View Single Post
Old
06-12-2013, 03:40 PM
  #83
Avs44
Registered User
 
Avs44's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 14,878
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainbow Crash View Post
This is just another case of HF boards overrating prospects. Contrary to belief here, NHL established players>prospects. You aren't going to get a young top-4 D, 2 1sts and a NHL ready center prospect for the #1 pick.

You can't demand a price on
potential. Buffalo is taking all the risk in this deal. They could lose Myers, Grigorenko and 2 1sts for
a bust. On the other side, even if both 1sts and Grigorenko bust (extremely less likely than 1 player busting), they still end up with a
top-2 D in Myers.

Teams make trades because of potential, but they can't demand
prices because of potential. Let's do a little analogy:

Let's say that your friend has stock in a new company. It's value right now is only at $100 per stock. However, it could become as valuable as $400 dollars, so he decides to try to sell it at that price. When he does that, the stock broker says, "Well, right now, it's only valued at $100 dollars, so why should you get $400 dollars for it?" You friend responds with, "It has the potential to be worth $400 dollars." The stock broker then replies with "But it isn't worth $400 dollars. When it is worth $400 dollars, you can sell it for $400 dollars. But it only has a value of $100 dollars right now, so that's what you will get for it."

Trades are made under value right now, not potential. You aren't paying for a superstar MacKinnon, you are paying for a prospect MacKinnon.
So guess what the friend with the $100 stock says then? I'll keep my damn stock and hope it becomes worth $400.



Seriously, what an awful analogy. There is no incentive for the Avs to move their pick. You have to convince them to give it up and pass on MacKinnon's potential if you want it.

Avs44 is offline   Reply With Quote