Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle
Retro-actively evaluating a trade is never the right thing to do when talking about a players who's value or play declined since the trade. It's ok to say, hey GM X actually must have seen the potential in player Y he got in that trade making it look better today.
But when you are looking back on a trade and saying it's not as bad because Player X ended up not being as good as we thought, that means nothing because the deal at the time should have been reflected the players perceived value at that time. The Flames got fleeced because Phaneuf should have had a high perceived value, and the Flames failed to maximise it.
|
I'm going to agree and disagree with you. There is always going to be some manner of revisionist history when analyzing trades because things happen in the mean time.
I mean, what happens if tomorrow Dion is walking around Toronto and steps in front of a bus but the driver sees him and hits the brakes and as a result the bus just barely taps him but the whole thing gives Dion this moment of epiphany and from that moment forward he becomes the greatest NHL defenceman of all time?
"I cant believe hes only getting paid $7M a year until the end of time!! What a steal!! I cant believe the Flames traded him!!"
It goes back to my previous comment about balls. Sometimes you just have to roll the dice, do your best and let come what may.
As of today the Phaneuf trade is working out swimmingly. Could it have been better? Maybe. Could it have been worse? Probably. But it is what it is at the moment.