lmm Posted April 8, 2020 Share Posted April 8, 2020 3 hours ago, Kevin Biestra said: One of the ones that really got away was Mike Rogers. We drafted him, but he was also drafted in the WHA. They signed him, we didn't, and then a few years later he had three straight 100 point seasons in the NHL. He would have probably been our greatest player pre-Bure. We drafted a superstar and then had nothing to show for it. yes, Vancouver was a backwater in the NHL in those days, Birmingham, Baltimore and Cincinnatti were more desirable destinations than Vancouver. 5th round in 79 we drafted Dirk Graham, but did not sign him either. Like I said, 79 was not the worst draft we ever had, but missed good players in every round Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted April 8, 2020 Share Posted April 8, 2020 (edited) Gillis in a fairly recent recent interview talked about an earlier trade for Kesler that would have shocked everyone with the return but it was quashed at the last minute (sounds like by ownership). Kesler also mentioned on his podcast that he had been traded before but somehow it didn’t end up happening and it would have changed everything about how he was perceived here. They didn’t go into exact details of a return. Edited April 8, 2020 by Provost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanfor42 Posted April 9, 2020 Share Posted April 9, 2020 Stan Mccammon = Stu Jackson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeneedLumme Posted April 9, 2020 Share Posted April 9, 2020 13 hours ago, Kevin Biestra said: p I don't really think so, not based on the LA trade that actually happened. It was about Carson and three first rounders. Our three first rounders for those years turned out to be complete junk and never helped us at all, but we still made it to the Final in 94 without them or Gretzky, and as for Jimmy Carson...I think Skriko or Tanti plus Bradley probably gets the job done there, maybe another throw in. And Skriko, Tanti and Bradley were all gone anyway by 1991 or so. Giving up the three first rounders sounds like a huge price when looking at in 1988...but we essentially gave them up for nothing anyway by drafting guys that never contributed at the NHL level. And we still did pretty well on the ice from 91-94 without them. Trading them for Gretzky is just like a massive, massive, massive bonus. You can choose to believe that Raymond, Ballard and a pick will buy you a huge superstar, but outside of video games it doesn't work that way. The centerpiece of the package going to Edmonton was not the draft picks, it was Jimmy Carson. A 20-year old who had already scored close to 100 NHL goals as a teenager, who was third in the NHL in goals and eighth in points (at the age of 19!) the year leading up to the trade, and who looked like the next superstar. The Canucks could not match that quality of asset, and no combination of journeymen will have the same value in the real world. Which is why I referenced the Lindros trade. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Biestra Posted April 9, 2020 Share Posted April 9, 2020 (edited) On 4/8/2020 at 9:50 PM, WeneedLumme said: You can choose to believe that Raymond, Ballard and a pick will buy you a huge superstar, but outside of video games it doesn't work that way. The centerpiece of the package going to Edmonton was not the draft picks, it was Jimmy Carson. A 20-year old who had already scored close to 100 NHL goals as a teenager, who was third in the NHL in goals and eighth in points (at the age of 19!) the year leading up to the trade, and who looked like the next superstar. The Canucks could not match that quality of asset, and no combination of journeymen will have the same value in the real world. Which is why I referenced the Lindros trade. Was the centerpiece of the trade Carson or the cash? I already said we didn't have a Carson but Pocklington didn't think he could keep Gretzky. Skriko and Tanti weren't journeymen at the time. Nobody thought they'd be done in year or two, just like nobody thought that of Carson. Bradley was not junk. So one (or perhaps even both) of Tanti and Skriko, plus Bradley, plus someone else of quality... Maybe it gets the job done and maybe it doesn't, but these aren't Ballard-like spare parts that the Canucks didn't even want. Martin Gelinas often slips my mind as going the other way to Edmonton as well. Might have taken Linden to replace him in what Edmonton wanted. That's the first piece that actually hurts us long term to give up. Edited April 10, 2020 by Kevin Biestra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now