Larry Murphy Trades

[GMR]

Has any Hall of Famer been traded more often? Five times by my count.

Also, did any of those trades make sense, even at the time?

Click to read more...

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

ciccarelli + rouse for gartner + murphy feels like a defensible overpay for more grit

i have asked many times about jim johnson and chris dahlquist for murphy and afaict it has never made sense to anyone ever

those, plus toronto giving him away to detroit, are the ones i remember. murphy to toronto for dmitri mironov i feel like happened under the radar and i didn't even notice it at the time.

too young to remember the first one, but that feels like LA picking up two guys with good pedigrees whose careers fell off cliffs immediately after. engblom was only a year removed from being a second team all-star in montreal, two years removed from leading the league in +/-, and was viewed as a defensive ace and key culture changer in that big washington turnaround year. ken houston was a good offensive defenceman who in the previous seven years averaged 45 points and 90 PIMs.

but i think the moral of the story is larry murphy was a big guy who couldn't skate and didn't apply himself physically. so you can see why every time he was traded before the toronto debacle a 100+ PIM defenceman went the other way.

 

[MadLuke]

Paul Coffey, 7 times:

Paul Coffey trades - NHL Trade Tracker

 

[seventieslord]

I can't see a single way it would make sense to trade Murphy for Dimitri Mironov. I also can't see how it made sense to give him away to Detroit. It was the trade deadline - make a contender pay you something for the guy. I remember being happy to just lose him and get younger as a team, but in retrospect, who does that anymore? Even a broken down Mark Streit was worth something at the deadline, and this was Larry Freaking Murphy.

The Johnson and Dahlquist thing was crazy but at least is was a 2-for-1. In retrospect you clearly lose, selling a Murphy and Gartner for Ciccarelli and Rouse, but at the time it would have looked like a prety fair hockey trade.

edit: oops! taglianetti was there too. So this just makes no sense at all. Johnson was a 19-20 minute guy in his prime. Taglianetti 18, and Dahlquist 18. it would make some sense trading any of those three guys one-for-one, but throw in a #1 defenseman for a second #4 guy? nonsense.

the first trade, for Houston and Engblom at least makes some sense. A simple, defensive guy who made the 2nd all-star team 2 years ago, and a tough middle six forward with upside, seems about fair for an offensive #1-2 defenseman. At the time, Engblom was just as heavily used and relied on as Murphy was, just without the PP upside, and was 6 years older.

 

[Iron Mike Sharpe]

ken houston was a good offensive defenceman who in the previous seven years averaged 45 points and 90 PIMs.

Ken Houston didn't play D at all in the NHL, he played right wing - he was like Wendel Clark and was converted to wing in training camp. He was listed on rosters in guide books and on hockey cards for years as a defenseman, but I don't recall him ever playing D at all.

 

[seventieslord]

Ken Houston didn't play D at all in the NHL, he played right wing - he was like Wendel Clark and was converted to wing in training camp. He was listed on rosters in guide books and on hockey cards for years as a defenseman, but I don't recall him ever playing D at all.

you are right, this is pretty obvious from checking out his estimated ice time throughout the seventies and eighties as well

 

[tony d]

Murphy was a very talented player but looking at some of the returns on his trades, they're mainly underwhelming returns.

 

[Chili]

Murphy was the best I saw at keeping the puck in the zone. He stayed close to the boards and used his body and stick to knock down attempted clearouts.

The Minnesota- Pittsburgh trade was interesting because they surprisingly faced each other in the finals later that year.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Ken Houston didn't play D at all in the NHL, he played right wing - he was like Wendel Clark and was converted to wing in training camp. He was listed on rosters in guide books and on hockey cards for years as a defenseman, but I don't recall him ever playing D at all.

oops, i never knew that. anyhow, another tougher customer traded for quiet, unpunishing murphy.

 

[GMR]

Paul Coffey, 7 times:

Paul Coffey trades - NHL Trade Tracker

Oh that's right. I forgot his last few years in the league where he played for seemingly every team.

 

[Big Phil]

I can't see a single way it would make sense to trade Murphy for Dimitri Mironov. I also can't see how it made sense to give him away to Detroit. It was the trade deadline - make a contender pay you something for the guy. I remember being happy to just lose him and get younger as a team, but in retrospect, who does that anymore? Even a broken down Mark Streit was worth something at the deadline, and this was Larry Freaking Murphy.

The Johnson and Dahlquist thing was crazy but at least is was a 2-for-1. In retrospect you clearly lose, selling a Murphy and Gartner for Ciccarelli and Rouse, but at the time it would have looked like a prety fair hockey trade.

I never liked how Leaf fans did this but Murphy was heavily booed that entire year. I have no idea why. A future HHOF defenseman who would eventually add more to his legacy getting booed? Yes it was a terrible team in Toronto and I guess someone had to take some of the brunt and the fans figured his salary was more than he was worth, I guess. I just didn't like it, it made me aggravated when they did this.

But the trade with Mironov was in 1995. It was when Murphy went from Pittsburgh to Toronto. The Toronto to Detroit trade in 1997 was just "future considerations." That was much worse. I can get why other teams feel they have the edge if they know the Leafs are desperate to unload Murphy based on the fan reaction, but what the heck did they even get back for him? Murphy had a 61 point season the year before. Insane. I don't know if we even got anyone back. I remember Murphy taking a shot at Toronto during the Cup celebration in Detroit in 1997. Why wouldn't he?

Not sure why Pittsburgh traded him though. With all he had done in those Cup years and he had just been a 2nd team all-star in 1995. They get rid of him and then Ulfie is part of a trade to get Zubov. Imagine a pretty decent defense in Pittsburgh post-1995 with Murphy and Zubov and even Ulfie still there. I think that helps push the 1996 Pens into at least the Cup final. Their defense wouldn't be weak at least.

 

[Hobnobs]

I can't see a single way it would make sense to trade Murphy for Dimitri Mironov. I also can't see how it made sense to give him away to Detroit. It was the trade deadline - make a contender pay you something for the guy. I remember being happy to just lose him and get younger as a team, but in retrospect, who does that anymore? Even a broken down Mark Streit was worth something at the deadline, and this was Larry Freaking Murphy.

The Johnson and Dahlquist thing was crazy but at least is was a 2-for-1. In retrospect you clearly lose, selling a Murphy and Gartner for Ciccarelli and Rouse, but at the time it would have looked like a prety fair hockey trade.

edit: oops! taglianetti was there too. So this just makes no sense at all. Johnson was a 19-20 minute guy in his prime. Taglianetti 18, and Dahlquist 18. it would make some sense trading any of those three guys one-for-one, but throw in a #1 defenseman for a second #4 guy? nonsense.

the first trade, for Houston and Engblom at least makes some sense. A simple, defensive guy who made the 2nd all-star team 2 years ago, and a tough middle six forward with upside, seems about fair for an offensive #1-2 defenseman. At the time, Engblom was just as heavily used and relied on as Murphy was, just without the PP upside, and was 6 years older.

I never got the hate Toronto had for Murphy. Was it just his contract?

 

[Tarantula]

I never got the hate Toronto had for Murphy. Was it just his contract?

No, Murphy was not particularly a defensive stalwart. Fans in Washington also heckled him during his first years in the league. As skilled as Murphy was he sure would make some bad looking plays defensively. Once the booing started his play seemed to be more mistake prone.

It wasn't just Toronto where he had distractors. When the Leafs went to Washington the first year with Murphy fans kept blowing a whoop whistle that was given away that night. The Capitals faithful brought them back for the next visit, and a chorus of whoop whistles would follow whenever he touched the puck.

While I think he got too much whipping boy blame in Toronto I still don't see how he gets as much love as he does on these boards. He could be a liability defensively and a costly one at times at that. Wasn't a physical D man, TBH, he may have been better suited for today's game, good passer, skater. His D shortcomings would not be as egregious today.

 

[seventieslord]

But the trade with Mironov was in 1995. It was when Murphy went from Pittsburgh to Toronto.

You know I know this, right?

I never got the hate Toronto had for Murphy. Was it just his contract?

He was seen as a turnstile. I mean, he was, but so was every Leaf that season. I don't think people cared that much about his contract, it was the wild west back then with no cap.

No, Murphy was not particularly a defensive stalwart. Fans in Washington also heckled him during his first years in the league. As skilled as Murphy was he sure would make some bad looking plays defensively. Once the booing started his play seemed to be more mistake prone.

It wasn't just Toronto where he had distractors. When the Leafs went to Washington the first year with Murphy fans kept blowing a whoop whistle that was given away that night. The Capitals faithful brought them back for the next visit, and a chorus of whoop whistles would follow whenever he touched the puck.

While I think he got too much whipping boy blame in Toronto I still don't see how he gets as much love as he does on these boards. He could be a liability defensively and a costly one at times at that. Wasn't a physical D man, TBH, he may have been better suited for today's game, good passer, skater. His D shortcomings would not be as egregious today.

Good skater? Isn't Murphy exhibit A or B in the list of players who managed to achieve great things despite being poor skaters?

 

[GMR]

Were the LA Kings so loaded with young defensemen that Murphy became expendable? That to me was the weirdest trade. Teams don't usually trade defensemen who are in their early 20's. Then again, Murphy was traded by Washington in his late 20's.

Other than Zubov, how many other future Hall of Fame defensemen were traded twice in their 20's? There can't be many.

 

[Tarantula]

You know I know this, right?



He was seen as a turnstile. I mean, he was, but so was every Leaf that season. I don't think people cared that much about his contract, it was the wild west back then with no cap.



Good skater? Isn't Murphy exhibit A or B in the list of players who managed to achieve great things despite being poor skaters?

You could be right about the skating, as you are about his defensive play. His forte was offense and he was a liability defensively, some of his gaffes stood out like a open sore.

Also Toronto has a history of eating their young so to speak, once the sights have been set it is open season.

He certainly had some rough moments in Toronto.

 

[Big Phil]

You know I know this, right?

Right............I see that now.

No, Murphy was not particularly a defensive stalwart. Fans in Washington also heckled him during his first years in the league. As skilled as Murphy was he sure would make some bad looking plays defensively. Once the booing started his play seemed to be more mistake prone.

It wasn't just Toronto where he had distractors. When the Leafs went to Washington the first year with Murphy fans kept blowing a whoop whistle that was given away that night. The Capitals faithful brought them back for the next visit, and a chorus of whoop whistles would follow whenever he touched the puck.

While I think he got too much whipping boy blame in Toronto I still don't see how he gets as much love as he does on these boards. He could be a liability defensively and a costly one at times at that. Wasn't a physical D man, TBH, he may have been better suited for today's game, good passer, skater. His D shortcomings would not be as egregious today.

He was always very smart with or without the puck though. That was what helped him along. He was not a good skater. He had a bit of a plodding look to him. Looked slow out there regardless of the era he was in, but made up for it with hockey smarts. For instance, is there a better player in NHL history who could bat down pucks at the offensive blue line. Maybe it was just me but Murphy always seemed to be that defenseman that was able to pinch and keep the puck in or keep it from going out when it was rattled along the boards. I have no doubt he got some of his assists that way, and for good reason.

He wasn't fast or physical, but I don't know, was he really a give away machine? I wouldn't call him elite defensively but I would at least say reliable. He killed penalties his entire career from start to finish. This wasn't some Mike Green thing where he was just a one-trick pony or even Housley who most of his career was not a penalty killer. He was there in every situation. I think if he was your best defenseman you could win the Cup, because quite frankly it happened in 1992 (Coffey was still #1 in 1991). He was also thought to be one of the final ingredients on Detroit's blue line for the Cup win.

I don't know, I liked the guy. I think part of the whole "whipping boy" thing is that he didn't LOOK good while he played. He was slow, never had the highlight reel packages. But he did drop the mitts a few times. Not many, but a few. Fought Chelios, Dale Hunter, Tim Hunter. Seriously. Didn't have a fight in his last 9 years in the NHL, but that wasn't his game so much. He was just how I would describe as a player - effective. Sometimes that's boring, but he can play on my team if he wants.

 

[The Panther]

No, Murphy was not particularly a defensive stalwart. Fans in Washington also heckled him during his first years in the league. As skilled as Murphy was he sure would make some bad looking plays defensively. Once the booing started his play seemed to be more mistake prone.

It wasn't just Toronto where he had distractors. When the Leafs went to Washington the first year with Murphy fans kept blowing a whoop whistle that was given away that night. The Capitals faithful brought them back for the next visit, and a chorus of whoop whistles would follow whenever he touched the puck.

While I think he got too much whipping boy blame in Toronto I still don't see how he gets as much love as he does on these boards. He could be a liability defensively and a costly one at times at that. Wasn't a physical D man, TBH, he may have been better suited for today's game, good passer, skater. His D shortcomings would not be as egregious today.

I do remember there being maybe one season (?) where the Caps' fans heckled Murphy a bit, for reasons I'll never understand. (The crazy Leafs' fans did, too, but that's what happens when you haven't won anything since color TV -- you can't recognize a good player). I think you are being way too critical of Murphy's play. a "liability defensively"? Really? There's just no way to justify that.

The Caps' were the best defensive team as soon as he joined them, and in 1986-87 he was approaching Ray Bourque-like domination of the team. Led them in scoring with 81 points, led them in plus/minus with +25 (they were only six games over .500), led them in both ES and PP points, was a 2nd-team All Star. I recently watched the three-game Finals of Canada Cup '87, and Murphy was easily Canada's best defenceman in those three games, especially in game three.

The trades of Murphy are mostly kind of bizarre, given that he was a really good player. He definitely was the whipping-boy of fan-bases and/or coaches, on a few occasions, and I think there are a couple of reasons why: (1) he was seen by dinosaur-style coaches as not physical enough. There was the idea that if a D-man was 6'-2", 210 lbs., then he'd better be crunching bodies and playing 'mean'. Murphy didn't do that, but instead he played 'smart', something a lot of coaches who came up in 60s/70s' hockey couldn't fathom. (2) By 80s' standards, he was very good but not super-elite offensively (Coffey, Bourque), and also very good but not super-elite defensively (Langway, his teammate), so teams tended to view him as not quite here nor there. Where this would be seen as the ideal defencemen today (as he was), I think it kind of limited his appeal to some teams/fans at the time. (3) His personality? I don't know about Murphy personally, but I have to wonder if he was one of those guys who didn't necessarily ingratiate himself with teammates / coaches easily. I don't think he was a 'take-charge' kind of guy in the dressing room (Messier), and interviews I've seen with him suggest he might have been a bit acerbic or independent-thinking, which tends not to go down well in hockey.

Murphy had an incredible rookie season and would have been a runaway Calder winner if not for 24-year-old Peter Stastny arriving that season. L.A. basically traded him for Brian Engblom, which was crazy. I get that Engblom was a solid defensive player with the winning Montreal pedigree, but he was already 28 years old and coming off a minus-5 season for a 94-point Caps' team. So, for that, you trade a 70-point a year, Calder-level, 21-year-old?? Insanity.

I guess Washington traded him after repeated playoff failures, and they could afford to unload a good defenseman since they had Langway and Stevens. Horrible trade, though. (The first season without him, Washington dropped 14 points in the standings... although, admittedly they did make it through to the third round.)

The Minnesota trade (basically for a bag of pucks) was complete and utter insanity.

The Pittsburgh trade doesn't make much sense, either, but at least the Pens got a decent D-man and a high draft pick in return. Still, he had just been a 2nd-team All Star when the Pens unloaded him.

Toronto traded him because... ??? They were a franchise in a downward spiral at the time, probably with too many over-priced veterans. So, since the genius Toronto fans booed him every night, they did the easy thing and got rid of him.

In the next two seasons with Detroit, Murphy scored 26 playoff points, went +28 (best NHL both years), won the Cup twice... and threw in 104 regular season points, while going +56. A year later, aged 38, he was still putting up 40 points for the Red Wings.


In short, all those teams that traded him mis-calculated. To recap:
-- as soon as he arrived in L.A., the team went from 74 points to 99 points
-- as soon as he arrived in Washington, the team -- which was off to a 0-7-0 start -- went 48-20-5 and was far-and-away the best defensive team in the NHL
-- not much happened in Minnesota, but the club did improve by 6 points his only full season there
-- as soon as he arrived in Pittsburgh, the team won 2 Stanley Cups
-- as soon as he arrived in Detroit, the team won 2 Stanley Cups
-- I also don't think Canada wins Canada Cup '87 without Murphy, who easily out-performed Bourque and Coffey in the Final series


So, yeah, I think he was good.

 

[Retire91]

Paul Coffey, 7 times:

Paul Coffey trades - NHL Trade Tracker

My goodness guy must have kept a packed suit case

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Were the LA Kings so loaded with young defensemen that Murphy became expendable? That to me was the weirdest trade. Teams don't usually trade defensemen who are in their early 20's. Then again, Murphy was traded by Washington in his late 20's.

Other than Zubov, how many other future Hall of Fame defensemen were traded twice in their 20's? There can't be many.

housley. what do the three of them have in common? all were one or several rungs lower relative to their contemporaries who were already in when they were inducted.

the fourth guy in recent times traded twice by 30? chris pronger, who would never in a million years have been traded from st louis if not for the introduction of the salary cap in 2005.

the one older guy that comes to kind is allan stanley, who is an odd case. late bloomer who really wasn’t on the HOF track until well into his thirties.

 

[The Panther]

My goodness guy must have kept a packed suit case

Well, he played for four clubs in 16 years, which isn't that much if you played through the 90s. But his final five seasons, he bounced around a lot.

 

[GMR]

housley. what do the three of them have in common? all were one or several rungs lower relative to their contemporaries who were already in when they were inducted.

the fourth guy in recent times traded twice by 30? chris pronger, who would never in a million years have been traded from st louis if not for the introduction of the salary cap in 2005.

the one older guy that comes to kind is allan stanley, who is an odd case. late bloomer who really wasn’t on the HOF track until well into his thirties.

The Zubov trades were honestly worse than any Murphy trade. The Rangers and Penguins were known for stupid trades around the mid 90's. No surprise they come up often in these discussions.

Regarding Housley, he was in a few bad trades as well. Despite being a whipping boy on this forum, I'm guessing most posters would not have traded him for Nelson Emerson and Stephane Quntal. Calgary trading him away ended up a bad move also. Despite his defensive issues, he was a scoring machine. Not easy to replace his offense.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Murphy wasn't a poor skater. His skating was adequate and matched his style of play well.

 

[GMR]

I can't see a single way it would make sense to trade Murphy for Dimitri Mironov. I also can't see how it made sense to give him away to Detroit. It was the trade deadline - make a contender pay you something for the guy. I remember being happy to just lose him and get younger as a team, but in retrospect, who does that anymore? Even a broken down Mark Streit was worth something at the deadline, and this was Larry Freaking Murphy.

The Johnson and Dahlquist thing was crazy but at least is was a 2-for-1. In retrospect you clearly lose, selling a Murphy and Gartner for Ciccarelli and Rouse, but at the time it would have looked like a prety fair hockey trade.

edit: oops! taglianetti was there too. So this just makes no sense at all. Johnson was a 19-20 minute guy in his prime. Taglianetti 18, and Dahlquist 18. it would make some sense trading any of those three guys one-for-one, but throw in a #1 defenseman for a second #4 guy? nonsense.

the first trade, for Houston and Engblom at least makes some sense. A simple, defensive guy who made the 2nd all-star team 2 years ago, and a tough middle six forward with upside, seems about fair for an offensive #1-2 defenseman. At the time, Engblom was just as heavily used and relied on as Murphy was, just without the PP upside, and was 6 years older.

That was around the time when teams were obsessed with Russian players. The Russians in Detroit likely had something to do with that. Mironov was especially overrated.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

That was around the time where teams were obsessed with Russian players. The Russians in Detroit likely had something to do with that. Mironov was especially overrated.

i'm guessing it's because mario wanted a big point shot for the PP? a month after the murphy/mironov trade, pittsburgh replaced murphy with another passy QB in zubov.

and then when mironov didn't work out in pittsburgh, they traded zubov for kevin hatcher.