What's the most lopsided trade in NHL history?

[discostu]

Detroit was offering Yzerman and some veteran players for Lindros, but Quebec also wanted Lidstrom and Fedorov included in the deal.

Anyways here's a link with what some other teams were offering for Lindros (it's about halfway down the page): http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...s/stories/071806dnspolindrosside.183bfd8.html

What's interesting is that Chicago was offering Belfour and Larmer. If that went down, Chicago probably doesn't let go of Hasek (which was primarily done because of fear of losing him for nothing in the expansion draft, I believe). That certainly would have changed the balance of the NHL.

I'm not sure what was really happening with Yzerman behind the closed doors of the Red Wings offices. There were a few rumours that came out about him being traded, and, I'm not sure if they were true rumours, or, just empty threats, designed to scare him into stepping up his play, and leading the team. I know that there were a couple of rumours of him coming to Ottawa as well back in the day (for Daigle, man that would have been sweet), but, I always got the impression that they were just empty rumours.


Is it safe to say that the Lindros deal is the most significant deal in NHL history. While the Gretzky deal was more shocking, I don't think there has been any other deal that has had as much impact on the competitive balance of the NHL.

 

[12# Peter Bondra]

Id love the trade even more if we got Yzerman, Fedorov and Lidstrom for Lindros.

Too unrealistic though but would have been one heck of a trade.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

First, you're allowed to disagree.

After reading this, however, I'm unclear about where we disagree.

Do you not think it was a brilliant deal for the Pens?

Do you not think it was a case of a team trading assets (Cullen, Zalapski) at their highest value?

Do you not think such an approach is diametrically opposite of the trash we get on the trade board here daily? As in: "This guy sucks, let's trade him now...for some other team's talent!"

If you answer "no" to any of the above, I guess we disagree. But from your points above, I see no disagreement. To be sure, the economics of today are different. So what? It was a great deal when it was made. And if somehow through magic the two teams could be transformed to today, and the Pens could fit Francis and Ulf under their cap, bet your bottom dollar they would do it - it helped win them Stanley Cups! (Did Carolina worry about Weight and Recchi fitting in their cap long-term? No.)

You lost with me with the draft logic. Not debating it, just do not understand what you are suggesting. That's me, not you.

In my lifetime, along with the Isles acquisition of Butch Goring (and to a lesser extent, Edmonton's acquisition of Roloson this past March) the Francis deal ranks among the greatest deadline deals ever orchestrated, IMO.

Yeah, I guess I should have clarified how I disagree. What I'm disagreeing with is saying that modern fans should look for and embrace deals like this.

Obviously alot of trade proposals are trash here, it's the nature of the game. But, when people argue that players like, oh, lets say, Colby Armstrong (good young player, but only a 1st liner with Crosby) shouldn't be traded, they have a good point. Where as, in 1990, he'd be much better as an asset because of the differences mentioned. in 1990 there were alot more quality veterans entering their prime then there are now. And in 1990 adding salary wasn't as big a deal.

So, perception of value has changed greatly. While that might have been a brillient deal in early 91, I'm not sure I'd persue a similar deal in early 07.

Of course, there is the old nugget of wisdom, if you win the cup, all deadline deals were won by you. Case in point, Tony Amonte for Brian Noonan and Stephane Mateau.

 

[Crossfire Hurricane]

Id love the trade even more if we got Yzerman, Fedorov and Lidstrom for Lindros.

Too unrealistic though but would have been one heck of a trade.

Sakic, Yzerman, and Fedorov down the middle; Lidstrom, Blake, and Bourque (for at least one year) on the blue line; Roy between the pipes. I'm just salivating at the thought.

 

[Trottier]

Obviously alot of trade proposals are trash here, it's the nature of the game.

You are being too kind to some of the people proposing trades on HF. Not all, but many are made with nary an ounce of common sense. Personally, don't think that is asking too much, but that's just me.

But, when people argue that players like, oh, lets say, Colby Armstrong (good young player, but only a 1st liner with Crosby) shouldn't be traded, they have a good point. Where as, in 1990, he'd be much better as an asset because of the differences mentioned. in 1990 there were alot more quality veterans entering their prime then there are now. And in 1990 adding salary wasn't as big a deal.

All true, and your point about economics is well-taken. Obviously, there are exceptions to all rules, but players who are on cheaper, shorter contracts are more important than they were back in the day, relatively speaking.

Of course, there is the old nugget of wisdom, if you win the cup, all deadline deals were won by you.

My point exactly. When you are close to the Cup and you can make the move that may put you over the top, you do it. In 1991 or 2006. Risk? to be sure. But no guts, no glory...only never-ending rebuilding phases, the kind of which a few on HF live for.

(Sorry for the condescension. Obviously, it is not directed toward you, NP. Just have had it recently with a slew of ridiculous topics/comments read here - not on this particular board, which is the best on HF, but on other ones. The collective I.Q. and frame of reference around here is diminishing daily. My words may come off as elitist, but they are true.

 

[slapsht25]

To Montreal: Mark Recchi

To Philly: John LeClaire, Eric Desjardin, Gilbert Dionne

While Dionne was a dud we basically got Rico for free!

and then the next year trad dianus zubrus for Recchi
so it equals zubrus for leclair dejardins
the key of the deal was dionne leclair was the "throw in" defensive forward wow did that ever change

 

[SGY19]

What's interesting is that Chicago was offering Belfour and Larmer. If that went down, Chicago probably doesn't let go of Hasek (which was primarily done because of fear of losing him for nothing in the expansion draft, I believe). That certainly would have changed the balance of the NHL.

I'm not sure what was really happening with Yzerman behind the closed doors of the Red Wings offices. There were a few rumours that came out about him being traded, and, I'm not sure if they were true rumours, or, just empty threats, designed to scare him into stepping up his play, and leading the team. I know that there were a couple of rumours of him coming to Ottawa as well back in the day (for Daigle, man that would have been sweet), but, I always got the impression that they were just empty rumours.


Is it safe to say that the Lindros deal is the most significant deal in NHL history. While the Gretzky deal was more shocking, I don't think there has been any other deal that has had as much impact on the competitive balance of the NHL.

Actually Devellano did an interview on Leafs Lunch the other day and he admitted that the Red Wings actually came close to trading Yzerman a couple of times. Once for LaFontaine, and the second time was to Ottawa. I think they did make other offers, but those two times were the closest they actually came to trading him. I'm not sure either what was going on with Yzerman and the front office behind closed doors. I do remember Yzerman saying he just wanted management to treat him with respect. It seems like the Red Wings really did not want Yzerman. I know they really wanted LaFontaine instead, but they also tried to trade Yzerman for other players.

 

[arrbez]

Sakic, Yzerman, and Fedorov down the middle; Lidstrom, Blake, and Bourque (for at least one year) on the blue line; Roy between the pipes. I'm just salivating at the thought.

How about just hanging on to Mats Sundin

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It still is not lopsided, all it is, is Lacroix doing a good job with asset management, the actual trade itself was not lopsided IMO. It is basically equal to making a trade for Ovechkin and Crosby, would you not do a similar trade?

I don't think it's the same at all. Lindros had yet to play a single game in the NHL. I think it's more equal to making the same trade for Crosby before he ever played a game in the NHL. Not all super prospects can adopt to the NHL.

 

[Hasbro]

How about just hanging on to Mats Sundin

Trade wasn't that bad from our perspective. Clark (who turned into Clod), Lefebvre and Wilson who got turned int a 1st in 98. The Leafs made a horrible trade to bring Clark back and everyone forgets Sundin wanted a new contract (money is the small market excuse for every bad move they've made, might as well use it here. )

 

[Hasbro]

Comparing Crosby to Lindros. It would be like Columbus trading Brule, Picard, Denis, Klesla and their the two upcoming 1sts for Crosby.

 

[arrbez]

I don't think it's the same at all. Lindros had yet to play a single game in the NHL. I think it's more equal to making the same trade for Crosby before he ever played a game in the NHL. Not all super prospects can adopt to the NHL.

Don't forget that Lindros played on the 1991 Canada Cup squad as an 18 year old and didn't look out of place with the best players in the world. He also played in the Olympics the following year and came out with 11 points in 8 games. Nobody is a sure thing, but it was clear that he could play with the big boys.

Kinda like Malkin today. Sure, he's not proven in the NHL yet, but by watching him play for Russia in the last couple major internationals, you can tell that he's the real deal.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

You are being too kind to some of the people proposing trades on HF. Not all, but many are made with nary an ounce of common sense. Personally, don't think that is asking too much, but that's just me.

All true, and your point about economics is well-taken. Obviously, there are exceptions to all rules, but players who are on cheaper, shorter contracts are more important than they were back in the day, relatively speaking.

My point exactly. When you are close to the Cup and you can make the move that may put you over the top, you do it. In 1991 or 2006. Risk? to be sure. But no guts, no glory...only never-ending rebuilding phases, the kind of which a few on HF live for.

(Sorry for the condescension. Obviously, it is not directed toward you, NP. Just have had it recently with a slew of ridiculous topics/comments read here - not on this particular board, which is the best on HF, but on other ones. The collective I.Q. and frame of reference around here is diminishing daily. My words may come off as elitist, but they are true.

I will agree with you that this site isn't what it used to be, but, c'est la vie. The History section is rock solid and by far my favourite part. I pretty much only read the trades section when it comes to actual trades. Asside from proposals inherently being a waste of time, the people who write them do tend to do it from a completely homerish perspective.

I agree that deadline deals are important now, in fact, maybe more important because you can't be stacked in the regular season like you used to be.

Just saying that past experiences don't accurately reflect the current NHL.

And for those outside observers to this conversation, this is between an Islanders fan and a Canucks fan, we KNOW how much endless rebuilding phases suck.

 

[pappyline]

He was just a young player coming into to his own when he was dealt. He had not reached his prime in Chicago.

Espo was 25 when he left Chicago which is prime for most players. I think the Boston system with Orr suited him more & he never would have accomplished as much with Chicago playing in the shadow of Hull & Mikita.

 

[Chili]

Espo was 25 when he left Chicago which is prime for most players. I think the Boston system with Orr suited him more & he never would have accomplished as much with Chicago playing in the shadow of Hull & Mikita.

I believe Esposito had only started centering Hull in his last year in Chicago (someone could correct me on that). I know watching some of the 1965 finals he was not getting alot of icetime nor much with Hull or Mikita.

No question, the trade was very good for him but I don't remember him as a dominant player before the trade.

 

[ORR2Sanderson2ORR]

For those who bemoan the Neely trade - you were likely not around at the time.

The Neely/Pederson trade looked pretty good for the Canucks for the first while. Although it is now viewed as a bad trade, it was quite well received at the time. Fans phoned in to sports radio talk shows saying that the Canucks gained valuable veteran goal scoring, and that the Canucks had actually won in the trade.

As a Canuck Neely in 1983-84 had scored 16 goals, 15 assists for 31 points in 56 games. In 1984-85 in 72 games, he scored 21 goals and 18 assists for 39 points and in the 1985-86 season Neely scored 14 goals and 20 assists, for 34 points. His progress appeared stalled to Canuck management.

Pederson had been a 100 point player with the Bruins in two seasons (1982-83 and 1983-84) before losing the 1984-85 season mostly to injury He had put up 76 point season in 1985-86 coming back from the injury.

With the Canucks he scored 76 points in 1986-87 and 71 points in 1987-88 before slipping to 41 points in 1988-89 before being trade to the Pens in 1989-90 Tony Tanti and Rod Buskas for Dan Quinn, Andrew McBain and Dave Capuano by Pat Quinn. He would never again score 30 points in the NHL.

Neely played well for the Bruins in his first few years. In his first year in Boston the 1986/87 season, Neely began to blossom scoring 36 goals for 72 points in 75 games but scored fewer points than Pederson's 76. However he became the proto-typical power forward scoring 50 goals in 89/90, 90/91 and 93/94 (in only 49 games). In 1989 Pederson was gone from Vancouver.

The trade was Neely and a first rounder (which became Glen Wesley who in turn became Kyle McLaren and Sergei Samsonov and McLaren became Jeff Hackett and Jeff Jillson). Some people in Vancouver have referred to this trade as the "trade that keeps on giving to the Bruins."

And..Jillson became B.Boyes
And... Samsanov beacame Yan Stastny & M.Lucic
And...

 

[Trottier]

I will agree with you that this site isn't what it used to be, but, c'est la vie. The History section is rock solid and by far my favourite part.

Agreed. The best by far. The posters here possess a hockey frame of reference that dates back beyond...last week. (Unlike the rest of the board.)

Likewise, they are capable of constructing a legible sentence.

(I do not suffer fools well, NP.)

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

(I do not suffer fools well, NP.)

I work in customer service...

 

[Trottier]

I work in customer service...

 

[pappyline]

Glenn Hall traded by Detroit (with Ted Lindsay) to Chicago Black Hawks for John Wilson, Forbes Kennedy, William Preston and G Hank Bassen, July 1957.

This was really a 3 team trade. In june 57, Detroit traded Bucyk to boston and got Sawchuk back. With sawchuk back, they didn't need Hall (Who was going into his 3rd season) plus Adams was down on Hall due to the Wing's poor pertformance in the playoffs. Lindsay was coming off his best season ever but was 32 & a labor organizer. He had one good year with Chicago & 2 mediocre ones before retiring. Of the 4 players Chi sennt to Detroit only Johnny wilson was significant (although Forbes Kennedy had potential at the time). Wilson actually matched Lindsay's pont production of 39 in 57-58. The trade essentially was as follows--Bucyk to Boston, sawchuk & Wilson to Detroit, Hall & Lindsay to Chi. Basically a pretty even trade with possibly the slight edge to chicago (franchise goalie in hall & the leadership of lindsay)

 

[ClassicHockey]

Espo was Hull's centre right from his rookie year in 1964-65. But he was a disappointment in the playoffs for Chicago and together with his personality, got himself traded in a very one-sided deal. It was so unusual to be offered Espo that before agreeing to the trade, Bruin GM, Milt Schmidt called Stan Mikita to ask if there was anything wrong with Espo, was there something that Schmidt should be aware of? Mikita said there was nothing wrong with Espo.
At the time, Pit Martin was looked upon as a pretty good young player. Gilles Marotte was apparently the prize of the deal for Chicago as Marotte was supposed to have so much potential. The scouts were sure wrong on that one. Its odd that the Hawks took Jack Norris when they had to know that Bernie Parent wasn't going to be protected in the expansion draft. So, Parent had to have been available. That was strange.
Pierre Pilote was asked if Espo would have been the same star in Chicago that he became in Boston. Pilote said no way. In Chicago, Espo would always have been second banana to Bobby Hull and mainly was there to feed Hull. In Boston, Pilote said that Espo had the big tough wingers that suited Espo so much.

Looking back, Milt Schmidt had vision because he saw that building a team of larger, aggressive players was the key to building a team. Chicago and Toronto went the other way with smaller players and especially in Toronto's case, suffered because of it.

I believe Esposito had only started centering Hull in his last year in Chicago (someone could correct me on that). I know watching some of the 1965 finals he was not getting alot of icetime nor much with Hull or Mikita.

No question, the trade was very good for him but I don't remember him as a dominant player before the trade.

 

[Chili]

Espo was Hull's centre right from his rookie year in 1964-65. But he was a disappointment in the playoffs for Chicago and together with his personality, got himself traded in a very one-sided deal.

I got the impression from a book I was reading a while back on the Esposito brothers (Tim Moriarty) where Phil was talking about his time in Chicago that he only played part of the time with Hull. I don't know how much powerplay time he saw either because of Mikita (which is where he excelled with the Bruins). Interesting to see Bobby Hull back on the point in some of those old games. Thanks for the info.

 

[harry 93]

What about this one:

Colorado acquires Theo Fleury, Chris Dingman for Rene Corbet,Wade Belak, Robyn Regehr and a 2nd rounder (Jarrett Stoll) at the trading deadline in '99

Fleury signed with the Rangers after the season so it was Dingman for Corbet, Belak, Regehr and Stoll

 

[Hasbro]

Agreed. The best by far. The posters here possess a hockey frame of reference that dates back beyond...last week. (Unlike the rest of the board.)

Likewise, they are capable of constructing a legible sentence.

(I do not suffer fools well, NP.)

Me agree very much, teh trade bord is teh s uck!!!!


Just a sidebar on the Lindros deal.

• Lindros doesn't want to play for the Nordiques and the foundation of the Avs Stanley cups comes back in trade.
• John Elway was the #1 overall pick in 83 and said he wouldn't play for the Colts
• David Thompson was the #1 overall pick by the Atlanta Hawks, but opts to sign with the ABA Nuggets

#1 overalls spurning their drafting teams have been good to Denver.

And the only #1 overall I can remember a Denver team taking (not counting the ones the Hockey Rockies pissed away in trade) Rob Ramage was an ok player, but never enough to put the team over the top.

 

[dbbourn]

Jeremy Roenick for the proverbial bag of pucks. Kings got hosed.