Value of: Claude Giroux to Calgary

[Sparky93]

Iginla was always the driving force of the offence. The only down year he had was the year he was traded, where the team was a total tire fire and Iginla was injured.

Claude Giroux was 4th on the team in scoring in 2019/2020.

Iginla was a premiere power forward who would throw down. These are skills that are very valuable in the playoffs, and teams habitually overpay for a physical presence in the playoffs. Giroux's recent playoff record is horrible. Iginla also, once again, had 2 30 goal seasons left in the tank, in an era where guys scoring 30 goals were very hard to come by.

And once again, Iginla did not return a top prospect. He returned a late first and 2 very meh prospects. I think Iginla will represent the high mark. Anyone expecting Giroux to bring back more than Iginla did is kidding themselves.

It really depends on Giroux. Like it or not, Iggy's value was severely hampered by a very short list of teams he'd accept a trade to and ownerships stance on retaining salary. If Giroux is open to going to second tier contenders, like the Flames, his return could be greatly enhanced, especially with salary retention.

 

[Volica]

What kind of bullshit is this. In the season before he was traded, Iginla scored 67 points in 82 games. Last year, Giroux paced for 65 points over a full season. Huge, huge gap there. And hey, he's on pace for a 30 goal season this year, too!

"Much better intangibles"? How do you begin to pretend anyone can make that argument between two players? The word is literally "intangible." You might as well be saying he had MORE VIBES and a BALDER HEAD. He was a POWER FORWARD! Giroux is a TWO-WAY CENTER or perhaps a PLAYMAKER with strong defensive scores. Are we using EA NHL archetypes now? Which is the most valuable? ENF with a sick wrister?

Like, Iginla was a truly great hockey player and Giroux is a truly great hockey player and Giroux's at a pretty similar juncture in his career to what Iginla was when he was moved.

The market and team needs will dictate return more than anything--and that makes any comparison really hard. But yeah, in a trade I think you could do better than like the 28th pick and a guy who plays 16 NHL games in his career. I'd hope, at least.

The year Jarome had 67 points, 6 people in the NHL had PPG+ campaigns. Last year over 20 players were at or above that mark, you’re literally using a near 10 year gap in your data.

for reference, a Sedin brother, Zetterberg, Ovi and Datsyuk all had under 70 points.

 

[BrindamoursNose]

Bro what are we arguing about.

Giroux is great, Iginla was great. Who cares. It was ages ago and this is now.

 

[Rich Nixon]

The year Jarome had 67 points, 6 people in the NHL had PPG+ campaigns. Last year over 20 players were at or above that mark, you’re literally using a near 10 year gap in your data.

for reference, a Sedin brother, Zetterberg, Ovi and Datsyuk all had under 70 points.

First valid point I've seen all day—ironically, I've been the one hammering away that the market and league are completely different than they were 9 years ago while completely ignoring that element of it, so thanks for bringing that into the fold too. I think it just goes back to the central point that it's useless to try to draw a hard line based on a very, very good veteran winger's trade return in 2013 when discussing the potential trade of a very, very good center/winger in 2022.

Things change. Teams have different GMs and needs. Scoring rates are different. Players have different willingness to waive their clauses. Etc.

 

[57special]

First off, i don't think that Giroux will be traded if PHI is anywhere close to being in a playoff spot. That being said, MN would probably offer up a 2022 1st, a nice D prospect( Peart/Ryan O'Rourke/Hunt), a not so nice prospect(Khovanov...drafted by Fletcher, so maybe?), and Rask(expiring, for cap purposes) should Giroux be available.

The D prospects were 2nd or 3rd rounders when picked, but most would consider them equivalent to 1sts, as all three have done nothing but impress since their draft.

 

[Ledge And Dairy]

I dont think you need to be a flyers fan to comprehend his point. As he mentioned before, its subjective and he disagrees with your point but understands it. I'll help you with a response though to end the argument:

"I disagree with your opinion as well but understand it"

Personally, I think this was a pretty good baseline a stonehands mentioned.

"Nick Foligno is a 3rd line 30 point role player. He was traded as a pending UFA for a 1st and 4th rounder.
JG Pageau was a middle 6 forward with a creer high 43 points when he was traded as a pending UFA for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks.
Blake Coleman was a 3rd line with a career high 36 points when he was traded with 1 year left on his contract for a 1st and Nolan Foote who was a 1st round pick 6 months earlier."

None of those justify a top 5 player in the AHL that is also a rookie.
Will Giroux return more than a 1st? 100%. Will he return return Pelletier? 0%

Its not hard to understand and history shows the kinds of returns players like Giroux in similar situations get

 

[Rebels57]

With AV gone, I don't think Giroux is getting traded. They'll be a decent enough team going forward with Yeo as interim that they'll at least battle for a playoff spot.

 

[Accelleratii]

So another Flyer fan pulls some poor Comps and you choose to use THAT as your justification. You need to prepare yourself for the eventual let-down of False Hope.

There will be no let down here. The Flyers will botch this situation, as they typically do.

And the comparison is absolutely fair. We're talking about rental players getting traded at the deadline and respective returns. HOW IS THAT NOT A FAIR COMPARISON YOU ARE RIDICULOUS.

 

[TheWolfOfBroadStreet]

None of those justify a top 5 player in the AHL that is also a rookie.
Will Giroux return more than a 1st? 100%. Will he return return Pelletier? 0%

Its not hard to understand and history shows the kinds of returns players like Giroux in similar situations get

The first part of what you said is fair, I apologize as I did not know we were talking about a top 5 prospect as a return as I would agree that would be too much (especially considering we would need a 1st back as well).

The 2nd part I think is subjective because the data of previous trades for players similar to him are spread out over the years and differ in a lot of different ways. Id say 1st+ B+/A- prospect would be the ideal scenario if a trade was imminent.

 

[Ledge And Dairy]

The first part of what you said is fair, I apologize as I did not know we were talking about a top 5 prospect as a return as I would agree that would be too much (especially considering we would need a 1st back as well).

The 2nd part I think is subjective because the data of previous trades for players similar to him are spread out over the years and differ in a lot of different ways. Id say 1st+ B+/A- prospect would be the ideal scenario if a trade was imminent.

I think he should get more than Stone as Ottawa got desperate with him but it could also end up like Hall last year where he will only accept trades to certain teams. I don't think the Iginla example should be that far off either

 

[FlyguyOX]

First off, i don't think that Giroux will be traded if PHI is anywhere close to being in a playoff spot. That being said, MN would probably offer up a 2022 1st, a nice D prospect( Peart/Ryan O'Rourke/Hunt), a not so nice prospect(Khovanov...drafted by Fletcher, so maybe?), and Rask(expiring, for cap purposes) should Giroux be available.

The D prospects were 2nd or 3rd rounders when picked, but most would consider them equivalent to 1sts, as all three have done nothing but impress since their draft.

I don't consider them equivalent to 1sts. Like, at all. Now Lambos or Addison? Yes, I'll say they're equivalent to a 1st.

 

[FlyguyOX]

None of those justify a top 5 player in the AHL that is also a rookie.
Will Giroux return more than a 1st? 100%. Will he return return Pelletier? 0%

Its not hard to understand and history shows the kinds of returns players like Giroux in similar situations get

It's also not hard to understand recent history where things like paying a 1st to a team to take your high cap player are new normals yet still unprecedented in history

 

[FlyguyOX]

I think he should get more than Stone as Ottawa got desperate with him but it could also end up like Hall last year where he will only accept trades to certain teams. I don't think the Iginla example should be that far off either

Hall is a winger, not a captain, not an all-situations player, coming off a terrible underwhelming season, and didn't just finish 4th in points for the entire previous decade.

Not alike at all.

 

[Ledge And Dairy]

Hall is a winger, not a captain, not an all-situations player, coming off a terrible underwhelming season, and didn't just finish 4th in points for the entire previous decade.

Not alike at all.

I think you misunderstand what I meant by Hall. I mean where the NTC lowers his value since he forces a location

 

[57special]

I don't consider them equivalent to 1sts. Like, at all. Now Lambos or Addison? Yes, I'll say they're equivalent to a 1st.

Many Wild fans value ROR, and maybe Hunt and Peart, more than Addison. I might consider swapping Addison, but he is the only one of the bunch who is a RHD, which are in short supply in MN's prospect pool. The other three are all definitely considered to be better two way Dmen, and have better size. Addison is more NHL ready because he was drafted 2 to 3 years earlier than the others.

Conversely, Filip Johansson and Rubstov were both picked in the 1st round....no one considers them to have first round value.

 

[StoneHands]

Iginla was always the driving force of the offence. The only down year he had was the year he was traded, where the team was a total tire fire and Iginla was injured.

Claude Giroux was 4th on the team in scoring in 2019/2020.

Iginla was a premiere power forward who would throw down. These are skills that are very valuable in the playoffs, and teams habitually overpay for a physical presence in the playoffs. Giroux's recent playoff record is horrible. Iginla also, once again, had 2 30 goal seasons left in the tank, in an era where guys scoring 30 goals were very hard to come by.

And once again, Iginla did not return a top prospect. He returned a late first and 2 very meh prospects. I think Iginla will represent the high mark. Anyone expecting Giroux to bring back more than Iginla did is kidding themselves.

So you don't think Giroux has more value than Nick Foligno who returned a 1st and 4th rounder just 8 months ago? Foligno was a 33 year old 30 point player who returned essentially what you're saying Giroux is worth. I'll wait to hear about Foligno's impressive intangibles.

Also, didn't Iginla have a list of like 5 teams he would accept a trade to? Obviously Giroux will need to waive as well but the Flames didn't really have the option to take the best offer available.

 

[blankall]

So you don't think Giroux has more value than Nick Foligno who returned a 1st and 4th rounder just 8 months ago? Foligno was a 33 year old 30 point player who returned essentially what you're saying Giroux is worth. I'll wait to hear about Foligno's impressive intangibles.

Also, didn't Iginla have a list of like 5 teams he would accept a trade to? Obviously Giroux will need to waive as well but the Flames didn't really have the option to take the best offer available.

Love how people always bring up an obvious overpayment when assessing value. Toronto overpaid for Foligno, as they wanted "intangibles" and a physical presence.

All a bit of a moot point anyways, as Fologno didn't bring back a high end prospect. Something like a 1st + 2nd or 1st plus B prospect is not the same as a 1st plus 4th.

 

[StoneHands]

Love how people always bring up an obvious overpayment when assessing value. Toronto overpaid for Foligno, as they wanted "intangibles" and a physical presence.

All a bit of a moot point anyways, as Fologno didn't bring back a high end prospect. Something like a 1st + 2nd or 1st plus B prospect is not the same as a 1st plus 4th.

So bringing up a trade where Toronto overpaid is no good but bringing up a trade where Calgary were underpaid because of a short list of teams Iginla would go to is completely valid? I'm not saying Giroux is getting a 1st plus a top prospect but pretending like a trade from nearly a decade ago is the only apt comparison is just silly.

 

[blankall]

So bringing up a trade where Toronto overpaid is no good but bringing up a trade where Calgary were underpaid because of a short list of teams Iginla would go to is completely valid? I'm not saying Giroux is getting a 1st plus a top prospect but pretending like a trade from nearly a decade ago is the only apt comparison is just silly.

If you can find an example of a 33 year old player being traded at the deadline for a high end prospect in the salary cap era, that would be helpful. The value of cost controlled players is very high. They are very unlikely to be traded for rentals. That's why Pelletier is 100% off the table.

 

[pit]

Whatever Giroux's actual value is, Fletcher will find a way to come in way under because that's the kind of asset bleeding general manager he is. If you're arguing on the high or even fair side, Chuck will kneecap you when this thread gets bumped.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

I think Monahan + 1st is probably what the Flames would offer.

 

[McSuper]

I’d say a 1st and good prospect for Giroux 25% retained . A 2nd for retention at 50% for a 3rd club so that a contender can get that cap hit down to 25%. Team getting the 2nd maybe tosses the acquiring team a 4th rounder.

team a) Giroux 25% cap + 4th rounder

Philly) 1st + good prospect (3/4th depth chart level prospect)

team c) 2nd rounder for eating 50%

As an Oiler fan it would look like

1st + 2nd + Lavoie for Giroux (3/4 cap retained) + 4th

Only way to get 75% retained is for team A to retain 50% and team B to retain 50% . Example If a player X makes 8.0M and his team trades (team A) him and only retains 25% leaving 6.0 million left . Team B can retain 50% of the remaining salary so 3.0 m . So the acquiring team gets the player for 3.0m or 37.5 % .

The only way to get it to 25% is Team A retains 50% so 4M of the 8M leaving 4 Million Team B retains 50% leaving 2M left for team C or 25% of his total cap hit . On a side note that would be all that much at the trade deadline as most of his example 8 million would be paid

 

[Philadelphia Ducks]

People thinking they are getting Pelletier for a rental are out of their minds. Maybe go look up the AHL leaderboard first

Who cares about AHL Leaderboard? Otherwise Alexandre Giroux woulda been traded for boat loads multiple times.

 

[Ledge And Dairy]

Who cares about AHL Leaderboard? Otherwise Alexandre Giroux woulda been traded for boat loads multiple times.

LMAO what? Are you seriously comparing a 28 and in his 8th AHL season to a 20 year old rookie? Easily the dumbest thing I've read this entire thread.

You known what Alexandre Giroux had in his first AHL season? 27 points in 70 games, that's 0.39 points per game. That ranked him for 377th in PPG.
Pelletier on the other hand is 3rd in points in the AHL. He also has 27 points, the difference he's only played 23 games so far. That's 1.17 points per game and ranks him at 15th in the league.

There is a saying for things like this "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."

 

[DingDongCharlie]

Only way to get 75% retained is for team A to retain 50% and team B to retain 50% . Example If a player X makes 8.0M and his team trades (team A) him and only retains 25% leaving 6.0 million left . Team B can retain 50% of the remaining salary so 3.0 m . So the acquiring team gets the player for 3.0m or 37.5 % .

The only way to get it to 25% is Team A retains 50% so 4M of the 8M leaving 4 Million Team B retains 50% leaving 2M left for team C or 25% of his total cap hit . On a side note that would be all that much at the trade deadline as most of his example 8 million would be paid

That's why my post said a 2nd to a 3rd club. Maybe didn't word the proposal well but that's what I meant. My percentages where the amount of cap each team would have, you worded it better though. I can see the confusion how I stated it.