Thought Experiment: What if Gretzky had not left Edmonton?

[tazzy19]

There are a lot of great thinkers on this forum, so I thought it would be interesting to read your thoughts as to what Gretzky's career would have turned out like if the Oilers had managed to sign him in 1988 to a long term contract keeping him in Edmonton for the rest of his career.

Here are some thoughts to ponder. Feel free to add more...

How many more scoring titles would he have won? (He won 3 more in LA.)

How many more Hart Trophies? (He only won once more after Edmonton.)

How many goals and points would he have finished with? (Would he have hit 1000 goals and 3000 points in the regular season? How many more?)

How many cups would he have won? (Edmonton only won once without him.)

Would he have had as fast as a decline? (Despite the Gary Suter hit and also what if there was no Gary Suter hit? Anything goes here...)


I'm curious to see how much an impact the evolution of the game (competition, fitness, speed, etc) would have had on Gretzky had he not left Edmonton. In 1988, Gretzky would have had almost 190 points if not for injury, despite the absence of Paul Coffey. Yet once he went to LA, his points took a dive to the 160-170 point level. And after the Gary Suter hit, his points took a dive to the 120-130 point level...and after that, age finally caught up, making it for an interesting mix of reasons for his decline.

So, let's do this: No trade with the Gary Suter hit, and no trade without the Suter hit. What would have happened?

Click to read more...

 

[Big Phil]

So, let's do this: No trade with the Gary Suter hit, and no trade without the Suter hit. What would have happened?

Gretzky was so good and so peerless in the NHL that it took another generational talent to come around just to catch up to him and eventually surpass him. Despite that happening I think it was inevitable that Lemieux would have caught up to him even if he stayed in Edmonton. But the Cups Edmonton would have won would have continued. They win in 1989, 1990 and then we see an interesting battle in 1991 with Pittsburgh vs. Edmonton. The makeup of the Oilers team could be different. In 1991 is Kurri still there? Does Messier stay after 1991? You'd have to think since Gretzky was almost a magnet his whole career with players following him that if he stayed in a city then others would follow suit.

I still think the Pens would win a Cup or two. The Oilers even by 1992 would be getting older even with Gretzky. Someone would have to solve them. But I think if Gretzky stays in Edmonton so does Messier, so they would be contenders until each of them croaked. That also means no Harts for Messier and no Cup in NYR.

Gretzky probably wins an extra Hart Trophy but let's face it if he's in his 30s he's going to start losing it to the competition eventually. He wins an extra Art Ross as well in a season like 1992 when he was close anyways, a great Edmonton team gives him 150 points still. I think the extra post-1989 Hart he wins is in 1991. Personally I think he was robbed of it as a King, but that's another story.

If no Suter hit happens, then I think he is around a 40 goal scorer still. If it happens, well, he still does what he ended up doing and that's focusing more on playmaking.

IMO this is the NHL Cup winners with Gretzky in Edmonton post 1988:

1989, 1990, 1991. Reach the finals in 1992 but lose to the Pens. Maybe reach the finals in 1993 again. But eventually age and the emergence of Detroit would slow them down.

 

[greatgazoo]

The biggest problem and catch 22, thanks to ownership and the low Canadian dollar at the time, is that if Gretzky had re-signed in Edmonton then Pocklington would have been forced to sell off his other assets (ie. Messier, Kurri, Anderson, Fuhr)

So, you'd have to think of the Oilers with Gretzky post 1988 but without those others and with lesser players in their place. Very much like what he had in L.A!

Therefore, same stats pretty much.

 

[shazariahl]

He definitely would have broken the 900 goal mark w/o the Suter hit. Could he have hit 1000? I don't know. I think probably not. But 930-950 might be realistic. I have to agree with Phil - either way Gretzky would have concentrated more on playmaking. He probably would have had another Art Ross and another Hart. The big difference is he would have won another couple cups. Probably 2, but maybe 3.

Lemieux eventually catching and surpassing Gretzky was inevitable however; Gretzky was still getting older. However, I think he could have held on a little longer w/o the Suter hit.

A more interesting question might be what if he had never gone to Edmonton at all? When the Racers wanted to trade him, Gretzky's agent told him to go to Edmonton, because the city had just built a new arena and had a better chance of getting into the NHL. But what if Gretzky had never gone here at all, and had played his prime years in Winnipeg? He still would have had Hawerchuk, and Gretzky still put up great point totals early while other Oilers were getting 75 points, and put up good numbers later in L.A. He probably would have less cups... would his scoring records and trophies look radically different?

 

[optimus2861]

Didn't Gretzky get on the plane leaving Indianapolis without knowing where it was going to land?

Gretzky + Hawerchuk.. What a Smythe division that would've been! Messier + the other Oilers greats, the Flames growing in the mid 80s, and a Gretzky-led Jets. Might not have been as many Cups come out of there, but could you imagine the first two rounds of the playoffs there every year? (And the poor fates of the Canucks & Kings every year!)

 

[Scott1980]

Ah what might have been. Just a minute...THERE! Went and grabbed my old #99 jersey that I've had since '85 and put it in my lap...small!

 

[greatgazoo]

Didn't Gretzky get on the plane leaving Indianapolis without knowing where it was going to land?

Gretzky + Hawerchuk.. What a Smythe division that would've been! Messier + the other Oilers greats, the Flames growing in the mid 80s, and a Gretzky-led Jets. Might not have been as many Cups come out of there, but could you imagine the first two rounds of the playoffs there every year? (And the poor fates of the Canucks & Kings every year!)

If Gretzky had been a jet in 80-81 Dave Christian probably would've been a 50 plus goal scorer like BJ MacDonald was with Gretzky and the Jets escape the cellar and miss out on Hawerchuk who went #1 in the summer of 81.

 

[Big Phil]

If Gretzky had been a jet in 80-81 Dave Christian probably would've been a 50 plus goal scorer like BJ MacDonald was with Gretzky and the Jets escape the cellar and miss out on Hawerchuk who went #1 in the summer of 81.

Paul MacLean would have been a regular 100 point guy with Gretzky on his line rather than just the one time with Hawerchuk. No disrespect to Ducky of course

 

[tazzy19]

Gretzky was so good and so peerless in the NHL that it took another generational talent to come around just to catch up to him and eventually surpass him. Despite that happening I think it was inevitable that Lemieux would have caught up to him even if he stayed in Edmonton. But the Cups Edmonton would have won would have continued. They win in 1989, 1990 and then we see an interesting battle in 1991 with Pittsburgh vs. Edmonton. The makeup of the Oilers team could be different. In 1991 is Kurri still there? Does Messier stay after 1991? You'd have to think since Gretzky was almost a magnet his whole career with players following him that if he stayed in a city then others would follow suit.

I still think the Pens would win a Cup or two. The Oilers even by 1992 would be getting older even with Gretzky. Someone would have to solve them. But I think if Gretzky stays in Edmonton so does Messier, so they would be contenders until each of them croaked. That also means no Harts for Messier and no Cup in NYR.

Gretzky probably wins an extra Hart Trophy but let's face it if he's in his 30s he's going to start losing it to the competition eventually. He wins an extra Art Ross as well in a season like 1992 when he was close anyways, a great Edmonton team gives him 150 points still. I think the extra post-1989 Hart he wins is in 1991. Personally I think he was robbed of it as a King, but that's another story.

If no Suter hit happens, then I think he is around a 40 goal scorer still. If it happens, well, he still does what he ended up doing and that's focusing more on playmaking.

IMO this is the NHL Cup winners with Gretzky in Edmonton post 1988:

1989, 1990, 1991. Reach the finals in 1992 but lose to the Pens. Maybe reach the finals in 1993 again. But eventually age and the emergence of Detroit would slow them down.

Big Phil, thank you so much. This is exactly what I was looking for! I feel Gretzky would have still won the Hart trophy in 1989, as he had outscored Lemieux the year prior in PPG, and could have just as easily kept it up the following year without all the hoopla and pressure that came from being traded, and being traded to the 4th worst team in the NHL. I agree with you however that Gretzky would have won the Hart also in 1991, the year that Hull won it.

I also think the Oiler Gretzky could have won the scoring title every year until he was hit by Suter in 1991, and without the Suter hit, staying in Edmonton, he could have won it every year until 1994 when he last won the scoring title. I say Gretzky beats Lemieux in scoring in both 1992 and 93 without the Gary Suter hit while playing for Edmonton. Even playing for the Kings he would have won in 1992 without the injury, possibly even 1993.

So in conclusion:

Gretzky wins 11 or 12 Harts, 12 scoring titles, maybe more. He wins 12 scoring titles out of a 20 year career. And 7 Stanley Cups. Wow.

 

[Steelhead16]

Trying to speculate on Gretzky's #'s had he stayed in Edmonton is just that....speculation. I want to add something from your original question What would have happend had he not moved on to L.A. (To the hockey world in general)

No Gretzky move= No Sharks/Av's playoff series because no Sharks and no Av's. No Dallas Stanley Cup, No Tampa Stanley Cup, No Anaheim Stanley Cup, No Colorado Stanley Cup, Maybe No Carolina Stanley Cup.

No Panthers
No Lightning
No Thrashers
No Stars
No Ducks
No Sharks
Maybe No Preds, Canes and maybe even No More Kings

Not to mention the expansion of the ECHL, CHL and the AHL to the west along with the growth of Junior,high school, kids, and adult hockey leagues.

And maybe Bruce McNall doesn't go to prison. (Nah..he would have anyway).

 

[tazzy19]

Trying to speculate on Gretzky's #'s had he stayed in Edmonton is just that....speculation. I want to add something from your original question What would have happend had he not moved on to L.A. (To the hockey world in general)

No Gretzky move= No Sharks/Av's playoff series because no Sharks and no Av's. No Dallas Stanley Cup, No Tampa Stanley Cup, No Anaheim Stanley Cup, No Colorado Stanley Cup, Maybe No Carolina Stanley Cup.

No Panthers
No Lightning
No Thrashers
No Stars
No Ducks
No Sharks
Maybe No Preds, Canes and maybe even No More Kings

Not to mention the expansion of the ECHL, CHL and the AHL to the west along with the growth of Junior,high school, kids, and adult hockey leagues.

And maybe Bruce McNall doesn't go to prison. (Nah..he would have anyway).

Yes, it is speculation, which is precisely what this thread is about!

And I agree with you about the rest of the NHL not being the same. I was hoping someone would bring that up. The entire face of the NHL would be different. The deeper question is, would the game have been better or worse? We all know now it's an economic game, whereas before The Trade, there was still an innocence to the NHL and to hockey in general for that matter that doesn't seem to exist anymore. Has the game ultimately benefited from the Gretzky trade or has it not? That is a deep question to ponder...

 

[Steelhead16]

Yes, it is speculation, which is precisely what this thread is about!

And I agree with you about the rest of the NHL not being the same. I was hoping someone would bring that up. The entire face of the NHL would be different. The deeper question is, would the game have been better or worse? We all know now it's an economic game, whereas before The Trade, there was still an innocence to the NHL and to hockey in general for that matter that doesn't seem to exist anymore. Has the game ultimately benefited from the Gretzky trade or has it not? That is a deep question to ponder...

I can make a pro and con list for this question and I don't know if I can answer the question.

I think the game of hockey itself has benefited in the fact that the expansion of the NHL into the non traditional markets has brought the game of hockey to a vast number of people who previously had no access and therefore not much if any interest in the game. I think I am right in the wheelhouse for having a full perspective of this change. I grew up in the Bay Area and I was playing youth hockey while the Seals were still in Oakland. They didn't have a big following but there was certainly hockey interest in a non traditional market even back then. Then the Seals moved and hockey fans were stuck with the game of the week on tv.
Gretzky comes to L.A. and hockey goes through it's expansion and hockey comes back to the Bay Area (and other non traditional markets as well). Sharks draw big, new hockey fans are born. With the new hockey fans, come new rinks to the area, (Iceoplex, Sharks Ice...etc) new players (Junior Sharks program has graduated 2 kids to the NHL, a 4000 player adult league in the south bay) hockey stores. Same things happened in the L.A. and Dallas markets and I am sure as well in Atl. and Florida.

I moved away from the Bay Area in my early 30's. Reluctantly left behind Sharks and A's tickets and went to a place with no hockey and no rink. A year later an arena was built and a WCHL team moved in. People were clueless about hockey here. There were a few hockey fans here and in the winter there was an outdoor rink in a mall parking lot out by the airport. We played in 20 mph winds and freezing temps but it was hockey. The first hat trick of the ECHL team a few people threw hats on the ice and the security tried to throw people out for throwing things on the ice. 13 years later we have a 2 sheet rink with youth and adult hockey leagues, a 10 school high school jv and varsity league, a travel youth program and a Junior A team. WCHL team moved to the ECHL and has 2 championships (maybe 3 this year) and this year has it's first local player, and the same expansion has been felt in all those new NHL markets as well.

As a fan of hockey all of the above changes have been for the better. My con list comes from both a player and a fan. I played most of my youth in the Broad Street Bully type days. Tough hard nosed low scoring hockey. I liked playing that way and I would still like to play that way. My brother was 5 years younger than I was and he played mostly at the beginning of the Gretzky (Oilers) wide open high scoring style of play. He had 120 pts in a 20 game season and I had 137 pims. With the Gretzky move and the expansion of his style of hockey the game took on a whole new look. Gretzky moved to the land of the rich and famous and became rich and famous worldwide. The Kings and Bruce McNall had the blueprint for success and the rest of the league followed suit. The players salaries went up and so did the ticket prices. New arenas were built and the costs kept rising. To pay the bills the teams needed new star players to draw in fans. North America was cleaned out so Europe became the new grocery store for talent. With the European influence the games style changed yet again. For the players sake (both NHL and minor leagues as well) it's given many many more guys a chance to make a living playing a great game. As well as all the guys (and girls) that have gotten college educations from playing hockey. My son gets to play high school hockey which is something that I never got to do. We had to travel and then leave home for back east to go to high school if we wanted to play at a higher level. The travel was great but I love the fact that my son can play a sport for his school and have that be part of his growing up. I had to give up a lot of that to play.

As a player I can't stand the way the game is now. Defense is a thing of the past and all the "tools" I had growing up have been eliminated by ticky tack fouls now. As a father trying to afford to take kids and friends to games, that's been pretty well priced out. As a fan of the game of hockey I realize that the game may have disappeared had it not been for Gretzky and Bruce McNall. Thus I am torn but I guess at the sake of having none I like the fact that the game survived and flurished in the U.S. My pro list comes from the sensible point of view that I have and the con side comes from the selfish side. If I was younger the selfish side would probably win. Not so much anymore.

So I guess after all of that I can give you a definate maybe.

 

[rojac]

Yes, it is speculation, which is precisely what this thread is about!

And I agree with you about the rest of the NHL not being the same. I was hoping someone would bring that up. The entire face of the NHL would be different. The deeper question is, would the game have been better or worse? We all know now it's an economic game, whereas before The Trade, there was still an innocence to the NHL and to hockey in general for that matter that doesn't seem to exist anymore. Has the game ultimately benefited from the Gretzky trade or has it not? That is a deep question to ponder...

I think many people became well aware of the fact that hockey was an economic game in the 70s with the WHA. Perhaps if you were someone whose awareness of the NHL began post-WHA, it may have seemed that there was a loss of innocence with the Gretzky trade but I really think it happened earlier.

 

[Jumptheshark]

a few years ago--I think it was EA sports ran program based upon output of ALL the oilers and put a calculation into how many cups the oilers would have won if the oilers could have kept the core together

Gretz. Kurri, Messier, Anderson, Coffey, Fuhr, Moog and Tikanen,

They took out all the players the oilers received in deal that involved the above players--IE Ranford, Simpson, Carson(murphy, graves and Klima) and EA figured that the oilers would have won a total of 10 cup in 14 years

 

[Ogopogo*]

The Oilers would have won at least four more cups - 1989, 1991, 1993 and 1994

 

[albertGQ]

People think the Oilers would win the Cup in 1989 over the Flames?

 

[Kenadyan]

People think the Oilers would win the Cup in 1989 over the Flames?

Well, they did in 1988 when the Flames had a better regular season record, so why not in 1989 (with Gretzky).

I agree that the Oilers would have 8 or 9 Stanley Cups if Gretzky had never been traded.

 

[albertGQ]

Well, they did in 1988 when the Flames had a better regular season record, so why not in 1989 (with Gretzky).

I agree that the Oilers would have 8 or 9 Stanley Cups if Gretzky had never been traded.

117 points is significantly better then 105. The 89 Flames was so much better then the 88 version.

 

[greatgazoo]

117 points is significantly better then 105. The 89 Flames was so much better then the 88 version.

Bottom line is that the Oilers owned the Flames come playoff time with one exception of course when they were coached by Badger Bob Johnson.

Naturally the 89 Oilers with Gretzky would've been better than the Oilers without him. Probably more than 12 points better!

 

[ForsbergForever]

As far as scoring titles, if Gretzky played all 80 games in 87-88 he would have beat out Lemieux, but the next season Lemieux put up 199 points in 76 games compared to Gretzky's 168, if he stays with Edmonton does he get the extra 32pts? That seems a bit unlikely especailly if a change in Lemieux's fate is included in this scenario, if he stay's healthy and plays a full career then I don't think Gretzky gets an Art Ross after '89.

 

[tony d]

I think they would have a couple more Cups (Besides the 1 they won in 1990). Gretzky remaining an Oiler is one of the biggest what ifs in NHL history.

 

[VanIslander]

LA Kings would have sucked for the entire duration of its existence instead of having a few years of respect in the hockey world.

 

[Ogopogo*]

People think the Oilers would win the Cup in 1989 over the Flames?

Absolutely.

 

[Salsa Shark]

I think people really underrate the 89 Flames.

Eight twenty goal scorers,

Two elite d men in Suter and MacInnis.

A goalie that came off a tremendous regular season.

I can't say they'd beat an 89 Oilers team with Gretzky, but I think they'd make it pretty damn interesting

 

[shazariahl]

I think people really underrate the 89 Flames.

Eight twenty goal scorers,

Two elite d men in Suter and MacInnis.

A goalie that came off a tremendous regular season.

I can't say they'd beat an 89 Oilers team with Gretzky, but I think they'd make it pretty damn interesting

While I'm not saying you're wrong, I do think that if the 90 Oilers managed to win a cup without gretzky, the 89 Oilers had a pretty good shot of winning again with him. Despite winning multiple championships, the Oilers were one of those teams that always seemed hungry in the playoffs. After winning that first one, they seemed like sharks that had a taste of blood.

That being said, the 89 Flames were a good team. They'd been a good team for several years before that, but 89 was when everything seemed to come together and they really peaked as a unit. It would have been an incredible series.