HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

Trade Value: Why very few of the proposals on this board make sense

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-05-2010, 02:52 AM
  #1
seanlinden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 18,285
vCash: 500
Trade Value: Why very few of the proposals on this board make sense

I know I'm going to get flamed for posting this.... but it needed to be said.

I see so many posters on here trying to find some sort of arbitrary "trade value" for a player. They look at goals, assists, points, +/-, contract status, comparable deals, and pretty much whatever stat that they can find; and then try and equate that player to some draft pick. When making prosposals, posters try and put "equal value" for both sides of the trade, and that's how the successs of proposals is guaged.... and it's ridiculous.

The reality is that these GMs have armies of staff that go out and watch games live. They don't sit infront of the TV with beer and a popcorn, they're sitting in the pressbox (very high angle to the ice in most rinks, gives you a great vantage point although takes away all excitement) and watching what players do with and without the puck. When making trades, they don't say "this player is going to add X points to my team because that's what he did with another team"; they say that "this player is going to do Y for my team", which could be completely different from X and based on literally a ton of factors.

Trades are then made because THEY ARE THE BEST ALTERNATIVE (or option) of how a GM will improve his team. There are two reasons that trades happen in the offseason, both are rare, and we saw an abnormal amount of trades happen in this category because of the Hawks, the other not so much.

The first reason that trades happen is because a team needs to clear cap (like the Hawks this year), much like the trade deadline; where a team cannnot afford to keep a player and simply wants to add to it's asset base. The player goes to the team who is offering the package that the GM likes the most. Making proposals in this category is useless because we don't know exactly how a GM evaluates another player, or even his own for that matter. We're also about 8 months away from the deadline right now, with only 2 teams in signfiicant cap trouble (Boston & NJ), so there's no sense in making this type of proposal.

The second reason that they happen is the good old "hockey trade". This is when both GMs like the contributions of the player(s) they are getting moreso than the contributions of the player(s), and they happen because both GMs felt that the specific trade that occurred was better than anything else they could have done.

You see so many proposals saying "you wont get this for X player" or "X is worth more than Y". Just going down the first few threads here...

AVALANCHE - DEVILS = Rolston + Sestito for 3rd Round Pick. This isn't a hockey trade, it's a salary dump, there is simply no way that we as fans can say that Colorado will be the team most willing to take on Rolston's contract.

COLORADO - MONTREAL - Kostitsyn for Mueller....Not sure what Habs fan thought of this one, but Mueller was great for the Avs, much better than Kostitsyn has ever been. Sure, he's an RFA but there's no chance that he makes more than Kostitsyn....and they're both wingers.

TORONTO - LOS ANGELES - Wayne Simmonds + Justin Williams for Tomas Kaberle + Mikhial Grabovski.... The Kings are short on offensive talent and have 2 very good puckmovers on their back end. Obviously the Leafs need wingers, but Simmonds/Williams are really no better than what the Leafs could sign in free agency today, and they cannot afford to be sacrificing offfence at centre. You see this thread go into a ridiculous discussion about who has more "value" and arguements over what Kaberle is "worth" with only 1 year left, but the reality is, that someone is going to give the Leafs a player that makes their team better than the alternative of keeping Kaberle and signing UFAs; or he's not going to be traded. We saw a thr

We saw a thread about Boston fans trying to get Corey Perry a few days ago.... and then turned into a troll fest about having to give up a ridiculous amount of picks and it still not getting a deal done. The reality is that any and every player in the league has a price. Nobody is untouchable, everyone can be traded for the right price.... and that price has nothing to do with "trade value"; it has everything to do with what the player(s) coming back to the team would do for them. If there are deals where both teams improve, they make sense and will get done. But, just because Team X wants player Y, doesn't mean they can get said player for offering up the guys that mean nothing to them. Let's say your team wants another's 5th most valuable player. Chances are that the other teams fans are going to want your 5th (maybe higher, maybe lower) most valuable player in return.... depending on waht THEIR needs are. Think of it this way.... if there's a proposal where your team is getting a player that the other team's fans would actually want to keep, and you're not giving up something that you wouldn't want to keep....chances are that you've got a problem.... and trades generally cannot be fixed by addding inconsequential picks / prospects. Picks/prospects get only get included in trades as an additional incentive where multiple teams are offering and teams have to get competitive against each other.

To sum it up.....tade value doesn't come from stats, age, contract, or anything like that. It comes from one thing and one thing only: What another GM is prepared to and able to pay for a player.


Last edited by seanlinden: 08-05-2010 at 03:03 AM.
seanlinden is online now  
Old
08-05-2010, 03:08 AM
  #2
jumptheshark
the burn out
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: hf retirement home
Country: United Nations
Posts: 53,631
vCash: 50
wht can't this board make a fair trade

fan overate their playes while undervalue the players of the other team

__________________
not sure how--but the fish just jumped in the boat and put the hook in it's mouth
52299/14814
The twenty year rebuild is on!!! Embrace the suck
Heaven wont take me and hell is afraid I'd take 0ver

Last edited by jumptheshark: 08-05-2010 at 03:15 AM.
jumptheshark is offline  
Old
08-05-2010, 03:23 AM
  #3
rumrokh
I Bleed Blue
 
rumrokh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,750
vCash: 500
Summary: There's no such thing as value in a vacuum.

However, how fun is it to predict realistic trades? At least ones that actually give one team involved the short end of the stick are obviously not fun to think about. So, as long as the trade helps both teams with what they're trying to do and their circumstance, I think a trade proposal is good. Ultimately, THAT is what defines an interesting proposal, not some kind of theoretical value or even something realistic.

Now, that's also why most trade proposals happen to be stupid in my eyes: because it's the fan of one team trying to pile up lesser, redundant assets to get the best player. There's no arguing that real trades like that happen in the NHL, but there's usually little to no consideration of the other team. "Value" is frequently code for "I'm neither aware of nor interested in the circumstance of half of the teams involved in this proposal."

Of course, that doesn't change the fact that trade proposals are for fun and don't need to make perfect sense. But I basically agree that most people go about it in the wrong way towards either end.

rumrokh is online now  
Old
08-05-2010, 03:29 AM
  #4
boredmale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,595
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jumptheshark View Post
fan overate their playes while undervalue the players of the other team
That basically it. If somebody wants to make a fair trade proposal, there best bet is to pick 2 teams they are not fans because bais will always make one with a team somebody likes lopsided

boredmale is offline  
Old
08-05-2010, 03:33 AM
  #5
TNT8592
Registered User
 
TNT8592's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: SAN JOSE
Country: United States
Posts: 296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfried View Post
I know I'm going to get flamed for posting this.... but it needed to be said.

I see so many posters on here trying to find some sort of arbitrary "trade value" for a player. They look at goals, assists, points, +/-, contract status, comparable deals, and pretty much whatever stat that they can find; and then try and equate that player to some draft pick. When making prosposals, posters try and put "equal value" for both sides of the trade, and that's how the successs of proposals is guaged.... and it's ridiculous.

The reality is that these GMs have armies of staff that go out and watch games live. They don't sit infront of the TV with beer and a popcorn, they're sitting in the pressbox (very high angle to the ice in most rinks, gives you a great vantage point although takes away all excitement) and watching what players do with and without the puck. When making trades, they don't say "this player is going to add X points to my team because that's what he did with another team"; they say that "this player is going to do Y for my team", which could be completely different from X and based on literally a ton of factors.

Trades are then made because THEY ARE THE BEST ALTERNATIVE (or option) of how a GM will improve his team. There are two reasons that trades happen in the offseason, both are rare, and we saw an abnormal amount of trades happen in this category because of the Hawks, the other not so much.

The first reason that trades happen is because a team needs to clear cap (like the Hawks this year), much like the trade deadline; where a team cannnot afford to keep a player and simply wants to add to it's asset base. The player goes to the team who is offering the package that the GM likes the most. Making proposals in this category is useless because we don't know exactly how a GM evaluates another player, or even his own for that matter. We're also about 8 months away from the deadline right now, with only 2 teams in signfiicant cap trouble (Boston & NJ), so there's no sense in making this type of proposal.

The second reason that they happen is the good old "hockey trade". This is when both GMs like the contributions of the player(s) they are getting moreso than the contributions of the player(s), and they happen because both GMs felt that the specific trade that occurred was better than anything else they could have done.

You see so many proposals saying "you wont get this for X player" or "X is worth more than Y". Just going down the first few threads here...

AVALANCHE - DEVILS = Rolston + Sestito for 3rd Round Pick. This isn't a hockey trade, it's a salary dump, there is simply no way that we as fans can say that Colorado will be the team most willing to take on Rolston's contract.

COLORADO - MONTREAL - Kostitsyn for Mueller....Not sure what Habs fan thought of this one, but Mueller was great for the Avs, much better than Kostitsyn has ever been. Sure, he's an RFA but there's no chance that he makes more than Kostitsyn....and they're both wingers.

TORONTO - LOS ANGELES - Wayne Simmonds + Justin Williams for Tomas Kaberle + Mikhial Grabovski.... The Kings are short on offensive talent and have 2 very good puckmovers on their back end. Obviously the Leafs need wingers, but Simmonds/Williams are really no better than what the Leafs could sign in free agency today, and they cannot afford to be sacrificing offfence at centre. You see this thread go into a ridiculous discussion about who has more "value" and arguements over what Kaberle is "worth" with only 1 year left, but the reality is, that someone is going to give the Leafs a player that makes their team better than the alternative of keeping Kaberle and signing UFAs; or he's not going to be traded. We saw a thr

We saw a thread about Boston fans trying to get Corey Perry a few days ago.... and then turned into a troll fest about having to give up a ridiculous amount of picks and it still not getting a deal done. The reality is that any and every player in the league has a price. Nobody is untouchable, everyone can be traded for the right price.... and that price has nothing to do with "trade value"; it has everything to do with what the player(s) coming back to the team would do for them. If there are deals where both teams improve, they make sense and will get done. But, just because Team X wants player Y, doesn't mean they can get said player for offering up the guys that mean nothing to them. Let's say your team wants another's 5th most valuable player. Chances are that the other teams fans are going to want your 5th (maybe higher, maybe lower) most valuable player in return.... depending on waht THEIR needs are. Think of it this way.... if there's a proposal where your team is getting a player that the other team's fans would actually want to keep, and you're not giving up something that you wouldn't want to keep....chances are that you've got a problem.... and trades generally cannot be fixed by addding inconsequential picks / prospects. Picks/prospects get only get included in trades as an additional incentive where multiple teams are offering and teams have to get competitive against each other.

To sum it up.....tade value doesn't come from stats, age, contract, or anything like that. It comes from one thing and one thing only: What another GM is prepared to and able to pay for a player.




yeah man no doubt... i totally agree with you....i believe the best and most realistic deal that i have seen in the last couple days has to be the clowe for butler+stafford

TNT8592 is offline  
Old
08-05-2010, 03:34 AM
  #6
orange is better
than other colors...
 
orange is better's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 7,968
vCash: 500
I think you're taking this way too seriously, dude.
Who cares what some bored idiots on a message board think of player x's value? Does it matter?
The whole point of HF trade proposals is so hockey fans can discuss individual players of interest and what they think their team should be doing. It just so happens that most of these people making these proposals have no idea what they're talking about. But it's all in good fun. It's something to pass the sluggish time until the season starts. It really doesn't matter that much.

orange is better is offline  
Old
08-05-2010, 03:38 AM
  #7
Capitlols
Registered User
 
Capitlols's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 10,567
vCash: 500
Fans make proposals from the perspective of what their team needs, not others.

Capitlols is online now  
Old
08-05-2010, 04:04 AM
  #8
Jani8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 448
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfried View Post
I know I'm going to get flamed for posting this.... but it needed to be said.

I see so many posters on here trying to find some sort of arbitrary "trade value" for a player. They look at goals, assists, points, +/-, contract status, comparable deals, and pretty much whatever stat that they can find; and then try and equate that player to some draft pick. When making prosposals, posters try and put "equal value" for both sides of the trade, and that's how the successs of proposals is guaged.... and it's ridiculous.

The reality is that these GMs have armies of staff that go out and watch games live. They don't sit infront of the TV with beer and a popcorn, they're sitting in the pressbox (very high angle to the ice in most rinks, gives you a great vantage point although takes away all excitement) and watching what players do with and without the puck. When making trades, they don't say "this player is going to add X points to my team because that's what he did with another team"; they say that "this player is going to do Y for my team", which could be completely different from X and based on literally a ton of factors.

Trades are then made because THEY ARE THE BEST ALTERNATIVE (or option) of how a GM will improve his team. There are two reasons that trades happen in the offseason, both are rare, and we saw an abnormal amount of trades happen in this category because of the Hawks, the other not so much.

The first reason that trades happen is because a team needs to clear cap (like the Hawks this year), much like the trade deadline; where a team cannnot afford to keep a player and simply wants to add to it's asset base. The player goes to the team who is offering the package that the GM likes the most. Making proposals in this category is useless because we don't know exactly how a GM evaluates another player, or even his own for that matter. We're also about 8 months away from the deadline right now, with only 2 teams in signfiicant cap trouble (Boston & NJ), so there's no sense in making this type of proposal.

The second reason that they happen is the good old "hockey trade". This is when both GMs like the contributions of the player(s) they are getting moreso than the contributions of the player(s), and they happen because both GMs felt that the specific trade that occurred was better than anything else they could have done.

You see so many proposals saying "you wont get this for X player" or "X is worth more than Y". Just going down the first few threads here...

AVALANCHE - DEVILS = Rolston + Sestito for 3rd Round Pick. This isn't a hockey trade, it's a salary dump, there is simply no way that we as fans can say that Colorado will be the team most willing to take on Rolston's contract.

COLORADO - MONTREAL - Kostitsyn for Mueller....Not sure what Habs fan thought of this one, but Mueller was great for the Avs, much better than Kostitsyn has ever been. Sure, he's an RFA but there's no chance that he makes more than Kostitsyn....and they're both wingers.

TORONTO - LOS ANGELES - Wayne Simmonds + Justin Williams for Tomas Kaberle + Mikhial Grabovski.... The Kings are short on offensive talent and have 2 very good puckmovers on their back end. Obviously the Leafs need wingers, but Simmonds/Williams are really no better than what the Leafs could sign in free agency today, and they cannot afford to be sacrificing offfence at centre. You see this thread go into a ridiculous discussion about who has more "value" and arguements over what Kaberle is "worth" with only 1 year left, but the reality is, that someone is going to give the Leafs a player that makes their team better than the alternative of keeping Kaberle and signing UFAs; or he's not going to be traded. We saw a thr

We saw a thread about Boston fans trying to get Corey Perry a few days ago.... and then turned into a troll fest about having to give up a ridiculous amount of picks and it still not getting a deal done. The reality is that any and every player in the league has a price. Nobody is untouchable, everyone can be traded for the right price.... and that price has nothing to do with "trade value"; it has everything to do with what the player(s) coming back to the team would do for them. If there are deals where both teams improve, they make sense and will get done. But, just because Team X wants player Y, doesn't mean they can get said player for offering up the guys that mean nothing to them. Let's say your team wants another's 5th most valuable player. Chances are that the other teams fans are going to want your 5th (maybe higher, maybe lower) most valuable player in return.... depending on waht THEIR needs are. Think of it this way.... if there's a proposal where your team is getting a player that the other team's fans would actually want to keep, and you're not giving up something that you wouldn't want to keep....chances are that you've got a problem.... and trades generally cannot be fixed by addding inconsequential picks / prospects. Picks/prospects get only get included in trades as an additional incentive where multiple teams are offering and teams have to get competitive against each other.

To sum it up.....tade value doesn't come from stats, age, contract, or anything like that. It comes from one thing and one thing only: What another GM is prepared to and able to pay for a player.
Are you trying to justify your dumbass proposals now?

Remember this gem you made to get Savard to Toronto?

"more along the lines of a player like Luca Caputi + a guy like Mikus... in which case you've got a tough decision."

BTW, Boston is not in significant cap trouble and it has been explained to you numerous times. It just doesn't seem to sink in.

Jani8 is offline  
Old
08-05-2010, 04:10 AM
  #9
Respect Your Edler
Thank You 52
 
Respect Your Edler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: China
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,221
vCash: 500
Honestly, I'd love it if trade proposals were banned altogether. They make no sense. I'd rather just argue about rumours and signings. At least those have some basis of reality.

Respect Your Edler is offline  
Old
08-05-2010, 04:14 AM
  #10
terex
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 360
vCash: 500
So you wrote a diatribe degrading just about every poster on the trade forum. A diatribe full of blatantly obvious common knowledge and common sense. Just to make yourself feel smart. Want a cookie?

terex is offline  
Old
08-05-2010, 04:16 AM
  #11
seanlinden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 18,285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rumrokh View Post
Summary: There's no such thing as value in a vacuum.

However, how fun is it to predict realistic trades? At least ones that actually give one team involved the short end of the stick are obviously not fun to think about. So, as long as the trade helps both teams with what they're trying to do and their circumstance, I think a trade proposal is good. Ultimately, THAT is what defines an interesting proposal, not some kind of theoretical value or even something realistic.

Now, that's also why most trade proposals happen to be stupid in my eyes: because it's the fan of one team trying to pile up lesser, redundant assets to get the best player. There's no arguing that real trades like that happen in the NHL, but there's usually little to no consideration of the other team. "Value" is frequently code for "I'm neither aware of nor interested in the circumstance of half of the teams involved in this proposal."

Of course, that doesn't change the fact that trade proposals are for fun and don't need to make perfect sense. But I basically agree that most people go about it in the wrong way towards either end.
This.

I've seen quite a few realistic proposals, but of course... they either turn into a flame war with both teams wanting more and trashing the other player, or die down quickly because there's no fun in saying "good deal".

At the deadline is a bit of a different story, but if you're team is looking to acquire X player, chances are that the first question they ask is "What does that other team want?", not "how many of my redundant assets do I need to get said player".

I don't mind seeing a bad proposal here and there, it's the ones that in many cases don't take into account the needs of the other team, and in some ubsurd cases, don't even take inot account the needs of their own team. The reality is that for a trade proposal to be good, chances are that you should be extremely hesitatnt to make the deal from your team's perspective. As has been mentioned, most fan tends to overrate their own players a bit, but sometimes it gets abolsutely ridiculous.

Maybe it's because I'm a leaf fan and am tired of seeing other Leafs fans proposing deals that don't even make sense for teh Leafs...and because other fans have told them "Kaberle won't get X", that they think the Tuebert + Hickey + Moller crap is "Good value for Kaberle"..... or the constant Kaberle versus Savard threads about how "Savard is more 'valuable' because he has a long term deal" or "Kaberle is more 'valuable' because he doesn't have a concussion"... this kind of stuff doesn't matter. At the end of the day, should Chiarelli trade Savard for Kaberle? Absolutely. Should Brian Burke trade Kaberle for Savard? Problably not. If you want to debate who is more "valuable", the only question to answer is in debate is "If being offered strictly for draft picks(directly comparable assets), who would get their team a better return?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by boredmale View Post
That basically it. If somebody wants to make a fair trade proposal, there best bet is to pick 2 teams they are not fans because bais will always make one with a team somebody likes lopsided
You're also right, but then you've got the fans of one of the two teams who comes in and says "go worry about your own team and troll someone else's board".

Quote:
Originally Posted by orange is better View Post
I think you're taking this way too seriously, dude.
Who cares what some bored idiots on a message board think of player x's value? Does it matter?
The whole point of HF trade proposals is so hockey fans can discuss individual players of interest and what they think their team should be doing. It just so happens that most of these people making these proposals have no idea what they're talking about. But it's all in good fun. It's something to pass the sluggish time until the season starts. It really doesn't matter that much.
It's not a matter of taking it way too seriously... just an attempt to get fans to try and use some intelligence in proposals rather than a repeat of the same stuff over and over. Trying to get people on these boards to put themselves into a GM's shoes instead of a fan who would like to see Sidney Crosby acquired for 4th, 5th, and 6th round picks.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Respect Your Edler View Post
Honestly, I'd love it if trade proposals were banned altogether. They make no sense. I'd rather just argue about rumours and signings. At least those have some basis of reality.
There's nothing wrong with proposals in principle....they often do get people to think about the kinds of mvoes that their team is liekly to make. The problem is that 90% of them are dumb.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jani8 View Post
Are you trying to justify your dumbass proposals now?

Remember this gem you made to get Savard to Toronto?

"more along the lines of a player like Luca Caputi + a guy like Mikus... in which case you've got a tough decision."

BTW, Boston is not in significant cap trouble and it has been explained to you numerous times. It just doesn't seem to sink in.
NHLnumbers and Capgeek.com will tell you differently. It's been explained to you numerous times as to why the Bruins may decide life is better without Marc Savard. They're $2.5m over the cap, and while Sturm is on LTIR to start the year, they do need to leave some cap space for deadlien moves and short term injuries.


Last edited by seanlinden: 08-05-2010 at 04:21 AM.
seanlinden is online now  
Old
08-05-2010, 04:18 AM
  #12
um
Registered User
 
um's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,342
vCash: 500
actually in trade proposals i usually overrate the other teams players and my own teams fans complain

um is online now  
Old
08-05-2010, 04:19 AM
  #13
um
Registered User
 
um's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,342
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Respect Your Edler View Post
Honestly, I'd love it if trade proposals were banned altogether. They make no sense. I'd rather just argue about rumours and signings. At least those have some basis of reality.
you dont have to open them, i enjoy them so i choose to open them.

um is online now  
Old
08-05-2010, 04:25 AM
  #14
GoHomez
Registered User
 
GoHomez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: 8 km from the Globe
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,153
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Appreci8 View Post
Fans make proposals from the perspective of what their team needs, not others.
This.
And if I might add, what their team's fans might consider giving up, which usually ends up with chump change.
So in the end we have a trade that strenghtens one team while the other ends up with a huge amount of nothing.

GoHomez is offline  
Old
08-05-2010, 04:26 AM
  #15
terex
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfried View Post
At the end of the day, should Chiarelli trade Savard for Kaberle? Absolutely. Should Brian Burke trade Kaberle for Savard? Problably not.
Your opinion is not fact. Arguing from a false and imagined position of authority is... questionable. Just stop trying to show how smart you are. If you don't like bad proposals, use the ignore feature or give constructive feedback on how to fix them.

You are not better than your peers on this forum. We are all equals. Relax, crusader.


Last edited by terex: 08-05-2010 at 04:32 AM.
terex is offline  
Old
08-05-2010, 05:31 AM
  #16
Rob Scuderi
Registered User
 
Rob Scuderi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 2,708
vCash: 500
I don't know what was funnier in the OP, you defining the word "alternative" or spending half the post explaining why you think that make trades is a pointless effort for different reasons then spend the next half of your post examining trades proposals and determining how legitimate they are.

I also enjoyed how you took issue with users trying to find a "value" for x player only to then talk about how a combination of 3 Kings prospects was "crap" value for Kaberle.

Was there any point for you to right up your original post other than to create some quasi-grandiose display?

Rob Scuderi is offline  
Old
08-05-2010, 05:41 AM
  #17
Qvist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Country: Norway
Posts: 2,337
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by terex View Post
Your opinion is not fact. Arguing from a false and imagined position of authority is... questionable. Just stop trying to show how smart you are. If you don't like bad proposals, use the ignore feature or give constructive feedback on how to fix them.

You are not better than your peers on this forum. We are all equals. Relax, crusader.
That is truly one of the silliest posts I have read on these boards. The man expressed an opinion. You can agree with it or disagree with it. That brings into play what is commonly referred to as arguments. Which we use so that we're not reduced to the sort of inane idiocy represented by reasoning along the lines of "you're no better than me, so my opinion is just as valid as yours".

Qvist is offline  
Old
08-05-2010, 06:06 AM
  #18
timorousme
luongod
 
timorousme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,523
vCash: 500
i don't think i understand the point of proposals; what exactly does it accomplish? If we find fair value, is there a section of the CBA that states said trade must be executed?

Fan of Team A proposes a trade based entirely on his teams needs, Fans of Team B flame him and speak with perfect authority on what their GM is actually looking for and how much he really values his players, because, y'know, they've crawled inside their GM's head. And then it devolves into bickering over whether two guys that they've never met would agree to trade a bunch of other players based on amateur internet scouting.

its not enough to play fantasy hockey, you have to let it bleed in to real-life. or as close to real-life as this board gets. you, hfboarder, are truly the world's greatest hockey mind, and you're only one thread away from proving it to everyone.

timorousme is offline  
Old
08-05-2010, 06:09 AM
  #19
DapperDan
Bad Thoughts
 
DapperDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: place
Country: United States
Posts: 2,899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfried View Post
TORONTO - LOS ANGELES - Wayne Simmonds + Justin Williams for Tomas Kaberle + Mikhial Grabovski.... The Kings are short on offensive talent and have 2 very good puckmovers on their back end. Obviously the Leafs need wingers, but Simmonds/Williams are really no better than what the Leafs could sign in free agency today, and they cannot afford to be sacrificing offfence at centre. You see this thread go into a ridiculous discussion about who has more "value" and arguements over what Kaberle is "worth" with only 1 year left, but the reality is, that someone is going to give the Leafs a player that makes their team better than the alternative of keeping Kaberle and signing UFAs; or he's not going to be traded. We saw a thr
Really? Like who?

P.S. I get the feeling you're one of those people that just loves to hear himself talk

DapperDan is offline  
Old
08-05-2010, 06:09 AM
  #20
Qvist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Country: Norway
Posts: 2,337
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by timorousme View Post
i don't think i understand the point of proposals; what exactly does it accomplish? If we find fair value, is there a section of the CBA that states said trade must be executed?

Fan of Team A proposes a trade based entirely on his teams needs, Fans of Team B flame him and speak with perfect authority on what their GM is actually looking for and how much he really values his players, because, y'know, they've crawled inside their GM's head. And then it devolves into bickering over whether two guys that they've never met would agree to trade a bunch of other players based on amateur internet scouting.

its not enough to play fantasy hockey, you have to let it bleed in to real-life. or as close to real-life as this board gets. you, hfboarder, are truly the world's greatest hockey mind, and you're only one thread away from proving it to everyone.
THE SMITHS!!

Of course, you are perfectly right. How could you not be, with that avatar.

What really irks me with proposal discussions is that fans seem to treat it like some kind of game, where the object is to get the other side to give up as much as possible. As if they're playing GM, and fans of the other team is their counterpart across the table. Surely the only reasonable point in discussing trade scenarios is to try and identify if they make sense relative to the known needs and priorities of each team.

To the OP: While I see whatyou're getting at, I would not discount the notion that an asset has a certain value in a more general sense than what a given individual GM is prepared to give up for it. And I do think teams operate at least in part with that in mind. As you say yourself, value is what someone is willing to give up to acquire it. But that neccessarily brings into play things like what you think someone else might be willing to give up for it if you hold on to it for another six months. Ie, a notion of general asset value that is not wholly reducible to the best offer currently on the table.


Last edited by Qvist: 08-05-2010 at 06:21 AM.
Qvist is offline  
Old
08-05-2010, 06:11 AM
  #21
kingsholygrail
Interference = Cup
 
kingsholygrail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Derpifornia
Country: United States
Posts: 44,162
vCash: 500
Nobody tries to make a fair trade even in the NHL. Everyone tries for an edge, usually by playing off the needs of the other team.

With the cap system, there's a big numbers game floating around it all as well where a great player can cost so much that no one bites, especially this off season with goalies.

kingsholygrail is offline  
Old
08-05-2010, 06:12 AM
  #22
Seachd
Registered User
 
Seachd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Fail
Posts: 13,498
vCash: 50
So you tell everyone else that they have no idea what actual trade value is, because it's the GMs who decide (common knowledge), then you go into why some proposals won't happen?

If you were just going to contradict yourself, you could have done so in a lot fewer words.

Seachd is offline  
Old
08-05-2010, 06:51 AM
  #23
Sureves
Registered User
 
Sureves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 7,108
vCash: 500
This is shocking coming from you jfried. As one poster has already mentioned, you have been the creator of an abundance of...let's say "unfair"...trade proposals.

As for the content of your post, do you really not understand why we make proposals as we do? Because we are not GMs, and most of us don't have access to a GM we can speak to. For that reason, we play with the tools we have which is which player(s) are worth which player(s) in terms of their individual value. Naturally we don't have the knowledge GMs have, so what you are proposing is that we should stop all trade proposals (not a bad idea).

Either that or somehow you feel you have better GM knowledge than the rest of us which, based on what you expect for Kaberle: you don't.

Sureves is offline  
Old
08-05-2010, 06:59 AM
  #24
IrishPaulie
Sooshii is AWESOME!!
 
IrishPaulie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Woostah
Country: Ireland
Posts: 4,683
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to IrishPaulie
I think all trade proposals should have a poll at the top that's options are fair, unfair, or close. After a day of voting on the thread if it is deemed by most to be unfair then there's really no need to discuss and the thread goes away. If its deemed fair or close then the thread opens up to discussion for a day or two. Whatever can't be worked out in a day shouldn't be dragged on in arguments for a month where name calling and mocking just take over.

Just my 2cents

IrishPaulie is offline  
Old
08-05-2010, 07:09 AM
  #25
Vipers31
Moderator
Advanced Stagnostic
 
Vipers31's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Bergisch Gladbach
Country: Germany
Posts: 11,430
vCash: 500
I think the value criticism goes to far. Trade value, just like money when that concept started, is an abstract value that includes most of the things you say. A lot of people are simply not able to put these things into context, can't evaluate their own and other teams' players in the right relations or don't take needs into account, as a few examples. A lot is ideally included in that abstract term we call "trade value". It's not that the concept is flawed, it's that it's a complicated process to fit all of the many things to be considered into that value. That's also where I most importantly disagree with you: the attributes you mentioned at the end, especially age and contract have a very noticeable influnence on what youself earlier described as a GM's thought process of what a player would add to his team, as much as it does on a "trade value" to a certain team that includes all these factors.

Proposals end up being bad due to the majority of people being not very good at recognizing sometimes even rather basic factors in this term called "trade value", not due to the existence of the term.

To put it provocatively: the concept isn't bad, people are. And people wouldn't make better proposals on average if they didn't have an idea of the concept of a "trade value", they would still be bad at recognizing the factors that need to be considered to propose a fair trade or to come up with a "realistic trade value".

Vipers31 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 03:24 PM.

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.