-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
SA16
Sixstring
In the offseason if you trade for a guy you get up to 82 regular season games from him.
At the trade deadline if you trade for a guy you get maximum maybe 30 games from him.
A players value is always highest in the offseason - whether or not teams are actually willing to pay more in the offseason compared to the trade deadline just shows how bad the general state of management is.
Last edited:
How can you say it's "always" highest in the offseason and then acknowledge that it doesn't necessarily work that way?
A player is more valuable for 82 games, yes. But in the offseason there are also usually alternatives available for nothing but cash. Player X might be a coveted trade target in the offseason, but his value is deflated because player Y and Z can simply be signed as free agents. Whereas at the deadline, Player X is the only thing fitting the needs of a few teams, and a bidding war ensues.
And then other times, that's not the case. With a valuable asset in hand, a savvy manager should be able to predict when maximum value can be attained. That can occur at a few different intervals.
SA16
Sixstring
I said a players value is highest in the offseason but it doesn't necessarily always work that way because general managers often make poor decisions.
So it's always highest except when it's not? A smart GM should know if he can get more for a guy in the summer or more by starting a bidding war at the deadline. Read the tea leaves. A foolish GM would trade a guy in the summer just because that's when his value "should" be highest.
SA16
Sixstring
No...look at it from a baseball perspective just because it's easier to show with numbers.
Say you want to trade for...Carlos Gonzalez who is around a 4.5 WAR player.
1. Get him in the offseason: You gain 4.5 WAR - whoever he replaces.
2. Get him at the deadline (Maybe 60 games or so left) - You gain 1.7WAR - whoever he replaces.
That's 3 wins you're leaving on the table by acquiring him later. Teams might be willing to pay more later because they get fooled by the illusion of being in a race for a playoff spot when they really are just a bubble team. But that's not because their is more value then. It's just because several GM's are guilty of making misguided shortsighted decisions. Just because there are 30 GM's in the NHL now doesn't mean they are the 30 most qualified people for the job. It's kinda a situation of "If everyone does the same thing equally wrong nobody notices" (See 4th down conversion attempts/2 point conversion attempts in the NFL).
If by waiting until the trade deadline to make a move to improve your team and in doing so you pay more (more assets) to get less (less wins) you are clearly doing something wrong.
Say you want to trade for...Carlos Gonzalez who is around a 4.5 WAR player.
1. Get him in the offseason: You gain 4.5 WAR - whoever he replaces.
2. Get him at the deadline (Maybe 60 games or so left) - You gain 1.7WAR - whoever he replaces.
That's 3 wins you're leaving on the table by acquiring him later. Teams might be willing to pay more later because they get fooled by the illusion of being in a race for a playoff spot when they really are just a bubble team. But that's not because their is more value then. It's just because several GM's are guilty of making misguided shortsighted decisions. Just because there are 30 GM's in the NHL now doesn't mean they are the 30 most qualified people for the job. It's kinda a situation of "If everyone does the same thing equally wrong nobody notices" (See 4th down conversion attempts/2 point conversion attempts in the NFL).
If by waiting until the trade deadline to make a move to improve your team and in doing so you pay more (more assets) to get less (less wins) you are clearly doing something wrong.
Okay, so a player's mathematical trade value in terms of possible production is highest in the offseason. Who cares? His ACTUAL trade value fluctuates throughout the year. I love sabermetrics, but hockey GMs don't make trades based on win shares. So why worry about it?
SA16
Sixstring
Yea so that basically just means teams should find new people to run their franchises since the ones they have now for the most part all do a pretty awful job.
Rangers ftw
Registered User
- May 8, 2007
- 2,389
- 460
Value vary between off season and trade deadline because players gets injured and need to be replaced, team in PO position needs to strengthen their team etc. That causes value to be higher/as high at deadline as at off season. Has nothing to do with GM's doing an awful job. Demand and supply.
SA16
Sixstring
Of all the current general managers pretty much only Lamoriello, Bryan Murray, Feaster, Bowman, Sherman, Lombardi, Fletcher, Poile, and Armstrong (9/30) had basically no playing (majors/minors/international) career post-college. Do you really think teams have chosen the best guys to run their team when for the most part they are basically limiting their selection to former players?
That's not really true though. A guy might be worth 4 wins if acquired in the offseason as opposed to 1.5 at the deadline, but maybe that 1.5 wins is the difference between missing the playoffs and winning a round, or winning a round and winning the Cup. And the difference between those levels of success carries more value, financially and otherwise, than a few win shares. My point is that WAR measures a player's on-ice value, but there's more to his "total value" than his WAR.
You can't operate a franchise based of maximizing values according to formulas. There's too many variables to take into account for that to work. Conversely, you can't build a team without understanding the numbers behind success. Good teams blend both.
SA16
Sixstring
If you had those 4 wins in the first place instead of 1.5 later then you wouldn't be in the situation where the 1.5 wins makes that difference. Value for the most part is production - cost (which therefore remains constant throughout a year) but as for increasing a teams expected output getting the player earlier is always better. And yea, as you mentioned, sure there are always exceptions - say Nash got injured that could make a difference but then is it really even worth it to try to improve if he's out for a while? Since it's pretty unlikely we're going to go far without him.
I guess in general my thoughts are that I can't stand terrible mismanagement and it's extremely frustrating to see it in all sports from the general management down to the coaching aspect and it's largely because of several factors:
1. Overreliance on using old players in executive roles that they are not qualified for.
2. Fear of change due to risk aversion (Football example. Go for it on say 4th and 3 on your own side of the field and miss you're going to get blasted by the media even if it's clearly the optimal decision)
3. Putting too much emphasis on results that are not significant due to small sample sizes (Main example here would be baseball managers starting hitters because they "own a pitcher" when they are like 5-7 off of him in his career which is completely meaningless).
I guess in general my thoughts are that I can't stand terrible mismanagement and it's extremely frustrating to see it in all sports from the general management down to the coaching aspect and it's largely because of several factors:
1. Overreliance on using old players in executive roles that they are not qualified for.
2. Fear of change due to risk aversion (Football example. Go for it on say 4th and 3 on your own side of the field and miss you're going to get blasted by the media even if it's clearly the optimal decision)
3. Putting too much emphasis on results that are not significant due to small sample sizes (Main example here would be baseball managers starting hitters because they "own a pitcher" when they are like 5-7 off of him in his career which is completely meaningless).
Boyle won't be moved. He has too much value to this team in the 3rd/4th line role and PK role. He can play the wing a little and be a second center on defensive zone faceoffs. He makes just $1.9 mil. That's nothing.
not saying this is a good idea but Sather and MacT have a relationship
Hemsky( Oilers eat 2 million so its a 3 million cap hit ) for Pyatt(1.5) and Powe (1 )
keeps all the D intact and take a chance on Hemsky for a yr.
Otherwise I think they have to move DZ, Boyle for a top 6 winger and then sign a stop gap D like Zidlicky
Hemsky( Oilers eat 2 million so its a 3 million cap hit ) for Pyatt(1.5) and Powe (1 )
keeps all the D intact and take a chance on Hemsky for a yr.
Otherwise I think they have to move DZ, Boyle for a top 6 winger and then sign a stop gap D like Zidlicky
I'm betting Boyle goes no where much to the chagrin of many who post here. Setting up a lively debate for next season.
Do people think that because of the 1 year deals they are just a stopgap and they want Lindberg and Fast in the AHL for a year?
no they are 1 year deal because we don't want to tie up $$ into next year on depth players. the ufa market is expected to be much better if everyone doesn't resign and we have a TON of our own players to resign. if lindberg and fast are ready they will find room for them.
haveandare
Registered User
Plus, it'd gut the prospect pool and lose a first after a year where they didn't have a first or second. No thanks.
hope it's an 8 yr deal.
Pay the man already! He's been the best non-Lundqvist player the past 2 seasons!
Janerixon
Registered User
- Jun 16, 2002
- 3,732
- 0
There is no way to prove or disprove when a player's value is highest, do you not recall what we gave up for Ryan Clowe, a potential UFA, got 3 draft picks, possibly 2 second rounders if we resigned him. It all depends on the desire for the player, so this is not a fact, far from it actually.
- Status
Latest posts
-
-
-
45 years ago today there was a hockey game played in North Elba, New York
- Latest: KillerMillerTime
