Pro Canuck Posted June 21, 2009 Author Share Posted June 21, 2009 Makes perfect sense. Anyone wanna trade me their Lamborghini Diablo for a Toyota Corolla? They have equal value because you will save gas, insurance and maintenance money on the Corolla - every advantage Joe Thornton Lamborghini Diablo has over Alex Burrows Toyota Corolla has been priced in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iPwn Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 Makes perfect sense. Anyone wanna trade me their Lamborghini Diablo for a Toyota Corolla? They have equal value because you will save gas, insurance and maintenance money on the Corolla - every advantage Joe Thornton Lamborghini Diablo has over Alex Burrows Toyota Corolla has been priced in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pro Canuck Posted June 21, 2009 Author Share Posted June 21, 2009 You clearly don't understand what the OP is trying to say. Your situation would stand correct if there was a set amount of money to spend on a car (e.g. 200,000). Some people might trade their $200,000 Lambo for your $10,000 Corolla because this means they have $190,00 to spend on a different luxury car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LostViking Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 Hopefully, over time we will see deals in the NHL moving more towards the type of thinking in the OP. If GMs work to hard refine their cap management skills and NHL management works hard on building more competitive teams and stronger markets, perhaps one day we will see this vision come to life. In the meantime, the next time we have a superstar to trade, maybe a lame duck GM will offer us a ridiculous trade for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Losing With Pride Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 alright lets trade luongo for matt cooke bring the champ back to vancity then we can sign a bear to goalie no one wants to mess with a bear right after one season we should trade this bear for ovechkin because washington's zoo really needs a upgrade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonorJCM Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 God I hope this guy is not or will not ever be in charge of a big company. I cant beleive I read all that. There is just way too many reasons and of course people and opinions for this to never work. when it comes to CDC, I can't wait till october. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonorJCM Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 You clearly don't get it. In a cap environment, everyone is able to spend up to 56.7... yes not all owners want to, but everyone is capable of spending to this amount. Which means using your argument, the person driving the Corolla has the same amount of cash as the person driving the Lamborghini. Hence, yea I will switch the Lamborghini for the Corolla. Use the extra cash to buy myself a Bentley. DO YOU GET IT?????? If you are just getting the Corolla back... with no cash.... then of course no trade. The real question is .. would you trade a Lamborghini for a Corolla + $$$250,000? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Palms Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 how can teams "buy" players? through Free agency, where player salaries are increased drastically and there is no guarantee of the quality and variety of players? where there are only a few good players per year? so if you trade ovechkin for cowan, can you just pick another 23 year old superstar franchise winger off of the 23 year old superstar franchise winger tree? would you honestly feel comfortable trading luongo for jamal mayers? who would be your goaltenders? so, OP. why not just waive the players and have them claimed? you get even MOAR cap space than if you traded for a cheap player!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! this is the most unbelievably stupid thread i have seen posted on CDC, and that is saying a lot. the other threads were jokes, or just idiots being idiots. but you, OP, you have utter conviction in your idiotic beliefs that boggle the mind. seriously, what the fuch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysterious Canuck Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 Every player in the NHL should have the same trade value. Hear me out. This implies that trading Brad Richards should not get you 2 players and 2 first rounders. Neither should Joe Thornton. In a salary cap world, where the maximum salary cap of 56.7 is the same for everyone, players are fairly priced by their salary. Hence, if Joe Thornton deserves 8 million, and Alex Burrows only 2, then teams should be indifferent about having either player because if you have Burrows, you would have an extra 6 million to acquire someone else. You can only say "Joe Thornton is way better than Alex Burrows" if they are making the same salary. If they are not, then every advantage Joe Thornton has over Alex Burrows has been priced in. This is why there is a desire to get young players from the draft. The rookie contract is the only phase of a player's career where their contract can't closely mimick their fair value. The other exceptions are players who truly deserve more than the player maximum (Sidney Crosby) and players who deserve less than the minimum salary but have to be overpriced because that's the minimum contract (Rick Rypien). GM's should be indifferent between trading Burrows for Heatley, Luongo for Matt Cooke etc. because if you are Vancouver, you get Matt Cooke, plus $ to buy someone else. and if you are Pittsburgh, you are not actually just giving up Matt Cooke. You are also going to need to free up $5 million in salary by dumping someone like MA Fleury, or perhaps Luongo prevents you from acquiring someone else because you have a lack of money. This is why if you can trade Luongo for anyone like Stamkos, Schenn, Hedman, etc, you do it because those rookies are not fairly priced. Thus you would essentially get a player for cheap and save a giant amount of money to sign back a Luongo type goalie. I am not factoring age of players at all here. Just the fairness of their contracts. This is because age should be factored into their contracts already. A 37 year old declining player shouldn't be making as much as a 24 year rising star in the first place. So no need to look at age. As long as two players are valued fairly, they can be traded for each other. I fail to see why if you are the opposing GM, you would ever offer a player + a prospect + 2 first rounders for a superstar. It makes no sense. Someone below tried to counter my post by writing the following: Anyone wanna trade me their Lamborghini Diablo for a Toyota Corolla? They have equal value because you will save gas, insurance and maintenance money on the Corolla - every advantage Joe Thornton Lamborghini Diablo has over Alex Burrows Toyota Corolla has been priced in. He/She clearly is making the wrong analogy. In a cap environment, everyone is able to spend up to 56.7... yes not all owners want to, but everyone is capable of spending to this amount. Which means using your argument, the person driving the Corolla has the same amount of cash as the person driving the Lamborghini. Hence, yea I will switch the Lamborghini for the Corolla. Use the extra cash to buy myself a Bentley. DO YOU GET IT?????? If you are just getting the Corolla back... with no cash.... then of course no trade. The real question is .. would you trade a Lamborghini for a Corolla + 250,000? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtwideen1 Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 In a perfect world, your theory might work, but this isn't a perfect world. First issue is, that you have to be able to spend up to the cap for a trade like burrows for thornton to make sense. What if San Jose trades thornton for Burrows, but then there is no one to fill that extra 6 mil on. There are only 20 or so players on a roster, so if you trade for a bunch of 1 mil players, you are only going to be spending 20 mil. You need those expensive players. It is A LOT easier to fill the role of those cheap players, than to fill the role of the expensive players, that is why those high paid players have more trade value. If we trade Luongo for Cooke, that doesn't make sense, because we can easily replace Cooke by getting a different player of his calliber on free agency, there are a lot of players worth 1-2 mil that fill that role. Where as replacing Luongo is very difficult, there are only a few goalies in the league that compare to Luongo, and all of them are signed. So your right that we would be getting extra cap space, but all the cap space in the world doesn't help you, if there is nothing to spend it on. So that is the first problem with your theory, it is that there aren't an unlimited supply of great players. You say if Ottawa trades Heatley for Burrows, then they have 6 mil to spend on another great player, but there aren't all that many great players to spend that money on. There are only maybe 3 or 4 top free agents this year that even compare to Heatley, and there are 30 teams, so just cause Ottawa has the money to spend on another top player, doesn' t mean they will be able to. The second problem, is since GMs are all competing for players, not every player is given a fair value. Burrows could easily have gotten more money for a different team, but he took less to stay in Vancouver and create a winning team. Does that mean that any team should trade us any player who didn't take a discount for Burrows? And also, since (like I said before) there is a lack of amazing players, they mostly aren't given fair value, they are overpaid because there are so many teams competing for them. They start at fair value, but if a team wants a leg up on the competition, then they offer them more. So maybe in a video game, where you can pretty much guarantee getting any free agent you want, and where players are given fair contracts, your theory would work, but since the world isn't perfect, this theory will never work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlayStation Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 Whens the next flight to the KHL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-View Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 Crosby=Boogard is what the OP is trying to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SealTheDeal Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 I agree with you completely. My original post was much longer and included all the free market assumptions (read a part below). My argument is that if GM's even saw the situation to the extent you see it, they wouldn't be offering these ridiculously overpriced deals. It is simply too much to give up a 2 1st rounders plus Higgens + Komisarek for Lecavalier..... Before anyone says that the real world and the sports world are different, we need to understand that the free market economics we see in the real world is not actually free either. There are subsidies and tariffs, unbalanced taxes, military and education spending. It is just as restrictive as the NHL world and yet people make consumption decisions rationally. Economists write their theories on economics based on perfect competition, open economy, no taxes etc. Physicists write their theory on gravity assuming no wind and no friction. I am writing that assuming the factors I have indicated, GM's should be indifferent about having Dany Heatley versus Alex Burrows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pro Canuck Posted June 21, 2009 Author Share Posted June 21, 2009 Oh Please. I would say attempting to navigate the logic of your post was an incredible waste of five minutes but for the hilarity of its ludicrousness. Your assumptions are so extreme that your argument is laughable. Case in point: The assumption that all players except for rookies have value in accordance with their salaries. If this were so, the team with the most rookies on their roster would win every year, assuming every team spent to the cap. The idea that no single player is worth multiple players is pure comedy given the structure of the game. An elite D-man easily plays twice as much in a game as a weaker D-man, and plays better the whole time. His value is greater than double the weaker player. Please reply, its like watching a train wreck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pro Canuck Posted June 21, 2009 Author Share Posted June 21, 2009 In a perfect world, your theory might work, but this isn't a perfect world. First issue is, that you have to be able to spend up to the cap for a trade like burrows for thornton to make sense. What if San Jose trades thornton for Burrows, but then there is no one to fill that extra 6 mil on. There are only 20 or so players on a roster, so if you trade for a bunch of 1 mil players, you are only going to be spending 20 mil. You need those expensive players. It is A LOT easier to fill the role of those cheap players, than to fill the role of the expensive players, that is why those high paid players have more trade value. If we trade Luongo for Cooke, that doesn't make sense, because we can easily replace Cooke by getting a different player of his calliber on free agency, there are a lot of players worth 1-2 mil that fill that role. Where as replacing Luongo is very difficult, there are only a few goalies in the league that compare to Luongo, and all of them are signed. So your right that we would be getting extra cap space, but all the cap space in the world doesn't help you, if there is nothing to spend it on. So that is the first problem with your theory, it is that there aren't an unlimited supply of great players. You say if Ottawa trades Heatley for Burrows, then they have 6 mil to spend on another great player, but there aren't all that many great players to spend that money on. There are only maybe 3 or 4 top free agents this year that even compare to Heatley, and there are 30 teams, so just cause Ottawa has the money to spend on another top player, doesn' t mean they will be able to. The second problem, is since GMs are all competing for players, not every player is given a fair value. Burrows could easily have gotten more money for a different team, but he took less to stay in Vancouver and create a winning team. Does that mean that any team should trade us any player who didn't take a discount for Burrows? And also, since (like I said before) there is a lack of amazing players, they mostly aren't given fair value, they are overpaid because there are so many teams competing for them. They start at fair value, but if a team wants a leg up on the competition, then they offer them more. So maybe in a video game, where you can pretty much guarantee getting any free agent you want, and where players are given fair contracts, your theory would work, but since the world isn't perfect, this theory will never work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glory Days Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 Cooke is better then Luongo Cooke has a Cup ring and his name on the Cup and Luongo will never Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iPwn Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 The rookie theory can be explained by the Penguins team the year before this. Crosby, Malkin, and Staal were still on their rookie contracts (I think) and that freed them a ton of cap to sign other players. They were greatly underpaid because of the rookie max. The one flaw I can see from this theory is the availability of replaceable players. Say you get rid of Luongo (7 million) for Conklin (1 million), what if you can't find a goalie on the markiet for 6 million or less? You are screwed. There is a finite number of top end talent, and getting rid of them for crappy players to free up cap may never work because your player may be irreplaceable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthVan Canuck Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 What you're saying is true, but you forgot to point out how difficult it can be to find high-calibre players like Luongo, Heatley, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venom52 Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 I'll trade you Luongo for Cloutier so I can go ahead and sign Dailge and Steffan with the money I saved Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pro Canuck Posted June 22, 2009 Author Share Posted June 22, 2009 What you're saying is true, but you forgot to point out how difficult it can be to find high-calibre players like Luongo, Heatley, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.