From: nlu@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu)
Subject: Re: Oates-Janney Trade revisited
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:43:46 GMT

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?

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.
>
>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.
>
>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 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.
>
>How about today? Do you consider it a good trade for LA??

Yes.  Gelinas has done absolutely nothing.  Carson still would fit quite
nicely in Los Angeles, but Gretzky has made LA a different team; it no longer
is complacent for a 4th-6th place finish and just a nominal fight at a playoff
spot; it has gained the confidence necessary to move it up a notch.

===============================================================================
"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