Trade Rumors and Free Agent TalkTrade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.
im just saying that if you really believe his injury problems are behind him that it wouldnt be a problem because unless he was hurt you're giving up nothing. its just a way of sharing the risk. You arent increasing the value of the deal one Iota, because you give nothing if he stays healthy, which is something youve been asserting all along.
you could structure it the other way too, if you agree hes worth prospect "A" and a 1st, then trade him for prospect "A" and a player or a conditional draft choice, then if he stays healthy the other GM gives you the rest of whatever you agreed to after the season.
neither of those add to the value of the deal..... all it does is share the risk because both sides are risking something and not just the acquiring team.
right now edmonton has 100% of the risk, and youre asking the acquiring team to assume that risk and also give value for the player. That assignment of risk must be accounted for, thats all im suggesting.
The logistics behind something like that are stupid. How are we to know if he gets run and gets an injury that any other player would get? It is ridiculous to suggest that the team sending a player out provides some type of insurance. What if we asked for conditional picks based on the NHL games played of a prospect we got in return? We would be laughed at, and rightfully so.
The logistics behind something like that are stupid. How are we to know if he gets run and gets an injury that any other player would get? It is ridiculous to suggest that the team sending a player out provides some type of insurance. What if we asked for conditional picks based on the NHL games played of a prospect we got in return? We would be laughed at, and rightfully so.
but in fact that is whats done every day. players are acquired at a premium based on potential every day. we pay more for what players might do, than what they have done, why is it so hard to accept that a player with a history of missing time would come at a discount
You can't have it both ways. Like it or not, he has an appalling injury history, and that legitimately scares people. You can't just pretend it doesn't exist and shout down anyone who raises the concern.
I cannot speak for other fans... or the fanbase in general... that would be unfair of me to do and likely inaccurate...
BUT, this is single fan is not denying there is an injury history... it would be impossible and foolish to do so...
It's becoming even more difficult to prove that Hemsky is what he was when he was playing at all prior... this is second near "complete" season below the PPG mark... no GM with a brain is going to see years of 0.9-1.0 PPG three years ago and buy at that high when the current player has not been there with (what I WOULD contend are) two healed shoulders
Can I prove what the asking price for Ales Hemsky is... no... can I prove what offers Steve Tambellini has received and rejected are... no. We as uninformed posters don't have that kind of knowledge... unless one of you is Steve Tambellini... in that case I don't blame you for hiding your identity here because there is a line starting way back on Page 2 of people who would not pass up an opportunity to kick you in the nuts
However... back on topic... while we can't prove what is being asked for... we can look at the last few deadlines to gauge approximate value... that is the only reasonable thing to do... creating magical trade scenarios that have never happened (I seriously can't think of an example akin to the one you are proposing and that is telling) is NOT reasonable.
Again... am I saying Hemsky MUST ABSOLUTELY return one of the following... no... but it shows where the heads of GMs are at (or not at it)
2012: Paul Gaustad (56 GP, 17 pts = 0.30 PPG*) + 4th for 1st
2011: Dustin Penner (62 GP, 39 pts = 0.63 PPG) for 1st + Colten Teubert (B prospect at best) and 3rd
2009: Mike Comrie (41 GP 25 pts = 0.61 PPG) + Chris Campoli for 1st + McAmmond
*- Gaustad obviously was not traded for his offense but that was decried as an outrageous deal at the time
Of the three I actually think the Comrie trade is the most comparable to Hemsky's situation:
Hemsky, 3 years pre-trade: 143 GP, 100 pts (0.699 PPG)
Comrie, 3 years pre-trade: 221 GP, 154 pts (0.69 PPG)
Hemsky has maybe a little more production but the GP difference is obvious so we'll say it is a wash
Comrie was packaged with Campoli, a 24-year-old D with 34, 14 and 18 pt seasons. He was getting 19:32 a game at the time with NYI.
Campoli, at that time, probably did not have any more value than a 3rd or 4th... which is interesting if you look at the Gaustad deal... to get a late 1st the Sabres needed to package a 4th with him. The Penner deal was a beaut for Edmonton and I think LA is still smarting from what they gave up in a vacuum... but Penner was a useful Cup run player so it hurts less
I think if the Oilers are hell-bent on getting a 1st for Hemsky... they will need to package Whitney or a pick with him to do it... also in the return would be an aging vet who has little left in the tank... or, to look at the Penner deal, a B-prospect.
So here for the record is my approximation of Hemsky's value...
I cannot speak for other fans... or the fanbase in general... that would be unfair of me to do and likely inaccurate...
BUT, this is single fan is not denying there is an injury history... it would be impossible and foolish to do so...
It's becoming even more difficult to prove that Hemsky is what he was when he was playing at all prior... this is second near "complete" season below the PPG mark... no GM with a brain is going to see years of 0.9-1.0 PPG three years ago and buy at that high when the current player has not been there with (what I WOULD contend are) two healed shoulders
Can I prove what the asking price for Ales Hemsky is... no... can I prove what offers Steve Tambellini has received and rejected are... no. We as uninformed posters don't have that kind of knowledge... unless one of you is Steve Tambellini... in that case I don't blame you for hiding your identity here because there is a line starting way back on Page 2 of people who would not pass up an opportunity to kick you in the nuts
However... back on topic... while we can't prove what is being asked for... we can look at the last few deadlines to gauge approximate value... that is the only reasonable thing to do... creating magical trade scenarios that have never happened (I seriously can't think of an example akin to the one you are proposing and that is telling) is NOT reasonable.
Again... am I saying Hemsky MUST ABSOLUTELY return one of the following... no... but it shows where the heads of GMs are at (or not at it)
2012: Paul Gaustad (56 GP, 17 pts = 0.30 PPG*) + 4th for 1st
2011: Dustin Penner (62 GP, 39 pts = 0.63 PPG) for 1st + Colten Teubert (B prospect at best) and 3rd
2009: Mike Comrie (41 GP 25 pts = 0.61 PPG) + Chris Campoli for 1st + McAmmond
*- Gaustad obviously was not traded for his offense but that was decried as an outrageous deal at the time
Of the three I actually think the Comrie trade is the most comparable to Hemsky's situation:
Hemsky, 3 years pre-trade: 143 GP, 100 pts (0.699 PPG)
Comrie, 3 years pre-trade: 221 GP, 154 pts (0.69 PPG)
Hemsky has maybe a little more production but the GP difference is obvious so we'll say it is a wash
Comrie was packaged with Campoli, a 24-year-old D with 34, 14 and 18 pt seasons. He was getting 19:32 a game at the time with NYI.
Campoli, at that time, probably did not have any more value than a 3rd or 4th... which is interesting if you look at the Gaustad deal... to get a late 1st the Sabres needed to package a 4th with him. The Penner deal was a beaut for Edmonton and I think LA is still smarting from what they gave up in a vacuum... but Penner was a useful Cup run player so it hurts less
I think if the Oilers are hell-bent on getting a 1st for Hemsky... they will need to package Whitney or a pick with him to do it... also in the return would be an aging vet who has little left in the tank... or, to look at the Penner deal, a B-prospect.
So here for the record is my approximation of Hemsky's value...
Hemsky + 3rd/Whitney
for
1st, Vet/B prospect
that is a logical reasoned post and I have no argument with any of it.
you are right GMs do tend to overpay at the deadline as Gaustad and Campoli definitely prove, they are 2 great examples and yes you are taking into consideration a GMs aversion to risk especially when it comes to deadline acquisitions. So were I a GM I would find your proposal entirely reasonable
good job
the logic is definitely there, it would depend on the particular GMs values of the players involved of course but the logic you used is unassailable
though you might find this interesting, at the time ottawa was desparate for a pmd, and Campoli who was considered the key piece in that deal. Comrie was familiar with their system having played there 2 years prior. but it was Campoli was the key piece according to Ottawa's GM.
(we islander fans could not help but laugh when we heard that...... I personally thought Bryan Murray was off his rocker to be honest. but then I saw campoli play every day)
Last edited by Isles_Guy*: 03-23-2013 at 05:06 PM.
Yeah, 2nd line winger... You're a Canuck fan how can you have watched Hemsky all these years and believe he's a 2nd liner. He had one mediocre season coming off a major shoulder injury, that's not uncommon. His production is still trending up but it's certainly been hurt by the Oilers woes 5x5 where he has been utilized in a strong checking role or by playing with rookies. Terrific player with a very long track record of success, i'm not ready to sell low because his production isn't at previous levels. He doesn't get the same pp time as before, his team is poor due to a weak transition and a lack of depth players who can play a checking role and yet he's still productive. He's a first liner on most teams in the NHL.
That's an interesting list. Especially when you consider who is ahead of who on it. But I agree his point totals are impressive.
His offensive IMO are very high, and there was a time when I considered him a 1st liner. Just in recent memory we haven't seen enough of him IMO, he ran into some injury trouble, and the Oilers as you mentioned really haven't helped him out much as a team.
I think he is still capable of putting up high end production, and being a 1st liner. But I don't think he is someone GM's are going to clammer to as a 1st liner at this point, and think to themselves that this guy is that major 1st line, impact player every team needs, and anti up as if he is.
For his sake I hope he gets back there, cause at one point he was one of my favorite non-canucks. But at this point I can't see him bringing back 1st line return.
Hemsky had multiple injuries prior to his surgeries. All accounts have said that his shoulders are stronger than ever.
Is Selanne considered injury prone due to his tons of knee injuries from earlier in his career? No, because he had surgery and the problem was fixed. ANY player can get hurt at any time, the fact is though, that without Hemsky's shoulder injuries in the equation, Hemsky has played the average number of games per season over his career. And his shoulders are better than ever. Contract concerns are one thing, but this b.s. about being "injury prone" is totally blown out of proportion on HF. Or does Crosby have no value because of concussion issues, despite being far and away the best player on the planetÉ
Yeah I agree, being injury prone is overrated here.
And you make decent points.
I think you can lose that injury prone tag (it is usually easier for better/more likable players) But it requires going a long time without being injured and missing significant time. Now Hemsky has been healthy for a long time, but in his case I think it will take longer before that concern is entirely gone unfortunately. He is well on his way to getting there though.
I cannot speak for other fans... or the fanbase in general... that would be unfair of me to do and likely inaccurate...
BUT, this is single fan is not denying there is an injury history... it would be impossible and foolish to do so...
It's becoming even more difficult to prove that Hemsky is what he was when he was playing at all prior... this is second near "complete" season below the PPG mark... no GM with a brain is going to see years of 0.9-1.0 PPG three years ago and buy at that high when the current player has not been there with (what I WOULD contend are) two healed shoulders
Can I prove what the asking price for Ales Hemsky is... no... can I prove what offers Steve Tambellini has received and rejected are... no. We as uninformed posters don't have that kind of knowledge... unless one of you is Steve Tambellini... in that case I don't blame you for hiding your identity here because there is a line starting way back on Page 2 of people who would not pass up an opportunity to kick you in the nuts
However... back on topic... while we can't prove what is being asked for... we can look at the last few deadlines to gauge approximate value... that is the only reasonable thing to do... creating magical trade scenarios that have never happened (I seriously can't think of an example akin to the one you are proposing and that is telling) is NOT reasonable.
Again... am I saying Hemsky MUST ABSOLUTELY return one of the following... no... but it shows where the heads of GMs are at (or not at it)
2012: Paul Gaustad (56 GP, 17 pts = 0.30 PPG*) + 4th for 1st
2011: Dustin Penner (62 GP, 39 pts = 0.63 PPG) for 1st + Colten Teubert (B prospect at best) and 3rd
2009: Mike Comrie (41 GP 25 pts = 0.61 PPG) + Chris Campoli for 1st + McAmmond
*- Gaustad obviously was not traded for his offense but that was decried as an outrageous deal at the time
Of the three I actually think the Comrie trade is the most comparable to Hemsky's situation:
Hemsky, 3 years pre-trade: 143 GP, 100 pts (0.699 PPG)
Comrie, 3 years pre-trade: 221 GP, 154 pts (0.69 PPG)
Hemsky has maybe a little more production but the GP difference is obvious so we'll say it is a wash
Comrie was packaged with Campoli, a 24-year-old D with 34, 14 and 18 pt seasons. He was getting 19:32 a game at the time with NYI.
Campoli, at that time, probably did not have any more value than a 3rd or 4th... which is interesting if you look at the Gaustad deal... to get a late 1st the Sabres needed to package a 4th with him. The Penner deal was a beaut for Edmonton and I think LA is still smarting from what they gave up in a vacuum... but Penner was a useful Cup run player so it hurts less
I think if the Oilers are hell-bent on getting a 1st for Hemsky... they will need to package Whitney or a pick with him to do it... also in the return would be an aging vet who has little left in the tank... or, to look at the Penner deal, a B-prospect.
So here for the record is my approximation of Hemsky's value...
Hemsky + 3rd/Whitney
for
1st, Vet/B prospect
Probably the only post in this thread that took more than a single brain cell to concoct.
When his injuries are over a year (and over 100 hockey games) behind him and he's shown no signs of having other major injuries, either in the past, or now. Hemsky's injury history affecting his current value is overblown on HF.
The number of NHL games is below 100, so that's what I'm having to use for comparison purposes. He also had some WC appearances but I don't know injury/participation stats for them.
With that in mind... between the lockouts (seven seasons), Hemsky has missed 154 games, or over a quarter (26.83%) of possible games played. The vast majority of those were due to shoulder injuries, but there were also some knee injuries, two concussions, and a groin injury.
At the barest minimum, I'd want him to manage at least two back-to-back seasons above 90% games played (read: 74 games or more - still not great) or at least manage to play more games than he's lost to injury without losing more than 1-5 games at a time before I'd declare him fully fit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeus3007
And both teams take a risk. If you're trading for picks or prospects, you may end up getting nothing if those players bust, and your value is at least a couple years away versus helping immediately. If you're trading for a player, any player may end up hurt, and players may end up not fitting into a team. There are risks on both sides, but most people just ignore that Hemsky's injuries are in the past, not the present.
This is a red herring. Risk is not a boolean "yes/no" thing. The risk with Hemsky is justifiably viewed as exceptional. We're still talking about a guy who had a run of games played seasons of 22, 47, and 69 in the three seasons prior to now.
He might very well be healthy. So suggesting that he's a scratch-and-dent discount case is probably extreme. But that history is so recent and so overwhelmingly negative that some degree of insurance for the exceptional nature of same has to be accepted by the Oilers if they're going to trade him.
I figured a conditional pick would be the best strategy to acknowledge that. That way Edmonton gets initial full value for the healthy Hemsky they faithfully believe they're selling, and the buyer is assured by Edmonton's actions that Edmonton truly is negotiating in good faith.
If you don't do that, then, well, the only way y'all are going to trade him is if you sign him to another extension, and then trade him later, because it'll take two full years back to back before folks trust his injury history. And by then he'll be in his 30s...
(Not that I think it's the best idea for the Oilers to trade him to begin with, but that's a different discussion. )
* * *
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeus3007
The logistics behind something like that are stupid. How are we to know if he gets run and gets an injury that any other player would get? It is ridiculous to suggest that the team sending a player out provides some type of insurance. What if we asked for conditional picks based on the NHL games played of a prospect we got in return? We would be laughed at, and rightfully so.
[snip]
I think if the Oilers are hell-bent on getting a 1st for Hemsky... they will need to package Whitney or a pick with him to do it... also in the return would be an aging vet who has little left in the tank... or, to look at the Penner deal, a B-prospect.
So here for the record is my approximation of Hemsky's value...
Hemsky + 3rd/Whitney
for
1st, Vet/B prospect
I'm kind of inclined to agree, which is why I ultimately think it makes little sense for the Oilers to trade Hemsky. Secondary scoring is still necessary up there and he's the closest thing to a veteran scoring forward Edmonton has. (EDIT: Well, other than maybe Smyth - if you consider him to still be a "scoring forward", that is. ) That so many Oil fans keep offering him, though, makes that sometimes a silly conclusion to reach.
__________________
Remember - when you're a hockey fan, it's not "reckless driving", it's "good forechecking".
"Viqsi, you are our sweet humanist..." --mt-svk on the CBJ boards
Thanks, Howson, for cleaning up MacLean's toxic waste. Welcome, Kekalainen; let's get good things built!
)
