While I agree the award should have gone to Lemieux, as imperfect NHL awards go, this one isn't overly hard to understand, is it? The Kings went from 4th-worst overall to 4th-best overall in the season Gretzky joined, while the Pens had a solid but not overly impressive season. I guarantee you that if, say, Dale Hawerchuk had scored 168 points in 1984-85 (when the Jets had their biggest season), he would have won the Hart instead of 208-point Gretzky. You have to remember that there is a team-success narrative attached to basically every Hart trophy (which is why, for example, Bobby Orr didn't win the 1974-75 Hart, despite winning the scoring title and going +80).
Anyway, my choices:
Hart: 2005-06, Jaromir Jagr
(While I'm tempted to go with 1990-91 Gretzky, at least Wayne got his 'mulligan' Hart for 1988-89, so it's all fair.) This 2006 Hart trophy should have been a no-brainer:
-- Jagr played 82 games for the Rangers; Thornton played 58 games for the Sharks. (So, right there, that should disqualify Thornton, but there's more):
-- Negligible point difference between the two players (2 more points for Thornton, while Jagr was +3 better in plus/minus). So, again, scoring being even, you give it to the guy who actually played the full season for the team!
-- Jagr scored more even-strength goals than Thornton scored total goals!
-- Jagr voted the Pearson award.
-- Rangers made the playoffs for the first time in 9 years, improving 31 points in Jagr's first full season, while the Sharks fell 5 points (and from 1st to 2nd in division) with the acquisition of Thornton.
This was just a horrible bungling of this award. I wouldn't make a big deal out of it if Jagr had already won two or three Harts, but since he had been remarkably unfortunate in getting only the one to this point in his career, this one was a travesty.
Norris: 1983-84, Paul Coffey
This was probably Coffey's greatest-ever season. Voters would finally be swayed to award him the '85 and '86 Norrises (and much later the '95), but he should have taken this one, no doubt about it. Nothing against Rod Langway, and full marks for his 1983 Norris, but giving him yet another one in '84 (when he was alongside two future Hall of Famers on the blue line) was just silliness, and reeked of Eastern-voters' spite against Edmonton.
Vezina: 1987-88, Patrick Roy
Some of you think I'm hard on Roy sometimes, but look, I'm awarding him an extra Vezina and taking one away from my own team! Goalies should not win major awards because they played a lot of games. That is the only reason Grant Fuhr won the '88 Vezina. I ask you: If Fuhr won the '88 Vezina, why didn't Gary 'Suitcase' Smith win it in 1974-75 when he played 72 games and had a good, winning record for low-talent Vancouver... and his stats were all superior to Fuhr's??
Calder: 1979-80, Wayne Gretzky or if that doesn't fly, then 1989-90, Mike Modano
Completely agree with the OP. That Makarov thing was just stupid. Why are the NHL such idiots? Either Gretzky wasn't a rookie and Makarov wasn't either, or they both were, but you sure as hell can't have it both ways, unless you're idiotic. Oh! Hello, NHL.
Conn Smythe: undecided!
I think most of the Conn Smythes are more-or-less correct. Sometimes, there is someone I would have preferred, but usually I can see the case for the guy who won it. (Speaking of Grant Fuhr, he legitimately could have won the 1987 Conn Smythe!) My probable choice here would be Joe Sakic over Patrick Roy in 2001. Butch Goring in '81 seems a little suspect to me, too, but that was before my time, so I'll defer to the experts...