Proposal: " IF BOTH TEAMS SAY NO, TRADE VALUE = FAIR "

[Jot]

What do you guys feel about this phrase?

My opinion, this more or less is generally right. May not be perfectly right but usually is close.

If Player A is offered for Player B, and both teams say no, the trade value was fair. That's assuming im looking at it with non-biased view. As a neutral fan.

Also which trade offers fit this criteria? I would like to see this tested out,

EDIT: " TRADE VALUE = FAIR" not "Overall Trade = Fair". Usually trades that have no team needs into consideration are always bad.

Click to read more...

 

[Homesick]

No. Team needs plays a bigger part than a one for one value

 

[Jot]

No. Team needs plays a bigger part than a one for one value

Agreed. Team needs are a big factor and need to be considered.

 

[Starat327]

Probably one of the most ridiculous comments that gets thrown around here. As homesick said, value is determined by fit and need, so 'value' isnt a static object.

For instance, the 'value' of a D-man prospect to Philly is likely to be low, regardless of prospect (of course there are exceptions, i.e. Dahlin), so we would likely offer less than most teams would want to give up. There aren't many d prospects or young d-men I would move Patrick for, for example, simply because a long term solution at C is more of a need.

 

[hockeykicker]

uh no. take the capitals leafs thread from earlier which had oshie and vrana for nylander. neither team says yes to that

 

[Not So Mighty]

I'd say no. A lot of teams over value their own players and have no idea about other teams' players.

 

[Maukkis]

In some cases, there is truth to that phrase, but it is not to be taken as a definitive rule.

 

[WhatTheDuck]

There are plenty of proposals here that don't work for either side.

 

[Crede777]

No, and there is more to a trade than value.

 

[justafan22]

I mean would both teams have said no to Jones for johansen 2 years ago?

 

[TaketheCannoli]

Like many posters my feeling is no. There are more factors like team needs, fit and overall effect on the teams involved. Trades really only work if both teams are improved according to their plans.

 

[Hunter368]

Dumb phrase overall

 

[StevenB]

That phrase only works if team needs have been fulfilled. Like if it’s jut considering their value as players and both teams feel like their player is more valuable (without considering needs) I guess it kind of makes sense but we don’t live in a perfect world and there will never be a trade that doesn’t consider team needs or contract value

 

[Halla]

uh no. take the capitals leafs thread from earlier which had oshie and vrana for nylander. neither team says yes to that

you really think that capitals wouldnt give up 30 year old Oshie and Vrana for Nylander who put up more pts as a rookie than Oshie ever has?

Nylander + Backstrom = Magic.

I can see how the leafs absolutely would have 0 interest though. If they wantedf a long term expensive winger who will be 36 or 37 by the end of his deal they would just keep JVR and not give up one of the big 3

 

[Cuphead]

from what ive seen, when both teams fans say no; it was a lopsided trade that one side said no to, which in turn offends the other side, who then say no.

 

[HydroF]

Terrible and annoying phrase.

 

[Rasmus CacOlainen]

Depends whether teams say that because the trade didn't evaluate their needs properly or because both fanbases overvalue their side of the deal. I've seen both cases around here quite often.

 

[Jumptheshark]

Early this year we had an offer of a 3rd and prospect for pool party from Edmonton

Oilers fans said no and so did the fans of the other team saying pool party was a bust

 

[Viqsi]

Agreed. Team needs are a big factor and need to be considered.

I would argue that team needs aren't just a big factor, they're kind of the only factor. Players aren't fungible assets, so every possible trade consideration is going to be different, even if only subtly.

 

[lifelonghockeyfan]

Many trades posted are "fair" talent wise, but they just aren't a "fit" for one of the team.
For instance, we have seen endless trades of Hanifan or OEL to the Leafs. Well LHD isn't really a weakness for the Leafs, so if they are going to trade a good asset, logic would dictate that it would be for a position of need.

 

[glovesave_35]

Agreed. Team needs are a big factor and need to be considered.

You've got it backwards. Team needs are the only real impetus for trade talks. You have to start there and work toward assets, value, etc.

In general, I think the phrase is kind of dumb. I think in most cases actual GM's want both sides to feel happy. If you are specifically referring to fans of teams negotiating hypothetical values of players on a message board it may have some credibility. It certainly isn't a rule of thumb though.

 

[Canada Drai]

The OP said value, and it's usually the case.

 

[Starat327]

The OP said value, and it's usually the case.

Value is subjective and dictated by teams needs. Leon Draisatls value to the Canadiens is going to be wildly different than his value to say, the Penguins.

 

[SEALBound]

Posters here are too hell bent on making sure that values match exactly 1:1.

Something else I learned, a late first is basically a 2nd and a early 2nd is basically a 1st. Each one are judged differently. There are posters here that would gladly trade the 27th OV pick for the 33rd OV pick.

 

[Canada Drai]

Value is subjective and dictated by teams needs. Leon Draisatls value to the Canadiens is going to be wildly different than his value to say, the Penguins.

Value is dictated by opposing team fan base actually.