From: nlu@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu)
Subject: Re: Oates-Janney Trade revisited
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 09:08:13 GMT

In article <1dqd4lINNopf@network.ucsd.edu> kim@guppy.uucp (Isaac Kim) writes:

>>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.

Gosh.  I didn't think that there was a chance of Cliff Ronning,
Geoff Courtnall, Sergios Momesso, and Robert Dirk getting traded for Dan Quinn
and Garth Butcher.

>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.  

If the trade does make St. Louis a marginally better team, then, by definition,
it will get them *closer* to the Stanley Cup.  It might not get them the
Stanley Cup, but if it gets them closer, then it is a good trade.

>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.

At what cost?  But in any case, the Blackhawks, last year, also traded Doug
Wilson for Kerry Toporowski; don't tell me that since they got to the Stanley
Cup finals that it was a very good trade for Chicago!

>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.

Sorry, but I don't buy this.  There are two possibilities:

1.	The Hull/Bozek for Ramage/Wamsley trade was a good trade for Calgary.

2.	The Hull/Bozek for Ramage/Wamsley trade was not a good trade for
	Calgary.

You use the criterion that if Calgary wins the Cup after the trade, then it
is a good trade.  Now, let's say that after the deal Calgary dealt Al MacInnis
and Gary Suter for Zarley Zalapski and Gordie Roberts, and doesn't win the
Cup.  Does that, by default, then, make the Hull/Bozek for Ramage/Wamsley
trade a bad deal?  I don't think so.  A trade should be evaluated by itself.
For example, the Gilmour/Leeman 10-player deal last year definitely has to be
viewed as an excellent trade for Toronto, as it improved the Maple Leafs
tremendously; however, it does not look like that it, by itself, can get the
Leafs a Cup.  Does that make it a bad deal?  It didn't help the Leafs into the
playoffs last year.  Does that make it a bad deal?  Why must it be tainted by
another deal that, IMO, cost the Leafs a playoff spot last year (Anderson/Fuhr
for Damphousse)?

A team must be built piece by piece.  No one deal will give a team a Cup, so
I feel it is not right to say that since a team won the Cup, all the trades
it made must have been good ones.  The converse is also true.

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