I'm trying to grasp where this arrogance you're talking about comes from, how it manifested itself, and how you know about it.
Obviously things were much different back in those days and us fans knew a lot less about what was going on behind the scenes than we do now. Was Francis hated by the players to such an extent as you are hinting at? Players had literally no rights in those days (free agency, arbitration, etc) and the whip was totally in the hands of the GM. We have no idea what went on in contract negotiations, etc but it would seem that if Francis was typical of GMs in all other sports at the time (baseball was beginning to change because of Curt Flood and the advent of free agency), he must have been disliked by most of his players. Complicating it was the fact that he was also coach. Did he limit ice time to certain players in trying to build up his role as GM? I have no idea. In fact, in thinking back to that time, I don't think that finances rarely, if ever, entered into our conversations as fans. Players belonged to teams, period. Players had no power, period. It was do as you are told or hit the proverbial road. Is this what you are talking about? If so, can it not be said that all the GMs, especially the oldtimers running Original Six franchises, did the same?
I saw the Giacomin trade as a trade of an older guy to make room for a younger guy. Cold-hearted, yes, but we all know that teams have little loyalty to their players, even long-standing, franchise players. How was it more than that?
I saw the Bruins trade as a trade to shake up a failing hockey team. Was it more than that? I know Ratelle has never forgiven the Rangers. Was their personal animosity between Park and Francis? Was the trade more than just a hockey trade? Wasn't Espo so angry at being traded that he threw a TV out of a hotel window? If so, wasn't the situation the same in Boston and just indicative of the player/GM power dynamic?
Obviously I've never talked to Gilbert. It sounds like you have. I remember that when he left the Rangers and retired a few years later, he felt as if he had been pushed out and was still productive. But, that wasn't with Francis. So again, we have a case of GM power and player powerlessness. Perhaps a source of players feeling GMs were arrogant.
So, can you please be a bit more specific about exactly how Francis was arrogant and how he differed from all other GMs at the time. Just so you know, in all labor-management, worker-boss scenarios I always come down strongly in favor of the worker.
I don't have inside info.
I was not aware of anything specific in the legal sense, i.e., I had direct first hand knowledge of it.
I have had the honor of briefly breaking bread with Gilbert.
I am not saying, officially or unofficially he said anything. His right to privacy, like everyone else's, is to be respected.
That said, in the proper context, if you ran into him, as someone who was there, and you asked him, to speak at least off the record, I would suspect that, obviously, Francis wanted to break up the team, but as a player, he would have his perspective of that.
When I make all kinds of proposals about lets move this guy for that, it is strictly business.
I don't mean to insinuate Francis did not want to improve the team.
But I get the idea that like Torts, he wanted, he insisted, things be done his effin way, regardless of whether or not that actually was better.
It was not, IMO, and this is subjective rather than objective, Cat saying, what can I possibly do to improve this team, let me do that --- and follow up. It SEEMS like it was all no, how can I make this team fit into MY design. Ego. Up the wazoo.
Yes, this was the dawn of player's rights and their unions.
But there is even today the old saying, 'it's easier to fire one manager than get rid of 25 guys'.
The Rangers team IMO thought they had progressed to a point where they were stuck with Francis and he was stuck with them, and they were going to do their usual season, good and bad (games), and bust butt come playoffs.
But IMO, Francis acted like it was CLEARLY as if he was saying, I made you, I can break you. Like he was God, or at least God's surrogate, and the team was in his image.
I would be less inclined to charge the Cat with such arrogance if there was a more reasonable sense of a deal.
Let's take Don Marcotte of Boston. Somewhat similar to Hadfield.
Usually I don't go for a deal when it's too much Coke for Pepsi, = no real improvement. But let's say there was a good BUSINESS reason to trade Hadfield. I would not have cried a river over it.
But there was no comparison IMO, and the stats prove it out.
Ratelle >>>> Espo
Park >>>> Vadnais
Joe Zanusi, if memory serves, a non-factor.
So it was NOT a biz decision.
It's like the Jets trading Namath.
If they did it due to rebuild, and there was real return, and courtesy, then ok.
But if it was hey, if I can send Mr. Guarantee to LA, I can send your sorry ass anywhere.
You'll never convince me it was an honest, good biz decision in good faith.
It was a statement trade.
But the statement was not, we're rebuilding, the statement was
if I think you guys are too complacent and I'm not happy with practices or this or that or for any reason, good or bad, if I want to remake this team, believe I can and will do it.
That's my bottom line.
The Giacomin deal as I said in earlier post could have also been done better on multiple levels.
I acknowledge there is SOMEWHAT a biz element to it in that moving Eddie G made space for Davidson.
But a sudden waiver move, as the best business return, I find hard to believe.
You would think that keeping Eddie as backup and then peddling him to a club that had an injury and a real need for a starter or realistically a co-starter would have been in everyone's best interest.
But no. It was a statement. And it was not one to be applauded.
