- 4 months ago
- Anonymous4 months ago
Mike erroneously presumes that every player is motivated only by money. That's ridiculous. A lot of players have accepted far less $ to stay where they already were.
- James BlackleyLv 74 months ago
1- You wouldn't see any southern teams (california, arizona, vegas) etc! Gretzky was the real reason why the Kings fanbase took off, and from there Anahiem and San Jose got teams as well. If Gretzky wasn't dealt to the Kings, there would be far fewer teams in the NHL had he not been traded.
2- Because of Gretzky, a lot of hockey schools/camps arenas in the south were built, those wouldn't exist today. That means several big named players wouldn't be in the NHL past, current or future.
- Anonymous5 months ago
A lot of things would have been different in the league. That is for sure.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- Anonymous6 months ago
You definitely don't have as much expansion or teams moving into California, the SW and
Southern US. I am not convinced the Oilers would remain quite as dominant though as both
Moog and Coffey had already been traded - Big wheels were already coming off the wagon.
- curtisports2Lv 76 months ago
Edmonton might have won 1 or 2 more Stanley Cups than the one they did without him in 1990. Had he never played in California, there might not have been expansion to the southwest until years later. No San Jose, Anaheim, Phoenix or Las Vegas. And there might not have been the expansion, at all, of the American Hockey League that now has five Californian teams and one in Arizona.
- JuanBLv 76 months ago
Then Gretzky would played for the Hamilton Oilers. Edmonton wasn't big enough for an Gretzky Oilers anymore.
- Mike WLv 76 months ago
Maybe they beat Calgary in the Smythe Division Finals, and go on to win the Stanley Cup. He stays in Edmonton for one more year, and leaves as a free agent in 1989. There's no way that the Oilers could afford to keep him past the 88-89 season.