Quote:
Originally Posted by Huntingwhale
Gilmour trade, and it's really not close. That brought upon 10+ years of suckage, and it can all be traced back as a domino effect to that very trade.
But I'm not on board with the Hull trade. That brought back a very good backup goalie and a middle pairing D which led to the cup. Not a good return on paper, but the game isn't played on paper luckily. The goal of any franchise is to win the cup. Period. End of story. Not to win trades. It's to do what needs to be done to win the cup. Personally I'd prefer to trade away Hull after a great rookie season and go to a cup parade, then keep him and his 700+ goals around and have no cup.
As controversial as it might be, if the Flames trade Gaudreau for trash next week but it brings us the cup in June, in hindsight you make that trade 10/10.
|
Regarding Hull, the Flames winning the cup turned it from possibly the worst trade in Flames history to just a bad trade. Getting a backup goalie and mid pair defenceman for one of the greatest goal scorers of all time was pathetic.
Yeah the cup was nice but trading Hull for a poor return greatly hurt the chances of winning multiple cups in the early 90s.
When I look at trades where a team gave up a future superstar in exchange for a cup I think of Iginla for Nieuwendyk. Unlike a backup goalie and mid defencmen who were minor contributors, Dallas actually got the Conn Smyth winner who they definitely do not win the cup without.
Even if you do buy the idea the Flames don't win the cup without Ramage and Wamsley why did they need to give up Hull for them? Wouldn't a couple draft picks have been sufficient?