From: kim@guppy.uucp (Isaac Kim)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey
Subject: Re: Oates-Janney Trade revisited
Date: 11 Nov 92 07:35:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: network.1dqd4lINNopf
Distribution: na
Organization: UC San Diego
NNTP-Posting-Host: guppy.ucsd.edu

In article <1992Nov10.174346.4102@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> nlu@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) writes:
>In article <1dnol6INN71f@network.ucsd.edu> kim@guppy.uucp (Isaac Kim) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov9.235209.19247@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> nlu@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) writes:
>>>
>>>If it helps St. Louis, it's a good trade, no matter what happens to St. Louis
>>>in the next X years.  If St. Louis trades Curtis Joseph for Patrick Roy, it
>>>will probably still not win a Cup, but that doesn't mean that it would be a
>>>bad trade to trade Joseph for Roy.
>>>
>>Nelson, the whole point of making trades is to try to
>>optimize your teams chances of winning the Stanley Cup,
>>either immediately or in the near future.  If a trade makes
>>a team a slightly better team winning percentage wise, but
>>does not help the team WIN THE CUP, I would think that it
>>would not be considered a good trade.
>
>So, it would be a bad deal for the Sharks to trade Kelly Kisio now for Mario
>Lemieux, since it still wouldn't give them the Cup?

Nelson, two words: REALITY CHECK.  If you want to talk about trades, lets
talk about trades that might have a chance of happening.

>
>Besides, I don't think we have a disagreement on that the Cup is the ultimate
>goal; but by improving the team, you improve your chance at getting it.  You
>still might not get it, but that is not the fault of the trade.

The previous poster said (about the Janny-Qunital/Oates trade):

:>but i do not think that the trade will help st. louis move any closer to the 
:>stanley cup now or any time within the next ten years

He therefore thinks it was not a good trade.  
You said that:

>>>If it helps St. Louis, it's a good trade, no matter what happens to St. Louis
>>>in the next X years.

I guess if you think that that trade does make St. Louis a marginally
better team, but does not get them any closer to the Stanley Cup,
you would still consider it a good trade.  
I'm sorry, but I would have agree with the previous poster.
(BTW, I'm still not sure if you think that trade makes St. Louis
a better team?)

>>
>>Two examples:
>>
>>1. Calgary trades Brett Hull and Steve Bozak to St. Louis for
>>Rob Ramage and Rick Wamsley in the spring of 1988.  Using your logic, 
>>you would consider this a good trade for St. Louis.  They
>>gave up two aging veterans for a young future superstar.  It
>>is unclear, however, if this trade has gotten the Blues
>>closer to the Stanley Cup.  However, both Ramage and Wamsley 
>>were significant in Calgary winning the Stanley Cup the following 
>>season. Calgary may have mortgaged the future away for what
>>should have been more then one Stanley Cup, but winning that
>>one Cup was so important that most Flames fans would
>>consider that Calgary got the best of the trade. 
>
>I don't think this conclusively proves your point; since the Flames were so
>strong that year, I don't believe that Ramage and Wamsley necessarily helped.
>They *appeared* to have helped, but one cannot conclusively say that the
>Flames wouldn't have won the Cup without Ramage and Wamsley and with Hull and
>Bozek.

Calgary had a very strong team, but could not get over the hump
of winning the Cup.  They made the trade and then won the Cup.  I agree with
you that they still might have won it without Ramage and Wamsley, but the
general concensus amoung my hockey friends in Calgary is that that 
trade definitely helped the Flames finally win it all - hence
it was a very good trade for Calgary.

>>
>>2. (One you are a little more familiar with) Los Angeles
>>trades Jimmy Carson, Martin Gelina, first round picks in
>>1989 (with was traded to New Jersey), 1991 (Martin
>>Rucinsky), 1993 and cash for Mike Krushelnyski, Marty
>>McSorely and Wayne Gretzky.  Since the Kings have become a
>>better team winning percentage wise, even squeaking out a
>>regular season Smythe title, by using your criteria, you would 
>>consider this trade good for Los Angeles.  Well, the trade
>>has made it easier to watch alot fo hockey during the
>>regular season, but it has also made it damd expensive to go
>>see a game these days.  But these are just my personal
>>opinions about the trade.  Now suppose the Kings do not win
>>the Stanley Cup this year or next year.  Unfortunately, by
>>that time, Wayne will probably be out of hockey and alot of
>>the Kings' older players will be past their prime.  It could
>>be a long time before LA would be able to field a
>>competitive team.  Then you begin to wonder....Geez, if we
>>kept Carson and tried to build the team with good young high
>>draft picks....
>
>It has turned out that Gelinas is a bust anyway.  Besides, I don't think
>keeping Carson and Gelinas, using your definition, would have given them the
>Cup anyway.
>
>The deal has really become, for LA:
>
>Carson, Gelinas, Rucinsky, and a first rounder for Gretzky, McIntyre, and
>McSorley.
>
>I don't think having kept the first set necessarily is better.
>
>However, what has made LA look bad (not justifiably, though, IMO) was Edmonton
>turning Carson into Graves (since then turned into Mallette, since then turned
>into Maley), Murphy, and Klima.  Rucinsky has turned into Tugnutt.

I think what has made LA look bad is that since they got Grekzky, is 
the Kings attitude that they need to win the Cup NOW.  Hence the further
damaging trades for Kurri and Coffey - giving up Dushesne and just another
first round draft pick.  

>
>>I know that hindsight is 20-20, but if that trade does not
>>bring the Kings a Stanley Cup, would you still consider it a
>>good trade for LA?
>
>Yes, *as long as it improves the team*.  That improvement must be a combination
>of making the team better *now* and making the team better *later*.  Carson
>would help the team right now and for the next couple years; however, I feel
>that Gretzky's contribution for the past few seasons has been greater than
>the would-have-been contributions for Carson throughout this entire period.

The trade did help out the Kings initially.  But when they still could
not make it out of the Smythe come playoff time, the King's management
started to panic and began to trade youth and high draft picks for 
older veteran players.  If the experiment fails and the Kings don't win
the Cup in the next few years, I think that this trade and the followup
trades will have to be thought of as bad for the Kings.
If they stuck with Carson, the Kings could have had him, Luc and 
Dushesne to build around.  Add a few first round draft choices, and
the development of Blake and Zhitnik, and the Kings would have a good
young team for many years to come (again 20-20 hindsight).  This might 
be a prefered scenario to a team which throws all of it marbles into
the next few years and then falls off the planet.
If the Kings do win the Cup in the next few years, then consider the
trade a success.

The same goes for the Calgary Hull trade.  If the Flames did not win
the Cup, the trade would have been considered a failure.  Since they
did win it, the trade was a success.

>
>===============================================================================
>"M. C. Hamrlik: Can't Touch This Lightning."
>GO LOS ANGELES KINGS!  Luc Robitaille for Hart!
>GO SAN JOSE SHARKS!  Sandis Ozolinsh for Calder!  Jeff Hackett for Vezina!
>===============================================================================
>Nelson Lu (claudius@leland.stanford.edu)
>rec.sport.hockey contact for the San Jose Sharks

Isaac (kim@bull.ucsd.edu)