My posting on the topic has consistently been revolved around the supporting data presented by recent trades on the immediate market. In fact it's been the scope of my posting for years. It provides more accurate comparables than any discussion regarding a GM, which has always been a foolish perspective.One team usually wins a trade, and if that is so, one team inevitably has to lose that trade. Oilers management has you so negatively conditioned your assumptions automatically gravitate towards the Oilers losing that trade. I really can't blame you.
The proof is in the pudding and the anguish over the Oilers losing a steady stream of stars, and losing trades in general, has caused serious trauma amongst the fans. This is undeniable and the dread has been ongoing, more or less, for decades. The terrible transactions have become routine, with a few exceptions now and then.
When the Oilers win a trade, or anything fortunate occurs, there is tantalizing exuberance. This is well calculated to keep the long suffering faithful interested enough to keep coming back and forking over their bread.
Teams that frequently 'win' the trades are the ones who trade older, more expensive and expiring assets for blue chip prospects and valuable picks. Sellers are usually in the best position to 'win' in terms of perceived value because theres a longer track for those assets to pay dividends.
The Oilers wouldn't be trading from that position because they're a team that needs sustain their areas of success while improving their areas of weakness. You can't do that by moving a young, impact player for futures.
Furthermore, the Mattias Ekholm trade shows you the patience required to acquire a player of that calibre. While also giving you an idea of the cost of both the asset and the ability to facilitate the immediate financial impact of the trade.
Last edited: