Didn't see much of it but it seems as if Gretzky has some regrets now about leaving Edmonton. He states they could have won 4 more Cups. They would have too only to be stopped by Pittsburgh eventually I believe.
The sad thing is how much of this could have been avoided. I can't stand Pocklington whatsoever but I think Gretzky should have signed a long term contract to stay in Edmonton longer to avoid having Edmonton risk losing him via free agency in 1989. It would have been a simple solution.
Didn't see much of it but it seems as if Gretzky has some regrets now about leaving Edmonton. He states they could have won 4 more Cups. They would have too only to be stopped by Pittsburgh eventually I believe.
The sad thing is how much of this could have been avoided. I can't stand Pocklington whatsoever but I think Gretzky should have signed a long term contract to stay in Edmonton longer to avoid having Edmonton risk losing him via free agency in 1989. It would have been a simple solution.
Gretzky actually said at the end that had he known what happened, he would have essentially done it all over again.
As both Pocklington and Gretzky said, the trade happened because Gretzky's contract was ending in just over a year later, and Gretzky would need/wanted a huge raise, more than the Oilers could afford.
The bottom line is it came down to money on both sides. If Gretzky stays in Edmonton there isn't a debate about what the best dynasty of all time is. There also isn't a debate about the best player of all time either.
The bottom line is it came down to money on both sides. If Gretzky stays in Edmonton there isn't a debate about what the best dynasty of all time is. There also isn't a debate about the best player of all time either.
I agree with this. I saw the orginal airing of this documentary on ESPN, and one thing is for sure, if Edmonton had the money to pay Gretzky what he wanted/deserved there is ZERO chance he leaves. Would have been awesome to see how many Cups they could've won, and there's a good chance we get to see a Wayne vs. Mario Cup Final. What a tease to think about...
The bottom line is it came down to money on both sides. If Gretzky stays in Edmonton there isn't a debate about what the best dynasty of all time is. There also isn't a debate about the best player of all time either.
It came down to Pocklington needing $15 million to save his ass in his other business ventures. Gretzky would have stayed and life would have been fine if it wasn't for a broke owner who needed cash desperately.
It came down to Pocklington needing $15 million to save his ass in his other business ventures. Gretzky would have stayed and life would have been fine if it wasn't for a broke owner who needed cash desperately.
I know that's always been the story and I believe it. Don't get me wrong I am on Gretzky's side Pocklington is basically a criminal that never got caught. But if Wayne sees his contract running out if you truly want to stay on what was seemingly going to be a championship team forever wouldn't you have the foresight to get a deal done in 1986 or 1987? I have always questioned that. Or how about a home town discount to keep the team together? Remember when Ryan Smyth was crying like a little girl when he got traded from Edmonton and he and Kevin Lowe were reportedly $100,000 apart in negotiations? Gretzky's case reminds me a lot of that although I don't fault Gretzky like I do Smyth to that extent. I've just always thought that if heads were put together that Edmonton team would have never been dismantled.
I know that's always been the story and I believe it. Don't get me wrong I am on Gretzky's side Pocklington is basically a criminal that never got caught. But if Wayne sees his contract running out if you truly want to stay on what was seemingly going to be a championship team forever wouldn't you have the foresight to get a deal done in 1986 or 1987? I have always questioned that. Or how about a home town discount to keep the team together? Remember when Ryan Smyth was crying like a little girl when he got traded from Edmonton and he and Kevin Lowe were reportedly $100,000 apart in negotiations? Gretzky's case reminds me a lot of that although I don't fault Gretzky like I do Smyth to that extent. I've just always thought that if heads were put together that Edmonton team would have never been dismantled.
There is more to it though. It's only that Pocklington was in desperate need of cash at that time. Gretzky's comment "I wanted to get paid what I was worth" holds a lot of water. In Net Worth, the author talks about the agent who got Dave Taylor a 7 year, $6 million deal. This would be early 80s. The agent was talking to Gretzky about it, and said "you make what Taylor makes." Gretzky's response: "I don't make half of what Taylor makes."
I really don't think a hometown discount would have been on the table in 1989 without 1982-87 having a different look salary wise. I think between 86 or 87 like you say, and the end of the 88 season, I think Gretzky's eyes were opened, and I don't mean Janet Jones. It started to come out what some other guys were making, and Gretzky, rightly so, knew that the only reason you pay guys more money is because they bring money into the franchise, and Gretzky was a guy that every team could have contributed to his salary.
I'm sure Gretzky would have let Edmonton match any offer, but he wasn't going to be the good little boy, and let the good of Pocklington override his own good. And just how big a hometown discount would he need to take to keep the other guys around? Coffey was already gone, and they didn't win in 86 when they should have. A bunch of other things could have happened to wreck the grand plan, and Gretzky should have signed for a half a million less a season(or greater than that) for what? He also said himself he knew he was trading away a great shot at a bunch more cups. I despise the fact, and the day, he got traded, because it marked the end of maybe the most fascinating on-ice product ever, certainly of my lifetime. But I hesitate to suggest a player should take a smaller salary for the "greater good." Too many other things can happen, and the player doesn't get the money he missed out on if those other things don't pan out.
Ryan Smith isn't close to an analogy frankly. A)Salaries are fully disclosed, and b)$100,000 suggests a Mike Keenan/Rangers situation, where both parties wanted to part ways, and tried to make it look like something other than that.
I know that's always been the story and I believe it. Don't get me wrong I am on Gretzky's side Pocklington is basically a criminal that never got caught. But if Wayne sees his contract running out if you truly want to stay on what was seemingly going to be a championship team forever wouldn't you have the foresight to get a deal done in 1986 or 1987? I have always questioned that. Or how about a home town discount to keep the team together? Remember when Ryan Smyth was crying like a little girl when he got traded from Edmonton and he and Kevin Lowe were reportedly $100,000 apart in negotiations? Gretzky's case reminds me a lot of that although I don't fault Gretzky like I do Smyth to that extent. I've just always thought that if heads were put together that Edmonton team would have never been dismantled.
You have to consider that Pocklington also disrespected Gretzky and his family with things he said privately and some publicly.
The only thing that could have kept that team together is to have a different owner. Pocklington was looking to make a buck and treated his players as pieces of equipment rather than people. Do you recall the stories of the Stanley Cups rings and how some players had very few diamonds in their rings because Pocklington wanted the rings to reflect their contribution?
By 1988 Gretzky had enough of the Pocklington charm so when Peter wanted to sell him for 15 million pieces of silver, Gretzky wasn't going to stand in his way.
I missed this and would like to see the whole thing, I saw only a brief bit/trailer.
How did Gretzky have a clause in his contract to allow him to be an Unrestricted Free Agent at the of 28, when the league age was 31 or 32 for other players?
Was this his personal service contract or his actual NHL contract?
I missed this and would like to see the whole thing, I saw only a brief bit/trailer.
How did Gretzky have a clause in his contract to allow him to be an Unrestricted Free Agent at the of 28, when the league age was 31 or 32 for other players?
Was this his personal service contract or his actual NHL contract?
Or did I hear wrong?
I don't believe age was the thing at the time. Back then a team gave up 5 first round picks for signing a free agent. The first player to sign during that time was Scott Stevens in 1990(1986 collective bargaining agreement). Gretzky obviously would have been a player anyone would have given up the picks for, so Edmonton had to get proper value for him, hence the sale/trade.
Ok he was a restricted free agent then, Oilers would have had the right to match regardless, then they could have traded him anywhere they wanted.
But obviously $15 was still required.
How many more cups..
There wasn't restricted/unrestricted free agency back then, there was simply free agency. The only thing was that since Alan eagleson was more interested in being buddies with the owners than doing his job as head of the NHLPA, any time the players "won" free agency rights, there was compensation to the former team attached it, which effectively acted as a reserve clause. That's why the Scott Stevens by St. Louis was such a big deal, because teams just didn't bother.
The 1994 CBA changed a lot of things, free agency included.
People who still argue that it would have been better for the game/league if Gretzky stayed in Edmonton baffle me. Gretzky coming to LA was the single most important event in the history of the NHL. That trade completely changed the game, and single handedly transformed the NHL from a small, niche, sports bush league into a major North American sport. People actually started noticing hockey after Gretzky came to LA. Gretzky in LA got the NHL so many TV deals, hundreds of thousands of new fans, paved the road for every Californian/southern franchise, and boatloads of new revenue it's absolutely insane.
I understand how cool it would have been if Gretzky stayed in Edmonton, how many more Cups they would have won, etc. etc. But Gretzky in LA was infinitely more important to the future of the sport, which speaks leagues about how important of a figure Wayne truly was in the history of the NHL.
People who still argue that it would have been better for the game/league if Gretzky stayed in Edmonton baffle me. Gretzky coming to LA was the single most important event in the history of the NHL. That trade completely changed the game, and single handedly transformed the NHL from a small, niche, sports bush league into a major North American sport. People actually started noticing hockey after Gretzky came to LA. Gretzky in LA got the NHL so many TV deals, hundreds of thousands of new fans, paved the road for every Californian/southern franchise, and boatloads of new revenue it's absolutely insane.
well, i don't think any of us are NHL owners or players or agents, so the skyrocketing of salaries/revenues post-gretzky trade doesn't affect us.
for the fans though, here are some other results of gretzky going to LA: overexpansion and the dilution of the talent pool and the dead puck era, teams moving from winnipeg and quebec city to phoenix and denver (both currently drawing fewer fans than the franchises did when they left canada), two lockouts, the hiring of gary bettman. now, 20 years later, you allegedly have a third of the league losing significant money every year. no credible businessman is willing to buy an NHL team other than jim balsillie. the only other people to buy an american franchise in recent memory are either crooks or "small timers" pooling their money together who have no idea what they're getting themselves into. and none of those purchases have gone well.
meanwhile, speaking as someone who lives in a non-southern NHL market in the united states, it's harder to find NHL games on tv without paying for extra channels than it was in 1988. and we have the gretzky trade to thank for this prosperity? quick, send mcnall and pocklington to the HHOF as builders.
Last edited by vadim sharifijanov: 11-20-2009 at 11:58 AM.
It sounds interesting, yeah I think if Gretzky really wanted to stay in Edmontonhe would have signed a contract in 1986 or 1987 before he became a free agent.
Speaking of the whole Gretzky thing has anyone read the Stephen Brunt book out on this? I'm thinking of getting it, myself, but wanted to know what others who had read the book thought about it.
It sounds interesting, yeah I think if Gretzky really wanted to stay in Edmontonhe would have signed a contract in 1986 or 1987 before he became a free agent.
.
It's very easy for us to say, when we're not the one who is looking at at least a $500,000 raise instantly, if not more, after years of being paid well under what guys who were nowhere near what even half the player Gretzky was were getting paid, that Gretzky would have done this or that.
I have to think it would be a very short line among us who would sign on for significantly less money with our current employer, especially after finding out we could have been making a lot more money all along.
Gretzky wanted to stay in Edmonton and get paid what he was worth. Which there is nothing wrong in him wanting. Why is it on Gretzky to take less money to stay there? Why is Edmonton not responsible for not paying, the one guy who can never be said to have been overpaid, a commensurate salary?
You don't think ticket prices reflect the need to cover a $54 million player payroll?
Ticket prices reflect the price peole are willing to pay for them, not salaries.
After all, if salaries and ticket prices were linked, then Gary Bettman's "lower ticket prices with a salary cap" mantra of the lockout would be a reality rather than a snow job to get the public on the owner's side.
Ticket prices reflect the price peole are willing to pay for them, not salaries.
After all, if salaries and ticket prices were linked, then Gary Bettman's "lower ticket prices with a salary cap" mantra of the lockout would be a reality rather than a snow job to get the public on the owner's side.
If each team had player payrolls of $10 million, ticket prices would be lower.
If each team had player payrolls of $10 million, ticket prices would be lower.
Really. So MLSE, who can get $175 per seat and have long, long lines of people looking for the opportunity to pay that price to see a game, will sacrifice some of that money, because it "only costs" $10 million instead of $50 million?
I'd like to think I've read a fair amount of literature on different sports owners over the years. I'm having to search the recesses of my mind to remember reading anything that would suggest owners would be so benevolent as to charge below what the market will bear, and willingly give up profits because the payroll is lower.
If each team had payrolls of ten million, owners would be a lot richer.
Perhaps but the great inflationary pressure on ticket prices beginning in the late 80s would never have been as severe if players salaries grew much slower and more reasonably.
Why is a new entry level car ~15 - 20k? In large part to the costs of production. Do you honestly believe costs have nothing to do with price - especially in this economy?
I bet some empty NHL arenas would love to sell out by charging $5 a ticket - but they couldn't pay the players if they did.
