HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Los Angeles Kings
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Gretzky Trade

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-30-2010, 06:56 PM
  #1
Sybil227
Registered User
 
Sybil227's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Santa Clarita
Country: United States
Posts: 2,788
vCash: 500
The Gretzky Trade

There's a thread on the main board about the Gretzky trade. I'm sure everyone here is probably tired of it - we've been over it millions of times.
But I wanted to bring it to people's attention for a great post by Steelhead16. It's post #12 & I thought it was really neat. Here's a bit:
Quote:
I moved away from the Bay Area in my early 30's. Reluctantly left behind Sharks and A's tickets and went to a place with no hockey and no rink. A year later an arena was built and a WCHL team moved in. People were clueless about hockey here. There were a few hockey fans here and in the winter there was an outdoor rink in a mall parking lot out by the airport. We played in 20 mph winds and freezing temps but it was hockey. The first hat trick of the ECHL team a few people threw hats on the ice and the security tried to throw people out for throwing things on the ice. 13 years later we have a 2 sheet rink with youth and adult hockey leagues, a 10 school high school jv and varsity league, a travel youth program and a Junior A team. WCHL team moved to the ECHL and has 2 championships (maybe 3 this year) and this year has it's first local player, and the same expansion has been felt in all those new NHL markets as well.
Mainboard thread:
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?p...1#post25559061

Sybil227 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-30-2010, 07:59 PM
  #2
Brodeur
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,054
vCash: 500


I'm infinitely grateful for Wayne. I moved up to Saugus from San Diego in 1987 and I had no idea what hockey was. The Krushelnyski goal was my first indelible hockey memory. I turned fanatic during the Cup Run in '93 like many kids my age. And pretty much went downhill from there.

I went back to San Diego for college in 1998. I remember watching an episode of NHL Cool Shots that was eminating from the new ice arena in Valencia. I was rather bitter that they built a world class ice rink 15 minutes from my house right after I moved away. The Flyers just signed a prospect named Shane Harper who grew up playing in Valencia.

Ran into Wayne in Vegas a few years ago and tried to tell him how I was one of those SoCal kids that he converted into a die hard hockey fan. Then he made fun of me for being a Devils fan. It was awesome.

Brodeur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2010, 03:19 PM
  #3
etherialone
dialed in your mom
 
etherialone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Ether
Country: United Nations
Posts: 12,990
vCash: 500
The trade was great and a no brainer. Having the greatest scoring forward of all time and the face of his sport on your team is of course going to explode hockey no matter what market he went to. The true trick to the success of the deal was that he came to L.A., THE Major media market of the U.S. (don't give me that NY garbage) and by doing so made everything that happened regarding hockey worthy of some level of media coverage.


From a success for the actual Kings team though, I see some room (though limited) for an argument against the deal.

The Kings had built a core of highly regarded and talented young players and, had some solid veteran leadership/players to boot when the deal went down.

Jimmy Carson and Luc were rookies setting records. Bernie Nichols was coming into his own.. Steve Duschene was one of the top young D in the game. Jay Wells was proving to be a perfect blend of animal in front of our net and smart everywhere else. Bernie Nichols was proving to be a gifted scoring center by scoring 81 points in his second season. We had Garry Galley who went on to become an HOFer also on D. Veteran Dave Taylor had another solid season scoring 62 points. Marcel Dionne had 74 points in 67 games,
(2/3ds of the tripple crown line and a couple of solid candidates for the third) and a few other young players who would go on to have solid NHL careers.

What we didn't have was ANY goaltending (sorry rollie the goalie and goose).

It wasn't all a matter of hindsight being 20/20 either, we knew how good these young players were and judging by how many of them ended up having amazingly successful NHL careers, you have to wonder what would have happened IF we would have kept the team together and also, had a decent GM.

It was in my opinion a gathering of amazingly great pieces that could easily have been built into a contender but I don't see us being able to keep the enigmatic GM that gathered them together and then having the ability to build them into a contender.

I suppose an argument could be made having us making a deal for Sidney Crosby in two years where we deal away Kopitar Schenn and our next three first round picks (or a package of our best scoring forward and our best rookie/young player at the time along with the three first round picks) and what the impact would be on our team and its chances to win a cup over the next 5 years and what the impact would be on how hockey is perceived in and regarding to the L.A. market but even this would be difficult.

Of course, getting 99, Marty Mac and Krush started the building process that led us to the finals and put hockey on the map in L.A. and that can't even be debated in my opinion. Would our keeping these pieces together and god willing winning a stanley cup or two have had the same amount of impact? Who knows.
Below is a list of the roster and a few stats.

Name POS GP GLS AST PTS +/- PIM

Bob Bourne C 78 13 9 22 -13 35
Jimmy Carson C 80 37 42 79 -5 22
Marcel Dionne C 67 24 50 74 -8 54
Steve Duchesne D 75 13 25 38 8 74
Bryan Erickson RW 68 20 30 50 -12 26
Jim Fox RW 76 80 19 42 61 -10 48
Garry Galley D 30 5 11 16 -9 57
Paul Guay RW 35 80 5 7 -14 16 18
Mark Hardy D 73 80 27 30 16 120 97
Dean Kennedy D 66 6 14 20 9 91
Grant Ledyard D 67 14 23 37 -40 93
Morris Lukowich LW 60 14 21 35 0 64
Sean McKenna RW 69 14 19 33 11 10
Bernie Nicholls C 80 33 48 81 -16 101
Joe Paterson LW 45 2 1 3 -15 158
Larry Playfair D 37 2 7 9 -1 181
Luc Robitaille LW 79 45 39 84 -18 28
Phil Sykes LW 58 80 15 21 10 133 62
Dave Taylor RW 67 18 44 62 0 84
Jay Wells D 77 80 29 36 -19 155 115
Tiger Williams LW 76 16 18 34 -1 358

etherialone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2010, 05:45 PM
  #4
JT Dutch*
Cult of Personality
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonellisghost View Post
From a success for the actual Kings team though, I see some room (though limited) for an argument against the deal.
... The success for the team is all that matters for a team's fans, and all that SHOULD matter -- and the success for the Kings was never better then when Gretzky was here in L.A. Five straight seasons in the playoffs, a regular season first place division finish, a Finals berth; the achievements cannot be questioned.

As for your comments on the roster at that time, Carson was obviously the prize the Oilers wanted above all else -- he was everything Drew Doughty is now, the brightest young player in the NHL back in 1988, scoring 55 goals at age 19. He was personally my favorite player, and I hated to see him go ... but he wasn't being traded for draft picks or some journeyman; he was being traded for a 27-year-old who was already touted as the best and most recognizable player in hockey history. In such cases, exceptions can be made.

It's like this ... let's say Alex Ovechkin had come off of winning four Cups in five years. Would YOU trade Doughty to get him? Obviously it's a tougher decision because it's a defenseman going for a forward, but I could understand a deal like that.

OK, going back to 1988 -- I would have preferred to give up Robitaille at the time, because Carson seemed to be better than Luc in every way, but it was a given that in losing a center the Oilers would want a center in return. And as it turned out in retrospect, obviously the Kings gave up the right player.

The other guys you mentioned:

Bernie Nicholls was still around, and was never better than he was when he played on Gretzky's wing. He was then dealt in perhaps the best trade the Kings ever made, going to the Rangers straight-up for Tomas Sandstrom and Tony Granato.

Steve Duchesne stayed until 1991, when the Kings felt that since they had Gretzky it only made sense to try and get Jari Kurri to play alongside Wayne, and so they traded Duchesne to make that happen. Duchesne was made expendable in a way because at that time, the Kings felt that Rob Blake would be able to carry the scoring load from the blue line. Blake didn't quite do it, that season at least, so the Kings went out and picked up Paul Coffey to help out.

Jay Wells was dealt for Doug Crossman, who in turn was dealt for the goaltender the Kings sorely needed, Kelly Hrudey.

Garry Galley was dealt to Washington a couple years before the Gretzky deal, so he doesn't factor in the discussion.

Dave Taylor was winding down, and couldn't handle the load of being a top line player any longer. His top line RW spot was filled first by Nicholls and then by Sandstrom, and Stitch went down to the second line for a few years and then finally to the checking lines.

Marcel Dionne was also dealt before Gretzky came to town -- in a very highly publicized and acrimonious parting that some Kings' fans talk about, angrily and passionately, to this very day. Trading Dionne brought a solid stay-at-home defenseman in Tom Laidlaw and a winger named Bobby Carpenter; Carpenter in turn was dealt for a solid defensive forward, Steve Kasper.

Mike Krushelnyski did a great job for the Kings, but he was unfortunately traded for very little in return, as he went to Toronto for John McIntyre. McIntyre went to the Rangers later on for Mark Hardy, who of course put that great hit on Mike Keane in the 1993 SCF and then later went on to be the Kings' assistant coach.

Marty McSorley, of course, was the sleeper of the Gretzky deal, a guy who was a pure enforcer at the time (not unlike Raitis Ivanans) -- who later became a very solid defenseman for the Kings, more than compensating for the loss of Garry Galley. Marty was +48 for the Kings in 1990-91, which I believe is still a record for a Kings' defenseman.

Also, consider that free agents such as your guy John Tonelli were eager to come over and play for the Kings, more so than ever before in the team's history. Also signed as a free agent was Tim Watters, who gave the Kings two very solid seasons of stay-at-home play on the blueline before declining.

It was the best time in Kings' history, a great time to be a fan of the team, and as you can see -- I always love talking about it.

JT Dutch* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2010, 06:01 PM
  #5
TonySCV
Moderator
Push to the 8th Tee
 
TonySCV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,655
vCash: 500
I just wish the Kings had even a halfway decent scouting staff and development system in place around that time and years afterward so it wouldn't have taken sooo many years to recover from that trade (and arguably, the Kings are still recovering).

Once they're able to contend for a division title again on a consistent basis and win a playoff round or two on a consistent basis... I'll feel like they've recovered enough to come full circle on that deal.

TonySCV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2010, 06:20 PM
  #6
etherialone
dialed in your mom
 
etherialone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Ether
Country: United Nations
Posts: 12,990
vCash: 500
Sound response, it is of course why I said that there is room for a "limited" argument against the deal.

While I agree that the 99 deal is a deal that you make no matter what and that it was a fun time to be a kings fan and I would add that in hindsight we stole 99 from the oilers, I would challenge some of the observations that you listed about some of the players you responded to as such.

First, I was outside the Forum standing by that "temporary" chain link fence where the Kings made Marcel go outside and tell reporters about his trade (remember that he cried a bit) and while it was before 99 I too would have made this deal. Tom Laidlaw is one of the Kings greatest and most under rated stay at home defencemen of all time and Bobby "the can't miss kid" Carpenter absolutely earned his keep as a two way forward and when 99's most hated nemesis Steve Kasper became a King it was what I felt made us a contender.

The reason that I mention MD's trade (that he is supposed to have requested) is that there are several people who believe that this was the deal that was done to make room for the 99 deal. Even Bruce Mac said that Marcel leaving was part of what happened to make 99 a must.

Garry Galley was dealt 7 (or so) games into the 86/87 season and not two years before the 99 deal.

While I could go through each of the players and offer my opinions on your responses I think that it would be better to make an observation and that is that my point about each of the players that I listed and for that matter, each of the players on the 86/87 roster (we can even cull them down to impact players) is simply that at the time of 99 deal, we were for the first time in the teams history in my opinion (and I go back to Cowboy Bob) finally building a legitimate contender the way that teams like the Habs, Leafs and even the Oilers have down and that is from within.

Remember, I would still make the 99 deal and believe that, as I said, we literally stole him from the Oilers and I too thought that JC was the next JC.

I understand your analogy about DD and AO but don't think that it is an apt one as AO simply doesn't compare to 99. I get your point though and I have even said used that very same point, though I used Crosby and said that it would have to happen two years from now though to be fair, Sid aint no 99 neither.

I suppose my reasoning for there being "limited room" for an argument against the 99 deal is that as a fan of the team at that time, like yourself, didn't it feel great to be on the right track and to have so many talented young players on our team and in our system for the first time ever?

I think that we need one more solid draft year to add a few more solid players but after that believe that we will have a system that is deep enough to contend for many years to come and that is definitely the first time in our history that anyone can come close to saying that.

Still, if I use your argument of "The success for the team is all that matters for a team's fans, and all that SHOULD matter" then it could be argued that 99 was a failure. We didn't win the cup any more times with him than without him, that sort of thing.

So it goes back to that tiny little bit of wiggle room in my opinion on the 99 deal, one that can never truly be answered and that is since we didn't win with 99 who knows what would have been had we kept building and hanging on to our young talent? History might say that in our case we would have screwed it up some how but, aren't we currently keeping our young talented players as opposed to dealing them away for mega stars ie building from within?

I don't know, like I said, I would always make the 99 deal and was lucky enough to have bought season tickets for the 86/87 season and to have renewed my seats for the 87/88 season and on at a discount before the 99 deal so I had great seats to watch both the rookie gods season and the 99 first year on the cheap.

etherialone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2010, 06:26 PM
  #7
etherialone
dialed in your mom
 
etherialone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Ether
Country: United Nations
Posts: 12,990
vCash: 500
I thought I would add something about John Tonelli. He and i had a connection prior to his coming to the Kings (in law sort of thing) and met him just prior to his rookie season for the Isles. As to his coming to the Kings it was something that he wanted to do. He came to the Kings as the result of his wanting to play in Los Angeles and he had wanted to since before 99 came to town.

But I agree that with 99 being a King that it made it easier for us to lure high end players to L.A., Tonto just wasn't one of them.

Side note, he has been coaching his kids youth hockey teams and was actually thrown out of a league for "un civil behavior". The guy is still a pisser who is 100% dedicated to whatever he does.

etherialone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2010, 07:20 PM
  #8
JT Dutch*
Cult of Personality
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySCV View Post
I just wish the Kings had even a halfway decent scouting staff and development system in place around that time and years afterward so it wouldn't have taken sooo many years to recover from that trade (and arguably, the Kings are still recovering).
... Honestly I have no idea how the trade for Gretzky affected their scouting and development systems, nor do I know where the Kings have somehow not recovered from the trade which brought them their greatest period of success both on the ice and in the community, but I guess that's not a surprise given that your post includes no examples to support the general assumptions you've made.

JT Dutch* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2010, 07:29 PM
  #9
JDM
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 9,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
... Honestly I have no idea how the trade for Gretzky affected their scouting and development systems, nor do I know where the Kings have somehow not recovered from the trade which brought them their greatest period of success both on the ice and in the community, but I guess that's not a surprise given that your post includes no examples to support the general assumptions you've made.
He didn't say that Gretzky affected the development system.

He said that the Kings development system wasn't strong enough to replace the assets lost in the trade for Gretzky quickly enough, which is why when Gretzky left, we were left with virtually nothing. Well, that and other reasons.

Its been discussed ad naseum how that trade hurt us later down the line.

I can't find it at the moment, but someone did a breakdown of how the trade affecting the Kings now, following the assets and how they were mismanaged after the trade.

I don't know why you are arguing with Tony. He didn't say a single thing to discredit or even disagree with anything you said.

JDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2010, 07:32 PM
  #10
etherialone
dialed in your mom
 
etherialone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Ether
Country: United Nations
Posts: 12,990
vCash: 500
I can give you a little insight on part of what caused our suffering misery after the 99 deal. It began with 99 getting his friend "Sam the Disaster McMaster" brought in as G.M.

Sam will go down as being the very worst GM that the Kings, or any other team in any other sport throughout history has ever had.

Sam made a couple of deals that, well, being a King fan you know what a terrible deal looks like and Sam made the worst deals in our teams history.

The L.A. Buffalo deal (that brought us an inured Grant "what's my line" Fuhr) was one of the most terrible and lopsided as well as damaging deals that I have ever seen. It gutted our d and took away years of future d as well as brought us a truly terrible goalie who flat out told all involved that "I have not wanted to play in Los Angeles from the start and they knew that".

Amazing.

Sam brought us other minor catastrophies during his tenure (seemed like ten years) and in doing so left us limping and bleeding money instead of set up with some good young talent.

etherialone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2010, 07:51 PM
  #11
etherialone
dialed in your mom
 
etherialone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Ether
Country: United Nations
Posts: 12,990
vCash: 500
More of SMc's greatest hits:

Pavel Rosa
Scott Barney
The VAST over payment that brought us ZP.
So long Daryl Sydor
Adios Alexei Zhitnik
Cha Cha Charlie Huddy

Hello Zmolek
Have a seat Churla
Hey Rickety Tocchet
and Kevin Stevens, go win a cup or two with another team and leave us alone.

Sam Disaster ruined us in short stay and we never really recovered.

etherialone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2010, 08:03 PM
  #12
JT Dutch*
Cult of Personality
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonellisghost View Post
While I could go through each of the players and offer my opinions on your responses I think that it would be better to make an observation and that is that my point about each of the players that I listed and for that matter, each of the players on the 86/87 roster (we can even cull them down to impact players) is simply that at the time of 99 deal, we were for the first time in the teams history in my opinion (and I go back to Cowboy Bob) finally building a legitimate contender the way that teams like the Habs, Leafs and even the Oilers have down and that is from within.
... I would say the Kings were a building team as early as 1982, and looking back at it I can't see where I'm wrong here.

They had a goalie coming off an All-Star game appearance in 1981 who was entering his prime, Mario Lessard.

They had a couple of rock-solid defensemen, 28-year-old Dave Lewis and 22-year-old Jay Wells. They had a future Hall of Famer in Larry Murphy, only 20. They had a promising second-pairing D-man in Mark Hardy, only 22.

They had a great top line, the Triple Crown Line. The oldest and best member of it, Dionne, was a young 30. Simmer was 27 and Taylor was 26.

They had another 20-year-old Hall of Famer on their second line, Bernie Nicholls. They had a pretty good goal scorer in Jimmy Fox, only 21. They had a 21-year-old rookie named Steve Bozek who scored over 30 goals.

Other forwards with promise were Doug Smith, only 18, and the hero of the Miracle on Manchester, 21-year-old Daryl Evans. Another 21-year-old, Greg Terrion, was a tenacious checker. They even had a young tough guy, J.P. Kelly; just 22.

At nearly any other time, in any other division, with any kind of normal player progression, this Kings' team would have seen very good success. But the Kings were in the division of the Oilers and the Flames, who would go on to dominate the 1980s. The playoffs were structured by division, not by conference as they are today. They kept facing Edmonton and Calgary in the first round, if they went at all. There was a brick wall in front of them.

Lessard collapsed and fizzled out way too early. Lewis got old in a hurry, and was traded. Murphy was traded for two older guys, one of whom (Ken Houston) left the NHL at age 30. Simmer was traded for a 1st round choice that was a complete bust. Bozek's rookie season turned out to be his best one. Smith and Evans didn't pan out as had been hoped.

It all fell apart, but no one could predict that from the start.

The Kings knew in 1987 that they HAD young talent, but they needed a proven star. They couldn't compete with the Oilers and Flames otherwise.

Today is a very different scenario. There is less dominance, more teams, more parity. There are no walls in front of the Kings today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonellisghost View Post
Still, if I use your argument of "The success for the team is all that matters for a team's fans, and all that SHOULD matter" then it could be argued that 99 was a failure. We didn't win the cup any more times with him than without him, that sort of thing.
... They had more success in Gretzky's first five seasons than at any time in the history of the franchise. Unless and until they win the Cup, that will remain their most successful period. There was no failure with Gretzky, or anything of the sort.

The team was broken up because, to the shock of almost everyone, their owner was revealed to be a fraud. The team was then sold to a new group that turned out to be a fraud as well. THAT's what led to the decline of the team, not any nonsense about "scouting staffs" and "development systems". The team was closer to folding up shop than to doing anything significant. Gretzky was dealt from weakness, as the other teams knew that the best player in the history of the game couldn't be expected to play out the rest of his career with a dead team. Their best defenseman, Blake, missed over two of his prime seasons due to injury. That the Kings were back in the playoffs by 1998 is something of a minor miracle if one bothers to take a look at the facts.

JT Dutch* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2010, 08:06 PM
  #13
riseandfall9
Registered User
 
riseandfall9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,386
vCash: 500
Fun fact. Since Wayne Gretzky came to the Los Angeles Kings.

1,093 New Ice Rinks in California have opened and over 1,611 new teams have formed from all ranges of age.

riseandfall9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2010, 08:31 PM
  #14
JT Dutch*
Cult of Personality
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonellisghost View Post
More of SMc's greatest hits:

Pavel Rosa
Scott Barney
The VAST over payment that brought us ZP.
So long Daryl Sydor
Adios Alexei Zhitnik
Cha Cha Charlie Huddy

Hello Zmolek
Have a seat Churla
Hey Rickety Tocchet

and Kevin Stevens, go win a cup or two with another team and leave us alone.

Sam Disaster ruined us in short stay and we never really recovered.
... The overpayment for Palffy was mandated by the league; thank Gary Bettman for that one.

Sydor was a mess with the Kings at the time of the trade, and he was actively hurting the team. I definitely understand that the Kings felt the need to ship him off.

Zhitnik never had a season better than his first two in the NHL with the Kings. He was a player who, as it turned out, had seen his best days. He was dealt for Philippe Boucher, who had his best days in front of him ... and if the Kings had forked over the money to keep him, they would have been the ones to reap those better days.

Fuhr could have helped the Kings too, if given more than 14 games to do so.

Huddy was at the end of the line when the Kings dealt him; no big loss there.

Robitaille for Tocchet ended up saving the Kings over $600,000 in salary, which at the time was a big deal, what with the team owners in bankruptcy and all. Tocchet brought Stevens, who brought Robitaille back in 1997.

McMaster did what he could with what he had, which was a ship decayed by financial ruin.


Last edited by JT Dutch*: 05-03-2010 at 08:40 PM.
JT Dutch* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2010, 09:27 PM
  #15
etherialone
dialed in your mom
 
etherialone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Ether
Country: United Nations
Posts: 12,990
vCash: 500
Hey JT, we are going to disagree on some of your observations but I agree with you on a few others.

As to your observations on our 82 team I would have to challenge your opinion of the following.

Mario Lessard had a terrible season in 82 and was considered all but done before the end of the year, its why we went with that wonderkind Gary Lakowski the following season. Still, our goaltending was an issue in 86 also which as I mentioned is one of the reasons that I didn't see us as ready but very solid and on our way to building a potential contender.

Dave Lewis was at best a journeyman defenceman who had played with us back in 79 (i think) and while he was adequate I wouldn't call him rock solid by any means. In fact he was responsible for two own goals that come to mind the worst of which was done in frustration where he thought the play was dead and turned around in frustration and hammered the puck past his own goalie only to find that of course he was wrong.

Lewis had a +/- of -19 that year and never did any better than that for us.

Jay Wells was a rock solid rookie on a bad team and would go on to prove his worth only to be shafted for wanting a raise up to $250k. We ended up with cream pudding Doug Crossman (another terrible move in Kings history) who was later dealt after showing how over rated he was back in Philly.

The triple crown line was stellar that year but with their ages being 30 27/28 and 26/27 they were hardly part of any rebuilding process and more part of an established veteran core. For that year.

They did have a young Harpo who was a very solid Dman and of course the disaster that happened with future HOFer Larry Murphy as well and they were certainly part of a solid group of young dmen but, not what you would call a core group, that was Chartraw, Korab and Lewis who as stated, wasn't anything special.

Nichols was in his second year and I also saw him as part of the rebuilding process in 86 at the age of 24/25. Still young enough to be considered part of a young core.

Jim Fox was a good young player in 82 potting 20 goals but he played small and I think even he would tell you that. Not that he wasn't a good young player though and he would also at the age of 24 be part of the group that I sighted as my core young players for 86/87.

I would say to the rest of the "young" players that you listed well, there have always been young players/rookies on the team and back then, there were several that came and went but not the depth of level of talent that we had in 86/87.

Your argument that we had a good group of young players and were in a solid rebuilding process doesn't fit in with what I would consider to be one. Maybe it is a matter of opinion.

As to your second point if, the only thing that matters and should matter to a fan is a teams success then the reasons that we didn't win the cup shouldn't matter at all if you follow the same logic.

It doesn't matter what happened, we have won as many cups before, during and since the 99 deal and that is 0. My point was that there is in my opinion allot more than simple success when it comes to being a fan of a team. To me it is the amount of entertainment that I receive by following them and the amount of success that the team has. That is why I still would make the 99 deal more than anything, he made it exciting for a few years and raised my level of expectations for my favorite team.

etherialone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2010, 10:49 PM
  #16
etherialone
dialed in your mom
 
etherialone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Ether
Country: United Nations
Posts: 12,990
vCash: 500
You have to help me out with how Daryl Sydor was a mess with us at the time the disaster dealt him.

It was his fourth season. He had scored 29,35,23 and 20 points with a plus minus of -2 -9 -2 and -12 during his first four years and was still considered to be one of the best up and coming young defencemen in the league.

If he was such a mess why did we regret the move and trade for him a year later? Although you can give any opinion/explanation as we dealt him right back to the stars a year later but I feel that speaks more to his value than his decline.

You couldn't possibly be more wrong about Zhitnik if you tried and in fact, his first two season with the Kings where good but he became great after he left us. During his time in Buffalo he developed a reputation for being one of the premier checking/hard hitting/talented and feared stay at home defencemen in the league and was of course a two time All Star. He also played for and won medals with his home Russian Oly team and played in over 1000 NHL games.

I think your wrong on him.

As for Huddy, he was very effective dman while with the Kings and ironically enough became a player that we dealt away one year, traded to get back the next year and then dealt away to the same team one year after that.

As for the Tocchet/Stevens deals well I can't argue that dealing Tocchet saved us cash but then, if winning is all that matters it doesn't do us any good AND, what we received in return was tragic with the exception of eventually getting Luc back eventually, that is after he went to New York for a couple of years and then came back only to go to Detriot and then finally back to his home with us.

As for the McNall influence in determining the Disaster era I would say this, our financial situation meant that we had to deal away some serious talent along with their payroll but what we got in return is what made the disaster the worst GM of all time.

etherialone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2010, 12:18 AM
  #17
Cutty Sarkn3ss*
I bet u trade me
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Granada Hills, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,983
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Cutty Sarkn3ss*
Am I the only one who doesn't give a **** about Gretzky? . . seriously, it's just an excuse for all the ****** Laker fans to say "I loved hockey when Gretzky was here", "I saw him at the Forum". . . blah blah blah.

He's an unbelievable player and I will always appreciate what he did for hockey. . but seriously, let's move on people. . .

Cutty Sarkn3ss* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2010, 01:03 AM
  #18
The Tikkanen
Pest
 
The Tikkanen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Yorba Linda
Country: United States
Posts: 6,605
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to The Tikkanen
The trade for Gretzky turned me from a casual fan into a diehard fan. He got me to play hockey which I am still doing twice a week 16 years later. My bottom line is the trade for Gretzky was one of the best trades in the NHL of all time and the trading of Gretzky to the Blues was one of the worst trades in the NHL of all time.

The Tikkanen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2010, 03:49 AM
  #19
Beauty, eh?
Not sure if serious.
 
Beauty, eh?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Southern California
Country: United States
Posts: 5,367
vCash: 500
Here's a fun one -

Back in '92 when Gretzky was in Centinela Hospital for his back problem that would eventually keep him out of the lineup for over half of the season, my friend and I called the front desk and asked to be connected to his room. They asked for my name and I said "Michael Barnett", who was his Agent at the time. Sure enough, they connected me and after a couple rings, he picked up and said Hello.

I could tell immediately that it was him and I asked him how he was feeling and he said "who is this?" I told him I was a fan and said we need him in the lineup so he had better recover in a hurry. He laughed and said "will do, thanks" and hung up.

I ran into him a few weeks later at the Kings golf tournament in Newport Beach (He wasn't playing - just riding around in a golf cart with the Kings' Director of Security whose name escapes me). I was there to get autographs and I asked him if he remembered the phone call. He smiled and shook his head as he signed my cards. The Security guy was laughing pretty hard at the story. I guess he was amused that a 16 year old kid was able to get that kind of access to Gretz....heh.

Beauty, eh? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2010, 03:55 AM
  #20
Beauty, eh?
Not sure if serious.
 
Beauty, eh?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Southern California
Country: United States
Posts: 5,367
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cutty Sarkn3ss View Post
Am I the only one who doesn't give a **** about Gretzky? . . seriously, it's just an excuse for all the ****** Laker fans to say "I loved hockey when Gretzky was here", "I saw him at the Forum". . . blah blah blah.

He's an unbelievable player and I will always appreciate what he did for hockey. . but seriously, let's move on people. . .
You should at least respect what the trade did for not only the Kings, but hockey in general.

For the Kings, it put hockey on the map in LA. If that trade didn't go down, who knows if the Kings would have ever made it here to this day. If the Raiders and Rams can move out of SoCal, anything can happen.

Just my two cents.

Beauty, eh? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2010, 09:54 AM
  #21
kingsfan
#SutterforanOscar
 
kingsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,796
vCash: 500
I agree Sam McMaster was a horrible GM for LA. In fact, I had actually forgotten him until thsi thread. Thanks.

That said, I don't blame him for Scott Barney. Everyone at the time thought we made a helluva pick, getting a big bodied powerforward with great hands. The fact he basically lost three years to a wonky back and then still found a way to work his way back for a few cups of coffee in the NHl is impressive. I don't fault Sam for that one.

Also, I thought DT did the Palffy trade? Either way, considering how that trade worked out, I'd do it again. At the time I thought we overpaid, but we got Palffy and Smolinski (who can't be forgotten as he was a good addition to LA and later brought us Tim Gleason, who in turn brought us JMFJ) for basically three depth guys (Green, Biron and Pyatt) and Olli Jokinen. I'd do that deal again.

kingsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2010, 01:35 PM
  #22
Cutty Sarkn3ss*
I bet u trade me
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Granada Hills, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,983
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Cutty Sarkn3ss*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beauty, eh? View Post
You should at least respect what the trade did for not only the Kings, but hockey in general.

For the Kings, it put hockey on the map in LA. If that trade didn't go down, who knows if the Kings would have ever made it here to this day. If the Raiders and Rams can move out of SoCal, anything can happen.

Just my two cents.
Of course, I totally understand that. But from my perspective (being a Kings fan after Gretzky), it frustrates me as a fan that older generation fanboys still use that to define them as a hardcore fan. For instance, I have a guy at my office who up until last season didn't get a **** about Kings hockey, he even has a signed Anaheim Ducks 2007 Stanley Cup Jersey (LOL), but as soon as they started turning around, he's all on board saying "I was a fan before you we're born.", "I saw Gretzky at the Forum", blah blah blah.

He's not the only one who does that, there are THOUSAND, literally, THOUSAND of these fanboys around LA. I guess you can say they are around every sporting team and I should calm down and get over it but it just frustrates me. So automatically, I associate Gretzky with fanboys who know diddly **** about the Kings. . . I can't help it

Cutty Sarkn3ss* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2010, 02:02 PM
  #23
kingsfan
#SutterforanOscar
 
kingsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,796
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cutty Sarkn3ss View Post
Of course, I totally understand that. But from my perspective (being a Kings fan after Gretzky), it frustrates me as a fan that older generation fanboys still use that to define them as a hardcore fan. For instance, I have a guy at my office who up until last season didn't get a **** about Kings hockey, he even has a signed Anaheim Ducks 2007 Stanley Cup Jersey (LOL), but as soon as they started turning around, he's all on board saying "I was a fan before you we're born.", "I saw Gretzky at the Forum", blah blah blah.

He's not the only one who does that, there are THOUSAND, literally, THOUSAND of these fanboys around LA. I guess you can say they are around every sporting team and I should calm down and get over it but it just frustrates me. So automatically, I associate Gretzky with fanboys who know diddly **** about the Kings. . . I can't help it
I bacame a Kings fan because of Gretzky. I was 11 when he was traded to LA and I had been an Oilers fan before that, but a Gretzky fan foremost. By the time he left, I was 19 and cared more about the team than the individual player, and I've remained a diehard fan of LA since. Every team will have a bandwagon atmosphere as they get better, but I'd assume at this point most of those claiming to be a Kings fan because of Gretzky are telling the truth, due to the fact it's been 15 years since he last played for LA. Those who are pointing to Doughty or Kopitar however, I can understand the bandwgon thinking.

kingsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2010, 02:23 PM
  #24
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 34,420
vCash: 500
Without Gretzky, the Kings wouldn't even get a sniff at the Stanley Cup in 1993. And yes, it was Dave Taylor who traded Olli Jokinen (who was his first draft selection in 1997). Taylor made a splash his first summer, trading the bum Kevin Stevens for Luc Robitaille and dealing Dmitri Khristich and Byron Dafoe to Boston for Jozef Stumpel and Sandy Moger. The Kings would then go on to make their first post season appearance since 1993 (and get swept by the Blues). Rob Blake also wins his one and only Norris Trophy.

I wasn't a fan of the Disaster McMaster, but some of the deals such as Tocchet for Robitaille were influenced by others, such as Barry Melrose, who wanted a tougher team. He got that, and in the process also got a slower team with cement heads like Barry Potomski and Troy Crowder and Phil Crowe, etc.

A few good trades to add to McMaster's credit:
Ed Olczyk for Glen Murray.
Jari Kurri, Marty McSorley and Shane Churla for Ray Ferraro, Mattias Norstrom, Ian Laperriere and Nathan LaFayette.
Kevin Brown for everyone's favorite defenseman: Jaroslav Modry.
Eric Lacroix for Stephane Fiset.

While the trade of Alexei Zhitnik is frowned upon, Philippe Boucher turned out to be the better player in the long run. Unfortunately, it took a long time as Boucher's development was derailed by a series of injuries.

Ziggy Stardust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2010, 08:55 PM
  #25
The Tikkanen
Pest
 
The Tikkanen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Yorba Linda
Country: United States
Posts: 6,605
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to The Tikkanen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cutty Sarkn3ss View Post
Of course, I totally understand that. But from my perspective (being a Kings fan after Gretzky), it frustrates me as a fan that older generation fanboys still use that to define them as a hardcore fan. For instance, I have a guy at my office who up until last season didn't get a **** about Kings hockey, he even has a signed Anaheim Ducks 2007 Stanley Cup Jersey (LOL), but as soon as they started turning around, he's all on board saying "I was a fan before you we're born.", "I saw Gretzky at the Forum", blah blah blah.

He's not the only one who does that, there are THOUSAND, literally, THOUSAND of these fanboys around LA. I guess you can say they are around every sporting team and I should calm down and get over it but it just frustrates me. So automatically, I associate Gretzky with fanboys who know diddly **** about the Kings. . . I can't help it
That's funny because I consider any King fan who never saw Gretzky play in a Kings uniform a new King fan. Your perspective to the history of this team is basically a few years of non playoff hockey. Imagine today if the Kings had a player who was twice as good as Alex Ovechkin, it would be a pretty good time, huh? Then we were treated to about a decade of Eric Rasmussen's, were you around for him?

The Tikkanen 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 01:53 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.