Quote:
Originally Posted by 868904
It's an interesting discussion. In the years subsequent to 89, goal scoring was not a problem for the Flames and despite all the goals that Hull scored, his Blues teams were never really close to a Stanley Cup. He didn't actually win one till he joined a stacked and defensively oriented Stars team in which he played a secondary role (coincidentally to Nieuwendyk amongst others), although he did score the cup clinching goal.
I just think, when you are that close, you have to take that chance and sacrifice a future star if it increases your chance to win a cup. More to the point for the Flames in 89, they still had young studs in Nieuwendyk, Roberts, and Fleury up front and I think Ranheim had scored like 60 plus goals in their minor league team as well so they were well stocked.
When I compare it to the Gilmour trade, and the Phanuef trade, it just pales in the fail.
|
You need more than a super goal scorer to win a Cup (See Calgary and Iginla).
People seem to forget that the Hull/Bozek trade was supposed to win the Cup for the Flames in '88. It was a disaster for the Flames that year - they needed a backup goaltender, but Wamsley got injured almost immediately, and was a non-factor. Ramage was not the dominant physical defenseman they thought they needed in '88. Instead, they were swept in the second round by the Oilers, a team they had owned during the year prior to the trade. I think they were swept because they had traded away their best checking forward in Bozek, and could no longer control the Oilers' best line.
I wouldn't put this trade in the failing class of the Gilmour trade, but I think it matches the Phaneuf deal. I think the equivalent of the Flames' trading Hull would be like the Islanders trading away Mike Bossy after his rookie season because he might not have played defense very well. I think it was probably the reason why the Flames only won one Cup.