The idea that trades had a direct affect on everything following

Dekes For Days

Registered User
Sep 24, 2018
20,095
15,266
Trades can be bad value-wise, but still be beneficial or necessary for the involved parties.

A small return doesn't always mean that a team is making a "bad decision". You can have lackluster returns that are good decisions for the franchise. Sometimes the team is limited in what they can do, either by rights of the player, the market, or the current state/trajectory of the team.

One problem is that as fans, especially fans of other teams looking in, we only see individual transactions and judge them (mainly on the ability of the pieces to put up points), while these team executives have plans and advanced stats and tentative deals and additional information and reasons, and we're not getting the whole picture. To be perfectly honest, we as fans don't know the actual value of most of the players we talk about, so it's hard to say exactly how much value was lost or gained.

That said, it is true that some people try to prop up questionable trades with flimsy indirect connections just because they made a good move or had good team results later on.
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,977
137,334
Bojangles Parking Lot
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.

It's a little hard to accept this response, seeing as this looks exactly like you're starting a 2nd thread to try and score points in the 1st one.
 

Dekes For Days

Registered User
Sep 24, 2018
20,095
15,266
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.
While I agree that getting Matthews after the fact doesn't mean you can add Matthews into the trade, that doesn't mean that you ignore the reasons behind the trade.

The trade wasn't done with the intent of getting specifically Matthews, but it was done with the intent to get worse in the short term and commit to a rebuild. So the value of that needs to be added to the trade, regardless of the results of the lottery. Add in the fact that Leafs were extremely limited in the teams that they could trade with, and the big, long contract they had to move, and the way that they used the resulting assets, the return they got is actually pretty good, regardless of Matthews. I'm not entirely sure why this is being used as the example when there are countless better ones.
 

Eltuna

Registered User
Nov 12, 2017
2,240
1,913
While I agree that getting Matthews after the fact doesn't mean you can add Matthews into the trade, that doesn't mean that you ignore the reasons behind the trade.

The trade wasn't done with the intent of getting specifically Matthews, but it was done with the intent to get worse in the short term and commit to a rebuild. So the value of that needs to be added to the trade, regardless of the results of the lottery. Add in the fact that Leafs were extremely limited in the teams that they could trade with, and the big, long contract they had to move, and the way that they used the resulting assets, the return they got is actually pretty good, regardless of Matthews. I'm not entirely sure why this is being used as the example.
Agreed it was a trade that isn’t nearly as bad as initially thought. I still don’t like adding the fact they got worse in the short term to the value of the trade though. The other pieces recieved in the trade are good enough to use them as justification. And maybe the culture change was really needed, I wouldn’t even mind adding that value to the trade, because the Leafs had control over that. Maybe with Kessel they end up with a 15% at Matthews instead of a 20% chance, that minor improvement to me isn’t worth trading a 92 point, Conn Smythe worthy scorer and retaining on him to boot.
 

Hischier and Hughes

“I love to hockey”
Jan 28, 2018
9,408
4,357
It's a little hard to accept this response, seeing as this looks exactly like you're starting a 2nd thread to try and score points in the 1st one.
Considering I never participated in the first one, dont try and force an agenda on me please. I get it, some people want controversy and have this need for things to be hidden messages - but no, this is a thread to discuss a topic that so happened to be relatable to the one youre referencing.
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,977
137,334
Bojangles Parking Lot
Considering I never participated in the first one, dont try and force an agenda on me please. I get it, some people want controversy and have this need for things to be hidden messages - but no, this is a thread to discuss a topic that so happened to be relatable to the one youre referencing.

It’s not about other people needing anything. This topic is pretty obviously referential to an ongoing argument in another thread. Can’t blame people for noticing that. Fair enough to point out that you aren’t actively involved in that other debate, though.

FWIW, this came up a couple of weeks ago in the Hartnell trade thread. Someone bumped a years-old thread to mock the comments panning the trade at the time, because that trade led to other moves which worked out for the Flyers.
 

BeastoftheEast85

Registered User
Dec 31, 2010
2,761
433
New Jersey
I get it. It is human nature to try to find solice in bad things by saying they indirectly lead to good things. But no one really knows if you are really ultimately better off. You can maybe link an action (e.g. Kessel trade) to it’s direct, immediate consequences. But if you are really smart enough to go beyond that, you would be a billionaire. E.g. maybe the leafs would have a Cup right now if they never traded for Kessel or maybe they would be much worse off. No one will ever know.
 

Hischier and Hughes

“I love to hockey”
Jan 28, 2018
9,408
4,357
It’s not about other people needing anything. This topic is pretty obviously referential to an ongoing argument in another thread. Can’t blame people for noticing that. Fair enough to point out that you aren’t actively involved in that other debate, though.

FWIW, this came up a couple of weeks ago in the Hartnell trade thread. Someone bumped a years-old thread to mock the comments panning the trade at the time, because that trade led to other moves which worked out for the Flyers.
Fair enough. I do think this website sometimes tends to have crossing topics without the ability to separate the arguments being discussed using the underlying topic, as is evident by some folks coming in and trying to kill my attempt at a conversation all because it may relate in some shape or form to a previous discussion they had. I also dont think it should be a problem to cross-reference a previous topic. Now, if I started it with Matthews and Toronto and yada yada in the OP, then sure maybe I could see people being upset. But noticing a correlation and then immediately trying to berate me for it (not saying you did) is silly IMO.

And that Hartnell example would be a great one, what was the trade at the time?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tarheelhockey

Dekes For Days

Registered User
Sep 24, 2018
20,095
15,266
Maybe with Kessel they end up with a 15% at Matthews instead of a 20% chance
It's not about the change in the specific % for Matthews though. It was about taking the team out of the cycle of mediocrity, getting worse for the foreseeable future, and committing to a rebuild, however long that takes. It meant a better chance for great players for however long it took to get the needed pieces.

People tend to see it as just about Matthews, because we ended up getting Matthews that first year, and he was so good that we burst back up into the playoffs immediately.

that minor improvement to me isn’t worth trading a 92 point, Conn Smythe worthy scorer and retaining on him to boot.
I pointed out the additional factors that made this trade difficult, but we must remember that Kessel on the Leafs, especially the Leafs that would have been without this trade, is not a 92-point Conn Smythe candidate.

If we aren't getting that value from him regardless, why does it matter that another team did? What is the point of holding on to him and making your own team worse long-term, because you're scared of what he might do somewhere else? As a GM, you look out for your own team and try to improve it. Other teams don't really matter.
 

Kamiccolo

Truly wonderful, the mind of a child is.
Aug 30, 2011
26,828
16,944
Undisclosed research facility
I mean if people want to try and bring up trades that were poor at the time as a way of trying to find content to shit on a team for, I don't care. Whether you want to agree or not, trading Kessel directly caused the Leafs to not only get Matthews (is anyone going to argue Kessel wouldn't have gotten the Leafs to OT at least once? They finished last by 1 point) but the assets later were used to fill another team need, AND got a prospect who is now a top line winger for the team.

Not only that, it was a move that was primarily made for a culture change going into a rebuild and not for value. No way you have the team as it is with Kessel making 8M to not work hard off the ice, talk back to the coach, and refuse to play without the puck.
 

Hischier and Hughes

“I love to hockey”
Jan 28, 2018
9,408
4,357
I mean if people want to try and bring up trades that were poor at the time as a way of trying to find content to **** on a team for, I don't care. Whether you want to agree or not, trading Kessel directly caused the Leafs to not only get Matthews (is anyone going to argue Kessel wouldn't have gotten the Leafs to OT at least once? They finished last by 1 point) but the assets later were used to fill another team need, AND got a prospect who is now a top line winger for the team.

Not only that, it was a move that was primarily made for a culture change going into a rebuild and not for value. No way you have the team as it is with Kessel making 8M to not work hard off the ice, talk back to the coach, and refuse to play without the puck.
How can you make the claim that the Kessel trade DIRECTLY got them Matthews when Matthews was a lottery pick based on odds, nor did the trade involve any sort of clause including the rights to Matthews/1st overall?

It was not direct in any way shape or form. Sure it increased their odds of getting him, but so do other things. If smoking directly causes cancer, why doesn't everyone who smokes get it? Perhaps because it isnt directly causing it? Same with your example. Higher percentages increased the chance of obtaining Matthews, it did not nor could it possibly have guaranteed them Matthews - therefore it is not direct causation
 

Kamiccolo

Truly wonderful, the mind of a child is.
Aug 30, 2011
26,828
16,944
Undisclosed research facility
How can you make the claim that the Kessel trade DIRECTLY got them Matthews when Matthews was a lottery pick based on odds, nor did the trade involve any sort of clause including the rights to Matthews/1st overall?

It was not direct in any way shape or form. Sure it increased their odds of getting him, but so do other things. If smoking directly causes cancer, why doesn't everyone who smokes get it? Perhaps because it isnt directly causing it? Same with your example. Higher percentages increased the chance of obtaining Matthews, it did not nor could it possibly have guaranteed them Matthews - therefore it is not direct causation

Well it's not that hard to understand..

Leafs won the lottery by being 30th OA.
They were 30th OA by only 1 point
Kessel is a franchise forward
Over an 82 game season, what would the probability be that Kessel would be unable to win a single game by himself? Or even put the team into OT or win in OT or the shootout?

Because right now you are saying that if they kept Kessel they still would have finished last and drafted Matthews.

You are also ignoring the off ice portion of how dealing him indirectly was the officially start of the rebuild and if he was still on the team, the culture is likely vastly different and we might see the Leafs pulling a Buffalo and spinning their tires instead of getting better every season.
 

Hischier and Hughes

“I love to hockey”
Jan 28, 2018
9,408
4,357
Well it's not that hard to understand..

Leafs won the lottery by being 30th OA.
They were 30th OA by only 1 point
Kessel is a franchise forward
Over an 82 game season, what would the probability be that Kessel would be unable to win a single game by himself? Or even put the team into OT or win in OT or the shootout?

Because right now you are saying that if they kept Kessel they still would have finished last and drafted Matthews.

You are also ignoring the off ice portion of how dealing him indirectly was the officially start of the rebuild and if he was still on the team, the culture is likely vastly different and we might see the Leafs pulling a Buffalo and spinning their tires instead of getting better every season.
No no, that is very complex. Here is the simplicty:

Go find me the link to the trade. Then point to me where in that trade is Auston Matthews or the 1st overall pick pre-lottery.

Ill save you time though and say dont bother, because it doesn't exist.

Nothing you said was false, dont get me wrong. But you seem to misunderstand the difference between direct and indirect causation
 

ManofSteel55

Registered User
Aug 15, 2013
31,862
11,990
Sylvan Lake, Alberta
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

Can you not see how a previous trade would affect how things are done in the future?
 

ManofSteel55

Registered User
Aug 15, 2013
31,862
11,990
Sylvan Lake, Alberta
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
Who cares if it was direct or indirect. If Thornton wasn't moved, Chara wouldn't have been able to have been signed by Boston. There is a relationship there, whether it is direct or indirect. You admit there is an indirect relationship between the two events, but it doesn't change that the first event was needed for the second event to happen. So in that case, "we had to trade Thornton so we could sign Chara" is true.
 

Hischier and Hughes

“I love to hockey”
Jan 28, 2018
9,408
4,357
Can you not see how a previous trade would affect how things are done in the future?
I do see it. But you cant discredit the value of a trade based on future events. Future events, unless stipulated in the terms of the deal, are NEVER directly caused. Trade to open cap space to sign a player? that player still have to be available, negotiated and signed, etc etc.. Trades to acquire picks to trade again? Other teams have to want those picks, have said players available, etc etc..

If there is any steps between the trade and a future event, it is not directly caused. Im not denying the existence of rippling and chain of events, but follks tend to act like they were directly caused (see Kamikaze's posts for an example of this) when it wasn't - it was an indirect affect
 

Kamiccolo

Truly wonderful, the mind of a child is.
Aug 30, 2011
26,828
16,944
Undisclosed research facility
No no, that is very complex. Here is the simplicty:

Go find me the link to the trade. Then point to me where in that trade is Auston Matthews or the 1st overall pick pre-lottery.

Ill save you time though and say dont bother, because it doesn't exist.

Nothing you said was false, dont get me wrong. But you seem to misunderstand the difference between direct and indirect causation

Ok so you want to judge every trade in a vacuum and ignore any direct repercussions basically. Feel free but this is not how the world works and you shouldn't get offended when the world doesn't want to conform to your opinion.
 

Hischier and Hughes

“I love to hockey”
Jan 28, 2018
9,408
4,357
Who cares if it was direct or indirect. If Thornton wasn't moved, Chara wouldn't have been able to have been signed by Boston. There is a relationship there, whether it is direct or indirect. You admit there is an indirect relationship between the two events, but it doesn't change that the first event was needed for the second event to happen. So in that case, "we had to trade Thornton so we could sign Chara" is true.
I care, hence I started the thread lol... Youre arguing something I agree with BTW. Nothing ive said discredits indirect causation. But other factors played into those post-trade affects, whereas the assets going back and forth were THE trade. So when folks say 'well NJ got a pick for this player that got another player therefore the initial trade was good' - no, thats not how that works
 

Hischier and Hughes

“I love to hockey”
Jan 28, 2018
9,408
4,357
Ok so you want to judge every trade in a vacuum and ignore any direct repercussions basically. Feel free but this is not how the world works and you shouldn't get offended when the world doesn't want to conform to your opinion.

Im not offended at all lol. It seems youre having a hard time understanding whats being discussed so perhaps this isnt the thread for you
 

MeowLeafs

LM is awesome
Oct 20, 2008
24,446
120
Baconland
Knew right away this was about the Kessel trade. As a Leafs fan, I think we got bad value for him. That being said, I didn't mind the trade at the time (and still don't) and it has nothing to do with us getting Matthews or anything like that (as per the premise of this thread). Most people who try to laugh at the Leafs for the trade are not taking the circumstances into account. They lack the context or are simply disregarding the context. We got bad value for Kessel, yes, but we were never going to get fair value for him and we definitely needed to get rid of him and move on.
 

boredmale

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Jul 13, 2005
42,363
6,930
So are you saying as an Islanders fan I shouldn't be happy we picked Griffin Reinhart with the 4th pick in 2012?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nok Hockey

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->