HHoF - The Builders

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
After the Roger neilson debate I thought it would be interestign to debate the merits of some others that will come up for consideration over the next few years.

Some names to consider:

Mike Keenan
Pat Burns
Pat Quinn
Jaques Lemaire
Ken Hitchcock
Lou Lamarillo
Ken Holland
Pierre LaCroix

Are they in if they retired after this season ??

If not what must they do in the future to get in ??

Do they have no chance ??
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
I'll give my thought on those above shortly, but another question is

Has anyone previously been inducted both as a player and a builder?

Lemaire, Gainey and Clarke all have the possibility (more work to be done certainly) to be inducted as builders.
 
Last edited:

Psycho Papa Joe

Porkchop Hoser
Feb 27, 2002
23,347
17
Cesspool, Ontario
Visit site
John Flyers Fan said:
I'll give my thought on those above shortly, but another question is

Has anyone previously been inducted both as a player and a builder?

Lemaire, Gainey and Clarke all have the possibility (more work to be done certainly) to be inducted as builders.

I'm guessing Toe Blake might be in as both a player and a builder.

EDIT: He's not in as a builder. I'm assuming if you get in as a player, you no longer qualify to enter as a builder, since you are already in. That has to be the only reason Blake wouldn't be in as a builder.
 
Last edited:

God Bless Canada

Registered User
Jul 11, 2004
11,793
17
Bentley reunion
John Flyers Fan said:
After the Roger neilson debate I thought it would be interestign to debate the merits of some others that will come up for consideration over the next few years.

Some names to consider:

Mike Keenan
Pat Burns
Pat Quinn
Jaques Lemaire
Ken Hitchcock
Lou Lamarillo
Ken Holland
Pierre LaCroix

Are they in if they retired after this season ??

If not what must they do in the future to get in ??

Do they have no chance ??

I've had the distinct pleasure of meeting Ken Holland before. A class act all the way. He has quietly been a figurehead for one of the top teams in the league since the early 1990s. One more Cup, and he's a lock.

Lamarillo's a virtual lock. He'll get in within the next few years. Likely the best GM in the league over the last 15 years.

The rest will need a lot of work.

My prediction is that Herb Brooks will be inducted this year. There appears to be a considerable groundswell of support for Brooks' candidacy. The Miracle on Ice doesn't happen without him.

Here's a name who rarely gets mentioned but I'd like to see inducted: Dwight McMillian. Dwight who, you might say? He's the coach of the Weyburn Red Wings in the Saskatchewan Junior Hockey League (Tier II/Junior A, whatever you want to call it).

It may sound foolish to induct a junior coach, but remember, Brian Kilrea went in three years ago. Dwight McMillian is the second-winningest coach in the history of Canadian junior hockey, after Kilrea. (He passed Bert Tempelton a couple years ago). He has two national championships and, I believe, and eight league titles. Roughly the same credentials as Kilrea. Since Kilrea's induction three years ago, there has been growing support in Canadian junior hockey circles to see Dwight join the Hall as well. It won't happen this year, especially with Brooks likely to be inducted, but it's a name to watch for the future.

I think Hitchcock has a chance at some point in the future. I don't see Burns, Quinn, Lacroix or Keenan getting in.
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
John Flyers Fan said:
After the Roger neilson debate I thought it would be interestign to debate the merits of some others that will come up for consideration over the next few years.

Some names to consider:

Mike Keenan
Pat Burns
Pat Quinn
Jaques Lemaire
Ken Hitchcock
Lou Lamarillo
Ken Holland
Pierre LaCroix

Are they in if they retired after this season ??

If not what must they do in the future to get in ??

Do they have no chance ??

I don't think any of them have done enough to be Hall worthy.
 

reckoning

Registered User
Jan 4, 2005
7,012
1,251
John Flyers Fan said:
After the Roger neilson debate I thought it would be interestign to debate the merits of some others that will come up for consideration over the next few years.

Some names to consider:

Mike Keenan
Pat Burns
Pat Quinn
Jaques Lemaire
Ken Hitchcock
Lou Lamarillo
Ken Holland
Pierre LaCroix

Are they in if they retired after this season ??

If not what must they do in the future to get in ??

Do they have no chance ??

Lou Lamoriello`s qualifications can`t be argued by anybody. He`s a lock. Keenan makes the grade in my mind (Stanley Cup, 2 Canada Cups, took 3 different teams to Stanley Cup Final) but isn`t liked by everybody which may work against him. Pat Quinn is on the selection committee, it would look bad if he got in now.

Lemaire is already in as a player; usually if you are inducted as a player then that`s it. Lester Patrick and Dirk Irvin are in as players, though their accomplishments after retirement were more noteworthy.
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
God Bless Canada said:
I think Hitchcock has a chance at some point in the future. I don't see Burns, Quinn, Lacroix or Keenan getting in.

I'd certainly take Keenan, Hitchcock and Burns over Neilson. I'd probably take Quinn over Neilson as well.
 

Hasbro

Family Friend
Sponsor
Apr 1, 2004
52,415
16,383
South Rectangle
Lou's the only lock in the bunch.

Keenan has his detractors and his resume does have it's negatives.

Burns has all those Jack Adams, but his cup came with the Devils after two other coaches won it with them

Pat Quinn has two finals losses on his resume and two adams. His biggest career victory the 02 gold medal significantly got devalued in Turin. Has the Toronto connection though


If Jaques Lemaire were eligible being percieved as the author of the netrual zone trap and the dead puck era would be a hinderence and bonus.

Ken Hitchcock one cup with a deadly dull team. Depends on how much junior success will weight on this category in the future.

Ken Holland has two cups however Scotty Bowman was nominal GM before the first win. Holland did alot of the GM work beforre then anyway though. Perception as a free spending team might hurt him in some hockey circles.

Pierre Lacroix two cups some great trades on his CV. Rubs some people the wrong way and could be seen as a benifactor of the Lindros trade. The money issue also applies here.

My builder nominees: If hockey is going to start looking at junior for this category they should also look at college hockey for the same, which when you add in the Miracle on ice with Brook's three NCAA titles which established college boys as NHL material he should be a shoe in. Other names like Murray Armstrong and Bob Johnson come to mind from the NCAA ranks

I also think the Hanson Brothers should be in and I'm being absolutely serious about this. They are hockey's most beloved characters, added to the popularity of the game and have been ambasodors of the sport for years.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
John Flyers Fan said:
I'd certainly take Keenan, Hitchcock and Burns over Neilson. I'd probably take Quinn over Neilson as well.
Quinn should NEVER be considered for the HHOF. His ethics (or lack thereof) rank him with Alan Eagleson.

Name the only non-player ever suspended from the NHL for conduct prejudicial to the NHL.

Give up??

It was about 19 years ago that NHL President John Ziegler expelled and banned Pat Quinn for life from the NHL for conduct prejudicial to the league during the infamous Quinngate affair. How soon we forget.

If it was only an isolated incident, it may have been possible to just say it was an error in judgment; but this was one of three major ethical lapses by Quinn as a coach and GM.

Pat Quinn was coach of the LA Kings during the 1986-87 season. While still coaching that team, under contract to the Kings and negotiating with the Kings for a contract extension of his coaching contract, he entered into mid-season negotiations with the Vancouver Canucks.

On December 11, 1986 he reached an agreement in principle with Vancouver to become GM and President. On December 24,1986 he signed a contract with Vancouver to commence on June 1,1987 as President and GM. On January 2, 1987 while coaching LA and while in Vancouver to play the Canucks, a brown bag containing a $100,000 was delivered to him by a Canuck trainer to seal the deal while he was conducting a practice in preparation for the upcoming game with the Canucks. At that point in the season LA and Vancouver were locked in a struggle to make the play-offs.

Quinn then returned to LA and arranged a lunch with Rogie Vachon, GM of the Kings. Vachon assumed the meeting was to finalize and sign Quinn's coaching contract extension. When Quinn told Vachon he had signed with the Canucks (but not about the $100,000 payment), Vachon was flabbergasted and stormed out of the restaurant, immediately calling Jerry Buss, the owner. After a few days delay, Buss called John Zeigler who became involved.

Meanwhile rumours of the Quinn signing were surfacing in the Vancouver media. Zeigler then called Canucks owner who was in Hawaii on vacation who confirmed the signing and revealed that Quinn had received the $100,00 signing bonus to seal the deal.

Zeigler was outraged and immediately expelled Pat Quinn from the NHL for dishonourable conduct on January 9, 1987. Pat Quinn would later say he never even considered how the public might perceive his conduct in accepting a $100,000 signing bonus from the Vancouver Canucks while he was still under contract to the Los Angeles Kings WELL DUH!!!!

Quinn said that he felt that he had done nothing wrong. This from a person (Quinn), who had just completed his law degree and was in the process of seeking admission to the California State Bar.

The statement from Ziegler expelling Quinn said: "Mr. Quinn is directly responsible for the preparation and conduct of the Los Angeles Kings' NHL game competitions. Despite these responsibilities, he has committed himself to assume the responsibilities of a general manager for a competing team in this league, has accepted money from them and yet has continued to attempt to discharge his responsibilities to the Los Angeles Kings. Effective immediately, and until further notice to the contrary, Mr. Patrick Quinn is expelled from the National Hockey League and may not be employee by any member club of the league or involved in any further activities on behalf of the league or any of its member clubs."

Zeigler then appointed NHL chief legal counsel, Gil Stein to investigate the case fully and report back to him. After reviewing the report Ziegler fined the Vancouver Canucks $310,000 which represented 31 days from the time of the agreement in principle of December 11, 1986 until Quinn was expelled by Ziegler. Quinn was banned from joining the Canucks as GM until after the both LA and Vancouver were out of the play-offs and prohibited from coaching for three years.

The Canucks and Quinn appealed the decision to the league Board of Governors and the appeal was dismissed. They then appealed to the BC Supreme Court. The Justice ruled that Ziegler had overstepped his bounds by fining the Canucks for 31 separate counts each at $10,000 per day and reduced the fine to $10,000. However he ruled that Ziegler was wholly within his jurisdiction to deal with Quinn in the manner he had done and declined to interfere in the discipline meted out by Ziegler to Pat Quinn.

A reporter would later ask Quinn, if his decision to accept the Canucks' overture was out of character, Quinn said: "I'd like to think that's the case." NOT.

Unfortunately it appears totally in character as, during his court appeal, evidence was filed showing that he had connived to keep his former contract to coach the Kings secret after being fired by the Flyers in 1985. By keeping the Kings contract-signing secret, he was able to obtain a further $50,000 as damages from the Flyers for his firing. Had he been truthful, he would not legally have been entitled to that payment. The Flyers management were furious when they learned of his deception and the Kings were not blameless either as they conspired with him to keep the deal under wraps. The Kings then should not have been surprised when Quinn did the same thing to them – they knew his predilections.

Interestingly Quinngate came back to haunt Quinn during the Vladimir Krutov transfer fee dispute hearing held in Stockholm which ended up costing the Canucks about $1.3 million when the Arbitrator found Vancouver liable for the last two years of the transfer fee payments to the Russian Ice Hockey authorities for signing Krutov. Quinn’s credibility was destroyed when he was unable to explain to the satisfaction of the Arbitrator how it was that the Canucks were also reneging on the transfer fee payments for Igor Larionov although they had not cut him from the team.

In a desperate last minute maneuver to shore up their crumbling case, the Canucks mere days before the hearing paid up the missed Larionov payments and in fact pre-paid the next installments. Quinn had loudly proclaimed his honesty and integrity when trying to explain the Larionov situation. Once Quinn did that, he opened up his character to question and the whole sordid Quinngate affair was laid out for the Arbitrator to see.

The Canucks defense to not paying the transfer fees for Krutov rested on two grounds. Firstly the Krutov standard NHL playing contract with the Vancouver Canucks was collateral to the transfer fee agreement (sort of a sub-contract). The Canucks claimed that Krutov by allegedly breaching that contract by not being in shape as alleged by the Canucks, resulted in the Canucks being able to avoid the further transfer fees under the contract with the Russian authorities (of course the Larionov transfer fee situation did not go a long way to helping the Canucks case).

The Canucks missed the major requirement to claim this was a collateral contract – Krutov was not party to the transfer fee agreement and as the Arbitrator pointed out it was first year law student knowledge that collateral contracts must be between the same parties. Interestingly neither Burke with his law degree from Harvard nor Quinn with his just completed law degree from the University of Philadeplhia picked up on this rather obvious defect in their case. DUH!

The second defense was that Quinn alleged that he had an oral promise from the Russians that they would forgive the last two years of the transfer fees if either Krutov or Larionov did not stay with the team. The Russians denied that they had ever made such a promise. Again basic contract law generally prevents a party from going outside the signed contract clauses and like most contracts it also provided that all previous negotiations, discussions and agreements are void. Quinn then tried to claim that in fact this promise was given after the contracts were all signed and again the Russians denied this occurred. Again courts do not usually allow such claims but there are some exceptions. Even if an exception were to be made, it would require Quinn’s word to be preferred against that of the Russian negotiators. Given Quinngate and Quinn’s own abysmal performance in explaining the Larionov transfer fee situation, the Arbitrator had little trouble in dismissing Quinn’s credibility out of hand.

This portion of Quinn’s testimony under cross-examination by counsel for the Russian hockey authorities is priceless and it was published in the Vancouver Province on February 26, 1992 under the headline QUINN: 'WE MESSED UP HERE' - THE KRUTOV RULING: THE TRANSCRIPTS
Edited transcripts of Vancouver attorney Randy Wittchen, representing the Soviets, cross-examining Pat Quinn on circumstances of club missing agreed-upon transfer payments to Soviets for Igor Larionov.

Wittchen: Are you aware that there were problems with the November (1991) payment with Larionov?

Quinn: No.

Wittchen: Were you aware of a newspaper article that appeared in Vancouver Province December 31?

Quinn: Now that you mention it, Burke did make it known to me. And apparently Faminoff, through a local reporter, indicated that there was a problem with the payment.

Wittchen (introducing Province story as evidence): This is a report from Mr.(Tony) Gallagher of The Province dated December 31, 1991 . . . Are you aware that one of your officials of your organization on January 1, 1992 gave an interview to another reporter (Vancouver Sun reporter Elliott Pap) that in fact this was untrue, all payments were up to date on Larionov?

Quinn: It was our assumption that we were on time; I don't do the accounting, I don't stay on top of each cheque that goes out.

Wittchen: This direction to your bank, I notice your name appears here but not your signature. Can you identify the signatures that are on here?

Quinn: One is (director of finance) Carlos Mascarenhas and the other is (Brian) Burke (who was representing the Canucks as counsel at the hearing).

Wittchen: In fact on Dec. 31, 1991 the Vancouver Canucks were in arrears is that correct?

Quinn: Yes.

Wittchen: I will suggest to you that the only reason this payment was made is because it was very embarrassing at this hearing.

Quinn: I disagree with that. We have messed up on payment in June (1990) and we messed up here . . . the fact that you have suggested we weren't going to be paying our debt is offensive.

Wittchen: This is for the amount of $206,250. What does that represent?

Quinn: A lot of money.

Wittchen: . . . Do you know what schedule of payments that represents?

Quinn: I assume the final ones according to the schedule.

Wittchen: If you look at the transfer fee agreement there are certain scheduled fees, and the schedule of fees are July 10, 1991, Nov. 10, 1991, Jan. 10, 1992 and March 10, 1992.

Quinn: November was missed. What does Gallagher or Faminoff say?

Wittchen: The information that we had is that two payments, the July (1990) and November payments, have been missed, were late, hadn't been made on time. But interestingly enough this (the Canucks' fee transfer) seems to be for more than is due and owing. . . . Does that not suggest that this was a pre-payment of the March 1992 payment?

Quinn: It appears likely.

Wittchen: I will suggest to you that the only reason these payments were made was in response to that newspaper article and to rehabilitate what had gone on with Larionov whom you admitted has played fine. You haven't had a problem . . . The first four (payments) were made in a timely fashion, is that correct?

Quinn: To my knowledge, yes. I was made aware of this story by Gallagher, I believe I was in Los Angeles at the time it came out.

Wittchen: Did not an official of your organization on January 1, 1992 state to reporter Elliott Pap of the Vancouver Sun that everything was up to date and it (the Gallagher story) was untrue? Were you aware of that?

Quinn: No . . . Since I have been on the road as a coach, I very seldom get to see a lot of these sorts of things and any responses that are madein the papers in Vancouver often are missed . . .

Quinn was President and GM (and a lawyer) and Krutov and Larionov at the time were the most expensive players under contract to the Canucks and if they were in fact the only two player contracts that Quinn had ever negotiated according to his own evidence. Do you not find it incredible he did not know precisely what was going on regarding the missed transfer fees? The Arbitrator certainly did.

Pat Quinn should never be in the HHOF.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

reckoning

Registered User
Jan 4, 2005
7,012
1,251
Thanks for those details Wetcoaster. I remember the incident but never heard all those details about it. $100,000 in a brown paper bag :shakehead

Did Quinn ever apologize, or did he just stick with the "I didn`t know it was wrong" defence?
 

MiamiScreamingEagles

Global Moderator
Jan 17, 2004
71,039
48,011
John Flyers Fan said:
I'll give my thought on those above shortly, but another question is

Has anyone previously been inducted both as a player and a builder?

Lemaire, Gainey and Clarke all have the possibility (more work to be done certainly) to be inducted as builders.

John: Looking at the lists in the "NHL Official Guide & Record Book," I do not see any person who is in the HHOF as both a player and a builder.
 

Snap Wilson

Registered User
Sep 14, 2003
5,838
0
God Bless Canada said:
I've had the distinct pleasure of meeting Ken Holland before. A class act all the way. He has quietly been a figurehead for one of the top teams in the league since the early 1990s. One more Cup, and he's a lock.

He shouldn't even need that Cup. The amount of success that the Wings have enjoyed over the last fifteen years, with the exception of the Habs glory days, is unprecedented. If that hasn't earned Holland a HOF selection, nothing will.
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
John Flyers Fan said:
After the Roger neilson debate I thought it would be interestign to debate the merits of some others that will come up for consideration over the next few years.

Some names to consider:

Mike Keenan
Pat Burns
Pat Quinn
Jaques Lemaire
Ken Hitchcock
Lou Lamarillo
Ken Holland
Pierre LaCroix

Are they in if they retired after this season ??

If not what must they do in the future to get in ??

Do they have no chance ??

My personal take:

Keenan: In if he retired today. 5th all-time in wins. Stanley Cup, two Canada Cups, Calder Cup and a CIAU title. IMO the NHL's best coach from 1985-95. Three other finals appearances, and one Jack Adams award.

Burns: Not there yet, but a distinct possibility if he can continue his career. One Cup, three Jack Adams. Needs either a few more long playoff runs, or one more Stanley Cup.

Quinn: Better than given credit for, but not in. Two Jack Adams, one Olympic gold and one World Cup. Twice a Cup finalist.

Lemaire: No. Won 8 playoff series and a Cup in his first four seasons, but has won just three playoff series over his last eight.

Hitchcock: Not yet, but likely on his way. One Cup, and another Finals appearance, two WHL titles in Kamploops. Has won 40+ games in every full NHL season.

Lamarillo: No doubt. Three Stanley Cups, end of story.

LaCroix: Not yet, but not far away. Walked into an ideal situation with a team on the verge of winning and winning big. He did make the two key deals to get them over the top each time (Roy & Blake).

Holland: I won't argue him either way. Not living in Detroit it's tough to tell who was always making the moves Holland or Bowman.
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,367
83,458
Vancouver, BC
Keenan is a lock. Like him or not, he's won championships at more different levels than anyone else in history. NHL, AHL, OHL, college hockey, international tournaments - he's won at every conceivable level with every sort of player. Absolutely dominant record from 1984-94. Amongst the all-time leaders in every coaching category. Complete no-brainer.

Quinn is also a sure thing. 3rd all time in coaching victories (behind only Bowman and Arbour), 2 Adams awards, and a memorable Olympic victory.

Burns stands a very good chance. Made a difference everywhere he went, has a record 3 Adams awards.

Hitchcock is on the right track, as is Lacroix.

Lamoriello is a dead lock, obviously.

Lemaire is already in, so it's a moot point.

Holland ... doubtful. Didn't become the GM in Detroit until after their greatest success, and the HHOF hasn't traditionally recognised scouting/player development success. And Neil Smith ran several of Detroit's best drafts (especially 1989) anyway.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
reckoning said:
Thanks for those details Wetcoaster. I remember the incident but never heard all those details about it. $100,000 in a brown paper bag :shakehead

Did Quinn ever apologize, or did he just stick with the "I didn`t know it was wrong" defence?
I have never heard of Quinn tendering an apology for his actions. It is pretty hard to believe that he could not see that his actions were blatatantly wrong.

I heard that during the Krutov transfer fee hearing in Sweden when he was cross-examined he was squirming pretty good and trying to justify his actions. He tried to claim he had been exonerated by the courts. According to reports at the time counsel for the Russians pulled out the BC Court ruling including the internal NHL investigative report which had been filed as part of the Canucks' appeal of Ziegler's ruling in BC Supreme Court showing that the BC Courts declined to interfere with Ziegler's disciplining of Quinn. Burke was fulminating about confidential internal documents until he finally got the point that it had been the Cancuks that had filed the NHL report as part of their case so Burkie had egg on his face yet again.

I gather the report being introduced kind of took the wind out of Quinn's sails and reportedly it even shut up Brian Burke for a bit who stupidly had fired very capable real lawyers and had taken on the case himself. Burkie's first and last stab at litigation as far as I know. O for 1 as a litigator and a million dollar plus hit. Go Burkie :biglaugh: Having a law degree (even from Harvard) does not necessarily make you a lawyer. A lesson learned the hard way by Burkie.

As I said Quinn has a serious ethical compass problem and that should disqualify him from the HHOF IMHO. YMMV. Did you like the acronyms strung together? :eek:
 

Burke's Evil Spirit

Registered User
Oct 29, 2002
21,373
7,337
San Francisco
Wetcoaster said:
Quinn should NEVER be considered for the HHOF. His ethics (or lack thereof) rank him with Alan Eagleson.

Name the only non-player ever suspended from the NHL for conduct prejudicial to the NHL.

Give up??

It was about 19 years ago that NHL President John Ziegler expelled and banned Pat Quinn for life from the NHL for conduct prejudicial to the league during the infamous Quinngate affair. How soon we forget.

If it was only an isolated incident, it may have been possible to just say it was an error in judgment; but this was one of three major ethical lapses by Quinn as a coach and GM.

Pat Quinn was coach of the LA Kings during the 1986-87 season. While still coaching that team, under contract to the Kings and negotiating with the Kings for a contract extension of his coaching contract, he entered into mid-season negotiations with the Vancouver Canucks.

On December 11, 1986 he reached an agreement in principle with Vancouver to become GM and President. On December 24,1986 he signed a contract with Vancouver to commence on June 1,1987 as President and GM. On January 2, 1987 while coaching LA and while in Vancouver to play the Canucks, a brown bag containing a $100,000 was delivered to him by a Canuck trainer to seal the deal while he was conducting a practice in preparation for the upcoming game with the Canucks. At that point in the season LA and Vancouver were locked in a struggle to make the play-offs.

Quinn then returned to LA and arranged a lunch with Rogie Vachon, GM of the Kings. Vachon assumed the meeting was to finalize and sign Quinn's coaching contract extension. When Quinn told Vachon he had signed with the Canucks (but not about the $100,000 payment), Vachon was flabbergasted and stormed out of the restaurant, immediately calling Jerry Buss, the owner. After a few days delay, Buss called John Zeigler who became involved.

Meanwhile rumours of the Quinn signing were surfacing in the Vancouver media. Zeigler then called Canucks owner who was in Hawaii on vacation who confirmed the signing and revealed that Quinn had received the $100,00 signing bonus to seal the deal.

Zeigler was outraged and immediately expelled Pat Quinn from the NHL for dishonourable conduct on January 9, 1987. Pat Quinn would later say he never even considered how the public might perceive his conduct in accepting a $100,000 signing bonus from the Vancouver Canucks while he was still under contract to the Los Angeles Kings WELL DUH!!!!

Quinn said that he felt that he had done nothing wrong. This from a person (Quinn), who had just completed his law degree and was in the process of seeking admission to the California State Bar.

The statement from Ziegler expelling Quinn said: "Mr. Quinn is directly responsible for the preparation and conduct of the Los Angeles Kings' NHL game competitions. Despite these responsibilities, he has committed himself to assume the responsibilities of a general manager for a competing team in this league, has accepted money from them and yet has continued to attempt to discharge his responsibilities to the Los Angeles Kings. Effective immediately, and until further notice to the contrary, Mr. Patrick Quinn is expelled from the National Hockey League and may not be employee by any member club of the league or involved in any further activities on behalf of the league or any of its member clubs."

Zeigler then appointed NHL chief legal counsel, Gil Stein to investigate the case fully and report back to him. After reviewing the report Ziegler fined the Vancouver Canucks $310,000 which represented 31 days from the time of the agreement in principle of December 11, 1986 until Quinn was expelled by Ziegler. Quinn was banned from joining the Canucks as GM until after the both LA and Vancouver were out of the play-offs and prohibited from coaching for three years.

The Canucks and Quinn appealed the decision to the league Board of Governors and the appeal was dismissed. They then appealed to the BC Supreme Court. The Justice ruled that Ziegler had overstepped his bounds by fining the Canucks for 31 separate counts each at $10,000 per day and reduced the fine to $10,000. However he ruled that Ziegler was wholly within his jurisdiction to deal with Quinn in the manner he had done and declined to interfere in the discipline meted out by Ziegler to Pat Quinn.

A reporter would later ask Quinn, if his decision to accept the Canucks' overture was out of character, Quinn said: "I'd like to think that's the case." NOT.

Unfortunately it appears totally in character as, during his court appeal, evidence was filed showing that he had connived to keep his former contract to coach the Kings secret after being fired by the Flyers in 1985. By keeping the Kings contract-signing secret, he was able to obtain a further $50,000 as damages from the Flyers for his firing. Had he been truthful, he would not legally have been entitled to that payment. The Flyers management were furious when they learned of his deception and the Kings were not blameless either as they conspired with him to keep the deal under wraps. The Kings then should not have been surprised when Quinn did the same thing to them – they knew his predilections.

Interestingly Quinngate came back to haunt Quinn during the Vladimir Krutov transfer fee dispute hearing held in Stockholm which ended up costing the Canucks about $1.3 million when the Arbitrator found Vancouver liable for the last two years of the transfer fee payments to the Russian Ice Hockey authorities for signing Krutov. Quinn’s credibility was destroyed when he was unable to explain to the satisfaction of the Arbitrator how it was that the Canucks were also reneging on the transfer fee payments for Igor Larionov although they had not cut him from the team.

In a desperate last minute maneuver to shore up their crumbling case, the Canucks mere days before the hearing paid up the missed Larionov payments and in fact pre-paid the next installments. Quinn had loudly proclaimed his honesty and integrity when trying to explain the Larionov situation. Once Quinn did that, he opened up his character to question and the whole sordid Quinngate affair was laid out for the Arbitrator to see.

The Canucks defense to not paying the transfer fees for Krutov rested on two grounds. Firstly the Krutov standard NHL playing contract with the Vancouver Canucks was collateral to the transfer fee agreement (sort of a sub-contract). The Canucks claimed that Krutov by allegedly breaching that contract by not being in shape as alleged by the Canucks, resulted in the Canucks being able to avoid the further transfer fees under the contract with the Russian authorities (of course the Larionov transfer fee situation did not go a long way to helping the Canucks case).

The Canucks missed the major requirement to claim this was a collateral contract – Krutov was not party to the transfer fee agreement and as the Arbitrator pointed out it was first year law student knowledge that collateral contracts must be between the same parties. Interestingly neither Burke with his law degree from Harvard nor Quinn with his just completed law degree from the University of Philadeplhia picked up on this rather obvious defect in their case. DUH!

The second defense was that Quinn alleged that he had an oral promise from the Russians that they would forgive the last two years of the transfer fees if either Krutov or Larionov did not stay with the team. The Russians denied that they had ever made such a promise. Again basic contract law generally prevents a party from going outside the signed contract clauses and like most contracts it also provided that all previous negotiations, discussions and agreements are void. Quinn then tried to claim that in fact this promise was given after the contracts were all signed and again the Russians denied this occurred. Again courts do not usually allow such claims but there are some exceptions. Even if an exception were to be made, it would require Quinn’s word to be preferred against that of the Russian negotiators. Given Quinngate and Quinn’s own abysmal performance in explaining the Larionov transfer fee situation, the Arbitrator had little trouble in dismissing Quinn’s credibility out of hand.

This portion of Quinn’s testimony under cross-examination by counsel for the Russian hockey authorities is priceless and it was published in the Vancouver Province on February 26, 1992 under the headline QUINN: 'WE MESSED UP HERE' - THE KRUTOV RULING: THE TRANSCRIPTS
Edited transcripts of Vancouver attorney Randy Wittchen, representing the Soviets, cross-examining Pat Quinn on circumstances of club missing agreed-upon transfer payments to Soviets for Igor Larionov.



Quinn was President and GM (and a lawyer) and Krutov and Larionov at the time were the most expensive players under contract to the Canucks and if they were in fact the only two player contracts that Quinn had ever negotiated according to his own evidence. Do you not find it incredible he did not know precisely what was going on regarding the missed transfer fees? The Arbitrator certainly did.

Pat Quinn should never be in the HHOF.

As reprehensible as his actions were regarding his employment with Vancouver and Los Angeles, jerking around the Russian Ice Hockey Federation with regard to transfer payments is about on the level with tactics used by so many NHL GMs to get players out of Europe before the transfer agreements.

I still think he deserves to be in the HHoF. They allow ******** like Conn Smythe and Harold Ballard in? Quinn is definitely going in.
 

Leaf Lander

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Dec 31, 2002
31,919
527
BWO Headquarters
tmlfanszone.blogspot.com
Pat Quinn has two finals losses on his resume and two adams. His biggest career victory the 02 gold medal significantly got devalued in Turin. Has the Toronto connection though


Pat is also one of the winningest NHL coaches ever
he brought respectability to the LA Kings franchise Vancouver Franchsie and he maintained a level of sucess in Toronto not seen since the Hap Day era. In the mecca of hockey sucess isnt easy. Pat understood what it took to get the Mighty TML to play like the boys of summer all winter long. It wasnt till the reignes were turned over to a very green GM in john fergusson did pats sucess waiver.
 

Bring Back Bucky

Registered User
May 19, 2004
9,997
3,071
Canadas Ocean Playground
Leaf Lander said:
Pat Quinn has two finals losses on his resume and two adams. His biggest career victory the 02 gold medal significantly got devalued in Turin. Has the Toronto connection though


Pat is also one of the winningest NHL coaches ever
he brought respectability to the LA Kings franchise Vancouver Franchsie and he maintained a level of sucess in Toronto not seen since the Hap Day era. In the mecca of hockey sucess isnt easy. Pat understood what it took to get the Mighty TML to play like the boys of summer all winter long. It wasnt till the reignes were turned over to a very green GM in john fergusson did pats sucess waiver.


Alan Eagleson also had a big part in some huge hockey moments, but he got the boot :deadhorse
 

BlueAndWhite

Registered User
Mar 1, 2002
7,208
5
Toronto
Visit site
Burke's Evil Spirit said:
I still think he deserves to be in the HHoF. They allow ******** like Conn Smythe and Harold Ballard in? Quinn is definitely going in.

I'm not familiar with Conn Smythe's *********** actions, care to elaborate ?
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
Burke's Evil Spirit said:
As reprehensible as his actions were regarding his employment with Vancouver and Los Angeles, jerking around the Russian Ice Hockey Federation with regard to transfer payments is about on the level with tactics used by so many NHL GMs to get players out of Europe before the transfer agreements.

I still think he deserves to be in the HHoF. They allow ******** like Conn Smythe and Harold Ballard in? Quinn is definitely going in.
I believe you mean Conn's son, Stafford (who had a "little bit" of an alcohol problem)who died days before he was to go on trial for income tax evasion.

Ballard was convicted of theft, fraud and tax evasion (48 counts IIRC) in 1972 and spent a year in jail at Millhaven (he would refer to his incarceration as like being at a country club). The Leafs had their best year as an organization during the ballard Reign of (T)error while was he was country-clubbing.

Here is the famous interview he gave with Barbara Frum and Dick Beddoes - he said women should be on their backs not on the radio. AHHHHHHHH - Prince Hal with the prematurely orange hair.
http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-68-368-2102/arts_entertainment/frum/clip6
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
Burke's Evil Spirit said:
As reprehensible as his actions were regarding his employment with Vancouver and Los Angeles, jerking around the Russian Ice Hockey Federation with regard to transfer payments is about on the level with tactics used by so many NHL GMs to get players out of Europe before the transfer agreements.

I still think he deserves to be in the HHoF. They allow ******** like Conn Smythe and Harold Ballard in? Quinn is definitely going in.
A little different from the old days of smuggling players out. There were signed contracts in place and Quinn ignored them and then lied under oath when he was caught out.

Pretty reprehensible in my books and doubly so since Quinn is has a law degree.
 

Burke's Evil Spirit

Registered User
Oct 29, 2002
21,373
7,337
San Francisco
BlueAndWhite said:
I'm not familiar with Conn Smythe's *********** actions, care to elaborate ?

He pulled some really despicable actions when it came time to pay his players. I read it in Net Worth, though, so it's fully possible I'm wrong...
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->