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

[Starat327]

Value is dictated by opposing team fan base actually.

...while i get your point ( i think?).. that doesnt change the fact that the value is subjective.

Even if we follow your quote, we arrive at - montreals fan base likely values Draisatl more highly than Penguins fan base. Ere go, value is still subjective.

 

[phlocky]

Generally, I'd say yes, in a "vacuum" the trade value would be fair but as others have said, team value may make it a no go even if it were slightly (or even largely) tilted in their favor.

I've seen plenty of proposals where both sides say no, one because of team needs and the other because they like their own shiny new toy. It doesn't necessarily mean that the trade is fair but just that neither team would do it. I've also seen MANY proposals where both sides say it's fair value wise but we'd pass because of team needs or we'll stick with the devil we know.

 

[Knave]

It's also possible neither team is getting a need filled.

 

[WeRa]

Sounds good, but it's nonsense. The most important is the team's need. And cap space...

 

[Ctrain2k]

I think it’s even if you say no, are tempted and not insulted

 

[Bizz]

I expect my team's GM to fleece the other team's GM 100% of the time.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Teams needs and contract term/AAV is huge in trade negotiations.

 

[Lunatik]

Value is completely subjective. Team needs and salary/cap considerations impact the perceived value of a player as no trades are done in a vacuum. The closest you could get to making a trade in a vacuum would be trading picks for picks before the draft (which rarely happens).

 

[613Leafer]

Assuming it fits team needs and doesn't absurdly affect cap-space, then yea, if both fanbases generally don't like it, it's probably a good indication it's at least in the realm of what would be considered "fair".

 

[CraigBillington]

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.

I cant get on board with that one. A late 1st, no matter what, will always be worth more. If a poster would trade 27 for 33, then I want to talk to them about buying some stuff from me.

Im in a sim league and I actually managed to use that logic to rip some teams off and they buy into it.

 

[McMetal]

Usually, the reason why both teams would say no to a deal is because it involves moving a core player unnecessarily. The value of Erik Karlsson to Ottawa is frankly more than it is to any other team in the league, for the completely off-ice reasons that he is their captain, franchise cornerstone, and fan favorite. Even a "fair" value offer for Karlsson will be instantly rejected for that reason. Even if a team wants to move their entire core for him, Ottawa still probably hangs up. So it's a bad deal for both the Sens and the team offering an overpayment. Hence, "both teams say no". It's not a measure of how fair the deal is, it's usually just because both teams lose more than they win in the big picture.

It's simply because a lot of fans are used to GM mode and see value only in terms of "how far does this fill the trade meter?" In the real world, other considerations come into play.

 

[McSuper]

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.

No totally not the case . Teams have to consider where they are at as a franchise ( rebuilding , going all in ) , their cap , age group and the cost of said trade .

If a McDavid proposal was made . Edmonton fan would say no to pretty well any offer . But fans of another team would probably say no as it would gut their team .

 

[mouser]

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.

Nope. There are too many reasons for both sides to decline a trade even if its fair value.

On the contrary if one team/group of fans is saying Yes and the other side saying No, then most commonly the trade value is not fair.

 

[McSuper]

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.

This is so true and I laugh every time I see it

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

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.

Under this scenario, there's no way both teams say no. The mere fact that Player A is being offered means one team is saying yes.

 

[4thline]

It's a silly statement. Both for all the points raised -non fungible assets, needs, timing, etc, and rationally. I suppose there could be a situation where the overall market dictates a "fair" value that is both higher than the buyer's willingness to pay and lower than the sellers required price- but in that case it's the market dictating what's fair, not that both parties are unwilling.

A better rule of thumb would be "If both sides are grudgingly willing but neither is truly happy than the value is fair", but even that ignores the case where each parties valuation of the components doesn't match up.

This is so true and I laugh every time I see it

Why? It's a valid statement. Pick 33 is closer in value to pick 27 than 27 is to 8 or 33 to 59. The Rounds are for pick distribution and ownership classification prior to the draft order being determined, but beyond that they're arbitrary and pretty useless as a threshold.

In value the difference between pick 27 and 33 is the decided by the premium a team is willing to pay to guarantee getting they player they want out of the next 7 on their board. Could be huge, could be nothing.

 

[Do or Die]

NO

 

[rent free]

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

well vrana could be something special and rn oshie + vrana > nylander

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

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.

honestly I think the overwhelming response I see to most big trades here on hf is 'team A was hosed... or the gm is an idiot' so I honestly don't think the vocal majority of posters here actually do have a firm grip on what is realistic trade value

I think the entire process of proposing trades or judging other peoples trades has to be considered as little more than entertainment value for most of us.

and for what its worth... I agree with you... if both sides hate the trade then I will pat myself on the back and tell myself the trade is probably fair value

at the end of the day though... not a lot of trades happen and its for a reason. real trades require a lot more factor into them than merely coming up with fair value

 

[Pinkfloyd]

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.

I feel like it's mostly used improperly. It's possible for it to be correct but the vast majority of the time it is not.

 

[bernmeister]

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

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

...while i get your point ( i think?).. that doesnt change the fact that the value is subjective.

Even if we follow your quote, we arrive at - montreals fan base likely values Draisatl more highly than Penguins fan base. Ere go, value is still subjective.

all of the above.
I think the one other thing is to recognize it is not a cause and effect dynamic, which is alluded to in the above and elsewhere in thread replies

 

[ChiHawk21]

no because teams are in different situations. Iv someone comes and gives the blackhawks a top ten pick it might be his value but the hawks want to win now and the other team maybe rebuilding.

 

[Canada4Gold]

No, that's obviously not true. For example. A bad value trade is offered. Team A doesn't do it because it's bad value, team B doesn't do it because despite "winning" the value of the trade it hurts their team, it's not a need. Both teams hate it, but the value sucks.

If I'm in Spain and want to take a train somewhere, there's nowhere around that I can exchange American Dollars for Euros, the train ride costs 30 Euro, I have 30 Euro and there's an American next to me with 80 American Dollars who would like to ride the train but it isn't absolutely necessary. The Spanish dude next to us suggests he give me his 80 Dollars for my 30 Euros so he can ride the train. The value of his suggestion sucks because his 80 Dollars are worth more than my 30 Euros, and the guy doesn't want to pay that much to ride the train, but I need my 30 Euros to take the same train ride, so I also say no. Both sides say no to the Spanish guys suggestion and the value also sucks

 

[Gabe Kupari]

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

By teams you mean fans