oceanchild Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 the problem is the OP is suggesting there is a point of equalibruim with the supply and demand of players. but there isnt due to the finite resource that are NHL caliber players. The demand will always excede the supply and the free market will always be more expensive than maybe it should be. It seems unlikly you can trade a core player get a solid prospect and than you the cap space to sign someone that will replace the player lost. even if you do trade the sedins for the first overall pick there is a chance he is a bust and than sign gaborik maybe he misses 60 games a yr and cammelari craps the bed cause he has no one to play with. or maybe worse maybe they look at our line up without the sedins and say thanks but no thanks and all the sudden we traded 2 first line players forthe next alexander daige. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemiin1421 Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 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...
eatmore911 Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 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...
Giant Inflatable Beaver Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 i agree with your post somewhat...players should be judged on their price tag. (at least partly) but what with that cheap shot you threw at rypien? that little guy is a warrior Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlashta Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 That premium has already been placed.... That's why more talented players make more than less talented players.... The extra cap space you get... allows you to get the talent back..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanukleheadinOz Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 i agree! trade lu for tavares and the twins for hedman. Save $$$ and buy more talent! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d.dufresne Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 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...
Pro Canuck Posted June 22, 2009 Author Share Posted June 22, 2009 I sort of agree, but it depends on what type of player too (A superstar PWF is much rarer than a Superstar PLY). So what the OP is getting at is; if we were to trade the Sedins (after we signed them to 6 million contracts) to the NYI for the 1st overall pick, we would save around 11 million to replace them and still have Tavares. We could then (possibly) get Cammalleri and Gabby to replace them (bad idea). So it would be Gabby, Cammalleri and Tavares for the Sedins. I guess we could also (after trading the Sedins) upgrade via trade. So it could be Raymond and a pick for Hossa (7.5 million), and Bieksa (with a miracle of stuff) for Lidstrom (7 million) with the money saved. He could also be saying that every deal is like a chain. Trade the Sedins to NYI for pick. Sign Cammalleri with money saved up, then trade him and others for Malkin (I like dreaming). Then say we sign others and end up over the Salary Cap, we would then trade Luongo for Fleury. So it was like the Sedins, Cammalleri, all the others and Luongo for Malkin, Tavares, Fleury and the other signed guys. Anyway, the OP does have a point; that the Value of a player can go down and up with there cap hit. A 3 million dollar Malkin is worth more than a 9 million dollar Ovechkin because of the cap, even though they are even (or OV slightly better) players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrjuggalo Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 You trade value for value, what you get back in trades are guaranteed. A Gm is never going to willingly make a trade whereby such an obvious gap in talent coming back to replace the outgoing exists; reason being is that "using that extra cap space you save with the cheaper player" does not result in you obtaining a skilled player to make the difference up via UFA. Why? Well it's pretty simple, maybe there's a lack of pending UFA's for a given year, or maybe there is a surplus. What you're not factoring in is the human element. Maybe none of those superstars or highly skilled talents on the UFA market wants to sign with your team because you trade high end talent for comparative garbage, thus reducing your teams chance to win. This is such a flawed philosophy, and the only potential positive that could be derived from it is that yes Cap management is absolutely vital to long term success. Jumping Jimminy Batman!!! Newsflash: This isn't ground breaking, and I am quite certain that every GM in the league IS smarter than you. To go back to your original point about 1 roster player, 1 prospect and 2 draft picks for a superstar, well let's see what did I say earlier? Oh that's right what you get back in a trade is guaranteed. Hence if you get back equal value for the player you are giving up it's a fair trade. Where it becomes unfair, is in the situation of say Keith Tkachuk where he is traded for a ransom at the deadline, and the very same summer re-signs with the team that traded him. THAT is rediculous. But if the player you are trading is signed to a long term contract ala Brad Richards, you need to get back guaranteed equivalent value to make up for the loss of that player for the term you had him signed to. Granted draft picks are anything but guaranteed, it at least presents you with the opportunity based on the talent of your scouting staff to find someone who will develop into a player that can make up for the loss of having that player, it's like time shifting TV or using a DVR. You give up watching a TV show now, but ensure that you will be able to watch it in the future. Same thing with a trade, you give up skill now, but ensure that in the future that skill is replaced. I hope you have seen the error of your ways, and stop pretending that the NHL is some Utopian paradise where everyone gets along and everyone plays fairly. Newsflash, it's the real world, it has it's own economy and rules both literal and understood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElfShotTheFood Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 i agree! trade lu for tavares and the twins for hedman. Save $$$ and buy more talent! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrjuggalo Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 And what if Tavares and/or Hedman turn out to be busts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElfShotTheFood Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 Please jump off a bridge now. The Sedins were ridiculed as being "busts" for the first 4 years of their careers. It was only after the lockout that they suddenly exploded to become ppg players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkRagnar Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 the problem is the OP is suggesting there is a point of equalibruim with the supply and demand of players. but there isnt due to the finite resource that are NHL caliber players. The demand will always excede the supply and the free market will always be more expensive than maybe it should be. It seems unlikly you can trade a core player get a solid prospect and than you the cap space to sign someone that will replace the player lost. even if you do trade the sedins for the first overall pick there is a chance he is a bust and than sign gaborik maybe he misses 60 games a yr and cammelari craps the bed cause he has no one to play with. or maybe worse maybe they look at our line up without the sedins and say thanks but no thanks and all the sudden we traded 2 first line players forthe next alexander daige. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diamond Smurf Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 Well that sure makes sense. Thanks for posting XD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diamond Smurf Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 the problem is the OP is suggesting there is a point of equalibruim with the supply and demand of players. but there isnt due to the finite resource that are NHL caliber players. The demand will always excede the supply and the free market will always be more expensive than maybe it should be. It seems unlikly you can trade a core player get a solid prospect and than you the cap space to sign someone that will replace the player lost. even if you do trade the sedins for the first overall pick there is a chance he is a bust and than sign gaborik maybe he misses 60 games a yr and cammelari craps the bed cause he has no one to play with. or maybe worse maybe they look at our line up without the sedins and say thanks but no thanks and all the sudden we traded 2 first line players forthe next alexander daige. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassel Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 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. If they are leased and you dont acctually own anything (kinda like a hockey player eh?) It actually makes sense. you take over my $3000 a month payment on your lambo and i take your $400 toyota payments. I now have 2600 to rent whatever i want. I bet i could get a wicked ferarri for $2600 a month. and now when i crash it i still have a toyota !! The key factor in this whole idea is: Is there oppourtunity to spend my $2600 on something of value? If there is no ferarri for lease i lose. if there are endless ferarris i may win ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying Hellfish Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 I can see where the OP is coming from, but like many have already pointed out, contracts are not always the best indication of a players worth, and just because you have 8 million to spend on 1 player doesn't mean you are going to sign an 8 million dollar player. i doubt that detroit will trade zetterberg or datsyuk, who i believe were given contracts that accurately estimate their abilities, for someone like gomez or drury.. The point is GM's sign players to idiodic contracts and completely overestimate their worth. Player salaries therefore do not fully indicate player worth. also just because a team has cap space does not mean that team has money to spend on players...Pheonix, atlanta, and both Florida teams are all in financial trouble, and are unlikely to spend the money, making young talent even more valuable than older proven players with big contracts. good topic though...nice to see people responding with rational thoughts and reasoning...cool concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pro Canuck Posted June 22, 2009 Author Share Posted June 22, 2009 This is such a flawed philosophy, and the only potential positive that could be derived from it is that yes Cap management is absolutely vital to long term success. Jumping Jimminy Batman!!! Newsflash: This isn't ground breaking, and I am quite certain that every GM in the league IS smarter than you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_Zepp Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 ??? Anyway, you cannot trade Luongo.....NTC. /story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lukenelson Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 I should point out that a lot of the debunking in this thread revolves around the idea that you cannot trade $8 million in talent for $2 million in talent because there is no guarantee you can spend that extra $6 million on another impact player. A way to avoid this would be to acquire the extra $6 million player first, then make a trade after. For example if we acquired Heatley, resigned the Sedins, then tried to trade Luongo. Chicago attempted to do this last offseason, when they signed Huet and attempted to trade Khabibulin. They couldn't find a team willing to take on the salary though, which is another reason why the OP is too simplistic. Very few teams can afford to take on excess salary at any time, making it difficult to imagine any Burrows for Thornton type deals being made. And of course the number one reason these deals won't be made is that the risks involved in trading an elite talent while not getting an equally elite talent back are far too high for any GM to take. (Job security much?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.