Something to Think About Before Posting a Trade Proposal
I am really annoyed by imbecilic trades posted by fans of all teams, but I'll pick on this board because it's the one I read 99% of the time.
The first part is on trades in general and the second part is trades involved free agent signing like Redden, Rosie, Drury and Gomez.
1. Trade is not the same as waive.
When people say "we should trade" someone, they mean, "he's worthless, let's dump him". Over 99% of the trade offers posted involve the fan's favorite team getting a star or a blue-chip prospect in return for something the fan doesn't want or at least doesn't care about, but thinks that the rest won't realize it and will think that it's valuable.
The trick to this is to just write names. The more, the better. Sather can't get a 7th rounder for Prucha considering his production, size and salary, yet he's involved in every trade offer on this board. Why would you even write his name? He has no value. Yet, people think that their trade proposal will be fair if they try to get a star if only they write 3-4 such names (plus the omni-present 2nd round pick that they don't care about, but think others will desperately want for some unknown reason).
Instead of writing Prucha, Dawes and Kalinin, try writing 5, 6 and 7 round picks. If you don't think that those picks can get you Filatov, then don't propose the trade!
If you want to get something, you must offer something! Not quantity of five guys like Prucha, but quality. Just as you want quality, so does every other team.
When someone proposes a trade involving some of our good players for some other good players, don't flame him.
At least 95% of any team's fans will react with, "why would we want to trade him" if you ask for anyone they wouldn't want to waive.
The question is not why you don't want a certain player. Rather, the question is, "are we getting more than what we are giving up".
Nobody wanted to trade Tuts, but Z was more valuable to us. I am sure if people here were asked what to give up for Z, they'd have said, "they want a defenseman, so let's give him garbage Kalinin or the overpaid Redden... and also let's give them Rissmiller... and a second round pick!" Always a second round pick!
But Sather had to consider what's better, Tuts or Z. That's how trades are made in the real world. So stop offering 3 bags of crap for 1 bag of gold. No, it's not a fair trade, no matter how many bags of crap you want to give up for gold.
2. FREE AGENT SIGNINGS
These trades are everyone's favorite because people have no idea about how a hockey team is managed.
You sit there mindlessly watching games and memorizing names, so you get the impression that you know something, but you really have no clue. So let me explain.
A player's worth is his ability minus his salary.
Let's just say that you could get Nicklas Backstrom at a reasonable salary in return for Staal (I am not proposing it, I'm just saying, let's just pretend that it was proposed to you and you were looking for a young center and you believed Staal was a fair price for Backstrom).
Now it would hurt the team to lose Staal. You like having Staal on your team.
So you look around and you see that Mike Richards just became a free agent. So you think to yourself what all the fans think, "I should sign Richards and this way I can just keep Staal! I am a genius!"
But in addition to you and all the fans, there are 2 dozen GM's out there who'd love to add Richards and think they are just as brilliant that they've thought of this.
You set a fair price for Richards. But the rest of the GM's are willing to pay the same price for him on the free agent market.
So then you sit there and think to yourself, "I am willing to overpay Richards an extra $1 million per year just so that I could keep Staal, who is definitely worth a $1M salary cap hit"
But at a cost of an extra $1m per year, Richards is no longer worth Staal. Any future trade proposals of Richards for Staal are idiotic because the whole point of paying Richards the extra $1M is to KEEP Staal.
But guess what. Other teams are also willing to offer $1M extra. Your GM isn't the only guy who understands that it would be good to get a star center for just $1 more while not giving up any assets for him.
So at that point, the agent for Richards comes in and asks for $3m above the guy's fair value.
Now pretty much everyone drops out of the bidding. Almost nobody wants to give up an extra $3M on top of his salary to sign him.
So guess what that means: if you sign Richards at a $3M premium, he's worthless when it comes to trading. Everyone already rejected him at this price and 90% of the teams didn't even come close to that salary... and that's when they could get him for free, without giving up any assets.
Your options are to sign Richards at a $3M premium or to give up Staal for a reasonably priced Backstrom.
You decide to sign Richards. And all the fans immediately start screaming at you for overpaying for Richards. But they'd have similarly demanded your head if you had given up Staal for Backstrom instead of signing Richards for free.
So now the fans are demanding that you trade Richards. After all, he's not worth the extra $3M you paid for him.
A couple teams were close to what you paid for him, but again, that's only because they were hoping to get him without giving up any assets.
So by definition, any unrestricted free agent becomes pretty much worthless after the bidding wars are over. The only exception is if the player suddenly gets much better than what he was prior to free agency.
Sure, a team can give up a third liner they can afford to spare for him. But nobody is giving up top prospects or top-6 forwards. Even if another team offered this player more money, they only did it to get him for free.
Think of it this way. Let's say Gomez had accepted $6M to play in Pittsburgh. The Rangers offered him $7, so clearly they would want him at $6.
But that doesn't mean that Sather would now trade for him and give up guys like Girardi. Sather might have given up Callahan and Korpikoski for Gomez at $5m. He might have given up just Korpikoski for Gomez at $6M. And he might give up Greg Moore to get Gomez at $7M.
That's what you can expect when you are offering our new signees. If Gomez was signed by another team for the same salary, would you give up Staal for him? So what would possess you to believe that another team would give up Doughty for him?
Redden, Rosie, Gomez and Drury have VERY little value. Most teams did not come even close to considering paying them their salary. Most teams would only want them (for free without giving up anything) if they were paid $1-2M less per year.
Even teams willing to pay these salaries will give up only something very marginal for these players.
We won't be getting Filatov for Redden and Gomez. We won't. I don't care how many times you offer 2 overpaid free agents for a young star. It's always the same trade being offered: 2 overpaid guys, one useless guy and a second round pick ... in return for some young star.
We might get a third rounder or a third liner for those guys. But not Filatov.
Enough stupid proposals.
Points for a long well thought out post.
except for this part
Under valuing your own players out of disgust is something watch out for as well.
With free agents, you are really paying extra to avoid giving up assets. All star free agents are overpriced and therefore aren't worth nearly as much as their ability would lead you to believe.
Top 5 Ways To Know Your Trade Proposal Will Get Flamed
Your trade proposal sucks if...
1) SECOND ROUNDER
The quickest way to know that the trade will be awful is to look for a second rounder.
When a person offers it, it's only because he is thinking to himself, "what I just proposed isn't enough." But instead of giving up something useful, he think, "a second rounder is a good asset. I don't mind losing it, but I am sure others want it, so that will make my trade proposal fair". But it won't. It never does.
Sather couldn't get a 7th rounder for him. Yet all the trade proposals include him. Why?! And worst of all, he's valued as a significant asset, something on par with a first rounder.
3) OVERPAID UNDERACHIEVERS
You want to trade players who were just signed as unrestricted free agents where we outbid everyone else and everyone else decided these players aren't worth their salary, even if they come for free.
4) THREE FOR ONE
You want to give up 3 or 4 lesser assets for one star. So does everyone else. Would you trade Staal for 3 Kalinins? No? So what makes you think others will?
5) TEAM MVP
You got the most valuable asset on the other team. You didn't give up Staal.
So Prucha + Redden + 2nd 10 for Iginla ain't gonna happen? :cry:
You proposal will ge tflamed if even posted anywhere on HFBoards. Then it leads to HFBoards mass suicides.
True. That's because fans are only willing to trade what they are willing to waive.
If you go to Pitts forum and ask for Malkin in return for Staal, Girardi, Dubi and Zherdev (none of whom are overpaid), their response won't be, "these are 4 excellent players, so let's see how they stack up against Malkin".
No, I can GUARANTEE you that they will say, "Why would we want to trade Malkin? Go away. You are stupid. All Ranger fans are morons. We hate all of you."
What they want is to unite the Staal brothers by getting ours for some overpaid player, a third pairing dman and a second round pick. Always a second round pick.
(I think it's part of HF Terms of Service to always include a second round pick in every offer you make.)
BrooklynHockey99, Prucha, Gaulton and a 3rd for Zetterberg, Hossa and Datsyuk...
i can think of a certain poster that will be upset with this thread. any guesses?
Poor JOrts can't post anymore after reading this unless he adds a 3rd..
|All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:26 PM.|
vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.