Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolven
People always consider trades with how they turned out to be. That is ultimately how all trades end up being judged. At the time of the trade the analysts always say things like "this trade might look good right now but in a couple years it might not!".
This is especially true when the trade includes things like future first round draft picks. Will those draft picks be worth a lot (top 3) or worth a little (28-30)? It makes a massive difference where those picks end up landing. Then you need to consider the player that ends up being drafted in that position. If you do not consider what those draft picks turned into then you will never actually be able to judge the full impact of the trade.
|
Just because people do it, doesn't mean it's a logic method on judging the original trade. It's benefit analysis on both sides, risk vs. reward. My point is, people judge Burke on the trade as having made a bad one, but that is not being fair to the true value of a first round draft pick. Burke made a GOOD trade. That's it. Maybe it turns out in the end that Boston benefits more, but regardless, that was a good trade.
Look at it this way:
If someone said "I'll trade you my first overall pick for a third round pick and a fifth round pick" you do it a million times. Any GM that trades a 3rd and 5th round pick for 1st overall is a MAGICIAN.... but what if it's 1993?
You just traded Vaclav Prospal and Miroslav Satan for Daigle. You lose.
I guess more of what I'm saying is that the win/loss thing doesn't dictate a good/bad trade. You can make a good trade and lose, you can make a bad trade and win. But luck doesn't dictate the quality of a GM. Burke made a good trade, guy made a ton of good trades, but sometimes, as luck would have it, you can still lose a good trade.