I like the concept, but it's easier said than done. There are plenty of guys who signed long term contracts (that are under 5 million that turned into pylons)

I like the concept, but it's easier said than done. There are plenty of guys who signed long term contracts (that are under 5 million that turned into pylons)

Or in the Leafs case under Burke and Nonis.....paid Komasaric 5m, Phanuef 7m and Clarkson 5.25 who were already pylons.

Was 3.5M also probably an overpayment for Jeff Finger?

Nah, Jeff Finger was a god.

He wasn't that bad actually. Otherwise they wouldn't have signed him for 3.5M ... that was an overpayment though.

-__-

Seriously, he wasn't a terrible player.

his Corsi is awful, he only lasted 4 seasons in the NHL and was only signed to that contract cuz Nonis

It was an overpayment, i agree, but he was an okay player.

The purpose of this thread is to evaluate the value of potential players that could be moved at the trade deadline. I will provide assessments on my reasoning behind my evaluations and present the logic that is hopefully vivid, precise, and simple.

Players That Can Be Traded
Max Pacioretty (MTL) / Michael Grabner (NYR) / Ryan McDonagh (NYR) / Erik Karlsson (OTT) / Mike Green (DET) / Evander Kane (BUF) / Tomas Vanek (VAN)

Let's start with the easiest one: Mike Green.
Detroit is in a position to sell off players for draft selections, preferably high ones. Green would be helpful to the PowerPlay and playing in a top-four role with his new club. He can fetch either a late first (top-20 protected, let's say) or two second round picks, that Detroit can then parlay with other assets to move up in the draft.

The next ones are in my mind the most interesting: Erik Karlsson and Ryan McDonagh
There is no market for superstars. There isn't. These guys aren't worth let's say Brayden Point, Mikhail Sergachev, and a 1st round pick. These players don't have a market price and it will result in General Managers doing either of the following: paying market value of a lesser player or not paying at all.

All General Managers have access to the same information. They know the situation in Ottawa and New York. Ottawa has an incentive to trade Karlsson because they have the possibility of letting him walk for nothing and New York has an incentive to move McDonagh because they need an roster overhaul. GMs are going to either offer for Karlsson the price they would pay for your above-average rental or they won't offer anything at all due to the fact of them not being able to resign them. McDonagh on the other hand still has another year left on his contract and can make an impact past this season.

Karlsson is worth at most, a first round pick and one or two of the organizations top prospects (depending on organizational depth) or two players that are still young but still have room to develop. A player such as Ryan Hartman or Mike Matheson would be two players I would want in return for EK. McDonagh is worth a little more than what Karlsson is getting.

The next group of players are directly correlated. I will break it up into two sections. Value Above Replacement and Above Average Value.

The Value Above Replacement are these players: Michael Grabner and Tomas Vanek
These players are worth a late first and a couple of mid round picks, respectfully. They are on one year deals and can be the final puzzle piece for some teams. What makes them valuable (or what makes their counterparts less valuable) is that they produce relatively the same amount as someone like Evander Kane, yet they don't have the name recognition and will cost less and will drive down the market value of those "elite" snipers. Why would a GM pay more for a player who will only have slightly more production when there is a better use of allocating funds? They won't - if they do, then the market has failed.

Above Average Value are these players: Max Pacioretty and Evander Kane
These players aren't worth Sam Steel, Max Jones, and a first. Why? Because GMs can just trade Max Jones for Michael Grabner and allocate Sam Steel and that first to other resources to make their team better. These players are worth a first round pick and an above average prospect. Indeed they are proven players, but its all about context. People don't buy houses that are nearly the same for $250,000 and $280,000 respectfully. They will just buy the $250,000 and invest the other $30,000 into something else. It is the same thing for hockey. GMs won't pay primo prospects and high draft selections when they can get a nearly identical product for just middle-tier prospects and later draft selections.

As a disclaimer, I would like to ask that anyone who wants to engage in discourse over my evaluations to keep the center focus on these players. You can reference other players, but make sure that the may contention is based on the aforementioned players.

edit: main contention

This is terrible. There is nothing factual here at all, it's just some **** being thrown at the wall by you while trying to sound intelligent. Absolutely no logic or reasoning here because you used no real life examples and introduced no empirical data. You're just spitballing here which is insulting everyone who reads it. The fact you think EK is worth a 1st and 2 prospects, yet Vanek is worth a 1st and 2 mid rounders is hilarious. They couldn't be further apart on the spectrum of value, yet you're ignorant enough to deem them getting similar returns. This is what I'd call trash can material and everyone who read this got mislead because it couldn't be further from the truth.

He spent half his contract in the minors.....

This is terrible. There is nothing factual here at all, it's just some **** being thrown at the wall by you while trying to sound intelligent. Absolutely no logic or reasoning here because you used no real life examples and introduced no empirical data. You're just spitballing here which is insulting everyone who reads it. The fact you think EK is worth a 1st and 2 prospects, yet Vanek is worth a 1st and 2 mid rounders is hilarious. They couldn't be further apart on the spectrum of value, yet you're ignorant enough to deem them getting similar returns. This is what I'd call trash can material and everyone who read this got mislead because it couldn't be further from the truth.

Grabner is worth a late 1st and Vanek is worth 2 mid picks. Not Vanek is worth a late 1st and 2 mid picks.

This is terrible. There is nothing factual here at all, it's just some **** being thrown at the wall by you while trying to sound intelligent. Absolutely no logic or reasoning here because you used no real life examples and introduced no empirical data. You're just spitballing here which is insulting everyone who reads it. The fact you think EK is worth a 1st and 2 prospects, yet Vanek is worth a 1st and 2 mid rounders is hilarious. They couldn't be further apart on the spectrum of value, yet you're ignorant enough to deem them getting similar returns. This is what I'd call trash can material and everyone who read this got mislead because it couldn't be further from the truth.

He literally stated "these players are worth a late 1st and a couple of late round picks" I think you've gotten it wrong.

lol, never said Vanek was worth that. I said a couple of mid round picks, such as a 3rd and a 5th. Show me empirical data for a market for superstars. Show me the current trade value for Erik Karlsson. Show me value over replacement levels of Kane and Grabner.

Please explain to me what's wrong in what I said.

Karlsson is worth more than what you said. I think if he's traded, Tampa Bay would have to give up Hedman, Stamkos, or Kucherov + more ... not saying Tampa would do that, but that's what it would take. But in VALUE, and value only, something like maybe Boychuk, Ho-Sang, Bellows, and 2 1sts from the Isles ... maybe more, because there's no huge piece in that trade. Matheson, Hartman, and a 1st would be a good package (I know they don't play on the same team but if they did), but Karlsson is a superstar so maybe change Matheson to a top pairing guy and Hartman to a young, top line forward, and maybe add something else. To me, Karlsson shouldn't be on this list in the first place though ... if we're talking about this year at the trade deadline, then he shouldn't be part of the discussion in my opinion.

Karlsson is worth more than what you said. I think if he's traded, Tampa Bay would have to give up Hedman, Stamkos, or Kucherov + more ... not saying Tampa would do that, but that's what it would take. But in VALUE, and value only, something like maybe Boychuk, Ho-Sang, Bellows, and 2 1sts from the Isles ... maybe more, because there's no huge piece in that trade. Matheson, Hartman, and a 1st would be a good package (I know they don't play on the same team but if they did), but Karlsson is a superstar so maybe change Matheson to a top pairing guy and Hartman to a young, top line forward, and maybe add something else. To me, Karlsson shouldn't be on this list in the first place though ... if we're talking about this year at the trade deadline, then he shouldn't be part of the discussion in my opinion.

RAIF. C'mon, you have to take a mulligan on this post. You're saying Karlsson and his 1.5m years left on his contract is worth more than Hedman or Stamkos, Kucherov.

Now traditionally...TDL trades or trades of stars with short term left in their contracts. So a player similar to Karlsson has only limited number of teams that he will traded too and the cost. Ottawa would probably be looking for young NHL players, or near NHL players. Certainly trading value is not the same as immediate playing value.

So wait, Kucherov+ is worth less than Matheson, Hartman and a 1st? Yeah that definitely makes sense.