Re: The NHL's All-Time Gave Up Too Soon Team
posted at 7/11/2013 8:24 AM EDT
In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
In response to stevegm's comment:
I agree with everything except the summary. I think we need to consider more than Cups. One player doesn't win or lose them. I don't think winning a cup in 77 would have made any difference for the Rangers, in those Esposito, and Hodge deals. The Bruins won that one, because Park, Ratelle, and Middleton had a longer, more proficient body of work than Esposito, Vadnais, and Hodge. Kaberle is an example going the other way. The fact that the B's won the cup doesn't make this a great deal, it just glosses it over.
"Whoever gets the best player wins". That used to be a philosophy that many agreed with. I think it still applies, except money has to be tied to it now days, which really convolutes things. Makes it more interesting too though.
According to this, you believe Calgary "won" the Iginla/Niuwendyk trade?
I think that Dallas winning the Cup was worth a lot more than fans watching Iginla score 40 goals and not win the Cup.
If neither team wins a Cup with effects from a trade, then I agree it's a best player scenario. What happens if Matteau isn't on that Rangers team? Amonte was clearly the better player, but there isn't a Rangers fan on Earth that would trade 1994 for a couple of 100 point seasons.
I agree with the "ranger fan" inference, no one wants to trade a few points for a cup, however, I don't think Matteau is the only reason New York won the cup. He can't take all of the credit, therefore, it's impossible to rate the trade that way.
Basing the outcome on Cups is just too predictable and simplistic. If Sean Thorton goes to Edmonton for Nugent-Hopkins, and Edmonton wins the Cup...it's still a steal for the Bruins. The cup doesn't matter.
Just suggesting that it's not a bad idea to instead look individually at the entire body of work, then make the decision. I had forgot about Bernie Parent being a Bruin. That's an example that certainly supports the "Cup" argument. How about Wheeler and Stewart for Peverly though. I don't think it's fair to just automatically assume that was a winner because Peverly played here when they won the Cup. I think the best way to objectively look at this one....is to take the whole "Cup business", right out of the equation. It provides more cloud, than clarity, unless one feels sure that Boston would never have won the cup without him.
2 different examples, suggesting there are several ways to consider winners and losers in the trade game.