I think when you look back, and especially take in to account that Ramage only stuck around for one full season until he was traded to Toronto for a 2nd rounder shortly after the Cup, and Ramage was also entering the tail end of his career, it certainly is extremely lopsided.
I don't like ranking trades based on what the teams did with any of the pieces after the fact, I don't think that has any barring so Ramage being immediately shipped out for a 2nd doesn't change anything, but I think it kind of shows where Ramage was at that point in his career (Of course, there's the argument that Flames management was moronic) and what they got out of him pales in comparison to what St.Louis got out of Hull. It's not like he completely boosted them to the top, they didn't win the Cup the season they made the trade, it was the season after when Gretzky was shipped out of Edmonton and everything just fell in to place.
No team takes anything back when a Cup is involved. I mean, as a Stars fan I've had the Nieuwendyk-Iginla debate quite a few times, and Nieuwendyk was far more impactful for us than what Ramage + Wamsley was for Calgary. You don't rock the boat when a Cup is involved. You don't reverse anything. You take your Cup, and leave things alone. However, if things don't fall in to place for Calgary in '89, I don't think there's any way in heck they still do that trade looking back. I don't think there's any way in heck anyone does.
No knock on Ramage, as I stated he was a good defenseman, but regardless it's still lopsided when you look at the facts: A depth/2nd pairing defenseman entering the tail end of his career and a backup goalie, for a guy who would break goal scoring records and score more of them than all but 2 players in the history of the game. Put in to that context, it was a bad trade. Put in to the "Well they won a Cup so...." context, then you just take it and forget about everything else.
lopsided, yes. bad, i woudn't say so.
i'm willing to definitively say that without that trade there's zero chance of calgary winning the '89 cup. plain and simple, he gave them a third all-star calibre offensive d-man in case anything happened to macinnis or suter. and fletcher hedged right, obviously, because something did happen to suter.
at the time of the trade, that calgary team had peak joe mullen (HHOF, 1st team all-star the following season) and peak hakan loob (1st team all-star that season). brett hull was not better than either guy until until two years later, and young brett hull certainly isn't going to play timmy hunter's role. two years later, you had theo fleury establishing himself (at the time of the trade fleury was the second best player in the CHL) and already in '88 there was at least the sense that getting late-prime makarov to come over was becoming a possibility. would '89 brett hull have fit calgary's bottom two RW spots better than the two hunters and mcdonald (for his leadership/inspiration)? absolutely not, right? and sure you'd like to have 86 goal MVP brett hull there in the early 90s (and beyond?), but with nieuwendyk, fleury, and roberts in place (all future 50 goal scorers), to say nothing of the veterans, you're trading from a position of embarrassingly rich strength aren't you?
but ultimately, i think you're selling rob ramage short here. the guy was a bona fide 29 year old #1, all-star calibre defenseman. he played in all situations and QBed your PP. the reason his stats looked like they fell off a cliff in '89 is because he didn't have to play his offensive role on calgary during the regular season, with macinnis and suter playing the entire two minutes of every PP, and ramage was great because he had the versatility to also be a lock down defensive guy and cover for murzyn (who at the time was still thought to have untapped offensive potential and kevin hatcher upside). and then when suter went down in the first round, ramage stepped into his normal role and put up only two fewer points than the "great" joe nieuwendyk.
and it's a question of windows. i look back at calgary after that cup and i remember being terrified that that team was going to own the league for the foreseeable future. but they didn't. the window closed very quickly. and with a team that talented, i think you want to hedge: another impact d-man in case someone in your top four goes down; a back-up provision for a goalie whose inconsistency in the end proved itself to have sunk what was on paper a possible dynasty. what if vernon was early 90s vernon in 1989? you'd be pretty glad wamsley was there instead of doug dadswell.
and as a canucks fan, i would have LOVED for us to have traded cody hodgson, coming off a legendary WJC performance and OHL player of the year, for two injury provisions. if we'd had a ramage equivalent in place to fill in on D after hamhuis got injured in game one of the finals, and/or a backup top six winger so we wouldn't have had to play jeff freakin' tambellini on the second line after mason raymond had his back broken in the first minute of game six...
you know, i thought that 2011 canucks team would have been right back there. selke winner, two scoring champs, a top three goalie in the world, edler seemingly on the cusp of becoming a bona fide all-situations #1, the cody hodgson that everyone thought was going to be a future jonathan toews... but windows close very abruptly and unexpectedly.
