View Single Post
10-27-2012, 01:16 AM
Registered User
buddahsmoka1's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: México, D.F.
Country: Mexico
Posts: 25,057
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
So why is it any more likely the results of the CBA will lower Luongo's value as opposed to raising it? According to the last CBA there was literally no long-term risk in Luongo, as he could be buried in the minors at a whim by a team like Toronto. From what we've heard of the new CBA, contracts in the minors will still count against the cap, but retirement wouldn't hurt a team that trades for him and cap floor teams would love to have him due to us being able to shoulder some salary.
I prefer not to argue about what may or may not be included in the new CBA. It is a pointless exercise because it has no basis in reality.

Originally Posted by schism View Post
You made a claim with absolutely zero basis in reality. Precision =/= accuracy. His "exogenous" fact (hint: not exogenous, you just disagree with his inference) is far more legitimate than your baseless claim.
And what claim is that; that the majority of teams are not interested in acquiring Luongo? Because that has substantial basis in reality. It is the biggest reason most of the 'rumours' about a Luongo trade keep coming from the same sources, and the same teams.

It is exogenous because it does not actually prove the assertion one way or another. It basically had no relevance; it has nothing to do with whether I 'agree' with it or not.

It demonstrates your bias... if you think cap-hit is irrelevant to trade value, you're out to lunch. This is obviously a factor when you claim Luongo has a bad contract.
I have yet to see a reason why Luongo's contract is so terrible under the previous CBA or the new.
Please point to where I have stated Luongo has a bad contract. You won't find it. I have only stated that Luongo's contract makes him unattractive to many teams; which it does.

And what bias is that? The only bias I see here is from you guys; I am actually probably the most objective one in this thread considering I have no horse in this race whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Not arguing it, merely pointing it out. I also noticed you didn't argue the point about teams that spend to the cap favouring lower cap hits...
There are a number of teams that spend up to the cap that do not sign these types of contracts.

An advantage is an advantage is an advantage... The degree has more impact earlier on, but it does have an impact. The Canucks have already benefited by it.
I fail to see how Luongo's cap hit has exclusively had benefit to the team as a whole.

Originally Posted by SunshineRays View Post
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.
Yes, and I am stating that you are vastly overstating the change in dynamics.

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.
A surplus in goalies would direct correlate with less goalies being traded. IE, they're not valued at the same rate as skaters because they are easily attainable by other means.

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.
Hahah. It's not rocket science here.

There are 60 roster positions for goalies in the NHL. However, there is a greater amount of surplus goalies available that can effectively fill the role or replace one of the 60 comparatively to other positions. This means there is excess supply. Because teams are easily able to replace the goalies, this both drives down their contract prices through free agency and their trade values. This is why you see a goalie of Vokoun's caliber signing for less than $2 million per season.

I think you are mixing up demand and supply. There is a low demand for goalies from NHL teams and there is a high supply of NHL capable goalies.

buddahsmoka1 is offline