HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie
Notices

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

Would the Los Angeles Kings have won a Stanley Cup in '92-'93 if Paul Coffey stayed?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-10-2017, 01:02 AM
  #1
Michael Whiteacre
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 188
vCash: 500
Would the Los Angeles Kings have won a Stanley Cup in '92-'93 if Paul Coffey stayed?

Paul Coffey was still in his prime during his short stay with the Los Angeles Kings, since most if it was spent with Edmonton, Pittsburgh and Detroit, yet he never lasted at least one whole season with the Kings.

It was '91-'92 when Los Angeles acquired Coffey from Pittsburgh via trade in exchange for Brian Benning, whom Pittsburgh flipped over to Philadelphia (with Mark Recchi) to bring Rick Tocchet to Mario City. While Coffey was limited to five points in 10 games with L.A. in '91-'92,...

,...Coffey began '92-'93 in Los Angeles where he put up 57 points in 50 games played in Los Angeles, yet he never received an NHL All-Star berth as a L.A. representative since 1992 had Coffey represent Pittsburgh before his trade to L.A., and 1993 had Coffey represent Detroit after he was traded from L.A. because L.A. had some kind of losing streak that prompted the team to make some hasty changes while losing sight of the big picture.

And while Rob Blake was L.A.'s top defenseman/blueliner, Paul Coffey and Marty McSorley were L.A.'s best blueliners outside of Blake. Except McSorley was at his best doing the dirty work on the ice, while Coffey was good for scoring. All games are decided by scoring and not fighting.

Coffey was way better outside of Blake and McSorley because Alexei Zhitnik and Darryl Sydor needed more seasoning to be more experienced effective NHL players, Charlie Huddy was not the same player as he was in his 1980s Edmonton Oilers days, Mark Hardy's second L.A. stint was not as good as his original run with the early 1980s Kings, Tim Watters was way past his prime, and guys like Jeff Chychrun and Peter Ahola were not good NHL players to begin with.

The returns that L.A. obtained from Detroit in exchange for Paul Coffey on January 1993 weren't anything substantial at all, because only Jimmy Carson was noteworthy than Marc Potvin and Gary Shuchuk, and even then, Carson was already on the outs with hockey in general as he spent his later NHL years preparing for his post-hockey life, and Potvin + Shuchuk were both minor league caliber players at best.

And while Los Angeles made the 1992-93 Stanley Cup Finals, they failed to beat Montreal for the 1993 Stanley Cup despite decent contributions from the likes of Wayne Gretzky, Luc Robitaille, Jari Kurri, Tomas Sandstrom, Tony Granato, Dave Taylor, Mike Donnelly, Corey Millen, Alexei Zhitnik, Marty McSorley, Darryl Sydor and Charlie Huddy.

'92-'93 was pegged to be Patrick Roy's worst season ever in Montreal, so Los Angeles definitely had plenty of chances to put the puck in the Montreal net. However, Marc Potvin and Gary Shuchuk (like I said) did not amount to much in the NHL so I'm of the opinion that Los Angeles should have kept Coffey, and that L.A. would have had Coffey as the primary factor for a potential L.A. '93 Cup win because Gretzky was at a mid-career crossroads since the Gary Suter hit in 1991 that basically started his eventual decline, Kurri was a different player post-Italy, Robitaille didn't get along with Gretzky, Sandstrom was too injury prone to sustain his production levels for the long-term, and now '93-'94 was mostly about Gretzky's milestone goal since Bruce McNall neglected to complement Gretzky with significant top-level players outside of him.

Bruce McNall should have kept Paul Coffey since he did more in his NHL career than Marc Potvin and Gary Shuchuk ever did.

Michael Whiteacre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2017, 01:40 AM
  #2
Jets4Life
Registered User
 
Jets4Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hellebuyck County
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,747
vCash: 500
No.....

Jets4Life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2017, 01:55 AM
  #3
Michael Whiteacre
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 188
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jets4Life View Post
No.....
And Jimmy Carson was no longer relevant by the time he returned to L.A, so it's not like Paul Coffey was a mediocre fringe player by any means. Marc Potvin and Gary Shuchuk did nothing for L.A. like I said. So it would've done L.A. much good in the first place if they didn't make the trade to send Coffey to Detroit for an irrelevant Carson and two minor league-caliber players.

Michael Whiteacre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2017, 07:32 AM
  #4
The Panther
Registered User
 
The Panther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Country: Japan
Posts: 5,722
vCash: 500
It kind of saddens me to reflect on all the bonehead moves made by the Kings' franchise from January 1990 through 1993.

How nice would it have been to see Wayne lift one more Cup, and complete his mission of making L.A. a winner (as Messier did in NY)? As it is, he came damn close in spring 1993, despite a team that was already over-ripe at the core.

This is why I will never say that Guy Lafleur was (necessarily) a better player than Marcel Dionne: If Gretzky had played his entire career in L.A. with the Kings' style of management, he'd never have won a Stanley Cup. (Likewise Lafleur if he had been drafted by L.A.)

The zaniness started with the Bernie Nicholls' trade at the All-Star break in 1990. I had remembered the Kings being in quite a slump at the time, but actually when I looked it up and the Kings were still playing .500-hockey at the time of the trade, and comfortably in a playoff spot. They'd had a bad 7 games, but then a big 9-4 win over Detroit to break the slump. There was no need to trade a 120-point center, who was also Gretzky's best friend on the team. (At the time of the Nicholls' trade, Gretzky had 98 points in 47 games... and then he scored 9 points in the next 10 games after the trade.) The Kings played 5 games under .500 for the rest of the season. Kelly Hrudey's dreadful 4.07 GAA hugely underscored the team's need for (a) defence and (b) another goaltender... neither need was met.

1990-91 was the one season it all came together. Sandstrom (when not injured) had great chemistry with Gretzky. The team shaved off a massive number of goals-against, but still scored a lot. They had the third-best record in the League. But crapped out again against Edmonton.

Then it went loopy again. Unable to resist the pull of reuniting Gretzky and Kurri, the Kings paid for Kurri by losing their power-play specialist D-man, Steve Duchesne. Unfortunately, they didn't really need another winger -- they need a center, or a tough D-man. Neither need was met (when Bob Kudelski is your 2nd center, you know you're in trouble). Kurri was soft from a year of eating linguini in Italy, Larry Robinson was old, and Sandstrom -- as usual -- missed half the season to injury. In an attempt to regain the lost power-play specialist, the Kings actually pulled off a pretty great steal in obtaining Coffey, but then they traded him a year later (for -- cough! -- Jimmy Carson). New coach Barry Melrose wanted tough guys, but how does that explain Carson for Coffey??

After another wacky season of ups and down in 1992-93, they started pulling together in late-season and went on that unlikely playoff run, unbalanced as they were with soft, talented forwards and leaky defence and goaltending. Having finally achieved a great position as Western Conference champs, the entire franchise was then sunk as McNall readied for bankruptcy and prison.

To answer the question: No, the Kings would not have won the Cup with Coffey. But they could have done better than trading him for Jimmy Carson....

The Panther is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2017, 07:54 AM
  #5
Darth Yoda
Registered User
 
Darth Yoda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Grovebranch's Crease
Country: Sweden
Posts: 3,484
vCash: 500
It is probably easy to say now after, but Coffey did in fact still have his groove then. Possibly allready a bit good defensively as well.
But even if they would have been a bit better on paper perhaps it is more likely they dont even reach that final. Such is team sports. But could they won? Most probably.


Last edited by Darth Yoda: 04-11-2017 at 04:37 PM.
Darth Yoda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2017, 02:40 PM
  #6
mrhockey193195
Registered User
 
mrhockey193195's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
That 93 Kings team was a Cinderella run. What I say for most Cinderella runs, the butterfly effect has more of an impact than it would on a powerhouse. Adding Coffey and removing Carson and Shuchuk would have made the Kings much better on paper, but who knows how games 6 and 7 go with Toronto in that world. Who knows if the team of underdogs rally together the same way they did.

Hard to tell. But categorically, it was an idiotic trade. For the life of me, I cannot understand why Coffey was traded as many times as he was and for the meager returns that he was. This wasn't Mike Green or Mark Streit, this was arguably the second greatest offensive defenseman EVER. And not far removed from his prime.

mrhockey193195 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2017, 04:08 PM
  #7
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,598
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Panther View Post
It kind of saddens me to reflect on all the bonehead moves made by the Kings' franchise from January 1990 through 1993.

How nice would it have been to see Wayne lift one more Cup, and complete his mission of making L.A. a winner (as Messier did in NY)? As it is, he came damn close in spring 1993, despite a team that was already over-ripe at the core.

This is why I will never say that Guy Lafleur was (necessarily) a better player than Marcel Dionne: If Gretzky had played his entire career in L.A. with the Kings' style of management, he'd never have won a Stanley Cup. (Likewise Lafleur if he had been drafted by L.A.)

The zaniness started with the Bernie Nicholls' trade at the All-Star break in 1990. I had remembered the Kings being in quite a slump at the time, but actually when I looked it up and the Kings were still playing .500-hockey at the time of the trade, and comfortably in a playoff spot. They'd had a bad 7 games, but then a big 9-4 win over Detroit to break the slump. There was no need to trade a 120-point center, who was also Gretzky's best friend on the team. (At the time of the Nicholls' trade, Gretzky had 98 points in 47 games... and then he scored 9 points in the next 10 games after the trade.) The Kings played 5 games under .500 for the rest of the season. Kelly Hrudey's dreadful 4.07 GAA hugely underscored the team's need for (a) defence and (b) another goaltender... neither need was met.

1990-91 was the one season it all came together. Sandstrom (when not injured) had great chemistry with Gretzky. The team shaved off a massive number of goals-against, but still scored a lot. They had the third-best record in the League. But crapped out again against Edmonton.

Then it went loopy again. Unable to resist the pull of reuniting Gretzky and Kurri, the Kings paid for Kurri by losing their power-play specialist D-man, Steve Duchesne. Unfortunately, they didn't really need another winger -- they need a center, or a tough D-man. Neither need was met (when Bob Kudelski is your 2nd center, you know you're in trouble). Kurri was soft from a year of eating linguini in Italy, Larry Robinson was old, and Sandstrom -- as usual -- missed half the season to injury. In an attempt to regain the lost power-play specialist, the Kings actually pulled off a pretty great steal in obtaining Coffey, but then they traded him a year later (for -- cough! -- Jimmy Carson). New coach Barry Melrose wanted tough guys, but how does that explain Carson for Coffey??

After another wacky season of ups and down in 1992-93, they started pulling together in late-season and went on that unlikely playoff run, unbalanced as they were with soft, talented forwards and leaky defence and goaltending. Having finally achieved a great position as Western Conference champs, the entire franchise was then sunk as McNall readied for bankruptcy and prison.

To answer the question: No, the Kings would not have won the Cup with Coffey. But they could have done better than trading him for Jimmy Carson....
I have to disagree with you perhaps on just this one point Panther. Everything else is spot on, I have no idea what the Kings were doing in those years. Lots of bad moves, stuck with Kelly Hrudey far too long for my liking. But I will say this, Gretzky started with the Oilers, a green team, when he was 18 and within 4 years got them to the final and then a 5th with the Cup. He then has to start over with one of the worst teams in the NHL in the Kings and within 5 years gets them to the final and probably wins a Cup if Marty has a straight stick. The Gretzky post-1991 was not the same player anymore but he did the same things the young Gretzky did from a team standpoint other than actually winning in the final. So my thought is, there is no way a player of Gretzky`s caliber doesn`t win multiple Cups in his career. He was just simply too good. The Kings screwed up everything around him and he still took them to the final when he was older. Imagine him younger, even an incompetent GM couldn't mess that up.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2017, 04:18 PM
  #8
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,598
vCash: 500
As far as I am concerned, maybe they don't win, but they have a better chance. I know Coffey went to the beat of his own drum and rubbed some coaches the wrong way but there is no way your team is worse off with Paul Coffey than without him. Even in 1993. He had plenty left in the tank by then, heck, he still had a future Norris season. So yeah, the way Gretzky was hitting all of the right notes that spring I can't help but wonder how much Coffey capitalizes on that because few knew Gretzky like him.

That Cup final was the closest 5 game series I have seen. A lot of people talk about the Rangers and Kings in 2014 being closer than the 5 games suggests because of the overtimes but the truth is the Kings in 2014 were up 3-0 in the series, the Rangers were never in it. The Kings in 1993 won Game 1 and were about a minute from winning Game 2 before losing three straight overtimes. Does Coffey change this? I don't know, but there is no way they are worse off.

I'll say the same thing about the Pens in 1992. They still win with Coffey and maybe they don't have such a hard time in the first two rounds.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-11-2017, 12:50 PM
  #9
Sentinel
Registered User
 
Sentinel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 5,870
vCash: 500
I'd say "yes," but Coffey made his shares of boneheaded plays in the 90s, including terrible performance in the Wings-Devils series. So, it's dubious.

Sentinel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-11-2017, 02:53 PM
  #10
Rass
Registered User
 
Rass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 171
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Whiteacre View Post
'92-'93 was pegged to be Patrick Roy's worst season ever in Montreal, so Los Angeles definitely had plenty of chances to put the puck in the Montreal net.
1992-93 was in fact one of Patrick Roy worst regular season of his career, yes. But you can't just ignore the fact that by the time Montreal went to the final, he was already having one of his best playoffs runs, not to say one of the best playoffs performance by a goalie ever. His play in the regular season was truly a non-factor, Coffey on the Kings or not.

vs Quebec: (4-2) - .936 - 2.07
vs Buffalo: (4-0) - .915 - 2,74
vs NY Islanders: (4-1) - .932 - 1.77
Total before facing LA: (12-3) - .929 - 2.15

And already won 7 of that impressive 10 consecutive OT wins. Nearly nobody could have beat him during that time. I'll add he had that extraordinary run for the time without even having a single shutout in the entire playoffs. Los Angeles definitely had not plenty of chances to put the puck in the Montreal net.

Rass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2017, 09:34 AM
  #11
Michael Whiteacre
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 188
vCash: 500
Panther, you need to remember that Paul Coffey only had 5 points in 10 games for the rest of '91-'92 in Los Angeles after Pittsburgh traded him there. Being limited to 5 points in 10 games for L.A. in '91-'92 means an adjustment period because Tom Webster was their coach, and one year later, Barry Melrose would take over as the coach, plus Coffey basically replaced outgoing Brian Benning, and L.A. had Rob Blake, Marty McSorley, Charlie Huddy, Peter Ahola, an aging Larry Robinson (at 40 years old), and Tim Watters as their main blueliners over Coffey in '91-'92, so I'm not sure if Coffey had to have an extended adjustment period or if he was a healthy scratch with the other aforementioned blueliners playing ahead of him on the depth chart.

The next season ('92-'93), for the first 50 games with the Los Angeles Kings, Paul Coffey had 57 points which was absolutely probably impressive, and he should've stayed in L.A. because Alexei Zhitnik and Darryl Sydor were too young and inexperienced at the time, Charlie Huddy's prime years ended faster than Coffey, Jari Kurri became a different and more generic NHL player after Italy, Tomas Sandstrom was one major injury away from screwing up the Kings' hopes of a Stanley Cup run in '92-'93, Mark Hardy wasn't as good in his second stint with the Kings as he previously was in his first stint with the Kings, Tim Watters never really had a prime, and Jeff Chychrun and Peter Ahola you can consider them unreliable NHL-caliber players who belonged in the minor leagues of the AHL, IHL or the European Leagues overseas since the NHL game is too much for them.

Coffey was allowed to contribute for L.A. after Larry Robinson retired, and Peter Ahola and Tim Watters bottomed out before subsequently falling out of favor with Barry Melrose in '92-'93, allowing Coffey to be one of the top blueliners alongside Rob Blake and Marty McSorley, and maybe a young Alexei Zhitnik for the duration before Coffey was dealt to Detroit for Jimmy Carson, Marc Potvin and Gary Shuchuk on January 1993.

What former 1980s Edmonton Oilers' Glory Days superstar (who didn't bow down to any coach and play his own on-ice game) knew Wayne Gretzky more than Jari Kurri and Marty McSorley like Paul Coffey did?

Michael Whiteacre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2017, 10:45 AM
  #12
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,598
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Whiteacre View Post
What former 1980s Edmonton Oilers' Glory Days superstar (who didn't bow down to any coach and play his own on-ice game) knew Wayne Gretzky more than Jari Kurri and Marty McSorley like Paul Coffey did?
None. It was a bad trade. I really would like to know the reason behind it. The other trades of Coffey in his prime years have been explained. 1987 was a contract dispute. 1992 Bowman didn't care for him. 1996 Primeau was holding out and Coffey had to be included in the Shanahan trade. They all make sense, but the 1993 trade to Detroit? I still don't know what L.A. was thinking. Coffey was the perfect ingredient to bolster that offense. It would have taken a lot of the pressure off of Gretzky who had to do a lot of heavy lifting on that team.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2017, 11:12 AM
  #13
Michael Whiteacre
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 188
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
None. It was a bad trade. I really would like to know the reason behind it. The other trades of Coffey in his prime years have been explained. 1987 was a contract dispute. 1992 Bowman didn't care for him. 1996 Primeau was holding out and Coffey had to be included in the Shanahan trade. They all make sense, but the 1993 trade to Detroit? I still don't know what L.A. was thinking. Coffey was the perfect ingredient to bolster that offense. It would have taken a lot of the pressure off of Gretzky who had to do a lot of heavy lifting on that team.
L.A. (especially Barry Melrose) thought they wanted some tough guys that they saw in Marc Potvin and Gary Shuchuk, and we know Jimmy Carson is a finesse scorer. But Potvin and Shuchuk were minor league caliber players at best so Detroit robbed L.A. in that trade. Coffey was definitely better than Zhitnik, Sydor, Watters, Huddy, Ahola and Chychrun in my opinion.

Like I said, Carson was already on his way out of the NHL because of his preparation for his post-NHL career. Although Carson did have two more back-to-back NHL Stanley Cup Finals appearances, one with Los Angeles in '92-'93 and another one with Vancouver in '93-'94 after having not appeared on the '89-'90 Oilers Cup winning squad as he was dealt to Detroit for Joe Murphy and Adam Graves.


Last edited by Michael Whiteacre: 04-15-2017 at 11:17 AM.
Michael Whiteacre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2017, 11:44 AM
  #14
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,885
vCash: 500
They definitely would have had a better chance.

Coffey still had some left in the tank at that time and was still capable of breaking a game wide open.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2017, 11:45 AM
  #15
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 18,525
vCash: 500
I'm 95% sure that neither of the 2 games Carson played in the 94 playoffs were in the Final.

Tawnos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2017, 01:35 PM
  #16
FerrisRox
Registered User
 
FerrisRox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,303
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Whiteacre View Post
And Jimmy Carson was no longer relevant by the time he returned to L.A
This is totally false.

The beginning of the end for Jimmy Carson was his return to Los Angeles and more specifically having to deal with Barry Melrose as his coach, who clearly didn't like him and even made him a healthy scratch in the '93 playoffs.

But he was for from being no longer relevant when he was acquired. He had 51 points in 52 games for the Red Wings at the time of the trade, a total made all the more impressive when you factor in Steve Yzerman and Sergei Fedorov were ahead of him on the centre depth chart.

He looked like he could really thrive as the second line centre in Los Angeles, a whole since the Bernie Nicholls trade that would have given LA some flexibility and would allow Jari Kurri to remain on the wing.

However, Melrose had issues with Carson right away, cut his ice time and often banished him to the bench.

But a point a game scorer with 25 goals in just 52 games in Detroit at the time of the trade is far from irrelevant.

FerrisRox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-16-2017, 05:45 AM
  #17
Michael Whiteacre
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 188
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FerrisRox View Post
This is totally false.

The beginning of the end for Jimmy Carson was his return to Los Angeles and more specifically having to deal with Barry Melrose as his coach, who clearly didn't like him and even made him a healthy scratch in the '93 playoffs.

But he was for from being no longer relevant when he was acquired. He had 51 points in 52 games for the Red Wings at the time of the trade, a total made all the more impressive when you factor in Steve Yzerman and Sergei Fedorov were ahead of him on the centre depth chart.

He looked like he could really thrive as the second line centre in Los Angeles, a whole since the Bernie Nicholls trade that would have given LA some flexibility and would allow Jari Kurri to remain on the wing.

However, Melrose had issues with Carson right away, cut his ice time and often banished him to the bench.

But a point a game scorer with 25 goals in just 52 games in Detroit at the time of the trade is far from irrelevant.
The best thing Barry Melrose could've done was to NOT bring back Jimmy Carson in the first place, meaning that Paul Coffey stays in Los Angeles like he should've been, because he was the only one besides Jari Kurri and Marty McSorley who had significant past on-ice chemistry with Wayne Gretzky.

Besides, Carson's heart just wasn't in the game anymore as his short NHL career went on because of his post-life. Coffey was way better than all of Jimmy Carson, Marc Potvin and Gary Shuchuk.

Michael Whiteacre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-16-2017, 07:03 AM
  #18
The Panther
Registered User
 
The Panther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Country: Japan
Posts: 5,722
vCash: 500
The whole thing just reeks of incompetence, to me. I get that the Kings were desperate for another productive center behind Wayne, but Carson...? The guy was already well-known for quitting on teams, for wanting to play only in Detroit, and for caring more about his subscription to Fortune 500 than hockey.

The Panther is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-16-2017, 12:29 PM
  #19
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 44,981
vCash: 500
I think Melrose wanted to prove a point with that trade in removing Coffey from the team, as the Kings were struggling at that point in time and as someone already mentioned earlier, Coffey was likely vocal in voicing his displeasure.

Melrose also had both Gary Shuchuk and Marc Potvin on his team when he coached the Adirondack Red Wings so he likely wanted both of them more than he wanted Carson on his team.

Carson was still only 24 when the Kings reacquired him, he should have still been a productive player, but things just didn't work out for him in his second go with LA and he couldn't rejuvenate his career when he was dealt to Vancouver the following season. His last stop was Hartford, where again he wasn't as productive as he once was, and that was it for him. Carson was done with the NHL at 27, right when he was entering his prime.

I think he's even admitted that he viewed playing hockey as a means of making money. The passion just wasn't there for him, and we saw that in the later stages of his career.

As to whether or not the Kings would have won had they not moved Coffey, Gretzky stated after the series with Montreal was over that the Kings could have won the Cup had they not moved Coffey. Maybe they would have been able to score more goals here and there, but I also think they likely would have given up more goals as well. The problem with the Kings was that they were not very good defensively, but they had a strong backbone of youth on the blueline with Blake, Zhitnik and Sydor. McSorley was also enjoying the best season of his career and they had a couple of older vets in Huddy, Watters and Hardy to round out the blueline. They really did need a 2nd line center to play behind Gretzky, but Carson wasn't the right choice for that.

Shuchuk did have some pivotal moments in his stint with the Kings though. He did score a big goal in double OT in the second round against Vancouver, and he got under Toronto's skin with his physical play in the Conference Finals. Now imagine if LA was somehow successful in acquiring Mark Messier from Edmonton when he was being shopped. Had they not moved Nicholls to New York for Granato and Sandstrom, they might have been able to acquire Messier from the Oilers. Instead, the Rangers sent Nicholls to Edmonton along with Steven Rice and Louie DeBrusk. Gretzky and Messier reunited in LA in '91 would have been pretty awesome.


Last edited by Ziggy Stardust: 04-16-2017 at 12:40 PM.
Ziggy Stardust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-16-2017, 02:01 PM
  #20
vadim sharifijanov
ugh
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 15,002
vCash: 500
it's an interesting question. the short answer is no-- as amazing as paul coffey was, and i still say he should have won the hart trophy in '95, what doomed that LA team was scoring depth up front. i don't think coffey alone could have added that, especially when giving more minutes to coffey is also taking offensive minutes away from blake, mcsorley, and zhitnik, who all moved the puck well that spring.

the nicholls trade left a void that never was filled. but it's easy to see why that trade happened. the same year edmonton rolled the dice with basically the exact same trade, sending carson to detroit for a grab bag of youngsters and obviously that infusion of quantity for quality would eventually help edmonton to a cup. the kings trade worked out less well, but did give gretzky two young, proven 35 goal scorers who were both still improving. both were big, rugged players, and were pegged to be gretzky's line, which was effectively a culture change from the finesse-y kings of the later dionne years. i think the same year they also signed larry robinson and john tonelli as free agents and traded bobby carpenter (acquired in the dionne trade) away for pesky and playoff-tested steve kasper and tough tough jay miller.

if sandstrom and granato weren't so injury prone, we might have seen 50 goal years from both of them in the early 90s. of course, those numbers would have been gretzky-inflated but still, they were much better goal scorers than i think we remember, and granato was also excellent defensively. granato's numbers in his first three LA years were 30 (in 68 games), 39, 37. in his first year sandstrom scored 45 goals in 68 games, then missed almost half of the next two seasons.

thinking about carson, i did a little digging and came across a few quotes about his first few years, when he, robitaille, and duchesne all came in under the tutelage of marcel dionne. i know rogie was gone by then but i wonder if the kings reacquired carson because they thought he could get back to being a top 10 scorer if he was surrounded by the right environment-- which edmonton obviously wasn't for him. i don't know whether dionne would have had any presence in the organization at that time, as an advisor or just a guy who they listened to, but i also wonder if dionne didn't push for giving the kid a second chance to rescue his career. (rescue not in the sense of saving his NHL career, which carson would need very soon, but in the sense of regaining his star momentum. yes carson was scoring at a point/game level in detroit before the trade, but that was a far cry from finishing 8th and 9th in scoring in his second and third years in the league.) carson's character was spoken surprisingly highly of when he was younger.

Quote:
"They're [carson and robitaille] very strongcharactered young men," [kings coach mike] Murphy says. "They have thought about being professional hockey players for a long part of their lives, and they have as professional an attitude as I've ever seen. They are 9-to-5 kids; they'd stay on the ice all day if we didn't chase them off."
Quote:
As it turned out, quite a bit. Robitaille and Carson would stay up late each night asking questions and listening to Dionne talk hockey. "We had to kick Jim out at night," Dionne says. Duchesne often joined the group, becoming the third member of what is coming to be known as the Dionne Triplets.
https://www.si.com/vault/1987/01/26/...re-scoring-big


Quote:
Never had Dionne seen a rookie so eager to learn. The same went for Jimmy Carson, the Kings' No. 1 draft pick last summer.

"Jimmy used to come into our room at night, we'd talk hockey for hours," Dionne said. "If there was another cot for Jimmy, he would have stayed in there.
http://articles.latimes.com/1986-12-...e-robitaille/2


so it seems like carson had a passion for the game at one point.


but then there's these statements by dionne, many years later:

Quote:
Let’s finish up with some word association – how about nine guys you played with, in honor of the #9 you never got to wear

[...]

Jimmy Carson – stock broker at age 18... tremendous potential, never fully lived up to it
Bernie Nicholls – fan pleaser... wish he wanted to be a leader, had great tools... love him
http://mayorsmanor.com/2010/08/inter...marcel-dionne/


but as for the coffey/carson trade itself, sure they gave away coffey and that was unbelievably stupid. but they got coffey basically for free anyway, so you have to at least give them that. i still remember the three-way trade, and it still puzzles me:

LA gives up random nothing pieces and a 1st round pick and gets coffey

pittsburgh gives up two superstar pieces (recchi and coffey) and gets only one back (tocchet), along with a very good piece (kjell samuelsson)

rebuilding philadelphia gives up one good piece and a vet they no longer need (see above) and get a superstar (recchi) and LA's first rounder

so philadelphia gets basically even value. samuelsson > 1st rounder in a weak draft, tocchet < recchi
pittsburgh overpays. recchi > tocchet, coffey >>> samuelsson
LA makes out like bandits. 1st rounder <<<< coffey

and the last random thought is post-gretzky trade, by my accounting, the hart trophies should have gone:

1989 gretzky
1990 messier (i'll refrain from starting WW4 here)
1991 gretzky (went to hull because 86)
1992 messier
1995 coffey (went to lindros because coffey was not bobby orr)

that's a pretty amazing run for oilers/ex-oilers.


Last edited by vadim sharifijanov: 04-16-2017 at 02:08 PM.
vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-16-2017, 05:32 PM
  #21
The Panther
Registered User
 
The Panther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Country: Japan
Posts: 5,722
vCash: 500
Just to respond to a few of the above points:

I personally think McSorley's best hockey was under Tom Webster in the 1990-91 season (not 1992-93). Actually, I never liked McSorley as a defenceman. He could be very effective at forward, and I don't understand why Edmonton/L.A. pushed him into defence. Yeah, he was big and could outlet pass, but he often looked lost on D. You'll notice that most of the heartbreak-goals against the Kings in spring 1993 occurred with McSorley on the ice.

Yes, a case can be made for the Sandstrom/Granato for Nicholls trade, in L.A.'s favor. But I wouldn't make it. They were already the highest-scoring team (or nearly) for 1.5 seasons before that trade, so it's not like they were struggling to score. What that trade did was isolate Gretzky more, which he hated. As I said, when Bob Kudelski is the 2nd-best center to Gretzky from 1990 to 1994, you're in trouble.

John Tonelli actually started as a King at the same time as Gretzky -- summer '88. And he was gone after the Kings' very successful 1990-91 season. So, L.A. had about 1.5 season with both Tonelli and Sandstrom/Granato.

Here's the highlights of Gretzky's 3rd game with L.A. (against NYI), in October 1988:

The Panther is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-03-2017, 02:47 PM
  #22
Rorschach
Fearful Symmetry
 
Rorschach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 8,857
vCash: 500
The Kings did this trade to replace Corey Millen. Still was an awful trade.

Rorschach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-03-2017, 02:56 PM
  #23
TheMoreYouKnow
Registered User
 
TheMoreYouKnow's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Eire
Posts: 11,281
vCash: 500
Their chances would have gone up..whether it would have been enough is a question no-one can answer.

TheMoreYouKnow 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 02:26 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.