- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 2/9/14 at 10:32 am to Sophandros
How did the Gretzky trade change the league? The Oilers won the Stanley Cup without Gretzky. Their dynasty ended because Messier, Kurri, and Anderson all turned 30 at the same time.
Sure, 5 years after the deal, the Kings finally made the Stanley Cup finals, in which they lost to the Habs. A warm weather team wouldn't win the cup until 1999 (and you could argue the Iginla for Nieuwendyk trade was more important, though it didn't make the headlines)
It's a trade that didn't impact any titles, really. It didn't change the style of play, and it didn't ressurrect a franchise (yes, the Kings were briefly popular before going back to irrelevance for another decade or so).
I'd say the Lindros deal was FAR more important to hockey, as it lead to one dynasty (the Avalanche), essentially ended hockey in one city (Quebec), and involved several Hall of Famers (Lindros, Forsberg) and All-Stars (Hextall, Ricci, Ducschene). It also changed the salary structure of the league and lead indirectly to the labor troubles due to the power of agents.
The Gretzky deal was all sizzle, no steak.
Sure, 5 years after the deal, the Kings finally made the Stanley Cup finals, in which they lost to the Habs. A warm weather team wouldn't win the cup until 1999 (and you could argue the Iginla for Nieuwendyk trade was more important, though it didn't make the headlines)
It's a trade that didn't impact any titles, really. It didn't change the style of play, and it didn't ressurrect a franchise (yes, the Kings were briefly popular before going back to irrelevance for another decade or so).
I'd say the Lindros deal was FAR more important to hockey, as it lead to one dynasty (the Avalanche), essentially ended hockey in one city (Quebec), and involved several Hall of Famers (Lindros, Forsberg) and All-Stars (Hextall, Ricci, Ducschene). It also changed the salary structure of the league and lead indirectly to the labor troubles due to the power of agents.
The Gretzky deal was all sizzle, no steak.
Posted on 2/9/14 at 10:43 am to Baloo
quote:
How did the Gretzky trade change the league?
By generating interest in warm weather climates, without which the league would not have teams in Dallas, Florida, Carolina, or Nashville.
The Gretzky trade generated billions in revenue for the league. That can not be understated.
Posted on 2/9/14 at 10:56 am to Sophandros
Also this:
LINK
quote:
In 1990-91, Gretzky Fever was in its third season. There were 4,830 players registered with USA Hockey in the entire state of California. More ice rinks began popping up to meet the growing demand and by 1992-93, that number nearly doubled to 9,316. After another two years, the numbers grew by 67 percent to 15,537 in 1995-96.
In 1990-91, USA Hockey had 195,125 registered hockey players across America. By 1992-93, that number jumped to 262,873. That was a 34 percent spike, a massive number by more recent standards. So hockey was growing nationally, but not nearly at the rate experienced in California.
Every year, hockey kept getting bigger and bigger in California and by 1995-96, hockey registration numbers ballooned to 15,537, a 221.6 percent increase from just six seasons prior. That’s an increase of almost 11,000 players in six years, and that doesn’t even include the two seasons immediately after the trade.
LINK
Posted on 2/9/14 at 10:57 am to Sophandros
I don't think it did generate billions in revenue. You, of all people, should know better. This is like arguing that a new stadium is worth it because of all of the ancillary benefits to the local economy.
The NHL expands south even without this trade. In fact, it had already started. The league expanded in 1967, 1970, and 1979. It had already tentatively started to move south with franchises in Washington and St. Louis. The expansion in 1992 added a Canadian team in Ottawa and one southern team, Tampa. It was a success, so they expanded again to Florida and Anaheim.
The 1991 expansion to San Jose was merely returning a team to the Oakland area to replace the defunct Seals from the WHA. The Stars moved to Dallas in 1993 due to population shifts. They weren't expansion, they were using the old trick of holding a city hostage for a new stadium. Gretzky raised the profile of the league no matter where he played. The league expands regardless because of the markets they were ignoring in the south.
As much as I dislike the guy, hiring Bettman over Ziegler to copy the NBA's marketing and get a deal with ESPN was far bigger than the Gretzky deal. Stein and Bettman were the guys who got a new TV deal and championed the NHL in the Olympics. Without a new commish, the Gretzky deal is just Peter Pocklington being a cheap bastard.
The NHL expands south even without this trade. In fact, it had already started. The league expanded in 1967, 1970, and 1979. It had already tentatively started to move south with franchises in Washington and St. Louis. The expansion in 1992 added a Canadian team in Ottawa and one southern team, Tampa. It was a success, so they expanded again to Florida and Anaheim.
The 1991 expansion to San Jose was merely returning a team to the Oakland area to replace the defunct Seals from the WHA. The Stars moved to Dallas in 1993 due to population shifts. They weren't expansion, they were using the old trick of holding a city hostage for a new stadium. Gretzky raised the profile of the league no matter where he played. The league expands regardless because of the markets they were ignoring in the south.
As much as I dislike the guy, hiring Bettman over Ziegler to copy the NBA's marketing and get a deal with ESPN was far bigger than the Gretzky deal. Stein and Bettman were the guys who got a new TV deal and championed the NHL in the Olympics. Without a new commish, the Gretzky deal is just Peter Pocklington being a cheap bastard.
Posted on 2/9/14 at 11:05 am to Baloo
quote:
The NHL expands south even without this trade
This is true......
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News