How/when should people judge trades?

[csfansince60s]

I'm pretty much of the opinion (and I think it is a very minority opinion on this board, esp. regarding this year's deadline trade)that you should judge a trade based on the information that the GM (and you, if you're judging) have at the time of the trade.

So many posters are "waiting to see if we win a championship or not" to gauge the prudence and wisdom of this trade. I guess that is one way to look at it, but I don't agree. Things are rarely this black and white. There are far too many variables to simplify things in such a way.

Trades are usually always gambles to some degree, some more than others. But like anyone who has ever gambled for a living, all the GM can do is weigh all the positives and negatives both short term and long term which he knows at that time and either pull the trigger or put the gun down.

Let's look at one of the most famous or infamous trades in Cs history to illustrate my theory that trades cannot/should not be judged only by results.

In '84 Red traded Finals hero Gerald Henderson to the Sonics. Was this a "good" trade?

First let's look at the results as they occurred and shifted over a time-line.

Based on the "results", many thought that the trade stunk at first because we gave up a very serviceable guard for a complete unknown, and probably not a great draft pick because the Sonics were not that bad in '84.

The Sonics go in the crapper 2 seasons later, and as the season wore on, and they got worse and worse, the "results" of the trade looked better and better, culminating in the #2 pick in the whole draft, and now the trade looked great. We pick Lenny Bias in the '86 draft, so based purely on results, on June 18th, this looked like the heist of the century (the Gasol trade was in the next century).

June 19th changed everything.Lenny blows his heart out with too much blow, and now, based on results, this was the suckiest trade in the history of basketball.

A trade may be prudent and wise and still fail. A trade may be reckless and terribly imprudent and succeed.

Perk may get injured and not play another game for OKC. What does that prove regarding whether this was a wise decision at the time of the trade? He may not have been injured ever again, if he remained in Boston or in OKC. What does that prove? Play out any scenario that you want for Green, Kristic and the first round pick, and again I ask, how does that have any bearing on whether it was a wise decision or not AT THE TIME of the TRADE???

[Green Hell]

From my understanding, you gotta know when to hold em, know when to fold em. Know when to walk away, know when to run.

You never count your money when your sitting at the table.

There'll be time enough for counting when the dealings done.

[StartOrien]

I judge by the full outcome by the results, but would only deem something a 'bad trade' if the logic for the trade was unjustifiable. It's not a trade, but thats why I think David Kahn drafting Johnny Flynn was one of the worst picks in the history fo the NBA.

[Marcus13]

The bar is set.  If they make the Finals, that made the right deal because we set ourselves up for the future without hurting our present.

If we fall out in the Eastern Conference, then we did it from Management

[Roy H.]

It cuts both ways.

You need to judge the trade by what was known at the time; if there's a freak injury or something like that, you don't want to hold it against the person making the trade.

At the same time, if there are known risks at the time, then I think it's fair to see how those risks play out when evaluating the trade.  For instance, if you trade your presumptive starter at center because you have another injured center who you think can take his role, then it's fair to judge the deal harshly if that injured center never comes back effectively, etc.

[csfansince60s]

.... if there are known risks at the time, then I think it's fair to see how those risks play out when evaluating the trade.  For instance, if you trade your presumptive starter at center because you have another injured center who you think can take his role, then it's fair to judge the deal harshly if that injured center never comes back effectively, etc.

I appreciate this position, but intellectually, this is the hardest part for me to wrap my head around in judging the trade.

Again, both for this year and the long term, there are so many permutations as to how this could play out or potentially could have played out.

For this year, specifically, I do understand the "championship or bust" credo because of our window closing soon, and given that, the heightened sensitivity and scrutiny that ensues.

However, if we have to consider the prudence and wisdom (which I think are distinguishable from success which equates to results)  of the trade by whether at least one of the O'Neals come back, which was a gamble, I think we also have to look at Perk's health situation and the possibility that he alone without the O'Neals with his own physical limitations may not have helped us win a championship, which also was a gamble. And if we do, it becomes very difficult for me to judge this trade.

If Perk gets hurt tomorrow and his career is over, or he just can't play for the rest of the year, I don't think that proves the trade was prudent and wise or not, because maybe he wouldn't have gotten hurt in Boston. Conversely,if that occurred, the "results" of Perk getting hurt would make this trade look like a success in this scenario, whether the O'Neals played another game or not for the rest of the year. And I don't think that logic works either.

Man, am I confused. Sorry for the ramblings. I'm fading here. 

[indeedproceed]

When can you not judge trades? I'm confused. Is there a time you cannot judge a trade as 'good' or 'bad'?

Now, judging if its someone's fault or credit because it was 'good' or 'bad' is different. Whether or not a trade was 'a good move at the time' could very well have little or nothing to do with whether it eventually turned out to be a net benefit for the team. When assigning blame, I think you gotta judge on the context of the time. When assigning overall value, context doesn't matter, only results matter.

[indeedproceed]

I judge by the full outcome by the results, but would only deem something a 'bad trade' if the logic for the trade was unjustifiable. It's not a trade, but thats why I think David Kahn drafting Johnny Flynn was one of the worst picks in the history fo the NBA.

Eddy Curry trade.

The right to swap picks? Chicago won that trade just by getting Eddy Curry off its team.

[csfansince60s]

When can you not judge trades? I'm confused. Is there a time you cannot judge a trade as 'good' or 'bad'?

Now, judging if its someone's fault or credit because it was 'good' or 'bad' is different. Whether or not a trade was 'a good move at the time' could very well have little or nothing to do with whether it eventually turned out to be a net benefit for the team. When assigning blame, I think you gotta judge on the context of the time. When assigning overall value, context doesn't matter, only results matter.

Indeed, Indeed. "Value", "Results", "Success" are all pretty much the same and pretty clear to me, I agree with you.

We can judge this trade at anytime, including the time it was made, now during the season, during the playoffs, after the season is over, if we do or don't resign Green and or Kristic in the offseason, after next year's season (if there is one), after we either make our first round pick we got in the trade or when we use it to turn into another asset, after we see how that asset/pick turns out 5-10 years down the line, etc ,etc.

So I agree with you that we can judge the "success" of the trade at anytime. The issue I am grappling with, which is illustrated in my OP with the Henderson/Bias deal, is that while results are pretty clear and don't change, circumstances such as the Sonics collapse in 85-86 and Bias dying definitely change the results of the Henderson trade and it's "success" or not which was different for both those events.

I think my point is that the wisdom and prudence of a trade should be based on the weight of possibilities and probabilities at the time of the trade. This is different from a trade ending up "good" or "bad" because of circumstances or results.

The Bias trade tore the heart out of Celtic Nation for 20 years. But was it a "bad " trade when it was made? Good,when the Sonics tanked? Good, when we picked Bias? Horrific, when he died and tore our heart out?

[LooseCannon]

At the same time, if there are known risks at the time, then I think it's fair to see how those risks play out when evaluating the trade.  For instance, if you trade your presumptive starter at center because you have another injured center who you think can take his role, then it's fair to judge the deal harshly if that injured center never comes back effectively, etc.

You can judge a decision harshly if it turns out that risk assessment is flawed (or, at least, flawed in a preventable way), but a bad outcome occurring is not necessarily proof that the risk assessment going into the decision making process was flawed.  If Shaq ends up missing playoff games due to injury, it would be illogical to claim that, in hindsight, it was guaranteed that Shaq was going to be injured.

[dmopower]

This was an excellent post, and a very good understanding of both glasses, one half full the other half empty.

I believe that it was a good trade with the information Danny had at the time.

The worst part of it for me is the loss of Erdan also!

[clover]

I'm pretty much of the opinion (and I think it is a very minority opinion on this board, esp. regarding this year's deadline trade)that you should judge a trade based on the information that the GM (and you, if you're judging) have at the time of the trade.

So many posters are "waiting to see if we win a championship or not" to gauge the prudence and wisdom of this trade. I guess that is one way to look at it, but I don't agree. Things are rarely this black and white. There are far too many variables to simplify things in such a way.

Trades are usually always gambles to some degree, some more than others. But like anyone who has ever gambled for a living, all the GM can do is weigh all the positives and negatives both short term and long term which he knows at that time and either pull the trigger or put the gun down.

Let's look at one of the most famous or infamous trades in Cs history to illustrate my theory that trades cannot/should not be judged only by results.

In '84 Red traded Finals hero Gerald Henderson to the Sonics. Was this a "good" trade?

First let's look at the results as they occurred and shifted over a time-line.

Based on the "results", many thought that the trade stunk at first because we gave up a very serviceable guard for a complete unknown, and probably not a great draft pick because the Sonics were not that bad in '84.

The Sonics go in the crapper 2 seasons later, and as the season wore on, and they got worse and worse, the "results" of the trade looked better and better, culminating in the #2 pick in the whole draft, and now the trade looked great. We pick Lenny Bias in the '86 draft, so based purely on results, on June 18th, this looked like the heist of the century (the Gasol trade was in the next century).

June 19th changed everything.Lenny blows his heart out with too much blow, and now, based on results, this was the suckiest trade in the history of basketball.

A trade may be prudent and wise and still fail. A trade may be reckless and terribly imprudent and succeed.

Perk may get injured and not play another game for OKC. What does that prove regarding whether this was a wise decision at the time of the trade? He may not have been injured ever again, if he remained in Boston or in OKC. What does that prove? Play out any scenario that you want for Green, Kristic and the first round pick, and again I ask, how does that have any bearing on whether it was a wise decision or not AT THE TIME of the TRADE???

In that sense, a trade is like pretty much any business decision for an executive.  You've got to have someone comfortable making decisions with imperfect information, because that's generally all that you ever have as an executive.  And on a rational level, that is what he or she should be judged on.

But in real life, when the gutsy new product introduction doesn't pay off or the new acquisition turns out to be worth less than the purchase price or the wrong country or continent was selected for a new factory or market, the 'decider' gets judged on the ultimate outcome.  How good the options looked at the time of the decision is usually forgotten.

Hence the idea that it is best to be both good and lucky in life, I suppose.  Same goes for political leaders.  In the end, absolutely everything that happens on his or her watch gets factored into voters' reelection decisions--or historians' ultimate judgments.

That Krstic and Murphy and Shaq have been injured more than Perk or Powe in recent weeks may be a matter of chance.  But the argument was that Danny was considering the odds of near-term health in his decisions.  With the injuries not falling his way, it is understandable that people would second-guess how accurate his estimates were at the time of his trade decisions.

Far better IMO to have a GM like Danny who is willing to take action and withstand the risks that come with action, than to have a cautious, conventional wisdom-hugging, cipher at the helm.  I trust Danny's basketball knowledge and his ability to judge talent.  As with any executive willing to take action, he's not going to be right all the time. 

And, as you fairly point out, outcomes are not reliable measures: if Perk had stayed in Boston, might he have blown out his knee by now?  We'll never know.  If that had happened, and the Celtics ended up without enough at the 5 and the 3, Danny would be blasted for not having done enough trading.  That's the downside to having one of the best jobs on the planet.

[dtrader]

I think you judge a trade after the season it was made to impact (ie this season for most of our moves), and then again after all the cards in the trade have played out (ie what the picks bring).

If we make the finals this season, the trade was a success in my eyes.

If we lose before the finals, but Green becomes a key player for us next yr, the trade will arguably be a success.

If neither of those happens, but we save $ and the picks we aquired turn into a future star player that can keep the franchise relevent post big 3 era...the trade was arguably a success.

If we lose prior to the finals this yr, green leaves of flounders next year AND the picks dont pan out, it was an epic fail.

[indeedproceed]

When can you not judge trades? I'm confused. Is there a time you cannot judge a trade as 'good' or 'bad'?

Now, judging if its someone's fault or credit because it was 'good' or 'bad' is different. Whether or not a trade was 'a good move at the time' could very well have little or nothing to do with whether it eventually turned out to be a net benefit for the team. When assigning blame, I think you gotta judge on the context of the time. When assigning overall value, context doesn't matter, only results matter.

Indeed, Indeed. "Value", "Results", "Success" are all pretty much the same and pretty clear to me, I agree with you.

We can judge this trade at anytime, including the time it was made, now during the season, during the playoffs, after the season is over, if we do or don't resign Green and or Kristic in the offseason, after next year's season (if there is one), after we either make our first round pick we got in the trade or when we use it to turn into another asset, after we see how that asset/pick turns out 5-10 years down the line, etc ,etc.

So I agree with you that we can judge the "success" of the trade at anytime. The issue I am grappling with, which is illustrated in my OP with the Henderson/Bias deal, is that while results are pretty clear and don't change, circumstances such as the Sonics collapse in 85-86 and Bias dying definitely change the results of the Henderson trade and it's "success" or not which was different for both those events.

I think my point is that the wisdom and prudence of a trade should be based on the weight of possibilities and probabilities at the time of the trade. This is different from a trade ending up "good" or "bad" because of circumstances or results.

The Bias trade tore the heart out of Celtic Nation for 20 years. But was it a "bad " trade when it was made? Good,when the Sonics tanked? Good, when we picked Bias? Horrific, when he died and tore our heart out?

Or, looking at draft picks, Greg Oden and Sam Bowie.

[More Banners]

It cuts both ways.

You need to judge the trade by what was known at the time; if there's a freak injury or something like that, you don't want to hold it against the person making the trade.

At the same time, if there are known risks at the time, then I think it's fair to see how those risks play out when evaluating the trade.  For instance, if you trade your presumptive starter at center because you have another injured center who you think can take his role, then it's fair to judge the deal harshly if that injured center never comes back effectively, etc.

Let it go, buddy.  Let it go.