The idea that trades had a direct affect on everything following

[Hischier and Hughes]

Can we kill this notion, please? It really is silly. This idea that anything proceeding a trade was directly caused by the trade, even when the specific event may have never been involved in the literal trading of assets. Its just an excuse for teams' fans to accept poor trades without having to own up that their team made a bad decision. Has a GM ever come out and said something like this? Probably not because it is the opposite of taking responsibility. Having an INDIRECT affect on something does not mean you can credit that trade for it...

It is as ridiculous as me saying 'dropping out of college freshman year is what got me my degree'.

Click to read more...

 

[Summer Rose]

What does this even mean?

 

[gamer1035]

Is this in relation to leafs fans saying the Kessel deal was good cause it got us Matthews?

 

[Mattavarner]

What in the world

 

[StoneHands]

Cryptic thread is cryptic.

 

[Hischier and Hughes]

What does this even mean?

Is it really that hard to understand?

Fans of any team claim a trade was good for them when the literal assets acquired were not up to par but results following the trade somehow make it okay, and are then tallied as a direct affect

 

[Hischier and Hughes]

Is this in relation to leafs fans saying the Kessel deal was good cause it got us Matthews?

Is it a problem that a previous thread inspired a separate discussion?

I know is website has a hard-on for Toronto but lets not go ahead and ruin a whole 'nother thread because of somes' obsession with mentioning his name.

 

[Summer Rose]

Is it really that hard to understand?

Fans of any team claim a trade was good for them when the literal assets acquired were not up to par but results following the trade somehow make it okay, and are then tallied as a direct affect

Yes, incoherent rambling is usually a little tricky to understand.

Something tells me you think games are only played on paper, though.

 

[Hischier and Hughes]

Yes, incoherent rambling is usually a little tricky to understand.

Something tells me you think games are only played on paper, though.

Thanks come again, if this isnt the thread for you maybe skip over it. Sorry you cant understand it

 

[Eltuna]

I think I understand what OP is saying. Basically Bruins fans saying the Thornton trade was good because it allowed them to sign Chara as a free agent with all the increased cap space or Leaf fans saying trading Kessel was good because it ended up making them worse which got them Matthews. I tend to agree with this train of thought actually, I don’t like retroactively trying to make a trade seem better than it was, even if the end result was beneficial. A trade should not be judged on future things out of a teams control like a free agent becoming available or a lottery win.

 

[Hischier and Hughes]

I think I understand what OP is saying. Basically Bruins fans saying the Thornton trade was good because it allowed them to sign Chara as a free agent with all the increased cap space or Leaf fans saying trading Kessel was good because it ended up making them worse which got them Matthews. I tend to agree with this train of thought actually, I don’t like retroactively trying to make a trade seem better than it was, even if the end result was beneficial. A trade should not be judged future things out of a teams control like a free agent becoming available or a lottery win.

Chara example is especially good. How would a singular trade manage to make sure Chara stays available, let alone get him to agree to sign? Sure the cap space helps but the cap space does not automatically equate to Chara signing

 

[HanSolo]

Causation is a thing OP. The butterfly effect may be a bit extreme as a controlling principle but individual decisions do have ripple effects and in the NHL even a draft selection can influence the course of league history.

 

[Eltuna]

Chara example is especially good. How would a singular trade manage to make sure Chara stays available, let alone get him to agree to sign? Sure the cap space helps but the cap space does not automatically equate to Chara signing

Agreed it’s probably the best example, especially since one could argue that Thornton could have been traded for a far better return and the end result of Chara signing would have been the same.

For a hypothetical scenario, if it came out tomorrow that Karlsson just got diagnosed with some terrible incurable disease, I wouldn’t say that that fact alone makes Ottawa big winners of the trade. A trade should be judged on what was known on the day of the trade, not judged after the fact dependent on things that the team trading said player couldn’t possibly have known.

 

[LeafFever]

You know this is in relation only to Leaf fans including Andersen in the Kessel deal.
The hypocritical part is Leaf fans had to deal with much more extreme examples for the 1st Kessel trade. Brandon Saad was "Connected" to the deal and there were threads here including him in the Kessel deal to Toronto.

 

[LeafFever]

Is this in relation to leafs fans saying the Kessel deal was good cause it got us Matthews?

Of course. And the OP will act like only Leaf fans do it.

 

[StrangeVision]

Biased fans report biased results in trades, pretty standard.

 

[Eltuna]

You know this is in relation only to Leaf fans including Andersen in the Kessel deal.
The hypocritical part is Leaf fans had to deal with much more extreme examples for the 1st Kessel trade. Brandon Saad was "Connected" to the deal and there were threads here including him in the Kessel deal to Toronto.

I think including Anderson is totally fair game, the asset received for Kessel was flipped for Anderson so I think it’s fair to equate the two moves. The problem is adding the Matthews lottery win IMO, something completely out a teams control is unfair to add as an extension to a trade.

 

[nbwingsfan]

Can we kill this notion, please? It really is silly. This idea that anything proceeding a trade was directly caused by the trade, even when the specific event may have never been involved in the literal trading of assets. Its just an excuse for teams' fans to accept poor trades without having to own up that their team made a bad decision. Has a GM ever come out and said something like this? Probably not because it is the opposite of taking responsibility. Having an INDIRECT affect on something does not mean you can credit that trade for it...

It is as ridiculous as me saying 'dropping out of college freshman year is what got me my degree'.

I believe the old GM of the Bruins took credit for their cup win in 2010 because of his Joe Thornton for Stuart/Sturm/Primeau back in 2006 because it changed culture or something ridiculous like that.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

I think I understand what OP is saying. Basically Bruins fans saying the Thornton trade was good because it allowed them to sign Chara as a free agent with all the increased cap space or Leaf fans saying trading Kessel was good because it ended up making them worse which got them Matthews. I tend to agree with this train of thought actually, I don’t like retroactively trying to make a trade seem better than it was, even if the end result was beneficial. A trade should not be judged on future things out of a teams control like a free agent becoming available or a lottery win.

doesnt make it untrue.

If the Bruins dont trade Thornton, they dont have the ability to go sign Chara and Savard on the same day.

The other part of the Thornton trade people leave out is it was also the team deciding to build around the young stud center named Bergeron. A decision and change to the locker room mindset that in hindsight paid off.

Was the Chara signing part of their grand plan when they traded Thornton? Obviously not.

But at the same time, they dont win the Cup in 2011 without making that trade. It's still a piece to the puzzle

 

[Hischier and Hughes]

Causation is a thing OP. The butterfly effect may be a bit extreme as a controlling principle but individual decisions do have ripple effects and in the NHL even a draft selection can influence the course of league history.

Oh I know it exists! But most of the time these types of discussions come up, they are described as direct impacts on future events when , in reality, most of those examples are very much indirect if even connected. Correlation isnt causation and this is the biggest problem I find in these arguments.

Two examples provided above that are good examples of slight ripple affects without direct causation are Matthews and Chara. Neither trade assured those teams get those players, so while it did affect them it cannot be linked as a cause. Only a correlation. One cannot say cap space awarded Boston Chara but instead awarded them THE CHANCE at Chara. A GM cannot go back and say ‘well this trade was the reason we got Chara’ when in reality it helped, not caused

 

[Eltuna]

doesnt make it untrue.

If the Bruins dont trade Thornton, they dont have the ability to go sign Chara and Savard on the same day.

The other part of the Thornton trade people leave out is it was also the team deciding to build around the young stud center named Bergeron. A decision and change to the locker room mindset that in hindsight paid off

This is true, it doesn’t mean they had to accept a terrible trade though. They still could’ve traded Thornton and recieved a much better package, or they could’ve cleared the cap space by trading players that weren’t Hart contenders.

For another example, if Washington doesn’t make the Erat trade, their entire future would be completely different. Maybe they don’t win the cup in this future, that doesn’t mean the Erat trade was a good one.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

This is true, it doesn’t mean they had to accept a terrible trade though. They still could’ve traded Thornton and recieved a much better package, or they could’ve cleared the cap space by trading players that weren’t Hart contenders.

For another example, if Washington doesn’t make the Erat trade, their entire future would be completely different. Maybe they don’t win the cup in this future, that doesn’t mean the Erat trade was a good one.

difference is the Erat trade has no direct correlation to a key move Washington made afterwards.

Thornton was traded December 2005...his cap space was used July 2, 2006 to sign Chara. The cap space allocation is a direct A to B

 

[Eltuna]

difference is the Erat trade has no direct correlation to a key move Washington made afterwards.

Thornton was traded December 2005...his cap space was used July 2, 2006 to sign Chara. The cap space allocation is a direct A to B

Yes, but the Bruins had no way of knowing that Chara would be available or that the Bruins would be his choice.

I’ll use another example, let’s say the Bruins traded Bergeron and Marchand for a 7th rounder, because of this trade, they go on to have a terrible year. Because of this terrible year, they get to select Hughes who goes on to become a superstar that leads them to multiple cups, that doesn’t make the Bergeron and Marchand trade good, even though it directly led to success later on.

 

[easton117]

I believe the old GM of the Bruins took credit for their cup win in 2010 because of his Joe Thornton for Stuart/Sturm/Primeau back in 2006 because it changed culture or something ridiculous like that.

I’m a little fuzzy on the memory here but if he did say that it’s horseshit. That team was expected to compete that year.

And that trade was sold as bringing back 3 useful parts. The biggest of which was supposed to be Stuart who sulked his way out of town.

As for the op, just think of gms as glorified car salesmen. Everything they do will be new! Exciting! A step towards a brighter future!

In reality most people will see through it. Gotta keep the lemmings rolling through the gates though.

 

[Hischier and Hughes]

difference is the Erat trade has no direct correlation to a key move Washington made afterwards.

Thornton was traded December 2005...his cap space was used July 2, 2006 to sign Chara. The cap space allocation is a direct A to B

Yet The trade did not guarantee Chara therefore it is not a direct causation, it was only a direct causation in the cap saving sense