How Much Does "Loyalty" Factor Into Signings And NOT Trading Players?

[GodEmperor]

The reason I make this thread is that the Leafs are coming up on signing their big 3 and they are all set to get paid. However, what if the Leafs went into uncharted territory and effectively said "we couldn't care less about them as people, we just want to win" and simply put Matthews, Nylander and Marner on the block?

Let's say they wanted the best contracts, so that they could get similar players, but $ for $ better value:

Matthews, Leivo and a 3rd for Barkov
Marner+ 1st for Jones
Nylander+ Zaitsev for Ristolainen

At that point, they could even sign Tavares and SAVE money overall, i.e:

Matthews (10.5), Nylander (7.5), Marner (8.5), Zaitsev (4.5)= 31 million
Risto, Barkov, Jones, Tavares (10)= 27 million

Barkov is pretty much Matthews level (some will argue already better, hence the add), Risto>>>>Zaitsev and I would say better than Nylander in terms of overall impact, Jones and Marner have similar values, Jones might even be a bit better (hence the 1st). Therefore we're basically left with a free Tavares and even some play money, almost enough to sign JVR with.

Ofc none of this will ever happen, but what stops it from happening? Is it simply "loyalty" and the sort of paranoia it would put your team under thinking all of them can potentially be traded for "no reason?" I think if teams were this cutthroat, it could potentially give them a huge advantage as I know I would personally EASILY take the bottom 4 (Risto, Barkov, Jones, Tavares) over the upper 4 despite how much I like them all as people.

Should more teams take an extremely cut throat approach because nobody in the league is doing anything like this now and thus it would give them a huge advantage in the immediate term? Or is it pretty much an unspoken rule that nobody would behave like this? Btw I'm not "fixated" on the trades, so let's not get into their feasibility, you can deal those 3 for good contracts with similar players is the point, but I also don't think I tried at all to screw anyone in the least, I think all 3 are extremely fair.

Click to read more...

 

[stevo61]

takes 2 to dance. Why would the other team do them a favor and take the extra salary

 

[Kcb12345]

Jones would take Matthews. So that wouldnt happen anyways.

Edit: if Marner + a late 1st got Jones then Seth Jones would be in Toronto right now.

 

[LeafsNation75]

Should more teams take an extremely cut throat approach because nobody in the league is doing anything like this now and thus it would give them a huge advantage in the immediate term? Or is it pretty much an unspoken rule that nobody would behave like this? Btw I'm not "fixated" on the trades, so let's not get into their feasibility, you can deal those 3 for good contracts with similar players is the point, but I also don't think I tried at all to screw anyone in the least, I think all 3 are extremely fair.

Unless a player does not want to be apart of a team anymore once their ELC has finished, that's the only time when he should be traded. The last player I can remember this happening to was Phil Kessel during his time in Boston. So it's a rare thing these days when star players are traded under that circumstance.

 

[CantLoseWithMatthews]

takes 2 to dance. Why would the other team do them a favor and take the extra salary

Because Matthews+ and Nylander+ are a win in value for Florida and Buffalo. Marner+ isn't really enough for cbj to be tempted into moving Jones though

 

[GodEmperor]

takes 2 to dance. Why would the other team do them a favor and take the extra salary

While that's obviously true, I don't think it's applicable to NHL GMs per se (as a whole that is, I can't say about individuals), otherwise where would bad contracts (not just slightly overpaid) come from?

Obviously they desire good players, fear of missing out is huge and they are willing to risk big amounts of money to get them? Most of these players getting signed are far lesser assets than what I listed as well.

Besides, player evaluations aren't linear or universally agreed upon, there are teams that will have huge boners for guys and overpay for them and other teams that just wouldn't deal certain guys no matter what, thus if values are similar enough, it becomes even more likely that something can happen.

The whole point wouldn't be if the league behaved that way, it's if one or a few teams did, that's what would give them the whole advantage otherwise it would be neutralized.

If anything, since the lockouts we've seen some God awful trades and God awful contracts, many by people STILL employed. Why hasn't a team leveraged that to the extreme or is it just that once the word gets out that "pillar cornerstone of franchise XYZ" is available, it not only creates issue in the room/on the ice for the player with his focus and confidence, but it also can make future contract negotiations if you DON'T trade him much more difficult?

 

[GodEmperor]

Unless a player does not want to be apart of a team anymore once their ELC has finished, that's the only time when he should be traded. The last player I can remember this happening to was Phil Kessel during his time in Boston. So it's a rare thing these days when star players are traded under that circumstance.

The only problem is, that if EVERYONE has that attitude, it becomes a competitive disadvantage to behave the same way, I'll use an analogy with poker since I think everyone on here is familiar enough

Basically, if everyone converges towards a certain group behavior, it can be a huge advantage to try something new as an exploit based on the current market. Behaving extremely cut throat (something that doesn't really exist in the NHL world) could give a team a huge advantage (as per in the scenario which I think is clearly a superior alternative for the Leafs).

 

[Iapyi]

In the running for dumbest thread.

 

[GodEmperor]

In the running for dumbest thread.

Great argument, a true HF intellectual you are.

 

[Bedards Dad]

Wait you have Brakov getting Matthews +? Ahahahhaa. That's a good way for Dubas to get fired right away.

 

[GodEmperor]

Wait you have Brakov getting Matthews +? Ahahahhaa. That's a good way for Dubas to get fired right away.

It depends how you view value, I think Matthews has a higher potential, but right now they are similar players with the edge to me going very slightly to Matthews.

Let's assume Matthews will be 10% better, does that warrant his likely 100%+ contract?

You can do a lot with 6 million+, do you prefer group A or B in the OP?

 

[rent free]

quite a bit i guess. if you sign a contract with your team than you are loyal to them

 

[Revelation]

Barkov is 3 years older than Matthews, would not do that deal. I like Barkov a lot more than Matthews but would bet Matthews is better in 3 years than what Barkov is now

 

[LeafChief]

Mulletman?

 

[Toene]

Jackets dont trade Jones for a winger lmao. He's the best NHL dman under 25. He's a franchise player. Marner is good but the ask is a center and Matthews is off limits so I really dont see it. Buffalo deal is more realistic but even then.

 

[GodEmperor]

Jackets dont trade Jones for a winger lmao. He's the best NHL dman under 25. He's a franchise player. Marner is good but the ask is a center and Matthews is off limits so I really dont see it. Buffalo deal is more realistic but even then.

Totally fine, I do like the classification method though. Instead of saying "we're not trading for a winger who was top 10 in his position at age 20 and destroyed the juniors" he becomes relegated to "just a winger."

There are other cost effective d that are similar enough to Jones that could be targeted for a similar or lesser cost.