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 player's Contract (which kind of contract hold most value?)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-29-2011, 07:05 PM
  #1
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
A player's Contract (which kind of contract hold most value?)

Let say for the exact same player, How much a contract can affect his trade value ?

Take Alex Edler (25yo) for Example.

Which one of these contract would give him the most trade value ? (you can rank them)

- 2 years at 3 250 000$ then UFA (his actual contract).
- 2 years at 3 250 000$ + 3 years at 5 500 000$
- 2 years at 3 250 000$ + 9 years at 6 000 000$


Or Carter (26yo).

- 1 years at 5 250 000$ Then UFA
- 5 years at 5 250 000$
- 11 years at 5 250 000$

The question is How much more are you willing to give for a player having the contract you like most instead of the contract you like less.?

Additional questions: Do the flyers or SJ make the same offer for Pronger/Burns if these players doesnt agree to resign with them? Did it change something or not?


Last edited by palindrom: 08-29-2011 at 08:57 PM.
palindrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 07:21 PM
  #2
Egoclapper
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
Let say for the exact same player, How much a contract can affect his trade value ?

Take Alex Edler (25yo) for Example.

Which one of these contract would give him the most trade value ? (you can rank them)

- 2 years at 3 250 000$ then UFA (his actual contract).
- 2 years at 3 250 000$ + 3 years at 5 500 000$
- 2 years at 3 250 000$ + 9 years at 6 000 000$


Or Carter (26yo).

- 1 years at 5 250 000$ Then UFA
- 5 years at 5 250 000$
- 11 years at 5 250 000$

The question is How much more are you willing to give for a player having the contract you like most instead of the contract you like less.?
The first one. Why would you want Edler at $5.5-6 million per season?

Egoclapper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 07:25 PM
  #3
Monarchist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 872
vCash: 500
It depends on $$ distribution too, not just cap.

Monarchist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 07:25 PM
  #4
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egoclapper View Post
The first one. Why would you want Edler at $5.5-6 million per season?
According to Cannuck fans he was their Number #01 last year, better than Ehroff or Bieksa and his best years are ahead of him, and he should get some Norris vote next year if he is healthy. He have a shot to become the best defenseman the Vancouver franchise ever had. And we can compare him to Brentt Burns so I evaluate his future UFA contract Accordingly.


Last edited by palindrom: 08-29-2011 at 07:34 PM.
palindrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 07:26 PM
  #5
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monarchist View Post
It depends on $$ distribution too, not just cap.
Yes agree, but i didnt wanted to take this factor into account in this thread, it would complicate the discussion.

palindrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 07:37 PM
  #6
Cocoa Crisp
Registered User
 
Cocoa Crisp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NYC
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 2,786
vCash: 500
posted this in the other thread:

You put far too much stock in years left to UFA. The uncertainty attached to not yet having signed Edler carries far less risk than you're assuming. He's not a deadline acquisition for an extended playoff run, with unrestricted free agency just around the corner.

If Edler were to be traded today, his return would be similar to Burns, even though he couldn't be signed to a new contract for another calendar year. This is because a two year stint with a team, at a favorable rate no less, is a very valuable thing. Two years is an eternity in professional sports - easily enough time to sell a player on your team and your city.

By the end of two years, you'd have just as much chance as the Canucks do now for retaining Edler's services, which in my estimation are very good odds indeed.

Cocoa Crisp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 07:57 PM
  #7
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoa Crisp View Post
posted this in the other thread:

You put far too much stock in years left to UFA. The uncertainty attached to not yet having signed Edler carries far less risk than you're assuming. He's not a deadline acquisition for an extended playoff run, with unrestricted free agency just around the corner.

If Edler were to be traded today, his return would be similar to Burns, even though he couldn't be signed to a new contract for another calendar year. This is because a two year stint with a team, at a favorable rate no less, is a very valuable thing. Two years is an eternity in professional sports - easily enough time to sell a player on your team and your city.

By the end of two years, you'd have just as much chance as the Canucks do now for retaining Edler's services, which in my estimation are very good odds indeed.
I suggest we continue the discussion here.. ..i made it a thread because our discussion was off topic in the other thread.

here is my reply:

Ok, There is as much chance a new team could resign Edler than the canuck but this is still not near as good as 100% chance SJ have to retain Burns right now. (it could be interesting to calculate the % a team have to retain a player, any stats about this somewhere?)

2 years are an eternity for the shortsighted, What if Ehrhoff had a 5-6 years contract in 2009 instead of a 2 years ? His 2 years only decreased his value.

Do you at least agree that a player willingness to resign with his new team (as with Pronger and Burns) increase their trade value ? Even if we dont agree about how much value this fact hold.


Last edited by palindrom: 08-29-2011 at 08:05 PM.
palindrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 08:19 PM
  #8
Cocoa Crisp
Registered User
 
Cocoa Crisp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NYC
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 2,786
vCash: 500
Edler is signed. He's signed for 2 years at below market value. That has value unto itself. I still maintain that 2 years is an eternity, especially from the perspective of a GM. Their job is never completely secure. Signing Edler two years from now could easily be the task of their successor so it's not really shortsighted at all.

If, for example, having Alex Edler shore up your blueline for the next two years means the difference between making the playoffs or a division title - and he may well, in the opinion of more that just Canuck fans he has the makings of a true #1 dman - and you'll lose him after that to UFA, you pull the trigger on that deal as a GM. It's the right thing to do and could well mean that you'll still be gainfully employed two years hence.

But it's not even as bad as all that. As I mentioned before, you've got two years to sell him on your team and your city: his negotiation rights, if you will for two whole years. That's also valuable.

But let's not make this a private conversation between the two of us. See where other posters' opinion on the matter fall.

Cocoa Crisp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 08:39 PM
  #9
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoa Crisp View Post
Edler is signed. He's signed for 2 years at below market value. That has value unto itself. I still maintain that 2 years is an eternity, especially from the perspective of a GM. Their job is never completely secure. Signing Edler two years from now could easily be the task of their successor so it's not really shortsighted at all.

If, for example, having Alex Edler shore up your blueline for the next two years means the difference between making the playoffs or a division title - and he may well, in the opinion of more that just Canuck fans he has the makings of a true #1 dman - and you'll lose him after that to UFA, you pull the trigger on that deal as a GM. It's the right thing to do and could well mean that you'll still be gainfully employed two years hence.

But it's not even as bad as all that. As I mentioned before, you've got two years to sell him on your team and your city: his negotiation rights, if you will for two whole years. That's also valuable.

But let's not make this a private conversation between the two of us. See where other posters' opinion on the matter fall.
The average years of service of a GM is well beyond 2 years (i could agree if we was talking about coach!). And maybe i am naive but i think GM should care about the well being of a team beyond his own contract.

The question is would a team rather give more to have Edler signed for 2 years or 5 years? (Even if these additional years are not below market value.)

In 2009 Would Erhoffh hold the same trade value if he had a 5 years instead of a 2 years contract.

Would SJ make the exact same offer for Burns if Burns doesnt agree to resign with them? (I get that we disagree on this one, but IMO the offer would be inferior.)

The Carter/Richards example can be useful in this thread as well.

Would they hold the same value if they had a 2 years contract?

By the way i appreciate the way you argument. I know you consider it more worthy to argument with your sofa than me But i really think a discussion can worth it even if the other dont end up seeing thing the same way. Im use to learn cultural/opinion difference in my travel and respect it.

I understand hockey is a passion. But some poster take it too personal. We are only talking about hockey.


Last edited by palindrom: 08-29-2011 at 08:54 PM.
palindrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 09:02 PM
  #10
The Infamous Tank
Franklinator Maker
 
The Infamous Tank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: Norfolk Island
Posts: 1,078
vCash: 500
The longer a younger player signed at near market value (or below) would have more value than if signed for a shorter term.
Example:
5 years of Edler @ 3.whatever>>>>>>2 years of Edler @ 3.whatever

contracts can depraciate a players value in the same way.

Which would you rather have 1 year of Redden @ 6.5
or 3 years of Redden @ 6.5?
Older players signed long term with bad hits aka Redden really have little to no trade value.

Contracts like Carter's are more of a gamble. Is it better to have carter and maybe an extra 2 million now and then carry the burden of that contract later when he won't be meeting expectations. Idk maybe it's a gamble, but with the cap going up every year it comes down to a $ now> a $ later.

The Infamous Tank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 09:17 PM
  #11
Cocoa Crisp
Registered User
 
Cocoa Crisp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NYC
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 2,786
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
The average years of service of a GM is well beyond 2 years (i could agree if we was talking about coach!). And maybe i am naive but i think GM should care about the well being of a team beyond his own contract.

The question is would a team rather give more to have Edler signed for 2 years or 5 years? (Even if these additional years are not below market value.)

In 2009 Would Erhoffh hold the same trade value if he had a 5 years instead of a 2 years contract.

Would SJ make the exact same offer for Burns if Burns doesnt agree to resign with them? (I get that we disagree on this one, but IMO the offer would be inferior.)

The Carter/Richards example can be useful in this thread as well.

Would they hold the same value if they had a 2 years contract?

By the way i appreciate the way you argument. I know you consider it more worthy to argument with your sofa than me But i really think a discussion can worth it even if the other dont end up seeing thing the same way. Im use to learn cultural/opinion difference in my travel and respect it.

I understand hockey is a passion. But some poster take it too personal. We are only talking about hockey.
That depends on many variables. In the case of Ehrhoff, his cap hit at the time of the trade was deemed a liability by the Sharks. That he was under contract at all at that caphit was deemed undesirable, irrespective of term. In the case of Alex Edler, it really depends on the contract itself. For how long? For how much? How is it structured?

My point - and I firmly stand by this - is that you fixate too much on certainty. Long term contracts aren't always desirable. Gomez, Drury, Redden, Campbell, DiPietro, Luongo, Kovalchuk, the list goes on. With the length of contract lengthening, the risk increases. In the specific case of Brent Burns, his willingness to sign a longterm contract is a double edged sword. With his concussion history, you never can tell when he might go down or for how long this time 'round. What if he doesn't want to retire even though he's only played 30 games in the last two seasons? His caphit hamstrings you and your cap flexiblity for instance.

So no, I don't see a two year contract as necessarily a bad thing, particularly when it's at a favorable caphit. Would I prefer it to be 5 years at the same hit? Sure. At double that? Maybe not. At some point the law of diminishing returns kicks in and while it's up for debate where that point is, it's just not as cut and dried as you're making things out to be when it comes to contract length.

Ask yourself this: Is Christian Ehrhoff now a really valuable dman because of his caphit? He earns 40% of his contract in the first 2 years - a red flag for any cash strapped franchise - and the length of term is crazy (10 years). Would he be worth more if he signed say, a five year deal worth 25M? I'd argue he would be.

Cocoa Crisp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 09:29 PM
  #12
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoa Crisp View Post
That depends on many variables. In the case of Ehrhoff, his cap hit at the time of the trade was deemed a liability by the Sharks. That he was under contract at all at that caphit was deemed undesirable, irrespective of term. In the case of Alex Edler, it really depends on the contract itself. For how long? For how much? How is it structured?

My point - and I firmly stand by this - is that you fixate too much on certainty. Long term contracts aren't always desirable. Gomez, Drury, Redden, Campbell, DiPietro, Luongo, Kovalchuk, the list goes on. With the length of contract lengthening, the risk increases. In the specific case of Brent Burns, his willingness to sign a longterm contract is a double edged sword. With his concussion history, you never can tell when he might go down or for how long this time 'round. What if he doesn't want to retire even though he's only played 30 games in the last two seasons? His caphit hamstrings you and your cap flexiblity for instance.

So no, I don't see a two year contract as necessarily a bad thing, particularly when it's at a favorable caphit. Would I prefer it to be 5 years at the same hit? Sure. At double that? Maybe not. At some point the law of diminishing returns kicks in and while it's up for debate where that point is, it's just not as cut and dried as you're making things out to be when it comes to contract length.

Ask yourself this: Is Christian Ehrhoff now a really valuable dman because of his caphit? He earns 40% of his contract in the first 2 years - a red flag for any cash strapped franchise - and the length of term is crazy (10 years). Would he be worth more if he signed say, a five year deal worth 25M? I'd argue he would be.
The fact that Erhoff cap hits was a Liability to the shark had no impact on the offer the other 29 teams was willing to make for him. Vancouver was still the highest bidder for him. I guess that team having hard time convincing UFA to sign with them would had made a better offer for Ehroff if this one had a 5 years contract in 2009.

I agree that long term contract are not always desirable, but for the purpose of this discussion i prefer to talk about reasonable contract for not too old (25-28yo) players: Burns, Edler, Carter, Richards.

I agree the length of a contract increase the risk, but it increase the reward as well. As long as the reward/risk ratio is positive the longer the contract, the better.(As carter 11yo contract bring him only at 35yo, my opinion is the reward far outweigh the Risk. It would be different for long term contract to a 35yo player, about burns, he played 80 games last year and he will be 31yo at the end, so i think a 5 years contract have more advantage than a 1 years one.)


Last edited by palindrom: 08-29-2011 at 09:40 PM.
palindrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 09:47 PM
  #13
Cocoa Crisp
Registered User
 
Cocoa Crisp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NYC
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 2,786
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
The fact that Erhoff cap hits was a Liability to he shark had no impact on the offer the other 29 teams was willing to make for him. Vancouver was still the highest bidder for him. I guess that team having hard time convincing UFA to sign with them would had made a better offer for Ehroff if this one had a 5 years contract in 2009.

I agree that long term contract are not always desirable, but for the purpose of this discussion i prefer to talk about reasonable contract for not too old (25-28yo) players: Burns, Edler, Carter, Richards.

I agree the length of a contract increase the risk, but it increase the reward as well. As long as the reward/risk ratio is positive the longer the contract, the better.(As carter 11yo contract bring him only at 35yo, my opinion is the reward far outweigh the Risk.)
Nope. That's just wrong. The Ehrhoff trade, much lamented by Sharks fans (and for good reason) was a product of mismanagement by Doug Wilson. The length of term on Ehrhoff's contract had very little to do with it. At the time of the trade, DW was desperate to shed salary in order to finalize a deal to acquire Heatley from the Sens. Vancouver was the only team with the cap space willing to take Ehrhoff without sending a penny back. Vancouver acquired both Ehrhoff and Brad Lukowich (another salary dump) for a nothing prospect (Rahimi) and a guaranteed late 2nd (White). Vancouver had to bury Lukowich in the minors to make things worth capwise.

That was the value of Christian Ehrhoff late in the offseason with everyone else too cap constrained to make a better offer.

As for Carter's contract, time will tell. 11 years is forever in hockey years. His contract could be an albatross a few years in. If you hadn't noticed, his productivity has taken a hit in recent years and it's no guarantee that he'll re-find his game and gel with the forwards in LA. You need look no further than Drury and Gomez for comparable situations.

Cocoa Crisp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 10:01 PM
  #14
Finnish your Czech
I love Olli Jokinen
 
Finnish your Czech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Finland
Posts: 45,904
vCash: 50
SJ and Philadelphia obviously don't make the deals if they know the player won't re-sign with them. 1 year is long enough to get someone to like your team, but it definitely isn't worth the risk to be dealing big assets for players that may not re-sign with them.
Say the two 1sts + young 2nd liner + top prospects becomes 2 firsts.

Finnish your Czech is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 10:02 PM
  #15
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoa Crisp View Post
Nope. That's just wrong. The Ehrhoff trade, much lamented by Sharks fans (and for good reason) was a product of mismanagement by Doug Wilson. The length of term on Ehrhoff's contract had very little to do with it. At the time of the trade, DW was desperate to shed salary in order to finalize a deal to acquire Heatley from the Sens. Vancouver was the only team with the cap space willing to take Ehrhoff without sending a penny back. Vancouver acquired both Ehrhoff and Brad Lukowich (another salary dump) for a nothing prospect (Rahimi) and a guaranteed late 2nd (White). Vancouver had to bury Lukowich in the minors to make things worth capwise.

That was the value of Christian Ehrhoff late in the offseason with everyone else too cap constrained to make a better offer.

As for Carter's contract, time will tell. 11 years is forever in hockey years. His contract could be an albatross a few years in. If you hadn't noticed, his productivity has taken a hit in recent years and it's no guarantee that he'll re-find his game and gel with the forwards in LA. You need look no further than Drury and Gomez for comparable situations.
Drury and Gomez was UFA contract to the highest $ offer Clearly, Carter contract was not in a comparable Situation.

Ok, i concede there was not 29 teams able to take Ehroff and Lukowich contract at the time, but Vancouver wasn't not alone in this, they had to outbid other teams. (Clearly The bidding wasnt high)


Last edited by palindrom: 08-29-2011 at 10:10 PM.
palindrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 10:04 PM
  #16
Finnish your Czech
I love Olli Jokinen
 
Finnish your Czech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Finland
Posts: 45,904
vCash: 50
In regards to the comment about if Edler's contract with a few extra years (although at market value). I think in this case it raises his value, but not by alot. In this situation, it's like guaranteeing that you are going to sign a star FA. I would pay extra for that.

Say Edler is worth 1st + top prospect + top4 dman, I'd add another first to that deal if Edler had another 3 years (at market value).

Finnish your Czech is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 10:06 PM
  #17
Finnish your Czech
I love Olli Jokinen
 
Finnish your Czech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Finland
Posts: 45,904
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
Drury and Gomez was UFA contract to the highest $ Clearly, Carter contract was not in a comparable Situation.

Ok, i concede there was not 29 teams able to take Ehroff and Lukowich contract at the time, but Vancouver was not alone in this, they was the Highest bidder. Vancouver didnt care about SJ cap space problem, they had to outbid every other teams to get Ehroff. (Clearly the bidding wasnt high).
not many teams wanted ehrhoff because most teams couldn't fit him in because it was at the point of the season where most teams had a full roster, and many were near the cap.

Finnish your Czech is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 10:11 PM
  #18
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,961
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
Would SJ make the exact same offer for Burns if Burns doesnt agree to resign with them?
Yes - because when the trade was made, Wilson didn't know if he would be able to resign Burns or not.

AIUI from Wilson's comments, he had no contact and no discussion of an extension with Burns prior to the trade.

The trade was a gamble - Seto, Coyle, and a 1st was a huge price for a one year rental, but a good deal IF he could bet Burns to sign an extension.

kdb209 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 10:13 PM
  #19
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finnish your Czech View Post
not many teams wanted ehrhoff because most teams couldn't fit him in because it was at the point of the season where most teams had a full roster, and many were near the cap.
It was a summer trade, same as Pronger, Burns, Liles, Wisniewski. Of course player dont hold the same value than at the deadline.

palindrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 10:16 PM
  #20
Canuckfan4Life2
Registered User
 
Canuckfan4Life2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,513
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finnish your Czech View Post
not many teams wanted ehrhoff because most teams couldn't fit him in because it was at the point of the season where most teams had a full roster, and many were near the cap.
IIRC he got traded to Vancouver late in August and the Canucks where taking on over 5 mill in cap/salary,considering what the cap was back then,not many teams could've done that

Canuckfan4Life2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 10:18 PM
  #21
Cocoa Crisp
Registered User
 
Cocoa Crisp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NYC
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 2,786
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
Drury and Gomez was UFA contract to the highest $ offer Clearly, Carter contract was not in a comparable Situation.

Ok, i concede there was not 29 teams able to take Ehroff and Lukowich contract at the time, but Vancouver wasn't not alone in this, they had to outbid other teams. (Clearly The bidding wasnt high)
A concession! Maybe not a sofa after all. Back to the main disagreement: After all of this, would you agree that Edler in his current situation is worth more than the 11th overall pick in 2011?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finnish your Czech View Post
In regards to the comment about if Edler's contract with a few extra years (although at market value). I think in this case it raises his value, but not by alot. In this situation, it's like guaranteeing that you are going to sign a star FA. I would pay extra for that.

Say Edler is worth 1st + top prospect + top4 dman, I'd add another first to that deal if Edler had another 3 years (at market value).
That sounds about right to me. A mid first.

Cocoa Crisp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 10:18 PM
  #22
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
Yes - because when the trade was made, Wilson didn't know if he would be able to resign Burns or not.

AIUI from Wilson's comments, he had no contact and no discussion of an extension with Burns prior to the trade.

The trade was a gamble - Seto, Coyle, and a 1st was a huge price for a one year rental, but a good deal IF he could bet Burns to sign an extension.
Hum.. According to what i read: Finally, all along general manager Doug Wilson claimed that getting Burns signed to a long-term deal wouldn’t be an issue.
even if it was a gamble, it doesn't change the fact that he traded with high expectation to resign him long term.

But can we assume the same when making a proposal on this forum? Or its better to go with certitude.


Last edited by palindrom: 08-29-2011 at 10:48 PM.
palindrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 10:33 PM
  #23
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoa Crisp View Post
A concession! Maybe not a sofa after all. Back to the main disagreement: After all of this, would you agree that Edler in his current situation is worth more than the 11th overall pick in 2011?

.
As i say before, not in a Pre-draft trade. I invite you to study all pre draft trade since the lockout involving a draft pick around 11th. The value of a player is always relative to what else is available on the market.

If i am a GM and see carter signed for 11 years is available on the market for a 8th overall + Voracek. If a late 2nd round can get me Liles for 1 years. If i see plenty of UFA I dont think giving a lot more than 11th overall for a 2 years of garantee service from Edler would be an option. Especially for a rebuilding team.
I would go for other options, as did Colorado by signing an UFA.

Do you think Edler had the same value than Carter? if he worth more than a 11th overall., according to you


Last edited by palindrom: 08-29-2011 at 11:02 PM.
palindrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 10:59 PM
  #24
Cocoa Crisp
Registered User
 
Cocoa Crisp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NYC
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 2,786
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
As i say before, not in a Pre-draft trade. I invite you to study all pre draft trade since the lockout involving a draft pick around 11th. The value of a player is always relative to what else is available on the market.
I would argue that Brent Burns was dealt pre-draft. As in 27th overall pick prior to the pick being used at the draft. I would also argue that the 27th plus Devin Setoguchi (signed for 3 more years) plus Charlie Coyle is worth more than the 11th overall pre-draft.

The rumor was that Colorado was willing to part with the 11th overall for Schneider or Bernier. Edler would have garnered more. As Burns did.

If you still disagree, maybe you should start a poll.

Cocoa Crisp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 11:11 PM
  #25
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoa Crisp View Post
I would argue that Brent Burns was dealt pre-draft. As in 27th overall pick prior to the pick being used at the draft. I would also argue that the 27th plus Devin Setoguchi (signed for 3 more years) plus Charlie Coyle is worth more than the 11th overall pre-draft.

The rumor was that Colorado was willing to part with the 11th overall for Schneider or Bernier. Edler would have garnered more. As Burns did.

If you still disagree, maybe you should start a poll.
No problem considering Burns as a Pre-draft trade, it was a summer trade, thats was my meaning.

Please dont base the value of a player according to a rumor. Its a frequent mistake on this website. (11th for Schneider).

What about a pool about which one of these option would you do if you was a GM:

Sign one of these UFA (Erhoff, Kaberle, Hamrlik)
Acquire Carter for a 8th overall + Voracek
Acquire JM liles for a 2nd round.
Acquire Burns and then Sign him to a 5 years contract.
Acquire Edler with no Garantee to resign him for ??. (please tell me your expected value of Elder).

This pool will represent the different options offered to most GM last summer (involving Defenseman/or draft pick). And we could see how Acquiring Edler for your proposed value will sound (I remember someone proposed Edler worth more than the 2nd overall in the other Thread was it you?). We could use the last 2-3 years summer trade/signing as well to give a larger, more representative sample.


Last edited by palindrom: 08-29-2011 at 11:33 PM.
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 03:20 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.