Eric Lindros arbitration in 1992

[jghockey]

What do you think would have happened to both the Flyers and the Rangers had the Rangers won the Lindros arbitration in 1992?

Click to read more...

 

[Boxscore]

As a Flyers fan, I've thought about this many times.

First, let's consider the rumored return from the Rangers was: Vanbiesbrouck, Amonte, Weight and Kovalev. This would have put a small dent in the Rangers forward depth, but it would not cripple them, considering they'd still have an elite core that featured Messier, Lindros, Leetch, Zubov, Graves and Richter.

I think the Rangers still win the Cup in 93-94 and possibly go on a 2-3 year run where they win at least another Cup, maybe two more if they trade well. Remember, this was pre-cap, so NY would still be a prime destination for all players looking to win, and with Messier, Lindros and Leetch in the fold, they would be a favorite for a long time.

In fact, I think the Rangers and Wings would end up battling each other for Cups. And, I think Lindros would give the Rangers the edge over the rival NJ Devils, based on his physicality.

The Flyers would be a tricky one. I think Forsberg would be a better fit for the Flyers long-term, assuming Lindros' career takes a similar path in terms of concussions etc. Forsberg was a great Flyer and that was at the end of his career - I could just imagine how great his prime career would have been in Philly with a core of Recchi, Brind'Amour, Renberg, Ricci, Duchesne, Simon, etc.

The Flyers were also a team willing to spend top dollar, and with Lindros going to the rival Rangers, there's no doubt in my mind the Flyers would continue to beef up and add pieces. However, I'm not so sure they would have lucked out with LeClair. I'm thinking Recchi would have been a great winger for Forsberg and I'm not convinced the Flyers would have traded him to Montreal for Desjardins and LeClair. However, if Clarke still made the trade, LeClair would have been just as beastly with Forsberg as he was with Lindros - maybe even more so, since Forsberg was a better passer.

As a Flyers fan, I would be very curious to see how the Flyers fared without Lindros, knowing how it turned out now. Lindros and Philly was bitter-sweet. It was great in the beginning, but once the injuries, drama, and pressure started to mount, it got ugly. I'd say the Flyers got 7 great years from Lindros but would have gotten more from Forsberg, without the drama. Not to mention, Mike Ricci was tailor made for Philly. So was Chris Simon, who would have given the Flyers a Dave Brown replacement, one who would be able to score 20 goals while being an icon in Orange & Black.

The Nordiques / Avalanche are the ones who get the shaft here in my opinion. For as good as those players were, none of them brought the same intangibles to the table that Forsberg did, and they would have been a very soft team. Kovalev, while talented, was very moody and inconsistent, especially early on. In addition, Vanbiesbrouck would have given the Avs a very solid goaltender, which could have completely taken them out of the market for Patrick Roy.

I think QUE/COL would have been a very talented team on paper, but I think the loss of Forsberg, Ricci and Simon hurt them overall, especially during the playoff wars.

 

[jghockey]

I agree with your assessment. Recchi would have played well with any center whether it be Brind'Amour or Forsberg. I remember in 2000, before Brind'Amour got traded to the Canes, he, Recchi, and Mikael Renberg played well on a line together.

Although, I think that the Avs would have traded to get Roy anyway. By 1995, he had won 2 Stanley Cups with the Habs, and the Avs needed his experience and attitude.

 

[McGarnagle]

Do you think they still hire Keenan to coach in 93-94 with Lindros? That sounds like a toxic combination to say the least.

I suspect the rangers do better in 92-93 and Neilson doesn't get fired - he had success with Lindros in Philly in the late 90s.

 

[CharlestownChiefsESC]

Do you think they still hire Keenan to coach in 93-94 with Lindros? That sounds like a toxic combination to say the least.

I suspect the rangers do better in 92-93 and Neilson doesn't get fired - he had success with Lindros in Philly in the late 90s.

Remember Keenan coached Lindros in the 91 Canada Cup. I dont know if there was any animosity if anyone does please chime in. The biggest difference in NY would have been his role. In Phillyt he was the go to center of attention. In NY Messier was the guy there would have been much less pressure on Lindros.

 

[jghockey]

Do you think they still hire Keenan to coach in 93-94 with Lindros? That sounds like a toxic combination to say the least.

I suspect the rangers do better in 92-93 and Neilson doesn't get fired - he had success with Lindros in Philly in the late 90s.

Probably. The relationship between Neilson and Messier was very toxic then. Also, it was not until the late 90s and that playoff disaster against the Sabres that Lindros began to appreciate defensive play.

 

[brachyrynchos]

Rangers would've had some depth with their centres if they got Lindros. Messier,Turcotte, and Nemchinov. Wing might've been a little weak: Graves, Gartner, Tikkanen, and Olcyk but Keenan probably still would've persuaded Smith to make some trades either way. NY kinda got shafted in pretty much having the Lindros trade made and then basically taken away. Maybe as mentioned, Lindros helps bring the Rangers more than the 94 cup and stays healthy.
Definitely agree with Boxscore in that Ricci was a 'Flyer' type of player, perhaps his career turns out better as a 2C and Forsberg's ends up different as well. Duchesne and Huffman were both good dmen, and Chris Simon's toughness and net presence could've helped Philly.
In my mind one of the major what ifs of the '90s, alot of interesting scenarios.

 

[jghockey]

I wonder how Neil Smith would have handled Lindros' parents....

 

[brachyrynchos]

I wonder how Neil Smith would have handled Lindros' parents....

How would Messier have handled being a 2C sooner than later?
I'd like to think that Neil Smith would've dealt with Carl reasonably. Smith while relatively somewhat wet behind the ears as a GM, worked under some good management and surroundings on Long Island and in Detroit, he wasn't a pushover. But then again, probably every party involved would've been unhappy one way or another which is too bad.

 

[The Panther]

The relationship between Neilson and Messier was very toxic then.

I wonder if that wasn't a bit over-played by the media at the time. Messier had worked with Neilson as early as the '84 playoffs, when the Oilers won the first Cup (and Mess MVP), and Messier actually thanked Neilson at his Hall of Fame induction speech, which surprised me. I'm sure it was a tough-love relationship in New York, but I'm not sure Messier had it in for him as much as was suggested.

Anyway, about Lindros in New York: I do think being under another star's (Messier's) shadow for a few years would have been just what Lindros needed, and was missing, in Philly. When Bob Clarke is running things (speaking of people who were hard on "We-didn't-ask-him-to-get-cancer" Neilson), I imagine it's not easy to be the franchise-savior at age 19, with the added pressure Lindros had from all the kerfuffle over his sitting out for a year, etc.

Conversely, would Forsberg have been as successful, and had as smooth an NHL-transition, without another superstar-type (Sakic) there to deflect attention from him?

 

[jghockey]

I always felt that Lindros was given too much responsibility too soon.

 

[Normand Lacombe]

I always felt that Lindros was given too much responsibility too soon.

That comes with the territory of being a once in a generational player who comes to a non-playoff team and Lindros acquitted himself nicely. Besides Recchi, Brind'Amour and Renberg, the Flyers didn't have much talent for Lindros' first two years. By his third year, Lindros was named captain and won the Hart and Pearson Trophies while leading the Flyers to the ECF.

 

[jghockey]

That comes with the territory of being a once in a generational player who comes to a non-playoff team and Lindros acquitted himself nicely. Besides Recchi, Brind'Amour and Renberg, the Flyers didn't have much talent for Lindros' first two years. By his third year, Lindros was named captain and won the Hart and Pearson Trophies while leading the Flyers to the ECF.

He was named captain too early. The Flyers coaches and management should have let Lindros to just do what he did best -- Just Play.

 

[Boxscore]

I always felt that Lindros was given too much responsibility too soon.

I agree. Lindros was on record at one point stating, "I just want to play hockey and be one of the guys." Being a captain in Philadelphia is different than some other cities. The Flyers were blessed with some excellent team leaders and captains - Clarke and Poulin immediately come to mind.

The problem was, Lindros never had the personality of a captain, because (and I've heard this from people who would know) he was never comfortable criticizing his teammates and when he forced himself to say something, it always came out awkward and uncomfortable. Eric also clinged very tightly to Keith Acton and Craig MacTavish when they were in Philly because they helped guide him.

Being a true captain was never really in Eric's DNA. He would have benefited by playing his entire career alongside a Messier or Shanahan where he could be Robin to their Batman and just lead on the ice through his play and physical intimidation.

I'm not saying that the Flyers couldn't win a Cup with Lindros wearing the C, however. But Eric probably wasn't the best choice for captain and a little less pressure could have helped him. The issue was that Clarke expected Lindros to be like him... just bigger, stronger and more skilled. That was unrealistic. Clarke was a rare breed.

 

[jghockey]

I agree. Lindros was on record at one point stating, "I just want to play hockey and be one of the guys." Being a captain in Philadelphia is different than some other cities. The Flyers were blessed with some excellent team leaders and captains - Clarke and Poulin immediately come to mind.

The problem was, Lindros never had the personality of a captain, because (and I've heard this from people who would know) he was never comfortable criticizing his teammates and when he forced himself to say something, it always came out awkward and uncomfortable. Eric also clinged very tightly to Keith Acton and Craig MacTavish when they were in Philly because they helped guide him.

Being a true captain was never really in Eric's DNA. He would have benefited by playing his entire career alongside a Messier or Shanahan where he could be Robin to their Batman and just lead on the ice through his play and physical intimidation.

I'm not saying that the Flyers couldn't win a Cup with Lindros wearing the C, however. But Eric probably wasn't the best choice for captain and a little less pressure could have helped him. The issue was that Clarke expected Lindros to be like him... just bigger, stronger and more skilled. That was unrealistic. Clarke was a rare breed.

Absolutely. Clarke, Mr. Snider, and the coaches should have allowed Lindros to just play hockey. No need to give Lindros any further leadership responsibilities that would wear him down and distract him from just playing hockey.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

In fact, I think the Rangers and Wings would end up battling each other for Cups. And, I think Lindros would give the Rangers the edge over the rival NJ Devils, based on his physicality.

I think the 1-2 punch of Messier - Lindros would have been really tough for the Devils. So much of their success was based on playing Scott Stevens against the other team's top threat - well, they couldn't very well match Stevens against both Messier and Lindros.

 

[jghockey]

Besides Stevens, the Devils had other defensemen who were more than capable of shutting down top offensive players. That's how good they were.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Since we're on the topic of Eric Lindros and trades that fell through, I didn't know there was a possibility of a three-way trade back in 2001, when Eric Lindros held out for a trade to get the hell out of Philadelphia.

https://nypost.com/2001/01/19/leafs-leadin-lindros-derby-3-way-deal-could-put-flyer-star-in-toronto/

As the Eric Lindros stalemate continues, it appears possible the Flyers, Leafs and Kings will work a three-way deal so the big headache ends up in Toronto.

The Kings are believed to have offered the Flyers Jozef Stumpel and Aki Berg for Lindros, a package that would probably interest Philly, but Lindros’ preference to play in Toronto has prevented the deal from being made.

As a restricted free agent, Lindros doesn’t have to sign anywhere he doesn’t want to go, and the Kings might find themselves in the same position that the Flyers have been in for months – stuck.

The Kings are believed ready to decide what to do about upcoming unrestricted defenseman Rob Blake, and the chances are decent that they would move him to the Flyers in a three-way, and not have to give up Stumpel and Berg. They could then ship Lindros on to Toronto, if they could get more from the Leafs than Jonas Hoglund.

 

[Randy Marsh]

In Philly. When Bob Clarke is running things (speaking of people who were hard on "We-didn't-ask-him-to-get-cancer" Neilson), I imagine it's not easy to be the franchise-savior at age 19, with the added pressure Lindros had from all the kerfuffle over his sitting out for a year, etc.

Conversely, would Forsberg have been as successful, and had as smooth an NHL-transition, without another superstar-type (Sakic) there to deflect attention from him?

Clarke didnt come back until 1994-95. Lindros was 22, won the Hart Trophy and got the team to the Conference Final.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

lindros’ first coach was bill dineen. he roomed lindros with his son, kevin, who was captain and charged with bringing the kid along. he lived with kevin dineen’s family at first too.

when clarke came back, dineen ceded the captaincy to lindros, which was the natural thing to do and which everyone involved must have expected to happen eventually.

 

[Schmee]

I agree with the post about Clarke wanting Lindros to be the Second Coming of ... Clarke. This was unfair to Lindros who was far from the extroverted sparkplug that was Clarke. If only Clarke had allowed Lindros to be Lindros.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

we're putting an awful lot of blame on bobby clarke in this thread. if anything, all of the bad things that made lindros' career less than what it could have been and probably a lot less happy than it should have been were because carl lindros wanted his son to be something other than what he was.

 

[jghockey]

Both sides were to blame. Although, the Lindroses were more to blame than the Flyers.