Murray Craven (NHL 1982-2000, Canucks 1992-1994) | 32 | C

[Kevin Biestra]

If anyone remembers the failed Jim Benning pattern of getting a couple guys who had been to the Cup Final or even won the Stanley Cup and then paying them 1.5 to 2x market value in order to be part of the team and hope it rubbed off on the rest of the squad...Murray Craven was how that sort of thing is done right.

 

When the Canucks acquired Craven in the 1992-93 season, he had been part of the 1985 and 1987 Flyers who had gone to the Cup Final and would have themselves been a Mario Lemieux type two-Cup mini dynasty had they not run into the Gretzky Oilers both times (same thing happened to the 1988 and 1990 Bruins, but minus Gretzky the second time).

 

Also, Craven wasn't a bottom dweller or bit piece on those Flyers rosters.  He was a much underappreciated scoring machine, at least as viewed by history some decades later, and compiled 77, 76 and 75 point seasons in his career, really putting him on relative part with guys like Trevor Linden, Cliff Ronning, Geoff Courtnall, Stan Smyl and Thomas Gradin.  When it was all said and done he had 759 points in 1071 games, a hell of a career.

 

Those 80s Flyers teams were constructed a lot like the 1982 Canucks that went to the final.  No scoring megastar like Gretzky or Bure or Bossy.  But a platoon of 55-90 point players who just kept coming at you three lines deep, with a goalie who had been touched by the hand of God to get them to the Final (Ron Hextall, Richard Brodeur, Pelle Lindbergh).  Murray Craven was one of those three-lines-deep forwards along with guys like Rick Tocchet, Brian Propp, Tim Kerr, Dave Poulin, Ilkka Sinisalo, Pelle Eklund etc.  When he came to the Canucks in the early 90s, he served the same function for the Canucks and was part of why we were able to roll three lines that could score all the way to the final round of the playoffs...and the seventh game at that.

 

Early in his career he was traded almost straight up for Hall of Famer Darry Sittler, then was traded for Kevin Dineen an excellent player, then down the road for another good player in Christian Ruuttu (a good 60-70 point player who ended his career as a Canuck).  The Canucks got Craven in between these deals for Jim Sandlak and Robert Kron.

 

After his playing days he was a vice president of the Vegas Golden Knights early in their existence.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 26 by Kevin Biestra

[ABNuck]

Having those types of players definitely helps build out the depth of a team...BUT...they must be just the right type and fit with the system. I think Jim tried, but ultimately failed due to a] not fully understanding or buying into a coach's system or b] with the mini carousel of coaches, there never really was any kind of established system. Therefore, how do you bring in the right guys when they don't fit the system or the system keeps changing? Formula for failure, and that's what we saw for a decade.

 

Current coaching and staffing system is much better. You earn your spot. You work to keep your spot. Or you lose your spot. Simple.

 

So who's our current Murray Craven then? Different size and style of player, but would Garland be our 2024-25 version?

[Canucks164cup]

Jezz he was putting up better numbers than Jake DeBrusk was before Canucks got him this year.

[Kevin Biestra]

43 minutes ago, ABNuck said:

Having those types of players definitely helps build out the depth of a team...BUT...they must be just the right type and fit with the system. I think Jim tried, but ultimately failed due to a] not fully understanding or buying into a coach's system or b] with the mini carousel of coaches, there never really was any kind of established system. Therefore, how do you bring in the right guys when they don't fit the system or the system keeps changing? Formula for failure, and that's what we saw for a decade.

 

Current coaching and staffing system is much better. You earn your spot. You work to keep your spot. Or you lose your spot. Simple.

 

So who's our current Murray Craven then? Different size and style of player, but would Garland be our 2024-25 version?

 

 

Garland might be similar in terms of the depth chart, but I don't think we really have a present Murray Craven at least in terms of playoff pedigree.  I guess Jake DeBrusk at least had a run to the final.  I think Benning's issue was that he was paying a premium for guys who were kind of "along for the ride" to their Stanley Cups to some degree, whereas Murray Craven had been (or close to) a Tiger Williams / Ivan Boldirev / Darcy Rota level guy for the Flyers' trips to the Final.

 

A past guy from our history that we had acquired who had the sort of relevant experience and contributions might be Esa Tikkanen, although nothing much came of that.  Paul Reinhart (1986 Flames run to the Final) was another one and he played a big part in almost getting us past those same Flames (the eventual Cup champs that year) in 1989.  That was one that did pay off right away and we would still be singing songs of the 1989 season had Joel Otto not kicked in the puck during Game 7 overtime.

 

Not that it's bad to have acquired the guys Benning did...I think he just kind of overstated the significance of it a little bit (and the salaries were a little overstated too).

 

 

 

Edited November 23 by Kevin Biestra

[Sophomore Jinx]

An excellent player, a solid 2-way centre, I was a big fan of his.

 

I remember thinking it was a coup in receiving him (via trade) for : Jim "The House" Sandlak and Robert Kron...at the time of the trade, Craven was at a PPG pace (67 gp, 25g, 42a, 67 p)...he was decent in the playoffs too.

 

 

[Kevin Biestra]

2 minutes ago, Sophomore Jinx said:

An excellent player, a solid 2-way centre, I was a big fan of his.

 

I remember thinking it was a coup in receiving him (via trade) for : Jim "The House" Sandlak and Robert Kron...at the time of the trade, Craven was at a PPG pace (67 gp, 25g, 42a, 67 p)...he was decent in the playoffs too.

 

 

The acquisition paid off, although what has been buried in history is that despite all the flak Jim Sandlak got for not being Cam Neely, he was our playoff beast in 1992 with 10 points in 13 games.  One of our best players in the postseason that year.

[Kevin Biestra]

Oh yeah and he looks a little like he could be cousins with Emilio Estevez.

 

[Sophomore Jinx]

5 minutes ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

 

The acquisition paid off, although what has been buried in history is that despite all the flak Jim Sandlak got for not being Cam Neely, he was our playoff beast in 1992 with 10 points in 13 games.  One of our best players in the postseason that year.

Ya, I hear you there, that season was definitely his pinnacle...I had season tix through the "House" years, and in spite of him flirting with 0.6 ppg on a couple of occasions (injuries notwithstanding), I just remember wanting more out of the big lug...he was often a hot topic discussion in the seats around me, he'd be awol for a while then show up and have a great week or two...

[Kevin Biestra]

1 hour ago, Sophomore Jinx said:

Ya, I hear you there, that season was definitely his pinnacle...I had season tix through the "House" years, and in spite of him flirting with 0.6 ppg on a couple of occasions (injuries notwithstanding), I just remember wanting more out of the big lug...he was often a hot topic discussion in the seats around me, he'd be awol for a while then show up and have a great week or two...

 

Yeah he was a guy who seemed to have all the potential in the world when drafted.  He had a great World Juniors for Canada if I remember right.

 

Taking a look again...yeah, 5 goals and 12 points in 7 games.  Holy moley...

 

In the end he was just a pretty good Canuck.  Kind of topped out and stayed at where Cam Neely was as a Canuck without making that huge next leap.  Although in both 1992 and 1993 he showed a bit of that Trevor Linden gene and stepped his game up when it really mattered.

 

Kind of crazy that we had two guys at the same time who ended up stuck with the same legacy forever of not being Cam Neely...  Jim Sandlak and Barry Pederson who was a GUARANTEED Hall of Famer in Boston before his shoulder problems and the trade to Vancouver.

 

And then it all kind of continues every time we get a big guy who could maybe score 20 goals if things go right (Taylor Pyatt, Brad Isbister etc.) who isn't doing what he should when he doesn't score 50 in 50.

 

 

 

Edited November 23 by Kevin Biestra

[Wilbur]

Craven's 122 meaningful Canucks GP put him on page 23 (117-125 GP).  Sticks out to me as the most impactful Canuck in this group of 9, with the caveat that Hronek will be moving off the page sooner than later.  Both were/are players though that let our stars be the best versions of themselves. 

 

Spoiler

 

Craven's 65 career points is good enough for 128th in all-time Canuck scoring.  Not too many comparables around him.

 

125	Pavol Demitra	C	97	23	46	69
...
128	Murray Craven	C	88	15	50	65
...
130	Esa Tikkanen	C	100	25	39	64

Edited November 25 by Wilbur

[Westcoasting]

On 11/23/2024 at 2:14 PM, Sophomore Jinx said:

Ya, I hear you there, that season was definitely his pinnacle...I had season tix through the "House" years, and in spite of him flirting with 0.6 ppg on a couple of occasions (injuries notwithstanding), I just remember wanting more out of the big lug...he was often a hot topic discussion in the seats around me, he'd be awol for a while then show up and have a great week or two...

All I remember about him was what a disappointment he was… when he was drafted there was huge excitement about him that never happened

[Kevin Biestra]

18 hours ago, Westcoasting said:

All I remember about him was what a disappointment he was… when he was drafted there was huge excitement about him that never happened

 

Yeah he is mostly remembered for what he wasn't...either a home run at his draft spot or Cam Neely.  But the weird thing is that he is remembered that way whereas the real busts like Nicklas Jensen and Jason Herter just get mercifully forgotten.

 

Sandlak was kind of like Doug WIckenheiser (a 1st overall NHL pick who ended up a Canuck for a bit in the 80s).  Actually a pretty decent player, just always compared to expectations.