nuckthreethree Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 though I'm a little late in weighting in here. I think this idea (though a brilliant attempt), is significantly flawed. contract dollars is potentially a fundamental way of valuing the compensation of a player. but could that ever work in the NHL where demand for a single player is so high? the supply of players is not a supply of 150 players in the NHL. Its a collection of 150 different monopolies. As a result a free market can not thrive in the environment. Free markets are based on the fact that all products for a certain type of good a fundamentally the same. But once you compare different types of goods, then you get some weird looking animal ie: a bar of dove soap vs a bar of irish spring is fundamentally the same therefore $1 vs $1.05 comparisons make sense, because there are marginal benefits. But can you definitely say that a happy meal: 2.99 is worth 3 bars of soap? That is the kind of comparison that exists when you compare an ovechkin vs. a Chris Osgood. Also, you would only be willing to trade a happy meal for 3 bars of soap just because you would be able to return that to the happy medium (which is 3.99 or around 4 dollars); so you would be indifferent in a market. But what is value in the NHL? its not the services that these products (players) perform. Its winning the stanley cup. Thats what everyone wants to achieve. And Winning is not synonymous with money. If winning = money, we'd have a playoff between the two richest teams in the NHL. But instead, we have Detroit and Pittsburgh. This is why, free market in contract value is completely off. The NHL economy is a completely different animal. Whether its actually an animal or not is still under consideration. hopefully this makes it clear as to why the OP's post can't and won't make sense. I understand the simplicity int he argument, and that this all needs to start somewhere, but the theory needs a makeover, we're not looking at the same supply and demand curves here. but good luck with that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molli Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 1 roberto luongo > 6 curtis sanfords. end of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reykloos Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE the problem with this 'moneyball' type arguement being applied to hockey is that value is essentially subjective. one can argue that burrows is undervalued at 2M, sure, but you cant prove/demonstrate it definitively. I've been working on valuation methods for hockey, and its very difficult. With baseball, you probably couldnt ask for an easier sport to quantify a players contribution to winning. But until hockey GM's can know the answer to questions like: What is a 2nd assist worth? What is the chance a top 5 pick will be a point per game player? And in how long? Hockey will always like the statistical data to properly quantify value. ie, how can you ever definitivly put a value on kesler's hustle? overpriced players should be considered worthless in most cases, unless they are addressing an indentified weakness on a team, you might be willing to pay a premium for it. Each GM has a different subjective view on the value coming back. Remember, we are building a team with different roles, not a droid army. Luu for a top 5 pick? Absolutely. And the thing is, you can probably get more than that. If we cant extend Luu, his value to us is one season. but his value to other teams is one season under contract plus the ability to extend. Contract arbitrage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falcon 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_Zepp Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 Luu for a top 5 pick? Absolutely. And the thing is, you can probably get more than that. If we cant extend Luu, his value to us is one season. but his value to other teams is one season under contract plus the ability to extend. Contract arbitrage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trose Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 This may just be the crazist thread I have ever seen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElfShotTheFood Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 This thread is getting closer and closer to "Bar down/Phony offense" territory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Chicoutimi_Cucumber Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 That's not what I am saying at all.... I am just saying in theory Luongo's value is the same as Matt Cooke. Doesn't mean I would make that trade. Just means that I should technically be indifferent between the players. Now I know for a fact that I can trade Luongo tomorrow for much more than that. That is why at the draft, if I can trade Luongo for a top 3 pick, plus a prospect plus a player, I do it in a heartbeat. Not even debatable. The Canucks would kill that trade. It's just that the majority of fans would not like that trade and the GM would get murdered. This is the same reason politicians always dissapoint. I am certain they have great ideas... but it's because they are always looking to get relected, or in the GM's case, get fan support and get resigned, that they end up not doing anything. Like what is the point of electing Barack Obama if you don't let him do freely what he wants. Yes you argue that it is a democracy and that one person can't just run the show. But see, if Barack Obama has to get everyone's input on all decisions and make everyone happy, then what is the point of electing someone who is supposed to be "superior" to others if he himself has to make decisions on behalf of his voters? GM's have great ideas. There are only 30 of them and they are some of the greatest miinds in Hockey. I can't even skate. I am certain these GM's are amazingly smart and in touch with the salary cap. However, they can't properly do their jobs because of the fan pressure. That is why Gillis can't trade Luongo when in fact, he should/would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanuckCupFever 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...
Pro Canuck Posted June 23, 2009 Author Share Posted June 23, 2009 Very good post/read. You've got the economics of the NHL Cap correct; however, I want to point this out "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." At the time a GM offers this type of transaction, the value of the superstar is equal to the value in return (ie. a player + a prospect + 2 first rounders); Just like your analogy of the Corolla and Bentley. The worst part about this thread isn't in your post, it's going to be the majority of CDC'ers who do not understand your post. Best thing I've read on here for sometime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Bruce Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Good post, although there are some additional complexities that you glossed over. 1. Yes, the value of the player is already factored into the contracts. However, that doesn't mean that every player has the same value. In hindsight, some contracts appear favourable to the player and others appear favourable to the team. Thus, the "asset value" of a player is directly related to their performance relative to their cap hit. In some cases (e.g. Michel Oulette) the player actually has negative trade value. 2. RFAs have an intrinsic value equivalent to the compensation you get if another team signs them. So a pending RFA has more trade value than a pending UFA. 3. There is only a fixed amount of ice time to go around. You get more value paying a top line defenceman $5M to play 28 minutes per game than paying the same defenceman $5M to play 20 mpg on the second pairing. For similar reason, you can't replace one $6M player with 4 $1.5M players. I also agree with your other post about the goalies. An elite goalie is usually only about .5 goals per game better than an average goalie. If you can use that money to pick up an elite scorer, it's possible they may also provide an equivalent benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ghost of Tom Joad Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Not at all. Crosby is actually underpaid. Because the NHL has a maximum salary, Crosby's fair value is not reflected by his contract. Heatley makes 7, Crosby makes 9. In reality, Crosby should be making 13-14 million. He's that good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number One Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 I like Burrows a lot more. Burrows is the man yo. Heatley's too pre-madona-ish. He has some team mates who were taken by surprise by him wanting to leave. I guess as an offensive player he needs to play for an offensive team though. The last year was kinda bad over there though. They should let him play his game is they don't end up getting a good offer. I think defensive teams need good scoring also. You can't just be a run of the mill defensive team. You need to be well rounded over all you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clonedanielsedin Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Burrows should be able to fetch you the following: Thornton Lecavalier Heatley Iginla etc etc. ----------------------------------------- Thornotn, Lecavalier, Heatley, Iginla etc etc should not be able to fetch their teams: Corey Schneider. That would be highway robbery if they could get Schneider because they would save all this money to just immediately sign Hossa / Gaborik / Sedin etc. Plus they got a top prospect. ----------------------------------------- Now you might ask... ok Pro Canuck you can't possibly be smarter than every GM in the league..... I think a lot of GM's don't get this. But I do think that some understand this theory. What is restricting this from actually happening is that the GM's just like your politicians answer to their constituents (in this case the owner and the fans). The fans don't understand this and all fans in Vancouver would be jumping out of their chair if we could get Heatley for just Schneider ... so that's why the trades are still the way they are. Also, GM's have a short-term focus because their contracts are such. That is why even if they know this theory is correct, it may be difficult to act on it. In any case, while Luongo for Cooke may have been used to make a point, at the end of the day, the ridiculous superstar trades have to stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiranis Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 The funniest part of this thread is all the posters who pretend the understand the post and hail OP as some kind of brilliant tactician. I'm sorry, but how there's roughly 30-40 top forwards, then there's 860 of the rest. It simply does not make sense to trade Burrows for Iginla, simply because it would free up 5m for Calgary. Why? Because the chance of them finding that 5m replacement is minimal. You also have to consider that you're replacing one player with two at that point. Having two players who are together contributing 100 points at 8m is far less valuable than having one player who is contributing 90-100 points at 8m or even 9m. I'm sorry, but I don't believe you understand the concept of "limited supply." If you are going to create a thread like this, please consider other factors such as: 1) There's 12 forwards on your team, 3 per line. This means that a roster spot is a commodity too. 2) You did not consider other financial factors. A superstar like Ovechkin will sell more jerseys, will make more people come to the games, etc. In fact, according to your theory, a winning team could be built by having 20 players, each getting paid 2.8m. This is wrong, because at that point neither your offense, defense, or goaltending is good enough to stand against the top talent of other teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElfShotTheFood Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 The funniest part of this thread is all the posters who pretend the understand the post and hail OP as some kind of brilliant tactician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SalosSteelNut Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 ??? Anyway, you cannot trade Luongo.....NTC. /story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LickTheEnvelope Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 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...
suolucidir Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Just because you're at the salary cap doesn't mean you have a cup contender. Salaries are a factor. They don't perfectly counter-balance talent, though. And just because you freed up 8 mil doesn't mean there's a star player for you to sign. Players are not equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimist Prime Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 I wonder what you can build with an equal pay policy, if every one of the 23 players gets 2.5million, divided by 82 games times the number of games they play in as their annual salary...hrm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.