HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Luongo Thread - Waiting on the World to Change (Mod Warning in OP)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-26-2012, 10:04 PM
  #126
LongRoad
Registered User
 
LongRoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Ahhh, so poorly written. It's amazing that's the product of a journalism school graduate.

LongRoad is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 10:18 PM
  #127
Nuck This
Registered User
 
Nuck This's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,034
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
When was the last time a goalie fetched a star player?

The goalie market is weak. Couple that with a significant and quite possibly negative contract and that is even worse.

I mean including names like these....:
Exactly. Because they're such a rare commodity. When was the last time a goalie of Luongo's caliber was on the market? It costs a lot to get. It's the most important position in hockey. He's the most consistent goalie of the last ten years. Year in and year out he's in the top of all categories. Among the best of all time in terms of numbers playing on a lot of crap teams for his early years. A lot of goalies have flings and spike seasons. Rarely do they have the constancy and sustainability as Luongo. It's delusional to think you could have him for mediocre players and scraps.


Last edited by TMI: 10-26-2012 at 11:26 PM. Reason: quote
Nuck This is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 10:39 PM
  #128
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuck This View Post
Exactly. Because they're such a rare commodity. When was the last time a goalie of Luongo's caliber was on the market? It costs a lot to get. It's the most important position in hockey. He's the most consistent goalie of the last ten years. Year in and year out he's in the top of all categories. Among the best of all time in terms of numbers playing on a lot of crap teams for his early years. A lot of goalies have flings and spike seasons. Rarely do they have the constancy and sustainability as Luongo. It's delusional to think you could have him for mediocre players and scraps.
Ed Belfour was traded for Terreri, Dahlen and Michal Sykora.

Roy (along with Keane) was traded for Thibault, Rucinsky and Kovalenko.

Giguere was traded for Toskala and Blake.

Khabibulin was traded for Johnson, Mara and Zainullin.

There is your market. You midaswell bring it down even lower considering Lu's contract.

-------

The goalie market is weak because of the opposite - they are not a rare commodity, they have the biggest surplus in the league. And no, Luongo is not even close to the 'one of the best of all-time.'

guest1467 is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 11:30 PM
  #129
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
When was the last time a goalie fetched a star player?

The goalie market is weak. Couple that with a significant and quite possibly negative contract and that is even worse.

I mean including names like these....


No one has been able to explain this to me, maybe you can help me out? Why did the NHL choose to punish Kovalchuk's cap-circumvention contact? Also, why are they still trying to add Back Diving Contract stipulations to the CBA.


Thanks. I'll hang up and listen.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 11:33 PM
  #130
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
No one has been able to explain this to me, maybe you can help me out? Why did the NHL choose to punish Kovalchuk's cap-circumvention contact? Also, why are they still trying to add Back Diving Contract stipulations to the CBA.


Thanks. I'll hang up and listen.
Who cares about cap hits when the cap goes up 10% every season?

Luongo's contract can be seen as a negative because of its length and monetary value, which is unattractive to a majority of teams.

guest1467 is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 11:41 PM
  #131
Vankiller Whale
Maybe HE can score
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,405
vCash: 5555
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
Who cares about cap hits when the cap goes up 10% every season?

Luongo's contract can be seen as a negative because of its length and monetary value, which is unattractive to a majority of teams.
Thank goodness the new CBA will likely allow us to pay almost half of it to make it more financially feasible to teams like Florida. He'd actually be great long-term for them to reach the cap floor, even serving as a backup.

Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 11:41 PM
  #132
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
Who cares about cap hits when the cap goes up 10% every season?

Teams that spend to the cap do.


Also, if the cap goes the other way, the cap-hit is all the better as it's more efficient.


Quote:
Luongo's contract can be seen as a negative because of its length and monetary value, which is unattractive to a majority of teams.

If it's unattractive to teams, why is the NHL trying to close the loophole _and_ punish existing BDCs?

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 12:00 AM
  #133
SunshineRays
Registered User
 
SunshineRays's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 864
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
Ed Belfour was traded for Terreri, Dahlen and Michal Sykora.

Roy (along with Keane) was traded for Thibault, Rucinsky and Kovalenko.

Giguere was traded for Toskala and Blake.

Khabibulin was traded for Johnson, Mara and Zainullin.

There is your market. You midaswell bring it down even lower considering Lu's contract.


-------

The goalie market is weak because of the opposite - they are not a rare commodity, they have the biggest surplus in the league. And no, Luongo is not even close to the 'one of the best of all-time.'
Clearly you don't understand 'markets'. Comparing goalie trades - or any trade- to ones that happened pre-lockout (04/05) aren't comparable. They were different times. It was a different league. Not to mention it was 8+ yrs ago.

Giguere is the only goalie who you say is 'elite' that was traded in last few yrs. Unfortunately, he was not elite at the time he was traded. He was 3 yrs removed from respectable #'s and told the media "I'd rather retire than be a backup". He would bring the equivalent value if the Oilers traded Khabilbulin today - which we all know is nothing.

There is no chance that there will ever be a surplus of goalies on the market. Technically, there are only 2 goalie positions on each team. That is the smallest # of roster spots for any position in the league. So by #'s alone, it's not ever going to be possible. When you filter the # of high end goalies from the already small sample size - 'impossible' is my answer.

If high end goalies are traded frequently in the last few yrs, how come you can't provide a list of them? Waiting...... waiting.....

SunshineRays is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 12:04 AM
  #134
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
Thank goodness the new CBA will likely allow us to pay almost half of it to make it more financially feasible to teams like Florida. He'd actually be great long-term for them to reach the cap floor, even serving as a backup.
I was unaware the new CBA has been ratified.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Teams that spend to the cap do.


Also, if the cap goes the other way, the cap-hit is all the better as it's more efficient.
Give me one instance of the cap 'going the other way.'

Quote:
If it's unattractive to teams, why is the NHL trying to close the loophole _and_ punish existing BDCs?
A much more legitimate approach would be to question why so few teams have expressed interest in acquiring Luongo.

But to answer the question at hand, the league is interested in ending this charade because it is unsustainable to the health of the fiscal position of teams and league overall.

----------

The cap is virtually irrelevant; it holds no legitimacy. The fact that fans seem to place such a disproportionate value on cap-hits (to the point of detriment or propping of the actual abilities of players) is both unfortunate and frustrating at the same time.

guest1467 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 12:09 AM
  #135
Taelin
Resident Hipster
 
Taelin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,107
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
I was unaware the new CBA has been ratified.
Which is why he said likely.

Taelin is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 12:12 AM
  #136
mriswith
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 347
vCash: 500
The more this drags out, the more I do think that it's going to take a lot more than hf thinks it will to obtain Luongo. I'm going with Gardiner+1st/prospect as my prediction.

The more I look at these collections of spare parts Toronto is trying to sell us, the more I think that keeping Luongo and having him split games with Schneider helps us more than trading him if that were actually his value. Looking at what returns would be for comparable (i.e. franchise) goalies around the league, I think we've lowered our expectations too much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
A much more legitimate approach would be to question why so few teams have expressed interest in acquiring Luongo.
What he said is fact, what you said is your opinion. Guess which one is actually legitimate?

Quote:
The cap is virtually irrelevant; it holds no legitimacy. The fact that fans seem to place such a disproportionate value on cap-hits (to the point of detriment or propping of the actual abilities of players) is both unfortunate and frustrating at the same time.
Know how I know you cheer for team that isn't a contender?

mriswith is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 12:15 AM
  #137
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
Give me one instance of the cap 'going the other way.'

If... if... as in the 60m proposed cap in the tabled CBA.



Quote:
A much more legitimate approach would be to question why so few teams have expressed interest in acquiring Luongo.

But to answer the question at hand, the league is interested in ending this charade because it is unsustainable to the health of the fiscal position of teams and league overall.

----------

The cap is virtually irrelevant; it holds no legitimacy. The fact that fans seem to place such a disproportionate value on cap-hits (to the point of detriment or propping of the actual abilities of players) is both unfortunate and frustrating at the same time.


"unsustainable to the health of the fiscal position of teams" --> Meaning what exactly? Please elaborate.



Cap irrelevant... Gillis and Gilman structured this deal specifically to gain a cap advantage... Hmmm... Something doesn't add up here. It seems it's not only fans that place value on cap-hits, but also GMs.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 12:22 AM
  #138
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunshineRays View Post
Clearly you don't understand 'markets'. Comparing goalie trades - or any trade- to ones that happened pre-lockout (04/05) aren't comparable. They were different times. It was a different league. Not to mention it was 8+ yrs ago.
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.

Quote:
Giguere is the only goalie who you say is 'elite' that was traded in last few yrs. Unfortunately, he was not elite at the time he was traded. He was 3 yrs removed from respectable #'s and told the media "I'd rather retire than be a backup". He would bring the equivalent value if the Oilers traded Khabilbulin today - which we all know is nothing.
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.

Quote:
There is no chance that there will ever be a surplus of goalies on the market. Technically, there are only 2 goalie positions on each team. That is the smallest # of roster spots for any position in the league. So by #'s alone, it's not ever going to be possible. When you filter the # of high end goalies from the already small sample size - 'impossible' is my answer.
Haha, and you mock me for 'not understanding markets.'

The fact that there is only 2 goalie positions on each team is exactly 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.

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.

Quote:
If high end goalies are traded frequently in the last few yrs, how come you can't provide a list of them? Waiting...... waiting.....
I never said they were traded frequently, that would be a strawman; which makes the rest of this proposition completely irrelevant.

guest1467 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 12:37 AM
  #139
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taelin View Post
Which is why he said likely.
Come on. Likely is not a word I would use to describe anything about the CBA. Let's be real here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by schism View Post
What he said is fact, what you said is your opinion. Guess which one is actually legitimate?
One of them has little relevance to approaching the preposition, the other does.

It is akin to using an exogenous variable instead of an endogenous variable.

Quote:
Know how I know you cheer for team that isn't a contender?
And this is relevant because?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
If... if... as in the 60m proposed cap in the tabled CBA.
Once again, you seem to be arguing on fabricated assumptions.

Quote:
"unsustainable to the health of the fiscal position of teams" --> Meaning what exactly? Please elaborate.
Locking down players to long-term guaranteed contracts that are valued upwards of $150 million dollars is pretty unsustainable for a lower-tier professional league.

Quote:
Cap irrelevant... Gillis and Gilman structured this deal specifically to gain a cap advantage... Hmmm... Something doesn't add up here. It seems it's not only fans that place value on cap-hits, but also GMs.
Gaining a cap advantage is irrelevant when the cap continues to increase by 10% annually. Since Luongo was signed the salary cap has increased over $24 million dollars.

guest1467 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 12:47 AM
  #140
Vankiller Whale
Maybe HE can score
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,405
vCash: 5555
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
Come on. Likely is not a word I would use to describe anything about the CBA. Let's be real here.
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 have yet to see a reason why Luongo's contract is so terrible under the previous CBA or the new.

Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 12:51 AM
  #141
mriswith
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 347
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
One of them has little relevance to approaching the preposition, the other does.

It is akin to using an exogenous variable instead of an endogenous variable.
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.

Quote:
And this is relevant because?
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.

mriswith is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 12:51 AM
  #142
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
Once again, you seem to be arguing on fabricated assumptions.

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...


Quote:
Locking down players to long-term guaranteed contracts that are valued upwards of $150 million dollars is pretty unsustainable for a lower-tier professional league.

Not for rich teams that are well aware of their own internal budgets.



Quote:
Gaining a cap advantage is irrelevant when the cap continues to increase by 10% annually. Since Luongo was signed the salary cap has increased over $24 million dollars.

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.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 12:52 AM
  #143
SunshineRays
Registered User
 
SunshineRays's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 864
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
Haha, and you mock me for 'not understanding markets.'

The fact that there is only 2 goalie positions on each team is exactly 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.

Quote:
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.

SunshineRays is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 01:16 AM
  #144
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

guest1467 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 01:23 AM
  #145
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
And to further elaborate on the list of 'top goalies' traded recently:

The fact that there is a salary cap now actually favours the trade value of the goalies pre-lockout. In other words, because of Luongo's high contract comparatively to other goalies; it is more likely he will receive less value than the ones I listed because of less demand.

That is of course, if you take these preconditions seriously; which the above highlights is kind of pointless in this exercise.

Secondly, if you hold that the assumption that goalie trades pre-cap and post-cap are not comparative for X reason; why has low values among goalie trades remained consistent/stable despite the cap being put in place? The very fact that the goalie market has retained its low value throughout the installation of the cap suggests that these trades are indeed comparable because the 'dynamics' as you like to call it have not significantly been altered.

Now, unless you are willing to argue that the 'dynamics' have in fact been significantly changed and the market value of goalies has gone up after the cap then your argument holds absolutely no weight. I also suggest you do not do that because it has been well-documented that the goalie market is indeed weak.


Last edited by guest1467: 10-27-2012 at 01:29 AM.
guest1467 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 01:28 AM
  #146
SunshineRays
Registered User
 
SunshineRays's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 864
vCash: 500
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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  
Old
10-27-2012, 01:30 AM
  #147
SunshineRays
Registered User
 
SunshineRays's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 864
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
And to further elaborate on the list of 'top goalies' traded recently:

The fact that there is a salary cap now actually favours the trade value of the goalies pre-lockout. In other words, because of Luongo's high contract comparatively to other goalies; it is more likely he will receive less value than the ones I listed because of less demand.

That is of course, if you take these preconditions seriously; which the above highlights is kind of pointless in this exercise.

Secondly, if you hold that the assumption that goalie trades pre-cap and post-cap are not comparative for X reason; why has low values among goalie trades remained consistent/stable despite the cap being put in place? The very fact that the goalie market has retained its low value throughout the installation of the cap suggests that these trades are indeed comparable because the 'dynamics' as you like to call it have not significantly been altered.

Now, unless you are willing to argue that the 'dynamics' have in fact been significantly changed and the market value of goalies has gone up after the cap then your argument holds absolutely no weight. I also suggest you do not do that; because it has been well-documented that the goalie market is indeed weak.

Ok, I understand now. You don't have a clue how businesses or markets work.

SunshineRays is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 01:31 AM
  #148
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
There are a number of teams that spend up to the cap that do not sign these types of contracts.

And there are a few that do, looking to take advantage of the BDCs while it was possible to do so.


Quote:
I fail to see how Luongo's cap hit has exclusively had benefit to the team as a whole.

It's the only BDC on the team. Allowing 1.5m to be spent elsewhere when that would not have happened otherwise. It helped the team when other contracts could not.


Last edited by Bleach Clean: 10-27-2012 at 01:57 AM.
Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 01:57 AM
  #149
mriswith
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 347
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
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.
There has been almost no information regarding how many teams are interested from legitimate sources.

Quote:
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.
No, you just disagree with the inference.

The sole purpose of signing a cap-circumvention contract is to gain a competitive advantage. Why do you think Kovalchuk's contract was such a big issue? The renegotiated contract pays essentially the same amount in less years, which is a worse deal in terms of dollars for the team and the market. It wasn't denied because of the total dollar value of the contract. It was because New Jersey was trying to gain a competitive advantage by circumventing the cap. This is the logical inference.

This is relevant as long as Luongo's contract is being questioned. You can only think this is irrelevant if you think cap hit doesn't impact trade value, which leads to the next wonderful gem...
Quote:
Gaining a cap advantage is irrelevant when the cap continues to increase by 10% annually.
For a contending team, a cap advantage is relevant every single year.

Quote:
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.
Please, have some intellectual honesty. I was going to use your quotes to demonstrate the point, but there's a better way. Do you think that Luongo has a bad contract? If no, then do you really think GM's don't get this? If yes, then why do you lack the backbone to take responsibility for your position?

mriswith is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 02:54 AM
  #150
Wisp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,991
vCash: 500
Using the newly proposed CBA as a basis of argument is just as valid as using the old CBA. Neither are certain.

Wisp is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:09 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.