From: kim@guppy.uucp (Isaac Kim)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey
Subject: Re: Oates-Janney Trade revisited
Date: 12 Nov 92 01:54:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: network.1dsdg1INNbei
Distribution: na
Organization: UC San Diego
NNTP-Posting-Host: guppy.ucsd.edu

In article <1992Nov11.090813.20690@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> nlu@Xenon.Stanford
.EDU (Nelson Lu) writes:
>In article <1dqd4lINNopf@network.ucsd.edu> kim@guppy.uucp (Isaac Kim) writes:
>
>>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.

I think we need to talk about a team's expectations on how close they think
they are to winning the Cup and the value of a trade.  The St. Louis fan who 
thinks his team is very close to winning the Cup would expect any trade - 
especially one involving Adam Oates - to hopefully be the trade which pushed 
the Blues into winning the Cup.  Anything else would be a disappointment.  
The trade might make St. Louis a marginally better team, but if it doesn't 
push them over the top, the trade would not be considered very effective.  
Of course, if you have a marginal team, like the San Jose Sharks, with no 
expectations on winning the Cup, then any trade which improves the Sharks
would be considered a good trade for the Sharks.  The trade might change the 
odds of the Sharks winning the Cup from 1,000,000:1 to 999,999:1.  If the 
Sharks don't win the Cup after that trade, the fans won't be dissapointed with 
the trade, since their expectations were so low to begin with.


>>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!


Actually, you never know about the value of not having Doug Wilson to the
Blackhawks success in the playoffs last year.  One could argue that having 
an older and slower Doug Wilson on the ice has hurt the Blackhawks recently. 
The additional ice time given to Chris Chelios and Steve Smith, especially 
on the power play, due to the absence of Wilson might have made the difference 
in Chicago getting to the Cup finals.  
Do any Blackhawks' fans out there have any opinions on this?


>>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.

Nelson, why do you keep on making up these scenarios that NEVER HAPPENED.

I said: Trade A help Calgary win Cup => Trade A is good for Calgary
I never said: Trade A help Calgary; Trade B destroys Calgary; 
              Calgary does not win Cup => Trade A is bad for Calgary

I think most would think that Trade B is bad for Calgary

Facts: Calgary makes the trade; Calgary wins the Stanley Cup 
        => Good trade for Calgary


>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.
>

Again, you have to look at the expectations of Leafs at the time.  Did they 
expect to win the Stanley Cup immediately after the trade?  Probably not, so 
a trade which improves the Leafs, but does not help them win the Cup, is a 
good trade for the Leafs.
(The scary thing is that I think the Leafs are beginning to think they are 
getting in a position to make a serious challenge for the Cup.  If the upcoming 
Fuhr for Hawerchuk or whoever trade does not bring the Leafs a Cup - the fans 
could be disappointed just like other Cup contending team fans.  Again, scary 
thought)

If you are a team like Calgary with very high expectations, you will only be 
satisfied if you win in all.  Any trade which helps you win it all is a good 
trade.  It is just like the Blue Jays and the Cone deal.  
Very high expectations
Win the World Series => good trade
Do not win the World Series => bad trade

I'm surprised that you don't have this attitude with the LA Kings.  After the 
Gretzky deal, there were very high expectations for a Stanley Cup.  Even McNall 
has stated that anything less than a Stanley Cup championship would be 
considered a failure.  I would think that all player personal moves would be 
directed at pushing the Kings over the top.  If they don't win the Cup, I think 
that many would consider these as bad moves.

Isaac (kim@bull.ucs.edu)