The idea that trades had a direct affect on everything following

[Eltuna]

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 think it’s important to differentiate between future events that a team has control over, and events that are more happenstance. Boston had no control over Chara becoming a free agent nor did they know he would sign with them, so IMO it’s unfair to equate that signing to the trade, even if it was only possible due to the trade.

I used this example before but imagine Boston trades Marchand and Bergeron for a 7th, and then tanks and drafts Hughes who leads them to multiple cups in the future. Just because the Bergeron/Marchand trade directly influenced the future success of the Bruins by obtaining a franchise superstar in Hughes, does not mean that the trade was smart or worth it. The future success wasn’t caused by trading two great forwards, it was caused by winning a lottery that the team had no control over, that to me is the difference. Maybe Washington doesn’t win the cup if they keep Forsberg instead of dealing him for Erat, that doesn’t mean that it was a smart trade to make.

 

[ManofSteel55]

I think it’s important to differentiate between future events that a team has control over, and events that are more happenstance. Boston had no control over Chara becoming a free agent nor did they know he would sign with them, so IMO it’s unfair to equate that signing to the trade, even if it was only possible due to the trade.

I used this example before but imagine Boston trades Marchand and Bergeron for a 7th, and then tanks and drafts Hughes who leads them to multiple cups in the future. Just because the Bergeron/Marchand trade directly influenced the future success of the Bruins by obtaining a franchise superstar in Hughes, does not mean that the trade was smart or worth it. The future success wasn’t caused by trading two great forwards, it was caused by winning a lottery that the team had no control over, that to me is the difference. Maybe Washington doesn’t win the cup if they keep Forsberg instead of dealing him for Erat, that doesn’t mean that it was a smart trade to make.

Except most people state it that "trading Thornton meant we could sign Chara", not "trading Thornton gave us Chara".

Some people are sure splitting hairs here.

 

[WJCJ]

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

Some trades have to be made when a team decides to go in a different direction. They might not know for sure that they can sign Chara or draft Mathews but they are deals that preceded those deals and made them possible. Both teams decided to make a change and they could not have been sure what was going to happen but they were sure that they wanted to make the move. Moving Thornton paved the way for Bergeron and Krejci along with the signings of Chara and Savard. Trading Kessel meant the Leafs were rebuilding and signaled an end to the same old story of being mediocre at best. Maybe the Leafs end up with Laine or McAvoy or Sergachev or Keller. What it did was signal an end to the previous way of doing things.

 

[Eltuna]

Except most people state it that "trading Thornton meant we could sign Chara", not "trading Thornton gave us Chara".

Some people are sure splitting hairs here.

I don’t think it’s splitting hairs at all, the statement you made is accurate and I would have no problem with, the statement that I also see that IMO is incorrect, is that the Thornotn trade was good because of the Chara signing afterwards. The Thornton trade was super stupid, regardless if it worked out in the end, that’s the difference to me.

 

[MikeyMike01]

A trade has an effect on everything that happens afterward, even if the affect is small or tangential or irrelevant. This is true of nearly everything that happens however; injuries, player's personal lives, personnel decisions, and many other things.

It is impossible to definitively state what would or would not have happened without the trade, or any other singular event, because it's all interconnected.

 

[Hischier and Hughes]

Except most people state it that "trading Thornton meant we could sign Chara", not "trading Thornton gave us Chara".

Some people are sure splitting hairs here.

I disagree with this and I believe a lot of people see is, especially for their own teams, that bad trades that lead to good things are no longer bad. Which is entirely untrue

 

[ManofSteel55]

I disagree with this and I believe a lot of people see is, especially for their own teams, that bad trades that lead to good things are no longer bad. Which is entirely untrue

I don't think I've ever witnessed anyone say that. I have seen people shrug it off as "at least we got X superstar player", but that doesn't mean anyone is saying that they no longer lost the initial trade. Recognizing that bad trades can lead to good things doesn't always mean that people are suggesting that the bad trade was now okay. It might mean that as a fan it is easier to accept that the trade was bad, but it doesn't make it "okay".

I don't think this scenario happens often at all. But that's more of a "God, it sucked watching my team suck for x years, but at least we go Joe Hockeyplayer to help us not suck as badly now." It certainly doesn't make the earlier trade less bad. Trust me, I'm an Oiler fan, I have a ton of experience in this realm.

 

[ManofSteel55]

I don’t think it’s splitting hairs at all, the statement you made is accurate and I would have no problem with, the statement that I also see that IMO is incorrect, is that the Thornotn trade was good because of the Chara signing afterwards. The Thornton trade was super stupid, regardless if it worked out in the end, that’s the difference to me.

You are failing to differentiate between "The Thornton trade was a good trade because we could sign Chara" and "The Thornton trade ended up being good for Boston in the long run because without it they could not have signed Chara." You are caring too much about whether something was "direct" or "indirect" in its effects. It doesn't matter. If the Bruins kept Thornton, they couldn't have gotten Chara, that's a financial fact. It's also a fact that they lost the trade for Thornton anyway, but arguing whether Chara signing or not was a direct or indirect result is all semantics.

 

[Eltuna]

I disagree with this and I believe a lot of people see is, especially for their own teams, that bad trades that lead to good things are no longer bad. Which is entirely untrue

This is the point that I agree with. Far too often the end result is the only thing that’s looked at. Let’s say you and your family are about to be evicted and you spend all of your rent money on lottery tickets, if one of those tickets happens to win, it doesn’t mean it wasn’t an incredibly dumb decision.

 

[Eltuna]

You are failing to differentiate between "The Thornton trade was a good trade because we could sign Chara" and "The Thornton trade ended up being good for Boston in the long run because without it they could not have signed Chara." You are caring too much about whether something was "direct" or "indirect" in its effects. It doesn't matter. If the Bruins kept Thornton, they couldn't have gotten Chara, that's a financial fact. It's also a fact that they lost the trade for Thornton anyway, but arguing whether Chara signing or not was a direct or indirect result is all semantics.

That’s not a financial fact at all. The choice wasn’t “either we trade our Hart contender for scraps or we don’t get a future Norris dman” other options certainly existed. This is especially true since they didn’t even know Chara would be available. Thorntons cap hit was 6.66 million. Sturm (signed that summer), Primeau, and Stuart’s contracts added together were 6.75. They could’ve cleared the cap in other ways, or they could’ve still traded Thornton but for a return that wasn’t terrible. The Thornton trade was a bad decisison for the Bruins and should not have a BUT after it when discussing the decision.

 

[Jumptheshark]

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'.

?????

not sure if it got lost in google translate

but After the Avs traded Duschene they became a better team over night--while only getting picks for him--

are you saying trades do not have a direct affect on how a team plays afterwards?

not sure what you point it?

As for the college freshman quote-- A degree is just a building block and after a point in time it just becomes a piece of paper that hangs around

The statement you are using is often called a euphemism-- College is only theory and much of what you learn in the real world has little to do with your stated degree

 

[Eltuna]

I don't think I've ever witnessed anyone say that. I have seen people shrug it off as "at least we got X superstar player", but that doesn't mean anyone is saying that they no longer lost the initial trade. Recognizing that bad trades can lead to good things doesn't always mean that people are suggesting that the bad trade was now okay. It might mean that as a fan it is easier to accept that the trade was bad, but it doesn't make it "okay".

I don't think this scenario happens often at all. But that's more of a "God, it sucked watching my team suck for x years, but at least we go Joe Hockeyplayer to help us not suck as badly now." It certainly doesn't make the earlier trade less bad. Trust me, I'm an Oiler fan, I have a ton of experience in this realm.

I think you’re being naive to how often the bolded happens. If you go to the Bruins board and pose the question did Boston win the Thornton trade you would be surprised how many would argue they were the true winners.

You say you’re an Oilers fan let me pose this question to you to put it into terms you can easily identify with. Do you think the Oilers traded Barzal for Reinhart? Posters cling to the pick that was traded without factoring in that the Oilers wouldn’t have chosen Barzal even if they kept the pick. I see this narrative constantly (like the Thornton narrative), not just a few times, and I’m sure it is very annoying for an Oiler fan to read. The same logic used here is the same logic that people use to explain the Thornton trade, it’s not even using logic, it’s looking at the end result without factoring in any variables that could accurately reflect what really happened

 

[King Mapes]

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.

This. As a Leaf fan I agree adding Matthews is a bit extreme. Would we have him with Kessel? No chance. But it doesn't change the fact, some think we could have got more. Problem is, stars like that don't get fair value and it wasn't a player for player type trade it was trying to change the culture on and off the ice and to help the rebuild. But Matthews still shouldn't be mentioned in the Kessel trade. It was just a trade to try and change the dressing room/atmosphere.

It helped the Leafs rebuild and did kick start a turnaround so it ultimately did its purpose but it's silly to say Matthews was involved. That required luck as well.

 

[King Mapes]

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.

That's the exact same as Leaf fans saying we had to trade Kessel for a better chance at Matthews. Thornton trade was one of the worst post lockout, signing Chara doesn't change that. He wasn't involved in the trade. No you're right you couldn't have signed him but you had no idea 7 months prior that you were using him to sign Chara. If he was traded as soon as FA was opening because you knew you wanted Chara, I'd give you that. That is opening cap space to sign Chara but it's not what happened.

 

[ManofSteel55]

That's the exact same as Leaf fans saying we had to trade Kessel for a better chance at Matthews. Thornton trade was one of the worst post lockout, signing Chara doesn't change that. He wasn't involved in the trade. No you're right you couldn't have signed him but you had no idea 7 months prior that you were using him to sign Chara. If he was traded as soon as FA was opening because you knew you wanted Chara, I'd give you that. That is opening cap space to sign Chara but it's not what happened.

No, it isn't the same. It would be the same as saying, "well, we got nothing for Kessel and it sucks, but at least going through that made us bad enough that we had a better chance to get Matthews." It doesn't excuse the Kessel trade itself, but you have to admit that trading Kessel for nothing made the Leafs worse, and the Leafs being worse gave them better chances at getting McDavid (didn't) and Matthews (did). There is nothing wrong with linking the two events together.

 

[Dicky113]

Yes, for years I have heard how good the Thornton trade was for the franchise. Utter nonsense.

Maybe trading Thornton was the right move, but the trade f***ing sucked.

 

[666]

This. As a Leaf fan I agree adding Matthews is a bit extreme. Would we have him with Kessel? No chance. But it doesn't change the fact, some think we could have got more. Problem is, stars like that don't get fair value and it wasn't a player for player type trade it was trying to change the culture on and off the ice and to help the rebuild. But Matthews still shouldn't be mentioned in the Kessel trade. It was just a trade to try and change the dressing room/atmosphere.

It helped the Leafs rebuild and did kick start a turnaround so it ultimately did its purpose but it's silly to say Matthews was involved. That required luck as well.

This isn't true. The year the Leafs picked Marner they had 68 points WITH Kessel. The next season after trading Kessel and finishing last they had 69 points. They could have finished last WITH Kessel because they were losing on purpose. Kessel's money went to Marleau who is great but we should have kept Kessel. The Leafs had the next pick right after the pick that the Leafs used for Anderson so they still could have aquired him as well.

 

[King Mapes]

No, it isn't the same. It would be the same as saying, "well, we got nothing for Kessel and it sucks, but at least going through that made us bad enough that we had a better chance to get Matthews." It doesn't excuse the Kessel trade itself, but you have to admit that trading Kessel for nothing made the Leafs worse, and the Leafs being worse gave them better chances at getting McDavid (didn't) and Matthews (did). There is nothing wrong with linking the two events together.

For nothing? We essentially got Anderson and Kap out of it. So we still got something. Boston got nothing out of Thornton and somehow think adding Chara makes it okay when they were not clearing space to sign Chara. There is no link. Leafs knew by trading Kessel they had better odds at getting Matthews but it doesn't make the return they got better. But that trade was more of a culture change than anything else. That deal really kickstarted a turnaround for the franchise.

 

[Karl Eriksson]

Clearly you’ve never seen the movie “The Butterfly Effect” which proves the opposite in a thrilling way.

 

[Ace Card Bedard]

Also, tradng a draft pick doesn't mean your team would have chosen the same player that eventually was selected with that pick (unless it's a consensus #1 or #2 overall.)

 

[ManofSteel55]

For nothing? We essentially got Anderson and Kap out of it. So we still got something. Boston got nothing out of Thornton and somehow think adding Chara makes it okay when they were not clearing space to sign Chara. There is no link. Leafs knew by trading Kessel they had better odds at getting Matthews but it doesn't make the return they got better. But that trade was more of a culture change than anything else. That deal really kickstarted a turnaround for the franchise.

Well, if the Leafs got Anderson in the Kessel deal then it isn't stretching much further to say that the Bruins were able to sign Chara thanks to the Thornton deal.

The Bruins got 300 games and nearly 200 points out of Marco Sturm as well for what its worth. Nothing compared to Thornton, but not compared to Kapanen thus far.

 

[All Mod Cons]

Boy did Leafs fans ever need this blog after the Kessel for Seguin, Hamilton and Knight, which fairly quickly dropped to Kessel for Seguin and Hamilton.

I feel Leafs fans deserve Matthews and Andersen in this 2nd Kessel trade as they were trolled hard for years.

 

[ManofSteel55]

Also, tradng a draft pick doesn't mean your team would have chosen the same player that eventually was selected with that pick (unless it's a consensus #1 or #2 overall.)

So, you're telling me that the Oilers didn't actually trade Barzal. Got it.

 

[Karl Eriksson]

If Heatley hadn’t killed a man in 2003 I would not have eaten 25 free slices of pizza in 2006-07

 

[stampedingviking]

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'.

What???????????????