Professional sports is a results based business. There are too many variables involved. I think trades should be judged based on results with the benefit of hindsight and a GM's performance should be evaluated with consideration for the circumstances.
An interesting analysis would be the Kiprusoff trade. The Sharks traded a guy who had long been considered a potential #1 goalie. But when given a chance to fill in as the team's #1 he faltered. Next season, he got beat out for backup spot. They got a 2nd round pick for him. Market value? (the previous summer, Burke wasn't willing to pay that price). For a potential #1 goalie? Bad value. For a 27 year old goalie who posted terrible numbers when he finally got a chance to fill in as a #1? Pretty good. That same year, Kiprusoff looked liked a franchise goaltender who was one goal away from winning the Cup. Same value analysis? Today that draft pick turned out to be the pick they used to draft Marc-Edouard Vlasic.
People rightly criticize the Ballard trade even though nothing of value ended up being sent out when you consider what happened with Howden and Grabner. Doesn't mean the Canucks didn't get poor value for their assets.
The Canucks got poor value for their assets in hindsight. But yes, the consensus was that Gillis paid a high price, mainly because Canucks fans who criticized the trade did not want to see Grabner go. But should the fact Grabner scored 30+ goals next year have any relevance when he failed to crack the Panthers in training camp and he had that one good year only? Regardless, at the time of the trade, it wasn't about value. It was about the fact that Gillis believed the team was one top 4 defenceman away from being Cup contenders (and he didn't want to risk not getting one through free agency). He was right, only Ballard didn't turn out to be the top 4 defenceman Gillis envisioned.
Picks are currency and they have a specific value at the time of the trade. What happens to them after that means little to assessing the value of the trade for better or worse.
Not necessarily. In 2005, Sharks traded #12 + 2nd+ 7th for #8. In 2006, Sharks traded #20 and 2nd round pick for #16. The Sharks in 2007 traded #13th, #44, and a 2008 3rd to move up 4 spots for #9th overall. In 2008, following year, Toronto traded #7th, 3rd, and future 2nd to move up 2 spots. Same draft, Nashville traded #9 and #40 to move up to #7.
If you look at past drafts, it usually takes a 2nd round pick to move up 4 spots, but if there is a specific player that is worth more to a team, teams may be more willing to pay a higher price.
Schneider was traded because Horvat was on the board still, and he was who the Canucks were targeting. Kesler was traded long before the 24th pick was up and we had no idea McCann would be available. Totally different situations.
We traded Schneider directly for Horvat. We traded Kesler for the 24th overall and McCann happened to be available. Two completely different situations.
The Schneider trade was made before the draft began. They had some idea that Horvat would be available but I am sure there were other draft targets that the Canucks would have been happy with. The same goes for the #24. The Canucks believe they will get a good player with that pick.
I would not be lumping them together. It would have been a double whammy, bad trade and bad drafting, the two would still be separate. It is what it is, bad trade and *fingers crossed* good drafting.
Not necessarily. If you think you're going to get a good player with the pick then there's an inherent value. Gillis had Horvat targeted but it didn't matter much because Gillis knew he was going to get a good player at #9. If you go back to the McCann pick, there were different names bandied about that fans wanted.
