The Selfish View of "Winning" Trades

I think it all comes down to results and how the trade lingers in the fan memory, not simply the intrinsic trade in value between teams. It’s hard to assess value anyway (this isn’t NHL 11, this is life), but I guess it’s possible if you think about a team’s needs and what the player provides. But that value judgement is skewed by events after that trade.

So let’s look at the Foppa trade. Peter Forsberg played 17 regular season and 5 playoff games with Nashville. He then went and re-signed with Colorado and the signing sort of seemed like him wanting to get back to his roots and the place that made him (completely ignoring the fact that we drafted him and tossed him off in that trade)

Talking about that trade: what if the Flyers won a couple of cups with Eric Lindros in the fold and the Nordiques/Avalanche never won (even if the Avalanche was still coutned amongst the elite teams of the league with Forsberg and Sakic)?

Anyway back to my original stream of thought. Forsberg was a clear rental who was never going to re-sign with Nashville, he played alright but not that well and Nashville was out in the first round. Contrast Chris Pronger: immediately signed a 7 year contract extension with the Flyers, presumably keeping him in Philly till retirement, and took them to the cup finals in his first year with the club. I think if Pronger never signed that extension and Boosh didn’t make that shootout save we might be looking at the trade differently. Again, the intrinsic value judgement is skewed by what happened after, even if half of it is luck.

A 1st rounder for 2 UFAs? That sort of trade is inherently dependent on whether you sign them.
A 1st rounder for Timonen and Hartnell and negotiations reach a standstill with both and you let them go as UFAs? Homer that was the most stupid thing you’ve ever done.
A 1st rounder for Timonen and Hartnell and we sign them to contracts? Homer you superstar. Although the Hartnell contract was a bit overpaid, you have to remember our intentions at the time. A proud franchise trying to get off the ground and become elite again in the space of a season. The way Homer pulled his moves off that offseason ended up working like magic.

So if you simply look at the trade in value between clubs, our two-trade exchange with Tampa was a clear win for them. It’s when you start looking at results that some fans come out saying we won the trade. If Tampa wins the cup and Gagne scores some clutch playoff OT goals, then all of a sudden we’re back to losing that trade.

why there has to be a ‘winner’ of the trade at all? I mean, trades are not games, there don’t need to be a winner or a loser. When the trades are negotiated the GMs try to do something that would work for BOTH sides. It probably isn’t always the case and you can sometimes say that someone ‘won’ that trade. But I dare to say that most of the times there are no winners or losers.

The Lightning didn’t need Meszaros, he didn’t fit and I would say he wasn’t happy there either. So even though he has really great numbers and is playing pretty well now I don’t think Yzerman is face palming himself, thinking “Oh sh!t I screwed up big time by letting him go.” We don’t miss him, he doesn’t miss us. Success. For both sides.

As for Gagne… I hated that trade and I still fight the urge of breaking things and hurting people when I think of it. But that’s only because I hated how the trade was made, why it was made and that it was made at all. When I try to look at it from a point of unbiased person, I don’t think that the Flyers need Gagne’s presence on the team right now and trading him didn’t really hurt the team. He was a salary-dump to free cap space, which wasn’t quite accomplished, but it is what it is. His absence is not something that would be hurting the Flyers.

From the Lightning point of view, they got rid of a player they absolutely didn’t need and got a great two-way forward in return. With the cap space they have, his 5.25 cap hit wasn’t a big deal plus Gagne is in the last year of his contract. As I said in the other thread despite all the numbers, the neck injury and all the crap that has been thrown at him, he’s being an asset for the Lightning.

So I’d say the Flyers/Lightning off season moves are now working out for both teams, not hurting anyone significantly. Well… at least as of now.

Geoff brings a very important point to the table: When a trade is made, what does each team need? Does each acquired player meet those needs? If a team goes and acquires a rental player at the deadline in exchange for prospects, and the rental player helps the team win the championship but then that team sucks in future years while their prospects bloom for their new team (who eventually wins a championship with them), don’t both teams win? My point is that “winning” and “losing” trades is hard to judge until careers are over, essentially. One must look at trades through the lens of history.

One good example of a “won” deal that Clarkie made was at the deadline in 1988-89. (I’m choosing this one over “Darryl Sittler to Detroit for Murray Craven and Joe Paterson” because that one is obvious, and this one is more reflective of how most trades need to be judged, I think.) The 1988-89 team was really only in a position to make the playoffs because of Ron Hextall. Clarkie knew that if Hextall got hurt, his team was screwed. He needed a starting-caliber goalie because Hextall’s backup was Mark LaForest. So Clarkie traded two first-round picks (the Flyers’ own, plus one previously acquired from Calgary) to Toronto for Ken Wregget.

While many people understood the need for a decent backup who could start if need be, they thought the price was too high. “Two first-round-picks for a mediocre goalie who smoked cigarettes and missed a chunk of the 1988-89 season with mononucleosis” was not the deadline deal many had in mind. Of course, it worked out great for the Flyers in the short-term. Hextall was hurt late in Game 6 against Pittsburgh but he finished the game. He could not play in game 7. Wregget came in, had the game of his life, and the Flyers won the series. Then, Wregget was again in goal for Game One of the Montreal series (when this happened) and the Flyers won again.

Even though Wregget (and the Flyers) sucked in 1989-90, the team needed him to be the starter as Hextall missed all but 7 games due to a contract holdout and injuries. Eventually, Wregget was part of the deal which brought Mark Recchi to Philadelphia in 1992… and Wregget was the goalie for Pittsburgh when the Flyers lit them up in 1997. So, both short- and long-term, that deal worked out very well for the Flyers.

But what about those first-round picks that went to Toronto? Well, they became Rob Pearson and Steve Bancroft. Pearson had one 20-goal season for the Leafs in 1992-93. Steve Bancroft played a whopping total of 6 NHL games.

That’s the problem with judging trades so soon after they happen. When Clarkie made the two-first-rounders-for-Wregget deal, everyone understood the need he was filling but saw the price as far too steep. In the long run, it was obvious that he made the right devcision, though. Similarly, if we look at Meszaros vs. Gagne (even though that technically was not the trade), of course we’re going to say the Flyers got the better of the deal right now. And, in the long run, the Flyers may definitively prove to get the better of the deal. But who’s to say Gagne won’t bounce back, sign with Tampa for a discount, and regain his form to some extent? And who’s to say Meszaros won’t return to the way he played in Tampa? It’s too soon to tell.

Ohh, I would call getting Leino for OKT a win any day.

Winning and loosing is in the eye of the beholder, you are correct. But media types and fans alike like to discuss who won or lost a trade, it is part of the fun.

Additionally, the desire to declare winners and losers of trades is, on a fundamental basis, why SB Nation even exists.

In your article, your argument is that both teams can be winners of a trade. The Flyers and Preds both “Won”.

So, your argument in the article is this: not every trade has a “Loser”. Both sides can be “Winners”. Don’t declare a team a “Loser” (Nashville) just because the other team (the Flyers) were also “Winners”.

In other words, a “Win” is not mutually exclusive, you can have both sides “Win” in a transaction.

REMEMBER how everyone felt that the FLYERS won the Lindros Lottery in the Trade with Quebec? What happened to that one? Simon, Ricci and a few others all went to Quebec. Quebec moved to Colorado and Obtained Patrick Roy and won a few Stanley Cups and FLYERS never won a single Cup in that Deal.

Its fun and ODD to see how these things shake out.