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.

A recently signed UFA (Theoretical Discussion)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-08-2011, 11:41 PM
  #51
Rhodes 81
grit those teeth
 
Rhodes 81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Atlanta
Country: United States
Posts: 12,282
vCash: 500
i don't think it's a guarantee.

a player might have signed with the highest contract he was offered, but maybe there might be a team that didn't pursue him a month ago, but because of something else that happened (for instance missed out on another free agent, made a trade, etc.) might want him now.

Rhodes 81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2011, 11:53 PM
  #52
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhodes 81 View Post
i don't think it's a guarantee.

a player might have signed with the highest contract he was offered, but maybe there might be a team that didn't pursue him a month ago, but because of something else that happened (for instance missed out on another free agent, made a trade, etc.) might want him now.
Yes, thats why we need to use a margin of error.

They might want him now, but are they likely to give valuable asset for the player?

Even if they would take him on waiver and therefore prove the player dont have a negative value. his value could be still close to Zero, well inside the margin of error.

palindrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2011, 12:02 AM
  #53
Rhodes 81
grit those teeth
 
Rhodes 81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Atlanta
Country: United States
Posts: 12,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
Yes, thats why we need to use a margin of error.

They might want him now, but are they likely to give valuable asset for the player?

Even if they would take him on waiver and therefore prove the player dont have a negative value. his value could be still close to Zero, well inside the margin of error.
well let's say next offseason, lou lamoriello thinks it's a guarantee that that he will re-sign parise. on the first day of free agency he doesn't pursue any top 6 forwards. fast forward three days later and all of a sudden parise decides to play somewhere else. i'd bet lou would be willing to move something to get the top 6 forward he now lost. after all if he never had parise, he may have been willing to pay more than the player got, so he might be willing to give up a valuable asset to get that player.

Rhodes 81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2011, 12:22 AM
  #54
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhodes 81 View Post
well let's say next offseason, lou lamoriello thinks it's a guarantee that that he will re-sign parise. on the first day of free agency he doesn't pursue any top 6 forwards. fast forward three days later and all of a sudden parise decides to play somewhere else. i'd bet lou would be willing to move something to get the top 6 forward he now lost. after all if he never had parise, he may have been willing to pay more than the player got, so he might be willing to give up a valuable asset to get that player.
First we would need to assume that NJ was the teams willing to give the most money for this UFA !

Second the fact that Parise sign elsewhere could make another player suddenly available, as Parise would take someone else job. the supply/demand balance in the league would stay the same.

Third there is a difference between a player you are willing to sign as UFA and one you are willing to trade Asset for.

I agree that in this case the player would have a positive value. But how often it is likely to happen? i think if we reserve a margin of error to the theory, it cover situation like this.

I thank you for your input, greatly appreciated.


Last edited by palindrom: 08-09-2011 at 12:32 AM.
palindrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2011, 01:31 AM
  #55
Blane Youngblood
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DG View Post
Olesz has negative value but Campbell doesn't. Looking at the ratio of salary to value, Florida determined this favoured them. Otherwise, they wouldn't have made the trade because they have no incentive to take on 4M in cap space for negative value. I don't get what you are trying to prove.
Disagree with this last point.

I think both Campbell and Olesz had negative value that was probably equivalent. In this discusison, you can't seperate the player from their salary.

Everyone in the league would take Brian Campbell for $3M but nobody would take him for $7.5M.

Chicago had to eat Olesz contract to get rid of Campbell, that alone tells you that both had negative value, or Chicago would have traded Campbell for anyting of value, say a 7th round pick rather than picking up Olesz at his contract but they couldn't.

Having negative value doesn't mean you are a bad hockey player, it just means that you are unable to earn your salary.

Blane Youngblood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2011, 01:38 AM
  #56
Blane Youngblood
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
An exception im trying to my hypothesis:

- an UFA who signed to the team giving him the most $,
- And underperformed since then,
- While the market for this kind of player was oversupplied (new rookies coming in the league, Player coming back from injury).
- While the league salary cap ceiling decreased...
- and the player still have many years left on his contract.

and despite that, seeing this player being traded alone for a valuable, positive asset.

.. could it be even possible? can you think of a circumstance it could happen ? It would invalidate the theory as it is formulated right now.
The only type of exception you will find is a guy like Chris Pronger when he wants to retire. In the offseason when he retires (before his contract runs out). He will have value to a team trying to get to the cap floor even though he would likely be underperforming due to his age and cap hit.

A cheap team will trade for his cap hit in order to get to the cap floor and receive revenue sharing even through they are not spending real dollars upto the threshold.

Based on the rules as they are now, you could trade for guys like Pronger, Luongo, Hossa, and all of those guys in the cheap years of their super long contracts and reach the cap floor with a payroll under $10M which will gurantee you a fair sized profit (and an awful team) while rebuilding.

Blane Youngblood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2011, 06:12 AM
  #57
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blane Youngblood View Post
The only type of exception you will find is a guy like Chris Pronger when he wants to retire. In the offseason when he retires (before his contract runs out). He will have value to a team trying to get to the cap floor even though he would likely be underperforming due to his age and cap hit.

A cheap team will trade for his cap hit in order to get to the cap floor and receive revenue sharing even through they are not spending real dollars upto the threshold.

Based on the rules as they are now, you could trade for guys like Pronger, Luongo, Hossa, and all of those guys in the cheap years of their super long contracts and reach the cap floor with a payroll under $10M which will gurantee you a fair sized profit (and an awful team) while rebuilding.
Well, i already included this in my original post, but i forget to add it here. so we should add this condition..

- His actual salary is now superrioir to his cap hits.

palindrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2011, 06:57 AM
  #58
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 25,248
vCash: 500
OP

all I know is that Campbell has had negativ value but we were still able to dump his contract.

Player value on the ice > contract

Bubba88 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2011, 12:13 PM
  #59
DG
Registered User
 
DG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,775
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blane Youngblood View Post
Disagree with this last point.

I think both Campbell and Olesz had negative value that was probably equivalent. In this discusison, you can't seperate the player from their salary.

Everyone in the league would take Brian Campbell for $3M but nobody would take him for $7.5M.

Chicago had to eat Olesz contract to get rid of Campbell, that alone tells you that both had negative value, or Chicago would have traded Campbell for anyting of value, say a 7th round pick rather than picking up Olesz at his contract but they couldn't.

Having negative value doesn't mean you are a bad hockey player, it just means that you are unable to earn your salary.
Yeah, good point.

I guess they both had negative value thus making it worth it to them in that both teams got positives fromt he trade.

Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
An exception im trying to my hypothesis:

- an UFA who signed to the team giving him the most $,
- And underperformed since then,
- While the market for this kind of player was oversupplied (new rookies coming in the league, Player coming back from injury).
- While the league salary cap ceiling decreased...
- and the player still have many years left on his contract.

and despite that, seeing this player being traded alone for a valuable, positive asset.

.. could it be even possible? can you think of a circumstance it could happen ? It would invalidate the theory as it is formulated right now.
But your theory isn't controversial... who would argue with this? that's why I'm confused... I think what you're trying to prove is already accepted.

DG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2011, 12:34 PM
  #60
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DG View Post
Yeah, good point.

I guess they both had negative value thus making it worth it to them in that both teams got positives fromt he trade.



But your theory isn't controversial... who would argue with this? that's why I'm confused... I think what you're trying to prove is already accepted.
Its more about clarifying than proving.

palindrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2011, 07:05 PM
  #61
MrVisser
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 652
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
Volatile, but predictable to a certain point. Many good trader make fortune on the stock market.

I think that evaluating a player's value is easier than Evaluating the value of a share.


The theory im trying to elaborate on this thread is part of the equation. And i didnt find many exception yet. (Considering of course the factor that can modify a player value.)

An exception im trying to my hypothesis:

- an UFA who signed to the team giving him the most $,
- And underperformed since then,
- While the market for this kind of player was oversupplied (new rookies coming in the league, Player coming back from injury).
- While the league salary cap ceiling decreased...
- and the player still have many years left on his contract.

and despite that, seeing this player being traded alone for a valuable, positive asset.

.. could it be even possible? can you think of a circumstance it could happen ? It would invalidate the theory as it is formulated right now.
I think the problem is that value isn't 1-dimensional. It's relative to the team.

I'm not sure what the value for defense was at the time, but Lebda+Slaney for Lombardi+Franson might be a good example.

Leafs sign Lebda as UFA, arguably the max offer, under-performs (or performs terribly), gets packaged with a non-AHLer for Franson who can be considered to have value.

According to your previous arguments: Yes, Lebda has negative value, and I agree with that. But I think this serves as a disagreement to your statement that I've underlined above.

Unless you want to add a clause "And the UFA wasn't named Lebda" to your theory.

MrVisser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2011, 03:23 AM
  #62
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrVisser View Post
I think the problem is that value isn't 1-dimensional. It's relative to the team.

I'm not sure what the value for defense was at the time, but Lebda+Slaney for Lombardi+Franson might be a good example.

Leafs sign Lebda as UFA, arguably the max offer, under-performs (or performs terribly), gets packaged with a non-AHLer for Franson who can be considered to have value.

According to your previous arguments: Yes, Lebda has negative value, and I agree with that. But I think this serves as a disagreement to your statement that I've underlined above.

Unless you want to add a clause "And the UFA wasn't named Lebda" to your theory.
You forgot that the main part of the Franson trade was Lombardi. A player with a clear negative value.

If the package of Franson + Lombardi had any value dont you think Nashville would had traded it for a more valuable player than someone they just put on waiver?
Clealy nashville didnt wanted Lebda. If it was possible for them to make this trade without Lebda, they would had gone for it.

Nashville just waived lebda and no teams claimed him, They plan to buyout his contract. It doesnt make sense they traded value to spoil money on a buyout contract.

I agree that value of a player is relative to a team, but when a player clear the waiver, what is his relative value to all team?.


Last edited by palindrom: 08-10-2011 at 06:58 AM.
palindrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2011, 06:54 AM
  #63
MrVisser
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 652
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
You forgot that the main part of the Franson trade was Lombardi. A player with a clear negative value.

How can we put any value to lebda.. Nashville just waived him and no teams claimed him? They plan to buyout his contract.

Would you trade any valuable asset for a player you plan to buy-out? it doesnt make sense!

If the package of Franson + Lombardi had any value dont you think Nashville would had traded it for a more valuable player than someone they just put on waiver?
Clealy nashville didnt wanted Lebda. If it was possible for them to make this trade without Lebda, they would had gone for it.

I agree that value of a player is relative to a team, but when a player clear the waiver, what is his relative value to all team?.
First, I didn't put any value to Lebda, I claimed that he is a negative value asset.

Second, I am replying to the quote I highlighted:

"and despite that, seeing this player being traded alone for a valuable, positive asset. .. could it be even possible? can you think of a circumstance it could happen ?"

Nashville did trade a valueable asset for a player they plan to buy-out, they traded Franson. Franson is just less value to them. And Lombardi's contract is a huge inconvenience to them.

I'll try and put it into imaginary numbers:

1. Lombardi's contract is a -8 value to them because they they are tight on money (don't know that for sure, this is just hypothetical), and franson is a +2, they have lots of D in the pool. Nashville trades negative value away (-6). Lebda represents a -4 to Nashville because he has a smaller contract and shorter term, say Slaney has 0 value. Lombardi dumps -6 value and gains -4 value, they are +2

2. From toronto's perspective, they receive Lombardi's contract, but the money is not as important to them, so the value to them is -2. They receive Franson, which is still a positive value asset at, say, +3 for the leafs. They get rid of Lebda who was a -1 just for his contract and Slaney who we'll say is still 0. Leafs perspective are +2 in the trade.

Without getting too hung up on the actual values, this is an example of how Lebda, who is negative value, was traded (arguably) alone, and a positive value asset came back. Perhaps I'm not giving Slaney the credit he deserves, but TBH if he wasn't included, I wouldn't see the trade being too much different.

MrVisser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2011, 07:02 AM
  #64
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrVisser View Post
First, I didn't put any value to Lebda, I claimed that he is a negative value asset.

Second, I am replying to the quote I highlighted:

"and despite that, seeing this player being traded alone for a valuable, positive asset. .. could it be even possible? can you think of a circumstance it could happen ?"

Nashville did trade a valueable asset for a player they plan to buy-out, they traded Franson. Franson is just less value to them. And Lombardi's contract is a huge inconvenience to them.

I'll try and put it into imaginary numbers:

1. Lombardi's contract is a -8 value to them because they they are tight on money (don't know that for sure, this is just hypothetical), and franson is a +2, they have lots of D in the pool. Nashville trades negative value away (-6). Lebda represents a -4 to Nashville because he has a smaller contract and shorter term, say Slaney has 0 value. Lombardi dumps -6 value and gains -4 value, they are +2

2. From toronto's perspective, they receive Lombardi's contract, but the money is not as important to them, so the value to them is -2. They receive Franson, which is still a positive value asset at, say, +3 for the leafs. They get rid of Lebda who was a -1 just for his contract and Slaney who we'll say is still 0. Leafs perspective are +2 in the trade.

Without getting too hung up on the actual values, this is an example of how Lebda, who is negative value, was traded (arguably) alone, and a positive value asset came back. Perhaps I'm not giving Slaney the credit he deserves, but TBH if he wasn't included, I wouldn't see the trade being too much different.
I understand your concept of relative value. Well explained.

But do you agree Nashville would had rather preferred to make this deal without Leda coming back?

Would toroto make this deal if they cant send Lebda back?

Lebda was not a factor helping toronto to make this trade, but he was an obstacle to it.


Last edited by palindrom: 08-10-2011 at 07:12 AM.
palindrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2011, 01:51 PM
  #65
MrVisser
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 652
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
I understand your concept of relative value. Well explained.

But do you agree Nashville would had rather preferred to make this deal without Leda coming back?

Would toroto make this deal if they cant send Lebda back?

Lebda was not a factor helping toronto to make this trade, but he was an obstacle to it.
I already agreed to this by saying Lebda is a negative value asset.. what more do you want from me??

I'm just saying it is completely possible to trade a negative value asset alone to acquire positive value assets.

MrVisser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2011, 05:04 PM
  #66
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrVisser View Post
I already agreed to this by saying Lebda is a negative value asset.. what more do you want from me??

I'm just saying it is completely possible to trade a negative value asset alone to acquire positive value assets.
The way i understand it, was more trading a negative value for a less negative one.

Remember that (Franson + Lombardi) total value was negative. Not positive.
If possible Toronto could had choose to get them without sending Lebda back.

palindrom 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 07:42 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.