

Steve Smith
Ed Belfour
Dean McAmmond
Cam Russell
Stephane Matteau
+ the picks

no doubt would have knocked Philly out of the running. They subsequently drafted poorly too, so losing those picks wouldn't have hurt them. Give up Belfour in 1992!? BLASPHEMY! You say? Lest we forget, that would have freed the nets for his backup, Dominic Hasek. And the Hawks would have had a 1-2 punch of Lindros-Roenick for the next 15 years. I suspect that team, with Chelios anchoring the defense and Hasek the All World goalie, would have won a Cup or 2. I also suspect the $15 million was what ultimately scared of Wirtz.
Close, but not quite. It was G Ed Belfour, RW Steve Larmer, D Steve Smith, LW Dean McAmmond, D Karl Dykhuis, 1st rd pick, and $15M.

"Mr. Wirtz didn't want to spend the money," said Keenan, adding, "I said you had the opportunity to have Jeremy Roenick and Eric Lindros on the same team in Chicago Stadium. I said any money you had to give out will come back to you. But he couldn't see the vision and didn't want to spend they money." Keenan insists that if Wirtz had any financial foresight the trade would have put the Hawks in a position to be an NHL powerhouse: "We had a trade on the table that was never granted that probably would have put us over the top. That would have given us a tremendous opportunity to make a run at the Cup. The great thing about it was that we would have kept Roenick and Chelios, and that we still had Hasek." In a direct slap at Wirtz, Keenan has said, "We were trying to do something that would've shocked everyone. But some people weren't ready for a change." Wirtz has never confirmed or denied the incident, but Quebec GM at the time, Pierre Page, had confirmed Keenan's story, saying, "Keenan went to him [Wirtz], but he wouldn't pay a nickel."
-- page 93 of Mark Wienberg's Career Misconduct.

JSmith81x is offline  
Old
06-17-2005, 12:31 AM
  #16
sparr0w
Registered User
 
sparr0w's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 16,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by salzy
What the hell? Why are you hijacking this thread. That trade has been discussed to death! Nobody said Philly WON the trade. Just because it worked out great for the Avalanche doesn't mean it didn't ALSO work out great for the Flyers. I can't believe you don't see the difference between getting the short end of a trade that worked out well for both team and one of "the worst trades of all time". The trade helped both team - A LOT!
You asked, sorry. Last comment from me regarding that specific trade (unless of course someone brings up another point) How does this trade "help" Philly if not making it would have been better for them (unless the argument stands that the players that worked out for the Nord/Avs weren't going to work out for the Flyers)?

There are a lot of teams that could have had success with Eric, but I can't think of too many similar packages that made sense at the time.

sparr0w is offline  
Old
06-17-2005, 12:50 AM
  #17
salzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by norrisnick
You asked, sorry. Last comment from me regarding that specific trade (unless of course someone brings up another point) How does this trade "help" Philly if not making it would have been better for them (unless the argument stands that the players that worked out for the Nord/Avs weren't going to work out for the Flyers)?
It helps Philly because without the trade, Ed Snider continues to get kiboshed in his efforts to get the financing to pay for the house that Eric built. Maybe they'd have been able to get it done in the last 10 years, but they were never able to before. Who knows, maybe the Flyers would still be playing in the Spectrum with a $19 million payroll just like the Penguins are stuck doing in the Mellon arena. Besides, there's not way to know if the Flyers would have been able to use those draft picks as remarkably well as the Nords were able to. It's uncanny how many of those panned out. Looking at the other Flyers picks from that era , it seems unlikely anything would have come from those picks.

salzy is offline  
Old
06-17-2005, 12:54 AM
  #18
salzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayzinSmith
Close, but not quite. It was G Ed Belfour, RW Steve Larmer, D Steve Smith, LW Dean McAmmond, D Karl Dykhuis, 1st rd pick, and $15M.
LOL, I never heard that rumour, I was just kinda looking back at the rosters and prospects from that period of time. Pretty close!

Quote:
Originally Posted by JayzinSmith
The great thing about it was that we would have kept Roenick and Chelios, and that we still had Hasek.
lol - I love how Keenan implies that he somehow knew how great Hasek was going to be. Yeah right - then why'd you give him to Buffalo, Mike!?

salzy is offline  
Old
06-17-2005, 01:12 AM
  #19
JSmith81x
Your weapon is guilt
 
JSmith81x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,727
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by salzy
lol - I love how Keenan implies that he somehow knew how great Hasek was going to be. Yeah right - then why'd you give him to Buffalo, Mike!?
Some people in the organization thought Hasek would be good (but probably not a multiple Vezina winner), as he had won goalie of the year awards in the Czech league and was an All-Star in the IHL and international competitions before being Belfour's backup. Over parts of two seasons, Hasek was 13-4-2 w/ the Hawks w/ a GAA around 2.50. But he was 28 years old and had just 25 NHL games experience, and they had to either expose him in the 1993 Expansion Draft or trade him. They weren't gonna move Belfour for anything less than a star, so they traded Hasek to Buffalo for Stéphane Beauregard and a pick. Beauregard was traded soon after for Christian Ruuttu, who'd be the team's 2nd line center for two seasons, and the pick turned out to be Éric Dazé.


Anyway, back to Lindros ...

JSmith81x is offline  
Old
06-17-2005, 02:44 AM
  #20
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,951
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by salzy
Yes, who would want a guy who would work his ass off for months to get back in shape after suffering 3 concussions in a matter of a couple months, just so he could rejoin the team and try to help them win the Stanley Cup. I mean, who has any use for the kind of shady character that would his own well being at risk like that, just to try to win a trophy! How selfish can you get.
LOL.

Was that to help his team or to help himself? He revealed what he was all about on draft day. A leopard doesn't change his spots.

Why do you think he has never won a cup?

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
06-17-2005, 10:04 AM
  #21
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 124,936
vCash: 579
Quote:
Originally Posted by salzy
Chicago
Fresh out of an appearance in the SCF, it would have been even more difficult for the Hawks to make a deal. But if you believe rumours at the time, they were one of the teams in the running. A package of

Steve Smith
Ed Belfour
Dean McAmmond
Cam Russell
Stephane Matteau
+ the picks

no doubt would have knocked Philly out of the running. They subsequently drafted poorly too, so losing those picks wouldn't have hurt them. Give up Belfour in 1992!? BLASPHEMY! You say? Lest we forget, that would have freed the nets for his backup, Dominic Hasek. And the Hawks would have had a 1-2 punch of Lindros-Roenick for the next 15 years. I suspect that team, with Chelios anchoring the defense and Hasek the All World goalie, would have won a Cup or 2. I also suspect the $15 million was what ultimately scared of Wirtz.

With Bill Wirtz in control, he would have found a way to screw it up.


I also don't think anyone thought in 1992 that Dominik Hasek would have been as good as he became.

GKJ is offline  
Old
06-17-2005, 11:08 AM
  #22
JCD
Registered User
 
JCD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country:
Posts: 14,609
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
Trading for Lindros is a mistake for any team. You cannot win a Stanley Cup with that kind of selfish attitude. That destroys team chemistry.
Claude Lemieux, Ed Belfour and Tom Barrasso are about as self-centered and selfish of players as you can find.

You can also find their names on the Stanley Cup.

JCD is offline  
Old
06-17-2005, 11:11 AM
  #23
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,951
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCD
Claude Lemieux, Ed Belfour and Tom Barrasso are about as self-centered and selfish of players as you can find.

You can also find their names on the Stanley Cup.
Not to the degree of Lindros. Eric Lindros, Terrell Owens, Lattrell Sprewell and the like destroy team chemistry.

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
06-17-2005, 11:14 AM
  #24
JCD
Registered User
 
JCD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country:
Posts: 14,609
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
LOL.

Was that to help his team or to help himself? He revealed what he was all about on draft day. A leopard doesn't change his spots.

Why do you think he has never won a cup?
What would you consider Lemieux then? Like Lindros, he too refused to go to the podium and stand with the team that drafted him. Or did his spots change? I do see his name on the Cup.

Lindros told Quebec not to bother drafting him, they would be better off trading the pick. Why? The franchise was in disarray top to bottom. Case in point: they packed up and left shortly there-after.

Why has he never won the Cup? Because he was never on a team CAPABLE of winning a Cup. He CARRIED the Flyers on his back all the way to the Final. When he got there, his goaltending was abysmal and the Wings put 5 men on the ice whose ONLY job was to keep Lindros from scoring. Stop Lindros, you stopped the Flyers. With Lindros shut-down, nobody else stepped up to pick up the slack. By the time Clarke finally gave Lindros a worthwhile goaltender, Lindros already had three concussions and the blueline had been disassembled.

JCD is offline  
Old
06-17-2005, 11:19 AM
  #25
JCD
Registered User
 
JCD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country:
Posts: 14,609
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
Not to the degree of Lindros. Eric Lindros, Terrell Owens, Lattrell Sprewell and the like destroy team chemistry.
Based on what?

Lindros became a dividing factor later in his career due to his fued with Clarke. Don't ignore what he had done previously and afterwards. He was a good teammate before Clarke and him were at odds and a good one in New York.

Furthermore, look how many careers Lindros has made. He kept Brent Fedyk out of the AHL as a rookie, turned John LeClair from a 3rd line grunt to a 1st line scorer, put Michael Renberg on the map, turned Keith Jones from pest to potent and gave Trent Klatt a 2-mil per deal. He makes the players around him better.

I will agree that he was never captain material. The 'C' should have never left Brind'Amour. The team tried to force him into a leadership role before he was ready (if he was ever going to be ready). He was more Federov than Yzerman, a great player but not a great leader. Look to him to score and carry your team on the ice, look to somebody else for the passionate speaches in the locker room.

JCD is offline  
Closed Thread

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 06:37 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2016 All Rights Reserved.