Lindros trade negotiations a look back

[ForsbergForever]

Maybe if Lindros had gone to the Rangers instead of the Flyers (as he was so close to doing) he could have developed better leadership skills with Mark Messier as his tutor. Who knows what Lindros could have accomplished with the Moose showing him the reigns.

 

[kingpest19]

This will be a tradee that will always be a source for debate on lindros vs forsberg. Someone correct me if im wrong here but IIRC at the time the deal was done i heard that it was not a sure thing that forsberg was even going to come over and play in the NHL and that he was contemplating staying over in sweden and that was a reason why he was included in the deal. As far as healthwise both player have had serrious injury problem over their career lindros with concussions and forsberg with the ankles the spleen and a shoulder problem i believe. both are truly great players who sadly we never really got to see full potential due to injures

 

[FLYLine27*]

Worst trade in NHL histroy.

What??? Not even close. It was a good trade AT THE TIME...you cant go back 5, 10 years later and talk about if the trade was bad....things WILL obviously happen in those years and unforunttely Lindros did get hurt...you cant PREDICT that when making the trade. If Lindros was that INJURY-PRONE at the time of the Trade THEN that would be the worst trade but it wasnt. Jeeze


FOR EXAMPLE LETS SAY: Lindros turned into the #1 player in the league..never got hurt won 4 cups with the Flyers....the players that were sent to Quebec never got traded away from the team....6 years after the trade there was a horrible accident which injured all the players in a car accident or something (GOD FORBID)..all of them turned into just average 2nd,3rd and 4th liners after it...you cant then say...WOW WHAT A HORRIBLE TRADE QUEBEC MADE.

 

[RangerBoy]

The problem was Marcel Aubut gave the Flyers permission to speak to Eric Lindros after having refused to give any team permission to speak Carl Lindros.The Flyers wanted to speak with Lindros before making the deal.The arbitrator ruled the phone call was deciding factor

 

[dawgbone]

What??? Not even close. It was a good trade AT THE TIME...you cant go back 5, 10 years later and talk about if the trade was bad....things WILL obviously happen in those years and unforunttely Lindros did get hurt...you cant PREDICT that when making the trade. If Lindros was that INJURY-PRONE at the time of the Trade THEN that would be the worst trade but it wasnt. Jeeze


FOR EXAMPLE LETS SAY: Lindros turned into the #1 player in the league..never got hurt won 4 cups with the Flyers....the players that were sent to Quebec never got traded away from the team....6 years after the trade there was a horrible accident which injured all the players in a car accident or something (GOD FORBID)..all of them turned into just average 2nd,3rd and 4th liners after it...you cant then say...WOW WHAT A HORRIBLE TRADE QUEBEC MADE.

But he didn't...

In the end, the Lindros trade is why we will never see a deal like that again.

McPhee in Washington was looking for the same kind of return for Ovechkin... and he would have been stupid not to... just like 29 other GM's would have been stupid to give that kind of return for AO.

Same with Crosby.

The best prospect ever was traded for a huge package, and based on everything since then, he wasn't even the best player in the deal.

My guess is, you'll never see that kind of a trade again. At the time it looked good, but as we've seen, you just never know!!!

 

[sunb]

No smartass I've been watching for over 10 years, and Petr Forsberg is the best player in the NHL besides Jarome Iginla.

First of all Iginla isn't the best player in the NHL and Lindros was much better than Iginla when both are at their primes.

 

[Go Flames Go*]

I highly doubt that you have been watching hockey for that long, Lindros was an absolute force, and was a much better player than Forsberg could ever be. He could do anything and everything.

Besides Jerome Iginla... well I shouldn't be suprised, most Flames fans can't spell their best players name.... they have only had 6 months to learn it.... I mean they are life long fans....

His name is spelt Jarome dumb ass not Jerome. How could you doubt I have watched hockey for that long you don't even know me son.

 

[kmad]

His name is spelt Jarome dumb ass not Jerome. How could you doubt I have watched hockey for that long you don't even know me son.

We inferred that you don't know much about hockey by doubting Lindros' absolute dominance in the mid to late 90s.

 

[sunb]

His name is spelt Jarome dumb ass not Jerome. How could you doubt I have watched hockey for that long you don't even know me son.

How is Iginla the best player in the league when he has had only 3 years of success as a player and led his team to success 1 year whereas Lidstrom, Brodeur and Sakic have all had 10+ years of sucess and have had led their teams to Stanley Cups. I doubt you've watched hockey for 10 years if you base a player's worth on what he has done in the past season or two.

 

[JCD]

Lots of younger fans really don't remember the Lindros of the early 90's. Give me a healthy Lindros over anybody in the NHL today. Bar none. Until the injuries mounting, he was matching the hype. He sucked as a leader, but as a player he was the total package. Hit like Scott Stevens, scored like Jagr and was a stand-out in the face-off circle.

It ended up being a 'bad trade' in retrospect, but that is what happens when you sell the farm for one player and that player gets hurt.

 

[Frightened Inmate #2]

His name is spelt Jarome dumb ass not Jerome. How could you doubt I have watched hockey for that long you don't even know me son.

Well lets see Lindros was playing with men when he was 18 years old and not only did he play with the men, he fit in quite well, and actually in my view played better than a large number of the men. When he first started playing in the league he was the best young player I have ever seen, yes he was better than Ilya Kovalchuk, Dany Healtley, and yes he was better than Forsberg. Lindros could hit, fight, score, pass, he could see the ice better than msot anyone in the league at the time (Gretzky and Lemieux are really the only two that I felt were better than Lindros at the time). If you even watch the 1997/98 playoffs you would see that Lindros took a team that had Garth Snow!! as a goaltender to the finals. If you put any solid goaltender on that team and Lindros would have a couple of Stanley Cups in my view, and that is why I am not a big fan of Clarke as a GM, he never really addressed his teams number 1 need until recently, and then I think Esche suprised most everyone in being able to play as well as he did but that is not the disscussion at the moment.

I will honestly say that Lindros is one of the top 5 players that I have ever seen in my lifetime in his prime, the same can not be said about Forsberg.

Really the best testiment to Lindros's greatness can be seen in the hockey news putting him as a top 100 player of all time in 1998 or 99 but just because of how good he was at the time. He was the complete package, and could beat the opposition by running them over, speeding past them, or using some great moves.

Really Lindros was so good he only had two weak spots his head, and his parents, who affected his attitude in quite a negative way from all accounts.

Sorry about the Jarome thing, I really don't know why I thought it was Jerome.

 

[trenton1]

If Chicago had made the trade with Belfour then they would have had Hasek as their number 1 goalie instead of trading him to Buffalo which they did about 6 weeks after the 1992 draft. That in itself might have changed a thing or two for Chicago in the mid to late 90's.
OR if Chicago had produced a deal which INCLUDED Hasek, Quebec might have won the cup before they even left Quebec since the "Dominator" was already in full effect by the 1993-1994 season (he was incredible in the 1994 p-off's). So if they won in 1994 or 95 would they have left QC? Which also makes me think about where Roy might have gone in 1995? One way or another a trade that big can actually effect the entire league for YEARS. It really is something to ponder. Thanks to JFF for posting all those proposals, I'd forgotten alot of those offers.

Other thoughts: Though his attitude (agent?) has always bothered me, Lindros really was something special, particularly from 94-97. I'd always prefer that pugnacious edge over Forsberg's style (though he is tough) even though I believe Forsberg has better stick skills than Lindros. To me it's nearly impossible to say who is definitively better in their prime--other than personal preference it depends on the team you have or the one you are building.

 

[Marshall]

Lindros in his prime was one of the most dominant hockey players I've ever seen.

 

[FLYLine27*]

Same with Crosby.

The best prospect ever was traded for a huge package, and based on everything since then, he wasn't even the best player in the deal.

My guess is, you'll never see that kind of a trade again. At the time it looked good, but as we've seen, you just never know!!!

I dunno...Im sure some GM out there is willing to give up A LOT for Sidney. Maybe not players but maybe 3 first round drafts picks, a good prospect and maybe another 2nd round pick. People dont learn from the past....some do but not all...im sure there will be at least one GM come next year putting it all out to try to get what could be the best player since Gretzky.

 

[Guest]

I dunno...Im sure some GM out there is willing to give up A LOT for Sidney. Maybe not players but maybe 3 first round drafts picks, a good prospect and maybe another 2nd round pick. People dont learn from the past....some do but not all...im sure there will be at least one GM come next year putting it all out to try to get what could be the best player since Gretzky.

A little off topic, but every couple of years it seems like there is the "best player since Gretzky". Maybe it's just the year to year hype, but I remember Joe Thornton, Vincent Lecavlier, and Jason Spezza all being touted as the next great one. All great players in their own right, but it seems like at least once every 3-4 drafts is the next great one.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

A little off topic, but every couple of years it seems like there is the "best player since Gretzky". Maybe it's just the year to year hype, but I remember Joe Thornton, Vincent Lecavlier, and Jason Spezza all being touted as the next great one. All great players in their own right, but it seems like at least once every 3-4 drafts is the next great one.

Agreed, it's a lot of hype. Lindros was different though. He played in the Canada Cup after he was drafted, but before he was traded. Lindros was a top 5 player in the NHL the moment he stepped on the ice, day 1.

Lindros at an early age was so much better than Thornton, LeCavalier etc. Lindros if not for injury would have lived up to the hype. A healthy Lindros is a no doubt about it top 10 player in NHL history, and chances are he's pushing the top 5.

 

[Guest]

Agreed, it's a lot of hype. Lindros was different though. He played in the Canada Cup after he was drafted, but before he was traded. Lindros was a top 5 player in the NHL the moment he stepped on the ice, day 1.

Lindros at an early age was so much better than Thornton, LeCavalier etc. Lindros if not for injury would have lived up to the hype. A healthy Lindros is a no doubt about it top 10 player in NHL history, and chances are he's pushing the top 5.

Yeah, I understand your point, but like I said it was a little off topic and more in relation to Sid Crosby than Eric Lindros. Then again, we haven't seen Crosby in a compareable situation as Lindros did with the Canada Cup. If this goes long enough and Crosby goes to Europe, I'll be curious to see how he performs.

No doubt if a player, however old they are, performs at the top level of the league they are unique.

 

[Epsilon]

Agreed, it's a lot of hype. Lindros was different though. He played in the Canada Cup after he was drafted, but before he was traded. Lindros was a top 5 player in the NHL the moment he stepped on the ice, day 1.

That is a huge exagerration. He took 3 years to really hit his stride. He wasn't even a Calder trophy finalist in his rookie year.

 

[sunb]

That is a huge exagerration. He took 3 years to really hit his stride. He wasn't even a Calder trophy finalist in his rookie year.

He was on pace for 55 goals and 100 points in his rookie year as he scored 41 goals and 75 points in 61 games. Had he not been injured for those 20 games, 100 points would've won him a Calder. I think he his stride pretty fast. He scored 97 points in 65 games in his second year and had he played a full season, it would be a 125 point season.

In his first two seasons, he scored 158 points in 126 games.
Wayne Gretzky, in the same two seasons scored 195 points in 126 games.

Gretzky was 31-32 years old, so that wasn't all that old. He only managed to score 54 goals in those 126 games though and Lindros scored 85 goals!

 

[John Flyers Fan]

That is a huge exagerration. He took 3 years to really hit his stride. He wasn't even a Calder trophy finalist in his rookie year.

He wasn't a Calder finalist because he missed 20 games due to injury, which he also did his 2nd year.

By his 2nd year he's averaging 1.5 ppg, right at the top of the league. Then add in the fact he was by FAR the most dominating physical presence in the NHL, he was a top 5 player without a doubt.

The difference in the 3rd season is that he finally stayed healthy and played the full season, also the Flyers built some pieces around him and they made the playoffs.

 

[Epsilon]

He was on pace for 55 goals and 100 points in his rookie year as he scored 41 goals and 75 points in 61 games. Had he not been injured for those 20 games, 100 points would've won him a Calder.

Against Teemu Selanne's 76 goals and 132 points? You have got to be kidding. Joe Juneau and Felix Potvin also put up monster seasons that year as rookies.

 

[Frightened Inmate #2]

Against Teemu Selanne's 76 goals and 132 points? You have got to be kidding. Joe Juneau and Felix Potvin also put up monster seasons that year as rookies.

Well I don't think that Lindros would win the Calder that year, but I do think he would have recieved a great deal of consideration as the runner up, actually scratch that he would have been the runner up, I can guarentee you for that. He was a much more complete player than Juneau and while Potvin was great that year I think that Lindros was just that much better. I watched some old hockey movies this past weekend, and there was one clip of Lindros just pushing over some NHL players who themselves were not small. One was off a faceoff where he just ran over the other guy knocking him over like we would knock over a child, it was so very impressive, especially for such a young player.

 

[MASK]

Not necessarily true at all.

Err sorry I meant if we traded Slava Butsayev instead of Forsberg. 1 2 of Lindros and Forsberg, dam.

 

[Synergy27]

I dont understand how the majority of you seem to be saying that Lindros in his prime is easily a much better player than Forsberg in his. It is true that Lindros was an absolutely dominant force in the mid 90s (trust me I was witness to it many times being a fan of the Rangers), but how can the same not be said about Forsberg? Lindros had a slight physical edge over Forsberg and Forsberg had a slight edge over Lindros when it comes to stickhandling/finesse stuff. Both were dominant in different ways.

The only solid argument I can see one coming up with is that QUE/COL has had two excellent lines so Maybe Forsberg wasnt keyed on by defenses as much as Lindros was, but this is by no means concrete evidence.

 

[JCD]

I dont understand how the majority of you seem to be saying that Lindros in his prime is easily a much better player than Forsberg in his. It is true that Lindros was an absolutely dominant force in the mid 90s (trust me I was witness to it many times being a fan of the Rangers), but how can the same not be said about Forsberg? Lindros had a slight physical edge over Forsberg and Forsberg had a slight edge over Lindros when it comes to stickhandling/finesse stuff. Both were dominant in different ways.

The only solid argument I can see one coming up with is that QUE/COL has had two excellent lines so Maybe Forsberg wasnt keyed on by defenses as much as Lindros was, but this is by no means concrete evidence.

If Forsberg had such an edge with the finesse stuff, why did Lindros crush his point production? In his day, Lindros was one of the top scoring players (per game) of all time.

Perhaps you didn't see much of Lindros in the mid-90's, but those who did have little doubt he was better than Forsberg. Only edge I give Forsberg would be defensive.