One hill I've always died on here is that while the Nords/Avs won the Lindros trade by getting Forsberg and depth in return, it's overall impact is overrated and sensationalized. Mainly, the premise that it was necessary to win the 1996 and 2001 cups and that without it they couldn't have traded for Roy, Bourque and Blake. In general, I think people tend to look at every piece of a trade as being an end all be all, no matter how minor. Let's take a look at each of these 3 subsequent trades:
Roy: Whoever traded for Roy was getting a goalie back in the return, since the Habs trade partner obviously could rid themselves of one with Roy being their new starter. Serge Savard almost traded Roy to Colorado in the 1995 offseason before getting fired, and the goalie he was gonna get back was Fiset instead of Thibault. I think saying they can't trade for Roy without the Lindros trade is also based on the false premise that the Habs got fair value in return for Roy.
Bourque: Saying the Lindros trade directly led to this one is a giant stretch when it's 4 trades down the line. Also, this trade was more part of the Sundin trade tree than the Lindros one, as Sundin was obviously a far bigger piece than Baumgartner in the package sent to the Leafs for Wendel Clark.
Blake: Deadmarsh was an important player on the 1996 team, but his involvement in this trade tree is more incidental than direct. He wasn't acquired with any pick from the deal, but a pick used by the Nords following a pick swap with the Isles in a trade that involved Hextall, who was part of the original trade. Plus when he was subsequently traded for Blake, the main thing LA got in return was 2 first round picks.
With that out of the way, now let's turn to Forsberg. His best postseasons came in years the Avs didn't win the cup (1999, 2000, and 2002) while Sakic and Roy were the best in 1996 and 2001. Here's my scenario if Lindros accepts being drafted by the Nords and is still with them when they move to Denver, with a minor twist thrown in:
1996: Avs still win the cup. Lindros was better than Forsberg at the time, so I think they are even more dominant with what would've been an even better top 2 center duo in 1996 than the one they already had. They still trade for Roy too, as mentioned above. I don't see anything changing without the Lindros trade here in 1996.
Now for the twist: in this scenario, I think they are more likely to win a 2nd cup by repeating in 1997 than winning it in 2001. In 1997, Lindros had his best postseason on his way to the finals. Meanwhile, Forsberg had a hot start to the postseason, but a concussion limited him in the WCF. With Lindros with the Avs this season too, they likely beat the Wings again with him being an obvious upgrade over an injured Forsberg. This gets into a different head canon of mine, which is Detroit possibly disbanding their core if they don't win it in 1997, since their RS regressed from previous years.
With Lindros having concussion issues after that, this is why I think 2001 is a question mark. Forsberg was still healthy in the RS, and played a key role in staving off a Kings upset in R2 before missing the final 2 rounds. They'd still acquire Bourque and Blake leading up to this season, so they'd have a better defense. But if Lindros misses the entire season, it would be unlikely they'd win it this season. If he did play though, he did show the following season (his first with the Rangers) that he was still a good enough center to be a #2 behind Sakic.
For a summary, the Avs still trade for Roy, Bourque and Blake in this scenario, and still win 2 Stanley Cups, with their 2nd one more likely coming in 1997 instead of 2001. The one thing all of this is still contingent on is them moving from QC to Denver.
