Every Player in the NHL has the Same Value

[Pro Canuck]

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.

[Jack Frost]

Pro Canuck - I actually quite like the analysis. Interesting stuff.

I do believe you forgot one element of the marketplace, however - supply & demand. The unnamed "other" player you always refer to now that you are able to afford additional bodies after trading a high salary (ala Luongo) for a cheap one (ala Hedman) is not necessarily available. This concept works much better with retail goods as a manufacturer will most often have more copies of the item coming off the manufacturing line (like your Bentley). Unfortunately, Sidney Crosby's dont grow on trees, and thankfully, Bentley's will go wherever someone wants them to (no holding out for an east coast buyer. ).

[Hordichuk]

Well if you want to trade Luongo for TJ Hensick, go for it.

[Pro Canuck]

Well if you want to trade Luongo for TJ Hensick, go for it.

[RobberLuongo]

Your theory is absolutely correct but you are forgetting an important thing, that is, the value of the players are not always completely reflected by their salary and market price.

[Scope1230]

So let me put this in a different way,

Stefan = Sid The Kid?

[Jiymaxx]

I dont think the OP is taking into account the fact that there is a limited amount of players available at each salary bracket. you cant just goto the store and pick up a 2 mill player and a 6 mill player for your 8 mill.

[Lidstrom]

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?

[oceanchild]

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?

[BionicBunny]

I'll trade you Luongo for Cloutier so I can go ahead and sign Dailge and Steffan with the money I saved

[Hallzy]

Mason and his 850,000$ contract dis-agree

[Bieksallent03]

Somehow, if you tried to trade Rick Rypien for Alexander Ovechkin, I doubt the other team will feel the same way.

Incredibly dumb thread. You're assuming that X amount of cap space is just as valuable as the difference in skill, production, and intangibles between Matt Cooke and Joe Thornton, but it's not. Not even close.

1.) X amount of cap space does not carry the same value for every team. You assume that all team's view more cap space as a positive thing, but there are always a handful of bottom-feeder teams each year that need to either overpay free agents or make bad trades just to squeeze themselves above the required cap floor. These team's would not view acquiring more cap space as being positive

2.) Even if it were allowed that Matt Cooke plus cap space would be equal value for Joe Thornton in theory, it would not be so in practice. You assume that cap space is just as valuable to a team as the player, but a superstar has no place on a rebuilding team and a contending team has no use for cap space as long as they remain reasonably successful. A player, as an asset, is something that brings sure value. Cap space does not. Would you consider giving up a star player for cap space if you knew there were no free agents available able to adequately your star player? Trading a pricey player to free up cap space to afford a pricey player seems quite redundant to me.

3.) GM's these days are mostly smart enough to realize that you can't build through free agency or by handing out the biggest contracts in the league to everyone on your team.

4.) Unused cap space does not contribute value to a team until it is spent.If you have that money spent on an asset you're happy with, why would you bother trading them at all?

Obviously if you have a player worth $8 million dollars, it's going to adversely affect your cap hit. But to trade away such a player just so you can afford... another such player? I'm sorry but this is the most retarded thread I've ever seen. Alex Burrows for Alex Ovechkin sounds great with that philosophy on the Canucks side, but if you're the Capitals do you REALLY think they're going to see it the same way? Come on.

[Pro Canuck]

It’s like the theory behind communism or the efficient market theory.. They only work in theory and do not apply to reality.

although the premise is perhaps true if you traded luongo for say Milan lucic 2 players you feel are properly valued you are guessing or hoping the player brought in using the remaining money saved would allow Vancouver to win the same amount of games and thus remain neutral and neither gaining or losing ground from the trade. You are ignoring the fact that the market for free agents works independently from the trade market and it is assumed you will have to pay a premium to sign free agents. Which negates a portion of the benefit of the original trade.

so in reply to this post which player would you trade luongo for to add cap space and then with the remaning space which player would you sign to brings us back to the level luongo got us to last year. you are also ignoring intrensic value what has more value a guy that scores 35 goals but doesn’t hit and stays to the outside and finishs a +5 on the season. Perhaps a guy that scores 25 goals fights hits and is an all around monster and finishs the season +30. If they both make the same wage and the market determines its fair than the needs of you team and how they fit those needs adds extra value to your team that cannot be quanitified. how do you place value on a guy that says the right thing at the right time? or the guy that makes the hit that changes the momentum and doesn’t show up on the score sheet.

Everything works in theory isn't that right comrade..

[Pro Canuck]

Mason and his 850,000$ contract dis-agree

[iE.]

Congratulations, you have made the best thread in Canucks Talk *clap*

[Alf]

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?

[Lukenelson]

There are not 30 players that are equal to Dany Heatley in the NHL.

Crosby also does not deserve 14 million. He isn't even the best player in the league ffs.

Clearly you are just applying some basic economic thinking to the NHL. Your post was good from far, but far from good.

[gocanucksgo33]

First time I've logged onto CDC in a while and I stumble across a refreshingly intelligent thread.

I see the points in the original post, and it's a good system, but the main problem that I see is that by trading away Roberto Luongo for Steve Mason and then going to sign a UFA w/ Luongo's 6 million, you're going to have to overpay for your UFA. Consistently signing studs in free agency is not a plausible way to build a team because there's always a GM out there with the cap space who will pay way more than they're worth. If there's a player worth having, someone will be willing to overpay to get him, which will throw off the whole system as now your UFAs are being paid too much for their worth.

Although maybe that counters the money you're saving on your rookie contract and you're still up cap space... either way it's still a very interesting concept.

[Pro Canuck]

First time I've logged onto CDC in a while and I stumble across a refreshingly intelligent thread.

I see the points in the original post, and it's a good system, but the main problem that I see is that by trading away Roberto Luongo for Steve Mason and then going to sign a UFA w/ Luongo's 6 million, you're going to have to overpay for your UFA. Consistently signing studs in free agency is not a plausible way to build a team because there's always a GM out there with the cap space who will pay way more than they're worth. If there's a player worth having, someone will be willing to overpay to get him, which will throw off the whole system as now your UFAs are being paid too much for their worth.

Although maybe that counters the money you're saving on your rookie contract and you're still up cap space... either way it's still a very interesting concept.

[oceanchild]

You've hit the nail on the head mate. But the key is everything needs to begin on the theory and work itself out. I myself don't believe that the market is efficient, hence there are those out there who are arbitraging out the inefficiencies and making money doing so. So if I were the GM, I would root my actions based on this theory. When I encounter one of these ridiculous offers, I make the deal. After a while, when it is clearly obviously that the teams acquiring the superstars are giving up way too much, and my team is winning/ contending consistenly, other teams will follow. This will go on until one day, the trades are more fair.

If you look at the types of trades made for a superstar pre salary cap vs. the ones made today with the salary cap, they are practically the same. I am saying that the cap makes enough of a difference that you should see a change in behaviour. So this inefficiency should be exploited. I recommend Mike Gillis to exploit this inefficiency, not to go out and trade Luongo for Cooke. That would be stupid when there are teams lining up in stupidty offering up boatloads of prospects and picks. I would be all over that.

And you know what? If you don't want the cap space, then just take more players back. At the end of the day, Heatley for Burrows or Heatley for Burrows + Mitchell are identical trades. Again, if I'm Ottawa, I don't have a preference between the two deals. At the end of the day, winning a trade is about getting "extra value" not about getting as many fairly priced players back as possible.

Luongo for Hedman, you would be killing it. Hedman would be so good, that Hedman + Cammalerri which you could easily get for 6 mil, would be much better.