BuzzerBeater Forums

I need to say something about people on here wanting to compare Jordan to Gretzky. What the hell are you talking about?

All-time scoring in the NHL:

Gretzky Goals - 894 Assists - 1963 Points - 2857

Number 2 all-time(Messier) Goals - 694 Assists - 1193 Points - 1887.

Gretzky put up about 50% more points than anyone else in history. You could take away all 894 goals and he would still be number one in points.

To accomplish the same thing Jordan would have had to average around 54 points a game.

The you have the people who keep pointing at rings. Last time I checked basketball and hockey were team sports. If you want to count rings then you need to remember that Jordan does not have the most rings. Hell even Robert Horry has 7 rings.

Jordan was great, and I loved him, but to say he was anywhere nearly as dominant as Wayne Gretzky simply means you have no clue what you are talking about. Of course other players think Jordan was dominant, but Gretzky had other players wondering if he was some sort of hockey alien from another universe.

Jordan was possibly the greatest player in the NBA, but Gretzky is the god of hockey. That is why Gretzky's number was retired from the NHL but Jordan's should not be retired from the NBA.

Well hell, it took you one post to make the point I've spent days blathering about.

I just finally read this thread today, and it was very frustrating to see what some people were saying.

Plus I'm Canadian.

Last edited by TigerUnderGlass at 9/22/2009 6:04:39 PM

Janet Jones had ZERO to do with the trade. NOTHING. I really hate it when people continue to spread that particular nonsense.

It is true that the trade was the doings of Pocklington. Gretzky was leaving Edmonton, and being shopped to the Kings, Detroit, and Vancouver. While on his honeymoon with his new wife Janet Jones they met with McNall and Gretzky insisted on the trade including McSorley and another player. I never said Gretzky left Edmonton because of his wife, but I do believe he choose to deal first with McNall before the team could make a different deal because he and his wife were allready planning on spending their offseasons in LA as much as possible because of his wife's career being based in LA so Gretzky made sure it was the Kings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Gretzky#.22The_Trade.2...

....and from Janet's point of view;

http://web.archive.org/web/20030910084927/http://slam.can...

Sorry to bring up something you hate so much, and to have angered you in such a way. However to say she had NOTHING to do with him coming to the Kings seems an overstatement. I had forgotten how much that trade stung certain people, eh? My apologies.

I'm not saying that No. 23 should be retired everywhere, but for the record, at least one guy in New York at the time liked him....

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/news/2003/04/...

Nice... :)
But that's probably because the heat at that time had no one's Jersey to hang...
They were envious of everyone else, so they chose his Royal Airness to help them

So what part of any of your post shows that Gretzky left Edmonton because of his wife???????

I repeat, she had NOTHING to do with him being traded away from Edmonton. Pocklington needed money and Gretzky's contract was a problem - therefore Gretzky had to be traded.

Where does Janet fit into that? Did the fact that worked in LA make it easier for them to agree to go there? Sure. Did she cause it in anyway? No. Did she instigate it in any way? No.

The idea of going to LA was not even a consideration until MCNALL pushed the discussions.

Posting links to articles which don't even contradict me is not the way to change my mind. You have no idea what you are talking about and are simply spouting the same crap that too many people think is true.

Until you have something to say that actually contradicts anything I am saying then just stop. Please. It is irritating.

...and by the way, saying you hate something is a figure of speech - stop thinking you've deeply hurt and angered someone every time they use a common phrase. It's even more annoying than your non-contradictory method of argumentation.

You sure are an angry fella arent you?

I posted links that verified what I said, I have no interest in trying to get through to you. I never said he left Edmonton because of his wife, as I allready said and you obviously skipped over to get to your flame post. He came to the Kings for a variety of reason that are listed in the links. It is all of the information needed to know what happened, whats wrong with that?

This all started as a joke about how good Gretzky was, that he could lift even the lowly kings from the cellar. I really could care less how offended you are because someone believes something you dont want them to. Lighten up tough guy.

At this point I can't tell if you are for real or not. Why is it every time someone disagrees with you you think they are offended and angry? Furthermore, if you are going to refer to the fact that I argued with you a "flame" then you are the single most naive person I have ever come across. Then again you you might not be serious, which in truth is more believable at this point.

I am neither offended nor angry, I merely have a low tolerance for ignorance.

You don't know hockey, and the only things you know about the trade you read in old articles from media outlets with various axes to grind.

"Tough guy"? Hell, you have to be joking to be this ridiculous. I still would dearly love to know why you constantly believe you have offended everyone. Is it personal experience? Are people in real life constantly offended by you or something?

I'm trying to have a discussion with you and all you can do is talk about how angry and offended you somehow believe I am merely because I think you are ignorant. I feel sorry for you, so how could I be angry? Grow up.

Last edited by TigerUnderGlass at 9/24/2009 6:35:31 PM

OK, enough meta-discussion. Talk about what you're talking about, not how you're talking about it. Or I can just close this up.

When someone is constantly calling someone ignorant, full of crap, dont know anything, grow up, etc etc. it is hardly trying to have a discussion with someone. I call personal attacks and insults a flame and I stand by that. You have no idea what I know about hockey, especially based on a discussion about some trade everyone barely remembers the particulars of, at least outside of Canada. Saying I dont know anything about hockey based on this discussion is not only an ad hominem argument, it is a flame. Tough guy was a joke, maybe you prefer sizzle chest? The three people I showed this thread to all said some version of 'he was looking for a fight or argument' and to me fight+insults=angry.

Yes, I overstated the importance of Janet Jones in Gretzky's coming to LA. It was a silly little thread about greatness and I quipped. I had no idea it would cause such a stir in you as it did that you felt you needed to harshly correct/insult me in order to...what...defend Gretzky's honor? I apologize for overstepping sensitivities, no joke.


The links Illustrate my point more than you saw, imo. Gretzky was leaving Edmonton for the reasons you said. However it was still in the air where he would actually land, though only a few teams at the time could afford him, including Vancouver and Detroit as well as the Kings. The Great One was able to in some form dictate the terms of the trade to McNall before accepting, which tells me he had a no trade clause or something similar, I dont know and I dont remember, dont care at this point either.

Gretzky had choices

Gretzky was planning on spending a large portion of his offseason in LA to be with his wife


Gretzky never negotiated with any other team but the Kings.

McNall agreed to almost every term Gretzky laid out, and why wouldnt he? Of course he is going to do everything Gretzky wants, but you make it sound like it was McNall who told Gretzky what was up.

It is not any kind of stretch to think that at least of portion of Gretky's decision to approve the Kings was due to being near his wife. What is so wrong with that? For some reason the thought of Gretzky wanting to be near his wife upsets you. Why? (rhetorical)

Dont feel sorry for me bro, I live 300 yards from the beach in a nice house, and my hot beautiful GF just showed up with movies, snacks and beer. I am doing ok.

harshly correct/insult me

Again, if you though that was harsh you have some serious growing up to do.

Tough guy was a joke

Obviously. It was just a stupid one.

Saying I dont know anything about hockey based on this discussion is not only an ad hominem argument, it is a flame.

That isn't precisely correct, but any explanation why would go way to far over your head. Lets just say that it always seems to be people like you who instantly resort to ad hominem every time you feel insulted.

Gretzky never negotiated with any other team but the Kings.

It took you about a thousand words to get here, but this is the essential point of your argument. It is true, but only to a point because the Kings WERE THE ONLY TEAM TO APPROACH GRETZKY DIRECTLY.

you make it sound like it was McNall who told Gretzky what was up.

How does stating that McNall approached Gretzky sound anything like that? It doesn't. Lovely straw man though.

Dont feel sorry for me bro, I live 300 yards from the beach in a nice house, and my hot beautiful GF just showed up with movies, snacks and beer. I am doing ok.

I know this is not true because of the following:

The three people I showed this thread to all said some version of 'he was looking for a fight or argument'

Why would you waste your time showing this to anyone at all if that was true? How can this conversation be that important to you?

Isn't it amazing though how everyone you meet on line has an incredibly perfect life. Tell me again about your wonderful life. Fascinating, really.

fight+insults=angry

...oooorrrrrr it could mean I've found someone who takes everything personally and thinks everyone else does as well, and I have some time to kill. Just because you are easily insulted yourself does mean that everyone else is equally thin-skinned.

All I said was that I hated it when people spread that story. I will tell you this one more time - IT IS JUST A SAYING. AN IDIOM. A THROW-AWAY PHRASE. It means nothing more than an expression of mild irritation, akin to rough toilet paper if you will. The sooner you learn this type of thing the easier it will be for you to avoid conversations like this n'est-ce pas?

Now will you please just let it go? I'll even pretend I believe you have a girlfriend if you just stop. This conversation was entertaining until you started with the make believe, and now I'm just bored.