Luongo Thread - Waiting on the World to Change (Mod Warning in OP)
View Single Post
10-27-2012, 01:52 AM
Join Date: Mar 2012
Originally Posted by
Once again, taking caps into the equation when they are ridiculously insignificant is a horrible way to bolster your argument.
The poster asked for recent trades of 'top' goalies, I provided 4 goalies of equivalent skill that happened within the last two decades or so. All of which received very modest returns.
Pre-lockout there was no cap world. After lockout there was. That is the single biggest reason why trade comparable are not possible. They dynamics of operating in a certain financial structure changed the game. It's business 101.
As I mentioned, none of the goalies you provided are comparable to Luongo for the reasons I mentioned. It's also business 101.
Listen, the point isn't to find a carbon copy-identical case for Luongo, because that would be wholly impossible. The point was to show a general framework of the market for 'top goalies.' This can even be extended when you take out the requirement of being a 'top' goalie. For the last twenty years, goalies have not ever fetched high returns. Go ahead and look at the post-lockout if you actually feel like that is a legitimate variable, the results will be the same.
Hell, look at what Luongo has retrieved in the past: Parrish and Kvasha, and a damaged goods Bertuzzi and Allen. Not much of a return there either.
I'm not suggesting finding a carbon copy for Luongo, we both know that's impossible.
But to provide a good argument, one would assume you'd find a comparable for top goalies within a legitimate timeframe. You went on to say goalies are the biggest surplus in the league. So theoretically, this should make your argument easy.... right?
I'm saying there isn't any comparable because it 'rarely' happens.
Haha, and you mock me for 'not understanding markets.'
The fact that there is only 2 goalie positions on each team is
why there is a surplus of goalies, which is directly correlated to why their value is so low. There are a plethora of goalies available in free agency that are cheap to sign, which drives the price of goalies down. There is also a plethora of goalies that are outside of the top 60 that are capable of being fit in starters.
Please explain the economics behind your reasoning?
You admit there are only 2 positions for goalies on any team. The smallest of any NHL position. This means 'low supply'. Now you're saying low supply equates to low price? Econ 101. When there is a low supply, the price goes up because there are so few available - thus driving the price up.
If the supply is low, how can there be a plethora of supply available each summer? It makes no economic sense because you're making it up. Which means, like i said, you don't understand markets.
This is the reason why you have a 24 year old goalie that performed Hasek-like in the playoffs get traded for only a top forward prospect. There are a number of options available to acquire a goalie for cheap that performs the same abilities ceteris paribus as the 'top goalies.' This is why you see random journeymen goaltenders lead teams to Stanley Cup Finals berths; and such a disparity year in and year out between SV%s, GAAs and Wins stats among goaltenders.
I never said they were traded frequently, that would be a strawman; which makes the rest of this proposition completely irrelevant.
I was questioning your ability to read the market. You've yet to provide a list of comparable for a Luongo trade then explain why they are legitimate comparisons.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by SunshineRays