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
08-30-2011, 01:32 PM
  #51
EdAVSfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,146
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
What about if the asking price for Edler is more than Landeskog, as suggested by some Van fans?
In that case id probably say no. Landeskog fills a need on the team much more so than does Edler. Theres also a massive difference in value between a 2nd and 11th overall.

Id love to have Edler on the team. But Colorado does have quite a few intriguing prospects on defense that it's much lower on the priority list.

EdAVSfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 01:36 PM
  #52
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieAVS View Post
Sorry, i wasnt talking about the 1 year tryout in Bouwmeester's case. I was more showing how a player can be different on different teams.



I have no doubt however, that Edler would have gotten a very similar package as Burns. But im also looking at it from the Avs standpoint. SJ had the ability to give up its offensive depth.

What do you think of the Liles trade? Was a 2nd (Boston) a fair value in comparison of the burns package? Both was UFA eligible 2012 at the time of the trade.

I know Burns worth more than Liles, But the Burns package was way more than a late 2nd.

palindrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 01:41 PM
  #53
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 20,953
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
What about if the asking price for Edler is more than Landeskog, as suggested by some Van fans?
Edler is more valuable to the Canucks, then Landeskog would be to them at this point. Neither team makes the trade.

You sure speculate a lot palindrom, all your hypotheticals are based on assumptions on your part.

You should probably change your user name to 'canuck fans devils advocate'.

arsmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 01:42 PM
  #54
EdAVSfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,146
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
What do you think of the Liles trade? Was a 2nd a fair value in comparison of the burns package? Both was UFA eligible 2012 at the time of the trade.
I think the Liles trade was probably premature and lacked the value that the Avs could have gotten for him. I think most fans were expecting a late first as compensation, and not a late 2nd. But it appears that was the market for him, as he was rumored to be on the move several times.

But him and burns are also 2 very different players, so comparing their respective values isnt really fair. Burns is more of a #1 guy while Liles is more of a complementary piece. And truly, Burns is better in probably every facet of the game when compared to Liles.

EdAVSfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 01:56 PM
  #55
barneyg
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
What do you think of the Liles trade? Was a 2nd (Boston) a fair value in comparison of the burns package? Both was UFA eligible 2012 at the time of the trade.

I know Burns worth more than Liles, But the Burns package was way more than a late 2nd.
I don't think it's comparable. Liles is a 30-year-old offensive d-man that has had consistency issues on both ends of the ice in the past. $4M on the cap can either be a slight bargain or a burden depending on how he plays this year, and he isn't exactly the only piece that the Leafs were missing to become true contenders. Burns is 4 years younger and had 2 seasons derailed by injury issues but is coming off a very good season, was always a highly-touted prospect, and at $3.55M this year is a great bargain for a contender like the Sharks.

barneyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 02:04 PM
  #56
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieAVS View Post
I think the Liles trade was probably premature and lacked the value that the Avs could have gotten for him. I think most fans were expecting a late first as compensation, and not a late 2nd. But it appears that was the market for him, as he was rumored to be on the move several times.

But him and burns are also 2 very different players, so comparing their respective values isnt really fair. Burns is more of a #1 guy while Liles is more of a complementary piece. And truly, Burns is better in probably every facet of the game when compared to Liles.
Of courses Burns is superior than Liles, but the burns package was way more then a late 2nd.

The main disagreement on this thread is that i Think the fact Burns was expected to resign long term with the shark increased the offer the Shark was willing to give for him. While other suggest it didnt matter that much.

Accordingly i think Colorado could have gotten more for Liles if they had found a team where Liles would sign an extension, instead of keeping is UFA status in 2012.

(sorry for my painful English)

palindrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 02:19 PM
  #57
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
Of courses Burns is superior than Liles, but the burns package was way more then a late 2nd.

The main disagreement on this thread is that i Think the fact Burns was expected to resign long term with the shark increased the offer the Shark was willing to give for him. While other suggest it didnt matter that much.

Accordingly i think Colorado could have gotten more for Liles if they had found a team where Liles would sign an extension, instead of keeping is UFA status in 2012.

(sorry for my painful English)
And the preponderance of responses to your assertion is that the difference in return between Burns and Liles mostly has to do with the quality of players involved.

Burns is the better player and therefore commanded a greater return. His willingness to re-sign and how that factored into his trade value can only be a matter of speculation without direct input from the parties involved. The fact is, Burns became a Shark with one year left on his contract at the time of the trade. He garnered a return far in excess of the value of the 11th overall pick and most, if not all posters have stated that it mostly had to do with the fact that Burns is a much better player than Liles overall.

I really don't know how I can state things more clearly. You may have your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it. But I don't think you've done an effective job of swaying anyone to your way of thinking.

Cocoa Crisp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 02:19 PM
  #58
EdAVSfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,146
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
Of courses Burns is superior than Liles, but the burns package was way more then a late 2nd.

The main disagreement on this thread is that i Think the fact Burns was expected to resign long term with the shark increased the offer the Shark was willing to give for him. While other suggest it didnt matter that much.

Accordingly i think Colorado could have gotten more for Liles if they had found a team where Liles would sign an extension, instead of keeping is UFA status in 2012.

(sorry for my painful English)
I really dont think finding a team that wanted to sign him to an extension played any role at all. The fact is, that no one really wanted him to begin with, or at least, no one was willing to pay more than a late 2nd. Its pretty telling when a player is traded for so little on what his true value is vs what hf believes it is.

I dont see how Colorado would have stopped toronto from speaking with him on an extension. The problem is, a player like Liles is not the type of guy you go out of your way to trade good assets for in the hopes of signing an extension. A guy like Burns is. So is a guy like Edler.

There were a couple of guys in UFA that do similar roles to that of Liles while probably costing much less. If Liles was signed even longer, he probably wouldnt have any interest from other teams.

EdAVSfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 02:40 PM
  #59
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoa Crisp View Post
And the preponderance of responses to your assertion is that the difference in return between Burns and Liles mostly has to do with the quality of players involved.

Burns is the better player and therefore commanded a greater return. His willingness to re-sign and how that factored into his trade value can only be a matter of speculation without direct input from the parties involved. The fact is, Burns became a Shark with one year left on his contract at the time of the trade. He garnered a return far in excess of the value of the 11th overall pick and most, if not all posters have stated that it mostly had to do with the fact that Burns is a much better player than Liles overall.

I really don't know how I can state things more clearly. You may have your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it. But I don't think you've done an effective job of swaying anyone to your way of thinking.
The fact is also that Burns, as Pronger did sign an extension immediately after their acquisition. The speculation about the fact it increased their value is an educated guess and not a wild guess.

''Coincidentally'' both these player got the most return ever see in the last few years on a summer trade involving a one years away for UFA player.

Kaberle ? Burke say he didnt get anything good in summer 2010.
Wadell say the same about Kovalchuck.
Some analyst said both make the mistake to not allow a future team to speak to their players about an extension.

Camalleri ? a mid 1st
Liles ? a late 2st
Wisniewski a 3nd
Demitra ? 17th + Sullivan
Vokoun ? a first + 2nd

''coincidentally'' all these player didnt resign immediately with their new teams.


Last edited by palindrom: 08-30-2011 at 03:24 PM.
palindrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 03:23 PM
  #60
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 20,953
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoa Crisp View Post
And the preponderance of responses to your assertion is that the difference in return between Burns and Liles mostly has to do with the quality of players involved.

Burns is the better player and therefore commanded a greater return. His willingness to re-sign and how that factored into his trade value can only be a matter of speculation without direct input from the parties involved. The fact is, Burns became a Shark with one year left on his contract at the time of the trade. He garnered a return far in excess of the value of the 11th overall pick and most, if not all posters have stated that it mostly had to do with the fact that Burns is a much better player than Liles overall.

I really don't know how I can state things more clearly. You may have your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it. But I don't think you've done an effective job of swaying anyone to your way of thinking.
Yeah, you really cant argue with what you are coming up with, palindrom on the other hand
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
The fact is also that Burns, as Pronger did sign an extension immediately after their acquisition. The speculation about the fact it increased their value is an educated guess and not a wild guess.

''Coincidentally'' both these player got the most return ever see in the last few years on a summer trade involving a one years away for UFA player.

Kaberle ? Burke say he didnt get anything good in summer 2010.
Wadell say the same about Kovalchuck.
Some analyst said both make the mistake to not allow a future team to speak to their players about an extension.

Camalleri ? a mid 1st
Liles ? a late 2st
Wisniewski a 3nd
Demitra ? 17th + Sullivan
Vokoun ? a first + 2nd

''coincidentally'' all these player didnt resign immediately with their new teams
All you are doing is speculating and guessing.

Burns value was based solely on one year of service, the FACT he resigned has NOTHING to do with what he was traded for. Its also important to note that the Sharks also recevied a 2nd round pick in the deal. We can 'speculate' and 'guess' that the Sharks requested this 2nd round pick as compensation if Burns decided he didnt want to resign longterm in San Jose.


I am not sure what Pronger has to do with the argument either....didnt he have a NTC that had to be waived to join Philly? I might be wrong here, but if he did waive to go to Philly signing an extension would not have been an issue since he chose to go there.

arsmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 03:29 PM
  #61
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
The shark didnt Request a 2nd round, the Shark Gave a 2nd round + Burns.

If we decompose the value of the Burns package we could argue that we are not Far in excess of a 11th overall. I think you overvalue Setoguchi and undervalue a 11th overall..

they send Burns + a 2nd (2012) probably a late one around the 52-60TH

For the 28th overall, an ex 28th overall (Coyle) and Setoguchi. (a 40 point player with upside.).

How do you definite ''far in excess'' ?

A player like Setoguchi worth probably about the price for Versteeg last summer (a 2nd and a 3th).

So let say Setoguchi value is a 2nd and we cancel out the late 2nd from SJ for the 3th. (this way gave More value to Seto than Versteeg)

That leave a 2 time a 28th overall + a 2nd for Burns.

Whats is the price to move up in the draft?.

Last summer going from the 30th overall to the 22th cost a early 2nd.

so we can say the 28th overall + 2nd (Value of Setoguchi minus the 2nd from SJ) = 20th overall

Does a 28th overall + 20th overall worth a 11th overall? i let you judge, but it doesnt seem far in excess.

I know its a lot of math a comparison, but if we compare the historical price (or last summer price) to move up in the draft. Going from the 28th overall to the 11th cost probably more than you early thought.


Last edited by palindrom: 08-30-2011 at 03:38 PM.
palindrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 03:33 PM
  #62
EdAVSfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,146
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
The fact is also that Burns, as Pronger did sign an extension immediately after their acquisition. The speculation about the fact it increased their value is an educated guess and not a wild guess.

''Coincidentally'' both these player got the most return ever see in the last few years on a summer trade involving a one years away for UFA player.

Kaberle ? Burke say he didnt get anything good in summer 2010.
Wadell say the same about Kovalchuck.
Some analyst said both make the mistake to not allow a future team to speak to their players about an extension.

Camalleri ? a mid 1st
Liles ? a late 2st
Wisniewski a 3nd
Demitra ? 17th + Sullivan
Vokoun ? a first + 2nd

''coincidentally'' all these player didnt resign immediately with their new teams
The problem you have is that your comparables arent in the same league.
Firstly, i find it to not be a good idea to compare trades of players in different positions.

So comparing what Burns and Pronger got to Cammalleri and Demitra is not a good comparison.

In either case, youre comparing players who are considered to be the best at their positions. I think you can easily make an argument that Burns and Pronger are considered in the top 10-15 defensemen. Liles and Wisniewski are REPLACEABLE by other players. You cant just go out and get a guy like Burns or Pronger in FA. But guys like Liles and Wisniewski, you can. Wisniewski was a journeyman at the time of the trade coming off a career best 30 point season in 70 games.

Cammalleri and Demitra were never considered the best at their respective positions. Maybe cammy had a case in his 80 pt season, but he also sandwiched that season with two average seasons.

Demitra was more valuable at the time of his trade, and he obtained the 17th overall and O'Sullivan, who was considered, at the time, a very good prospect. He performed great in the OHL and had an amazing season in the AHL just before the trade.

As for Vokoun, well, goalies are different altogether. Their market is very unpredictable.

If Zach Parise were on the block 1 season before UFA, hed probably get a great package also, as would other players like Kopitar, Eric Staal, etc. and that would be REGARDLESS of whether they signed an extension or not.

If youre going to compare the summer returns of Burns to previous packages, compare them to their equivalent of the same position. In other words, compare it to top wingers and forwards.

EdAVSfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 03:43 PM
  #63
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 20,953
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
The shark didnt Request a 2nd round, the Shark Gave a 2nd round + Burns.

If we decompose the value of the Burns package we could argue that we are not Far in excess of a 11th overall. I think you overvalue Setoguchi and undervalue a 11th overall..

they send Burns + a 2nd (2012) probably a late one around the 52-60TH

For the 28th overall, an ex 28th overall (Coyle) and Setoguchi. (a 40 point player with upside.).

How do you definite ''far in excess'' ?

A player like Setoguchi worth probably about the price for Versteeg last summer (a 2nd and a 3th).

So let say Setoguchi value is a 2nd and we cancel out the late 2nd from SJ for the 3th. (this way gave More value to Seto than Versteeg)

That leave a 2 time a 28th overall + a 2nd for Burns.

Whats is the price to move up in the draft?.

Last summer going from the 30th overall to the 22th cost a early 2nd.

so we can say the 28th overall + 2nd (Value of Setoguchi minus the 2nd from SJ) = 20th overall

Does a 28th overall + 20th overall worth a 11th overall? i let you judge, but it doesnt seem far in excess.

I know its a lot of math a comparison, but if we compare the historical price (or last summer price) to move up in the draft. Going from the 28th overall to the 11th cost probably more than you early thought.
Is this a reply to my post?

I know english isnt your first language so Im trying to bear with you, but you are all over the map in either a) your use of the language or b) your opinion of the situation....I'll say probably an even mix of both.

arsmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 03:43 PM
  #64
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieAVS View Post
The problem you have is that your comparables arent in the same league.
Firstly, i find it to not be a good idea to compare trades of players in different positions.

So comparing what Burns and Pronger got to Cammalleri and Demitra is not a good comparison.

In either case, youre comparing players who are considered to be the best at their positions. I think you can easily make an argument that Burns and Pronger are considered in the top 10-15 defensemen. Liles and Wisniewski are REPLACEABLE by other players. You cant just go out and get a guy like Burns or Pronger in FA. But guys like Liles and Wisniewski, you can. Wisniewski was a journeyman at the time of the trade coming off a career best 30 point season in 70 games.

Cammalleri and Demitra were never considered the best at their respective positions. Maybe cammy had a case in his 80 pt season, but he also sandwiched that season with two average seasons.

Demitra was more valuable at the time of his trade, and he obtained the 17th overall and O'Sullivan, who was considered, at the time, a very good prospect. He performed great in the OHL and had an amazing season in the AHL just before the trade.

As for Vokoun, well, goalies are different altogether. Their market is very unpredictable.

If Zach Parise were on the block 1 season before UFA, hed probably get a great package also, as would other players like Kopitar, Eric Staal, etc. and that would be REGARDLESS of whether they signed an extension or not.

If youre going to compare the summer returns of Burns to previous packages, compare them to their equivalent of the same position. In other words, compare it to top wingers and forwards.
I understand and accept your point, unfortunately there are not a ton of examples of future UFA summer trade since the lockout. I use the examples available.

palindrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 03:47 PM
  #65
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
Is this a reply to my post?

I know english isnt your first language so Im trying to bear with you, but you are all over the map in either a) your use of the language or b) your opinion of the situation....I'll say probably an even mix of both.
Thank you for trying to bear my English.

No, it wasn't a reply of your post.

Well, i enjoyed this day long discussion with all of you, i appreciate your respectful attitude despite our difference of opinion, but now i need to go back to my life

Have a nice day and see you soon.

Some last quote:

''While orchestrating the trade for Burns, Sharks general manager Doug Wilson had the contract extension in the back of his mind. In Wilson's view, giving up Setoguchi, a top prospect and a first-round pick for only one season with Burns would not have been a worthwhile risk.''

From Wilson (San Josť's GM) Mouth:

''"[Signing an extension] was a huge part of the deal I'll be honest with you because we gave up some very good players to get him. The deal came together very quickly''


"I don't know if I would have called it a failure-- my responsibility is to put the best team on the ice every single year-- but it certainly would have been viewed in our minds differently if it only would have been a one year deal,"

"Would I have been happy if [the contract] was just a one and out? No. I wouldn't have. We're sitting here today not having to concern ourselves with that."

Is it Speculation anymore? I think San Josť's GM stating Publicly that the extension was an Huge part of the deal is a good closing argument.

http://www.fearthefin.com/2011/8/2/2...oses-future-on


Last edited by palindrom: 08-30-2011 at 04:17 PM.
palindrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 04:18 PM
  #66
Cocoa Crisp
Registered User
 
Cocoa Crisp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NYC
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 2,786
vCash: 500
Yes, it is still speculation. Re-read the quote:

DW only said it would not have been worthwhile to give up some many valuable assets for one year of Burns. Nowhere did he claim that signing Burns was a given and a defined parameter of the deal. He only said that we're sitting here (after having successfully signed Burns through UFA) not having to contemplate the undesirable prospect of not having Burns signed.

I think you're reading what you want to read as opposed to what's actually there.

Cocoa Crisp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 04:20 PM
  #67
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoa Crisp View Post
Yes, it is still speculation. Re-read the quote:

DW only said it would not have been worthwhile to give up some many valuable assets for one year of Burns. Nowhere did he claim that signing Burns was a given and a defined parameter of the deal. He only said that we're sitting here (after having successfully signed Burns through UFA) not having to contemplate the undesirable prospect of not having Burns signed.

I think you're reading what you want to read as opposed to what's actually there.
I think he said enough just there ? no ? Did you read the: '' [Signing an extension] was a huge part of the deal '' ?


Last edited by palindrom: 08-30-2011 at 04:25 PM.
palindrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 04:27 PM
  #68
Cocoa Crisp
Registered User
 
Cocoa Crisp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NYC
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 2,786
vCash: 500
No. In fact this passage would tend to suggest the signing was not assured:

Quote:
"I don't know if I would have called it a failure-- my responsibility is to put the best team on the ice every single year-- but it certainly would have been viewed in our minds differently if it only would have been a one year deal,"
DW hedges that even without signing Burns long term, he would not have seen the trade and a failure. It was his responsibility to ice the most competitive team and the addition of Burns does just that. He goes on to say he would not have seen the trade as being as successful as it was if Burns were to reach UFA.

So, no. I'm sure DW chose his words carefully, but the quote definitely says nothing about a pre-arranged signing being at all part of the deal.

Cocoa Crisp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 04:28 PM
  #69
EdAVSfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,146
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
I think he said enough just there ? no ? Did you read the: '' [Signing an extension] was a huge part of the deal '' ?
Well it was a huge part of the deal in that, now, its worth what was traded for him.

But it basically proves that he wouldve traded the same whether the extension was there or not.

Hes basically saying that he took a chance that Burns would sign.

If he doesnt sign, the trade is a big loss to SJ
Since he did sign, he considers it a good deal.

Regardless, he makes the trade with or without the contract extension.

Is your premise that he would give MORE if the contract extension was agreed upon before the trade?

EdAVSfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 04:38 PM
  #70
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoa Crisp View Post
No. In fact this passage would tend to suggest the signing was not assured:



DW hedges that even without signing Burns long term, he would not have seen the trade and a failure. It was his responsibility to ice the most competitive team and the addition of Burns does just that. He goes on to say he would not have seen the trade as being as successful as it was if Burns were to reach UFA.

So, no. I'm sure DW chose his words carefully, but the quote definitely says nothing about a pre-arranged signing being at all part of the deal.
He say he dont know if the Trade would be a failure or not..he didn't say the trade would not be a failure if there is no extension.

Pre-arranged or not, the extension was an huge part of the deal...
He put a good deal of value in the Extension and not only in the 1 years of service of Burns.

It goes back to the main point, When making a proposal in this forum, (as Edler to Colorado) It would be a wild guess to assume The GM put as much value as Wilson in the Extension to evaluate the market Value of Edler. He took some kind of risk that not all GM are willing to take.

We should only use the remaining years before UFA, and not make a proposal that ''would not worth it if the player isnt there beyond his UFA years.''


Last edited by palindrom: 08-30-2011 at 05:02 PM.
palindrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 04:49 PM
  #71
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieAVS View Post
Well it was a huge part of the deal in that, now, its worth what was traded for him.

But it basically proves that he wouldve traded the same whether the extension was there or not.

Hes basically saying that he took a chance that Burns would sign.

If he doesnt sign, the trade is a big loss to SJ
Since he did sign, he considers it a good deal.

Regardless, he makes the trade with or without the contract extension.

Is your premise that he would give MORE if the contract extension was agreed upon before the trade?
As my previous post said, my premise is when making proposal,we should not take it for granted that each GM consider ''the extension as a big part of the deal'' And that all of them are willing to take a good risk, especially if a player is going to a team non attractive to UFA.

Clearly Wilson didnt tought his package would worth it if it was only for one year of Burns. So can we use this value as a gauge to evaluate future summer trade or proposal ?

Can we assume that Colorado think they have what it take to retain a Edler beyond his UFA year and have the will to put a bigger package because of this? Or should we base his value only on his 2 years remaining?


Last edited by palindrom: 08-30-2011 at 05:04 PM.
palindrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 05:13 PM
  #72
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
He say he dont know if the Trade would be a failure or not..he didn't say the trade would not be a failure if there is no extension.

Pre-arranged or not, the extension was an huge part of the deal...
He put a good deal of value in the Extension and not only in the 1 years of service of Burns.

It goes back to the main point, When making a proposal in this forum, (as Edler to Colorado) It would be a wild guess to assume The GM put as much value as Wilson in the Extension to evaluate the market Value of Edler. He took some kind of risk that not all GM are willing to take.

We should only use the remaining years before UFA, and not make a proposal that ''would not worth it if the player isnt there beyond his UFA years.''
If that's the conclusion you've drawn... I don't even know what to say.

Read through this thread again and you'll see that every reply is the opposite. Some players are not worth extending. Others are. Edler and Burns falls into the latter category. Both have similar value. They're both worht more than 2011 11th overall. Burn's return did not factor in the guarantee of re-signing. Go ahead, have a look. It's all there.

Cocoa Crisp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 05:28 PM
  #73
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoa Crisp View Post
If that's the conclusion you've drawn... I don't even know what to say.

Read through this thread again and you'll see that every reply is the opposite. Some players are not worth extending. Others are. Edler and Burns falls into the latter category. Both have similar value. They're both worht more than 2011 11th overall. Burn's return did not factor in the guarantee of re-signing. Go ahead, have a look. It's all there.
My point is we cant use Burns value to Gauge Edler value, as the ''burns extension was an huge part of the deal.'' and the trade would probably not worth it without the extension. How can we assume a team like Colorado could be as willing as Wilson to take a risk ? Im not even sure Colorado have the budget to pay a 5 500 000$ defenseman, (Estimation of Edler UFa contract).



By the way did you see my decomposition of the Burns trade, it didnt look far in excess than a 11th overall ? (but i agree its in excess).

it was basically two 28th (Coyle, 28th overall) + Seto (equivalent of a 2nd and 3nd based on Vesteeg).

Since Min gave a 2nd with Burns we can cancel out the 2nd coming for the 3th on the other side (this way give more value to Seto vs Vesteeg).

It look like it was the equivalent of a 28th + 28th + 2th for Burns.

Considering the price to move up from the 28th to the 11th... (it cost a 2nd to move up from 30 to 22 last summer.)

So it could mean a 28th and a 20th for Burns..(or a 20th + Coyle) is it far in excess of a 11th. ?
Maybe you overated Seto, underated the price to move up to the 11th, or forget that Min gave a 2nd along with Burns.


Last edited by palindrom: 08-30-2011 at 05:45 PM.
palindrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 05:33 PM
  #74
SmellOfVictory
Registered User
 
SmellOfVictory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,547
vCash: 50
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.?

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?
5 years is the best contract for Carter; takes him through the majority of his prime years at a cheap rate, very low risk in comparison to the 11 years. Same thing for Edler. Neither has a significant history of injury, both are good players, and at those cap hits (~4.8 for Edler?) they're bargain contracts.

SmellOfVictory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2011, 05:56 PM
  #75
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
My point is we cant use Burns value to Gauge Edler value, as the ''burns extension was an huge part of the deal.'' and the trade would probably not worth it without the extension. How can we assume a team like Colorado could be as willing as Wilson to take a risk ? Im not even sure Colorado have the budget to pay a 5 500 000$ defenseman, (Estimation of Edler UFa contract).



By the way did you see my decomposition of the Burns trade, it didnt look far in excess than a 11th overall ? (but i agree its in excess).

it was basically two 28th (Coyle, 28th overall) + Seto (equivalent of a 2nd and 3nd based on Vesteeg).

Since Min gave a 2nd with Burns we can cancel out the 2nd coming for the 3th on the other side (this way give more value to Seto vs Vesteeg).

It look like it was the equivalent of a 28th + 28th + 2th for Burns.

Considering the price to move up from the 28th to the 11th... (it cost a 2nd to move up from 30 to 22 last summer.)

So it could mean a 28th and a 20th for Burns..(or a 20th + Coyle) is it far in excess of a 11th. ?
Maybe you overated Seto, underated the price to move up to the 11th, or forget that Min gave a 2nd along with Burns.
There are so many suppositions and weird leaps of logic in this formulation, I don't even know where to begin. All I'll say is no, I do not agree with your assessment. The package Burns garnered is well in excess of the 2011 11th overall pick. I'll let some other intrepid poster attempt to detangle this mess.

As it stands, I feel like King Arthur vs. the Black Knight in the Monty Python's the Holy Grail. At this point, you're more or less a trash talking head and torso.

Good luck convincing others. You've failed to convince me.

Cocoa Crisp 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 02:43 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.