Does staying with one team mean anything to a legacy?

[Roomtemperature]

Does demanding a trade in the middle of a career hurt a career in your eyes or is it just a business? Does staying with mostly one team in this age of free agency mean anything or is it just a foot note?

Click to read more...

 

[Blades of Glory]

It depends on the situation and the player. Ray Bourque leaving Boston after 21 years for one final shot at the Stanley Cup did nothing to change his legacy in my mind. He gave his heart to that team and that city. Not once did he flirt with leaving as a free agent; in fact, his habit of quickly negotiating new deals with Boston without testing the open market drew criticism from the NHLPA, which wanted the league's premiere defenseman to set the market with a big contract that would have been offered to him had he ever tested the free agent waters. Ray Bourque was the franchise in Boston for over two decades. Had he stayed in Boston, played out his final days, and retired without a Stanley Cup, his legacy would not have been any greater than what it is.

It does make me cringe to see Mike Modano in a Red Wings jersey. But what can he do? His long-time friend and teammate Joe Nieuwendyk had to make a hockey decision about the team he runs. Modano should have retired, and taken his place alongside Sakic and Yzerman as one-franchise players for the three most dominant Western Conference teams of their era.

 

[The Nuge]

depends on the player. a guy who was drafted by a team and it's a contender should NOT ask for a trade. if it's someone who's bounced around a bit, oh well

 

[tarheelhockey]

It has to do with identity. Players like Yzerman and Lemieux are so important to their teams' history that it really makes a difference to their legacy. If they had played only half their careers with their draft teams, we would see their careers in a different context. Patrick Roy is probably the biggest example of the difference it makes... imagine if he played with the Habs till retirement and never went to the Avs.

On the other side is the journeyman who lacks identity as a result of moving too often. Guys like Turgeon and Gartner might be thought of more highly if they had stuck with one or two teams. Andreychuk's legacy was rescued in 2004, but he almost went right under the radar as a 640-goal scorer largely because he played for 5 teams in 5 years before settling in Tampa. I think it particularly affects guys like Larry Murphy and Paul Coffey, who left more negative than positive memories in certain large hockey cities.

Then, there are the vast majority in the middle who play for 2-4 teams and don't have any kind of legacy "bonus" or "penalty" as a result.

 

[arrbez]

I think Mark Recchi is a great example of a guy whose legacy just seems lacking because you can't really place him on one team. Right or wrong, he just never stuck me as THE guy anywhere he played. I don't ever remember him as a centrepiece type player. I guess that's the danger of changing teams 8 times in a career.

 

[Blue Dragon]

It has to do with identity. Players like Yzerman and Lemieux are so important to their teams' history that it really makes a difference to their legacy. If they had played only half their careers with their draft teams, we would see their careers in a different context. Patrick Roy is probably the biggest example of the difference it makes... imagine if he played with the Habs till retirement and never went to the Avs.

I think those 2 cups (as well as a Smythe, post-season all star and 2 Jennings trophies) helped his legacy.