I've been thinking about this a lot regarding Granlund recently, but I've been noticing it with other players as well. It's fascinating trying to figure out who has "positive" value and who has "negative" value. I feel like there are a ton of offense-first middle-6 players making similar money to Granlund, and whether they have positive or negative value seems almost arbitrary.
For example, Hoffman had 34 points in 67 games last year and Granlund had 41 points in 79 games, but I think both are viewed as having "negative" value. On the other side, Bjorkstrand had 45 points in 82 games and Teravainen had 37 points in 68 games, but I think both are viewed as having "positive" value.
Bjorkstrand is the really interesting one to me to compare to Granlund. Bjorkstrand had 4 years at $5.4 million a year left on his deal when he was traded to Seattle as a cap casualty last off-season. He had 57 points in 80 games in 2021-2022, but he was also heavily reliant on powerplay production. 19 of his 57 points were on the powerplay and he was a -35 overall. He got less chances on the powerplay in Seattle and only had 45 points in 81 games in more of a middle-6 role. But I still feel like that this website would conclude he has positive value.
Interesting topic that frankly you could have started an entire thread on. My take:
Player values are team/system, division, and contract specific in that order.
Ex1) Granlund could provide a good value for a team like Chicago: he gets points, power play, etc...enough so where they're not literally scoring 0 goals....but Granlund does not provide 'value' in the sense he's worth 'anything' to trade for (i.e. it would behoove Chicago to acquire him, but in the sense that they accept him with a middling pick...not that they actually
target him.). Granlund is of ZERO value to a team like Tampa, Toronto...or what we all hope: Pittsburgh....teams looking to 'get over the hump'. Those teams need guys that put up points like Granlund, but on DOC money. They overpay top positions in hopes to get value from bottom positions. It's the only way. All the cup teams have a few guys at the top, and a few at the bottom....overpaying for that mid-tier performance is more of a hindrance to those guys.
Ex2) Patric Hornqvist, Tom Wilson, Matthew Tkachuk. What are these guys when ranked amongst their peers statistically? What about emotionally or in crunch time? You can value them at a dollar figure, or value them with 'intangibles'...or fankly actual measurable impact. The Pens used to have a team flush full of guys who were absolute aces at one thing - but just okay at others. The great thing about that is those guys can step up in 'those things' but their deficiencies can be made up by the top guys. Was Hornqvist great at skating, forechecking, etc.? Was he a top forward in the league? At 5M (?) was he not a guy every contender in the league would have loved...but a team (see above) that Chicago would have almost no use for OTHER than to flip to one of those contending teams for a haul. That's what it would be like for Wilson. The Tkachuk example is on where, you're not JUST paying for points/position like TO did with Matthews - he brings other things. Not many do.
So yeah, I think values cannot be determined league wide. They really never have been but the common fan might not see it that way. You have to take the team/system -assess their needs - then rank it against their own division - then take contracts in to effect and determine fit/retention etc.
