HFBoards

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

Most Valuable Oiler #5

View Poll Results: Who do you think is the next most valuable Oiler?
Schultz (Justin) 116 75.82%
Klefbom 9 5.88%
Gagner 9 5.88%
Dubnyk 3 1.96%
Smid 11 7.19%
Nurse 2 1.31%
Perron 2 1.31%
Other 1 0.65%
Voters: 153. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-12-2013, 11:21 AM
  #26
5RingsAndABeer
John MacKinnon Fan
 
5RingsAndABeer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 11,511
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
Generally your opinion would be wrong.

Lets phrase it in simplest terms. Gagner and Smid are actual NHL players of actual NHL value and worth. Lets say you're an agent. You have a choice between making 10% cut off of these players contracts or deferring several years to make a future cut off some kid thats years away. What agent would defer 10% of say 8M annual income starting immediately for the prospect of an income that won't be able to achieve that annual rate of return even optimally for about 10yrs? Given best case scenario. Worst case being never making a dime off that player. Then consider all the years you waited for that prospect to give you any foreseeable return and how much behind you are on accrued value.

Present established value trumps prospective value except in very special instances. Connor Mcdavid may prove to be that exception. But Klefbom and J Schultz are not likely in that prospective league.
I don't think that applies in this day and age with modern scouting for the top guys like McDavid. Even if he's overhyped like Tavares, he's going to end up an ELITE player. One scout said he'd have taken McDavid over Jones/MacKinnon/anyone else in this last draft (if he were eligible). I would agree that you're right for most prospects being like boom/bust stocks, but the top guys are exceptions. They're much more sure things than in the past.

If I were an agent then it would be different due to ELCs and the nature of the salary cap. A top pick, especially if it's a forward, usually drastically exceed the value of their ELCs by the time it's up. A much bigger factor that highlights the difference between agent salaries and player value is the distribution of salaries due to the cap. Four 2.5m players aren't worth anywhere near Crosby, but they'd make the agent the same.

5RingsAndABeer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2013, 11:35 AM
  #27
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,996
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5RingsAndABeer View Post
I don't think that applies in this day and age with modern scouting for the top guys like McDavid. Even if he's overhyped like Tavares, he's going to end up an ELITE player. One scout said he'd have taken McDavid over Jones/MacKinnon/anyone else in this last draft (if he were eligible). I would agree that you're right for most prospects being like boom/bust stocks, but the top guys are exceptions. They're much more sure things than in the past.

If I were an agent then it would be different due to ELCs and the nature of the salary cap. A top pick, especially if it's a forward, usually drastically exceed the value of their ELCs by the time it's up. A much bigger factor that highlights the difference between agent salaries and player value is the distribution of salaries due to the cap. Four 2.5m players aren't worth anywhere near Crosby, but they'd make the agent the same.
Thanks for reading and looking at that. As you know I qualified McDavid being an exception to the rule. But Klefbom is not anywhere close to a McDavid stock. I am somewhat interested given that why you would vote Klef ahead of say Smid. Given what I've stated would you change your view on this?

Monetarily theres a strong point that Smid represents more value now and going forward. Probability stands that an established NHL player holds more value than a lower first round pick thats never played an NHL game and that has had significant injury trouble.

btw. Everest speaks of this type of thing a lot, on how difficult it is for a young player to overcome a lost year. An injured year. The leap such a player must make to get back on track is just huge. Think of prospect development as a continually moving treadmill or a pitstop. All your competitors keep going. A player can find themselves behind in development in a hurry.

re: the Crosby comment we're not talking a Crosby prospect in this thread, we're not talking a McDavid prospect in this thread. Take note that you are having to go to outlier instances to support your stance. Wherein the normal curve of NHL players vs prospects supports what I'm stating.

Replacement is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2013, 12:36 PM
  #28
Baggers
Registered User
 
Baggers's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Country: Thailand
Posts: 1,593
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
I'll just respond to your post because I already raised what Hoogaar raised.

People have an odd view in terms of what represents potential. Of what represents possible return.
The natural way to look at this is in terms of stock value. Which company holds higher value? The close to blue chip stock from a firm with proven track record, with attractive quarterly statements, returns, that are actually established and selling a reputable product and that is traded in all the big stock floors. Or the upstart prospective stock based on a potential play, a potential return, and not yet traded, not earning, and not going to be even traded on the markets for a considerable time.

Which stock do you buy now? Which stock do you hold. Which stock do you think has the greater probability of return now, and in the future.

People really underestimate how much better the established play is. Some more Warren Buffet reading would be in order. He values good established stocks, always has, and has always been a great investor.


Man this board is in love with prospects. Theres a whole lot of bre-X trading going on.


What this plays on is that the fantasy thought of what a player could be, i.e. a prospect, is sexier than what is actually in hand. Even if the player in hand holds considerable value. Even if the player in hand went 28 games scoring 28pts. Or had an 8pt NHL game. Its odd that that player holds no value, holds no prospect of increased value, by many posters in this thread, even though his value is established and clearly rising.

The whole poll suggests hive thought and everybody rushing to buy the same stock.
Replacement, I love the Bre-X analogy (and after reading your post, I think we're probably from the same generation), but I have a much different opinion to stock valuation than you do.

As an investor, you don't get rich investing in blue chip stocks once they're already established as being blue chip. Yes, you'll get your steady returns and dividends (until they fall off the map), but if you want to get extraordinary returns in the stock market you need to identify which companies have the potential to become blue chip stocks before they hit maturity.

So... back to hockey.

If you were to tell me that Gagner is worth more than Klefbom at the moment because he is a proven commodity, I would agree with you - but, that doesn't mean that Klefbom isn't worth equally as much (or more) to the team in terms of asset value (and I'm pro-Gagner much like yourself).

Baggers is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 11:34 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.