I know that's always been the story and I believe it. Don't get me wrong I am on Gretzky's side Pocklington is basically a criminal that never got caught. But if Wayne sees his contract running out if you truly want to stay on what was seemingly going to be a championship team forever wouldn't you have the foresight to get a deal done in 1986 or 1987? I have always questioned that. Or how about a home town discount to keep the team together? Remember when Ryan Smyth was crying like a little girl when he got traded from Edmonton and he and Kevin Lowe were reportedly $100,000 apart in negotiations? Gretzky's case reminds me a lot of that although I don't fault Gretzky like I do Smyth to that extent. I've just always thought that if heads were put together that Edmonton team would have never been dismantled.
There is more to it though. It's only that Pocklington was in desperate need of cash at that time. Gretzky's comment "I wanted to get paid what I was worth" holds a lot of water. In Net Worth, the author talks about the agent who got Dave Taylor a 7 year, $6 million deal. This would be early 80s. The agent was talking to Gretzky about it, and said "you make what Taylor makes." Gretzky's response: "I don't make half of what Taylor makes."
I really don't think a hometown discount would have been on the table in 1989 without 1982-87 having a different look salary wise. I think between 86 or 87 like you say, and the end of the 88 season, I think Gretzky's eyes were opened, and I don't mean Janet Jones. It started to come out what some other guys were making, and Gretzky, rightly so, knew that the only reason you pay guys more money is because they bring money into the franchise, and Gretzky was a guy that every team could have contributed to his salary.
I'm sure Gretzky would have let Edmonton match any offer, but he wasn't going to be the good little boy, and let the good of Pocklington override his own good. And just how big a hometown discount would he need to take to keep the other guys around? Coffey was already gone, and they didn't win in 86 when they should have. A bunch of other things could have happened to wreck the grand plan, and Gretzky should have signed for a half a million less a season(or greater than that) for what? He also said himself he knew he was trading away a great shot at a bunch more cups. I despise the fact, and the day, he got traded, because it marked the end of maybe the most fascinating on-ice product ever, certainly of my lifetime. But I hesitate to suggest a player should take a smaller salary for the "greater good." Too many other things can happen, and the player doesn't get the money he missed out on if those other things don't pan out.
Ryan Smith isn't close to an analogy frankly. A)Salaries are fully disclosed, and b)$100,000 suggests a Mike Keenan/Rangers situation, where both parties wanted to part ways, and tried to make it look like something other than that.