Outside of Gilmour for Leeman, the most disappointing trade in Flames history

[CSharp]

Cripes - the Flames really had some NO-GOOD moments after Fletcher left town!

[ThisIsAnOutrage]

The real doozies have already been mentioned several times (Phaneuf, Otto, Iginla etc.) Aside from those, two trades stick out in my mind as being disappointing:

1) Anton Stralman - Guy got here, looked good, and so was promptly shipped out of town. To be fair, iirc, he didn't really want to play in Calgary, but at the time it seemed like we never managed to bring in good players via trade...

2) Except for the Dean McAmmond/Jeff Shantz/Derek Morris for Yelle and Drury deal, which I liked. What was disappointing was when we reacquired McAmmond too soon the same season and he wasn't allowed to play for the Flames until the next year. Not sure that had happened before and am sure it has not happened since.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by ThisIsAnOutrage

The real doozies have already been mentioned several times (Phaneuf, Otto, Iginla etc.) Aside from those, two trades stick out in my mind as being disappointing:

1) Anton Stralman - Guy got here, looked good, and so was promptly shipped out of town. To be fair, iirc, he didn't really want to play in Calgary, but at the time it seemed like we never managed to bring in good players via trade...

I don't seem to recall that. He seemed to talk about being in this city several times, about enjoying walking along the river, living in that area and his first child being born here. He talked quite glowingly about the city.

[Azhouse]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

People undervalue Ramage. The guy was a former 1st overall pick, and the season before the trade set a Blue franchise record for scoring by a defenceman. He was big, he could play both sides of the puck, and he was a leader. When the Flames dealt him to the Leafs, he was immediately made captain. He got buried on the Flames d-corps because it was already absolutely killer.

And Wamsley was a 1B goalie who had recently backstopped the Blues to the conference finals. He was insurance in case Vernon went down - you don't want to flush a 105 pt, President's Trophy winning season down the toilet because of an injury to a goalie.

And even if the Flames hadn't moved Hull in that deal, there's no way they would have been able to keep a star of his calibre in Calgary when the tear-down happened.

Preach it Cliff (are you really Cliff Fletcher?)!

[Steve Bozek]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

People undervalue Ramage. ...Clip ...you don't want to flush a 105 pt, President's Trophy winning season down the toilet because of an injury to a goalie.

And even if the Flames hadn't moved Hull in that deal, there's no way they would have been able to keep a star of his calibre in Calgary when the tear-down happened.

People seem to forget this trade was supposed to win them the Cup in '88. Ramage may have been a great character player, but he did not add much to the defense that year, Walmsley got injured and was lost for the post-season, so in effect, you might well say they did flush a 105 point President's Trophy winning season down the toilet. The Flames had owned the Oilers all season, but in this Hull trade they also traded away their best checking forward in Bozek, who was a big part of containing the Oilers' top lines - and lack of control of their top two forward lines was the big reason the Flames got swept by the Oilers in the second round.

The trade that won them the Cup was the Gilmour trade. In hindsite, the financial problems of the '90's might have meant the Flames wouldn't have been able to keep Hull beyond a couple more seasons, but the loss of extra scoring from Hull is, in my opinion, a big factor in the Flames' "dynasty" stopping at 1. Trading Hull was the equivalent of the Islanders trading Mike Bossy after they won their first Cup.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Steve Bozek

People seem to forget this trade was supposed to win them the Cup in '88. Ramage may have been a great character player, but he did not add much to the defense that year, Walmsley got injured and was lost for the post-season, so in effect, you might well say they did flush a 105 point President's Trophy winning season down the toilet. The Flames had owned the Oilers all season, but in this Hull trade they also traded away their best checking forward in Bozek, who was a big part of containing the Oilers' top lines - and lack of control of their top two forward lines was the big reason the Flames got swept by the Oilers in the second round.

The trade that won them the Cup was the Gilmour trade. In hindsite, the financial problems of the '90's might have meant the Flames wouldn't have been able to keep Hull beyond a couple more seasons, but the loss of extra scoring from Hull is, in my opinion, a big factor in the Flames' "dynasty" stopping at 1. Trading Hull was the equivalent of the Islanders trading Mike Bossy after they won their first Cup.

That's very selective reasoning. Pretty clear to me that the Flames likely don't win the cup in 89 with out either of those trades occurring. The Flames needed the blueline depth provided by Ramage in 89, especially with Suter injured for the entire playoff run.

Tough to question deals that helped bring them the cup, and tough to say if they were good enough to win in 89, that the subsequent teams weren't good enough because Hull was gone. Not saying Hull may not have been a key piece to future cups, but the Flames rounded out their team in a win now mode which meant giving up a very good young piece in Hull. That win now team should have won more than 1 cup, lots of reasons that didn't happen, Hull being gone isn't one of them, although that's not to say he wouldn't have helped in later years (although hindsight we now know Hull would likely have been gone just like all the other good players before the halfway point of the 90's as the new economy of the NHL started to takeover and the Flames were no longer able to retain talent).

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

... before the halfway point of the 90's as the new economy of the NHL started to takeover and the Flames were no longer able to retain talent).

It certainly seemed that the new NHL economy killed the flames and a few other teams before the rest of the league.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

It certainly seemed that the new NHL economy killed the flames and a few other teams before the rest of the league.

It certainly did kill the small market teams pretty quick. However, I was not trying to imply that the new economic factors in the NHL were the only reason for the Flames demise by the mid 90's, it was to suggest that by the time the Flames really were going to feel the pain of letting Hull go, was right around when the were no longer capable of retaining top end talent, but that's not something they would have known at the time of the deal.

[#-3]

I quickly went down the list, objectively I would say he did pretty well. But when he lost he often lost bad.

Just when in order from your link, showed the names on some of the important ones to to show where I am on the list.

On Topic, The Regher trade to Buffalo was really bad.

Draw
Draw
Win
Win
Draw
Win - Boyd for Arnold
Draw
Big Loss - Jokinen, Prust for Higgins, Kotalik
Loss - Aulie, Phanuef, Sjostrom for Hagman Mayers, Stajan, White
Win
Big Loss - Stralman for Reinhart
Draw - Primeau, Sadd for Stralman, Stuart, 7th?
Win
Loss
Draw
Win - Birkholz, Leopold for Bouwmesster
Draw - Josefson for Erixon, Deslauriers
Loss - Lombardi, Prust, Gromley for Jokinen, Birkholz
Draw
Win - Ross for Bourque
Win
Big Loss - Nemisz, Elliott for Tanguay, Trunev
Big Win - Gardiner, Dumoilin for Cammalleri, Wahl
Win
Win
Win - Backlund, Negrin for Cole
Big Win - Aucoin, Severyn for Marr, Zyuzin
Loss
Draw - Ference, Kobasew for Primeau, Stuart
Loss - Lundmark, King, Wahl for Conroy
Win - Leopold, Burki, Cann for Tanguay
Win
Draw
Draw
Big Win - Johner, Montado for Huelius
Big Loss - Lydman for Armstrong
Draw
Loss
Loss
loss
Big Win - Gauthier, Saprykin for Langkow
Big Win - Prust, Boyd, for Pineault
Loss - Booth for Nilson
Win - Betts, McLennan, Moore for Simon, Schneider
Win - Morgan, Fallon for Nieminen
Draw
Big Win - Vlasic for Kiprusoff
Draw
Small Win - Begin, Drury for Reinprecht, Warrener
Loss

Draw 14
Big Win 6
Win 16
Loss 10
Big Loss 4

[Steve Bozek]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

That's very selective reasoning. Pretty clear to me that the Flames likely don't win the cup in 89 with out either of those trades occurring. The Flames needed the blueline depth provided by Ramage in 89, especially with Suter injured for the entire playoff run.

Tough to question deals that helped bring them the cup, and tough to say if they were good enough to win in 89, that the subsequent teams weren't good enough because Hull was gone. Not saying Hull may not have been a key piece to future cups, but the Flames rounded out their team in a win now mode which meant giving up a very good young piece in Hull. That win now team should have won more than 1 cup, lots of reasons that didn't happen, Hull being gone isn't one of them, although that's not to say he wouldn't have helped in later years (although hindsight we now know Hull would likely have been gone just like all the other good players before the halfway point of the 90's as the new economy of the NHL started to takeover and the Flames were no longer able to retain talent).

Well, of course it's selective reasoning, except for the fact that Fletcher made the deal with the specific purpose to win in '88, and on those terms it was a failure. It was a classic "trade for the present and hope the prospect doesn't come back to bite us".

All of what each of us is writing is pure speculation, but 88-89 was a different season and there were a number of trades over a number of years that were important in building the Cup champion. The only reason they had to trade for a Walmsley as a backup goalie was that they gifted Lemelin to Boston at the start of the season.

There are all kinds of scenarios for what might have happened if they hadn't made that trade. The presence of Ramage made it easy for Fletcher to gift Paul Reinhart to Vancouver - a move that allowed Vancouver to come within a disputed goal of derailing the Stanley Cup run in the first round.

Even though the Flames were beating the Oilers during the 87-88 season, the coaches/management were concerned about the Oilers ability to goon it up - Ramage supposedly added toughness, but Fletcher did another very bad trade to acquire toughness right near the deadline in the spring of '88, dumping another prospect, Brian Bradley, to Vancouver for Craig Coxe - a goon who couldn't skate.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

That's very selective reasoning. Pretty clear to me that the Flames likely don't win the cup in 89 with out either of those trades occurring. The Flames needed the blueline depth provided by Ramage in 89, especially with Suter injured for the entire playoff run.

Tough to question deals that helped bring them the cup, and tough to say if they were good enough to win in 89, that the subsequent teams weren't good enough because Hull was gone. Not saying Hull may not have been a key piece to future cups, but the Flames rounded out their team in a win now mode which meant giving up a very good young piece in Hull. That win now team should have won more than 1 cup, lots of reasons that didn't happen, Hull being gone isn't one of them, although that's not to say he wouldn't have helped in later years (although hindsight we now know Hull would likely have been gone just like all the other good players before the halfway point of the 90's as the new economy of the NHL started to takeover and the Flames were no longer able to retain talent).

This. People forget that the 1989 cup winning team was strong enough to win several other cups, and missed out for various reasons, none of which were because they had Ramage and Walmsley and not Hull. And Hull played on a few really good St. Louis teams, but never won a cup with them, during his prime years.

I agree that the Gilmour acquisition was bigger, but defensive depth is key to a cup win.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by CSharp

Cripes - the Flames really had some NO-GOOD moments after Fletcher left town!

I don't think it's an accident that the bad moments came mostly with inexperienced GMs. Risebrough, Sutter.

[Matty81]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

That was a great trade at the time. Got rid of a clear dud in Kidd and Roberts I think wanted to go out east anyway (there was also uncertainty with him as it was his second or third comeback attempt) . Probably would've lost him in UFA when the time came anyway. As you said, Cassels was good for us (hated seeing him sign with the Nucks) and Giguere could've been great but was squandered in a future trade. That doesn't change that it was initially a good trade for a cash strapped team.

Gotta respectfully disagree here.. To me that was a very bad trade at the time and in retrospect.

Roberts was an NHL all star at that point, a better than PPG player with an all around game and a physical presence. Only reason he was moved was because he had missed a ton of time with injuries and there were some issues with insurance or travel or something... doesn't change the fact that he was one of the top players in the league and still pretty young at 30. Kidd was an established and solid NHL starter - not an elite player but if you look at his numbers and save percentage for that era you could compare him to any middle of the pack starter in the nhl today, still a proven asset in his prime years.

They got a mid 1st round goalie prospect which was basically a not great lotto ticket who at best needed 3-5 years of development and a mediocre top 6 forward back. Cassels was getting top 6 ice in hartford during one of the highest scoring eras in nhl history and was a 50/60 point guy other than his one good season. He was terrible offensively as a flame, like 0.5 ppg and he could barely throw a check to save his life. He was of the same ilk as Marty McInnis good third liners who were forced into top line situations on bad teams.

Like so many of those 90s trades, forced by circumstance but from my perspective terrible value coming back.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Steve Bozek

Well, of course it's selective reasoning, except for the fact that Fletcher made the deal with the specific purpose to win in '88, and on those terms it was a failure. It was a classic "trade for the present and hope the prospect doesn't come back to bite us".

All of what each of us is writing is pure speculation, but 88-89 was a different season and there were a number of trades over a number of years that were important in building the Cup champion. The only reason they had to trade for a Walmsley as a backup goalie was that they gifted Lemelin to Boston at the start of the season.

There are all kinds of scenarios for what might have happened if they hadn't made that trade. The presence of Ramage made it easy for Fletcher to gift Paul Reinhart to Vancouver - a move that allowed Vancouver to come within a disputed goal of derailing the Stanley Cup run in the first round.

Even though the Flames were beating the Oilers during the 87-88 season, the coaches/management were concerned about the Oilers ability to goon it up - Ramage supposedly added toughness, but Fletcher did another very bad trade to acquire toughness right near the deadline in the spring of '88, dumping another prospect, Brian Bradley, to Vancouver for Craig Coxe - a goon who couldn't skate.

That's pretty ridiculous way to look at, at least from the perspective that the Ramage / Wamsley deal was a "failure" because it didn't result in a cup in 88. I don't disagree for a second that it was made with 88 in mind as the target, but how can you call it a failure when the team manages to win the cup the following year with both those assets still on the roster, and contributing, especially Ramage? It's not like we missed Hull 89 even though he was gone, and as mentioned before, Ramage was a key contributor with Suter on the sidelines. We likely don't win the cup without either of the players realized in that trade.

It is fair to suggest, that other moves in 89 were also key in getting there and there was a realization that more needed to be done, but you can't write of the trade from the year before as a failure because the win didn't happen that year. The only way you could do that is if we lost out on those assets after 88, or if we didn't use those assets in 89, neither of which occurred.

[ThisIsAnOutrage]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I don't seem to recall that. He seemed to talk about being in this city several times, about enjoying walking along the river, living in that area and his first child being born here. He talked quite glowingly about the city.

Really? Then it's even more disappointing. Man, these trades never seem to stop coming back to haunt you...

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

That's pretty ridiculous way to look at, at least from the perspective that the Ramage / Wamsley deal was a "failure" because it didn't result in a cup in 88. I don't disagree for a second that it was made with 88 in mind as the target, but how can you call it a failure when the team manages to win the cup the following year with both those assets still on the roster, and contributing, especially Ramage? It's not like we missed Hull 89 even though he was gone, and as mentioned before, Ramage was a key contributor with Suter on the sidelines. We likely don't win the cup without either of the players realized in that trade.

It's almost like saying Ray Bourque messed up by going to Colorado in 2000 to try and win a cup because they didn't win it that year (even though they won it in 2001).

[Steve Bozek]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It's almost like saying Ray Bourque messed up by going to Colorado in 2000 to try and win a cup because they didn't win it that year (even though they won it in 2001).

Can't quite follow that analogy.

I agree with everyone that Ramage made an important contribution to the '89 Cup run, and he was known as a leader, so he undoubtedly contributed some "intangibles". But the fact is he was not the defensive star that the Flames thought they were getting in '88. As pointed out, it was Suter's injury that got him into a bigger role in the playoffs, but at the end of the regular season, he wasa bottom pairing defenseman. The Flames were a first place overall team before the trade and a first place overall team after the trade, and there were other trades that were more important in getting the '89 Cup. For the '88 season and playoffs, I think the trade actually weakened the team.

The Blues made the trade expecting much later benefits from Hull, but Bozek the checker, and Hull the scorer were major contributors to their 2 round playoff run that year.

[Joe Nieuwendyk]

Originally Posted by Matty81

Roberts was an NHL all star at that point, a better than PPG player with an all around game and a physical presence. Only reason he was moved was because he had missed a ton of time with injuries and there were some issues with insurance or travel or something... doesn't change the fact that he was one of the top players in the league and still pretty young at 30.

Roberts injury was so bad that it had forced him to retire. When he decided to come back, it wasn't going to be with the Flames or any other high travel team. Furthermore, it was thought highly unlikely that he would make it through another season so his value was not as high as you make it sound. Carolina took a big gamble and it paid off for them.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Joe Nieuwendyk

Roberts injury was so bad that it had forced him to retire. When he decided to come back, it wasn't going to be with the Flames or any other high travel team. Furthermore, it was thought highly unlikely that he would make it through another season so his value was not as high as you make it sound. Carolina took a big gamble and it paid off for them.

That was the story that was fed to the public at the time. I think, and have heard, there were other reasons why Roberts didn't want to be here.

[chopper89]

Originally Posted by Matty81

Phaneuf was terrible, getting quantity over quality set this organization back 5 years. Also the Kotalik trade.

The dismantling of the early 90s team is one of the most embarassing sequences in modern trade history, Gilmour trade was the worst but also

Mullen for a 2nd... coming off an almost 40 goal season?

Roberts and Kidd for Cassels and Giguere

Suter and pieces for Zalapski and pieces

Macinnis for Housely - Phil the thrill was elite offensively but one of the worst defenders ever, like Justin Schultz if he could actually score.

Makarov for future considerations

letting Joel Otto walk for nothing when he wanted to stay

Vernie for Chiasson

The list could go on. Didn't get one decent young asset or high pick for a team of all-stars in their early 30s for the most part. Only decent trade was for Iginla.

Edit - the recent Iginla trade was bad too, but not on value, just because they waited so long.

I think it's important to remember how much the team imploded in the early 90's when looking at these trades retroactively. Close to every player from the '89 team decided they wanted out over the next 5 yrs- and many played some pretty 'dirty pool' to force a trade. Because of that, returns are never going to be great. I understand you hope the GM will get something good for them, but sometimes circumstances need to be considered. i.e. Fleury and Nieuwendyk's returns turned out to be pretty good considering they weren't going to play with Calgary anymore anyway.

Nieuwendyk - Hold out, and then demanded a trade. Getting back the franchise player is almost a miracle considering Nieuwy had already told the world he wouldn't play for Calgary.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/a...yk/330745.html

Gilmour - Hold out, Demanded trade, some off-ice personal issues- wasn't coming back
http://www.newstalk1010.com/blog/mik...tryID=10682325

Roberts - Requested trade to an Eastern team for the reduced travel requirements, and ease strain on his recently injured back/neck. Insurance issues with his injury history.

Savard - Fighting constantly with coach- publicly requesting trade
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/sava...lgary-1.309478

Fleury - Pending UFA, who had publicly said he would not come back to Calgary.
http://www.canoe.ca/HockeyFleuryTrad...kyflecal2.html