The cost of trading a bad Contract

[DatsyukToZetterberg]

With the recent discussion about RFAs and the number of teams that seem to have a need to move players with salary, I wanted to see if it was possible to create a way in which one could estimate the cost to trade a player with negative value or an unwanted contract.

To begin, I decided that all the components involved in a trade needed to be quantified in the same stat. This stat ended up being the WAR created by Evolving-Wild; while WAR isn’t perfect I do believe it offers a relative accurate estimation of a player’s overall value. To find the average WAR of a player that was being traded I used a basic weighted average of the player’s last 3 seasons. Their most recent season was worth 5 points, the 2nd most recent was worth 4 points, and the 3rd most recent season was worth 3 points. The total was then divided by 12 and the resulting value was their weight average across those 3 seasons (5*S1+4*S2+3*S3)/12.

The next step in the process was to try to create an expected WAR for each draft pick. To speed up the process I estimated the expected WAR for each pick by finding the WAR generated from 1st overall picks over their first 8 seasons in the NHL, some players had less than 8 seasons due to evolving-hockey only tracking WAR from the 07-08 season and onward. I averaged those values out to create an expected WAR per season for 1st overall picks. The average WAR that a 1st overall pick produced over the reviewed seasons was 2.075 per season.

The 2.075 value was then applied to the 2016 version of the draft pick valuation chart created by Michael Schuckers to give an expected WAR for each draft pick. While the chart is used to show the value of each pick I believe this valuation table also applies here. This is because I am just translating the values he found into WAR. Instead of pick 10 being worth 422 points it is worth (422/1000)*2.075 = 0.875 WAR, in both cases the 10th overall pick is worth 42.2% of the 1st overall pick. The main difference is that this translation allows us to compare picks to players and establish values in trades.

After completing an expected WAR for each pick, I was left with an individual value for all picks which I then averaged into the following groupings:


Table 1

With a value for picks and players the last step was to identify the trades that would be selected. The trades included were manually selected, so this review was very subjective in nature. To qualify there are 2 main criteria that had to be met:

• There must have been at least a $2,000,000 difference in cap space received versus what was traded.
• There must have been a clear “Dump” of a player. For Example, The Boychuk trade was not considered as it is not what I would consider to be a salary dump. The Bruins did not need to incentivize the Islanders to trade for him, Boychuk had enough value to return assets on his own.

Using these criteria, there were 12 such trades that could be considered a salary dump type of trade.


Table 2

The trades can then further be broken down based on how much term was remaining on the player’s contract when the team acquired them:


Table 3

While I typically wouldn’t break a sample size of 12 into smaller groups there was enough of a difference in the "Average WAR Gained per 1% of Cap Increase" that I think it makes sense to group them separately.

The important thing to take away from the table above is the different rates of return per 1% increase cap increase, as well as the standard deviation. For example, a team that is taking on a negative value player with 1 year remaining on their contract could expect to receive about 0.055 WAR for every 1% their salary cap increases. The standard deviation allows us to evaluate if a trade is fair or not, through some testing I believe anything within 1 standard deviation is about fair value.

Lastly, the table does not include anything in the 4, 5, or 6-year range. This is because no such trade has ever been made. By making some assumptions about what the shape of the data for those periods I believe I’ve been able to create an estimation that would be accurate for contracts that are 4, 5, and 6 years in length.


Table 4

The values for 3, 4, 5, and 6 contracts are really just for fun as there are either no real-world examples or the data is limited. I thought it would be interesting to include them as people seem to want to throw those types of players into trades with some regularity.

To show how to properly use some of the values and rates I’ve created here is an example using a player that may be moved this offseason: Ryan Callahan.


Table 5

What’s important to note here is the Total Player Value and the standard deviation. The total player value is Callahan’s current worth including his contract and his recent performance put into the terms of WAR. The Total Player Value essentially tells us that in order to convince a team to take on his contract TB would need to include assets that are on average worth .404 WAR . The standard deviation is calculated by taking the 0.21 value from Table 3 and multiplying it by the "Total Player Value". The standard deviation provides us with both the low and high end of what we could consider to be a fair trade; so long as the value a team receives are between +/- 0.149 WAR they will have received fair compensation for taking on Callahan's contract.


Table 6

Using the estimated pick values from earlier these are 3 possible trade scenarios that I came up with; there is a low cost, medium cost, and a high cost. I don't believe any of those trades are completely outlandish and depending on the situation and what the trade market is like all 3 are reasonable outcomes.

Overall, I think the method discussed can provide a decent estimation of the type of assets a team would need to move to “dump” a player. Even when accounting for the small sample sizes, I think that by using the values from “AVG WAR Gained Per 1% of Cap Increase” in conjunction with the standard deviation there are very realistic trades created. By keeping the trade within 1 standard deviation you can effectively see an accurate estimation of the cost depending on the trade market.

I have never done this sort of analysis before so if anyone has any suggestions to improve my method or if they noticed some sort of critical error please let me know. Also, if you have any questions about anything that I talked about or the process in which I came up with the values let me know. I'm happy to discuss.

And of course a big thanks to CapFriendly as that is where I gathered all the salary figures; another huge shootout to Evolving-Wild and their WAR model, you should check their site out if you haven't already; and to Michael Schuckers for creating the draft valuation chart that I based my expected WAR of draft picks on. You can read into his most recent research on the topic here.

Click to read more...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Interesting effort that overlooks the key component in any such transaction. It is not about moving players with salary, it is about upgrading your team situation.

Example, a Karl Alzner type contract is easy to move, but there is no benefit to doing so on other teams' terms. Willing to play in the AHL so juniors/ECHL players do not have to be rushed, contributes as a second coach for defencemen, injury replacement that knows his role within the system. Better than any possible short term fix that requires giving-up assets and integrating into a team system/culture.

 

[NHL WAR]

Very interesting. Solid work!

 

[DatsyukToZetterberg]

Interesting effort that overlooks the key component in any such transaction. It is not about moving players with salary, it is about upgrading your team situation.

Example, a Karl Alzner type contract is easy to move, but there is no benefit to doing so on other teams' terms. Willing to play in the AHL so juniors/ECHL players do not have to be rushed, contributes as a second coach for defencemen, injury replacement that knows his role within the system. Better than any possible short term fix that requires giving-up assets and integrating into a team system/culture.

To be honest I wasn't sure if it was a consideration that needed to be made. The way I tried to create this method of establishing a "Dumping Value" was done with the team acquiring the contract in mind. From their perspective as the team taking on the "Bad Contract" they will only take on a contract if the trade provides them with enough excess value to make it worthwhile. If a team isn't willing to meet their price they aren't under any obligation to take on that contract and player. I don't believe the cost to move a contract is dependent on whether or not a team wishes to move the contract, that impacts just how much they would be willing to move to get rid of it.

In your example of Alzner, Montreal is fine until they need to use the cap space Alzner is currently occupying, once this happens they may become more motivated to move Alzner and his contract. If this need never arises they will be able to keep him on in the minors in a mentoring role for 925K in cap relief until his contract runs out. However, if the Habs could sign Panarin or Duchene this off-season perhaps they decide that it makes sense to trade away Alzner and use the extra cap space to sign one of them. I totally agree that if a team isn't motivated to move a bad contract then they will just wait until it expires and continue on with their normal routines.

 

[Canadiens1958]

To be honest I wasn't sure if it was a consideration that needed to be made. The way I tried to create this method of establishing a "Dumping Value" was done with the team acquiring the contract in mind. From their perspective as the team taking on the "Bad Contract" they will only take on a contract if the trade provides them with enough excess value to make it worthwhile. If a team isn't willing to meet their price they aren't under any obligation to take on that contract and player. I don't believe the cost to move a contract is dependent on whether or not a team wishes to move the contract, that impacts just how much they would be willing to move to get rid of it.

In your example of Alzner, Montreal is fine until they need to use the cap space Alzner is currently occupying, once this happens they may become more motivated to move Alzner and his contract. If this need never arises they will be able to keep him on in the minors in a mentoring role for 925K in cap relief until his contract runs out. However, if the Habs could sign Panarin or Duchene this off-season perhaps they decide that it makes sense to trade away Alzner and use the extra cap space to sign one of them. I totally agree that if a team isn't motivated to move a bad contract then they will just wait until it expires and continue on with their normal routines.

Then they will be collecting bad contracts.

The providing of "excess value" has to come from somewhere. Detroit really slickerd Arizona getting Dennis Cholowski and Philip Hronek for Jakub Chychrun and Pavel Datsyuk.

Detroit obtained 38:15 in TOI in return for Chychrun's 20:15. What happened to the "extra value"? If Arizona has to find a defenceman to play 18:00 solid NHL minutes for the next 10-12 years.

Datsyuk's contract:

Pavel Datsyuk - CapFriendly - Masses salariales LNH

They are starting in a very deep hole.

 

[DatsyukToZetterberg]

Then they will be collecting bad contracts.

The providing of "excess value" has to come from somewhere. Detroit really slickerd Arizona getting Dennis Cholowski and Philip Hronek for Jakub Chychrun and Pavel Datsyuk.

Detroit obtained 38:15 in TOI in return for Chychrun's 20:15. What happened to the "extra value"? If Arizona has to find a defenceman to play 18:00 solid NHL minutes for the next 10-12 years.

Datsyuk's contract:

Pavel Datsyuk - CapFriendly - Masses salariales LNH

They are starting in a very deep hole.

The way I view the Detroit-Arizona trade is not as Chychrun+Datsyuk for Cholowski+Hronek, but as the #16+Datsyuk's contract pick for #20+#53. The only way that I can really rationalize the trade from Arizona's point of view is that the had Chychrun ranked as a pick in the 5-10 range and they wanted to ensure they were the ones to select him at 16. Otherwise, if they had him ranked as the #16 prospect they really overpayed as #20+#53 is enough value to justify the trade down for the Wings, let alone adding in them taking on Datsyuk's contract. The extra value for the Coyotes comes from them being able to select a prospect they had rated in their top 10 (my speculation). Given how we know the expected production of picks drops off steeply after the first couple of picks the odds were in their favor that if the player was truly one of the top 5-10 players in the draft the trade up would be worth it. Arizona may have felt that the overall quality typically provided from a top 5-10 player would outweigh the qu

Under my proposed methodology, a player with Datysuk's contract would typically cost anywhere from 0.351 to 0.788 WAR, though the Wings did take on Vitale which lowered the expected value Arizona would receive to between 0.299 and 0.671 . The Wings were able to trade him by giving Arizona just an extra 0.243 WAR, I think there are a couple of reasons that cannot be quantified for why Detroit was able to get away with under paying in terms of value in this trade. The first is that Arizona was highly motivated to trade up and take Chychrun, perhaps Detroit was adamant they had to take Datsyuk back in the deal; and the Datsyuk and Vitale swap saved Arizona 1.3M in real dollars as it was likely that Vitale's contract was not insured while Datsyuk's was just cap space, there were no real world dollars attached to it once he retired.

Even considering all that Arizona received less than "fair value" for taking on Datsyuk's contract. The data that I've collected is based on small sample sizes so it is hard to make a definitive statement about whether a trade is or isn't fair. All I can say is that based on the data I've collected the Datsyuk trade had the lowest return of any "Salary Dump" while also having the highest salary cap increase % of any trade with 1 year of term remaining. This leads me to believe Arizona was either highly motivated to make the trade, meaning they thought quite highly of Chychrun, or there were factors in the trade that we are not aware of, perhaps they wanted to minimize player salary expenditures or there were other budget related reasons for the trade. Of course, there is also the alternative that both Arizona and Detroit felt that the trade made was perfectly fair, and because of the small sample size it just appears to be an outlier.

 

[Jets4Life]

Winnipeg did this with Steve Mason's contract. We sent Montreal a 4th and 7th round pic, Joel Armia and Steve Mason for next to nothing.

 

[Ricky Bobby]

Interesting analysis.

The key piece that I don't see quantified is real dollars vs. just cap dollars. For example: A. insurance was picking up the tab for Bolland, Datsyuk, Savard vs. B. Orpik/Mason were being paid to never play for a team vs. C. Versteeg who was just overpaid.

In the case of Callahan he's paid real dollars but his contract was also front loaded.

This is definitely not an easy thing to quantify.

Milan Michalek, Brooks Laich and Matt Beleskey are other examples of cap dumps you could look at.

 

[DatsyukToZetterberg]

Winnipeg did this with Steve Mason's contract. We sent Montreal a 4th and 7th round pic, Joel Armia and Steve Mason for next to nothing.

I wouldn't say they did it for next to nothing. It cost them Joel Armia who had been worth on average 0.550 WAR per season up to the 2017-2018 season and had just come off of a 1.3 WAR season. For reference the 90th ranked forward produced 1.5 WAR in 2017-2018, the 180th produced 0.7 WAR, and the 270th produced 0.3 WAR. I bring those numbers up because they're pretty consistent year over year, give or take 0.1-0.2 WAR, and they do an okay job illustrating how the tiers of forwards break down. Armia had averaged out to be around the 200th best NHL forward and his season before being traded he was tied for 109th. Given their cap situation they really didn't have much of an option, though I think buying Mason out and keeping Armia may have been a fine alternative, they did need to make a move to clear space.

Also, I don't want anybody to think that I believe WAR is the answer to all of the stats. Hockey's version of WAR is still very much in it's infancy and I'm sure it will go through a lot of changes and there will be many different versions. It is just, in my opinion, the best way publicly available tool to quickly compare the impact players have an all aspects of a game. While Armia may have had just 29 points because of his possession numbers and defense, he was still able to produce an overall value closer what one would expect a scoring top 6 forward.

Interesting analysis.

The key piece that I don't see quantified is real dollars vs. just cap dollars. For example: A. insurance was picking up the tab for Bolland, Datsyuk, Savard vs. B. Orpik/Mason were being paid to never play for a team vs. C. Versteeg who was just overpaid.

In the case of Callahan he's paid real dollars but his contract was also front loaded.

This is definitely not an easy thing to quantify.

Milan Michalek, Brooks Laich and Matt Beleskey are other examples of cap dumps you could look at.

I agree whole hardheartedly. I think that's part of the consideration and this research was limited in terms of the trades that I reviewed, though that was by design. I have been wondering if there would be a way to try and create a factor of some sort in which how willing a team would be to take on a contract, call it a "motivator factor" or something like that. As you mentioned the real dollars vs cap hit; or Orpik/Mason who the acquiring team had no intention to keep on their roster, and the other factors that influence a trade. If I was to build on this I think there a lot of things I could look into and those would all be considerations, I do like the idea of trying to define a "Motivation Factor" but that would to have clearly defined components.

I actually did see the Michalek, Laich, and Belesky trades but I excluded them from consideration for different reasons. The Michalek trade to me seemed to be more of a bad contract for bad contract dump; the Leafs traded away their player who was overpaid and took on a bunch of bad contracts to receive some sort of value. I decided that it would be difficult to determine whether the 2nd round pick was being traded for taking on all of the contracts to balance the cap or if it was the value of Phaneuf and the other contracts were included as a way of "making it work". The Belesky trade kind of falls under the same line of thinking as Nash at 50% retention was the best forward on the market in the 17-18 TDL and it would have been hard to determine what sort of value Belesky had in that trade. Given that he played almost the entirety of this season in the AHL and he also had 50% retained salary I think he was merely included to balance the caps being traded.

The Laich trade was excluded because he would have caused an issue with forming an accurate method for trying to estimate future trades. Because of Winnik's previous season in which he was worth about 2.5 WAR the value the Leafs received for taking on Laich's contract resulted in a negative value for them. I'm going off the top of my head, but I believe that based on my estimation method the Leafs would have had to have received a 1st as well in that trade, if not more. Had I included that trade in the model it would have been the only trade in which their was negative value and I made a judgement call that it was too much of an extreme outlier to include.

It would seem that around the trade deadline the method sort of losses its accuracy, I think all the trades I looked at were in the offseason. One theory I have is that as teams that are selling get closer to the deadline they become more willing to take on salary for future seasons. If the potential outcome is take on a contract such as Laich's and get a 2nd or don't take on Laich's contract and get nothing, the selling team may be motivated to make the trade even though they aren't being properly compensated for taking on the contract.

 

[danielpalfredsson]

Interesting thread.

From a practical term, I don't think all trades can be compared cross the board just based on AAV. Salary owed is a huge part of the story. Usually, teams taking cap dumps are budget teams. If a player is insured with very little real money owed, or is a fully superficial cap hit like Datsyuk with zero money owed (Detroit actually gave ARZ cash via taking Vitale) - in most cases, the value required to dump that contract or difficulty to dump it is going to be completely different than if their is actual cash owed.

I'm not sure how it lines up with the expected WAR that you are using, but an example would be that Chicago paid a tremendous price to dump Bickell.

 

[DatsyukToZetterberg]

Interesting thread.

From a practical term, I don't think all trades can be compared cross the board just based on AAV. Salary owed is a huge part of the story. Usually, teams taking cap dumps are budget teams. If a player is insured with very little real money owed, or is a fully superficial cap hit like Datsyuk with zero money owed (Detroit actually gave ARZ cash via taking Vitale) - in most cases, the value required to dump that contract or difficulty to dump it is going to be completely different than if their is actual cash owed.

I'm not sure how it lines up with the expected WAR that you are using, but an example would be that Chicago paid a tremendous price to dump Bickell.

I'd agree and I think as we gain more examples of exclusive salary dump trades the true cost should become more clear. That being said, I think as of now the estimation for 1 and 2 year deals is somewhat accurate and the model itself does consider these other factors, just not a case by case basis. As you alluded to a lot of these deals had ulterior motives - the Datsyuk trade saved Arizona real dollars for example - and a lot of deals had similar sub-motives, for lack of a better word. The estimation is a culmination of all of these trades so the value created already considers the "other considerations" indirectly.

If you take the Callahan trade I used as an example. Perhaps if he were traded the cost to move him is just a 2nd+5th, this is on the lower end of the expected value range for someone with Callahan's cap hit. We could surmise that part of the reason is due to his cap hit being higher than his salary. This imbalance made him more attractive to teams trying to hit the cap floor and cost less to dump for that reason. I think using the estimated expected value range allows us to account for these sort of "other considerations". If one were to consider the "other considerations" and the "motivation factor" I previously mentioned perhaps they could determine where a trade may fall in the expected value range. It's very much an inexact science.

While the price Chicago paid was high, my weighted average didn't really consider it to be that out of line compared to similar dumps. My method of using the weighted average WAR is really only backwards looking and doesn't fairly represent the upside young NHLers may have. I'd love to be able to create a more advanced modeling process to create a projection system, something like the ZiPS (MLB) projection system created by Dan Szymborski, but that is way above my current abilities.

 

[zcaptain]

My ears smoke reading this, and although I get the general premise, I am not sure I get the total concept.....

This year as an example, I wonder what the cost in picks would be for these 3 players?

1. Callahan...which you already answered...…….average (Mid) cost to get ride of Callahan = 21 to 31 OA pick + a 5th round - a 7th round
2. David Clarkson ?
3. Patrick Marleau?
4. Milan Lucic?

I think these are the big 4 anyways...all for different reasons, but there are threads for these guys, that create considerable debate over the cost of moving them. Can your analytics provide an answer for them?

 

[DatsyukToZetterberg]

My ears smoke reading this, and although I get the general premise, I am not sure I get the total concept.....

This year as an example, I wonder what the cost in picks would be for these 3 players?

1. Callahan...which you already answered...…….average (Mid) cost to get ride of Callahan = 21 to 31 OA pick + a 5th round - a 7th round
2. David Clarkson ?
3. Patrick Marleau?
4. Milan Lucic?

I think these are the big 4 anyways...all for different reasons, but there are threads for these guys, that create considerable debate over the cost of moving them. Can your analytics provide an answer for them?

I do apologize if some aspects weren't as clear as they could have been. I tried my best to break down the process, but I've never really completed an analysis like this before so explaining the thought process was difficult at times. There were certainly parts that I glossed over and did not explain as well as I could have. The basic premise is that this estimation method can be used as a tool to estimate the general cost to move a player that would be considered a "salary dump".

While I'm confident in the estimated cost for players with 1 or 2 years left on their deals there really is limited data on those with 3 years left and 4+ years are my own estimation. That just means I'm a little less confident in the cost to move a Lucic or Zaitsev, especially as the public perception may not line up with their WAR valuations.

Overall, I think the estimation method can provide an answer to the cost to move those players, and really anyone though I haven't really looked into non salary dump trades. While the mid range cost may not be 100% accurate I think the high to low range that is calculated is pretty accurate. Hopefully we'll see a salary dump or 2 over the summer so we can put my system to the test.

As for the players you requested:





So, to move Clarkson the mid range cost would be a first in the 21-31 range. An alternative for this trade would be a 2nd+3rd+Clarkson for a 6th, the difference in this example would be just 0.003 WAR.






In order for Edmonton to move Lucic without taking any salary back it would take a crippling type of trade. They need to move their 1st this year, Yamamoto, and their 2nd to come close to an appropriate amount of value. Even if you look at the low end of the range, around 1.050 WAR, the Oilers would still need to move their 1st in this years draft to dump Lucic's contract.






This trade may seem to be a light in the return and that was because Marleau had a pretty good season 3 years ago in which he was worth 1.7 WAR. That season skews his weighted average value to be a bit more positive than what I believe is reflective of his current value. With that in mind I think if he was to be moved the trade would end up falling into the higher end range, about 0.302 WAR, about so you would see him moved with a 2nd round pick.

 

[morehockeystats]

Clarkson is on a perennial IR, so he is not as big a burden in cap money.

 

[zcaptain]

I do apologize if some aspects weren't as clear as they could have been. I tried my best to break down the process, but I've never really completed an analysis like this before so explaining the thought process was difficult at times. There were certainly parts that I glossed over and did not explain as well as I could have. The basic premise is that this estimation method can be used as a tool to estimate the general cost to move a player that would be considered a "salary dump".

While I'm confident in the estimated cost for players with 1 or 2 years left on their deals there really is limited data on those with 3 years left and 4+ years are my own estimation. That just means I'm a little less confident in the cost to move a Lucic or Zaitsev, especially as the public perception may not line up with their WAR valuations.

Overall, I think the estimation method can provide an answer to the cost to move those players, and really anyone though I haven't really looked into non salary dump trades. While the mid range cost may not be 100% accurate I think the high to low range that is calculated is pretty accurate. Hopefully we'll see a salary dump or 2 over the summer so we can put my system to the test.

As for the players you requested:





So, to move Clarkson the mid range cost would be a first in the 21-31 range. An alternative for this trade would be a 2nd+3rd+Clarkson for a 6th, the difference in this example would be just 0.003 WAR.






In order for Edmonton to move Lucic without taking any salary back it would take a crippling type of trade. They need to move their 1st this year, Yamamoto, and their 2nd to come close to an appropriate amount of value. Even if you look at the low end of the range, around 1.050 WAR, the Oilers would still need to move their 1st in this years draft to dump Lucic's contract.






This trade may seem to be a light in the return and that was because Marleau had a pretty good season 3 years ago in which he was worth 1.7 WAR. That season skews his weighted average value to be a bit more positive than what I believe is reflective of his current value. With that in mind I think if he was to be moved the trade would end up falling into the higher end range, about 0.302 WAR, about so you would see him moved with a 2nd round pick.

Thanks D to Z

Very interesting and I can see how this would be a very good tool ………...especially for someone like myself that does not make good proposals
But it may also explain how and why Lucic does not get moved......

Thanks Again.

 

[DatsyukToZetterberg]

Clarkson is on a perennial IR, so he is not as big a burden in cap money.

I'd agree that his cost would in theory be lower but Savard, Hossa, and Bolland were also all on LTIR. I don't think we'd see anything outlandish in terms of a trade to move his contract. I think the low end would be a 2nd while the high end would be something like 1st+3rd.

I'm not sure where the return would fall in that low to high range, but it's pretty dependent on how motivated the teams involved are. If Vegas really wants to move him and a team is playing "hardball" they may be willing to move a 1st+3rd. On the other hand if there are multiple teams eager to take on the contract for an asset, maybe it only costs Vegad a 2nd round pick. If we're looking for a direct comparable I think the second Savard trade is relatively close to what one could expect Vegas to give up.

Thanks D to Z

Very interesting and I can see how this would be a very good tool ………...especially for someone like myself that does not make good proposals
But it may also explain how and why Lucic does not get moved......

Thanks Again.

No problem, I'm happy to try and answer or clarify any questions you may have. I totally agree on the Lucic point as well. When you look at the estimated cost it really doesn't make sense for the Oilers to try and dump the full salary.

I think if anything else the method provides an interesting alternative to just gut feelings on trades It's not perfect but I'm curious to see how it stacks up against actual salary dump trades.

 

[Esq]

The way I view the Detroit-Arizona trade is not as Chychrun+Datsyuk for Cholowski+Hronek, but as the #16+Datsyuk's contract pick for #20+#53. The only way that I can really rationalize the trade from Arizona's point of view is that the had Chychrun ranked as a pick in the 5-10 range and they wanted to ensure they were the ones to select him at 16. Otherwise, if they had him ranked as the #16 prospect they really overpayed as #20+#53 is enough value to justify the trade down for the Wings, let alone adding in them taking on Datsyuk's contract. The extra value for the Coyotes comes from them being able to select a prospect they had rated in their top 10 (my speculation). Given how we know the expected production of picks drops off steeply after the first couple of picks the odds were in their favor that if the player was truly one of the top 5-10 players in the draft the trade up would be worth it. Arizona may have felt that the overall quality typically provided from a top 5-10 player would outweigh the qu

Under my proposed methodology, a player with Datysuk's contract would typically cost anywhere from 0.351 to 0.788 WAR, though the Wings did take on Vitale which lowered the expected value Arizona would receive to between 0.299 and 0.671 . The Wings were able to trade him by giving Arizona just an extra 0.243 WAR, I think there are a couple of reasons that cannot be quantified for why Detroit was able to get away with under paying in terms of value in this trade. The first is that Arizona was highly motivated to trade up and take Chychrun, perhaps Detroit was adamant they had to take Datsyuk back in the deal; and the Datsyuk and Vitale swap saved Arizona 1.3M in real dollars as it was likely that Vitale's contract was not insured while Datsyuk's was just cap space, there were no real world dollars attached to it once he retired.

Even considering all that Arizona received less than "fair value" for taking on Datsyuk's contract. The data that I've collected is based on small sample sizes so it is hard to make a definitive statement about whether a trade is or isn't fair. All I can say is that based on the data I've collected the Datsyuk trade had the lowest return of any "Salary Dump" while also having the highest salary cap increase % of any trade with 1 year of term remaining. This leads me to believe Arizona was either highly motivated to make the trade, meaning they thought quite highly of Chychrun, or there were factors in the trade that we are not aware of, perhaps they wanted to minimize player salary expenditures or there were other budget related reasons for the trade. Of course, there is also the alternative that both Arizona and Detroit felt that the trade made was perfectly fair, and because of the small sample size it just appears to be an outlier.

Wasn't it surmised that Chayka did the deal so other GMs would respect him out of the gate?

 

[DatsyukToZetterberg]

Wasn't it surmised that Chayka did the deal so other GMs would respect him out of the gate?

I can't remember that being a discussion so I can't refute it, but I have a hard time believing an NHL GM would cut a deal with another 1 just to build some rapport and get respect. By cutting a deal with Holland and just taking Dastyuk's contract he's now annoyed a number of other GMs who were hoping the Wings would sit out of FA that offseason; oddly enough the 3 awful contracts on the Wings books all came from that same offseason. I also can't see an Owner signing off on that sort of deal, but again I can't remember anything of that nature being discussed and all the articles from that time don't bring it up.

If there was evidence that there was a rapport building aspect involved in the trade that is certainly something that I'd have to consider. I'm not sure how I'd treat the trade as it is just not something that happens that commonly or really at all. It is something to think about overall, how an NHL GMs may give preference to things that are not easily quantifiable. The rapport building consideration or something such as trades within the division and the extra premium teams may demand for trades that are between teams within them.

 

[Jormungandr]

Chayka almost selected Chychrun at 7 over Keller. He made the trade because he had Chychrun rated very highly and he wanted to make sure he got his guy.

 

[Hasbro]

How about Zaitsev?

 

[neelynugs]

backes?

 

[DatsyukToZetterberg]

How about Zaitsev?

Sure, here is Zaitsev:





Zaitsev is not well liked by Evolving-Wild's WAR model and as such his overall value is almost as poor as Lucic's. That being said, given what is being reported by the media, it seems as though GMs don't feel the same way about Zaitsev and believe he can still be a valuable contributer. As such, I don't believe a Zaitsev trade would fall under the typical salary dump trade; however, if GMs were to value him similarly to the WAR model used the package to move him would be costly.

Zaitsev has been a below replacement level defender and is signed for 5 more years at a 4.5M salary, that is about as poor a contract as you can have. The mid range cost to move him is Sandin, assuming after the great 2018 season he had is now worth a pick in the 5-10 range and a 2020 1st, assuming it falls in the 16-31 range. Other alternatives would be to include one of Kapanen or Johsson in the trade, though Johnsson would require a 2nd round pick to be included to have the overall value end up in the mid range area. Of course the Leafs could also package their other assets such as Liljegren, Bracco, Korshkov, and future picks depending on how other teams value Zaitsev.

This is an example of a trade around the lower end of the cost range:

backes?

Here is David Backes:





He's interesting because his value really depends on whether or not he's capable of playing anymore. As it currently stands the mid range cost to move him is just a 2nd+7th. His TOI in the playoffs was typically sub 10 minutes so I think you'd have a hard time convincing teams that he can still be a valuable contributor. I think given his injury history the trade would be a higher than what's projected at the mid range; I would expect something along the lines of a 2nd+3rd, or potentially even a 1st+ if the Bruins were to try and dump Backes.



One last thing to keep in mind is that I'm not sure NHL teams value later round picks the same way this framework does. I could quite easily see a late 3rd to a 7th round pick being interchangeable to some GMs if they are getting high picks (1sts or 2nds) or good young players in return.

 

[StreetHawk]

Is the over paid cap dump player a roster player or a LTIR guy? I think those are 2 difference cases, especially if insurance is covering the majority of it.

As for roster players, what is the actual cash due? Let's assume they get moved after their SB on July 1,

Backes is due $5 million total after July 1. Average compensation of $2.5 million. If he's a 4th liner/spare player, that type of player is going to be paid $800K to $1 million on average. So, extra cost is $1.5-$1.7 million typically. So, is that player worth the increased compensation than what you would otherwise pay another player?
Eriksson is due $9 million after July 1, so average of $3 million per. There is a cost to the extra $1 million or so that he is paid per year.
Lucic is deal $16 million after July 1, so average of $4 million per.

Phaneuf was due $12 million, with LA on the hook for $9 million of it, so average of $4.5 million per. LA could not find a trade partner for him (don't know if he even gave LA a list he would approve) so they ended up buying him out.

 

[DatsyukToZetterberg]

Is the over paid cap dump player a roster player or a LTIR guy? I think those are 2 difference cases, especially if insurance is covering the majority of it.

As for roster players, what is the actual cash due? Let's assume they get moved after their SB on July 1,

Backes is due $5 million total after July 1. Average compensation of $2.5 million. If he's a 4th liner/spare player, that type of player is going to be paid $800K to $1 million on average. So, extra cost is $1.5-$1.7 million typically. So, is that player worth the increased compensation than what you would otherwise pay another player?
Eriksson is due $9 million after July 1, so average of $3 million per. There is a cost to the extra $1 million or so that he is paid per year.
Lucic is deal $16 million after July 1, so average of $4 million per.

Phaneuf was due $12 million, with LA on the hook for $9 million of it, so average of $4.5 million per. LA could not find a trade partner for him (don't know if he even gave LA a list he would approve) so they ended up buying him out.

I re-examined the data and there is something to be said about whether the player is LTIR eligible or if they will still be playing. There does seem to be a trend where players that are still able to play typically end up in the higher range of the cost range. That being said, because the sample is just 12 trades, which are then broken down further into groups based on the term remaining on their contracts, it's hard to make any conclusive statements until the sample increase. The biggest factor in terms of cost still seems to be the term of the contract, the cap hit that a team is required to absorb, and the expectation of the player providing negative or 0 value to the team.

I think the range that is provided allows for a lot of the considerations you're bringing up to be accounted for. Things such as actually cash due, LTIR eligibility, insurance, and other will all impact the value of a player. You can account for those swings in value by moving up or down the expected cost range depending on those factors. If we take Backes as an example: his low end is 0.013 WAR, mid range is: 0.347 WAR, and high end is 0.707 WAR. If a team felt he could still contribute they may consider taking on the contract for a replacement level player.Boston would just be moving Backes and there is no extra asset needed to motivate a team to absorb the contract. If Backes is valued as a negative asset by the team looking to acquire him than the return really depends on how motivated Boston is to remove the full cap hit from their books.

As for Phaneuf, a team has to be motivated to pay the cost to dump a contract. If they are not in a position where they need to dump salary I think you'll see teams resort to any other avenue before they try to just trade away the player and their contract. LA is going through rebuild so they could afford to eat the buyout penalty for the next 4 years as it's unlikely they'll need to be close to the cap over those years, the highest year is 2020-2021 when they should still be in the midst of their rebuild so an extra 4M to their cap doesn't matter. I don't believe you would have seen the Leafs make such a buyout because their cap situation means they can't afford to have 4M in dead space. Their cap situation means they must be quite a bit more efficient with their spending.

 

[Kevin27NYI]

Very interesting. I like the note too about whether the player is going to play or not. We've been trying to figure out Andrew Ladd, precedent was Grabovski but the note in there was that Vegas also had to take Berube so it wasn't a straight dump. It also protected Nelson, de Haan and Strome from being picked.

I don't think you could predict Ladd given that we don't know his status, we suspect Lou would Robidas Island him. Many different injuries past three years have hurt him. When he was in, he was a good middle six forward. But he has a very high SB.