We might see history made tonight. Then again, in a way, we’ve already seen it. (That being said, you can count me as one who isn’t sure “the first time since…” really constitutes making history — even though it’s often expressed that way these days.)

When the Edmonton Oilers beat the Florida Panthers on Friday night, it marked the first time since 1945 that a team who had lost the first three games in a best-of-seven Stanley Cup Final came back to force a seventh game. The Toronto Maple Leafs had taken a 3–0 lead only to see Detroit win the next three before Toronto salvaged the series in Game Seven.

And, of course, if the Oilers win tonight and complete the comeback, they’ll be the first team since 1942 to successfully rally all the way back from a 3–0 deficit in games. It was also Toronto and Detroit in the Stanley Cup Final that year, as the Red Wings opened up with three straight wins before the Maple Leafs rattled off four in a row.

I’ve written about the 1942 series before, in 2017 and in 2022. You can check those out if you’d like, as I’ll try to keep this recap brief. The Leafs famously shook up their lineup after three straight losses, benching veterans Gord Drillon and Bucko McDonald. Younger and faster Don Metz and Hank Goldup were inserted into the lineup, and Gaye Stewart was summoned from the farm team in Pittsburgh. That, apparently, gave the Leafs the spark they needed … although there’s also the fact that Toronto had been a much better team than Detroit throughout the regular season, and probably should have beaten the Red Wings anyway!

There’s long been another story told about what sparked the Leafs famous 1942 comeback. It’s the type of “hockey legend” I rarely believe without proof. And, at first, the proof seems a little shaky.

As best I could find, Hap Day first tells the story in a feature by Toronto Star sportswriter Red Burnett for The Star Weekly on March 12, 1955. (Though perhaps it appears earlier in some other source, such as a Maple Leafs program?) “Hockey has been wonderful to me down through the years,” Day told Burnett. “I have two Stanley Cups that stand out in the six triumphs I shared in, one as a player and five as a coach.”

The standout memory from his playing days came in 1932, when Day captained the team to its first Stanley Cup championship under the Leafs name. “But the incident which lives the most vividly in my memory is a letter from a 14-year-old girl.”

Day explains that he received the letter just before Game Four of the Final in 1942. “I was at my wit’s end trying to figure out what angle I would take with the team that night when along came this letter. The little girl wrote that she still had faith in us and was praying for our success.

“It was a wonderful letter and I read it to the boys before that all-important game. I didn’t have to say another word. Dave Schriner, one of our veterans, got to this feet and said: ‘Coach, you don’t have to worry about this one. We’ll win it for that little girl.’ After the first shift on the ice I knew I had a hockey team. Before the game was over I sensed that Cup history would be made, that we were going to win four straight for the biggest comeback in the game’s history.”

Day told the story again to Allan Abel of The Globe and Mail on May 16, 1983. Twenty-eight years later, the girl was now 15 years old but the rest of the story is essentially the same.

Over the years, it seems, the girl — Doris Klein — has been reported as 11, 14 and 15 years old. It’s been said she was a Toronto girl living in Detroit and taking an awful ribbing from her new friends. Or, she was a girl from Toronto who was either embarrassed by, or feeling sorry for, the team.

With all the different variations, it’s easy enough to wonder if the story was true at all. However, an account from Leafs goalie Turk Broda to sportswriter Jim Hunt for The Star Weekly on March 31, 1962, would seem to confirm that it was.

“I can … still remember Hap reading us a letter from a 15-year-old girl before the fourth game,” said Broda while reminiscing about the 1942 comeback. “The girl was pleading with us to win and it was pretty dramatic. But I think Hap added a little and then as the final dramatic touch showed us the letter which he claimed was stained by her tears.”

The tear-stains have become part of the legend too. But, as Roy MacGregor wrote in The National Post on April 26, 1999, “[s]ome others – and count me among these skeptics – believe the letter was written by a middle-aged NHL coach…. [Hap Day] scribbled it on hotel stationery, folded it, stuck it in an envelope, and wrinkled it a bit for authenticity – then he headed off to Game Four.”

So, is the story true at all? Or did Day write the letter himself?

I asked friend and colleague Jonathon Jackson — who has written a dissertation about Hap Day he’s hoping to publish as a biography — what he knew about the story. Not surprisingly, Jonathon had read all the variations which had caused him to question it too. But he had come across one account from the time that seems to indicate the basic story is true. In The Toronto Star on April 15, 1942, among the recap of the Leafs’ 9–3 trouncing of Detroit in Game Five the night before, there is a series of photographs and this caption:

That pretty girl on the right is Doris Klein, Toronto maiden whose ‘pep’ note to the Leafs in Detroit drew her their admiration and honor seats at the game with her father as the team’s very special guest.

So, it seems, there was a girl, and she did write a letter.

Or else Hap Day went to a lot of trouble to convince his team she had!

Most of the posts I write for this web site — and much of the work I’m known for — is about finding the true story behind old sports tales. This story isn’t as old as many of those. Still, it dates back 53 years now, to the very beginning of my personal hockey memory. But this one is very different from what I usually write. Instead of searching for the facts, this story is sort of speculative hockey fiction.

I attended my very first NHL game (my very first hockey game of any kind) on December 30, 1970. California Golden Seals versus Toronto Maple Leafs. I have no hockey memories from before that date. That spring, the 1971 Stanley Cup Final between the Montreal Canadiens and Chicago Black Hawks was the first one I ever watched. So, I was at least slightly aware of some of what was going on as the NHL Draft approached on June 10, 1971. For example, I knew who Jean Béliveau was. And many of his Montreal teammates. Béliveau retired after a brilliant 20-year career the day before the 1971 Draft. I may have known that, but I didn’t know anything about the drama behind who the Canadiens would find to replace him.

Montreal had the first pick in the 1971 NHL Draft. This is usually attributed to the brilliance of Canadiens GM Sam Pollock. Pollock was most certainly a hockey genius, but in this case there was plenty of good luck along with his good management. Yes, Pollock may have fleeced the Golden Seals at the end of the 1969–70 season, when he sent them Montreal’s first-round pick in 1970 (California used that 10th choice to select Chris Oddleifson) along with farmhand Ernie Hicke. In return, Montreal received former Canadiens prospect François Lacombe (who they had dealt to the Seals in 1968, and who they then exposed in the 1970 Expansion Draft to be chosen by Buffalo). They also got cash and California’s first pick in 1971.

Pollock would have been well aware that two French Canadian junior superstars — Marcel Dionne and Guy Lafleur — were going to be available in the 1971 NHL Draft … but he couldn’t have known the Seals pick he acquired would wind up being number one. California was a playoff team in 1968–69 and 1969–70 and wasn’t expected to be last overall in 1970–71. But they were, which gave Montreal the first pick.

As another example of Pollock’s genius, it’s been said that when it looked like the Los Angeles Kings might actually fall behind the Golden Seals in the 1970–71 standings, the Canadiens GM sent Ralph Backstrom to Los Angeles to bolster the Kings’ roster. In point of fact, Pollock had only dealt Backstrom because the veteran player had requested a trade to a warmer climate … and the Kings were the only team to make him an offer.

So, shrewd moves for sure, but a bit of luck too.

Having acquired the top pick, newspapers in the days leading up to the draft were fairly certain the Canadiens would select Guy Lafleur. In truth, the Canadiens were undecided between Lafleur — who’d scored 103 and then 130 goals in his last two seasons with the Quebec Remparts of the Quebec Junior Hockey League — and Marcel Dionne, who had won two straight scoring titles in the tougher Ontario Hockey Association. Dionne had plenty of supporters in the Canadiens’ front office, but ex-coach-turned-scout Claude Ruel championed Lafleur as the heir apparent to Béliveau. In the end, Ruel’s enthusiasm carried the day and Pollock selected the Quebec league star with the Seals’ pick.

But what might have happened if the Canadiens chose Marcel Dionne? Does Dionne go on to become the beloved star of a Canadiens dynasty? Is Lafleur destined to become a high-scoring phenom playing mainly in obscurity and the greatest player never to win the Stanley Cup?

Both Dionne and Lafleur became superstars who went on to Hall of Fame careers, so this isn’t like the Canadiens choosing Doug Wickenheiser with the first pick in 1980 when they could have had future Hall of Famer Denis Savard. Still, how might hockey history have changed if the Canadiens picked Marcel Dionne and left Guy Lafleur for the then-dreadful Detroit Red Wings, who later traded him to the Los Angeles Kings?

It’s impossible to know for sure, but I hoped this would be an interesting thought exercise for those who had some experience with the two men. So, I reached out to several hockey people I know, and got some further help when some of those people (most notably Bob Borgen, former L.A. Kings TV producer) reached out to others on my behalf.

First on my list was Scotty Bowman, who, of course, coached Guy Lafleur on the great Montreal teams of the 1970s. He wasn’t really willing to play along, but he did share an important fact with me. Scotty was officially hired as the new Montreal coach on the morning of the 1971 NHL Draft, but he’d known Sam Pollock (and worked for him in the Canadiens system) since the 1950s. Scotty confirmed that the Montreal brass really was undecided as to who to pick between Lafleur and Dionne, but told me the Canadiens actually hoped to draft them both! “Pollock tried to acquire the #2 choice from Detroit,” Scotty said in a email, “and came so close to pulling off a huge trade the night prior to the 1971 Draft.”

I had only just heard the possibility of this when I first started reaching out to people. Turns out, the Montreal Gazette, on the day of the draft, reported the Canadiens had offered either goalie Rogatien Vachon or Phil Myre plus a defenceman to Detroit, so it wasn’t a secret. And I obviously wasn’t the first person Scotty had shared this with. Former L.A. Kings TV analyst and longtime Nashville Predators play-by-play man Pete Weber told me that Scotty had told him the story at the start of this season. “Think about how that might have gone,” said Pete, “and what that would’ve been like in Canadiens land!”

As to Montreal’s ultimate decision to go with Lafleur over Dionne, “All in all it was a good choice,” says Scotty, “but not an easy one.” When it came to my question about how their careers might have flip-flopped if Montreal chose Dionne instead, Scotty would only say: “A lot of hypothetical views for sure…. There was never a question as to the strength of the Canadiens roster compared to Detroit or Los Angeles, so my answer will always be IF IF IF.”

Another name high on my list was Dick Irvin, who covered those great 1970s Montreal teams on television. Dick also thought the strength of the rosters was the key. “My not-so-deep-thinking opinion,” he told me, “is that the Canadiens would still have won Stanley Cups and the Red Wings not. Dionne would have had better help such as good wingers (like Steve Shutt) and power-play help (like Jacques Lemaire) plus better offensive help from the Big Three on defence [Larry Robinson, Serge Savard, and Guy Lapointe]. Lafleur would not have had the same calibre of support in Detroit. He would have been their best player, but the team didn’t have nearly as many ‘best players’ as the Canadiens did.”

Most people I spoke to also assumed Dionne would have thrived in Montreal. Ron McLean said, “I think Marcel was a playmaker a la Wayne [Gretzky] and would have fed [Steve] Shutt the way he fed [Mickey] Redmond in Detroit and [Charlie] Simmer/[Dave] Taylor in L.A.”

Dionne was a star from the start of his career, but had a breakout year with the Red Wings in his fourth season of 1974–75. He had 121 points (47 goals, 74 assists) to finish third in the NHL in scoring race before moving on to Los Angeles. Conversely, Lafleur struggled in his first three seasons in Montreal to the point where people thought he was a bust. His breakout came that same 1974–75 season when he had 53 goals and 66 assists for 119 points. (Bobby Orr led the NHL that season with 135 points, ahead of teammate Phil Esposito who had 127).

“Guy emerged, it is, said when he ditched the helmet,” wrote Ron of the Lafleur legend that says the added element of danger in playing bareheaded brought out the best in him. If their careers had been flipped, “Hollywood would have nudged that,” thought Ron, “but in Detroit who knows?”

Stan Fischler was a big part of the hockey scene during the careers of Dionne and Lafleur. Though he never covered them directly, he believes Dionne would have thrived in Montreal and been welcomed by the fans there both for his francophone heritage and for his talent. He also feels Lafleur would have succeeded in L.A. because the Hollywood crowd would have welcomed him as as they later did Gretzky. “Genius will out,” says Stan.

But I wasn’t sure. “I definitely think Dionne is a star in Montreal. Less sure how Lafleur makes out. Yours is a good theory, but Gretzky brought his star to L.A. Would ‘The Flower’ have blossomed in Detroit first?”

“Good question,” said Stan. “So much also depends on linemates; media treatment. As my Dad would say, ‘You can guess til the cows come home.’”

And really, guessing is all anyone can do. Still, a few people were unsure how Lafleur might have fared if he’d started in Detroit.

Roy MacGregor has covered plenty of hockey in his long career as a journalist and author. (The Washington Post once declared him to be “the closest thing there is to a poet laureate of Canadian hockey.”) He’s written features on both Lafleur and Dionne, and mentioned on the phone how insecure Lafleur was as a young player. He needed the intensive coaching he got in Montreal — and the star talent around him — to bring out his best. Feeling there was no way he would have gotten that if he’d begun his career in Detroit, Roy wondered if Lafleur may have withered as a Red Wing.

Ted Mahovlich doesn’t think so. The son of Frank Mahovlich (and author of a book about him), knew Lafleur mostly as a young fan when his father played in Montreal and later got to know Dionne (and write a book about him) while travelling with the NHL Oldtimers. Like the others, he feels the big difference between the two players was the talent they played with.

“In Guy’s first eight seasons with the Habs, how many Hall of Famers did he play with? In Marcel’s first eight years in L.A., how many Hall of Famers did he play with?”

Even so, Ted believes Lafleur’s talent would have made him a star in Los Angeles. He also believes that, even if they might not have worshipped Dionne and his more workmanlike superstardom in the same way they lavished their acclaim on Lafleur’s showmanship, Montreal fans would have loved Dionne differently. “Think about the people you’ve loved in your life. Did you love them all the same way?”

Stu Hackel offered a more critical voice than anyone I spoke to. Stu is a former NHL executive — Director of Broadcasting, Publishing and Video — a lifelong hockey fan and a longtime hockey (and music) writer who I got to know during my years working for the NHL in my publishing role with Dan Diamond and Associates. “I think both careers would have been different,” wrote Stu, “and history might have been somewhat different too.”

Like Roy MacGregor, Stu wondered what would have become of Lafleur if he’d been drafted anywhere but Montreal. “As you know, he wasn’t GUY LAFLEUR during his first three seasons in Montreal and there [were] even rumours they’d trade him. There’s been lots suggested about how and why he came into his own, from taking off his helmet to personal maturity, his marriage to Lise and birth of his first son Martin, on and on. But I think the reason has more to do with the Canadiens commitment to developing him, making him better, working him tirelessly during and after practice, and his own desire to improve.”

Especially important were the long hours put in by Claude Ruel in helping Lafleur reach his full potential and greatness. “The question,” said Stu, “is would the Red Wings or Kings have done that, or even been able to do that, considering the relatively ramshackle nature of those franchises compared to the Canadiens? There’s only one answer. No.”

Stu believes Ruel is “the secret ingredient” and a necessary one in Lafleur’s rise to greatness. “Plus,” he adds, “Lafleur had the greatest head coach of all time behind the bench and Scotty knew exactly how to handle Lafleur. (He didn’t pressure him.) I can’t imagine that happening in Detroit, where they seemed to change coaches every few months…. I don’t think whatever other club he theoretically might have played for as a young man other than Canadiens would have had the benefit of his superstardom.”

As for Dionne in Montreal, “[He] would have made them a different team,” Stu believes. “Think about their top centers in Lafleur’s first few seasons and his prime: Jacques Lemaire and Pete Mahovlich. One of those top centers would have to go in favour of Dionne. I don’t know how they’d decide which one. Lemaire was such a smart and complete player and Pete had size that Dionne did not. Going head-to-head with the other top teams of the time, the Flyers, the Sabres, the Bruins, I don’t think the matchups are as favourable to Canadiens without one of Lemaire and Mahovlich, despite Dionne’s motor and excessive skill. Those are all big and physical clubs. I don’t think Dionne fares as well as either Lemaire or Mahovlich against them. He’s no slouch, of course, so maybe the Habs still win a few Cups. But five? And four in a row? Seems to me unlikely.”

My old boss, Dan Diamond, who’d spent some time in Montreal during the Canadiens ’70s dynasty, disagreed with Stu. “Lafleur would have found a way to be a top star,” Dan believes, “and Dionne would have played a different but powerful role with a differently configured Habs team on which the top forwards would assume slightly different roles. [Ken] Dryden, Scotty and the superior defence unchanged.”

Most of the opinions so far have been somewhat Montreal-centric.

So, what about the view from Los Angeles?

Bob Miller spent 44 years as a play-by-play announcer on radio and TV with the Kings from 1973 until his retirement in 2017. Like the others, he believes the key difference was the supporting cast Lafleur had in Montreal that Dionne lacked in Los Angeles. “Lafleur was surrounded by numerous Hall of Fame candidates as his teammates,” says Bob. “When Dionne joined the Kings, he and Rogie Vachon were the only true superstars.” But Dionne “had unlimited passion, drive, and desire,” and Bob believes that would have served him well if he’d landed in Montreal.

“In my opinion,” writes Bob, “Marcel would have been equally as revered as Lafleur because Dionne was also a native of Quebec and was a TRUE goal scorer and superstar. He may not have had the speed of Lafleur, nor the ‘flowing locks,’ but with the popularity and publicity the Canadians received in Montreal and Quebec he would have benefited from that publicity blitz and from the success the team enjoyed.”

As for how Lafleur would have fared in Los Angeles, “I believe Kings fans would have been thrilled with his talent and especially his goal scoring ability,” says Bob, “but, off the ice, since I didn’t really know him that well, I wonder how he would adapt to the overall reception in L.A.?  With 12 pro teams and two major college teams, the widespread notoriety he received in Montreal might not be the same as in that hockey-crazed market.”

Bob further wondered about Lafleur’s relationship with the fans in Montreal and how that might have translated to Los Angeles. “Was he involved, approachable, friendly and down to earth? Or was he aloof? At that time, it was very important that he join the efforts to try and promote the game in the L.A. market.”

I didn’t know the answer to that, but I knew who would.

“Guy Lafleur, early on in his career, had a very shy personality,” said Scotty Bowman, “but he was always the most pleasant guy you could ever imagine.”

Dick Irvin elaborated. “Lafleur was terrific with the fans. In my experience, I never heard of him refusing to sign an autograph or not showing up at a charity event. I was involved in organizing a few of those over the years and whenever Guy was asked he showed up right on time. And not only in Montreal. I recall the first time the Canadiens played in Calgary when, after the game, security finally had to get him out of the mob of autograph-seekers so the team bus could leave for the airport to get on their charter. He was signing everything for everybody.

“I am sure he would have worked very hard to help sell the game in L.A.,” said Dick.

There’s no real way to know how their careers — and hockey history — might have been different, but Bob Miller sums it up nicely when he says: “Montreal could not go wrong whether they picked Lafleur or Dionne. Both are all-time great players.”