F A N
Registered User
- Aug 12, 2005
- 18,714
- 5,952
It's ridiculous that this discussion is still going on. The premise is still really, really simple.
It continues to be the wrong move to trade a 40% probability player for a 30% one.
It's ridiculous because there are still posters who argue that this is the wrong move when nobody in their right mind would trade Granlund for Shinkaruk right now. Apparently, Thomas Edison got kicked out of school for being addled. Yet, we are suppose to base everything on probability of high potential?
And you're ignoring the fact that Granlund had outproduced Shinkaruk at the AHL level and had shown more at the NHL level. The probability that Granlund was an NHL player was > Shinkaruk. Plenty of penny stocks have a bigger probability of doubling your investment than bank stocks.
It was always feasible that this trade would work out as it did, but the odds were not in favour of it doing so.
According to who? In terms of being an NHL player, Granlund clearly had the odds in his favour. He was in the NHL player at the time of the trade who could play on the 4th line at the very least. Shinkaruk was at the time of the trade still a top 6 or bust player.
As well, if a GM with a proven track record is taking risks on differences of 5% or so, I could easily accept that as being within the reasonable realm of moves to make to extract value beyond what the market consensus dictates. Not every transaction is going to be a 40% consensus player for another 40% consensus player.
Huh? This was actually a low risk move. The GM traded a "prospect" who he didn't think will ever develop into an NHL player for an NHL player who he thinks has upside.