View Single Post
10-27-2012, 01:28 AM
Registered User
SunshineRays's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 864
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
]Yes, and I am stating that you are vastly overstating the change in dynamics.
Exactly why I said you didn't understand markets. The change in dynamics is the sole reason. It's something you learn in business school, 1st year.

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.
I am saying that there is not a surplus in goalies. You are saying the same thing by agreeing that there are the fewest goalie positions available on any team. It's not debatable, it's a fact - there's only 2 roster positions for goalies. So how can there be surplus of a position that has the lowest supply?

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.
Um, this makes no logical sense. If there are only 60 goalie positions, where is this greater supply of goalies available? Where is this excess supply? The supply = 60 positions. The fewest roster spots available for any position.

Def not mixing up demand/supply. You are trying to create new rules for economics that have been around forever.

SunshineRays is offline