Is Quantity really a bad thing?

[Cowumbus]

Every trade proposal seems to have picks and prospects going and the opposing fanbase often says "give us something of value" or "less quantity more quality."

The thing is I kinda think quantity is better because it gives you more depth, for example the Rick Nash trade worked well for the cbj and that was largely based on quantity going to the CBJ. Also we see draft picks traded for quantity like a 2nd for two thirds and so on.

Am I crazy, am I the only one who finds an issue with the quantity quality thing?
To me to an extent 2 dimes and a nickel still makes a quarter.
But im not saying im giving away a quarter for 25 pennies either.

Click to read more...

 

[Regal]

The biggest problem with quantity is that it makes it harder to retain a team that's good because of it's depth than one that's good because of it's stars. Both because there's more players to worry about re-signing, and typically the difference between stars and lesser players in value is bigger than the difference in cap hit. As well, it should be easier to find lesser players through other means. In my mind typically you're always better with quality, unless the players coming back are also high quality and better fit your needs. If Rick Nash was playing like this on Columbus they'd be a better team

 

[Wild11MN]

Yeah, I have to disagree. It's much harder to find top-end talent compared to depth. Star power can put good teams over the top. Look at the 1Cs who have won the cup the past 10 years. The Wild would kill to have a 1C like that over our very solid depth at winger.

I guess it depends on the pieces you already have in place. Not saying you can't come away as the winner of a trade by gaining quantity, but I'd take quality most of the time. Rebuilds are another story of course. Plus a 'sure thing' star is usually a better bet than having to rely on prospects reaching their potential.

 

[Mr Misty]

It depends on where you are in your cycle. Does Chicago want a single asset for Sharp when they trade him in the offseason, or are they better off getting a prospect and a pick to spread out the cap costs. In contrast, the Stars have a bunch of young defensemen who aren't going to all be played at once. Somebody's going to get moved not because they aren't good but because there's no room. If you have a bunch of quantity and it pays off, then you are just producing NHLers for other teams to steal off the waiver wire.

 

[Ghost of Kyiv]

You can find cheap effective players to fill your quantity quota every year on the free agent market. The same cannot be said for quality assets.

 

[systemsgo]

It depends on different teams circumstances, but most fans on here prefer to unload their quantity for quality because quality is harder to come by.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

It depends on different teams circumstances, but most fans on here prefer to unload their quantity for quality because quality is harder to come by.

And quality is more exciting.

 

[JaegerDice]

If you were only getting prospects and/or picks back, quantity is arguably better than quality.

Scouting is hardly foolproof, and plenty of lower picks have outperformed players taken ahead of them and players that organizations felt had higher upside early.

The more you get, the better the chances that one works out.

That said, if you're trading NHL roster players, then I'd say you're better off getting one great players than a few average players.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

The Rick Nash and Marian Gaborik trades actually were interesting from the quantity perspective. We traded for Nash and lost a lot of depth and partially struggled because of that (though Gaborik and Richards falling off a cliff were probably bigger factors). Then we trade Gaborik for quantity and we improve. I'd do both trades 100 times out of 100 though we did struggle with depth after the Nash trade. However, honestly it's a lot easier to find guys like Dubinsky (Miller...boom) than it is Nash.

 

[Ishdul]

Getting several players who are likely to be solid NHLers is a different kind of quality then getting several career AHL level guys, and I think when people say "Give us something of value" they're talking about not just getting a lot of organizational filler.

Plus if you're giving up a superstar, it's historically been hard to get an equal return in those situations and a lot of them have been the traditional "dollar for 3 quarters" type trade.

 

[ZeroPT*]

it depends who you get in the "quantity" section.

 

[topshelf15]

Sometimes ,you need to part out a star .Pittsburgh did it with Neal ,as did ANA with Ryan .These team have better depth because of it

 

[Brooklanders*]

I also totally disagree. Rick Nash for instance is a top flight talent. Its rare to find players of that caliber.

Do you think the Rangers truly miss Dubinsky and Anisimov?
Its amazing to me that you guys didn't command that Kreider be included.
That was a bad value deal for Columbus.

The Rangers could sign some free agent with similar talent or develop/trade for those type guys without mortgaging the future. In fact I could make an argument that they already have replaced those guys. You can only have a certain number of guys on the roster so you might as well get top end guys first and when you can as often as possible.
MVP caliber talent isn't easy to find.

 

[Kcoyote3]

I also totally disagree. Rick Nash for instance is a top flight talent. Its rare to find players of that caliber.

Do you think the Rangers truly miss Dubinsky and Anisimov?
Its amazing to me that you guys didn't command that Kreider be included.
That was a bad value deal for Columbus.

The Rangers could sign some free agent with similar talent or develop/trade for those type guys without mortgaging the future. In fact I could make an argument that they already have replaced those guys. You can only have a certain number of guys on the roster so you might as well get top end guys first and when you can as often as possible.
MVP caliber talent isn't easy to find.

You know what is hilarious? Everyone said Columbus won that trade last year.

Now suddenly Nash is scoring goals and NYR is winning the trade.

People are so fickle. Perhaps this means the trade is even?

 

[Trottier]

Every trade proposal seems to have picks and prospects going and the opposing fanbase often says "give us something of value" or "less quantity more quality."

The thing is I kinda think quantity is better because it gives you more depth, for example the Rick Nash trade worked well for the cbj and that was largely based on quantity going to the CBJ. Also we see draft picks traded for quantity like a 2nd for two thirds and so on.

Am I crazy, am I the only one who finds an issue with the quantity quality thing?
To me to an extent 2 dimes and a nickel still makes a quarter.
But im not saying im giving away a quarter for 25 pennies either.

Ask any GM of any professional league which team "wins" a deal.

It's the one who gets the best player.

Depth is required to win, but it's misguided to think that quantity > quality.

Great players are differencemakers. Differencemakers make other players better. They win Cups. Put another way: there are a lot of interchangeable players leaguewide among third and fourth liners and 4-6 dmen.

Nash deal was good for CBJ. Not mentioned, however, is that the team that acquire him was playing last June.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

The Rick Nash and Marian Gaborik trades actually were interesting from the quantity perspective. We traded for Nash and lost a lot of depth and partially struggled because of that (though Gaborik and Richards falling off a cliff were probably bigger factors). Then we trade Gaborik for quantity and we improve. I'd do both trades 100 times out of 100 though we did struggle with depth after the Nash trade. However, honestly it's a lot easier to find guys like Dubinsky (Miller...boom) than it is Nash.

Miller is like Dubinsky? In what video game?

 

[Brooklanders*]

You know what is hilarious? Everyone said Columbus won that trade last year.

Now suddenly Nash is scoring goals and NYR is winning the trade.

People are so fickle. Perhaps this means the trade is even?

Those people were wrong. I certainly wasn't one of those people.

If we take a poll I guarantee Nash ends up on top.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Miller is like Dubinsky? In what video game?

He's not exactly like Dubinsky but he's a role player that when he matures can be as good as him. I know you sleep with a Dubinsky picture under your pillow but no need to pretend matching his play is unattainable.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

He's not exactly like Dubinsky but he's a role player that when he matures can be as good as him. I know you sleep with a Dubinsky picture under your pillow but no need to pretend matching his play is unattainable.

Get out and watch some hockey, their games aren't similar at all.

 

[Stephen]

When you break a five dollar bill, you get a pocket full of change back and the next thing you know it's all gone and you don't know on what. I tend to think of quantity deals the same way. You get some piddly little pieces and some picks back, next thing you know you have nothing to show for it.

 

[Mc5RingsAndABeer]

Yes, because free agency is much better suited for filling up quantity. Quality players come from blockbuster trades (rare), draft picks (usually high ones), or free agency (rare).

The problem is that it relies on decent mid-late round drafting and a competent GM to fill up the team around the core.

 

[ManOnTheMoon]

Different teams have different needs. Buffalo was probably thrilled to get quantity in the Miller and Pominville trades, even if they gave up the better player in both deals.

For a team with expendable depth, or at least depth they judge to be expendable, they're probably happier to get the bigger name. The Phaneuf deal springs to mind as one where the team receiving quality was definitely the winner.

There are a lot of factors in a trade. Sometimes, subtracting a player's negative influence on the team is a non-countable asset. (Carter/Richards, Phaneuf, Kane. All rumored, of course.) So if on paper a team looks like they got poor value on the deal, they might still see themselves as winners. Which leads me to another issue I have:

There's a tendency to look at trades like games. There must be a winner and a loser. And any subsequent moves affect this winner/loser mindset. For example-

Colorado traded Wojtek Wolski to Phoenix for Peter Mueller and Kevin Porter. Initially, this trade was judged to be a win-win. Both Mueller and Wolski played inspired hockey on their new teams. Then Mueller took a bad hit from Rob Blake and missed the playoffs. At the start of next season, Mueller still wasn't ready to go, but Wolski fell off a cliff (par the course, really) and was traded in January to New York for Michal Rozsival, who was at least seen as a cap dump at the time.

Now, with Mueller being an unknown (he would eventually miss the entire 10-11 season because of lingering concussion issues) and at least having a contributing roster player in Porter (who would score 25 points, compared to Wolski's 35) it was seen as a win for Colorado, since Phoenix cut ties with their player less than a year after acquiring him, and had to settle for much less of a return than the expense they had in acquiring him. Rozsival was less awful in Phoenix than he had been in NYR, and was serviceable, if not great for them. He played the remainder of the season in which he was traded, and 54 games the next season left as a free agent. (2012.)

Mueller eventually returned in time for the 11-12 season, but played in only 32 games, and only scored 16 points. He still had recurring issues, he faced the challenge of remaining in game shape after over a year out of the league, and while always a perimeter player, he was extra skittish and hesitant to engage, probably for fear of getting concussed again. He was a non-factor for most games, and would not be qualified at season's end. Kevin Porter was also not extended a contract offer. There were rumors of Porter not meshing particularly well with the team/management. He was apparently also good friends with Kyle Quincey, who made no secret of his disdain for the organization after leaving. So by July 1st, 2012, just over two years since the trade was made, not only were none of the traded players still with their new teams, neither team had anything to show for it. (Mueller left as a UFA and signed with Florida. Porter signed with Buffalo. Wolski had been traded for Rozsival, who signed with Chicago.)

The trade went from being a win-win, to:

- A win for Colorado/loss for Phoenix after Wolski went full Wolski and got traded to New York, then

- A win for Phoenix/loss for Colorado after Phoenix at least got a capable NHL defender for Wojtek, while Mueller missed an entire season and all Colorado had to show for trading Wolski was Kevin Porter, while Phoenix had Rozsival, then

- A loss/loss when Mueller returned and failed to return to form and eventually left as an unqualified RFA and Porter left amid rumors of locker room problems and Rozsival went to Chicago.

All this in the span of two years.

My point, and the reason I used this specific example, is that judging a trade as win/loss/whatever is asinine if you keep adjusting the deal based on hindsight. Wolski was a liability defensively and couldn't be bothered to put forth effort most nights for Colorado. They needed to ditch him. They got back Mueller and Porter. While neither had successful careers in Colorado (save for Mueller's 15 game span at the end of the 09-10 year) that's irrelevant because they traded an asset they specifically wanted to trade, and got fair value for it. (Mueller had the same reputation in Phoenix and had requested a trade, which hurt his value a bit. Plus Porter.)

Whatever happened after the fact isn't material to the success of the trade as a trade. If Colorado had traded Wolski for Crosby and Crosby immediately blew out both knees and had to retire without ever suiting up for a game, that doesn't make it a bad deal for Colorado. It's unfortunate, sure, but it can't be judged as a mistake if, at the time, you got fair value for your asset, or especially if you got a deal lopsided in your favor.

You could make a few statements like "If Colorado knew then what they know now they wouldn't make the trade" which probably isn't true-- they wanted Wolski gone, but the deal isn't a "loss" for either side.

Similarly, saying quantity doesn't equal quality is also misguided. For some teams, it absolutely does. If you have a lot of salary concentrated in one position, and you want to shore up another area, trading an excellent player for two good players makes sense. If you have a well rounded team, and you're looking for that one player to put you over the top, go ahead and pull two or three depth players from other positions to snag aforementioned star, knowing that you can replace two B's with your depth better than conjure an A+ out of thin air.

Anyway, I know I've rambled a bit, but it's kind of frustrating, especially this time of the year, to see posters so obsessed with who won or lost a trade without bothering to wonder which team or teams got what they wanted, or executed their game plan. To take another example, and I'll keep it brief, the Seguin deal. It looked like Boston lost that deal, just based on Seguin breaking out and Eriksson struggling to find his form in Boston. Irrelevant.

If I'm Boston on July 4th, 2013, I make the trade again without hesitation. They got a great haul for a non-core player. In order for Seguin to be the Seguin we see today, he would need to be in Krejci or Bergeron's role, which would be insane to expect of Boston. So the cost of keeping Seguin and allowing him to flourish like he has in Dallas would be shipping out Krejci or Bergeron and slotting Seguin into that role. To this day, I'd rather have Krejci or Bergeron over Seguin if I'm building my team. Let alone back in 2013. Not only that, but if I got to address my winger issue in the same deal, I run with it. Seguin was change burning a hole in Boston's pocket, they got a great "quantity" deal for a player who had a whole lot of question marks around him. Better to trade him when they did and preserve their culture (an underrated aspect of team building, IMO) and not wait until he made some steers/queers/Sedins joke. I'd be more bummed about losing Peverley, frankly.

To cut a long post short(er,) no, quantity is absolutely not a bad thing. You have to know what you're about, as a team. What you're trying to accomplish, who can help you, and how to incentivize them to do it. If you improve the other team in the process, sometimes that's the cost of doing business. But have a goal, develop a plan, and execute. If you do those thing you'll never "lose" a trade.