Started By
Message

re: Was the Gretzky trade from Edmonton to LA the biggest sports trade ever?

Posted on 2/9/14 at 9:57 am to
Posted by Sophandros
Victoria Concordia Crescit
Member since Feb 2005
45218 posts
Posted on 2/9/14 at 9:57 am to
quote:

No the Ruth trade was bigger


The Ruth trade changed the game for two franchises.

The Gretzky trade changed the game for the entire league.
Posted by Baloo
Formerly MDGeaux
Member since Sep 2003
49645 posts
Posted on 2/9/14 at 10:32 am to
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.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram