Residual effect from Gretzky trade still felt today

[eva unit zero 271]

Never would have happened. Pocklington wanted MONEY for Gretzky to keep the remainder of the Oilers afloat. He thought, possibly incorrectly, that it was financially impossible to keep Gretz. in Edmonton, and getting cash in return helped him salvage 2 or 3 more years of good hockey in Edmonton. That or he needed the cash for his other business ventures. I don't think he was all that interested in getting fair value in hockey players back.

Cash is listed as 'traded to Edmonton' in my post.

There is no way Detroit gets Wayne without parting with Stevie.

I said the best possible realistic trade.

Think about it. Murphy, Klima, Graves, and Sharples were considered to be worth Carson and McLelland a year later. So working it out based on the differences in player values in the two Carson trades, it's something like this, value-wise:

"To Detroit" Gretzky, Krushelnyski, McSorley, Graves

for

"To Edmonton" Oates, Carson, McLelland, 3 Firsts, Wads of cash.

Compare that trade with:

To LA: Gretzky, Krushelnyski, McSorley

for

To Edmonton: Carson, Gelinas, 3 Firsts, Wads of cash.

Now let's take out instances where the same player (or players considered to be of his value) move the same direction in the deal.

"To Detroit" Graves

"To Edmonton" Oates, McLelland

"To LA" ---

"To Edmonton" Gelinas

You guys sure that this deal wasn't possible without trading Yzerman from a player value standpoint? Because Edmonton probably gets a better deal with a top passer like Oates taking Gretzky's place than they do with a couple muckers like Graves and Gelinas.

[imisssergei 0]

Cash is listed as 'traded to Edmonton' in my post.

I said the best possible realistic trade.

Think about it. Murphy, Klima, Graves, and Sharples were considered to be worth Carson and McLelland a year later. So working it out based on the differences in player values in the two Carson trades, it's something like this, value-wise:

"To Detroit" Gretzky, Krushelnyski, McSorley, Graves

for

"To Edmonton" Oates, Carson, McLelland, 3 Firsts, Wads of cash.

Compare that trade with:

To LA: Gretzky, Krushelnyski, McSorley

for

To Edmonton: Carson, Gelinas, 3 Firsts, Wads of cash.

Now let's take out instances where the same player (or players considered to be of his value) move the same direction in the deal.

"To Detroit" Graves

"To Edmonton" Oates, McLelland

"To LA" ---

"To Edmonton" Gelinas

You guys sure that this deal wasn't possible without trading Yzerman from a player value standpoint? Because Edmonton probably gets a better deal with a top passer like Oates taking Gretzky's place than they do with a couple muckers like Graves and Gelinas.

100% Edmonton does not give up Gretzky without getting Yzerman.

Detroit didn't really have the prospects that LA did. Remember Gelinas was their first pick in that years draft, while Detroit drafted Kocur.

Detroit would have to ship off Yzerman to even get Edmonton to listen.

EDIT: BTW, just so we are clear, I think both Yzerman and Oates would have been shipped off.

Edited August 12, 2008 by imisssergei

[eva unit zero 271]

100% Edmonton does not give up Gretzky without getting Yzerman.

Detroit didn't really have the prospects that LA did. Remember Gelinas was their first pick in that years draft, while Detroit drafted Kocur.

Detroit would have to ship off Yzerman to even get Edmonton to listen.

EDIT: BTW, just so we are clear, I think both Yzerman and Oates would have been shipped off.

I included the entire Carson trade, minus Graves, but added Oates from Detroit and removed McLelland from Edmonton. I basically redirected how those players got to Edmonton, but did it basically for the same major asset. The only difference is that Edmonton gets Oates instead of Graves, and Detroit's picks instead of LA's. Given that they basically traded Gretzky for Carson, and Carson was within a year shipped to Detroit with McLelland for Klima, Murphy, Graves, and Sharples....Gretzky could have been had without giving up Yzerman if they give up Oates and most of the Carson deal.

[imisssergei 0]

I included the entire Carson trade, minus Graves, but added Oates from Detroit and removed McLelland from Edmonton. I basically redirected how those players got to Edmonton, but did it basically for the same major asset. The only difference is that Edmonton gets Oates instead of Graves, and Detroit's picks instead of LA's. Given that they basically traded Gretzky for Carson, and Carson was within a year shipped to Detroit with McLelland for Klima, Murphy, Graves, and Sharples....Gretzky could have been had without giving up Yzerman if they give up Oates and most of the Carson deal.

That's silly. X+Y doesn't always equate to Z.

Look at the teams at the time of the trade, not what happened to them afterwards. What the ended up being or where they ended up playing doesn't matter at all. The only thing that matters is what they were and where they were before the trade.

LA gave up everything they had, plus $15 million cash. Detroit would have had to not only match the talent and cash in the LA offer, but beat it. And that simply doesn't happen without Yzerman.

[eva unit zero 271]

That's silly. X+Y doesn't always equate to Z.

Look at the teams at the time of the trade, not what happened to them afterwards. What the ended up being or where they ended up playing doesn't matter at all. The only thing that matters is what they were and where they were before the trade.

LA gave up everything they had, plus $15 million cash. Detroit would have had to not only match the talent and cash in the LA offer, but beat it. And that simply doesn't happen without Yzerman.

Luc Robitaille? Bernie Nicholls? Neither player was given up in the deal. Both were better players than anything LA traded away. If anything, Edmonton got hosed by only getting Carson/Gelinas/picks in the deal and not getting one of Robitaille or Nicholls. Murphy was a rookie and considered a blue-chip elite prospect, so at the time he still had a ton of value; more in 88 than he had when he went for Carson.

And I swapped Graves for Oates because Oates had more value and makes more sense in that sort of trade; he's like a B version of Gretzky, but more defensively responsible. They could have slipped him into the lineup pretty easily as far as chemistry is concerned, as he dished out the same kind of slick passes Gretz did.

I guess I just don't see Carson/Gelinas as a package with more value than Oates/Murphy/Klima/Sharples in 1988. Oates vs Carson is a wash; Yes Carson had a better season, but Oates was playing mostly on Detroit's third line with checking line wingers while Carson was spending his evenings passing to Luc Robitalle, the best left winger in hockey. That said, Oates was on pace for about 70 points. His about 50 assists would have matched what Carson put up with Robitaille, which is pretty remarkable given that Carson's left winger scored more points than both of Oates' wingers combined; not even factoring in point-per-game winger Dave Taylor on the other side. An Oates/Murphy/Klima/Sharples package with the picks and cash is a good enough combination of youth and skill in 1988 to bring back the same return that went to LA.