Hockey's Biggest "What if"?

[DannyGallivan]

Not on paper though. It was rather Canada who would have much more impressive teams later on, when you look at the names.

Canada has always had the most impressive names because, well...Canada.

I guess that's my point. The Soviets were scary, efficient, talented and during the 70's and 80's mostly unknown. But Canada always had the greater depth, the greater "overall" talent, and was just overall better. Not necessarily by a lot at the forward position, but they were/are better.

 

[bobholly39]

Again, I don't know about that. Lemieux had two consecutive Conn Smythe trophies and was a his usual point-producing self in the playoffs.

Give Lemieux full health and his playoff record doesn't change a whole lot. His regular season? yes it changes a LOT. But what truly changes for Lemieux in the playoffs? I mean i suppose it's not impossible he helps Pens win another cup in the 90s but most of the cup winners in the 1990s are VERY strong teams, and suggesting more success for Lemieux there is wild speculation. Lemieux's teams failures in the playoffs in the 80s is something he never overcomes to get close to Gretzky in playoffs.

Even 91 and 92 - You can argue Gretzky has at least 3 better playoffs than either of those. So it's not like they close the gap.

no I think Gretzky is untouchable in playoffs. Maybe if Lemieux had played for a better team he could have had more success - but you can say that of every player in history so i think that's becoming a reach. And mostly - I actually give Gretzky more credit than most people for the Oiler's playoff success. I don't think it's fair to say "well he played on a dynasty so of course success". I think Gretzky was such a huge component of turning those guys (Messier, Kurri, Coffey) into the players they became.

So in this what if scenario of perfect health for Lemieux, the end result becomes:

Regular season advantage - still Gretzky, but much closer (with possibility of edge to Lemieux in some single seasons)
Playoffs - net advantage Gretzky

 

[DannyGallivan]

Give Lemieux full health and his playoff record doesn't change a whole lot. His regular season? yes it changes a LOT. But what truly changes for Lemieux in the playoffs? I mean i suppose it's not impossible he helps Pens win another cup in the 90s but most of the cup winners in the 1990s are VERY strong teams, and suggesting more success for Lemieux there is wild speculation. Lemieux's teams failures in the playoffs in the 80s is something he never overcomes to get close to Gretzky in playoffs.

Even 91 and 92 - You can argue Gretzky has at least 3 better playoffs than either of those. So it's not like they close the gap.

no I think Gretzky is untouchable in playoffs. Maybe if Lemieux had played for a better team he could have had more success - but you can say that of every player in history so i think that's becoming a reach. And mostly - I actually give Gretzky more credit than most people for the Oiler's playoff success. I don't think it's fair to say "well he played on a dynasty so of course success". I think Gretzky was such a huge component of turning those guys (Messier, Kurri, Coffey) into the players they became.

So in this what if scenario of perfect health for Lemieux, the end result becomes:

Regular season advantage - still Gretzky, but much closer (with possibility of edge to Lemieux in some single seasons)
Playoffs - net advantage Gretzky

Overall perhaps... except in '91 and '92.
And the question remains... why Gretzky - 1 Conn Smythe; Mario - 2 Conn Smythes?

 

[bobholly39]

Overall perhaps... except in '91 and '92.
And the question remains... why Gretzky - 1 Conn Smythe; Mario - 2 Conn Smythes?

Gretzky has 2 conn smythes not 1 - but he should have 4 (well I think he should have 5 actually)

Gretzky was the most valuable player in each of the Oiler's run to the cup - and to suggest otherwise is ludicrous. I get the idea of giving it to Messier because he was different/unexpected/better than his normal self and all of that - but still in a vacuum, Gretzky was more valuable than Messier in 84.
And Gretzky again in 87.
And even in 83 in a losing cause he could have won.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Gretzky has 2 conn smythes not 1 - but he should have 4 (well I think he should have 5 actually)

Gretzky was the most valuable player in each of the Oiler's run to the cup - and to suggest otherwise is ludicrous. I get the idea of giving it to Messier because he was different/unexpected/better than his normal self and all of that - but still in a vacuum, Gretzky was more valuable than Messier in 84.
And Gretzky again in 87.
And even in 83 in a losing cause he could have won.

Huge apology...forgot Gretzky and Mario are tied with Conn Smythes. Unforgivable.
However, your point about "coulda shoulda woulda" when it comes to how many CS's you think Wayne should have proves just how subjective the award (like the Hart, maybe even more so) is.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

What if Gretzky had to enter the NHL draft in 1980?

The Canadiens had the #1 pick...

Gretzky would have been in the 1979 draft, as this was the year 18 year olds were allowed to be drafted. The Rockies had the #1 pick. Don Cherry would have been Wayne's first coach. The Oilers' chances of being accepted into the NHL are probably reduced. NHL hockey probably survives in Denver. Do the Nordiques end up somewhere else?

 

[streitz]

Give Lemieux full health and his playoff record doesn't change a whole lot.

Well I think Mario could of won anywhere from 1-4 more cups in 93-94-95-96 if he had been at 100% any of those years. 96 is the least likely.



There has never been a player as Dominant as Mario during the 92 playoffs, and that's a fact.

 

[Iapyi]

I always wondered what could have been if Grant Rintoul wouldn't have had the misfortunes he had when he was so young.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Well I think Mario could of won anywhere from 1-4 more cups in 93-94-95-96 if he had been at 100% any of those years. 96 is the least likely.



There has never been a player as Dominant as Mario during the 92 playoffs, and that's a fact.

Wayne in 85...17-30-47 in 18 games

 

[streitz]

Wayne in 85...17-30-47 in 18 games

Playing against much weaker teams in a higher scoring era.

 

[bobholly39]

Huge apology...forgot Gretzky and Mario are tied with Conn Smythes. Unforgivable.
However, your point about "coulda shoulda woulda" when it comes to how many CS's you think Wayne should have proves just how subjective the award (like the Hart, maybe even more so) is.

I mean hart and smythe are certainly subjective. But just saying that doesn't equate Gretzky's playoffs to Lemieux's.

Gretzky has arguably 6 smythe worthy runs. Roy was better in 93 so no issues there. But Gretzky i believe was the best performer the other 5x - and certainly with the 4 cup wins - and i think he should have more.

The hart is subjective. For example i 100% think Lemieux should have won in 89. Just as Gretzky should have won the Pearson in 86 (215 points to 141 for Lemieux). So yeah - you sometimes get weird results on awards which are voted on.

But it's still 6 significant cup final runs for Gretzky where he could have been the MVP in all of them vs 2 for Lemieux. And even outside of those cup runs (6-2) - Gretzky still has arguably the better playoff record. And even with Lemieux's best 2 runs - Gretzky arguably has 2 (or even 3?) individual runs who may be better. I love Lemieux and think he's awesome but Gretzky simply has the much better playoff record.

Well I think Mario could of won anywhere from 1-4 more cups in 93-94-95-96 if he had been at 100% any of those years. 96 is the least likely.



There has never been a player as Dominant as Mario during the 92 playoffs, and that's a fact.

I mean anything is possible but:

1994 Rangers
1995 Devils
1996 Avs

They're all very strong cup winners. I just don't see it.

in 1996 Lemieux was fully healthy and they lost fair and square to Florida in round 3.
In 1993 Lemieux and pens got beaten by an underdog NYI. I'm sure Lemieux wasn't 100% due to lingering issues that year - but it's also the year he scored 160 points in 60 games, so it's not like he wasn't near the top of his ability. The pens lost fair and square, and it's not attributable to Lemieux's health.
1994 - Lemieux played in the playoffs that year and they still lost in round 1.

It's one thing to argue that with better health Lemieux individually would have done a lot better. But i'm not ready to make the leap to say it would have led to more team success (ie cups). I think that's a big jump.

 

[blood gin]

Playing against much weaker teams in a higher scoring era.

Gretzky was that much better than his peers. Those are astronomical numbers that can't be minimized. And every team Edmonton played in the playoffs that year were over .500. They played a 113 points Flyers team and took them out in 5. Gretzky had 7 goals and 11 points.

 

[VMBM]

Fact: Canada not only had to fend off the pesky Soviets, but they also had to beat the best the other countries had to offer. Comrades often like to forget how good the Czechs were in the 70's.

That is downright ridiculous (if it was directed at me).

Canada has always had the most impressive names because, well...Canada.

No, I meant that compared to the 1972 Team Canada, there were a lot of more impressive Canadian teams on paper later on... and yet they struggled to beat the Soviets just the same.

 

[ForsbergForever]

What if the original WHA merger proposal had been approved in the summer of '77? The Houston Aeros and Cincinnati Stingers would have joined and all WHA teams would have kept their rosters intact. A lot of careers would have been altered, with the youngest crop of stars having to stay in juniors 1-2 years longer, including all the baby Bulls, Messier, and Gretzky, therefore no Oilers dynasty.

 

[sawchuk1971]

what if terry sawchuk lived? would he played in the 1970-71 season? as ranger or blues?

 

[DowntownBooster]

What if the original WHA merger proposal had been approved in the summer of '77? The Houston Aeros and Cincinnati Stingers would have joined and all WHA teams would have kept their rosters intact. A lot of careers would have been altered, with the youngest crop of stars having to stay in juniors 1-2 years longer, including all the baby Bulls, Messier, and Gretzky, therefore no Oilers dynasty.

This has to be one of the biggest "What if" questions that I always think about. Had that actually occurred, it would definitely have altered the course of hockey history as we know it. For me as a Jets fan, it would have been awesome to have seen the Hot Line of Bobby Hull, Anders Hedberg and Ulf Nilsson play together in the NHL. Had the Jets joined the NHL at that time, both Hedberg and Nilsson would have remained with the Jets instead of leaving for the New York Rangers following the 1977-78 season since the decision to leave was based on the fact they wanted the opportunity to play in the NHL. Had they stayed with the Jets, it probably would have also lengthened the career of Bobby Hull who retired after 4 games into the 1978-79 season. The team was also approaching its zenith as far as having their best lineup which was to include Kent Nilsson in 1977-78. It was also that season which would see the Jets defeat the Soviet national team on January 5 in what was likely the most entertaining game ever played in the Winnipeg Arena. Another positive for the Jets if they had joined the NHL in 1977 would be that they would likely have kept the WHA style of uniforms instead changing to the awful looking ones of the 1980s since John Ferguson was not the GM at the time (he was still GM of the Rangers and they were the ones wearing those uniforms).

 

[FerrisRox]

What happens if Tim Kerr had more then 1 shoulder during the 1986-87 finals against Edmonton? Instead of the Oilers winning in 7 games, do the Flyers win in 6?

No.

 

[RipCityPuckers]

What if today's NHL rules were in place during the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's? And the inverse, what if the rules from those eras were the same today?

What if Gary Bettman was never named NHL commissioner?

What if Gretzky was never traded to the Kings? (Not just the impact this would've had on the Oilers but the impact it would've had on the Kings, the city of LA, and NHL west coast expansion in general)

 

[Normand Lacombe]

What if Bobby Orr rejected Boston and signed with either Detroit, Montreal or Toronto as a youth?

 

[whcanuck]

What if Lindros' shot goes inside the post in the '98 Olympic shootout against Hasek and Roy stops Reichel? Would Canada go on to win gold and the whole dramatic Salt Lake victory is never-to-be?

 

[Drytoast]

What if bettman wasnt the commisioner?

 

[Drytoast]

Problem with Denis Lemieux was he was too mentally soft. When he was backstopping a goon team who could clear the crease he was serviceable but very mentally fragile. Sort of like Charlie Conway, just too mentally soft for the big leagues.

Denis lemieux? The slapshot goalie!?!

 

[streitz]

Denis lemieux? The slapshot goalie!?!

Yeah, slapshots usually went right by him...

 

[Drytoast]

Yeah, slapshots usually went right by him...

Trade me right f***ing now.


then hang up.

 

[BobbyAwe]

Being a Bruin's fan, my "what if's" are always concerned with Boston players who succumbed to the "Boston Knee" like Orr/Kluzak/Thelven/Neely (well, "hip" on Neely but close) and those really tragic stories like Normand Leveille and Jonathon Girard. Orr and Neely are not big question marks because we KNOW what they would have done - have more great seasons. We just don't know how many more? But Kluzak/Thelven/Leveille/Girard had "never realized" potential, especially Leveille.

Is it just because I'm a Bruin fan that I feel Boston has had more sad stories like this than MOST teams? (there are a few I am forgetting too I think?)

P.S. - I just remembered Barry Pederson and Sergei Samsonov whose careers weren't necessarily cut short with an injury, but who sustained physical problems in the first few years which it seems hampered them from then on? (Pederson's arm tumor and Samsonov's wrist?) It's impossible to tell how much better they would have been, but I think the answer would have at least been "SOMEWHAT better?