Impact of the Wayne Gretzky Trade

[blogofmike]

(Mods may feel free to merge with Ziggy's if content doesn't merit its own thread.)

In some thread some time ago I responded to QPQ and noted that the Canadiens as a team weren't impacted in terms of GF and GA when Doug Harbey was gone, or the Devils when Brodeur was gone. So on the (belated) anniversary of the Gretzky trade, I went to hockeyreference to see what happened to the Oilers and Kings when Gretzky left/arrived:

Year	OilersTmESGF	OilersTmESGA	NHL Avg	KingsESGF	KingsESGA
1986	321	218	224	206	270
1987	274	202	212	212	233
1988	252	191	195	204	249
1989	215	211	202	272	242
1990	209	195	208	251	235
1991	196	188	194	252	173
87-88 (2yrs)	526	393	407	416	482
89-90 (2yrs)	424	406	410	523	477

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Or if you prefer adjusted:

Year	OilersTmESGF	OilersTmESGA	NHL Avg	KingsESGF	KingsESGA
1986	287	195	200	184	241
1987	258	191	200	200	220
1988	258	196	200	209	255
1989	213	209	200	269	240
1990	201	188	200	241	226
1991	202	194	200	260	178
87-88 (2yrs)	258	193	200	204	237
89-90 (2yrs)	207	198	200	255	233

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Obviously there's lots of noise and Gretzky's teams aren't playing in a vacuum. Edmonton down by 51 adjusted and LA up by 51 adjusted is as much a coincidence as anything else. But I think he can take a fair bit of credit for impacting ES goal scoring.

Edmonton was #1 each year except 1988, when Calgary beat them by 10 ESGF (Gretzky missed 16 games). After the trade, Edmonton was 5th in 1989 and 11th in 1990. They were a good ES offense, but definitely part of the peloton, if you will. Jimmy Carson had a better ES year in Edmonton than LA (up to 65 from 59) tying for 8th in ES points in 1989 (he was 9th in 88.)

LA was 8th in ESGF in 1988, then spent 3 years at #1. Not to spoil anything, but when Gretzky goes from doubling Jeremy Roenick's ES point totals in 1991, to his post-Suter level of only beating JR by 5 ES points (instead of 52) the Kings fall from consistent leaders to average (9th) in 1992.

While every good player contributes something, and every player benefits from good teammates, it does seem that Wayne Gretzky was more of a point maker (creating more goals than others would have in a similar spot), than a point taker (getting points others could have gotten in a similarly plum role).

Click to read more...

 

[The Panther]

Ignoring for a moment the fact that Edmonton won the 1990 Stanley Cup and just looking at the regular season... Let's see the last five Gretzky years and the first five non-Gretzky years in Edmonton:
1984 - .744 (1st overall)
1985 - .681 (2nd overall)
1986 - .744 (1st overall)
1987 - .663 (1st overall)
1988 - .619 (3rd overall) [NOTE: .633 with Gretzky in the line-up]
(Gretzky traded)
1989 - .525 (8th overall)
1990 - .563 (5th overall)
1991 - .500 (11th overall)
1992 - .513 (12th overall)
1993 - .357 (20th overall)

However, the real impact of this trade on the city and team-culture of Edmonton cannot be measured in wins and losses. It was monumental and is still being felt and reacted to today.

As far as the hockey goes, yes, Edmonton won a wonderful (and surprising) championship in 1990 to complete the Dynasty (and partly cement Mark Messier's legacy), largely thanks to some outstanding leadership and canny trading by Glen Sather, as well as the "veteran poise" of the guys who remained. Had Winnipeg not blown a 3-1 lead in a playoff game with 20 minutes left, however, the Oilers' 1990 playoff would have ended in round one, just as it did in 1989 when Gretzky and the Kings put them down.

For L.A., there exists only the brief glimmer of the 1993 playoff run to justify their purchase of Gretzky. And that was an against-the-odds, last-gasp of a not-that-great team that was about to go completely down the drain the following season. If you look at the Kings' overall record from 1988-89 through, say, 1993-94, it's only marginally better than their overall record from about 1982-83 to 1987-88. Wayne was suddenly married with a baby on the way and had lots of things to distract him off-ice starting in 1988, while the Kings' management was completely inept and consistently failed to address the real issues the team had on the ice (the one issue they didn't have when they acquired Gretzky, ironically enough, was offense -- they were ranked 5th in 1988, before Gretzky arrived, and had some young stars on the rise).

A disaster trade for Edmonton, and a mixed-legacy one for L.A. This trade also had terrible repercussions on the NHL in general... but I won't get into that.

 

[Jets4Life]

For L.A., there exists only the brief glimmer of the 1993 playoff run to justify their purchase of Gretzky. And that was an against-the-odds, last-gasp of a not-that-great team that was about to go completely down the drain the following season. If you look at the Kings' overall record from 1988-89 through, say, 1993-94, it's only marginally better than their overall record from about 1982-83 to 1987-88. Wayne was suddenly married with a baby on the way and had lots of things to distract him off-ice starting in 1988, while the Kings' management was completely inept and consistently failed to address the real issues the team had on the ice (the one issue they didn't have when they acquired Gretzky, ironically enough, was offense -- they were ranked 5th in 1988, before Gretzky arrived, and had some young stars on the rise).

A disaster trade for Edmonton, and a mixed-legacy one for L.A. This trade also had terrible repercussions on the NHL in general... but I won't get into that.

Not really sure how to respond to this....Gretzky was the greatest player in the history of the game. Period. From 1980-87, no player was even close to him, until Lemieux emerged as a threat during and after the 1987 Canada Cup. Gretzky completely dominated the 1988 playoffs, and was the main reason the Oilers defeated the Flames, and went on to win their 4th Stanley Cup.

As for LA, Gretzky was not working with a all-star cast like he was in Edmonton, but still amazingly managed to improve the club by 23 points, and 58 goals. In spite of a slump during the 1989-90 season, the Kings were a far better club for the five seasons Gretzky played immediately after the trade. Just look at their playoff record, which is where Gretzky really shined. The 1983-88 Kings had 0 series wins, and only 2 playoff wins. With Gretzky from 1988-93, the Kings finished with 6 series wins, and 29 playoff wins.

Sadly Gretzky's back started to give out by 1993, but he was turning 33, and on the decline. However, minimizing Gretzky's accomplishments in LA is historical revisionism. Even if one did not care for Gretzky, nobody can argue that he was not the best player in the game, and during his run in LA (1988-96), him an Lemieux were still the two best forwards in the game.

I do not understand what having a new wife and child has to do with anything. As for "terrible repercussions," if growing the game in non-traditional markets, and making the Kings relevant for the first time in their history is bad, I am not sure what to say.

 

[jghockey]

The Oilers were justified in trading Gretzky. Wayne would have been a free agent in 1989, and the Oilers didn't have enough money to pay him fair market value. So, they had to trade him.

 

[The Panther]

Not really sure how to respond to this....Gretzky was the greatest player in the history of the game. Period. From 1980-87, no player was even close to him, until Lemieux emerged as a threat during and after the 1987 Canada Cup. Gretzky completely dominated the 1988 playoffs, and was the main reason the Oilers defeated the Flames, and went on to win their 4th Stanley Cup.

Agree with all of this.

As for LA, Gretzky was not working with a all-star cast like he was in Edmonton, but still amazingly managed to improve the club by 23 points, and 58 goals.

I don't disagree.

In spite of a slump during the 1989-90 season, the Kings were a far better club for the five seasons Gretzky played immediately after the trade.

I don't know about "far better". They had a good season (great, by improvement) in 1988-89 immediately after the trade, and a really good season two years later in 1990-91. 1989-90 was a disappointment (not helped by the Nicholls trade), 1991-92 was a disappointment, and 1992-93 looked like another so-so season until the unlikely playoff run. Beyond 1993 was a disaster.

Just look at their playoff record, which is where Gretzky really shined. The 1983-88 Kings had 0 series wins, and only 2 playoff wins. With Gretzky from 1988-93, the Kings finished with 6 series wins, and 29 playoff wins.

Yes, I agree. His being traded within his own division meant that Edmonton was suddenly way weakened, and Calgary was suddenly way better. Vancouver and Winnipeg also had better chances now.

Sadly Gretzky's back started to give out by 1993, but he was turning 33, and on the decline. However, minimizing Gretzky's accomplishments in LA is historical revisionism. Even if one did not care for Gretzky, nobody can argue that he was not the best player in the game, and during his run in LA (1988-96), him an Lemieux were still the two best forwards in the game.

Agree with all that (except his back actually started giving out in 1991.)

I do not understand what having a new wife and child has to do with anything.

My wife and I had our first child 9 days ago. I don't know if you have kids, but my experience so far is that this changes everything.

As for "terrible repercussions," if growing the game in non-traditional markets, and making the Kings relevant for the first time in their history is bad, I am not sure what to say.

The 'terrible repercussions' I refer to is not really to do with the L.A.Kings. Having said that, it's interesting to speculate what would have become of the Kings had Gretzky not been traded there. They were generally seen as a team on the rise by spring 1988, having made the playoffs two years in a row and with young Robitaille, Carson, Duschene, and (drafted) Blake in tow. If Gretzky had been traded later, or been traded to a non-Smythe division team, perhaps the Kings' would have had less immediate an impact but might have made waves anyway by the early 90s. We'll just never know. (Of course, it's extremely unlikely the franchise would have been in such good shape in terms of profile, etc., and McNall might never have been caught and gone to prison.)

 

[The Panther]

The Oilers were justified in trading Gretzky. Wayne would have been a free agent in 1989, and the Oilers didn't have enough money to pay him fair market value. So, they had to trade him.

Well, "the Oilers" didn't trade Wayne. Pocklington did. Trades had previously been the domain of the General Manager (as with every other team), but Sather didn't know about the trade until Pocklington told him on a hunting trip, at which point Sather tried to punch Pocklington.

The Oilers certainly didn't "have to" trade Gretzky in 1988. They certainly could have had at least one more season with him in 1988-89, and after that it's hard to say. Maybe Wayne could have stayed until 1991 or something like that. (Of course, the entire franchise got gutted in 1991 anyway.)

 

[streitz]

He wanted to go to cali and get paid. Live his celebrity lifestyle with his Hollwood wife. Mercenary move but he never won a cup afterward so I guess it's up to him if it was worth it or not.



As a Jets fan I had/have very mixed feelings to the trade. I was happy to see a weakened Oilers but then I realized even if I hated the Oil I'd rather see them win then untraditional markets where people don't give a crap about hockey.

 

[Jets4Life]

He wanted to go to cali and get paid. Live his celebrity lifestyle with his Hollwood wife. Mercenary move but he never won a cup afterward so I guess it's up to him if it was worth it or not.

There is absolutely no truth to this. Gretzky even wrote in his book that the Pocklington camp had given Gretzky a statement for the press, insinuating the trade was Janet's idea, which of course, we all know was BS. The incident made Gretzky irate.

Gretzky was content in Edmonton. Los Angeles was not the first team who tried to lure Gretzky away. In fact, it was Phil Esposito who tried to convince Rangers ownership to trade for Gretzky after getting the green light from Pocklington in secret negotiations. The Rangers ownership refused to pay the money Pocklington wanted, and the deal was scrapped. It was widely believed that Gretzky would end up with the Vancouver Canucks in the 1988 off-season, but for whatever reason, it did not pan out.

Either way, Gretzky really did not have a say in the matter. Pocklington was losing money due to his other business ventures that were failing, and wanted cash. He found Gretzky expendable.

 

[streitz]

There is absolutely no truth to this. Gretzky even wrote in his book that the Pocklington camp had given Gretzky a statement for the press, insinuating the trade was Janet's idea, which of course, we all know was BS. The incident made Gretzky irate.

Gretzky was content in Edmonton. Los Angeles was not the first team who tried to lure Gretzky away. In fact, it was Phil Esposito who tried to convince Rangers ownership to trade for Gretzky after getting the green light from Pocklington in secret negotiations. The Rangers ownership refused to pay the money Pocklington wanted, and the deal was scrapped. It was widely believed that Gretzky would end up with the Vancouver Canucks in the 1988 off-season, but for whatever reason, it did not pan out.

Either way, Gretzky really did not have a say in the matter. Pocklington was losing money due to his other business ventures that were failing, and wanted cash. He found Gretzky expendable.

Yeah no offense but I'm not gonna take the word of a guy who was writing autobiographies about himself in the middle of his career.

 

[Allan92]

Yeah no offense but I'm not gonna take the word of a guy who was writing autobiographies about himself in the middle of his career.

You're absolutely right There's just nothing else written about Gretzky.

His autobiography is the only source of information regarding the trade.

 

[The Panther]

Gretzky was content in Edmonton. Los Angeles was not the first team who tried to lure Gretzky away. In fact, it was Phil Esposito who tried to convince Rangers ownership to trade for Gretzky after getting the green light from Pocklington in secret negotiations. The Rangers ownership refused to pay the money Pocklington wanted, and the deal was scrapped. It was widely believed that Gretzky would end up with the Vancouver Canucks in the 1988 off-season, but for whatever reason, it did not pan out.

This is fairly correct, I think.

No doubt Gretzky was keen to find out how much he was worth in a free-market, and he knew the Oilers couldn't pay him (or Messier, Kurri, Anderson, Fuhr, Coffey...who'd already departed) what they were actually worth. So yeah it was inevitable that he would depart at some point, esp. with the free-agency situation opening up in the 90s, but he should have left under terms akin to Messier's, not in the messy and fairly ridiculous way it happened.

You are right on the money with the word "secret negotiations". That is exactly what made Gretzky so irate and pushed his hand. When he found out (c. end of May '88) that Pocklington had been wheeling and dealing his name like a piece of meat behind his back for months, he was pissed. And understandably so. The guy had been probably the greatest performer in hockey history, putting the team and city on the map, while being consistently underpaid and while doing 'extra-curricular' duties for Pocklington (like embarrassing public appearances to support Pocklington's embarrassing candidacy for Conservative Party ticket).

Gretzky pushed back in summer '88 to get some control over the situation and eased up McNall's road to buying him, but Pocklington was the architect of this whole thing. And it was disgusting.

I don't know if people who weren't experiencing that at the time can appreciate how terrible it was to Edmonton and the whole community of Oilers' fans. Edmonton was (and is) a small city and the Oilers' stars were an integral part of the whole community. You'd see them at pubs and practicing at West Edmonton Mall while you shopped. Gretzky was the kingpin of all this and was the prince of the city. There were seniors in Edmonton who thought of him as their grandson. The Oilers' rise and Wayne's stardom were in accord with the Province of Alberta's rise in economic power in Canada -- never before had a central/west province challenged the East in economic terms, and never before had an NHL team west of Chicago won the Cup.

Then, in one 30-minute press conference on a sunny August day, Gretzky was gone forever, sold like commerce to pay off Pocklington's bill for his sausage company. To make matters worse, he was sold to a divisional rival of the Oilers.

There is no comparison with anything in sports, really, but imagine Pittsburgh if Mario had been suddenly sold in 1992... to Philadelphia, where he would then spend many seasons playing regularly regular season and playoffs against the Pens. Imagine Mario in a Flyers' uniform scoring big goals against a depressed Pittsburgh club. I mean, imagine that.


Sigh...

 

[VanIslander]

The Gretzky trade was great for Messier and Tikkanen, though it took a year of depression before they woke up and kickstarted the latter half of their careers.

 

[Fourier]

Ignoring for a moment the fact that Edmonton won the 1990 Stanley Cup and just looking at the regular season... Let's see the last five Gretzky years and the first five non-Gretzky years in Edmonton:
1984 - .744 (1st overall)
1985 - .681 (2nd overall)
1986 - .744 (1st overall)
1987 - .663 (1st overall)
1988 - .619 (3rd overall) [NOTE: .633 with Gretzky in the line-up]
(Gretzky traded)
1989 - .525 (8th overall)
1990 - .563 (5th overall)
1991 - .500 (11th overall)
1992 - .513 (12th overall)
1993 - .357 (20th overall)

However, the real impact of this trade on the city and team-culture of Edmonton cannot be measured in wins and losses. It was monumental and is still being felt and reacted to today.

As far as the hockey goes, yes, Edmonton won a wonderful (and surprising) championship in 1990 to complete the Dynasty (and partly cement Mark Messier's legacy), largely thanks to some outstanding leadership and canny trading by Glen Sather, as well as the "veteran poise" of the guys who remained. Had Winnipeg not blown a 3-1 lead in a playoff game with 20 minutes left, however, the Oilers' 1990 playoff would have ended in round one, just as it did in 1989 when Gretzky and the Kings put them down.

For L.A., there exists only the brief glimmer of the 1993 playoff run to justify their purchase of Gretzky. And that was an against-the-odds, last-gasp of a not-that-great team that was about to go completely down the drain the following season. If you look at the Kings' overall record from 1988-89 through, say, 1993-94, it's only marginally better than their overall record from about 1982-83 to 1987-88. Wayne was suddenly married with a baby on the way and had lots of things to distract him off-ice starting in 1988, while the Kings' management was completely inept and consistently failed to address the real issues the team had on the ice (the one issue they didn't have when they acquired Gretzky, ironically enough, was offense -- they were ranked 5th in 1988, before Gretzky arrived, and had some young stars on the rise).

A disaster trade for Edmonton, and a mixed-legacy one for L.A. This trade also had terrible repercussions on the NHL in general... but I won't get into that.

It wasn't even really a trade. It was step one in Pocklington's desperate attempt to keep his house cards from collapsing. As you say the consequences for the city were immense.

 

[Normand Lacombe]

The Oilers were justified in trading Gretzky. Wayne would have been a free agent in 1989, and the Oilers didn't have enough money to pay him fair market value. So, they had to trade him.

There is not any justification to trading the greatest player of all time. Pocklington should have sold the team before trading/selling Gretzky.

 

[streitz]

Fluff pieces aside Gretzky was always trying to sell his image. "Growing the game" To audiences in California who don't care about hockey.


He suited cali perfectly, and it was perfect for him.

 

[Jets4Life]

Fluff pieces aside Gretzky was always trying to sell his image. "Growing the game" To audiences in California who don't care about hockey.

Tickets to the Great Western Forum became white hot shortly after Gretzky arrived. The Gretzky trade made it possible for other non-traditional markets like Anaheim, Florida, and San Jose to pony up the expansion fees for a franchise. Gretzky put NHL hockey on the radar in California and the West Coast.

 

[streitz]

Gretzky put NHL hockey on the radar in California and the West Coast.

Why is that a good thing?






If you're telling me Gretzky is responsible for that my feelings toward him might turn from mild dislike to hatred.

 

[Jets4Life]

Why is that a good thing?






If you're telling me Gretzky is responsible for that my feelings toward him might turn from mild dislike to hatred.

Why is having three successful NHL teams in California (which has more people than Canada), a bad thing?

 

[streitz]

Why is having three successful NHL teams in California (which has more people than Canada), a bad thing?

Because the type of people in California are the type of people who've complained about hockey and ruined it. Unless your satisfied with the passionless defensive hockey today, next to no hitting,no scoring, ice girls and cheerleaders. Yeah the NHL has improved so much with more and more americanisms and sunbelt franchises.


Also because IMO the NHL is vastly over expanded, there should be only 20 or max 24 teams in the league. During the 90's expansion caused weaker teams to start trapping due to a lack of talent in the league. Same thing happened in the 70's with the rise of the goon in the NHL and especially the WHA.

 

[Jets4Life]

Because the type of people in California are the type of people who've complained about hockey and ruined it. Unless your satisfied with the passionless defensive hockey today, next to no hitting,no scoring, ice girls and cheerleaders. Yeah the NHL has improved so much with more and more americanisms and sunbelt franchises.

Can you prove proof that expanding the NHL into southern US market, and the changes to the game in the last 25 years are somehow correlated?

Also because IMO the NHL is vastly over expanded, there should be only 20 or max 24 teams in the league. During the 90's expansion caused weaker teams to start trapping due to a lack of talent in the league. Same thing happened in the 70's with the rise of the goon in the NHL and especially the WHA.

That's not necessarily true. Edmonton Oilers of the 80s were one of the teams to deploy the "Neutral Zone Trap." One can make a valid argument that with the fall of the Iron Curtain, and the influx of players from Russia and Eastern Europe (not to mention more players in the NHL from Scandinavia and the USA), it more than compensated for the increase of franchises (from 21 to 26) during the early 90s.

 

[streitz]

Protecting a lead with a trap late in the game= playing an entire game without forechecking ala 1990's Devils/panthers/half the teams in the league.

 

[Johnny Engine]

Because the type of people in California are the type of people who've complained about hockey and ruined it. Unless your satisfied with the passionless defensive hockey today, next to no hitting,no scoring, ice girls and cheerleaders. Yeah the NHL has improved so much with more and more americanisms and sunbelt franchises.

The people who have complained about the NHL's physical game and asked for it to change most are people like Ken Dryden, Mario Lemieux and Eric Lindros. The people that have fostered the defensive side of the game most are not only the game's best minds - Bowman, Hitchcock - but also the thousands of coaches through every level of the game that have kids thinking strategically years before they need to. The people who have pushed the game's marketing to invasive extremes are the owners themselves, and there's no world in which they'd be happy with keeping your dollar when there are two other people who haven't seen a game before.

The game has always had flaws, and it has evolved because it needed to, and not because of "people in California" who are somehow different than you and like dumb sports on TV because reasons.

 

[streitz]

The people who have complained about the NHL's physical game and asked for it to change most are people like Ken Dryden, Mario Lemieux and Eric Lindros. The people that have fostered the defensive side of the game most are not only the game's best minds - Bowman, Hitchcock - but also the thousands of coaches through every level of the game that have kids thinking strategically years before they need to. The people who have pushed the game's marketing to invasive extremes are the owners themselves, and there's no world in which they'd be happy with keeping your dollar when there are two other people who haven't seen a game before.

The game has always had flaws, and it has evolved because it needed to, and not because of "people in California" who are somehow different than you and like dumb sports on TV because reasons.

Yeah I read about Lindros wanting physical contact out of hockey, if you're trying to use that as some type of valid argument(assume you watched him play in the 90's) that pretty much kills all the rest of your credibility.
Dave Schultz in his book wrote fighting should be banned, dumb meatheads will say whatever makes them money, doesn't make them right.

No idea about Dryden, Lemieux can say whatever he wants, of course this is also a guy who won championships with Ulf Samuelsson on his blue line and employed Matt Cooke.


Bowman coached defensive hockey but not boring hockey, hence why the wings were one of the only exciting teams of the 90's, again not sure why you're listing him with Hitchcock who ran an even more boring system then lemaire

 

[Iron Mike Sharpe]

Why is that a good thing?
If you're telling me Gretzky is responsible for that my feelings toward him might turn from mild dislike to hatred.

Yup, I'm with you. I think they should contract the league & pull out of the US save for the "Original 4" American teams & put franchises in Quebec City, Hamilton, Saskatoon, Halifax, Windsor, St. John's, Moncton, Sudbury and Fort Mac; ban helmets & masks, even for goaltenders; roll back salaries to the average median Canadian income of $70,000; make Don Cherry league president; send all them namby-pamby Europeans back to Europia so hardworking Canadian boys can have jobs again; American teams can only employ American players; make fighting mandatory; ban all music from arenas except grannies playing oversize pump organs.

"Old time hockey - like Eddie Shore!"

 

[streitz]

Yup, I'm with you. I think they should contract the league & pull out of the US save for the "Original 4" American teams & put franchises in Quebec City, Hamilton, Saskatoon, Halifax, Windsor, St. John's, Moncton, Sudbury and Fort Mac; ban helmets & masks, even for goaltenders; roll back salaries to the average median Canadian income of $70,000; make Don Cherry league president; send all them namby-pamby Europeans back to Europia so hardworking Canadian boys can have jobs again; American teams can only employ American players; make fighting mandatory; ban all music from arenas except grannies playing oversize pump organs.

"Old time hockey - like Eddie Shore!"

There's a line between a gong shot ala slapshot and the no hitting league we have today.


I also don't have problems franchises in us cities where they actually play hockey/watch/care about hockey aside from just bandwagon support when their team happens to be doing well.


You'll never see me complain about the Flyers, Sabres, Minnesota(who also stupidly lost their team in the 90's) ect.