Speculation: Looking at NHL Trade history is the best way to find out a player's value

[joemon999]

HfBoards is notorious for overvaluing/undervaluing players when it comes to trades, mostly because proposals made from fans of their respective teams and are obviously biased. We all do it. Myself included.

One thing however we do need to start doing collectively as a forum is looking at trades that have happened in the recent past as a basis for value. A lot of us tend to look at each player's value in a vacuum. We think each player's case for being more valuable then they are in reality is because we somehow think our players are more "unique" than the other players in the trades that already happened. I think it will be beneficial for now on when we do make a trade proposals, that we include a trade that has happened in recent history as a basis for what other like-minded forwards, defensemen, or goalies should be worth or traded for.

For example. The past few months Oilers fans swore that Hall was going to fetch a king's ransom. The past few days when the rumors started heating up, I made the point that Hamonic alone would fetch Hall (which is now a confirmed proposal Edm offered the Isles, but the Isles declined it). Numerous Oilers fans told me I was severely undervaluing Hall, and that it would take something along the lines of Hamonic, a First, and one of Nelson/Strome/MDC/Barzal to get EDM to bite.

The way I found out Hamonic would be able to fetch Hall was simple. I merely just looked at last year's Jones for Johansen trade as a starting point. Knowing that trade happened, it was much easier to gauge what type of return Hall could potentially get. One can easily conclude from that trade that something like Hamonic for Hall would be close in value and would ultimately get it done.

For now on, I think we should all start doing this if we want to have meaningful discussions on a player's value or potential trades. It takes a lot of the speculation out of the picture.

Whenever I make a new trade proposal, I will include a trade that has happened recently and is similar as to what is proposed as a comparative basis. I invite you all to do the same, as I honestly feel like we will get more out of the discussion rather than just a pissing match between two team's fan bases.

What do you guys think? Does this seem fair to you?

Click to read more...

 

[buttman*]

HfBoards is notorious for overvaluing/undervaluing players when it comes to trades, mostly because proposals made from fans of their respective teams and are obviously biased. We all do it. Myself included.

One thing however we do need to start doing collectively as a forum is looking at trades that have happened in the recent past as a basis for value. A lot of us tend to look at each player's value in a vacuum. We think each player's case for being more valuable then they are in reality is because we somehow think our players are more "unique" than the other players in the trades that already happened. I think it will be beneficial for now on when we do make a trade proposals, that we include a trade that has happened in recent history as a basis for what other like-minded forwards, defensemen, or goalies should be worth or traded for.

For example. The past few months Oilers fans swore that Hall was going to fetch a king's ransom. The past few days when the rumors started heating up, I made the point that Hamonic alone would fetch Hall (which is now a confirmed proposal Edm offered the Isles, but the Isles declined it). Numerous Oilers fans told me I was severely undervaluing Hall, and that it would take something along the lines of Hamonic, a First, and one of Nelson/Strome/MDC/Barzal to get EDM to bite.

The way I found out Hamonic would be able to fetch Hall was simple. I merely just looked at last year's Jones for Johansen trade as a starting point. Knowing that trade happened, it was much easier to gauge what type of return Hall could potentially get. One can easily conclude from that trade that something like Hamonic for Hall would be close in value and would ultimately get it done.

For now on, I think we should all start doing this if we want to have meaningful discussions on a player's value or potential trades. It takes a lot of the speculation out of the picture.

Whenever I make a new trade proposal, I will include a trade that has happened recently and is similar as to what is proposed as a comparative basis. I invite you all to do the same, as I honestly feel like we will get more out of the discussion rather than just a pissing match between two team's fan bases.

What do you guys think? Does this seem fair to you?

So some GM makes a terrible deal and that determines value for all future trades? No.

 

[Rorschach]

I agree with you. The player market is a macro market made up of 30 teams and often times many outside factors can influence value in a simple deal between two GMs.

Dean Lombardi explained it to us Kings fans when he drafted Thomas Hickey 4th overall, stating that although it was a bit of a reach, the fact that Hickey was a PMD and RHD made him much more valuable than other players of different types but the same talent.

1D's are rare in the NHL, good RHDs are also rare.

 

[joemon999]

So some GM makes a terrible deal and that determines value for all future trades? No.

Unfortunately, when these GMs do make these trades (even if they are awful or not), all the GM's in the league will use this to compare to. It's the same thing GMs and agents do when negotiating contracts. Whether a GM is trying to get more for a player "Hey! But look what X got for Y! That should be our starting point!" or give up less for a player "Hey man I appreciate the offer, but Y only get X in that trade.. So it's a no from me". The recent trades that have happened will obviously be used in negotiation between the two teams. So if we wan't to start accurately gauging the value of players, this is something we need to start looking at.

 

[caymanmew]

Ideally you sight s few similar trade to avoid only showing one bad one.

 

[Vatican Roulette]

So some GM makes a terrible deal and that determines value for all future trades? No.

I think the point of the post is to have more discussion, and less "screw off" posts.

 

[gamer1035]

Nah, there's alot of dumb NHL GM's cause it's an old boys club.

Sometimes a large consensus is better for determining value.

 

[Vatican Roulette]

I agree with you. The player market is a macro market made up of 30 teams and often times many outside factors can influence value in a simple deal between two GMs.

Dean Lombardi explained it to us Kings fans when he drafted Thomas Hickey 4th overall, stating that although it was a bit of a reach, the fact that Hickey was a PMD and RHD made him much more valuable than other players of different types but the same talent.

1D's are rare in the NHL, good RHDs are also rare.

Hickey is a LHD.

 

[joemon999]

Ideally you sight s few similar trade to avoid only showing one bad one.

Yes, having more examples of like minded trades would obviously be even more beneficial as it gives us a bigger sample size to look at. Good point.

 

[lindroshomer]

HfBoards is notorious for overvaluing/undervaluing players when it comes to trades, mostly because proposals made from fans of their respective teams and are obviously biased. We all do it. Myself included.

One thing however we do need to start doing collectively as a forum is looking at trades that have happened in the recent past as a basis for value. A lot of us tend to look at each player's value in a vacuum. We think each player's case for being more valuable then they are in reality is because we somehow think our players are more "unique" than the other players in the trades that already happened. I think it will be beneficial for now on when we do make a trade proposals, that we include a trade that has happened in recent history as a basis for what other like-minded forwards, defensemen, or goalies should be worth or traded for.

For example. The past few months Oilers fans swore that Hall was going to fetch a king's ransom. The past few days when the rumors started heating up, I made the point that Hamonic alone would fetch Hall (which is now a confirmed proposal Edm offered the Isles, but the Isles declined it). Numerous Oilers fans told me I was severely undervaluing Hall, and that it would take something along the lines of Hamonic, a First, and one of Nelson/Strome/MDC/Barzal to get EDM to bite.

The way I found out Hamonic would be able to fetch Hall was simple. I merely just looked at last year's Jones for Johansen trade as a starting point. Knowing that trade happened, it was much easier to gauge what type of return Hall could potentially get. One can easily conclude from that trade that something like Hamonic for Hall would be close in value and would ultimately get it done.

For now on, I think we should all start doing this if we want to have meaningful discussions on a player's value or potential trades. It takes a lot of the speculation out of the picture.

Whenever I make a new trade proposal, I will include a trade that has happened recently and is similar as to what is proposed as a comparative basis. I invite you all to do the same, as I honestly feel like we will get more out of the discussion rather than just a pissing match between two team's fan bases.

What do you guys think? Does this seem fair to you?

It's really hard to value or place a value on young prospects. NHL scouts and GM's have seem almost all of them play live. Some teams value certain attributes that I personally don't. Lots of players who haven't "worked" out may have a good word put in for them by a former coach on the team that's trading for them. Maybe their former junior coach is on the staff or something...

I think it's a good idea though for the established players and similar prospects, like speedy skillful winger for speedy skillful winger. There's consistency as the majority of the NHL GM's have been around long enough to have recently made trades.

 

[buttman*]

Unfortunately, when these GMs do make these trades (even if they are awful or not), all the GM's in the league will use this to compare to. It's the same thing GMs and agents do when negotiating contracts. Whether a GM is trying to get more for a player "Hey! But look what X got for Y! That should be our starting point!" or give up less for a player "Hey man I appreciate the offer, but Y only get X in that trade.. So it's a no from me". The recent trades that have happened will obviously be used in negotiation between the two teams. So if we wan't to start accurately gauging the value of players, this is something we need to start looking at.

No they don't. Probably the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard. Hey look Chia traded Seguin for scraps, lets go trade our star for scraps. Stupid is as stupid does. Chis is stupid. Doesn't make ALL GMs stupid.

 

[joemon999]

It's really hard to value or place a value on young prospects. NHL scouts and GM's have seem almost all of them play live. Some teams value certain attributes that I personally don't. Lots of players who haven't "worked" out may have a good word put in for them by a former coach on the team that's trading for them. Maybe their former junior coach is on the staff or something...

I think it's a good idea though for the established players and similar prospects, like speedy skillful winger for speedy skillful winger. There's consistency as the majority of the NHL GM's have been around long enough to have recently made trades.

Yes I understand your point. All I am trying to accomplish is to have less of these kind of condescending proposals where the OP states as a matter of fact their player is going to fetch a lot more than the other trades that recently happened. The Kessel trade is another example of this. A lot of Toronto fans thought he would fetch a lot more than he actually did (even taking his contract into consideration). If we consciously try to include at least somewhat of a similar trade that has happened recently, it would allow us to take a second look at the proposal and see if we were off at all in our thinking.

 

[buttman*]

I think the point of the post is to have more discussion, and less "screw off" posts.

Well then I think it's quite the opposite. Everyone knows Chia overpaid...as such nobody will be dumb enough to make that decision again.

 

[Rorschach]

Hickey is a LHD.

You're right, Hickey was PMD. It was Voynov that was the RHD where Lombardi explained why a Russian guy.

 

[joemon999]

No they don't. Probably the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard. Hey look Chia traded Seguin for scraps, lets go trade our star for scraps. Stupid is as stupid does. Chis is stupid. Doesn't make ALL GMs stupid.

I honestly think this was a very, very, very poor response to my line of reasoning... Lol.

You go it backwards. It's more like "Hey Chia only got so and so for Seguin.. So I will have to decline giving away X for such a high price" or "Hey, Poile got Johansen for Jones... So I think Defender X for forward Y would be a good starting point"

Businesses do this all the time. People will say for example "Microsoft bought Nokia at this price, so let's look at that as a starting point" even if people think it was a bad deal or not.

Actually to think of it.. If you actually think GMs don't use other trades that happened recently in negotiation to either strengthen their position or weaken the other GM's position, then I'm sorry but I honestly think that's one of the most ridiculous assumptions I've ever heard... lol

 

[buttman*]

I honestly think this was a very, very, very poor response to my line of reasoning... Lol.

You go it backwards. It's more like "Hey Chia only got so and so for Seguin.. So I will have to decline giving away X for such a high price" or "Hey, Poile got Johansen for Jones... So I think Defender X for forward Y would be a good starting point"

Businesses do this all the time. People will say for example "Microsoft bought Nokia at this price, so let's look at that as a starting point" even if people think it was a bad deal or not.

Actually to think of it.. If you actually think GMs don't use other trades that happened recently in negotiation to either strengthen their position or weaken the other GM's position, then I'm sorry but I honestly think that's one of the most ridiculous assumptions I've ever heard... lol

They do use trades. I just don't think Hall for Larsson makes Harmonic equal value. Chis was desperate. it was late, the party was almost over, all the girls were spoken for, except for a few uggers. He took home what he could. He should have overpaid for Subban.

 

[joemon999]

No they don't. Probably the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard. Hey look Chia traded Seguin for scraps, lets go trade our star for scraps. Stupid is as stupid does. Chis is stupid. Doesn't make ALL GMs stupid.

Also going off my last post, you do know comparative analysis is used in almost everything when discussing the value of something, right?

When real estate agents gauge a price of a 5 bedroom home, they look and see what other 5 bedroom homes sold for in the area to get an approximate price of it.

Same thing could be said for a lot of other businesses and professions. Comparing stocks, comparing prices of goods ("Wallmart has this shaving kit for only $30! There's no way I'm paying $50 for it!"), and even things such as car shopping.

If you assume that GMs don't have this comparative line of reasoning as well, I think you are greatly mistaken.

 

[joemon999]

They do use trades. I just don't think Hall for Larsson makes Harmonic equal value. Chis was desperate. it was late, the party was almost over, all the girls were spoken for, except for a few uggers. He took home what he could. He should have overpaid for Subban.

You may not think it's equal value. But Chia did. And from what was reported, Snow thought Hamonic was worth more than Hall alone (whether that's actually the case or not is up for debate, but at least we have a clear starting point here). Do you get my point?

 

[Shootertooter]

Past trades are only good at indicating the market at the time of those trades. They are not necessarily reflective of the future or current market, take today's trades as examples of simply not knowing what any particular fm is thinking.

 

[Avs44]

It's a good way of looking at it, but the market is always changing, and it's tough to understand the different circumstances surrounding trades / how GM's look at players. I mean if you look at the Dougie Hamilton trade...it completely shatters the mold that trades like Jones and Larsson set. Is it an anomaly? Probably. It was a poor trade under a different scenario that didn't become apparent until afterward. With Hall, how do we know how he was really valued? What's the market for wingers right now? If a centre of a similar calibre to Hall pops up, would he hold similar value, or are centre's valued significantly more? Or Subban today? Can anyone measure the behind the stage politics that played into the Canadiens pushing to move him?


And yeah, some GM's are just plain stupid. Most of us one this board are typically well off the mark, but history shows that some GM's are just complete dunces and can't be predicted at all.

 

[joemon999]

It's a good way of looking at it, but the market is always changing, and it's tough to understand the different circumstances surrounding trades / how GM's look at players. I mean if you look at the Dougie Hamilton trade...it completely shatters the mold that trades like Jones and Larsson set. Is it an anomaly? Probably. It was a poor trade under a different scenario that didn't become apparent until afterward. With Hall, how do we know how he was really valued? What's the market for wingers right now? If a centre of a similar calibre to Hall pops up, would he hold similar value, or are centre's valued significantly more? Or Subban today? Can anyone measure the behind the stage politics that played into the Canadiens pushing to move him?


And yeah, some GM's are just plain stupid. Most of us one this board are typically well off the mark, but history shows that some GM's are just complete dunces and can't be predicted at all.

Haha I can agree with you there. We definitely need to take the current market into consideration as well, because it's apparent this offseason that defensmen are the hot commodity as opposed to forwards.

However, looking at past trades is still a good place to start when gauging value. Just like the real estate market is always changing, realtors still look at what a house that is like the one they are currently selling sold for recently. It's just a nice starting point instead of just coming up with your own values from the back of your head.

 

[Some Other Flame]

One thing that effects the quality of a return are the skill and abilities of the GM's involved. Some are better than others and that has an impact.

What seems to be the problem is that value in a vacuum is irrelevant but that's the fundamental basis for all discussion here.

In reality, it's a players value to the team that has him, value of the player to the team that wants to acquire him, the abilities of the GM's involved and market conditions (supply and demand). Toss in the cap to make it even more complicated and occasionally, terribly lopsided because cap space in itself is a valuable asset. Not to mention the wildcard that is ownership pressure, which can sometimes force a GM to make a terrible move for short term gain (McPhee with Forsberg for Erat) or face the firing squad (Nonis and not overpaying for Brad Richards) or force a GM to get rid of good players because of their own personal financial issues (Predators with Timonen and Hartnell a long time ago).

Hall in a vacuum is worth a ton. Hall on a team with a surplus of wingers, a desperate need for a rhs defenceman signed to a reasonable cap hit, in a market where defencemen cost a premium with a GM known for his less than sterling ability to command leverage and you get today's deal.

 

[Kraken Jokes]

I think in many ways we need to STOP thinking of players in terms of value. I think the only real factors should be, "Does this trade put my team in a better situation going forward?" and "What are other teams offering?"

I don't know how many times I've been involved in threads where both sides seem to be in agreement (generally) just to have someone come along and say, "... but value!"

 

[joemon999]

One thing that effects the quality of a return are the skill and abilities of the GM's involved. Some are better than others and that has an impact.

What seems to be the problem is that value in a vacuum is irrelevant but that's the fundamental basis for all discussion here.

In reality, it's a players value to the team that has him, value of the player to the team that wants to acquire him, the abilities of the GM's involved and market conditions (supply and demand). Toss in the cap to make it even more complicated and occasionally, terribly lopsided because cap space in itself is a valuable asset. Not to mention the wildcard that is ownership pressure, which can sometimes force a GM to make a terrible move for short term gain (McPhee with Forsberg for Erat) or face the firing squad (Nonis and not overpaying for Brad Richards) or force a GM to get rid of good players because of their own personal financial issues (Predators with Timonen and Hartnell a long time ago).

Hall in a vacuum is worth a ton. Hall on a team with a surplus of wingers, a desperate need for a rhs defenceman signed to a reasonable cap hit, in a market where defencemen cost a premium with a GM known for his less than sterling ability to command leverage and you get today's deal.

Some good points here. All of these factors of course need to be taken into consideration. However, I don't think it lessens the amount of value we can attribute to certain players by looking at past trades. I'm not saying past trades should be the only thing we only gauge value on. But, when we combine it with the other factors you've listed, we'll have received a good amount of information to accurately try and depict the value of a player and what he could potentially and realistically return.

 

[joemon999]

I think in many ways we need to STOP thinking of players in terms of value. I think the only real factors should be, "Does this trade put my team in a better situation going forward?" and "What are other teams offering?"

I don't know how many times I've been involved in threads where both sides seem to be in agreement (generally) just to have someone come along and say, "... but value!"

You know you bring up a good point. A prime example of this would be Nino for Clutterbuck + a 3rd.

Value wise? You can argue all day that the Islanders got the short stick. But, when you take into consideration how much more Clutterbuck contributes to the Islanders in terms of impacting the game (from hits, locker room presence, etc), you can see Clutterbuck was worth more to the Islanders than Nino was.

Value in a vaccum may of been way off, however I think Snow is very happy with how that trade turned out along with 95% of Isles fans.