Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
Correct you are. Also forgot just how much Hull was scoring in his year with Calgary but as I recall, he was also healthy scratched a few times.
|
Hull was actually scoring as much as he can with every shift that he had even though he was on the 3rd line and was benched a lot for not skating all that well. As I recall, Crisp and everyone said that he's not a very good skater and that's why they decided to give him up. My whole point about Hull was that Fletcher likely knew he was giving up a lot for Hull but he wanted to add size and depth on defence to counter his team's lack of size and depth on the defence in 87 against the Habs. Nattress was added before the Hull trade. Then, Ramage and Wamsley as was added for more size and depth in defence and goal. If the trade with St Louis ended there, yes, the Hull trade would have been lobsided. The final pieces of the puzzle - Gilmore and Mark Hunter. So, you can say it was a deal with the Blues for Nattress, Ramage, Wamsley, Gilmore, Mark Hunter, and the 89 Stanley Cup for future HOF Hull. Some hockey analysts will always look at that trade as the Flames getting totally fleeced IF you look at Hull for Ramage and Wamsley alone. IMHO, it's pretty good deal and both sides won. However, Hull did never produce a Cup with the Blues. It's only when he left that he won with teams with Dallas and Detroit. Funny how the Blues also landed McInnis as well.
It's too bad that the Flames don't have close ties with the Blues after Fletcher left. It would be nice to grab some of their players and put them on this team for another Cup run.