Your personal historical hockey convictions/headcanons??

[McGarnagle]

Owen Nolan would be in the Hall of Fame if the Avs hadn't traded him to San Jose

What a kick in the teeth that must've been for him. Drafted 1st overall in '90, he's one of the first foundational pieces of their rebuild, goes through the growing pains that rebuilding teams experience, and just as the team is ready to emerge from that rebuild as one of the league's top contenders, BOOM! He's traded 9 games into the '95 season to the goddamn San Jose Sharks, a team that will win just 20 games

8 months after being dealt, his former teammates were hoisting the Cup

It definitely did have to suck for him after putting that time into the rebuild and being sent to a last place team right before they finally win. And yeah, if he's riding on Sakic or Forsberg's wing he probably hits 40 goals at least 3 or 4 times from 1995 to 2000. That said, the Avs don't win that cup without Ozolinch moving the puck from the back end.

Given that they won 2 cups, you can't complain about the moves they made. Ozo obviously helped greatly and Wendel Clark was a big part of the Nordiques growing to a contender through his leadership, then he became Claude Lemieux who was essential to the first cup. But imagine if they just kept all their #1 picks and had Sakic, Forsberg, Nolan, and Sundin through the late 90s and early 2000s. Their offense would've been monstrous. But Lacroix made the right moves.

ALso, looking at Nolan's record, I'm shocked that he was only in Toronto for not even a year and a half. It felt like he settled down there for a while in the latter half of his career, but it was just a cup of coffee.

 

[Neutrinos]

It definitely did have to suck for him after putting that time into the rebuild and being sent to a last place team right before they finally win. And yeah, if he's riding on Sakic or Forsberg's wing he probably hits 40 goals at least 3 or 4 times from 1995 to 2000. That said, the Avs don't win that cup without Ozolinch moving the puck from the back end.

Given that they won 2 cups, you can't complain about the moves they made. Ozo obviously helped greatly and Wendel Clark was a big part of the Nordiques growing to a contender through his leadership, then he became Claude Lemieux who was essential to the first cup. But imagine if they just kept all their #1 picks and had Sakic, Forsberg, Nolan, and Sundin through the late 90s and early 2000s. Their offense would've been monstrous. But Lacroix made the right moves.

ALso, looking at Nolan's record, I'm shocked that he was only in Toronto for not even a year and a half. It felt like he settled down there for a while in the latter half of his career, but it was just a cup of coffee.

If Lacroix was responsible for the Sundin trade, that certainly wasn't the right move

And Ozolinsh was only around for 1 of Colorado's Cups, as he was traded to Carolina in June of 2000

Personally, I wouldn't make the Nolan trade even knowing how it all played out

Interestingly, less than a year after the Nolan trade, Colorado's biggest Conference rival during the late '90's would trade their offensive-minded Dman, Coffey, for a goal scoring PF winger, Shanahan

 

[Moose Head]

There is no way Langways defense makes up for the offensive edge two way guys like Bourque, Howe, Potvin and Robinson had on him during his two Norris years.

 

[Big Phil]

There is no way Langways defense makes up for the offensive edge two way guys like Bourque, Howe, Potvin and Robinson had on him during his two Norris years.

You aren't alone in that assesment. In fact, I think Coffey could have won the Norris in 1984. At least over just Langway.

No disrespect to Langway or anyone else of course. But yeah he should have probably lost one of them. On the flip side though, there was a significant dive in the goals against the second he showed up to the Caps. In both years too. That could show you how valuable he was during that time, which I think helped him win the Norris and gave him a bit of a different outlook.

 

[Kinnikuniverse]

It definitely did have to suck for him after putting that time into the rebuild and being sent to a last place team right before they finally win. And yeah, if he's riding on Sakic or Forsberg's wing he probably hits 40 goals at least 3 or 4 times from 1995 to 2000. That said, the Avs don't win that cup without Ozolinch moving the puck from the back end.

If the leafs doesn't trade for tom kurvers and pick lindros in 91, The nordqiues would've settled with Scott Niedermayer, who's even better at moving the puck than osolinsh, so Nolan would be able to stay on the team in 95-96. Granted, in that scenario, they'd most likely not trade sundin since they don't have Forsberg, meaning no wendel clark and no claude lemieux, but hey, i think having niedermayer and nolan is a good consolation prize and they would still trade for roy and Krupp and win that cup.

No Ricci means no alex tanguay in 1998 though, so effectively, Nolan would replace Tanguay in that scenario. They'd still be able to pick Regher and Skoula, but that would be pretty much it. Also, since Niedermayer is already there, i don't really think they'd need Raymond Bourque...if they do still trade Regher and Pahlsson for him, though...

Hejduk-Sakic-Nolan
Drury-Sundin-Parrish
Nieminen-Yelle-Podein
Grinder-Grinder-Hinote

Bourque-Foote
Niedermayer-Blake
De Vries-Skoula

Roy
Fiset


If they do keep their youngsters, though, i think it is still a good team.

Hejduk-Sakic-Nolan
Drury-Sundin-Parrish
Nieminen-Yelle-Podein
Reid-Pahlsson-Hinote
Reinpenrecht

Niedermayer-Foote
Regher-Blake
De Vries-Skoula
Messier

Roy
Fiset


Instead of Skoula, they had the opportunity in 1998 to draft Simon Gagné, which would fill the top 6 left wing hole.

Gagné-Sakic-Hejduk
Drury-Sundin-Nolan
Nieminen-Yelle-Parrish
Podein-Pahlsson-Hinote
Reinpenrecht


Niedermayer-Foote
Regher-Blake
De Vries-Messier
Klemm

Roy
Fiset


It is interesting the butterflies for all the teams involved had the leafs not traded for tom kurvers and tanked for Lindros. Probably the biggest what if in NHL history.

 

[Kinnikuniverse]

You aren't alone in that assesment. In fact, I think Coffey could have won the Norris in 1984. At least over just Langway.

No disrespect to Langway or anyone else of course. But yeah he should have probably lost one of them. On the flip side though, there was a significant dive in the goals against the second he showed up to the Caps. In both years too. That could show you how valuable he was during that time, which I think helped him win the Norris and gave him a bit of a different outlook.

To be honest, i am in the camp that the norris trophy should really go to the best defender, and not the defenseman that scored the most points. Then again, its probably my bias for stay-at-home defensemen being at play here. Obviously, generating offense from the blue line is important, but a defenseman's main job is to defend, after all.

 

[JackSlater]

To be honest, i am in the camp that the norris trophy should really go to the best defender, and not the defenseman that scored the most points. Then again, its probably my bias for stay-at-home defensemen being at play here. Obviously, generating offense from the blue line is important, but a defenseman's main job is to defend, after all.

A defenceman's main job is to help the team win as much as possible, regardless of whether that is done through offence or defence.

 

[buffalowing88]

There is no way Langways defense makes up for the offensive edge two way guys like Bourque, Howe, Potvin and Robinson had on him during his two Norris years.

I feel like voting for Langway was just a narrative vote and a bit of a backlash against defensemen scoring more in general. Agree completely.

More Sabres-centric one but Lucic running Miller in 2011 is the primary reason the Sabres have been in a decade-plus playoff drought ever since. I don't even blame Lucic entirely. He knew the best way to take out a division rival at the time and he did what he had to do. Buffalo's players proceeded to just go through the motions and Miller became disillusioned so management got tunnel-vision and tried to tear apart a pretty talented core and replace them with Ott, Scott, Regehr, etc. to get stronger and the pieces never quite fit.

Then management and Ruff were ousted and it's been a merry-go-round of adopting temporary identities for the team ever since. Lucic and the Bruins had been physically dominating Buffalo for years by then but we had always remained very competitive with them with our skill guys (Vanek, Roy, Pominville, Connolly, etc.). One hit just led to all of that getting blown up and Miller was gone 1.5 years later.

 

[Brodeur]

Owen Nolan would be in the Hall of Fame if the Avs hadn't traded him to San Jose

What a kick in the teeth that must've been for him. Drafted 1st overall in '90, he's one of the first foundational pieces of their rebuild, goes through the growing pains that rebuilding teams experience, and just as the team is ready to emerge from that rebuild as one of the league's top contenders, BOOM! He's traded 9 games into the '95 season to the goddamn San Jose Sharks, a team that will win just 20 games

8 months after being dealt, his former teammates were hoisting the Cup

Speaking of the Sharks and their effect on the Avs......maybe my favorite non-trade that I learned about in recent years was Quebec offering an unsigned Peter Forsberg to San Jose at the 1993 Draft for the Chris Pronger pick. San Jose recognized Forsberg's talent but wasn't sure if they could sign him. In that CBA, an unsigned European prospect could sign a Group IV offer sheet. The previous summer, Calgary signed Teemu Selanne and Winnipeg begrudgingly matched. If the original team didn't match, they received no compensation. There were rumors that the Rangers (among others) were ready to make Forsberg one of the highest paid guys in the league in order to steal his rights. So San Jose didn't want to risk trading the 2nd overall pick for nothing.

But it's fun to think of the butterfly effect. With Pronger, does Colorado keep Nolan instead of trading him for Ozolinsh? Without Forsberg, does Colorado keep Sundin?

 

[Mohar Ikram]

Hawks should won the cup in 71. The Habs was dumbfounded 3-2 after game 5 and they got the chance to seal the deal in the Forum in game 6. Pappin scores early and Hawks dominate like hell...

Until..... Bah god! It's Mahovlich brothers!

Then the games goes back to Chicago Stadium for the most trainwrecked final ever for both sides.... As same as before, Hawks dominate and lead 2-0....

Until, that Lemaire slapshot from centre ice to beat Tony O....

Habs revved up and Henri has his "look at me, i'm the captain now" game put a masterful performance and score the GWG...

Beliveau will surely retire after that season even if they lose. But, B.Hull will possibly stay in NHL if they won since Hawks got a really great roster in early 70's (Koroll, D. Hull, Martin, Pappin and Tony O).

 

[Moose Head]

You aren't alone in that assesment. In fact, I think Coffey could have won the Norris in 1984. At least over just Langway.

No disrespect to Langway or anyone else of course. But yeah he should have probably lost one of them. On the flip side though, there was a significant dive in the goals against the second he showed up to the Caps. In both years too. That could show you how valuable he was during that time, which I think helped him win the Norris and gave him a bit of a different outlook.

The reduction in goals was a team effort. They added quite a few other defensively sound players during that time, so it wasn’t just Langway, although he rightly gets the most credit.

 

[CharlestownChiefsESC]

Hawks should won the cup in 71. The Habs was dumbfounded 3-2 after game 5 and they got the chance to seal the deal in the Forum in game 6. Pappin scores early and Hawks dominate like hell...

Until..... Bah god! It's Mahovlich brothers!

Then the games goes back to Chicago Stadium for the most trainwrecked final ever for both sides.... As same as before, Hawks dominate and lead 2-0....

Until, that Lemaire slapshot from centre ice to beat Tony O....

Habs revved up and Henri has his "look at me, i'm the captain now" game put a masterful performance and score the GWG...

Beliveau will surely retire after that season even if they lose. But, B.Hull will possibly stay in NHL if they won since Hawks got a really great roster in early 70's (Koroll, D. Hull, Martin, Pappin and Tony O).

This my other headcannon from that year is Game 7 of the semis. Rangers up 2-1 in the 2nd period of game 7 Vic Hadfield takes a penalty Cliff Koroll ties it on the pp and the Hawks score 2 in the 3rd but if the penalty never happens and the Rangers hold the lead im more than convinced they beat the Habs. People can talk about how they were a team of destiny but those early 70s Emile Francis Rangers teams had the pre 1976 Habs number. Im convinced the Rangers beat them and at they very least the curse ends in 71 a 31 year curse. After that idk what butterflys from it. I still think 72 and 73 play out the same but maybe they find a way to beat Philly in 74 and exact revenge on Boston so that's 2 cups in 4 years.

This means that the big trade in 76 never goes down and Ratelle and Park remain Rangers. The lunch pail ac Bruins potentially never exist, I know that they were based on a team first game but Ratelle and Park were the 2 biggest parts. Without them you have Orr who is marred by injuries and an aging Esposito who had said he wasn't a fan of Don Cherry, also when cheapo Jeremy Jacobs took over the Bruins in the 1975 he lost it when he saw that Espos contract was being paid into a trust fund that was compunding at a ridiculous pace he demanded he change it Espo refused, I do wonder what happens with him if the trade never goes down. And seeing how Ratelle and Park were for lunch pail ac I do wonder if its a reworked Rangers (Ratelle,Park,Vickers,Tzakchuk,Greschner,Duguay,Hedberg,Nilsson and JD) challenging the Habs in the late 70s and maybe they do pull off the Game 7 win in 79 and win another cup.

 

[CharlestownChiefsESC]

I guess I'm unfamiliar the distinction between headcanon and speculation then.



Not sure if this is the correct usage, but one random thing I've convinced myself of is that the Flyers win the Stanley Cup if this Eric Lindros goal had beat the buzzer in Game 6 of the 2000 ECF. Flyers would have entered the third period with a 1-0 lead and Lindros would have been hailed as the hero as that was his debut.

Philadelphia would have had home ice against Dallas. The NHL schedule makers did the Western Conference a little dirty that year. Dallas advanced in Game 7 on May 27th and had to play Game 1 on May 30th. So they only got a couple days off plus a travel day. Later a few Dallas players admitted that they didn't have legs for Game 1 since they emptied the tank against the Avs. Ed Belfour got sick and had a Nyquil assisted Game 1 meltdown. Jamie Langenbrunner got hurt in WCF and Dallas was a one line team in the SCF (but were still a tough out).

See Lindros being back might have destroyed them. When he was cleared to play ,the players on that iteration of the Flyers voted no to him back Bill Barber overrode the vote and I do wonder what that did inside the room. I think it was more panic than anything as they thought they had it won in 5 and then laid a huge egg.

 

[Big Phil]

The reduction in goals was a team effort. They added quite a few other defensively sound players during that time, so it wasn’t just Langway, although he rightly gets the most credit.

I feel like voting for Langway was just a narrative vote and a bit of a backlash against defensemen scoring more in general. Agree completely.

To be honest, i am in the camp that the norris trophy should really go to the best defender, and not the defenseman that scored the most points. Then again, its probably my bias for stay-at-home defensemen being at play here. Obviously, generating offense from the blue line is important, but a defenseman's main job is to defend, after all.

I agree, there is some truth to that. This is why Coffey didn't win in 1984. He wasn't the best defenseman in the NHL that year. I am not sure Langway is the guy that I would say had more of an impact than Coffey (126 points for a defenseman is still insane). There is a harder case with the Bourque and Potvin seasons though, considering they had better two-way play.

But I think the narrative was that the "Secretary of Defense" in Washington was the biggest reason for the Caps' turnaround. The 1982 Caps were awful. 338 goals against, good for 12th in the NHL. Langway arrives in 1983 and the goals against goes down to 283 good for 5th. Then even better in 1984 with 221 goals, good for 1st in the NHL. 1985 Caps were still 2nd in goals against as well as the 1986 team.

While I know Langway isn't 100% responsible for that shift, the point is I don't think it was Pat Riggin in net doing that. I think that sort of thing swayed the voters a bit more. Maybe voter/Cup fatigue with Potvin was a factor too. And let's not forget, it wasn't as if Langway didn't have an elite season. Somewhere along the way people act as if he was just a plug that scraped 30 points from the blue line and nothing more.

Maybe the Carlyle and Wilson Norrises prior to Langway had an impact.

 

[Big Phil]

A few of mine :

1) Mike Liut was the greatest goalie of the 1980s (or at least until the emergence of Patrick Roy) and should be a slam-dunk HHOFer, but perception of his career is destroyed by the fact that he played mostly for terrible teams and the way he was unfairly scapegoated for the 1981 Canada Cup. It was a lot easier for Canadians to tell themselves that we lost because our goalie stunk than because we were systematically dismantled by a superior USSR team in the final.

Liut definitely got the lion's share of the flack for that game. Here is the thing, I found that Evgeni Nabokov's performance vs. Canada in 2010 was worse. With Nabokov he allowed the goals to the point where the game was practically over after the 1st period. Not that it was all on him, Canada pressed early and often that game, but with Liut this wasn't the case. How many people know that in the 1981 Cup final game the first period was scoreless? That's right. 8-1 final, but a 0-0 first period. Then there is the 2nd period which the score was 1-1 up until 11 minutes into it. Basically it took until over half of the game before the Soviets got a lead they would never give up. Then a power play marker and by the end of the 2nd it is still a manageable 3-1 deficit. Is this Liut's fault up until now? Nope. His goals weren't overly weak. Some good goals for sure. Stoppable? Sure, but not horrendous that they went in.

The 3rd period is where it unravels. A couple minutes in, 4-1. Then that horrible short handed goal where Lafleur steps out of the way and lets Krutov just waltz right in and score on Liut. 5-1. That was a the dagger. The last 4 minutes was three more goals. 8-1. Liut like all Canadians seemed to mail it in at 5-1. This was an excellent Team Canada too, they really were. But Liut should have never gotten the Bill Buckner treatment from the media (neither should have Buckner by the way).

If Liut wins that game and is in net as a champ, does that change things? I don't know if it gets him in the HHOF. He still lacked the playoff resume. Vachon was in net in 1976 and it took him years before they let him in. So it isn't a given either way.

3) Rob Blake is probably the most overrated player in the history of hockey. He was an offensive defender whose impact was probably similar to Sergei Gonchar but because he was 6'4, Canadian, and threw giant ass-checks he was projected by fans and media as being a Pronger-esque all-around stud. Benefitted massively from spending his entire career in non-hockey markets in western time zones where the criticism of his defensive play that would have come in Toronto or New York didn't exist. Took easy minutes for most of his prime while Norstrom/Foote were buried in the hard matchups. Substantially inferior player/career to Teppo Numminen.

I don't get this. Blake played in every situation throughout his whole career. He killed penalties, was on the power play, played the big minutes, was on the ice for a lead, when behind, etc. This was a career noticeably better than Numminen. I put Blake and Niedermayer side by side, and sometimes I actually like Blake in that situation.

 

[Kinnikuniverse]

I agree, there is some truth to that. This is why Coffey didn't win in 1984. He wasn't the best defenseman in the NHL that year. I am not sure Langway is the guy that I would say had more of an impact than Coffey (126 points for a defenseman is still insane). There is a harder case with the Bourque and Potvin seasons though, considering they had better two-way play.

But I think the narrative was that the "Secretary of Defense" in Washington was the biggest reason for the Caps' turnaround. The 1982 Caps were awful. 338 goals against, good for 12th in the NHL. Langway arrives in 1983 and the goals against goes down to 283 good for 5th. Then even better in 1984 with 221 goals, good for 1st in the NHL. 1985 Caps were still 2nd in goals against as well as the 1986 team.

While I know Langway isn't 100% responsible for that shift, the point is I don't think it was Pat Riggin in net doing that. I think that sort of thing swayed the voters a bit more. Maybe voter/Cup fatigue with Potvin was a factor too. And let's not forget, it wasn't as if Langway didn't have an elite season. Somewhere along the way people act as if he was just a plug that scraped 30 points from the blue line and nothing more.

Maybe the Carlyle and Wilson Norrises prior to Langway had an impact.

Not onyl that, the caps had other really good defensive defenseman in scott stevens and brian engblom, as well as defensive forwards like Doug Jarvis, bengt gustafsson and bobby carpenter. Jarvis, i feel, is underrated in shaping the caps defense.

 

[MS]

I agree, there is some truth to that. This is why Coffey didn't win in 1984. He wasn't the best defenseman in the NHL that year. I am not sure Langway is the guy that I would say had more of an impact than Coffey (126 points for a defenseman is still insane). There is a harder case with the Bourque and Potvin seasons though, considering they had better two-way play.

But I think the narrative was that the "Secretary of Defense" in Washington was the biggest reason for the Caps' turnaround. The 1982 Caps were awful. 338 goals against, good for 12th in the NHL. Langway arrives in 1983 and the goals against goes down to 283 good for 5th. Then even better in 1984 with 221 goals, good for 1st in the NHL. 1985 Caps were still 2nd in goals against as well as the 1986 team.

While I know Langway isn't 100% responsible for that shift, the point is I don't think it was Pat Riggin in net doing that. I think that sort of thing swayed the voters a bit more. Maybe voter/Cup fatigue with Potvin was a factor too. And let's not forget, it wasn't as if Langway didn't have an elite season. Somewhere along the way people act as if he was just a plug that scraped 30 points from the blue line and nothing more.

Maybe the Carlyle and Wilson Norrises prior to Langway had an impact.

Bolded is exactly what happened. People were upset that the Norris had evolved into a 'most points' award in the previous couple years, and then you had Paul Coffey come along who was even more all offense/no defense and there was a huge backlash against giving him the award.

But instead of giving it to the actual best defender - which would have been Howe/Potvin/Bourque in those years - they went for a huge overreaction to give it to the best all defense/no offense defender.

Your point about Washington's improvement is often cited. But what nobody seems to realize is that Philly improved even more defensively than Washington that season after the addition of Mark Howe - 73 fewer GA as opposed to 55.

Mark Howe was as good as Langway defensively, miles better offensively, and spearheaded a bigger defensive improvement for his new team. He should have been the 1983 Norris winner.

 

[MS]

Liut definitely got the lion's share of the flack for that game. Here is the thing, I found that Evgeni Nabokov's performance vs. Canada in 2010 was worse. With Nabokov he allowed the goals to the point where the game was practically over after the 1st period. Not that it was all on him, Canada pressed early and often that game, but with Liut this wasn't the case. How many people know that in the 1981 Cup final game the first period was scoreless? That's right. 8-1 final, but a 0-0 first period. Then there is the 2nd period which the score was 1-1 up until 11 minutes into it. Basically it took until over half of the game before the Soviets got a lead they would never give up. Then a power play marker and by the end of the 2nd it is still a manageable 3-1 deficit. Is this Liut's fault up until now? Nope. His goals weren't overly weak. Some good goals for sure. Stoppable? Sure, but not horrendous that they went in.

The 3rd period is where it unravels. A couple minutes in, 4-1. Then that horrible short handed goal where Lafleur steps out of the way and lets Krutov just waltz right in and score on Liut. 5-1. That was a the dagger. The last 4 minutes was three more goals. 8-1. Liut like all Canadians seemed to mail it in at 5-1. This was an excellent Team Canada too, they really were. But Liut should have never gotten the Bill Buckner treatment from the media (neither should have Buckner by the way).

If Liut wins that game and is in net as a champ, does that change things? I don't know if it gets him in the HHOF. He still lacked the playoff resume. Vachon was in net in 1976 and it took him years before they let him in. So it isn't a given either way.



I don't get this. Blake played in every situation throughout his whole career. He killed penalties, was on the power play, played the big minutes, was on the ice for a lead, when behind, etc. This was a career noticeably better than Numminen. I put Blake and Niedermayer side by side, and sometimes I actually like Blake in that situation.

On Liut, yeah. It was just a total utter team collapse in the second half of the game and basically all of the goals were odd-man rushes or guys wide open in front of the net. It wasn't his fault, but scapegoating him was the easy way out.

On Blake, disagree. The guy I compared him to (Gonchar) played huge minutes in all situations, too ... but was correctly identified as a great offensive defender/ok defensive defender. Bryan McCabe played huge minutes in all situations. Dion Phaneuf played huge minutes in all situations.

As a Canuck fan, I loved having Blake on the ice against Naslund/Bertuzzi or whoever our top players at the time were, as opposed to Foote etc. He was too aggressive. He was constantly out of position going for huge ass checks. His defensive IQ was average. He was a good player ... but he was an offensive defender who threw big hits. He wasn't a shutdown D by any stretch of the imagination.

Numminen to me was a substantially better defensive defender - a legit #1 matchup guy - while being not much worse offensively.

 

[Albatros]

Grant Fuhr's career would be remembered far differently if he hadn't been lucky enough to spend the first half of his career on an all-star team of players in their prime

He has no business being in the Hall of Fame

From age 20 - 37, his GSAA was minus -69.8!

But he did spend those years there, and is remembered as the goalie that could shut the door when it mattered the most. Everyone knows that he had a habit of letting in some soft goals especially early in the game, but he knew how to win. A clutch goalie if there ever was one.

 

[CharlestownChiefsESC]

It's replacing Jagr, really. But still, yeah. Just one goal in any of those games is the difference.

Ive always sad if they don't blow Game 1 the Bruins are 2013 champs and the Hawks are looked as as 1 of the biggest chokers of all time especially if its a sweep. Ive always said that was my favorite final ive ever watched but the Bruins were the better team for most of it they just could never deliver that final blow.

Jesus christ, that 3-1 comeback beats out the guarantee out of the water. Hell, i'd like to imagine Messier still does his guarantee!

For tikkanen still coming in, i'd like to imagine that its darren turcotte going the other way, but that Larmer might not come to New York, since if turcotte goes to edmonton for tikkanen instead of chicago for larmer, then the trade is void... not like the rags needed him, since on the right wing, they'd already have Gartner, Eddie Olczyk and Amonte, so no need for larmer, really. Kovalev could just play on the left wing on Weight and Amonte's line.




But yeah, the rags would've been a powerhouse in the east in the 90s, easily competing with philly, the devils and pittsburgh. Not only that, in the late 90s-early 00s, you could have a core of:

Graves-Weight-Amonte
Nedved-Savard-Kovalev
Knuble-Marchant-Sundstrom



Leetch
Zubov
Norstrom
Kim jonsson
McCabe (IRL, Leafs acquired him for Karpovtsev because the latter wanted to be paid as the highest paid defenseman on the team. If the rags still have Karpovtsev, they could trade him for McCabe instead?)

Jean-Sebastien Giguere


Damn, they really dropped the ball for that one cup whe it could have been more...

Im not sure that it is Turcotte tbh and Keenan or no Keenan in 94 I think Smith wanted Larmer, and at the same time Larmer was holding out in Chicago too . If it is the 1st in 93 traded for Tikkanen that means no Sundstrom, but at the same time im not sure that's a huge loss anyway. If anything this is a more structured team, you're right on the Norstrom angle. Its really where that team goes in 95, do they burn out idk, with a younger roster containing Weight and Amonte maybe they do finish higher, but at the same time they never need to swap the 1st for Verbeek, but maybe that 1st turns into Petr Sykora. At the same time not having Nedved in 95 prevents part of the Zubov trade from occuring, too many variables here. I'd say they get Shanahan but Shanahan was ran out of St.Louis by Keenan, with Keenan not being in NY in 94 it means he could potentially be in Detroit, St.Louis or even Philly again by the summer of 95. If say Bowman is running the Blues, I doubt Shanahan goes anywhere. If Zubov is moved maybe its to Winnipeg for Keith Tkachuk which means no Ulf Samuelsson but maybe just maybe the door opens for Norstrom, the lines heading into 95-96 are as follows

Graves-Messier-Amonte
Tkachuk-Weight-Gartner/Kovalev (totally forgot about Gartner who was still a 30 goal scorer by 95)

Alas no Gretzky in 96 if St.Louis is Keenan less maybe he finishes there.

 

[Moose Head]

I agree, there is some truth to that. This is why Coffey didn't win in 1984. He wasn't the best defenseman in the NHL that year. I am not sure Langway is the guy that I would say had more of an impact than Coffey (126 points for a defenseman is still insane). There is a harder case with the Bourque and Potvin seasons though, considering they had better two-way play.

But I think the narrative was that the "Secretary of Defense" in Washington was the biggest reason for the Caps' turnaround. The 1982 Caps were awful. 338 goals against, good for 12th in the NHL. Langway arrives in 1983 and the goals against goes down to 283 good for 5th. Then even better in 1984 with 221 goals, good for 1st in the NHL. 1985 Caps were still 2nd in goals against as well as the 1986 team.

While I know Langway isn't 100% responsible for that shift, the point is I don't think it was Pat Riggin in net doing that. I think that sort of thing swayed the voters a bit more. Maybe voter/Cup fatigue with Potvin was a factor too. And let's not forget, it wasn't as if Langway didn't have an elite season. Somewhere along the way people act as if he was just a plug that scraped 30 points from the blue line and nothing more.

Maybe the Carlyle and Wilson Norrises prior to Langway had an impact.

Kind of annoys me that Wilson gets lumped in with Carlyle. Wilson was great his Norris year and deserved it. Carlyle robbed Potvin. Just a terrible choice.

 

[JackSlater]

Bolded is exactly what happened. People were upset that the Norris had evolved into a 'most points' award in the previous couple years, and then you had Paul Coffey come along who was even more all offense/no defense and there was a huge backlash against giving him the award.

But instead of giving it to the actual best defender - which would have been Howe/Potvin/Bourque in those years - they went for a huge overreaction to give it to the best all defense/no offense defender.

Your point about Washington's improvement is often cited. But what nobody seems to realize is that Philly improved even more defensively than Washington that season after the addition of Mark Howe - 73 fewer GA as opposed to 55.

Mark Howe was as good as Langway defensively, miles better offensively, and spearheaded a bigger defensive improvement for his new team. He should have been the 1983 Norris winner.

Yeah it was totally unnecessary even if they were desperate to give it to a defenceman who was good defensively. Give it to Howe in 1983 and Potvin in 1984 if looking to make a point. Howe since, as noted, he was basically as good defensively as Langway was while being much better everywhere else, and Potvin because he was also good defensively and one of the choices the writers were rebelling against was when they themselves snubbed Potvin for Carlyle. Langway was just as much of a one way player as Coffey was, it just happened that it was not offence. Or just give it to the best defenceman, as the award calls for, and one of Howe/Potvin/Bourque/Coffey in each of those two years. It was particularly unfortunate for Howe in 1983 as he never won the award and the snub likely delayed his entry to the hall of fame by many, many years.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

2) 2008-2013 Alex Burrows was the best defensive winger alive and on the same level - both offensively and defensively - as late '90s/early '00s Jere Lehtinen. He should have been an annual Selke finalist but was nowhere near due to a) the center monopoly on the Selke after the popularization of faceoff stats (Lehtinen was the last winger to seriously contend until Mark Stone) b) vote splitting with Ryan Kesler, who to me was the lesser defensive player of the two, and c) the fact that the voters really didn't like him and how he played.

1,000 on this

he was right there with lehtinen as the best defensive wingers after tikkanen

burrows was also hands down the best pk forward in the world in those years

Owen Nolan would be in the Hall of Fame if the Avs hadn't traded him to San Jose

What a kick in the teeth that must've been for him. Drafted 1st overall in '90, he's one of the first foundational pieces of their rebuild, goes through the growing pains that rebuilding teams experience, and just as the team is ready to emerge from that rebuild as one of the league's top contenders, BOOM! He's traded 9 games into the '95 season to the goddamn San Jose Sharks, a team that will win just 20 games

8 months after being dealt, his former teammates were hoisting the Cup

i’ll have to look for it but recently, in one of those roy threads, i found a newspaper quote from 1996 where nolan was described as expendable because he “wasn’t interested in being as good as he can be” or something to that effect

i have no memory of anyone saying this in his quebec days but he did certainly suck in the playoffs more often than not in SJ.

 

[Kinnikuniverse]

Ive always sad if they don't blow Game 1 the Bruins are 2013 champs and the Hawks are looked as as 1 of the biggest chokers of all time especially if its a sweep. Ive always said that was my favorite final ive ever watched but the Bruins were the better team for most of it they just could never deliver that final blow.

Im not sure that it is Turcotte tbh and Keenan or no Keenan in 94 I think Smith wanted Larmer at the same time Larmer was holding out in Chicago too . If it is the 1st in 93 traded for Tikkanen that means no Sundstrom but at the same time im not sure thats a huge loss anyway. If anything this is a more structured team youre right on the Norstrom angle. Its really where that team goes in 95, do they burn out idk with ayounger roster containing Weight and Amonte maybe they do finish higher at the same time they never need to swawp the 1st for Verbeek but maybe hat 1st turns into Petr Sykora. At the same time not having Nedved in 95 prevents part of the Zubov trade from occuring too many variables here. Id say they get Shanahan but Shanahan was ran out of St.Louis by Keenan with Keenan not being in NY in 94 it means he could potenially be in Detroit,St.Louis or even Philly again by the summer of 95. If say Bowman is running the Blues, I doubt Shanahan goes anywhere. If Zubov is moved maybe its to Winnipeg for Keith Tkachuk which means no Ulf Samuelsson but maybe just maybe the door opens for Norstrom the lines heading into 95-96 are as follows

Graves-Messier-Amonte
Tkachuk-Weight-Gartner/Kovalev (totally forgot about Gartner who was still a 30 goal scorer by 95)

Alas no Gretzky in 96 if St.Louis is Keenan less maybe he finishes there.

What says that they'd still trade Zubov and nedved if they realise that the young guys are good enough to carry the franchise forward with 2 cups in their pockets already? It would be counter-productive to trade them in that context, but that's just my opinion.

Oh crap,just found out they barely missed out on sami salo in the last round of the 1996 draft. Oh man, that's gotta hurt. He would be perfect with leetch at RD.

Graves-Weight-Amonte
Nedved-Savard-Kovalev
Knuble-Marchant-Sundstrom
Grinder line

Leetch-Salo
Norstrom-Zubov
Jonsson-Karpotsev
Lefevbre
Quintal


Giguere

 

[CharlestownChiefsESC]

What says that they'd still trade Zubov and nedved if they realise that the young guys are good enough to carry the franchise forward with 2 cups in their pockets already? It would be counter-productive to trade them in that context, but that's just my opinion.

Oh crap,just found out they barely missed out on sami salo in the last round of the 1996 draft. Oh man, that's gotta hurt. He would be perfect with leetch at RD.

Graves-Weight-Amonte
Nedved-Savard-Kovalev
Knuble-Marchant-Sundstrom
Grinder line

Leetch-Salo
Norstrom-Zubov
Jonsson-Karpotsev
Lefevbre
Quintal


Giguere

Nedved was brought in post 94 by Neil Smith because he was in desperate need of a natural center on line 2 Kovalev and Tikkanen were used in that spot the prior year, but if Doug Weight is there that negates the need.