The top 10 trades of all time - no order

[salzy]

People who are saying Thibault=Fiset in 1995 are out to lunch.

Who's saying THAT? Certainly not me!

In 1995, Jocelyn Thibault was considered the top young goaltender prospect in the game - the equivalent of Lehtonen/Fleury now.

Not quite that high, but definitely very high.

No way in hell Roy's trade to Colorado happens without Thibault. Or if it did, there would have been substantially more going the other way in his place. Nolan, Ricci, Deadmarsh, or something along those lines.

It definitely would have happened either way, but like you said, more would have to come along with Fiset than with Thibault. Maybe Montreal keeps their captain too.

At the time of that trade, I thought Montreal made out great. Thibault looked like a future star in net (and was actually brilliant his first year in Montreal), and it looked like they'd be set in goal for the next decade with him. Plus Kovalenko and Rucinsky were only 25 and 24 respectively, and had already proven to be productive top-6 forwards. Roy was 30 and closing in on UFA. To say that that package didn't look good at the time is revisionist history at it's finest. Not a trade Montreal would have chosen to make, but the value at the time was definitely there.

Absolutely, but we're looking at it from the POV of if Lindros never went to Philly, Colorado mightn't have had Tbo as a chip to deal.

 

[Rather Gingerly 1*]

1981-Jul-21 Dwight Foster traded from Boston Bruins with Round 1 pick in the 1982 draft (Ken Daneyko) to Colorado Rockies for Round 1 pick in the 1982 draft (Gord Kluzak) and Round 2 pick in the 1982 draft (Brian Curran)The pick was the first in the 1982 draft. Kluzak was a banged up, but the next 5 picks were Brian Bellows, Gary Nylund, Ron Sutter, Scott Stevens and Phil Housley.

Wasn't Foster signed as a free agent? And, the first overall pick went as compensation.

Does go to show those high picks it doesn't really mean much. Both Gagne and Daneyko went on to better careers than Wickenheiser and Kluzak

 

[Hasbro]

Wasn't Foster signed as a free agent? And, the first overall pick went as compensation.

I'm pretty sure it was a trade. I always though Grahame to LA for the Ray Bourque pick was the compensation deal.

Does go to show those high picks it doesn't really mean much. Both Gagne and Daneyko went on to better careers than Wickenheiser and Kluzak

Kind of a double bind expecting the Rockies to not make bad trades AND pick well (they weren't all that hot when they had the pick either. In any event they squandered alot of good ammunition to build a team.

 

[Larionov]

Boy, there are some young pups on this board! No one has yet listed the two blockbuster trades in which Phil Esposito was involved:

In 1967:

To Chicago: Gilles Marotte, Pit Martin, Jack Morris
To Boston: Phil Esposito, Ken Hodge, Fred Stanfield

In 1975:

To Boston: Jean Ratelle, Brad Park
To NY Rangers: Phil Esposito, Carol Vadnais

Both of these were purely hockey related trades, value for value, (or so it appeared at the time) the type you don't really see anymore. I was just a kid when the '75 trade happened, and I remember what a shocker it was to see two teams trading core players like that.

 

[Foppa2118]

Because I wasn't satisfied with the way you addressed the gaping holes in your arguments. You tossed Sundin into the Lindros trade to weigh it more heavily in Quebec's favour. When you got busted, you blew it off like it was a minor point. That is a HUGE discrepancy and you were trying to get off too easy on it. If you don't like it, get your facts straight next time.

Wow, you are in some serious denial. Now, you are strecthing incredibly hard, to make your rants valid. I never tossed Sundin into the Philly trade, that is just a lie. I was using Garth Butcher, as an example of what he eventually brought in, and if you could read properly, you would have seen that I called his involvement a minor part of the Philly deal, so you should have had no problem with that. Instead you start insulting me, and telling me to get my facts straight, just becasue you can't read.

Super, I never said you were objective either.

Failed.

I find this utterly hilarious, since looking at your posts, which involve numerous Flyer threads, including ones defending Lindros(once again) and even another arguing with some guy for not including the Legion Of Doom line, into a thread about passing, it is obvious that you are clearly biased. At least I am trying to be objective.

It certainly can. Just as there is no comparison between the 2 players at their peak, there is no comparison between the severity and the frequency of the injuries they suffered and the effects they have had on their respective careers. Clearly Lindros' career has been hampered by injuries to a FAR greater extent.

Convienently you missed the point. It was obvious, since I stated it many times, that I was refering to before the Stevens hit. Forsberg lost a whole season because of injuries, and had his spleen removed, which I'm sure makes it a bit tender for a while, when you play the kind of phyisacal game he does. He also was plagued by bone spurs in his feet his entire career, which is why he finally got the surgery that kept him out that season. His teammates talked about the pain he went through, before and after games, many times while he was out that season. Just skating on the ice was painful for him, everytime he stepped out there. So they are very comparable.

You are completely out of your mind. Forsberg is a good all around player but is he feared? Of course not. Has he ever been feared? Of course not. Yes, he could hurt you on the score board which is scary in itself, but if we're talking about intangibles, no, they are not even 'a bit' even.

Are you kidding me. Not only are you blatenly wrong, but you have the nerve to call me out of my mind for stating it. Maybe you don't know what intangables are, which wouldn't surprise me, or maybe you are just that desperate to argue in Lindros's favor, you don't take the time to think if you are right or not. I don't know what you mean by feared, but if you are talking about huge hits, than you should know you are wrong. They are very comparable once again, and any moderate hockey fan wouldn't even think about questioning Forsberg's intangables.

Not true at all. In those 8 seasons (94-95 through 99-00) Lindros outscored Forsberg 659 to 580 - a 79 point differential. Forsberg would need nearly a full season to make up that enormous gap. AND Lindros scored a whopping 121 MORE goals than Forsberg over that period.

I don't know why you try to present facts that are so obviously incorrect. Do you honestly think you can get away with it and nobody will call you on it?

Well you somehow managed to get a simple math problem wrong. You must be a huge Lindros homer, for me saying that they are comparable, but I personally would give the edge to Forsberg, to get you so riled up. Try again. Forsberg's first eight seasons in the league, 686pts. Lindros's first eight seasons in the league, 659pts. 686 is more than 659. Once again, you convienently factored in the year, where he played 0 games. Zero games, is not a season. It's not a huge difference, I was using it as a point to say that you can't say that Lindros was better in that time due to offensive output. Seems odd that I would due that if I'm so biased, and Mr. Objective would scew the data in his favor.

I suppose if I lived in a fantasy land with made up statistics I might feel the same way.

I'm not sure what you call the land where you live, but it's definitly not reality. Not only have you lied about me making up statistics, you've said it three or four times, in attempt to make it sound true.

Like I said, rather convenient you forgot to mention that centerpiece of one of the biggest trades of the past 15 years.

Again, this point is not valid, no matter how much you bring it up. I'll try it again, a little differently. If I was talking purely about the Clark trade, than you could say I convienently left out Sundin. I wasn't. I was trying to connect the dots of how even some of the lesser known players that Quebec got in the Philly deal, had a part in bringing in something like Clark, and Lemiex. I also mentioned the fact that it was a small part of the Philly deal, when I first said it, because obviously it is, since it was like three trades down the line. It wasn't intentional that I left Sundin out, though I'm sure you don't believe me, but I was thinking more about the Philly deal than the Toronto trade, and it was a long post, and I made a mistake. You ever make any mistakes? Oh, wait......

Neither of us has a crystal ball that allows us to see into the future. However, just as we are able to add 1 plus 1 and arrive at the answer 2, we are able to add up the facts in this case and arrive at the correct answer. The Flyers tried for MANY years to get an arena built and were unable to do so. The hype surrounding the acquisition of Lindros allowed them to sellout the luxury suites before the arena was even built, enabling them to secure the financing to build that arena. There was not the hype around Forsberg to accomplish that. And it is simply not the same to bring in a player and develop him and the team. People just don't have the same sense of anticipation about seeing a player who they have already watched the past 2 or 3 years.

Obviously we disagree. I can handle that, apparently you can't, since you keep bringing up the same topic everytime. I've already explained how I think the arena could have come, so I won't again. You're right, they wouldn't have sold out the luxury suites, and Forsberg didn't have the drawing power Lindros did then, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have got a new arena a few years down the road, in the fasion that I had explained earlier, and it's not as easy as 1 plus 1 equals 2.

UGH! Without Lindros the finals appearance in 97 is nothing but a dream! He was the reason they got there in the first place!

They couldn't be the free spending big market team they have become without the arena and they wouldn't have had the arena without the Lindros trade. So they wouldn't have had that $15 million in the budget for UFA's.

Yea, there's no reason to believe that Forsberg who was coming into his prime then, and had an impressive post season the year before when Colorado won the cup, along with Ricci, and Simon, and who knows else they could have had, with trades involving the other guys they gave Quebec, and the $15 million they could have used to sign free agents, could have helped the cause. $15 million is still $15 million. It would have helped out with something. They didn't neccesarily have to become a big market team, but they could have signed a couple guys, and used the rest to help with any losses they might have had. It would have helped somehow. UGH? What is that all about?

Of course it would have gone down without Thibault. Nothing speculative about it. Roy was going to Colorado to play for his former agent. He was NEVER going to play for the Habs again. These are all commonly accepted facts. I'm not sure why you'd want to debate them.

Of course they could. Like I said, it didn't matter if it was true or not. What mattered was could they sell it to their fans. No, Fiset didn't turn out to be the next Patrick Roy. Neither did Thibault. But it got them through the days and weeks after the Roy trade, didn't it? And like I said, they'd have needed to get more from Colorado with Fiset than they did with Thibault.

No offense, but what are you on? Who the hell was debating those facts? You can't just lie about what I am arguing with, and expect it to help prove your point. It could have gone down, if they increased their offer substantially. Fiset was nobody, and wasn't capable of being called the next Roy. Like Hasbro said, he was traded for Eric Lacroix, the offseason after they got Roy, so obviously his value wasn't that high. Of course it's speculative, and for you to say otherwise is delusional. Who knows if Montreal was deadset on getting a goalie they could sell to the fans, which they very well could have, or whether a quality forward like Deadmarsh, or Ricci, could have sealed the deal with Fiset.

That's not what I said. I said Colorado would need to add more to rest of the package. Obviously Rucinsky and Fiset wouldn't get the deal done. Maybe Rucinsky, Fiset and Deadmarsh. Maybe Rucinsky, Fiset, Kovalenko and a first. Maybe Rucinsky, Fiset and Ricci. Who knows? But one thing is for sure - Roy was going to Colorado one way or another.

Then what the hell have you been arguing with me this whole time about? That is what I have been saying. Of course it's possiblethey could have got the deal done, if they increased their offer, and added a guy like Deadmarsh, or Ricci. It's just not certain.

Like I said, it's as easy as adding 1 and 1.

Well we've already established that you can't do math, so that's not a very good way to say that you have proved your point.

 

[ArtG]

Schaefer for Salo is one of the most even trades you'll find for sure.

I disagree. It may have been even skill-wise and need-wise for both teams but at the time that Schaefer (sp?) was traded he was holding out for more $$ and had burned his last bridge with Mr. Burke. So essentially, the Canucks got something for nothing. (I know somebody's gonna get me for that last comment )

 

[Rather Gingerly 1*]

I'm pretty sure it was a trade. I always though Grahame to LA for the Ray Bourque pick was the compensation deal.

Found this on the web today. I thought Foster left as a free agent, I can remember when it happened.

RESTRICTED FREE AGENCY: Foster played out his option with Boston in 1980-81, becoming a restricted free agent. As compensation for signing Foster on July 21, 1981, Colorado gave Boston a 1982 second-round pick (Brian Curran) and the option to switch 1982 first-round picks (Boston exercised this option and selected Gord Kluzak, while New Jersey took Ken Daneyko). Nearly five years later, Boston got Foster back from Detroit for Dave Donnelly on March 11, 1986.

 

[salzy]

Wow, you are in some serious denial. Now, you are strecthing incredibly hard, to make your rants valid. I never tossed Sundin into the Philly trade, that is just a lie. I was using Garth Butcher, as an example of what he eventually brought in, and if you could read properly, you would have seen that I called his involvement a minor part of the Philly deal, so you should have had no problem with that. Instead you start insulting me, and telling me to get my facts straight, just becasue you can't read.

You certainly did toss Sundin into the trade. I needn't look any further than this very thread. You said so and so was traded for so and so who was traded for Garth Butcher who was traded for Wendel Clark! You were trying to imply getting Wendel was somehow tied to the Lindros trade, when actually it wasn't at all. When you were called on it, you tried to toss Sundin into the mix like it was completely irrelevant. Please. Nobody is buying it.

I find this utterly hilarious, since looking at your posts, which involve numerous Flyer threads, including ones defending Lindros(once again) and even another arguing with some guy for not including the Legion Of Doom line, into a thread about passing, it is obvious that you are clearly biased. At least I am trying to be objective.

I'm not arguing with anyone in the thread about passing. Someone said Tkachuk -Zhamnov-Selanne was slightly better than the LOD. I asked that them to clarify which they did. End of story. Don't tell lies, it only makes you look worse.

Convienently you missed the point. It was obvious, since I stated it many times, that I was refering to before the Stevens hit. Forsberg lost a whole season because of injuries, and had his spleen removed, which I'm sure makes it a bit tender for a while, when you play the kind of phyisacal game he does.

Oh my God! What planet are you on? You JUST said you were referring to BEFORE the Stevens hit. So how can you bring up the spleen removal? That happened AFTER! As far as it being tender when you play - HE TOOK THE ENTIRE YEAR OFF!!! I'd say he was fine when he did return - considering he put up the best playoff numbers of his career. Get your friggin' story straight, junior.

Are you kidding me. Not only are you blatenly wrong, but you have the nerve to call me out of my mind for stating it. Maybe you don't know what intangables are, which wouldn't surprise me, or maybe you are just that desperate to argue in Lindros's favor, you don't take the time to think if you are right or not. I don't know what you mean by feared, but if you are talking about huge hits, than you should know you are wrong. They are very comparable once again, and any moderate hockey fan wouldn't even think about questioning Forsberg's intangables.

Ridiculous. Where did I quesiton Forsberg's intangibles? He is a great defensive player, a great all around player, likes to take the body, and so on. He is not anywhere near Lindros' league in terms of being a physically imposing presence and striking fear in his opponents. Yes, he could hit. Lindros, OTOH, could literally kill people. NHL defenseman don't fear for their safety when Forsberg is on the ice. And then if you want to bring fighting into the mix - well, again, obviously it is not a contest there.

Well you somehow managed to get a simple math problem wrong. You must be a huge Lindros homer, for me saying that they are comparable, but I personally would give the edge to Forsberg, to get you so riled up. Try again. Forsberg's first eight seasons in the league, 686pts. Lindros's first eight seasons in the league, 659pts. 686 is more than 659. Once again, you convienently factored in the year, where he played 0 games. Zero games, is not a season. It's not a huge difference, I was using it as a point to say that you can't say that Lindros was better in that time due to offensive output. Seems odd that I would due that if I'm so biased, and Mr. Objective would scew the data in his favor.

LMAO! Forsberg played in the playoffs in the 01-02 SEASON. So what you are suggesting is it is unreasonable to include the period where he missed time due to injury? Yet YOU thought it was a good idea to compare them based on a time period where Forsberg played 55 more games! Jeez, at least in my comparison Eric only had a 20 game advantage. Talk about skewing the data in your favour! Here's an idea - since you think the injury issue is 'even' between the 2 - let's look at PER GAME over the period that you thought was such a good idea to use. I'll save you the work: 1.36 PPG for Lindros to 1.27 PPG for Forsberg.

Sounds like a minor difference, right? Now average that difference out of an 82 game season. Then average it out over EIGHT 82 game seasons. Lindros comes out ahead by 58 points. More importantly, he demolishes his goal scoring numbers by over 150!!!

And let's not forget 2 very important facts:

1 - Lindros, as much as he could, PLAYED with the injuries he suffered during that span or rushed back from them in many cases too early. He didn't take an entire year off to recover like Forsberg did. Playing hurt, as you indicated, makes point production more difficult.
2 - Lindros came into the league 2 years before Forsberg, so his numbers as a 19-21 year old contribute to this. He was forced to develop in the NHL, while Forsberg had the luxury of being much closer to his prime during his entire '8 year' stretch.

Again, this point is not valid, no matter how much you bring it up. I'll try it again, a little differently. If I was talking purely about the Clark trade, than you could say I convienently left out Sundin. I wasn't. I was trying to connect the dots of how even some of the lesser known players that Quebec got in the Philly deal, had a part in bringing in something like Clark, and Lemiex.

And like I said, no amount of dots can ever connect Clark and Lemieux to the Lindros trade because the trade with Toronto was for SUNDIN. NOT BUTCHER! SUNDIN! Butcher was a piece of crap throw in because the Leafs also lost a d man in the deal.

It wasn't intentional that I left Sundin out, though I'm sure you don't believe me, but I was thinking more about the Philly deal than the Toronto trade, and it was a long post, and I made a mistake. You ever make any mistakes? Oh, wait......

I do believe you and yes, I have made mistakes. But you are STILL trying to make it sound like that was a minor mistake. It was pretty big. What if the Flyers take the Brashear, package him with Jeff Carter, Joni Pitkannen, Gagne, Markov and 3 first rounders and trade him for the 1st pick and draft Crosby?

Am I then allowed to say the Flyers got Crosby as part of the Lindros trade with Quebec? I mean, after all, they traded Lindros and got Johnsson, Hlavac, Brendl and a 2nd, then traded Hlavac for Brashear, and Brashear was part of the trade for Crosby!!! Of course not. Now do you see where I'm coming from?

Obviously we disagree. I can handle that, apparently you can't, since you keep bringing up the same topic everytime. I've already explained how I think the arena could have come, so I won't again. You're right, they wouldn't have sold out the luxury suites, and Forsberg didn't have the drawing power Lindros did then, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have got a new arena a few years down the road, in the fasion that I had explained earlier, and it's not as easy as 1 plus 1 equals 2.

I've already illustrated for you why that isn't true. You are just refusing to accept it because it helps prove the fact that Philly would NOT undo the Lindros trade if they could do it over again. Look at Pittsburgh - they won 2 Stanley Cups in the 90's and they STILL can't get a hockey rink built. They had Jaromir Jagr for crying out loud! There hasn't been a better offensive player in the league the past 15 years!

Yea, there's no reason to believe that Forsberg who was coming into his prime then, and had an impressive post season the year before when Colorado won the cup, along with Ricci, and Simon, and who knows else they could have had, with trades involving the other guys they gave Quebec, and the $15 million they could have used to sign free agents, could have helped the cause. $15 million is still $15 million. It would have helped out with something.

I don't think you have a fundamental understanding of how big business operates. Do you think Ed Snider sent Quebec $15 million because he had it just lying around? The Flyers forecast that if they were able to bring in Lindros, they would be able to sell enough seats and suites to build a new rink, which would enable them to earn enough money to cover that $15 million and earn an enormous amount of money on top of it.

No Lindros = Lower revenues = no arena = continued lower revenues = no $15 million to spend on free agents.

They didn't neccesarily have to become a big market team, but they could have signed a couple guys, and used the rest to help with any losses they might have had. It would have helped somehow. UGH? What is that all about?

They'd already been trying the youth-movement-build-from-within formula for a number of years. It wasn't working and it would have continued not working.

No offense, but what are you on? Who the hell was debating those facts? You can't just lie about what I am arguing with, and expect it to help prove your point. It could have gone down, if they increased their offer substantially. Fiset was nobody, and wasn't capable of being called the next Roy. Like Hasbro said, he was traded for Eric Lacroix, the offseason after they got Roy, so obviously his value wasn't that high. Of course it's speculative, and for you to say otherwise is delusional. Who knows if Montreal was deadset on getting a goalie they could sell to the fans, which they very well could have, or whether a quality forward like Deadmarsh, or Ricci, could have sealed the deal with Fiset.

You said they got Patrick Roy by virtue of the Lindros trade as well. My contention is they WOULD have gotten Roy regardless of whether or not they had Tbo to send the other way, which apparently, you now agree with.

Then what the hell have you been arguing with me this whole time about? That is what I have been saying. Of course it's possiblethey could have got the deal done, if they increased their offer, and added a guy like Deadmarsh, or Ricci. It's just not certain.

You said "it's all speculation and neither of us can say for sure. I CAN say for sure. Roy was going to Colorado come hell or high water. Then Lindros trade had nothing to do with the Avs acquiring Roy.

Well we've already established that you can't do math, so that's not a very good way to say that you have proved your point.

The degrees on my wall say differently, so I'll just ignore your insults.

 

[MB1]

March 7, 1988 - Brett Hull and Steve Bozek from Calgary for Rob Ramage and Rick Wamsley from St. Louis

What a brilliant trade for the Blues. But stupidity struck in the same year.

September 6 - Doug Gilmour, Mark Hunter and Michael Dark to Calgary for Mike Bullard, Craig Coxe and Tim Corkery

 

[Hab-a-maniac]

In the Lindros trade, the Avs ended up winning the hockey end of it while Philly won the deal from a financial aspect.
Right now, what Philly has to show for it is Kim Jonsson, prospects Stefan Ruzicka(?) and Ryan Bast, some other draft pick acquired in exchange for a 6th from Columbus, and Brashear. Pretty good job reaping this from a declining Big E.
Colorado has Forsberg, Blake, Vaananen, Gratton, Tanguay, a 2nd rounder in the next draft and I'd say that today the Avs still hold the upper hand. But several of the players have been used to great benefit over the years for the Quebec-Colorado franchise while Philly just had Lindros until recently.

 

[salzy]

In the Lindros trade, the Avs ended up winning the hockey end of it while Philly won the deal from a financial aspect.
Right now, what Philly has to show for it is Kim Jonsson, prospects Stefan Ruzicka(?) and Ryan Bast, some other draft pick acquired in exchange for a 6th from Columbus, and Brashear. Pretty good job reaping this from a declining Big E.
Colorado has Forsberg, Blake, Vaananen, Gratton, Tanguay, a 2nd rounder in the next draft and I'd say that today the Avs still hold the upper hand. But several of the players have been used to great benefit over the years for the Quebec-Colorado franchise while Philly just had Lindros until recently.

Jeez, it's ridiculous to create some kind of family tree extending from a trade to determine a winner. Philly traded some players to Quebec for a player. That is the trade. What each team does with those assets is a complete non factor in assessing the original trade.

As far as the original trade, we're often told whoever gets the best player wins the deal. In my opinion, Philly got the best player in the deal. In my mind, by a fair margin - but that can be debated.

We're also told that if you win the Stanley Cup, you win the trade. As history has played out, Colorado has been fortunate enough to win a couple Stanley Cups, while Philly has not been so fortunate. It is not reasonable to declare that things would have worked out any differently had the trade never happened. Is it possible? Of course. But it's also reasonable to assume that Colorado would have won those Cups regardless and Philly might still be trying. Philly would have been stupid not to make the trade given how things have worked out for that franchise since.

 

[salzy]

March 7, 1988 - Brett Hull and Steve Bozek from Calgary for Rob Ramage and Rick Wamsley from St. Louis

What a brilliant trade for the Blues. But stupidity struck in the same year.

Funny, I remember watching Sportsline when they announced the trade and Tatti and Hebscher agreeing in March that they might as well just hand the Cup over to Calgary right then and there. They decided to play it out anyway, but a couple months later that's exactly what they did. I'd say it was a pretty brilliant move for the Flames too.

 

[Darth Milbury]

I shocked that there is no discussion of the EVIL ONE's (Isles GM) more shakey deals, including:

Luongo and Olli J for Kvasha and Parrish
Berard and pick for Potvin and a Pick
Bertuzzi and a third rounder and McCabe for Linden
Branislav Mezei for Wiemer
Travis Green for a JJ Daigneat and other garbage
Yashin for Chara, Spezza

The Isles GM is the most imcompetent I've ever seen in my 30 years of watching hockey.

 

[Darcy Wakaluk]

In hindsight, Colorado/Quebec wins the trade by a LOT, but for about five years, Philadelphia had won it.

How exactly does Philadelphia win this trade in the short term?

In the three seasons prior to the Lindros trade, they finish last, last and second-to-last (Thank you, expansion San Jose Sharks) amassing respective point totals of 31, 46 and 52. Fast forward until the end of the 1992-93 season and the Quebec Nordiques find themselves fourth best in the entire league with 104 points, making the playoffs for the first time in five seasons. Where are the Philadelphia Flyers? Fifth in the Patrick Division and out of the playoffs.

The Nordiques had finished dead last in the Adams Division five seasons in a row and have yet to miss the playoffs since making the Lindros trade. Three seasons after the trade, they finished an abbreviated regular season first in the east. Next season and a move to the Colorado and the Western Conference brought them their first Stanley Cup victory in franchise history. A season after that and they won the President's Trophy.

The Nordiques accomplished all that and yet Philly were clear winners of this trade after five years? All Philly had to show after five years was finishing first in the regular season in the conference once and getting swept out of the Stanley Cup finals.

I don't understand how Philadelphia won this trade in the short term? It was the inclusion of players like Steve Duschene, Ron Hextall, Chris Simon and Mike Ricci in the deal that made Quebec win it in the short term. Philadelphia should have been the ones to win it in the long term once Eric Lindros became the dominant force in the league he was hyped up to be for 10-15 years. He never did, and as a result, Quebec won this trade.

 

[salzy]

How exactly does Philadelphia win this trade in the short term?

Because for the first 5 years of the trade it they had the most dominant player in hockey and it looked like there were many Stanley Cups in their future. Colorado had already unloaded many of the guys they acquired in the original deal and Forsberg was just started to really break out. Of course, the rest is history.

 

[Foppa2118]

You certainly did toss Sundin into the trade. I needn't look any further than this very thread. You said so and so was traded for so and so who was traded for Garth Butcher who was traded for Wendel Clark! You were trying to imply getting Wendel was somehow tied to the Lindros trade, when actually it wasn't at all. When you were called on it, you tried to toss Sundin into the mix like it was completely irrelevant. Please. Nobody is buying it.

And like I said, no amount of dots can ever connect Clark and Lemieux to the Lindros trade because the trade with Toronto was for SUNDIN. NOT BUTCHER! SUNDIN! Butcher was a piece of crap throw in because the Leafs also lost a d man in the deal.

I do believe you and yes, I have made mistakes. But you are STILL trying to make it sound like that was a minor mistake. It was pretty big. What if the Flyers take the Brashear, package him with Jeff Carter, Joni Pitkannen, Gagne, Markov and 3 first rounders and trade him for the 1st pick and draft Crosby?

Am I then allowed to say the Flyers got Crosby as part of the Lindros trade with Quebec? I mean, after all, they traded Lindros and got Johnsson, Hlavac, Brendl and a 2nd, then traded Hlavac for Brashear, and Brashear was part of the trade for Crosby!!! Of course not. Now do you see where I'm coming from?

Almost everything you say here, are a combination of stretching the truth, and not even bothering to argue with what I have said. Instead you aggresively talk about something different, in hopes that it will make you look better.

I was making a simple point as to how Butcher added to the aquisition of other players. I made a point of saying that it was a minor point in the trade, and that it isn't saying that much, because you can connect the dots through a lot of trades, and find similar results. You would have seen this if you bothered to read my original post, instead of just seeing something about Lindros, and throwing a fit.

You could use the Brashear example if you were simply trying to say what I was saying, but you couldn't if you were saying what you mistakingly have been implying that I said. Sudin was irrevelant, because all I was doing was showing what Butcher had a small part in. You're right I should have included him, and I made a habit of including all the guys in the trades I talked about, and since I was looking at a lot of trades, I forgot to mention Sundin. It was a mistake, there was no alterior motive. You are basing you're whole argument on an inconsequential fact. Get over it.

I'm not arguing with anyone in the thread about passing. Someone said Tkachuk -Zhamnov-Selanne was slightly better than the LOD. I asked that them to clarify which they did. End of story. Don't tell lies, it only makes you look worse.

Conveniently you didn't address what I was talking about once again. The thread was entitled Passing Chemistry, and you tried to work in the LOD line, by supporting it with how bruising they were. Then when somebody said they weren't as good as the Zhamnov line, you took offense, and again supported it by saying that Tkachuk was the only one on that line you had to look out for physically. You didn't ask him to clarify, you just said I hope you are talking from a pure point production standpoint, and then you went into your bruising explanation. Then somebody finally pointed out to you the thread was about passing, not bruising capability, and you came back saying that the topic seemed to have morphed a little bit, even though it had stayed on topic with passing, the whole time.

My whole point was, that very similar to what you have done here, you didn't pay attention to what the guy was saying, since the thread was about passing. All you saw was some guy disagreeing with you on your favorite Philly line. I was pointing out how ironic it was that you were calling me bias, when in fact you are ten fold, less objective than I have been trying to be. You are the only one who has told lies here, and you have told many of them. So it doesn't hold water to just blurt out that I'm lying, especially when I keep shooting down your absurd accusations.

Oh my God! What planet are you on? You JUST said you were referring to BEFORE the Stevens hit. So how can you bring up the spleen removal? That happened AFTER! As far as it being tender when you play - HE TOOK THE ENTIRE YEAR OFF!!! I'd say he was fine when he did return - considering he put up the best playoff numbers of his career. Get your friggin' story straight, junior.

You got me, another oversight. Doesn't change that I was talking about before the Stevens hit, which you again didn't address. Take it out of the mix and you're still full of crap. They both have been plagued by injuries during their career, so it is very comparable once again.

Ridiculous. Where did I quesiton Forsberg's intangibles? He is a great defensive player, a great all around player, likes to take the body, and so on. He is not anywhere near Lindros' league in terms of being a physically imposing presence and striking fear in his opponents. Yes, he could hit. Lindros, OTOH, could literally kill people. NHL defenseman don't fear for their safety when Forsberg is on the ice. And then if you want to bring fighting into the mix - well, again, obviously it is not a contest there.

Right here.....

You are completely out of your mind. Forsberg is a good all around player but is he feared? Of course not. Has he ever been feared? Of course not. Yes, he could hurt you on the score board which is scary in itself, but if we're talking about intangibles, no, they are not even 'a bit' even.

You said it wasn't even a bit even, which about 99 out of 100 intelegent hockey fans would say it is indeed close. Once again, you try to bring in physical presence, and fighting into the mix, which Lindros does have an advantage in, but by no means does that make it not even close in terms of intangables. This is an example of objectivity. I disagree with you, and say Forsberg has the edge in this, but all I have been saying is that it is close, because it's a matter of opinion. You however, said it wasn't even close.

LMAO! Forsberg played in the playoffs in the 01-02 SEASON. So what you are suggesting is it is unreasonable to include the period where he missed time due to injury? Yet YOU thought it was a good idea to compare them based on a time period where Forsberg played 55 more games! Jeez, at least in my comparison Eric only had a 20 game advantage. Talk about skewing the data in your favour! Here's an idea - since you think the injury issue is 'even' between the 2 - let's look at PER GAME over the period that you thought was such a good idea to use. I'll save you the work: 1.36 PPG for Lindros to 1.27 PPG for Forsberg.

Sounds like a minor difference, right? Now average that difference out of an 82 game season. Then average it out over EIGHT 82 game seasons. Lindros comes out ahead by 58 points. More importantly, he demolishes his goal scoring numbers by over 150!!!

And let's not forget 2 very important facts:

1 - Lindros, as much as he could, PLAYED with the injuries he suffered during that span or rushed back from them in many cases too early. He didn't take an entire year off to recover like Forsberg did. Playing hurt, as you indicated, makes point production more difficult.
2 - Lindros came into the league 2 years before Forsberg, so his numbers as a 19-21 year old contribute to this. He was forced to develop in the NHL, while Forsberg had the luxury of being much closer to his prime during his entire '8 year' stretch.

We were talking about regular season genius, not the playoffs. You can't just factor in a season where he played zero games, just because it changes the data in your favor. At least in your comparison, Eric only had a 20 game advantage? We were talking about what they have done in their careers, and you took away a whole season from Forsberg. To make it worse, you once again called me a liar, when in fact, you were the one who got it wrong. Saying what Lindros could have done, by looking at a PPG average is not the smoking gun in this argument either. Far from it. Who knows who would have gone into a slump, or who would have gotten hot.

You think a .09 difference in PPG proves that Philly won the trade? Then you blow it up over an 82 game season (I'm not sure why you would do this either, since the difference in games played is less) and say the difference is bigger? Of course it's bigger, you added more games. That doesn't prove anything. You are basing your argument with fuzzy math, and with stats nonethe less. All I was saying is that what they did during their first eight seasons was comparable, and that you can't use offensive output as an example that Lindros was better, because Peter scored more. Even with your hypothetical example, that has nothing to do with what I was talking about, it's still close.

BTW, if you think that Forsberg wasn't rushed back from injuries, or playing hurt just as much as Lindros, you are mistaken once again. Also saying Lindros has scored more goals doesn't mean anything either, since everyone knows Forsberg is a playmaker.

I don't think you have a fundamental understanding of how big business operates. Do you think Ed Snider sent Quebec $15 million because he had it just lying around? The Flyers forecast that if they were able to bring in Lindros, they would be able to sell enough seats and suites to build a new rink, which would enable them to earn enough money to cover that $15 million and earn an enormous amount of money on top of it.

No Lindros = Lower revenues = no arena = continued lower revenues = no $15 million to spend on free agents.

I don't think you ever had a fundamental understanding of what I have been saying, since my first post in this thread. You are like a politician with these answers. Instead of arguing against what I said, you talk about something else. I'm aware of the luxery suite factor, like I've said numberous times. All I was saying was that they could have done something with $15 million. It's not chumpchange.

They'd already been trying the youth-movement-build-from-within formula for a number of years. It wasn't working and it would have continued not working.

I'm not sure who you are talking to, but like most of what you say, this has nothing to do with what I said. I never said anything about the youth movement. I said they didn't neccesarily have to become a big market team, but they could have signed a couple guys, and used the rest to help with any losses they might have had. It would have helped somehow.

You said they got Patrick Roy by virtue of the Lindros trade as well. My contention is they WOULD have gotten Roy regardless of whether or not they had Tbo to send the other way, which apparently, you now agree with.

Another clever misdirection of what I have been saying. I said it was possible, if they upped the ante a lot, with a Deadmarsh, or Ricci and maybe no Keane coming the other way, but however unlikely, since Montreal was looking for a replacement goalie to sell to their fans, like you said, and Fiset just wasn't going to cut it. I don't now agree with anything. I've been maintaining the same point the whole time.

You said "it's all speculation and neither of us can say for sure. I CAN say for sure. Roy was going to Colorado come hell or high water. Then Lindros trade had nothing to do with the Avs acquiring Roy.

Who do you think you are Nostradamus? Even he was full of crap. He just used vague wording to help ensure something like it would eventually happen. I hate to break it to you, but you are clearly delusional, if you think you know for SURE, that Roy was going to Colorado. Thibault did have something to do with the Roy trade, because they got the pick they used to draft him from Philly. So without him it would have been difficult to acquire Roy, especially if Montreal would have insisted on a much hyped goalie going the other way, which I believe they would have.

The degrees on my wall say differently, so I'll just ignore your insults.

I apologize if I have insulted you, I'm not trying to turn the discusion in that route, but this topic is getting a little old, especially when I am being called a liar, and I have to keep showing who is really lying.

 

[salzy]

You're right I should have included him, and I made a habit of including all the guys in the trades I talked about, and since I was looking at a lot of trades, I forgot to mention Sundin. It was a mistake, there was no alterior motive. You are basing you're whole argument on an inconsequential fact. Get over it.

You're wrong that it was an inconsequential fact. It helps mislead the reader into believing you're original premise - that Quebec won the trade in a landslide. You've admitted you were wrong to do so, and I'm good with that, so we'll move on.

Conveniently you didn't address what I was talking about once again. The thread was entitled Passing Chemistry, and you tried to work in the LOD line, by supporting it with how bruising they were. Then when somebody said they weren't as good as the Zhamnov line, you took offense, and again supported it by saying that Tkachuk was the only one on that line you had to look out for physically. You didn't ask him to clarify, you just said I hope you are talking from a pure point production standpoint, and then you went into your bruising explanation. Then somebody finally pointed out to you the thread was about passing, not bruising capability, and you came back saying that the topic seemed to have morphed a little bit, even though it had stayed on topic with passing, the whole time.

This entire paragraph is basically a huge lie by you to attempt to save face. A number of people mentioned the LOD besides myself in that thread, as well as a number of other good lines that weren't necessarily know for their passing prowess - Dallas' Old Man line immediately springs to mind. I didn't feel asking a poster to clarify their position was a cardinal sin, but apparently I was wrong. That being said, the LOD could throw the puck around pretty good too, so regardless they certainly aren't out of place in that thread regardless.

My whole point was, that very similar to what you have done here, you didn't pay attention to what the guy was saying, since the thread was about passing. All you saw was some guy disagreeing with you on your favorite Philly line. I was pointing out how ironic it was that you were calling me bias, when in fact you are ten fold, less objective than I have been trying to be.

Okay, so in other words, instead of attacking my facts that I have presented in this thread, you have decided to make it about ME! Research my other posts and nitpick so you can somehow try to make ME look bad because the facts I've presented here are bullet proof. Okay, very crafty. Low, but crafty.

You got me, another oversight. Doesn't change that I was talking about before the Stevens hit, which you again didn't address. Take it out of the mix and you're still full of crap. They both have been plagued by injuries during their career, so it is very comparable once again.

OVERSIGHT!?!?! That is another HUGE omission! How can you call it an oversight? And as I went on to say, even if I stipulate that their injuries were 'even' (which they weren't), Lindros still completely dominates Forsberg on a ppg equalization basis.

You said it wasn't even a bit even, which about 99 out of 100 intelegent hockey fans would say it is indeed close. Once again, you try to bring in physical presence, and fighting into the mix, which Lindros does have an advantage in, but by no means does that make it not even close in terms of intangables. This is an example of objectivity. I disagree with you, and say Forsberg has the edge in this, but all I have been saying is that it is close, because it's a matter of opinion. You however, said it wasn't even close.

There are a number of reasons for this misconception that would take hours to get into. Suffice to say there have been far too many Lindros haters going all the way back to his Oshawa days for anyone to claim that his career has been judged objectively. But PLEASE, explain to me what it is about Forsberg that gives him the edge in terms of "intagibles"? I listed a number of them that give Eric the clear and obvious edge, but you simply sluffed them off like they were meaningless like you do with anything that runs contrary to your opinion.

We were talking about regular season genius, not the playoffs. You can't just factor in a season where he played zero games, just because it changes the data in your favor. At least in your comparison, Eric only had a 20 game advantage? We were talking about what they have done in their careers, and you took away a whole season from Forsberg.

YOU used a statistical measure that gave Forsberg a slight edge because he had nearly a 60 game advantage. Then you jumped all over me because I used a period where Lindros had only a very slight 20 game advantage. Does that make any sense? The point is, by ANY reasonable statistical measure, Lindros comes out on top. That is the indisputable fact that you keep ignoring.

Saying what Lindros could have done, by looking at a PPG average is not the smoking gun in this argument either. Far from it. Who knows who would have gone into a slump, or who would have gotten hot.

The ppg average is based on their numbers over several hundred games. That easily factors in slumps, streaks and so forth. My sample size was extremely reliable.

You think a .09 difference in PPG proves that Philly won the trade? Then you blow it up over an 82 game season (I'm not sure why you would do this either, since the difference in games played is less) and say the difference is bigger? Of course it's bigger, you added more games. That doesn't prove anything. You are basing your argument with fuzzy math, and with stats nonethe less.

YOU are the person who alleges their injuries were 'somewhat even'. They weren't, but even if they were, I proved that Lindros still has a substantial edge. You're only calling it 'fuzzy math' because it blows your position out of the water.

All I was saying is that what they did during their first eight seasons was comparable, and that you can't use offensive output as an example that Lindros was better, because Peter scored more. Even with your hypothetical example, that has nothing to do with what I was talking about, it's still close.

And as I have shown, you were wrong.

BTW, if you think that Forsberg wasn't rushed back from injuries, or playing hurt just as much as Lindros, you are mistaken once again.

Not at all. As I recall, Philly never gave Lindros the luxury resting his weary body for an entire season.

Also saying Lindros has scored more goals doesn't mean anything either, since everyone knows Forsberg is a playmaker.

It means a hell of a lot. It means Lindros was the far more dominant goal scorer. And despite what your minor novice coach told you, goals ARE more important than assists. Why do you think Brett Hull is looked at like a legend, while Adam Oates is remembered as a great passer?

I don't think you ever had a fundamental understanding of what I have been saying, since my first post in this thread. You are like a politician with these answers. Instead of arguing against what I said, you talk about something else. I'm aware of the luxery suite factor, like I've said numberous times. All I was saying was that they could have done something with $15 million. It's not chumpchange.

YOU are the one who can't understand plain facts! What is so difficult to understand? Without the Lindros trade, THERE WAS NO $15 MILLION!!!

I'm not sure who you are talking to, but like most of what you say, this has nothing to do with what I said. I never said anything about the youth movement. I said they didn't neccesarily have to become a big market team, but they could have signed a couple guys, and used the rest to help with any losses they might have had. It would have helped somehow.

OMG!!! If they tried to build around Forsberg and Ricci, they were sticking with the friggin youth movement!!!

Another clever misdirection of what I have been saying. I said it was possible, if they upped the ante a lot, with a Deadmarsh, or Ricci and maybe no Keane coming the other way, but however unlikely, since Montreal was looking for a replacement goalie to sell to their fans, like you said, and Fiset just wasn't going to cut it. I don't now agree with anything. I've been maintaining the same point the whole time.

You're missing the point - or dancing around it! Roy was going to Colorado no matter what. End of story.

Who do you think you are Nostradamus? Even he was full of crap. He just used vague wording to help ensure something like it would eventually happen. I hate to break it to you, but you are clearly delusional, if you think you know for SURE, that Roy was going to Colorado. Thibault did have something to do with the Roy trade, because they got the pick they used to draft him from Philly. So without him it would have been difficult to acquire Roy, especially if Montreal would have insisted on a much hyped goalie going the other way, which I believe they would have.

Of course he did. But to claim the trade wouldn't have gone down without Thibault is completely naive and not based on any reality in this world.

I apologize if I have insulted you, I'm not trying to turn the discusion in that route, but this topic is getting a little old, especially when I am being called a liar, and I have to keep showing who is really lying.

LOL - "I apologize for insulting you, but pardon me while I insult you again". You show who is really lying with every keystroke, and obviously it's not me.

 

[MB1]

Funny, I remember watching Sportsline when they announced the trade and Tatti and Hebscher agreeing in March that they might as well just hand the Cup over to Calgary right then and there. They decided to play it out anyway, but a couple months later that's exactly what they did. I'd say it was a pretty brilliant move for the Flames too.

You're right it was. But long-term it was a pretty amazing trade.

 

[Foppa2118]

You're wrong that it was an inconsequential fact. It helps mislead the reader into believing you're original premise - that Quebec won the trade in a landslide. You've admitted you were wrong to do so, and I'm good with that, so we'll move on.

You have got to have the thickest head ever. All you see is what you want to see, no matter how obvious it is not that way. It doesn't mislead anything, since all I was talking about BUTCHER, and I said it was a MINOR part of the trade in my first post, so it doesn't even say much. What part about Butcher being a MINOR part of the Philly trade don't you get. You are so desperate to try and save face in this silly argument, that you are willing to go on, and on, and on forever about something that has nothing to do with anything.

This entire paragraph is basically a huge lie by you to attempt to save face. A number of people mentioned the LOD besides myself in that thread, as well as a number of other good lines that weren't necessarily know for their passing prowess - Dallas' Old Man line immediately springs to mind. I didn't feel asking a poster to clarify their position was a cardinal sin, but apparently I was wrong. That being said, the LOD could throw the puck around pretty good too, so regardless they certainly aren't out of place in that thread regardless.

You have absolutely no credibility anymore, as I will have to shoot down another absurd accusation. The fact that you are so desperate to save face, that you continually call me a liar, when in fact you are lying about it, has got to be one of the most pathetic scenes I have seen in a long time. Only a couple people mentioned the LOD line, and it was always in response to what you had originally brought up. So that throws your whole defense out the window. All the lines people mentioned in that thread were about pure passing, except for the Dallas line you mentioned, which was after your post, and somebody called him out too, and the Detroit grind line, which the guy said was a checking line, not a passing line. It had nothing to do with clarifying being a sin, it had to do with you implying you were just claryfing, when you clearly weren't. It's not a big deal that you talked about the LOD line, I was purely pointing out how biased you were, since you had previously questioned my objectivity. So once again, your petty attempt at an accusation has failed. This is becoming a huge waste of time, as your immaturity seems to have no limit.

Okay, so in other words, instead of attacking my facts that I have presented in this thread, you have decided to make it about ME! Research my other posts and nitpick so you can somehow try to make ME look bad because the facts I've presented here are bullet proof. Okay, very crafty. Low, but crafty.

Oh, please. I have shot down all your lame facts. The reason why it's becoming like you, is becasue instead of making valid arguments, you twist my words, into what they clearly are not, and call me a liar, when it has been established, that you are the only one lying to save face in this. I would suggest stopping this charade, before you make yourself look worse, since you are clearly worried about that, given the lenghts you have gone. I will try and help you out, by doing my best not to respond to what you say anymore.

OVERSIGHT!?!?! That is another HUGE omission! How can you call it an oversight? And as I went on to say, even if I stipulate that their injuries were 'even' (which they weren't), Lindros still completely dominates Forsberg on a ppg equalization basis.

Get over it. It agian is a very small detail. You take that out of the mix, and they both lost many games to injury, so it is still comparable, no matter how much you deny it. He has an advantage in PPG, but it isn't enough to say Lindros was so much better. All I have been saying is that it is close, and that I personally would give the edge to Forsberg. Stats aren't that important in this argument. The only reason I brought that example up in the first place, was to keep people like you from saying he accomplished more offensively during their first eight seasons.

There are a number of reasons for this misconception that would take hours to get into. Suffice to say there have been far too many Lindros haters going all the way back to his Oshawa days for anyone to claim that his career has been judged objectively. But PLEASE, explain to me what it is about Forsberg that gives him the edge in terms of "intagibles"? I listed a number of them that give Eric the clear and obvious edge, but you simply sluffed them off like they were meaningless like you do with anything that runs contrary to your opinion.

Yea, everyone hates Lindros, and doesn't give him the credit he deserves. Spoken like a true homer. Sure some people don't like him, but almost everyone respects what a great player he was.

The intangables are close, but I personally would give the edge to Forsberg again. I wouldn't of had a problem with you stating otherwise, but you implyed it wasn't even close. Forsberg is slightly better in the playoffs, he is better at making others around him play better, which is the mark of a great player, he's better defensively, he sees the ice better, which you can see by all the blind passes he has made in his career, and I think he competes harder. Physical play is a wash, so the only thing I would give lindros an edge on is fighting, and goal scoring, which I also would throw out, because Peter's assists match those. So once again, yes it is very close. Not nearly the home run for Lindros as you have said.

YOU used a statistical measure that gave Forsberg a slight edge because he had nearly a 60 game advantage. Then you jumped all over me because I used a period where Lindros had only a very slight 20 game advantage. Does that make any sense? The point is, by ANY reasonable statistical measure, Lindros comes out on top. That is the indisputable fact that you keep ignoring.

I think this is the part where if you were in my shoes, you would have thrown a fit, becasue the difference was 55 games, not 60. It's not an oversight, it's a HUGE ommision.

You once again missed the point, which is making it quite clear, that me continuing this is pointless, because you don't even listen to what I say, you just hear what you want to. Instead of arguing against what I said, about what they had accomplished in their career, you bring up this PPG thing, where Lindros has a vastly impressive .09 advantage, and you would have to hypothosize what would happen in the rest of those games. Yea, that sure makes it indisputable that Lindros was so much better in that time.

YOU are the person who alleges their injuries were 'somewhat even'. They weren't, but even if they were, I proved that Lindros still has a substantial edge. You're only calling it 'fuzzy math' because it blows your position out of the water.


And as I have shown, you were wrong.

You really can't do math can you. .09 PPG is not a substantial edge. Do you really think that by stating these things matter of fact, that anyone is going to believe you.

Not at all. As I recall, Philly never gave Lindros the luxury resting his weary body for an entire season.

Nice try, that has nothing to do with him having to play hurt, or being rushed back form injury in the past. In fact, if anyhting, it would show that he had played hurt too much in the past, and needed a full season that included three seperate surgery's and rest.

It means a hell of a lot. It means Lindros was the far more dominant goal scorer. And despite what your minor novice coach told you, goals ARE more important than assists. Why do you think Brett Hull is looked at like a legend, while Adam Oates is remembered as a great passer?

It doesn't actaully. Goals are more important than assists, but that doesn't mean that Lindros is such a better player. Lindros isn't Brett Hull in the goal scoring department, and I would venture that Forsberg is either as good, or better than Oates in passing. In fact, since you are so fond of the per game stat, the only people who have a higher APG are Gretzky, Lemieux, and Orr. Again this is your favorite stat, not mine.

YOU are the one who can't understand plain facts! What is so difficult to understand? Without the Lindros trade, THERE WAS NO $15 MILLION!!!

What the hell are you talking about. If you are saying they were expecting to make that money back, that has nothing to do with what I was saying, once again.

OMG!!! If they tried to build around Forsberg and Ricci, they were sticking with the friggin youth movement!!!

Yea, and trading away players that were older than a young Lindros, is going in another direction. Nice try. Again, you were the only one that brought up youth movement, I was talking about the $15 million.

You're missing the point - or dancing around it! Roy was going to Colorado no matter what. End of story.

Yea, I'm dancing around the point. I guess the point was Salzy knows all. Roy was going to Colorado no matter what, because he just knows. Great argument. Do you know who killed Kennedy too, because that I would be interested in hearing.

Of course he did. But to claim the trade wouldn't have gone down without Thibault is completely naive and not based on any reality in this world.

Actaully it's not. It would have been quite difficult for them to get Roy without Thibault. I've already stated why.

LOL - "I apologize for insulting you, but pardon me while I insult you again". You show who is really lying with every keystroke, and obviously it's not me.

Poor you. You're so innocent when it comes to insults. I should just let you coutinually falsefy things, and lie over and over, hilariously trying to say that I'm a liar. I think I'm gonna buy you a big cross so you can put it up in your room, when you feel like you have been unrightfully mistreated.

 

[salzy]

You have got to have the thickest head ever.

Wow. Just wow. You've lowered yourself to childish name calling? Wow. That's okay. I'll brush it off and stay above it.

All you see is what you want to see, no matter how obvious it is not that way. It doesn't mislead anything, since all I was talking about BUTCHER, and I said it was a MINOR part of the trade in my first post, so it doesn't even say much. What part about Butcher being a MINOR part of the Philly trade don't you get. You are so desperate to try and save face in this silly argument, that you are willing to go on, and on, and on forever about something that has nothing to do with anything.

YES, it was a extremely minor part. What I don't 'get' is how you could imply the took that minor part and parlayed it into getting Wendel Clark. Like I said, you've admitted you were wrong and I am willing to move on, but you seem to want to keep that part of this discussion alive for some reason.

You have absolutely no credibility anymore, as I will have to shoot down another absurd accusation.

Kinda an oxymoron there, don't you think? Why would you have to shoot down the absurd accusations of a person with no credibility?

The fact that you are so desperate to save face, that you continually call me a liar, when in fact you are lying about it, has got to be one of the most pathetic scenes I have seen in a long time.

I don't need to save face. Everything I have said is backed up with cold hard facts, while you back up the things you say with "I think", "I feel" and "If you ask me".

Only a couple people mentioned the LOD line, and it was always in response to what you had originally brought up. So that throws your whole defense out the window. All the lines people mentioned in that thread were about pure passing, except for the Dallas line you mentioned, which was after your post, and somebody called him out too, and the Detroit grind line, which the guy said was a checking line, not a passing line. It had nothing to do with clarifying being a sin, it had to do with you implying you were just claryfing, when you clearly weren't.

Again, stop telling lies. The thread is still there for anyone to see. I am not the only person to mention the LOD and there are a number of lines mentioned that the LOD could throw it around just as well as, so like I said, they weren't out of place. People can also check the thread to see my post where I asked the other poster to clarify (just like I said).

It's not a big deal that you talked about the LOD line, I was purely pointing out how biased you were, since you had previously questioned my objectivity. So once again, your petty attempt at an accusation has failed. This is becoming a huge waste of time, as your immaturity seems to have no limit.

I see, so in your world participating in more than one discussion about a former player on my team (who now happens to be hated by many Flyer fans and is more or less a pariah in Philly now) is somehow equivalent to having such a deep crush on a player that you have decided to take his silly nickname as your own? Okay, makes sense. Facts are facts, jack. That's what this is about. Got nothing to do with Lindros being a former Flyer.

Oh, please. I have shot down all your lame facts.

Ummm, I think you meant to say "I have shot down NONE of your VERY VALID facts".

The reason why it's becoming like you, is becasue instead of making valid arguments, you twist my words, into what they clearly are not, and call me a liar, when it has been established, that you are the only one lying to save face in this. I would suggest stopping this charade, before you make yourself look worse, since you are clearly worried about that, given the lenghts you have gone. I will try and help you out, by doing my best not to respond to what you say anymore.

Oh, this is the part where you issue the obligatory whiny "your putting words in my mouth, kicking my ass in this debate, and generally not being very nice so I'm not talking to you anymore!" post. Quite predictable.

Get over it. It agian is a very small detail. You take that out of the mix, and they both lost many games to injury, so it is still comparable, no matter how much you deny it. He has an advantage in PPG, but it isn't enough to say Lindros was so much better. All I have been saying is that it is close, and that I personally would give the edge to Forsberg. Stats aren't that important in this argument. The only reason I brought that example up in the first place, was to keep people like you from saying he accomplished more offensively during their first eight seasons.

It's a very large detail. You implied that Forsberg was able to put up more points during a period of time. The fact is, he was not. Stats were important enough to you when you thought you could mislead people into believing Forsberg had superior numbers, but now they AREN'T important because it's been pointed out that Lindros had the edge by pretty much every reasonable statistical measure.

The ppg average wasn't significant? Of course it was. Over a 1200 game career it would translate to over 100 points. Very significant. And of course, the goal differential would have been MUCH more staggering, to the point of embarassing poor Peter.

Yea, everyone hates Lindros, and doesn't give him the credit he deserves. Spoken like a true homer. Sure some people don't like him, but almost everyone respects what a great player he was.

Okay, this is getting out of hand. There has been a large anti-Lindros contigent among players, fans and media for about 18 years now and you are somehow trying to deny that it exists. I can't think of a single star player who has been given a rougher ride by the media and fans than he has. And you are trying to paint it like he's still viewed objectively by the masses. Simply absurd.

The intangables are close, but I personally would give the edge to Forsberg again. I wouldn't of had a problem with you stating otherwise, but you implyed it wasn't even close.

It's not close.

Forsberg is slightly better in the playoffs

Not true. However, Forbserg has played for more successful teams so I can see where you would make that mistake.

he is better at making others around him play better, which is the mark of a great player

Not true. Lindros turned John Leclair into an All World power forward and Mikael Renberg into an all star. Before that he turned Mark Recchi into a record breaker. Along the way he turned guys like Keith Jones and Brent Fedyk from 3rd-4th line muckers into 1st line scoring threats. All the while, he was the FIRST line center. He didn't have a teammate like Joe Sakic sharing a huge amount of the weight for his team. And like I said, he came into the league at 19. He didn't wait until he was in his twenties.

he's better defensively

Disagree, since checking are a huge factor and Eric clearly dominates in that regard.

he sees the ice better, which you can see by all the blind passes he has made in his career

Disagree. Eric's vision likely assisted him to score so many more goals per game than Forsberg. Putting the puck in the net is still the object of the game, isn't it?

I think he competes harder.

Really? Like when he took the entire season off?

Physical play is a wash, so the only thing I would give lindros an edge on is fighting, and goal scoring, which I also would throw out, because Peter's assists match those.

And there is where you lose your last stitch of credibility. Physical play is nowhere near a wash. Relativley speaking, in terms of physical play, Eric was a monster while Forsberg was but a rambunctious little boy. You give Eric an 'edge' in fighting? Dear god, if they ever fought Forsberg would be nothing more than a red speck on the ice. Steve Moore's injuries would be like a paper cut in comparison. So giving Eric an 'edge' is a bit of an understatement. And as for Peter's assists 'matching' Eric's goals, well, like I have proven, they simply DON'T.

So once again, yes it is very close. Not nearly the home run for Lindros as you have said.

Like I said, not close. Grand slam home run for Lindros.

I think this is the part where if you were in my shoes, you would have thrown a fit, becasue the difference was 55 games, not 60. It's not an oversight, it's a HUGE ommision.

Not true at all. It's not an oversight or an ommision. It's a misquote by you. I said NEARLY 60 games. It saved me going back through all the posts and looking up what you said because I knew I could say NEARLY 60 games, and like everything else I have said, that is FACTUALLY ACCURATE.

You once again missed the point, which is making it quite clear, that me continuing this is pointless, because you don't even listen to what I say, you just hear what you want to. Instead of arguing against what I said, about what they had accomplished in their career, you bring up this PPG thing, where Lindros has a vastly impressive .09 advantage, and you would have to hypothosize what would happen in the rest of those games. Yea, that sure makes it indisputable that Lindros was so much better in that time.

.09 ppg is only one a myriad statistical measures that I have used to prove Lindros' offensive superiority. Take your pick.

You really can't do math can you. .09 PPG is not a substantial edge. Do you really think that by stating these things matter of fact, that anyone is going to believe you.

.09 ppg is a very substantial edge when looked at over an entire season or over an entire career. I can 'do math' very well, thank you very much. You might want to look into a basic stats course.

Do you really think that by stating these things matter of fact, that anyone is going to believe you.

I don't see anyone disputing the facts except you. That's particularly damning given the afformentioned long standing general resentment towards Lindros.

Nice try, that has nothing to do with him having to play hurt, or being rushed back form injury in the past. In fact, if anyhting, it would show that he had played hurt too much in the past, and needed a full season that included three seperate surgery's and rest.

I never said Forsberg hasn't played hurt or rushed back from injury. I said you were wrong to say he had done so to the same extent Eric had.

It doesn't actaully. Goals are more important than assists, but that doesn't mean that Lindros is such a better player. Lindros isn't Brett Hull in the goal scoring department, and I would venture that Forsberg is either as good, or better than Oates in passing.

Look up in the sky! It's the point flying directly over your head. I mentioned Hull and Oates merely to illustrate the importance of goal scoring over accumulating assists. Goals are plain and simple, more important. NOBODY COMPARED ANYONE TO HULL OR OATES. Since you like math, here's a little algebra. If A>B and C>D that really tells you absolutely nothing about A or B relative to C or D? I'll give you a little time with that one.

As for Eric not being in Hull's league in terms of goal scoring - he was certainly well on his way to putting up comparable career numbers, while being a much more complete player.

In fact, since you are so fond of the per game stat, the only people who have a higher APG are Gretzky, Lemieux, and Orr. Again this is your favorite stat, not mine.

I've never said Forsberg hasn't been able to accumulate a load of assists, but my favourite stat? When have I EVERY mentioned APG? Somewhere in the area of never, I think.

What the hell are you talking about. If you are saying they were expecting to make that money back, that has nothing to do with what I was saying, once again.

It has EVERYTHING TO DO with EXACTLY what you said. You said they could have spent the $15 million on other free agents. That was ANOTHER mistake in your theory. Without the Lindros trade, the $15 million would not have existed in their budget. I don't know how many times I can say that.

Yea, and trading away players that were older than a young Lindros, is going in another direction.

Acquiring Lindros was not part of a youth movement. He was a once in a lifetime player that they could build an entire franchise around - starting with a state of the art new building. And at the same time, they were able to keep their 2 best players. Yep, you guessed it - both veterans. If it was a youth movement they'd have kept Forsberg and Ricci and sent Brind'amour and Recchi.

Yea, I'm dancing around the point. I guess the point was Salzy knows all. Roy was going to Colorado no matter what, because he just knows. Great argument. Do you know who killed Kennedy too, because that I would be interested in hearing.
It would have been quite difficult for them to get Roy without Thibault. I've already stated why.

Like I said, just as you and I are able to add 1 and 1 and come up with the answer 2, we are able to add up the facts surrounding Roy's trade and conclude that he was going to the Avalanche. Period.

Poor you. You're so innocent when it comes to insults. I should just let you coutinually falsefy things, and lie over and over, hilariously trying to say that I'm a liar. I think I'm gonna buy you a big cross so you can put it up in your room, when you feel like you have been unrightfully mistreated.

LOL - Up in my room? What are you, 11 years old? Glad to hear you have your own room now.

 

[Foppa2118]

Not really much to respond to here. I'll only quote a few of your posts, out of hte 29 that you made that last time, since the rest have either already been covered, or are silly one sentence replies that lack any kind of thought. You've put forth one of the weakest arguments I've seen in a while, and it's pretty obvious for everyone to see, so I wouldn't brag too much. Unfortunatley padding your posts with a lot of nonsense replies, doesn't make it a better argument.

The proof that you are desperate in this argument, is when you continually bring up the Wendal Clark thing, when I said it was a minor part, and taking issue with me saying I'd give Lindros the edge in fighting. These are signs that you are stretching for something to argue about, and since you lack substance, you try and make up for it, by aggresivly talking about a minor topic.

You also lose even more credibility, when in an attempt to build up Lindros, you make statements like they aren't even in physical play, as Forsberg is just a rambunctious little boy. Or when you underestimate the importance of a playmaker. Or when after you tell me to list the intangables that I think make Forsberg better, and I comply, and say it's close, you reply only with, "It's not close."

You say that you have backed up everything with cold facts, and that you haven't lied? I think saying that makes you look pretty stupid, as it's quite obvious to anyone who can read, that you have done the exact opposite, so I wouldn't continually try to say otherwise. In fact, your lying is getting to the point of being either compulsive, or pathalogical, because it's kinda scary the things that you will lie about.

As for the LOD line topic, it's a minor thing, but again you are making a mistake by asking people to view the thread, because if anyone calls your bluff, they will see exactly what I was talking about. Again, not a huge deal that you don't have the objectivity you accused me of lacking, but you keep bringing it up. You are clearly biased in favor of the Flyers, and Lindros, so again, for you to keep stating otherwise is sily. It's not that big of a deal to favor a team, but you keep lying about it, and then you suggest that I'm lying to make it worse. It's just really strange that you would go to those lengths.

You have such a weak argument, that you keep trying to push this .09 PPG advantage, and then say over 1200 games it would translate to 100 pts. Of course the more games you have, the bigger the difference is, but what you fail to understand, is that you can't do that, because it biases the data. You have to look at it with the amount of games you have, and .09 PPG is not an impressive argument for Lindros being the superior player that you suggest, to say the least. You also finish it off by saying that is one of a, "myriad" of statistical data, which is quite funny because I don't recall any others, and if there were, it's not even close to a myriad.

Look up in the sky! It's the point flying directly over your head. I mentioned Hull and Oates merely to illustrate the importance of goal scoring over accumulating assists. Goals are plain and simple, more important. NOBODY COMPARED ANYONE TO HULL OR OATES. Since you like math, here's a little algebra. If A>B and C>D that really tells you absolutely nothing about A or B relative to C or D? I'll give you a little time with that one.

You like using that look up in the sky thing, I've seen you use that before. Ironicly, you used it when you have missed the point. I take it you just read that little math problem, but you obviously didn't take the time to study what it actaully meant, as it doesn't factor into what we are talking about. First of all this isn't a math problem, like 1+1=2, which you are fond of using. That must be the level of math you are at. Second, if that is the way you look at it, then that throws your original silly Hull and Oates example out the window, since you can't compare them. So maybe it is you that should take some time with that one.

Yes, goals are obviously more important, but the fact that you underestimate assists, and playmakers like Oates and Forsberg, is pretty sad. Neither the goal scorer or the playmaker, can function the same without the other, and after all, the goal scorer doesn't do much, until he finds open ice, and fires the puck, since the playmaker is usually the one handling the puck, and using his vision, to find the open guy.

Disagree, since checking are a huge factor and Eric clearly dominates in that regard.

Another example of your uneducated hockey knowledge. Forsberg by most hockey people, is considered the most complete player in the world, mostly due to his defensive awareness, and this is by his defensive play early in his career, because his coaches have tried to take away some of his defensive responsibility the last few years, in hopes of increasing his offense. Many things we have talked about are subjective, although you would never agree, as you KNOW Lindros is better, but this isn't, as Forsberg, is clearly better defensivly, not to say that Lindros isn't responsible in that regard.

It has EVERYTHING TO DO with EXACTLY what you said. You said they could have spent the $15 million on other free agents. That was ANOTHER mistake in your theory. Without the Lindros trade, the $15 million would not have existed in their budget. I don't know how many times I can say that.

How does it have anything to do with what I said? It clearly doesn't, since all I said was that they could do SOMETHING with the money, and I even said they could have used it to cover any loses. Again, saying these things so matter of fact, or in capitals doesn't make anyone believe you. Try reading for a change, you haven't been doing much of it. In fact I wonder if I stopped replying to you, you would just keep going.

Acquiring Lindros was not part of a youth movement.

Why do I keep responding to you. Lets track how this statement came into this. I was talking about the $15 million being able to help with something. Then you came back and said they'd already been trying the youth-movement-build-from-within formula for a number of years, and it wasn't working. Then I pointed out that had nothing to do with what I was talking about, and that I was only talking about the $15 million. Then you said that if they tried to build around Forsberg and Ricci, they were sticking with the youth movement. Then I again pointed out that that had nothing to do with what I was talking about, since I was only talking about the $15 million being able to do something, and that trading away older players, and aquiring Lindros, is not going in another direction than a youth movement, which it clearly isn't. Then you came back and said that Lindros was not part of a youth movement, because they kept two players. This is a perfect example of you not paying attention. You made 4 seperate posts on something I was never talking about, and then when I finally started talking about the youth movement, and simply said getting Lindros was not going in another direction than a youth movement, you came back again with Lindros was not part of a youth movement. I never said it was a youth movement, it's just not going for a veteran lineup. You really ought to start reading, and then thinking, and then replying, because you brought this up four times, when it had nothing to do with what I was originally saying.

I've never said Forsberg hasn't been able to accumulate a load of assists, but my favourite stat? When have I EVERY mentioned APG? Somewhere in the area of never, I think.

As expeted. Try reading the reply again, it says per game stat. I noticed you didn't say anything about the company that he is in. Lindros is much further down the list in GPG, and isn't in nearly the elite company Forsberg is.

Like I said, just as you and I are able to add 1 and 1 and come up with the answer 2, we are able to add up the facts surrounding Roy's trade and conclude that he was going to the Avalanche. Period.

What is 1, and the other 1, and how the hell does it guarantee that Roy goes to Colorado without Thibault in the deal? Simply saying that he was going no matter what, and then saying end of story, is not a good argument.

LOL - Up in my room? What are you, 11 years old? Glad to hear you have your own room now.

This is one of my favorite posts of yours, that you would suggest that I am so young, because I would bet that you aren't over 15 at the most, and that's stretching it. If not, then you have some serious growing up to do. Quite a silly sentence too, as I said your room. You don't have a room? Where do you sleep, or maybe I should say, where do your parents keep you?

 

[Gee Wally]

since some of you are incapable of keeping personal shots out of this thread, the thread is now closed.

If it starts up again, the flaming and shots, it will be a bad day for all involved.