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
10-27-2012, 04:41 AM
  #151
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunshineRays View Post
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.
And I proved to you why the dynamics did not significantly change; your retort was something along the lines of 'lolz you don't understand businesses or markets.'

Quote:
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?

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.
You are aware I am talking about surplus supply of labour right?

You are looking at this from the completely wrong perspective. Considering we are talking about trade value and the market of goalies among GMs then I would have assumed you would understand that when I say there is a surplus of supply that I am talking about there is more NHL capable goalies than positions in the NHL. IE, you take out a handful of goalies out of the 60, there are a number of them that are replaced without a decrease in talent. This is even compounded by the fact that only 30 of those 60 even play regularly.

This is what pushes the value of goalies down. It is very cheap for a team to acquire a goalie, particularly through free agency. This is why they are not highly sought after, nor receive high returns.

But anyways, I don't expect a coherent response from you. Your posts seem to get shorter and shorter each round and you are not even retorting any of my arguments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
And there are a few that do, looking to take advantage of the BDCs while it was possible to do so.
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.[/QUOTE]

Quote:
Originally Posted by schism View Post
There has been almost no information regarding how many teams are interested from legitimate sources.

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...

For a contending team, a cap advantage is relevant every single year.
There are many ways to get around the 'cap.' There are hardly any examples (the only one I can think of is Chicago - and even that is muddy because of their SC) where teams were actually inhibited by the cap. Philly is a prime example, spending to the cap every season and having no trouble making acquisitions every off-season. Players can be dumped in the minors, players can be traded to other teams. These contracts hardly have a significant impact on how one manages the cap and become even less significant when the cap continues to grow. You may have a point if the cap remained stagnant or was somewhere around the $40-50 million region; but it isn't, it has become wholly irrelevant for virtually every team.

Quote:
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?
How am I not being honest? It is quite clear from my posts that I said it can be 'seen as a negative' to many teams.

Luongo's contract wouldn't be bad if he was staying in Vancouver. They locked him up under the assumption that he was going to stay here substantially longer than he has if he were traded tomorrow. The contract directly correlates to this: it goes well past normal playing age, it is 'cap friendly' as you guys seem to want to point out, and it is for a long-term.

Now, the problem becomes when you go to trade him. From an outside team, his contract is not desirable. This is compounded by the sheer weight of the contract itself; many teams would not want to take on that much term or money commitment and pay assets when they can find an effective alternative for no assets and cheaper value and term. This will inevitably push his value down. In addition, the market for goalies is quite weak as it is.

Expecting a huge return for Luongo is wishful thinking.


Last edited by guest1467: 10-27-2012 at 04:48 AM.
guest1467 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 04:51 AM
  #152
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisp View Post
Using the newly proposed CBA as a basis of argument is just as valid as using the old CBA. Neither are certain.
That is ridiculous.

When someone makes an argument you have to make the assumption that it is within the status-quo.

By using 'proposed' CBA clauses, you can change the parameters of the argument anyway you wish to the point of making the argument completely pointless.

guest1467 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 04:59 AM
  #153
SunshineRays
Registered User
 
SunshineRays's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 864
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
And I proved to you why the dynamics did not significantly change; your retort was something along the lines of 'lolz you don't understand businesses or markets.'
The nature of your argument proves to me you don't understand business or markets. Creating your own methodology to support an argument isn't factual. Taking portions of basic economics and pretending to understand it's implications isn't factual either.

Quote:
You are aware I am talking about surplus supply of labour right?

You are looking at this from the completely wrong perspective. Considering we are talking about trade value and the market of goalies among GMs then I would have assumed you would understand that when I say there is a surplus of supply that I am talking about there is more NHL capable goalies than positions in the NHL. IE, you take out a handful of goalies out of the 60, there are a number of them that are replaced without a significant decrease in talent.

This is what pushes the value of goalies down. It is very cheap for a team to acquire a goalie, particularly through free agency. This is why they are not highly sought after, nor receive high returns.

But anyways, I don't expect a coherent response from you. Your posts seem to get shorter and shorter each round and you are not even retorting any of my arguments.
My responses get shorter because I am saying the same thing over and over again. Refer to my previous posts for your answers.

You alter your responses each time, I've been saying the same thing. You've yet to provide a list of comparables. You said the goalie market is weak, goalies like Luongo are not a rare commodity, and they have the biggest surplus in the league. Yet, I'm still here, waiting for this long list. After reading your posts and your other arguments in this thread, I've come to the conclusion you don't have the knowledge.

SunshineRays is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 05:45 AM
  #154
Wisp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,046
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
That is ridiculous.

When someone makes an argument you have to make the assumption that it is within the status-quo.

By using 'proposed' CBA clauses, you can change the parameters of the argument anyway you wish to the point of making the argument completely pointless.
No, what is ridiculous is to assume there is a status quo when the only certainy is change.

Because we are in a state of flux, the argument should become more interesting. Its only pointless because you're obtusely rejecting any scenario that doesn't suit your own argument.

Consider: The last CBA is gone. The rules will change. Maybe a little. Maybe a lot. But they WILL change.


Last edited by Wisp: 10-27-2012 at 09:33 AM.
Wisp is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 08:44 AM
  #155
billvanseattle
Registered User
 
billvanseattle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: bellingham
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,181
vCash: 500
Well the last 2 pages of this thread were an utter waste of time.

Didn't we do the whole "Tor: Luo has no value, we will take him off your hands for table scraps vs Van: He's the greatest goalie to be available in decades, it going to take a top forward, a first pairing D man, a great prospect and good draft pick for him" argument 5 months ago? Why do people even bother still?

I hope debaters on both side will acknowledge they were wrong when we see what the actual trade result are ...

billvanseattle is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 10:53 AM
  #156
mossy joe
keep it riel
 
mossy joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 345
vCash: 500
i think the biggest problem with the luongo contract is that GMs can (and have to) live with the mistakes they individually make themselves. no GM is in a hurry to pick up another GMs mistake and let them off the hook.

mossy joe is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 11:04 AM
  #157
Tiranis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 21,032
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossy joe View Post
i think the biggest problem with the luongo contract is that GMs can (and have to) live with the mistakes they individually make themselves. no GM is in a hurry to pick up another GMs mistake and let them off the hook.
You mean like with Chicago and Campbell? Or Rangers and Gomez? Yeah, totally.

Tiranis is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 12:58 PM
  #158
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunshineRays View Post
The nature of your argument proves to me you don't understand business or markets.
You keep parroting this, except you have not even proven it to be true. Your only retort has been 'you know nothing about markets.'

Quote:
Creating your own methodology to support an argument isn't factual.
You realize this is what is done in virtually any study conducted right?

Quote:
Taking portions of basic economics and pretending to understand it's implications isn't factual either.
I understand them perfectly fine. Once again, you are not even arguing the premises. You don't even seem to understand what surplus of labour is.

Quote:
You alter your responses each time, I've been saying the same thing. You've yet to provide a list of comparables. You said the goalie market is weak, goalies like Luongo are not a rare commodity, and they have the biggest surplus in the league. Yet, I'm still here, waiting for this long list. After reading your posts and your other arguments in this thread, I've come to the conclusion you don't have the knowledge.
I never said 'goalies like Luongo are not a rare commodity.' I also went on to state why there is no 'long' list of top goalies being traded which of course you never responded to.

Your position is basically this: Provide me with a list of comparable goalies to Luongo. Oh, BTW, you can't use X, Y, Z, A, B, C, D, for [unsubstantiated reasons].

You want a list of goalies traded in the last decade to see how the goalie market is weak?

Bobrovsky for a 2nd and some mid range draft picks.
Gustavvson for a 7th round draft pick.
Thomas Vokoun for a 7th round draft pick.
Varlamov for a 1st and 2nd.
Brian Elliot for Anderson.
Roloson for Wishart.
Ramo for Desjardins.
Halak for Eller and Schultz.
Toskala for McElhinney.
Giguere for Blake and Toskala.
Pogge for a 6th round pick.
Auld for a 6th round pick.
Chris Mason for a 4th round pick.
Huet for 2nd round pick.
Marcel Hossa and Montoya for Sjostrom and Gratton.
Halpern, Jokinen and Smith for Richards.
Fernandez for Klaus.
Leighton for a 7th round pick.
Toskala and Bell for some draft picks.
Lehtonen for a 4th round pick.
Conklin for a 5th round pick.
Biron for a 7th round pick.
Cloutier for a 2nd and conditional 3rd.
Denis for Modin.
Raycroft for Rask.
Anderson for a 6th.
Luongo and Krajicek for Bertuzzi, Auld and Allen.
Theodore for Aebischer.
Thibault for a 4th.

Yeah, some great returns there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisp View Post
No, what is ridiculous is to assume there is a status quo when the only certainy is change.

Because we are in a state of flux, the argument should become more interesting. Its only pointless because you're obtusely rejecting any scenario that doesn't suit your own argument.

Consider: The last CBA is gone. The rules will change. Maybe a little. Maybe a lot. But they WILL change.
Let me ask you something. When doing a case study; do you make assumptions based on future possibilities, or do you use the status-quo and established framework to study it?

The default position is always the status-quo.

guest1467 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 01:17 PM
  #159
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,704
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
There are many ways to get around the 'cap.' There are hardly any examples (the only one I can think of is Chicago - and even that is muddy because of their SC) where teams were actually inhibited by the cap. Philly is a prime example, spending to the cap every season and having no trouble making acquisitions every off-season. Players can be dumped in the minors, players can be traded to other teams. These contracts hardly have a significant impact on how one manages the cap and become even less significant when the cap continues to grow. You may have a point if the cap remained stagnant or was somewhere around the $40-50 million region; but it isn't, it has become wholly irrelevant for virtually every team.

Is the ability to add a Higgins or a Lapierre at the deadline, where you would not be otherwise capable of doing so, irrelevant? Or being able to re-sign a Lapierre. Because that's your argument. That there is no need to save even 1.5m in the grand scheme.



Quote:
Luongo's contract wouldn't be bad if he was staying in Vancouver. They locked him up under the assumption that he was going to stay here substantially longer than he has if he were traded tomorrow. The contract directly correlates to this: it goes well past normal playing age, it is 'cap friendly' as you guys seem to want to point out, and it is for a long-term.

Now, the problem becomes when you go to trade him. From an outside team, his contract is not desirable. This is compounded by the sheer weight of the contract itself; many teams would not want to take on that much term or money commitment and pay assets when they can find an effective alternative for no assets and cheaper value and term. This will inevitably push his value down. In addition, the market for goalies is quite weak as it is.

Expecting a huge return for Luongo is wishful thinking.


Explain something to me BSmoka: you said his contract is good for VAN? Why is it good for the team? What makes that contract better for VAN as opposed to a "regular" termed, higher cap hit contract?



When you provide your reasoning to that, now replace the name "VAN" with "TO". Would his contract be viewed in the same light if Burke had signed him to it and he intended for Luongo to stay with the franchise, just like Gillis had? If it's the same, then the transition of that contract from one team to another is irrelevant. If both _rich_ teams could envision signing him to the same deal, why does one view it as a negative and the other a positive?

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 01:23 PM
  #160
14s incisor
Registered User
 
14s incisor's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Vancouver Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 627
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
You keep parroting this, except you have not even proven it to be true. Your only retort has been 'you know nothing about markets.'



You realize this is what is done in virtually any study conducted right?



I understand them perfectly fine. Once again, you are not even arguing the premises. You don't even seem to understand what surplus of labour is.



I never said 'goalies like Luongo are not a rare commodity.' I also went on to state why there is no 'long' list of top goalies being traded which of course you never responded to.

Your position is basically this: Provide me with a list of comparable goalies to Luongo. Oh, BTW, you can't use X, Y, Z, A, B, C, D, for [unsubstantiated reasons].

You want a list of goalies traded in the last decade to see how the goalie market is weak?

Bobrovsky for a 2nd and some mid range draft picks.
Gustavvson for a 7th round draft pick.
Thomas Vokoun for a 7th round draft pick.
Varlamov for a 1st and 2nd.
Brian Elliot for Anderson.
Roloson for Wishart.
Ramo for Desjardins.
Halak for Eller and Schultz.
Toskala for McElhinney.
Giguere for Blake and Toskala.
Pogge for a 6th round pick.
Auld for a 6th round pick.
Chris Mason for a 4th round pick.
Huet for 2nd round pick.
Marcel Hossa and Montoya for Sjostrom and Gratton.
Halpern, Jokinen and Smith for Richards.
Fernandez for Klaus.
Leighton for a 7th round pick.
Toskala and Bell for some draft picks.
Lehtonen for a 4th round pick.
Conklin for a 5th round pick.
Biron for a 7th round pick.
Cloutier for a 2nd and conditional 3rd.
Denis for Modin.
Raycroft for Rask.
Anderson for a 6th.
Luongo and Krajicek for Bertuzzi, Auld and Allen.
Theodore for Aebischer.
Thibault for a 4th.

Yeah, some great returns there.



Let me ask you something. When doing a case study; do you make assumptions based on future possibilities, or do you use the status-quo and established framework to study it?

The default position is always the status-quo.
None of the goalies that you listed (except Luongo, who got a return of the best power forward in the league at the time) are even close to as good as Luongo, and except for Halak, all are borderlined #1's.

14s incisor is online now  
Old
10-27-2012, 02:30 PM
  #161
VanCity Millionaires
Registered User
 
VanCity Millionaires's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,611
vCash: 893
I just don't see how we can keep going around in circles. It always seem the Toronto fans always undervalue and the Vancouver fans have unrealistic expectations. I imagine that GMMG and Burkie will come to some conclusion somewhere in the middle. It would seem to me that if we really want to get what we're asking for (as fans) that we will need to sweeten the pot somewhat, would you get rid of Raymond, Schroeder, or a draft pick first?

VanCity Millionaires is online now  
Old
10-27-2012, 02:38 PM
  #162
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Is the ability to add a Higgins or a Lapierre at the deadline, where you would not be otherwise capable of doing so, irrelevant? Or being able to re-sign a Lapierre. Because that's your argument. That there is no need to save even 1.5m in the grand scheme.
My argument is it is not a zero-sum game.

Quote:
Explain something to me BSmoka: you said his contract is good for VAN? Why is it good for the team? What makes that contract better for VAN as opposed to a "regular" termed, higher cap hit contract?

When you provide your reasoning to that, now replace the name "VAN" with "TO". Would his contract be viewed in the same light if Burke had signed him to it and he intended for Luongo to stay with the franchise, just like Gillis had? If it's the same, then the transition of that contract from one team to another is irrelevant. If both _rich_ teams could envision signing him to the same deal, why does one view it as a negative and the other a positive?
There is a disparity between the value comparatively to each team for a few reasons:

1) Vancouver had the pleasure of negotiating the contract themselves, with the belief that Luongo was their long-term goaltending asset to be retained indefinitely.

2) Toronto (or any other team for that matter) does not get the privilege of negotiating this contract. They may not like this contract for a number of reasons; not least of which is the length (ie the risk) or the value (ie the financial cost).

3) The biggest reason why there is a disparity in relative value of the contract is because one team made the signing without losing assets (ie they can take on extra risk because their opportunity cost is lower) while the team X acquiring Luongo not only has to take on the risk of the contract itself but also has to give up assets to do so. Giving up assets for a risky contract makes the desired value of Luongo do down.

There are so many risks with Luongo that giving up substantial assets is a foolish move. No one knows how much longer Luongo can keep his standard up, he is signed until 2020, no one knows how he will play in their particular setting or market, ect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 14s incisor View Post
None of the goalies that you listed (except Luongo, who got a return of the best power forward in the league at the time) are even close to as good as Luongo, and except for Halak, all are borderlined #1's.
I provided a list of 4 top goalies that have been traded within the last two decades (Roy, Belfour, Khabibulin and Giguere). They all received poor returns.

These four goalies were considered 'not comparable' for [reasons not stated or articulated]. Now I have provided an exhaustive list of the returns for all goalies in the last decade, all showing marginal returns.

I have provided ample evidence to prove two assertions:

1) The market for trading goaltenders is historically low.
2) The market for trading goaltenders has not changed significantly throughout the last two decades.

It is well documented by experts around the league that returns for goalies (regardless of skill level) is low.

What more evidence do you need exactly?

----------

Bertuzzi was considered damaged goods and the trade that was made with Luongo subsequently led to the GM being fired. Bertuzzi was not considered a good return and never broke 50 points after being traded from Vancouver.

guest1467 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 02:40 PM
  #163
mriswith
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 348
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post

There are many ways to get around the 'cap.' There are hardly any examples (the only one I can think of is Chicago - and even that is muddy because of their SC) where teams were actually inhibited by the cap.
Lol, is this a joke? Any team that spends to the cap is inhibited by the cap. It isn't muddy at all.

The sole reason that we let Ehrhoff walk was because of cap.

You are completely blowing hot air here...

Quote:
How am I not being honest? It is quite clear from my posts that I said it can be 'seen as a negative' to many teams.
You are being intellectually dishonest because you are trying to pretend that you don't think his contract is bad while basing the entirety of your argument on how bad you think (er, "many teams think") his contract is.

Quote:
Luongo's contract wouldn't be bad if he was staying in Vancouver. They locked him up under the assumption that he was going to stay here substantially longer than he has if he were traded tomorrow. The contract directly correlates to this: it goes well past normal playing age, it is 'cap friendly' as you guys seem to want to point out, and it is for a long-term.

Now, the problem becomes when you go to trade him. From an outside team, his contract is not desirable. This is compounded by the sheer weight of the contract itself; many teams would not want to take on that much term or money commitment
Luongo's contract cannot be great for us and terrible for every single other team, that is nonsensical. I find it funny you try to use the cap friendly component as a reason that it is good for us, after you have just spent so long blowing hot air about the cap being irrelevant.

Luongo's contract is great for any team that spends to the cap or close to it. It is great for any team that wants to contend. It is only a negative for cap-floor teams with a budget who would have to spend extra cash above the cap hit. It is just like every single other cap-circumventing contract - and the massive length didn't seem to hurt Richards or Carters trade value. There is no precedent for a cap-circumventing contract having lowered a players trade value, especially while that player is still playing at the level they were when they signed the contract.

Quote:
many teams would not want to take on that much term or money commitment and pay assets when they can find an effective alternative for no assets and cheaper value and term. This will inevitably push his value down.
And this is the crux of the matter. As long as you believe, like Burke, that effective goaltending can be dug out of the bargain bin, you will have the goaltending results that Burke has had. Vancouver and Toronto fans are both very well acquainted with Burke's total inability to accurately assess goaltending.

Franchise goaltenders are almost never traded, that's why it's so hard to gauge value. Teams with franchise goaltenders tend to keep them. Vancouver is in the incredibly rare situation of having two elite goaltenders, one of whom is already a franchise goaltender, and another who is poised to solidify his status as a franchise tender over the next year or two.

mriswith is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 02:42 PM
  #164
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
BTW, I am not a Toronto fan; and I couldn't really care less about what assets Luongo receives.

guest1467 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 02:49 PM
  #165
LickTheEnvelope
6th Overall Blows
 
LickTheEnvelope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 28,190
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post
You mean like with Chicago and Campbell? Or Rangers and Gomez? Yeah, totally.
Oh man that Montreal trade for Gomez... yikes.

LickTheEnvelope is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 02:50 PM
  #166
LickTheEnvelope
6th Overall Blows
 
LickTheEnvelope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 28,190
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by schism View Post
Lol, is this a joke? Any team that spends to the cap is inhibited by the cap. It isn't muddy at all.

The sole reason that we let Ehrhoff walk was because of cap.

You are completely blowing hot air here...

You are being intellectually dishonest because you are trying to pretend that you don't think his contract is bad while basing the entirety of your argument on how bad you think (er, "many teams think") his contract is.

Luongo's contract cannot be great for us and terrible for every single other team, that is nonsensical. I find it funny you try to use the cap friendly component as a reason that it is good for us, after you have just spent so long blowing hot air about the cap being irrelevant.

Luongo's contract is great for any team that spends to the cap or close to it. It is great for any team that wants to contend. It is only a negative for cap-floor teams with a budget who would have to spend extra cash above the cap hit. It is just like every single other cap-circumventing contract - and the massive length didn't seem to hurt Richards or Carters trade value. There is no precedent for a cap-circumventing contract having lowered a players trade value, especially while that player is still playing at the level they were when they signed the contract.

And this is the crux of the matter. As long as you believe, like Burke, that effective goaltending can be dug out of the bargain bin, you will have the goaltending results that Burke has had. Vancouver and Toronto fans are both very well acquainted with Burke's total inability to accurately assess goaltending.

Franchise goaltenders are almost never traded, that's why it's so hard to gauge value. Teams with franchise goaltenders tend to keep them. Vancouver is in the incredibly rare situation of having two elite goaltenders, one of whom is already a franchise goaltender, and another who is poised to solidify his status as a franchise tender over the next year or two.
Luongo's contract is especially great with a rollback and if the Canucks can take back $1 mil/year...

LickTheEnvelope is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 02:53 PM
  #167
14s incisor
Registered User
 
14s incisor's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Vancouver Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 627
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
My argument is it is not a zero-sum game.



I provided a list of 4 top goalies that have been traded within the last two decades (Roy, Belfour, Khabibulin and Giguere). They all received poor returns.

These four goalies were considered 'not comparable' for [reasons not stated or articulated]. Now I have provided an exhaustive list of the returns for all goalies in the last decade, all showing marginal returns.

I have provided ample evidence to prove two assertions:

1) The market for trading goaltenders is historically low.
2) The market for trading goaltenders has not changed significantly throughout the last two decades.

It is well documented by experts around the league that returns for goalies (regardless of skill level) is low.

What more evidence do you need exactly?

----------

Bertuzzi was considered damaged goods and the trade that was made with Luongo subsequently led to the GM being fired. Bertuzzi was not considered a good return and never broke 50 points after being traded from Vancouver.
The last two decades...

A goalie of Loungo's calibre has not been available in a trade in the last decade, and anything earlier than that is not really a viable comparison, which means these experts that you speak of can't really give any evidence of a low return on a comparably skilled goalie.

Roy is the only goalie that is comparable to Luongo of the four you mention. Belfour, Khabibulin, and Giguere were WELL past their prime.

Bertuzzi may not have put up more than 50 points after he was traded, but he was coming off a 71 point campaign, and was not considered "damaged goods," as you say, since his 71 point season came a season after the "incident," not to mention he was nearly a p/g player that season.

Also, Auld was a fairly promising prospect at the time, as well.

14s incisor is online now  
Old
10-27-2012, 02:54 PM
  #168
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by schism View Post
Lol, is this a joke? Any team that spends to the cap is inhibited by the cap. It isn't muddy at all.

The sole reason that we let Ehrhoff walk was because of cap.
That statement is false. If the sole reason was because of the cap then maneuvers would have been made to retain him.

Quote:
You are being intellectually dishonest because you are trying to pretend that you don't think his contract is bad while basing the entirety of your argument on how bad you think (er, "many teams think") his contract is.
I am not pretending anything. I am trying to be objective (you should try it once and a while) in pursuing the questions from a number of potential frameworks or view points.

Quote:
Luongo's contract cannot be great for us and terrible for every single other team, that is nonsensical. I find it funny you try to use the cap friendly component as a reason that it is good for us, after you have just spent so long blowing hot air about the cap being irrelevant.
This is just so full of strawmen I don't even know where to start. It was quite obvious the bold comment was tongue-in-cheek.

Quote:
Luongo's contract is great for any team that spends to the cap or close to it. It is great for any team that wants to contend. It is only a negative for cap-floor teams with a budget who would have to spend extra cash above the cap hit. It is just like every single other cap-circumventing contract - and the massive length didn't seem to hurt Richards or Carters trade value. There is no precedent for a cap-circumventing contract having lowered a players trade value, especially while that player is still playing at the level they were when they signed the contract.
What a biased statement. What exactly makes Luongo's contract great from an economic stand-point?

Richards and Carters are 24 years old.

I also never stated that Luongo's contract is the sole reason his value might be low; there is a combination of factors here, and I have pointed many of them out.

Quote:
And this is the crux of the matter. As long as you believe, like Burke, that effective goaltending can be dug out of the bargain bin, you will have the goaltending results that Burke has had. Vancouver and Toronto fans are both very well acquainted with Burke's total inability to accurately assess goaltending.
This is a fallacious argument. It is called denying the antecedent.

Quote:
Franchise goaltenders are almost never traded, that's why it's so hard to gauge value. Teams with franchise goaltenders tend to keep them. Vancouver is in the incredibly rare situation of having two elite goaltenders, one of whom is already a franchise goaltender, and another who is poised to solidify his status as a franchise tender over the next year or two.
I provided 4 franchise goaltenders that were traded. These have been ignored repeatedly because they do not fit Canucks' fans arguments.

guest1467 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:10 PM
  #169
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 14s incisor View Post
A goalie of Loungo's calibre has not been available in a trade in the last decade, and anything earlier than that is not really a viable comparison, which means these experts that you speak of can't really give any evidence of a low return on a comparably skilled goalie.
Why can't Roy, Belfour or any of the other examples be used?

Quote:
Roy is the only goalie that is comparable to Luongo of the four you mention. Belfour, Khabibulin, and Giguere were WELL past their prime.
What on earth are you talking about? Belfour was traded in the middle of his career and went on to win the Stanley Cup, beating the likes of goalies like Hasek, Roy and Fuhr. 3 out his best 4 years in SV% and GAA were with Dallas.

Khabibulin went on to win the SC as well. His best years were with Tampa Bay, and he holds a number of records in his SC run.

Are you seriously suggesting that these goalies were out of their primes (they weren't) and that Luongo is still in his?

Quote:
Bertuzzi may not have put up more than 50 points after he was traded, but he was coming off a 71 point campaign, and was not considered "damaged goods," as you say, since his 71 point season came a season after the "incident," not to mention he was nearly a p/g player that season.

Also, Auld was a fairly promising prospect at the time, as well.
He was certainly considered damaged goods by many people. To ignore this would be akin to using historical revisionism to support your argument.

One doesn't need to look hard to find this opinion spread out in various places. Do a quick search of 'damaged goods' Bertuzzi 2006 'hfboards' to get an idea.

guest1467 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:14 PM
  #170
Cogburn
Registered User
 
Cogburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,851
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
I provided 4 franchise goaltenders that were traded. These have been ignored repeatedly because they do not fit Canucks' fans arguments.
Roy demanded a trade out of town immediately, and did so mid-game no less.

Belfour turned down a contract extension, and ended up being a rental, and Chicago took what they could for him.

Khabibulin held out for an entire year for a contract, and still got Mike Johnson, Paul Mara, a 2nd and Zainulin, a player that could have easily been worth his draft position, but didn't come over to play for Phoenix (can you blame him?).

Giguere was a franchise, or at least top starter, later in his career, but there was no evidence that he would stick in the NHL full time, playing 22 games total in 3 seasons.

Where exactly are points of commonality here?

Cogburn is online now  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:20 PM
  #171
14s incisor
Registered User
 
14s incisor's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Vancouver Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 627
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
Why can't Roy, Belfour or any of the other examples be used?



What on earth are you talking about? Belfour was traded in the middle of his career and went on to win the Stanley Cup, beating the likes of goalies like Hasek, Roy and Fuhr. 3 out his best 4 years in SV% and GAA were with Dallas.

Khabibulin went on to win the SC as well. His best years were with Tampa Bay, and he holds a number of records in his SC run.

Are you seriously suggesting that these goalies were out of their primes (they weren't) and that Luongo is still in his?



He was certainly considered damaged goods by many people. To ignore this would be akin to using historical revisionism to support your argument.

One doesn't need to look hard to find this opinion spread out in various places. Do a quick search of 'damaged goods' Bertuzzi 2006 'hfboards' to get an idea.
I thought you were referring to his 2002 trade, since I didn't think anyone in their right mind would use the return from a trade that happened in 1997 as a comparable to what one would expect in 2012. Khabibulin was also traded 11 years ago—nothing has changed at all in 11 years...

This is great news for Brian Burke. Someone let him know he can use Joe Thornton's return as a comparable to what he has to offer up for a #1 centre, or better yet Gretzky's.

On Bertuzzi: Yes, searching HF boards is a great way to gauge what Bertuzzi's value was to other NHL GM's when he was traded Wow. I expected better.

Bertuzzi proved he wasn't "damaged goods" with the season he had after the Moore incident. He had issues, and may have been a risk (as all trade acquisitions are), but he was still a proven producer, and far from "damaged goods" at the time of the trade.


Last edited by 14s incisor: 10-27-2012 at 04:16 PM.
14s incisor is online now  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:25 PM
  #172
mriswith
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 348
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
That statement is false. If the sole reason was because of the cap then maneuvers would have been made to retain him.
The sole reason was because of cap, and you are blowing hot air here. The Canucks could not afford to blow their cap structure for Ehrhoff, so they let him walk. I love that you're trying to argue this.

Quote:
I am not pretending anything. I am trying to be objective (you should try it once and a while) in pursuing the questions from a number of potential frameworks or view points.
No, you are trying to avoid having to actually state your position on it.

Don't worry, I don't actually expect you to change that.

Quote:
This is just so full of strawmen I don't even know where to start. It was quite obvious the bold comment was tongue-in-cheek.

What a biased statement. What exactly makes Luongo's contract great from an economic stand-point?
Why does any team sign a cap-circumventing contract? To gain a competitive advantage. Are you being deliberately obtuse? I'd like to know now before continuing to reply to you.

Quote:
Richards and Carters are 24 years old.
They are both 27 years old and will be 28 in a few months. See above obtuse comment.

Quote:
This is a fallacious argument. It is called denying the antecedent.
Use your common sense and look at Burke's track record with goalies. Sifting through the bargain bin is not an effective method of solving a goaltending problem. While even a blind squirrel will eventually find a nut, that's not an effective method of running a franchise and is a recipe for failed seasons.

Quote:
I provided 4 franchise goaltenders that were traded. These have been ignored repeatedly because they do not fit Canucks' fans arguments.
The Roy trade is regarded as one of the worst trades to ever go down. That's like using Milbury to set value. The other 3 have been repeatedly mentioned by Canucks fans.

mriswith is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:29 PM
  #173
Wisp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,046
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
Let me ask you something. When doing a case study; do you make assumptions based on future possibilities, or do you use the status-quo and established framework to study it?

The default position is always the status-quo.
Spare me. The only reason you are discarding these CBA developments is because they don't suit your argument. A well reasoned discussion would factor in past events with current ones.

For example, both the PA and NHL have proposed using salary cap space as a trade-able asset and letting teams foot some of the salary for traded contracts.

Since this is something they both agree upon, discounting its likely-hood out of hand would be unwise.


Last edited by Wisp: 10-27-2012 at 04:01 PM.
Wisp is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:51 PM
  #174
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,704
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
My argument is it is not a zero-sum game.

I understand your argument, and have addressed it. But why do you refuse to address mine? The fact is that Luongo's contract has _already_ helped the team where it otherwise would not have.



Quote:
There is a disparity between the value comparatively to each team for a few reasons:

1) Vancouver had the pleasure of negotiating the contract themselves, with the belief that Luongo was their long-term goaltending asset to be retained indefinitely.

Does the pleasure of negotiating the contract make the contract itself a negative? It's the efficiency of the deal itself that is in question here, not the opportunity to negotiate it.


Quote:
2) Toronto (or any other team for that matter) does not get the privilege of negotiating this contract. They may not like this contract for a number of reasons; not least of which is the length (ie the risk) or the value (ie the financial cost).

They may not, I understand. You are talking about a subjective inference of the thoughts of other GMs. I'm talking about the numbers themselves. When you come down to it, the statistical efficiency is something that is a benefit to all rich teams that spend to the cap. The type of team TO is, just like VAN.



Quote:
3) The biggest reason why there is a disparity in relative value of the contract is because one team made the signing without losing assets (ie they can take on extra risk because their opportunity cost is lower) while the team X acquiring Luongo not only has to take on the risk of the contract itself but also has to give up assets to do so. Giving up assets for a risky contract makes the desired value of Luongo do down.

This is a great point, and I think your best in the case you are making. However, isn't it risk + asset vs risk + cost? Every asset has a corresponding cost, what we are arguing here is _only_ the risk involved in the contract. That's it.


Now, let's apply this to VAN's mindset: you say they took on risk by signing him to such a deal. My answer to this is that every signing assumes risk. By comparison, VAN's risk may be greater due to the length of the deal - but that risk has built in "outs" so as to mitigate worst case situations. For instance, the 3 year trade window or the internal agreement to retire early or the NTC and no NMC. These factors mitigate risk in a way that reduce its impact on the team. So is this contract unduly "risky" based on that premise? I would say no.



Really, this potential deal is no different than other deals, except that the interpretation of the contract is mixed for fans. GMs though should be able to recognize its strength, just as Bettman has when trying to close the BDC loophole.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 03:52 PM
  #175
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,309
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Lastly, what makes you think Bozak is a "throw in" for TO? He played on their top line last year - why would they just give him away? If anything, his value has inflated like his point totals, and Gillis would be taking value out of the package elsewhere to have him included. Doesn't sound good either way.
I'm going under the assumption that we're getting one player off their roster, that seems to be standard in a deal like this. I'd love that to be Grabovski, as I've stated many times, but that doesn't seem likely with their lack of top end centres. The Leafs have centre depth (JVR, Grabovski, Connnolly, Bozak, McClement, Steckel) with Colbourne likely to get a shot at some point. The Leafs have some depth down the middle, they're just light on the top end.

Someone like Kulemin likely carries more value but is a poor fit. I think it'd be easier to teach Bozak how to play defence than teach Kulemin to score like a top 6 forward. Taking Bozak and his expiring contract over Kulemin should get us a better additional piece, no?

The other veteran pieces are expensive and/or poor fits. If I'm going to consider one, It'll be the young guy with the cheap contract that we might be able to turn into something.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
To apply it to Steen, you can expect him to be a continuing NHL contributor (all things equal), with Bozak you don't know if he's going to settle as a top6 forward or a utility guy like Ebbett (AHL/NHL).
You might not like the Steen comparison but it's a hell of a lot closer than an Ebbett comparison. Ebbett is an undersized player with a career high of 8 goals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
IMO this speaks to how good a player Grabovski is and how poorly coached the team was. Bozak's possession numbers are in line with every player on the team not playing with Grabovksi. Grabovksi's corsi on definitely sticks out on that team more than Bozak's.


Last edited by Scurr: 10-27-2012 at 10:03 PM.
Scurr 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 01:36 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.