Speculation: 2014 - 2015 New York Rangers :: Roster building / proposal thread Part III

[Championship*]

Kesler was dealt for a player who outscored him last season, a bottom pair D, a 1st round pick and a 2nd round pick. I personally think Vancouver got the better of the deal there.

Iginla was a rental traded for a 1st round pick and two decently rated prospects. That's what rentals get you. Good deal for Calgary, really. As good as the Boston offer? No, I guess not.

Spezza was traded with one year left on his deal for someone I think will be a 20+ goal scorer every year, a decently rated prospect, a B prospect, and a 2nd. Dallas also gets a throw in player. For 80 point Spezza, Dallas wins the deal easily. For 60 point Spezza, I'd say it was pretty close to fair.

Notice that Iginla, Spezza and Heatley all had their values drop after being essentially traded away before nixing the deal. That definitely plays a factor.

Kesler played where exactly last season? A bottom feeder with a offense killing coach. Who would you think has a better year this year a career bottom 6 forward or the career top center going to play for a cup contender?

You essentially agreed with me on the other two and as Zil mentioned, a majority of these players blocked trades that would have sent them elsewhere.

The fact is these players "got what they were worth" because their NTC helped to dictate that worth.

 

[Zuccarello Awesome*]

Crap. Andy Greene re-signs with the Devils. I thought he would've been a good Staal replacement/upgrade.

Devils looking good this year, I think they make the playoffs provided Schneider gets his starts.

Doubt it.

Jagr and Havlat will be hurt most of the season. They're not going anywhere IMO.

 

[Tawnos]

Spezza used his NTC to block a deal to Nashville. Clearly Ottawa felt that the Predators put a better package on the table than Dallas did. Iginla blocked a deal to Boston. Heatley blocked a deal to Edmonton. How is none of this relevant?

None of it is relevant because, at least in 2 of those 3 situations, they still got value equal to the caliber of player that they were trading. That other teams were willing to pay more (in all three cases, the difference wasn't more than marginal) doesn't mean that the value of the player was reduced by the NTC. It means that if a GM wants to get top possible value out of a player (which is above equal) then he better check with the player before executing the deal. The optics of that particular scenario drove the price down, not the NTC itself (granted that the optics don't exist without the NTC, but you see what I'm getting at).

Heatley, for example. Edmonton traded Cogliano, a 38 point player, a 37 point player, and Smid, a 3rd pairing defenseman. San Jose traded Michalek, a 57 point player, Cheechoo, a 29 point player (and reclamation project) and a 2nd round pick. In one way, the San Jose offer was better than the Edmonton one, since Michalek was then, and is now, a significantly better player than anyone else offered.

It's not about who won the deal, though. That wasn't in question.

You said NTC don't affect the value of the return.

That's simply not true, even by the sheer fact that a NTC limits the destinations, therefore limiting the number of bidders to compete and drive the price up.

If 29 teams could potentially compete for the player, the return is likely going to be higher than if 1 or 2 teams are competing. NTC absolutely limits the return, even if the top players still net a handsome return.

Those examples are the aberrations, not the norm. My point about Spezza is that we don't really know what he is at this point. Was last year a down year or is that the reality of the player at this point in his career? Value for one is different than value for the other. What Ottawa got is well in line with what Spezza was last season.

What you're talking about is fine in theory, but the reality has shown otherwise. In fact, there have been cases where the exact opposite has been true. Marty St Louis to the Rangers is an example of that. Fewer bidders means that the controlling team can leverage more out of their suitor or suitors.

 

[Championship*]

I think you're in complete denial if you think having LESS bidders for a player doesn't alter the value. GMs in this situations often languish the fact that these NTCs tie their hands.

 

[Championship*]

Fewer bidders means that the controlling team can leverage more out of their suitor or suitors.

Yeah...that's not how sales works. At all.

 

[Tawnos]

Kesler played where exactly last season? A bottom feeder with a offense killing coach. Who would you think has a better year this year a career bottom 6 forward or the career top center going to play for a cup contender?

You essentially agreed with me on the other two and as Zil mentioned, a majority of these players blocked trades that would have sent them elsewhere.

The fact is these players "got what they were worth" because their NTC helped to dictate that worth.

Bonino had the same number of points last year as Kesler did two seasons ago playing under AV and he did it from the 3rd line. You can't use Tortorella as an excuse when he was exactly the same under another coach. Kesler is not a career top center, anyway. He had two seasons where he put up great numbers and one more where he put up decent ones. In 8 years of healthy play, he's put up top line numbers 3 times. To me, the guy is at best a 1A center... at best. The last two full seasons he's played, he's been a 2nd liner. Nothing wrong with 2nd liners, but people remember him more for what he was than what he is. Maybe he proves me wrong this year. Maybe not.

Yeah, don't take things out of context, my friend. "Got what they were worth" means NTC or not.

 

[Tawnos]

Yeah...that's not how sales works. At all.

This isn't sales. It's trade negotiation.

Just to expand on what I mean by that. The reason why the situation differs from your normal negotiating situation is that the controlling team is under no obligation to trade the player just because the player demanded it. We saw that last year with Yzerman.

"I have a player who wants out. He only wants a couple of teams. Truthfully, I'd rather keep the player. Make it worth my while and we might move forward." Skilled negotiators, which pretty much all of these guys are, know how to milk that situation.

 

[Kakko]

Crap. Andy Greene re-signs with the Devils. I thought he would've been a good Staal replacement/upgrade.

Devils looking good this year, I think they make the playoffs provided Schneider gets his starts.

Wouldn't we replace Staal with something cheaper, which Greene certainly wouldn't be?

 

[Championship*]

This isn't sales. It's trade negotiation.

It's all sales, everything is. The fact that you think having less bidders for something means that you can squeeze more out of that person is ludicrous. That's not the way the market works. That's not the way ANY market works.

 

[Championship*]

This isn't sales. It's trade negotiation.

Just to expand on what I mean by that. The reason why the situation differs from your normal negotiating situation is that the controlling team is under no obligation to trade the player just because the player demanded it. We saw that last year with Yzerman.

"I have a player who wants out. He only wants a couple of teams. Truthfully, I'd rather keep the player. Make it worth my while and we might move forward." Skilled negotiators, which pretty much all of these guys are, know how to milk that situation.

The the team who wants the player IS under an obligation to given into the others demands? There's this thing called "walking away". Sather did it with Heatley when it got too rich for him.

 

[Fletch]

None of it is relevant because, at least in 2 of those 3 situations, they still got value equal to the caliber of player that they were trading. That other teams were willing to pay more (in all three cases, the difference wasn't more than marginal) doesn't mean that the value of the player was reduced by the NTC. It means that if a GM wants to get top possible value out of a player (which is above equal) then he better check with the player before executing the deal. The optics of that particular scenario drove the price down, not the NTC itself (granted that the optics don't exist without the NTC, but you see what I'm getting at).

Heatley, for example. Edmonton traded Cogliano, a 38 point player, a 37 point player, and Smid, a 3rd pairing defenseman. San Jose traded Michalek, a 57 point player, Cheechoo, a 29 point player (and reclamation project) and a 2nd round pick. In one way, the San Jose offer was better than the Edmonton one, since Michalek was then, and is now, a significantly better player than anyone else offered.




Those examples are the aberrations, not the norm. My point about Spezza is that we don't really know what he is at this point. Was last year a down year or is that the reality of the player at this point in his career? Value for one is different than value for the other. What Ottawa got is well in line with what Spezza was last season.

What you're talking about is fine in theory, but the reality has shown otherwise. In fact, there have been cases where the exact opposite has been true. Marty St Louis to the Rangers is an example of that. Fewer bidders means that the controlling team can leverage more out of their suitor or suitors.

I think there are some semantics involved here. A team may not lower the price they are willing to pay for a player with a NTC, which I believe is what you are saying, Tawnos. They still get fair value from that trading partner, and that's possible, potentially debateable, but they still may need to outbid the next guy, assuming there is a next guy. The relevance is that there may be other teams willing to pay the theoretically "more' since we would debate what is more and less even outside trades with players sans NTCs. One could say that the more potential destinations (as in sending around a fax to all teams saying this guy is available), the more suitors, and likely the higher the price as someone may up the ante to get him.

 

[Tawnos]

It's all sales, everything is. The fact that you think having less bidders for something means that you can squeeze more out of that person is ludicrous. That's not the way the market works. That's not the way ANY market works.

Read the edit I made to that post above.

I think it's also worth pointing out that, in most cases, the caliber of player who gets an NTC is going to have about the same number of suitors whether the clause is there or not. There just aren't that many combinations of matches with teams both in need of that player, with the required cap space, and with the kind of assets the controlling team wants in return.

You can say "29 other teams" all you want. History has shown that the real number of serious suitors in any major deal is half a dozen... at most. Usually less.

 

[Championship*]

It's supply and demand. If I have a valuable asset that 29 other teams would want then the price goes up.
If I'm in the same situation but I'm limited to say 1 team, then the overall demand for that player is considerably less.
This is like 101 stuff.

 

[Tawnos]

I think there are some semantics involved here. A team may not lower the price they are willing to pay for a player with a NTC, which I believe is what you are saying, Tawnos. They still get fair value from that trading partner, and that's possible, potentially debateable, but they still may need to outbid the next guy, assuming there is a next guy. The relevance is that there may be other teams willing to pay the theoretically "more' since we would debate what is more and less even outside trades with players sans NTCs. One could say that the more potential destinations (as in sending around a fax to all teams saying this guy is available), the more suitors, and likely the higher the price as someone may up the ante to get him.

In a theoretical situation, that's exactly how it works. The problem here is that people see "NTC" and say "lower trade value." It's such an un-nuanced view of something that has a lot of nuances to it to begin with. And it really is one of those things that's turned out to be counter intuitive. There's just simply very little incentive for a GM to give up a player of a certain value for less than that value simply because the player demanded it. For all the grief Scott Howson got, he actually played that scenario beautifully. At the deadline, he said "you aren't willing to give me what I want now, so no deal."

Iginla and Bouwmeester got fair values for rentals of their caliber, judging by other rentals of their caliber who did not have NTCs. Heatley, Kesler and Nash got fair values for players of their caliber as well, when stacked up against what players without NTCs got.

 

[Tawnos]

It's supply and demand. If I have a valuable asset that 29 other teams would want then the price goes up.
If I'm in the same situation but I'm limited to say 1 team, then the overall demand for that player is considerably less.
This is like 101 stuff.

Supply and demand is exactly 101 stuff. Turns out that economics is far more complex than simple supply and demand.

 

[Zuccarello Awesome*]

This isn't sales. It's trade negotiation.

Just to expand on what I mean by that. The reason why the situation differs from your normal negotiating situation is that the controlling team is under no obligation to trade the player just because the player demanded it. We saw that last year with Yzerman.

"I have a player who wants out. He only wants a couple of teams. Truthfully, I'd rather keep the player. Make it worth my while and we might move forward." Skilled negotiators, which pretty much all of these guys are, know how to milk that situation.

Exactly. That speaks to good negotiating by Yzerman to still get close to full value for MSL, DESPITE the NTC and only one destination. The NTC in most cases, limits the return. Usually, because most GMs aren't stupid and won't just GIVE their player away will hold out and still get near full value, but it's in spite of the detrimental NTC.


If MSL wanted out and he didn't have a NTC, you don't think the Isles or Oilers or Avs etc etc could've come up with a better package than Cally and two 1sts? Teams with much better prospects and recent high draft-picks could've and would've offered better than that, even if only slightly.

Even the sheer fact that TBL was limited to the players and prospects of ONE team limits the return. What if they didn't like Cally and didn't want draft picks?

The NTC absolutely limits the return in both scope (available players/prospects due
to limited teams involved) and value (due to lack of bidders competing).

It doesn't mean the GM will bend to the will of the acquiring GM and sell the player for nothing or for any bogus offer, but it limits their options and it limits the potential maximum return. You can usually still get a "good" / "fair" return but when trading a guy like MSL for example, if there was no NTC involved, Tampa could've really gotten a king's random for the future hall-of-famer.



ASIDE: It's interesting to note that you very rarely see a player WITHOUT a NTC demand a trade. If Player X wants out of Calgary, he likely isn't going to be happy on Buffalo. The bottom barrel teams often have the most sellable assets, draft picks, prospects, etc, which makes them a likely candidate to be able to put together a strong package to acquire Player X. But if Player X has a NTC, he can make sure he doesn't go to those teams, thus limiting and likely lowering the maximum potential value of the eventual return.

 

[Cassano]

Wouldn't we replace Staal with something cheaper, which Greene certainly wouldn't be?

Greene probably fits the system better. I see Staal making more than 5mil annually.

 

[pld459666]

Doubt it.

Jagr and Havlat will be hurt most of the season. They're not going anywhere IMO.

You forgot to add cammalleri, Clowe, ruutu is due to get hurt.

They have alot of slow and ugly going on in NJ.

 

[pld459666]

Wouldn't we replace Staal with something cheaper, which Greene certainly wouldn't be?

If u think staal signs for less than $5 million then yeah greene is more expensive.

I think staal signs for a number that has another number after the first 5. Maybe even a 6

 

[silverfish]

Doubt it.

Jagr and Havlat will be hurt most of the season. They're not going anywhere IMO.

What makes you think Jagr will be hurt most of the season? The fact that he played 82 games last year? And 45/48 the year before plus 34 in the Czech league during the lockout? Or 73 with the Flyers in in 11/12?

Jagr is a god damn machine. 42 years old and still probably has the best legs in the league.

 

[Zuccarello Awesome*]

What makes you think Jagr will be hurt most of the season? The fact that he played 82 games last year? And 45/48 the year before plus 34 in the Czech league during the lockout? Or 73 with the Flyers in in 11/12?

Jagr is a god damn machine. 42 years old and still probably has the best legs in the league.

Definitely valid point, but it's gotta catch up to him eventually. He probably has the strongest legs in the history of the NHL. But I could certainly see him having back or groin issues. I'm not wishing it on him as he's one of my all-time favorite players (very painful to see him in devil red), but I see NJ as a team that will likely struggle to ice their full lineup due to injuries:

Havlat
Clowe
Ruutu
Cammellerri
Ryder

are all injury concerns, while Jagr and Elias are no spring-chickens and might break down easier than most younger players. That's all.

 

[Zuccarello Awesome*]

In a theoretical situation, that's exactly how it works. The problem here is that people see "NTC" and say "lower trade value." It's such an un-nuanced view of something that has a lot of nuances to it to begin with. And it really is one of those things that's turned out to be counter intuitive. There's just simply very little incentive for a GM to give up a player of a certain value for less than that value simply because the player demanded it. For all the grief Scott Howson got, he actually played that scenario beautifully. At the deadline, he said "you aren't willing to give me what I want now, so no deal."

Iginla and Bouwmeester got fair values for rentals of their caliber, judging by other rentals of their caliber who did not have NTCs. Heatley, Kesler and Nash got fair values for players of their caliber as well, when stacked up against what players without NTCs got.

This is false, IMO.

It was reported (by Larry Brooks, I believe) that at the last minute (at the trade deadline) Sather added McIlrath/Miller to the deal. Howson still said no. Sather's offer then went DOWN during the offseason and they actually acquired him for less than the final trade deadline offer.

Final Deadline Offer: Dubinsky, Anisimov, Erixon, 1st 2013, McIlrath/Miller
Offseason Offer (that was accepted): Dubinsky, Anisimov, Erixon, 1st 2013

I had said at the time that if Howson doesn't trade him at the deadline, the offer will decrease unless Nash adds another team to his list of acceptable destinations (which was highly unlikely, and he didn't). And that's exactly what happened. A GM in Sather's position may be willing to give up an extra prospect/pick at the deadline because the team is in the middle of the season and really wanted to add Nash in time for that playoff run. In the following offseason, Sather is less desperate to acquire Nash because a) there's less immediate urgency because he's not in the middle of a playoff run, and b) it's the offseason and there are more potential targets to acquire making Nash less attractive than he was at the deadline when he was the only player even close to his caliber who was available.

In the offseason, Sather took McIlrath/Miller back off the table and Howson eventually realized that he has messed up not taking the better offer at the deadline and accepted Sather's offer before it decreased even more. Sather played it beautifully. Howson ended up looking like a fool because he ended up accepting an offer that was less than he could've gotten a few months prior. He was widely considered a fool until this season when Dubinsky really took charge of that team and became a leader, helping them take strides towards that next level of contention. Add that to Nash's playoff struggle this season and the deal is now looked at in a slightly different light. All in all it was a deal that benefits both sides, despite Howson making the mistake of trying to call Sather's bluff and failing.

 

[Tawnos]

Sather only offered one of the two forwards at the deadline, unless I'm completely mistaken (possible... but I remember being under the impression that it was Dubi or Anismov, not Dubi + Anisimov).

 

[Zuccarello Awesome*]

Sather only offered one of the two forwards at the deadline, unless I'm completely mistaken (possible... but I remember being under the impression that it was Dubi or Anismov, not Dubi + Anisimov).

That's not how I remember it, but I'll stand corrected if that was the case.

Can you reply to my earlier post re: NTC's (POST #66) when you get a chance? I was enjoying our healthy debate on the subject.

 

[Lindberg Cheese]

What makes you think Jagr will be hurt most of the season? The fact that he played 82 games last year? And 45/48 the year before plus 34 in the Czech league during the lockout? Or 73 with the Flyers in in 11/12?

Jagr is a god damn machine. 42 years old and still probably has the best legs in the league.

Are the legs as nice as Pyatt's eyes?