So you believe teams would be lining to trade for Toews. By saying Toews has positive value with his current production, you are saying Jonathan Toews deserves $10.5mn. I have a feeling you are in the minority.
However, that's your opinion that you are entitled too. If I'm in Stan's position, I would NEVER pay Jonathan Toews $10.5mn right now. He's not deserving of that salary.
The definition of Moneyball is utilizing economics into sports. That's why advanced analytics is so popular nowadays. For small market teams and hard capped leagues, it's imperative to incorportating economics in evaluating players. It's how Theo Epstein, Pat Riley, and Bill Belichick became so successful. Moneyball is about exploiting the ineifficencies of the market. That does NOT mean culture isn't important. That's why I said you value Toews' "intangibles" than most on this board.
In salary hard capped leagues, it's imperative to maximize the talent from roster costs. That's how one differentiates itself from another team. You can't outspend another team. Not everyone can be the Yankees. It's not a coincidence that the Hawks have struggled AFTER Kane and Toews' massive extensions kicked in. Maybe it is a coincidence, but it's been 3 years now.
Take a look at another hard capped sport ... the NFL. Why have the Patriots been successful? Brady takes a discount and Belichick maximizes the talent from his salary cap. He's not afraid to cut overpriced veterans who don't create value.
Sports and economics are the basis of Moneyball.
Moneyball doesn't really apply to hockey, at least not in the sense that it was founded upon, and not nearly in the same ways that it can be applied to baseball. There is no accounting for things in hockey like there is in something like baseball. Which is why hockey teams will never, ever be built purely based upon advanced statistics. Ever. It won't happen. You can't even come close to comparing moneyball baseball ideals for building a team to building a team in the NHL. It's just a different sport, with so many outside factors in comparison to baseball. Luck being a major one. Bounces being a major one. The openness, and randomness of the game being another. It's different. Moneyball will never apply to building a team in hockey. Can you pull bits and pieces of it and apply it? Sure. But it will never fit hockey the way it fits baseball. Baseball is hard-coded to be played a specific way. Hockey isn't.
And no, by saying he has value with his current production is not stating that he deserves 10.5m. I get what you're saying. That the fact that his production doesn't equal his salary, he therefore has negative value. But that's not true. Not sure why you think it is. He may not be worth his salary, so in that sense, his value is "negative" in that his play does not correlate to 10.5m. But negative value implies that he will return nothing in a trade. That the Hawks would achieve nothing by trading Toews other than dumping salary cap... And that's false.
I guarantee you that teams would definitely be interested in acquiring Toews in a trade. Salary may have to be retained. Or you may not get the better part of a deal. But you wouldn't walk away with "nothing". If you go back and read my posts, I have admitted numerous times that Toews play the past 3 seasons has been on par with someone making about 6-7m per season. Not that he is worth 10.5m.
I'm not over-valuing his "intangibles". There is nothing intangible about him being one of the best two-way players in the game still. There is nothing intangible about him being a defensive allstar. There is nothing intangible about his special teams contributions. Did he have a poor season? Yes. But to me, it was his first season where he was really not doing all the little things he normally does nightly. And I expect this season won't be the same in that regard.
No, you wouldn't pay him 10.5m right now, but by stating that you believe he has negative value, you're stating that in a trade, Toews wouldn't return anything. He would return a bag of pucks. When that is just flat-out false. Bryan Bickell had negative value when he was traded from the Hawks. It was a pure salary dump, where nothing was gained, and more than just Bickell was lost. Do you believe the Hawks would have to add a very good player to a trade to move Toews?
Why, btw, are you continually commenting on/accusing me of things that I've never actually said? Read. Understand what I'm saying. Don't just make things up to fit the points you're trying to prove.
Toews has value. It may not be value equal to his salary. But he still has value.
