What was the worst trade in Flames history?

[Vulcan]

Gilmour for Leeman. I didn't even want to open this thread as the memory just sucks.

[albertGQ]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Please clarify. Are you talking about all trades with St. Louis the team, or are you talking about Martin St. Louis? Because the latter was simply bought out of his contract after he failed to be picked up on expansion waivers. It's still an organizational failure, but he wasn't traded away.

I know. I was trying to be funny. I guess it didn't work out that way. LOL

So many posts in this thread mention the Martin St.Louis trade when it wasn't a trade. And so many posters mispelled Gilmour's name as Gilmore. And even one poster mentioned it as a 6 player trade when a couple posts above his had the full 10 player trade detailed.

[CsInMyBlood]

As mentioned, the Ference trade really was the beginning of the downfall for the 2004 Flames.

Ripped the "family" atmosphere out of the team as multiple Flames players have alluded to.

Brad Stuart can take a long hard suck on my arse.

The Gilmour trade also sucked bad. The Leafs were trying to unload Gary Leeman immediately after he had his 50 goal, 95 pt season and there were no takers.

Two underwhelming injury marred seasons after that the Flames get him as the center piece to that trade. Yet we also somehow gave up Jamie Macoun. Petit and Godynyuk were totally horrible Flames. Ugly for sure. At least Berube punched some face because that's about the only thing Flames fans could cheer on from that trade.

As far as Marc Savard goes, the return was brutal but he was a selfish little prema donna especially that season. He didn't get to center Iginla because Conroy had stepped in and they were showing instant chemistry. He would not buy into the system Gilbert was having the team play. I think he learned a hard lesson with that trade and grew up as a player because of it.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Not a trade, but Button cutting loose Martin St. Louis and letting him go for nothing was one of the worst mistakes ever made by this franchise's collective group of GMs

The guy went on to to score 1013 points in 1065 games, as well as 90 points in 107 playoff games, and a Stanley Cup (obviously this one really stings).

1 Hart, 1 Pearson, 2 Art Ross, 3 Lady Byng, 5 All Star nods....

Just a ridiculous career, and Coates had him under contract FFS

Given away for NOTHING.

Exactly. Riser made the worst trade but Craig Button was by far the worst GM in franchise history. AINEC.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I don't want to entirely derail thread but what was the deal with Gilbert? I don't really remember what kind of coach he was (what kind of tactics he used or if he was a Keenan like button pusher) but he hasn't been back in NHL since.

He's had up and down seasons elsewhere was he just brutal on his players?

He didn't have any tactics at all, he was your run of the mill go out there and outwork the other team coach. He also has a tendency to make things personal with his players and I have heard he has had multiple issues with that in his other coaching stints in the minors, probably the main reason he has never had another shot at working in the NHL.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by frodo_t_baggins

Savard for Zainullin. Even if you make the dumb choice to trade savard because he butts head with the coach, how do you not even get a single asset for him.

Every time i see Button on TSN, i want to punch him in the nose.

[cral12]

Originally Posted by AC

Think it has to be Gilmour.

Yep, the 10 player Doug Gilmour trade. Some other definite gaffs in trades, but this one by a fair margin imo. Cliff Fletcher committed Grand Theft Gilmour.

Here's Down Goes Brown's 25 facts about the Doug Gilmour trade earlier this year for the 25th anniversary of this infamous deal.

25 facts about the Doug Gilmour trade:
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/g...gilmour-trade/

[1qqaaz]

I'd say Gilmour and Savard are 1 and 2 respectively.

The Iginla trade just doesn't even come close. The Flames got a first round pick for an old rental. The prospects were lacking, but this trade isn't even in the 10 worst in Flames history.

The Hull trade could be seen as bad, since he went on to be a top 5 scorer in NHL history.
But at least the Flames won a cup with the assets they got for him. And Hull was pretty one-dimensional.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by cral12

25 facts about the Doug Gilmour trade:
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/g...gilmour-trade/

An additional fun fact: despite being a defensive defenceman, Macoun’s 101 points with the Leafs was more than all five players on the Flames side of the deal managed in Calgary, combined.

Barf

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Wild GM

The Gilmour trade wasn't a 6 player trade it was 10!
And the Flames lost virtually every swap
Gilmour>Leeman (core piece)
Macoun>Petit (top 4 dman)
Nattress>Berube (role player)
Manderville>Godynyuk (young player)
Wamsley>Reese (back-up)

Reese was better than Walmsley in all fairness by then (simply look at their comparable GAA on the Flames, and Reese was much better). Berube was the better player (or at least had more value) than Nattress by then (if not shortly thereafter anyways). Nattress was great in the earlier years, but he was broken-down at the time of the trade.

Everything else was so laughably lopsided however, and those two 'wins' were so minimal in contrast.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Bonecrushing Hits

The Gilmour trade was easily the worst, but while I realize this is the minority opinion, I would argue the Hull trade was right there with it.The historical narrative is that we won the cup because of that trade, I maintain we won the cup in spite of it. Yes they contributed, but seriously a back up goalie and number 4/5 d-man wasn't make or break that year. We were frickin' stacked.

Fletcher at the time admitted he knew what he was giving up... I think we could have more cup banners in the rafters had we not done it.

I think it's because we were stacked is why he felt he could make the trade (they had four 40 goal scorers that year, including Loob and Mullen on the right side). Scoring wasn't an issue for the Flames. From 87-88 to 91-92 the Flames were 1st, 2nd 1st, 1st, and 5th in Goals For. They might have gotten not much value for one of the best goal scorers of all time, but they certainly didn't miss out on cups because of lack of goal scoring. The need for Ramage in the cup run was a lot more pressing than needing more scoring.


Who knows if Hull turns into the same kind of goal scorer if he's not getting first line minutes with Oates feeding him the puck.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

You mean a great trade? We got Kuba and Thompson was quickly out of the NHL. Unfortunately Button protected a 35 year old Albelin over Kuba and we lost him in the expansion draft.

In fairness he made up for it by eventually acquiring All-Star defenseman Petr Buzek.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

I think it's because we were stacked is why he felt he could make the trade (they had four 40 goal scorers that year, including Loob and Mullen on the right side). Scoring wasn't an issue for the Flames. From 87-88 to 91-92 the Flames were 1st, 2nd 1st, 1st, and 5th in Goals For. They might have gotten not much value for one of the best goal scorers of all time, but they certainly didn't miss out on cups because of lack of goal scoring. The need for Ramage in the cup run was a lot more pressing than needing more scoring.

This is definitely true. Some people look at Ramage's place in the Flames' depth chart and think he was a second-pair defenceman at best. He was the #1 D in St. Louis for several years before he was traded. I remember him as one of the most effective and dangerous Blues in the knock-down, drag-out series between the Flames and Blues in '86. Scored 60 points in a season three times, too – which is not nearly the same thing as a defenceman scoring 60 points now, but was still an unusual and impressive feat.

When Gary Suter's jaw got broken in the '89 playoffs, the Flames kept right on rolling because Ramage was there to take Suter's place. He had only scored 16 points in the regular season, because MacInnis and Suter took virtually all the power-play time. In the playoffs, filling in for Suter, he scored 12 points in 20 games. The following season he returned to form, scoring 49 points for the Leafs in one of their rare non-losing seasons.

Without Ramage, the Flames would have had to fall back on Ken Sabourin or Brian Glynn to play defence in those playoffs – and they most likely would not have won the Cup.

[killer_carlson]

Anyone criticizing the Hull trade is looking at it with blinders on.

Ramage was an all star defenceman. An all star. Not some bottom pairing plug.

Wamsley was a backup goalie who could play 30 games which we needed. The Marc damour's of the world weren't getting it done

So in order to get an all star defenceman and a well established veteran goalie the flames traded a roster player and a top prospect.

Instead of Hull they could have traded:

Suter (coming off the Calder win)
Niewendyk
Roberts
Fleury

Flames were deep in high quality forward prospects. They had to give up quality to get quality back. Had they kept hull and traded Roberts it's still probably the same discussion.

So it's utter absurdity to include the Hull trade in this discussion every summer.

We added an all star defenceman.
We added a backup goalie who could play 30 + games and hold his own
We had to include a high quality prospect to do so
The other options would also have been the same loss
The young players we kept contributed to the cup win
And ... both acquired players contributed to the cup win

[Gaudreau is a Ninja]

Gilmore and Hull without a doubt (on a lesser note Marc Savard was bad as well)

[Steve Bozek]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Anyone criticizing the Hull trade is looking at it with blinders on.

Ramage was an all star defenceman. An all star. Not some bottom pairing plug.

Wamsley was a backup goalie who could play 30 games which we needed. The Marc damour's of the world weren't getting it done

So in order to get an all star defenceman and a well established veteran goalie the flames traded a roster player and a top prospect.

Instead of Hull they could have traded:

Suter (coming off the Calder win)
Niewendyk
Roberts
Fleury

Flames were deep in high quality forward prospects. They had to give up quality to get quality back. Had they kept hull and traded Roberts it's still probably the same discussion.

So it's utter absurdity to include the Hull trade in this discussion every summer.

We added an all star defenceman.
We added a backup goalie who could play 30 + games and hold his own
We had to include a high quality prospect to do so
The other options would also have been the same loss
The young players we kept contributed to the cup win
And ... both acquired players contributed to the cup win

The emphasis should be on "was an all star defenseman" - that was before he arrived on the Flames. In the 88-89 season Ramage was behind Macinnis, Suter, McCrimmon, Macoun, and probably Murzyn. Yes, he stepped up after Suter was injured and made an important contribution to the Cup win, but he didn't play like an all star in 88 when he joined the Flames, and although he may have provided leadership intangibles, he was definitely not the dominant player they were hoping for when they traded for him.

[trublmaker]

has to be the Gilmour fiasco that one goes down as the worst fleecing in the NHL

[Jakester]

Gilmour. Gilmour. Gilmour. At least the Phaneuf trade got us several years of a heart and soul checking centre in Matt Stajan. Gilmour couldn't even get us that.

Iginla was not a bad trade. He was a 36 year old pending UFA. We got a first rounder and a couple lower tier prospects for him. Even if he hadn't scuppered the trade to Boston, we still would have only ended up with a first rounder, one lower tier prospect, and 6-7 defenseman, which is only marginally better. The fact is, the Flames should have realized by the 2011 trade deadline that they weren't going to win anything with their aging core and started moving pieces out. The real failure with the Iginla trade that if he'd been traded a year or two sooner, the return probably would have been much better. And in any event, the odds of whoever they got for Iginla having a comparable career to him are virtually nil. Iggy was a rare talent. In fact the trade the brought him here is the only example I can think of where two future 500+ goal scorers were traded for each other.

[You Need a Thneed]

Under appreciated in threads like these is Jason Weimer for Rob Neidermeyer, which is already a loss for us, but then we added in our leading scorer.

[Bonecrushing Hits]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Anyone criticizing the Hull trade is looking at it with blinders on.

Ramage was an all star defenceman. An all star. Not some bottom pairing plug.

Wamsley was a backup goalie who could play 30 games which we needed. The Marc damour's of the world weren't getting it done

So in order to get an all star defenceman and a well established veteran goalie the flames traded a roster player and a top prospect.

Instead of Hull they could have traded:

Suter (coming off the Calder win)
Niewendyk
Roberts
Fleury

Flames were deep in high quality forward prospects. They had to give up quality to get quality back. Had they kept hull and traded Roberts it's still probably the same discussion.

So it's utter absurdity to include the Hull trade in this discussion every summer.

We added an all star defenceman.
We added a backup goalie who could play 30 + games and hold his own
We had to include a high quality prospect to do so
The other options would also have been the same loss
The young players we kept contributed to the cup win
And ... both acquired players contributed to the cup win

It must be July, although I do love the passion people still have regarding older failed trades.

I do think it is unfair of you to say that people that don't like the Hull trade have blinders on. You are probably in the majority that thinks that without that trade we don't win the cup, I get that. We won the cup and that was the only major move we made so that must be why. I just don't agree with that. As others have pointed out, both players played a part in the cup win but I hardly think they're the reason we won.

It's all hypothetical so I don't get to wound up about it, but I think had we kept Hull we still win that year and possibly more.

The fact we won the cup helps cushion the blow on what I think was one of the dumbest trades the Flames ever did.

For the record, the Gilmour trade was maybe the worst trade in hockey history let alone the Flames'.