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

[KaseMeOutside]

hall was just way overvalued here, he has never been on a good team as a pro and has never scored 30 goals

 

[Viqsi]

I think in many ways we need to STOP thinking of players in terms of value.

Absolutely this. Not sure if the factors you suggest cover everything, but trying to go by vacuum value just Doesn't Work because it frankly isn't a stable or useful concept. I try to pay lip service to the idea now and again, but that's only to try to prevent flamewars; it's an absurd fiction.

 

[joemon999]

hall was just way overvalued here, he has never been on a good team as a pro and has never scored 30 goals

Hey man, preaching to the choir. While I do believe Hall is an amazing forward, Edmonton was expecting a Crosby-lite return.

You had to see the thread from the past 2 days which was the "Rumor: Radio host says Hall for Hamonic very likely" or something along those lines. It was just pages of me saying Hamonic could net Hall alone if you look at the Jones/Johansen trade, while there was like 60 Oiler's fans literally calling me an idiot haha

 

[PWJunior]

Hey man, preaching to the choir. While I do believe Hall is an amazing forward, Edmonton was expecting a Crosby-lite return.

You had to see the thread from the past 2 days which was the "Rumor: Radio host says Hall for Hamonic very likely" or something along those lines. It was just pages of me saying Hamonic could net Hall alone if you look at the Jones/Johansen trade, while there was like 60 Oiler's fans literally calling me an idiot haha

I salute you again for your yeoman work in that thread. You were right.

Too many people fail to grasp that there are other factors in play other than pure value. The whole 'value in a vacuum' is irrelevant as we're not operating in a vacuum. Availability, need, fit are just as important and people just disregard them. If a player is not available (like Hamonic was for pretty much anything other than an upgrade on him on defense), value is completely irrelevant and a deal is just not to happen. He's a much needed piece for the team and a perfect fit. So not available, needed, perfect fit, high value equals 'not happening'. While Hall has very high value, it wasn't enough to trump the other factors.

In the Hall for Larsson deal, Chiarelli mentioned that need was a huge factor. Fit too as Larsson was not only a d-man, he was a RH d-man who could play 20+ minutes with a good contract. These things clearly mattered. Chiarelli prioritized availability, need, fit over pure value. It remains to be seen if he gave up too much value, but we won't know that until later.

 

[McHortton]

This is why I like that the Canucks picked Juolevi over Tkachuk. Dmen are much more valuable than wingers. Even if Tkatchuk is a 1st line winger and Juolevi end up being a 2, he'll hold more value because position.

 

[joemon999]

I salute you again for your yeoman work in that thread. You were right.

Too many people fail to grasp that there are other factors in play other than pure value. The whole 'value in a vacuum' is irrelevant as we're not operating in a vacuum. Availability, need, fit are just as important and people just disregard them. If a player is not available (like Hamonic was for pretty much anything other than an upgrade on him on defense), value is completely irrelevant and a deal is just not to happen. He's a much needed piece for the team and a perfect fit. So not available, needed, perfect fit, high value equals 'not happening'. While Hall has very high value, it wasn't enough to trump the other factors.

In the Hall for Larsson deal, Chiarelli mentioned that need was a huge factor. Fit too as Larsson was not only a d-man, he was a RH d-man who could play 20+ minutes with a good contract. These things clearly mattered. Chiarelli prioritized availability, need, fit over pure value. It remains to be seen if he gave up too much value, but we won't know that until later.

Thanks PW. That means a lot coming from you

And yes I agree with all your points. This vacuum-value thing we HFer's like to do never works, always disappoints, and only causes needless arguing between two different fan bases. You would think we would learn after a while... But nope

 

[Kraken Jokes]

This is why I like that the Canucks picked Juolevi over Tkachuk. Dmen are much more valuable than wingers. Even if Tkatchuk is a 1st line winger and Juolevi end up being a 2, he'll hold more value because position.

There's a lot more to it than that too. If the team your trying to trade with has plenty of LD talent, they're not going to view defence as having more value than wingers. That's just one example.

 

[McHortton]

There's a lot more to it than that too. If the team your trying to trade with has plenty of LD talent, they're not going to view defence as having more value than wingers. That's just one example.

Obviously... My point is in general that solid defenseman are more rare than top wingers, look at how many teams are always looking for defense.... And then wingers...

 

[2020 Cup Champions]

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.

Totally agree with the idea that the market is constantly changing (the rest, too, but especially that point).

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.

I mostly agree with what you're saying here, but I don't buy that Chiarelli is to blame here as much as the fairly awful circumstances he stepped into last year. Edmonton HAS to start winning. Every year they spend at the bottom is another year burned off of the contracts of their very many valuable young assets. Continued below.

Absolutely this. Not sure if the factors you suggest cover everything, but trying to go by vacuum value just Doesn't Work because it frankly isn't a stable or useful concept. I try to pay lip service to the idea now and again, but that's only to try to prevent flamewars; it's an absurd fiction.

Totally agree. How long has the battle over what defenseman Taylor Hall is worth been raging? How many times have people said there's no way a team trades a bona fide #1 for a winger that isn't Jamie Benn or Alex Ovechkin? Hall is good, but he's still below the cutoff for untouchable and this trade is proof of that. It just doesn't make sense from a team building perspective unless the team trading for the winger has another #1 and the depth to absorb losing the former no matter the value.

 

[BiggestHockeyFan]

you are actually trying to get people on HFBoards to do research and use logic? good luck bro

 

[zar]

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?

OK, first off... who confirms this? If it's not a Chiarelli or Snow quote then don't post speculation as truth.

Secondly it was an Islander fan NOT numerous Oiler fans that posted the trade that I bolded in your statement above. Your were trying to peddle us Boychuk and his contract plus picks for Taylor Hall. Below is the excerpts from THIS thread you refer to in your post.

Stop making things up.

Way too much coming from NYI. Pulock AND Nelson/MDC WITH a 1st rounder is overpay.

Like I said, I'm willing to replace the 2017 2nd rounder with a prospect. I'm thinking Sundstrom, but I'd be willing to think about doing MDC instead.

So,

- Boychuck
- MDC
- 2016 1st
- Rights to Okposo

For

- Hall

To

Hamonic
Nelson/MDC/Strome
2016 1st

To

Hall


Is what it would take. And I'm an Isles fan.

 

[Jephman]

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.

I'd say this is the most reasonable and logical way of looking at this trade.

No one, especially the desperate Oilers, are winning a trade if a RHD is coming the other way.

 

[sully1410]

In a vacuum I agree with this sentiment that you need to cite prior trades when looking at a players value. I try to do this often when I make proposals.

However...there are a lot more dimensions in a player trade then there are when to buy a company or a house. A player will have inherent value to the organization...sometimes it's a lot higher then his market value (Mark Stuart comes to mind) and sometimes it's remarkably less. Just the way of it.

There's also organizational need to think about, ie.) Oil he a lot of scoring forwards. Hall won't really be missed

And they really needed a Dman...so this is what happened.

 

[Kraken Jokes]

OK, first off... who confirms this? If it's not a Chiarelli or Snow quote then don't post speculation as truth.

Secondly it was an Islander fan NOT numerous Oiler fans that posted the trade that I bolded in your statement above. Your were trying to peddle us Boychuk and his contract plus picks for Taylor Hall. Below is the excerpts from THIS thread you refer to in your post.

Stop making things up.

Wow dude, it's rather petty of you to follow a poster into another thread in order to bash him. Give it a rest.

 

[joemon999]

OK, first off... who confirms this? If it's not a Chiarelli or Snow quote then don't post speculation as truth.

Secondly it was an Islander fan NOT numerous Oiler fans that posted the trade that I bolded in your statement above. Your were trying to peddle us Boychuk and his contract plus picks for Taylor Hall. Below is the excerpts from THIS thread you refer to in your post.

Stop making things up.

Arthur staple confirmed this... The islanders beat writer. He straight up confirmed Isles declined hall for harmonic. Look at his twitter. And yeah I did propose that trade. And I still believe you get more equal value with that as it gives you a chance to trade for another good defensmen along with boychuck with the now your 2 first round draft picks along with the two 2nd round picks, along with a chance to sign okposo to replace hall. I think boychuck and a leddy type player combined along with the chance to sign okposo is better for a team then just Larsson... But I'm not here to discuss that trade. You can go to that thread and comment on it and I will reply.

Why no mention on my valuation of hall for hamonic though due to jones and johansen which you clearly saw looking through my post history? Interesting you purposely avoided the pages of my post history to find that proposal. No one is making stuff up here bud. Nice attempt of deflection though.

 

[Curufinwe]

I said three days ago that RHD who can play on the top pairing have disproportionate value, and pointed to the Jones-Johansen trade as an example.

Oiler fans who thought NYI would have to add significantly to Hamonic for Hall were just fooling themselves.

 

[member 147413]

Delete

 

[seanlinden]

It's really not -- teams make trades for different reasons, and in different situations; at the end of the day, the trade is made because teams think they are putting themselves better off as a result.

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've hit the nail on the head here.

Forget trying to "value" PK Subban, or Shea Weber, or Taylor Hall, or Adam Larsson.

At the end of the day, could Montreal have gotten more "value" for PK Subban by trading him to Edmonton? probably, but that wasn't the purpose in trading him. They traded him to get a star defenceman in this league, who's a little cheaper on the cap, plays a much more conservative game, displays all of the leadership qualities they look for in a star defenceman, and none of the sideshow/antics.

From Nashville's point of view, they get one of the most exciting and dynamic defencemen in the league, and somebody who's actually a little cheaper over the next couple of years.

You look at the other trade -- and it's a similar story -- I'm sure the Oilers have a view that Adam Larsson is a budding young defenceman, just waiting to break out with a change of scenery -- to show why he was drafted 4th overall. Could they have gotten "more" for Hall? probably, but it wouldn't have been the 23 year old 6'3, right shooting defenceman capable of playing 22/night immediately, with tons of upside, they were targeting.

Really, the only time that looking at past "value" in trades, tends to be around the deadline, when selling teams don't particularly care what they get in return, and are simply looking to accumulate pieces to work with.

 

[kingdok]

The premise of the thread ignores one thing: takes 2 to tango.

 

[Greg Schuler]

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

And Microsoft is the same company that spent a lot of money buying a declining phone manufacturer, ripping out the internals of that company's best products to replace it with a failed product and then gave up after there was no immediate success in a market dominated by two companies, one of which makes a lot of money on phones and the other that does not.

The point? Bad management makes bad decisions.

You can come to the negotiating table with all sort of analytics and valuations and opinions, but, at the end of the day, it comes down to two people talking and making decisions. They can reference past deals, but in the end, what one person feels is fair is maybe not what you think is fair (the royal you, by the way).

To go further, Edmonton needed defense, and Chiarelli obviously wants to put his stamp on the franchise. He went around the league looking for defense and in the end, gave up a player with value for a player with value. How those values intersect cannot be determined at this time. Perhaps Hall goes out and dominates the league and shows everyone he is not a loser or point hog. Perhaps he sulks in New Jersey and does very little. Perhaps Larsson continues to play as a steady defenseman, or perhaps he tanks without Andy Greene as a partner, or perhaps he takes out and fulfills his draft potential. In the end, it will be the context of the trade that you can argue about - the result depend on more than the acquisition costs.

As far as past history, keep in mind the salary cap and how that is the single most important consideration for any trade. That skews value from simple production to production and cost. If a team can maximize production and minimize cost, they "win".

 

[nickschultzfan]

Wingers are horribly overrated in terms of their importance to a cup contender.

And by the time the Oilers are a contender, Hall will be 28-32, and he's production, and value, will have peaked.

 

[zar]

Wow dude, it's rather petty of you to follow a poster into another thread in order to bash him. Give it a rest.

What are you talking about... read the OP.. he brought it up in the OP of this thread and was saying an Oiler's fan made some preposterous trade when it was actually a Islanders fan that suggested it ( i was injvolved in that thread that how I knew it was BS) ... I wanted in rectified because Oiler posters take a lot of heat in these forums (some of it justified).

Arthur staple confirmed this... The islanders beat writer. He straight up confirmed Isles declined hall for harmonic. Look at his twitter. And yeah I did propose that trade. And I still believe you get more equal value with that as it gives you a chance to trade for another good defensmen along with boychuck with the now your 2 first round draft picks along with the two 2nd round picks, along with a chance to sign okposo to replace hall. I think boychuck and a leddy type player combined along with the chance to sign okposo is better for a team then just Larsson... But I'm not here to discuss that trade. You can go to that thread and comment on it and I will reply.

Why no mention on my valuation of hall for hamonic though due to jones and johansen which you clearly saw looking through my post history? Interesting you purposely avoided the pages of my post history to find that proposal. No one is making stuff up here bud. Nice attempt of deflection though.

Arthur Staples confirmed it? Exactly. That's speculation because until an involved GM is quoted, it's not confirmation. I'm not going to debate your original trade offer in that thread because including Boychuk and his contract was a non-starter.

I did not bring up your Hall for Hamonic 1:1 comparison because it wasn't the point of my post. I am one of those Oiler's posters who have been very realistic with Oiler player values - go look through my post history if you care to. I would have said Hall for Hamonic + a small add like a 2nd or 3rd rounder... so I would have been a little off. If Snow indeed refused a Hall for Hamonic straight across, it's not necessarily saying Hall is not worth Hamonic... it's say Hall for Hamonic is not worth it for the GM making the decision. Trading Hamonic would leave a huge hole on the NYI, who are trying to win now... they are not rebuilding... they are re-tooling making subtle changes to better their team.

I disagree with your logic because Hamonic to the NYI is worth way more than Hamonic to the Blues and Larsson to the Oilers is worth way more than Lasrsson to the Blues. Hall is worth more to the Devils than Hall is worth to the Penguins. Nowhere in your OP does your factor this in.

I will agree with many posters here that wingers are, and have always been, the least valuable asset when it comes to trades unless you are talking about the very best wingers (Ovechkin, Benn, Kane) in the game or one on a very good contract.

 

[Jester9881]

What are you talking about... read the OP.. he brought it up in the OP of this thread and was saying an Oiler's fan made some preposterous trade when it was actually a Islanders fan that suggested it ( i was injvolved in that thread that how I knew it was BS) ... I wanted in rectified because Oiler posters take a lot of heat in these forums (some of it justified).



Arthur Staples confirmed it? Exactly. That's speculation because until an involved GM is quoted, it's not confirmation. I'm not going to debate your original trade offer in that thread because including Boychuk and his contract was a non-starter.

I did not bring up your Hall for Hamonic 1:1 comparison because it wasn't the point of my post. I am one of those Oiler's posters who have been very realistic with Oiler player values - go look through my post history if you care to. I would have said Hall for Hamonic + a small add like a 2nd or 3rd rounder... so I would have been a little off. If Snow indeed refused a Hall for Hamonic straight across, it's not necessarily saying Hall is not worth Hamonic... it's say Hall for Hamonic is not worth it for the GM making the decision. Trading Hamonic would leave a huge hole on the NYI, who are trying to win now... they are not rebuilding... they are re-tooling making subtle changes to better their team.

I disagree with your logic because Hamonic to the NYI is worth way more than Hamonic to the Blues and Larsson to the Oilers is worth way more than Lasrsson to the Blues. Hall is worth more to the Devils than Hall is worth to the Penguins. Nowhere in your OP does your factor this in.

I will agree with many posters here that wingers are, and have always been, the least valuable asset when it comes to trades unless you are talking about the very best wingers (Ovechkin, Benn, Kane) in the game or one on a very good contract.

Dreger confirmed Islanders nixed Hamonic for Hall as well.

 

[Kraken Jokes]

This thread is not about Hall for Hamonic or any other trades in particular, it was just an example. But using that example, I believe it was clearly stated numerous times that the Islanders would not trade Hamonic without a similar quality RHD in return. It had nothing to do with Hall or Hamonic's value, the Islanders simply didn't want to go back to being the forward-heavy team they were before getting Leddy and Boychuk.

 

[tony d]

Team needs sometimes dictate value a lot more than the value of each player. Look at the Hall trade on Wednesday. Sure Hall's a way better player than Larsson but Larsson fills a big need for Edmonton.