Typically, when someone mentions 'intangibles' I'm thinking of the aspects that people talk about a guy 'being good in the room', 'providing leadership', and 'sticking up for teammates'. Which, in my opinion, aren't objective areas of evaluating a hockey player. From my perspective your list of examples are mostly things we could talk about in an objective way while there are a couple I would contend are subjective. Such as observing different types of interactions on the bench or asking coaches and teammates what they think of a guy.
If we are classifying different things as intangible then we really aren't discussing the same thing.
those things are objectively real, just harder to track and tabulate, analyse and project precisely. for example, a player may be objectively fantastic in one locker room and ineffective in another based on the personalities involved. it is impossible to evaluate all the variables that go into a guy being usefully good in a locker room, so you end up with an objective fact "beagle is good in the caps dressing room as a beloved soldier who does the little things and inspired and pushed his teammates". from there benning made a projection: "i will gamble that will translate into our much worse dressing room based on my experience as a hockey guy and taking into account stuff like the fact he just won a cup and has the rep he does will give him immediate credibility and make players interested in what he has to say."
what you are arguing is not objectivity. you are simply arguing it is a bad idea to pay for things that are hard to quantify, analyse sand project with certainty because it's too easy to overpay. that's a value judgment i don't disagree with to a point, but it's not one based on objectivity. in fact, objectively speaking, it's leaving value on the table for things you know exist because you lack data to reliably evaluate them.
let me give you an extreme example to illustrate.
chris pronger was deliberately and strategically an intimidating player. he did things like warn guys that if they did certain things he would crush them and then follow through if they did. you cannot easily track that watching tape but it worked. some guys changed their game when playing him and were partially neutralized.
that characteristic of his game is very hard to observe and tabulate but it was real enough that even a casual hockey fan could perceive it. now, extending the hypothetical, if you knew chris pronger the ufa had a shoulder injury from which he was fully recovered to play his normal hockey game but could no longer fight or throw heavy hits, you would realize that this part of his game would be severely compromised and his effectiveness as a hockey player would likely be reduced. you would objectively devalue him accordingly even though you could not precisely evaluate the impact on his came..
the evaluation of a player like beagle is the same thing with smaller inputs. he's a guy you know is good in one room and you hope will be good in another. you know he's getting older and that part of his rep is built on his history with one team. you evaluate that and take a chance on signing him or not.
i can certainly understand some folks saying they won't take the risk for that kind of uncertainty. but i can't grasp the folks who claim that objectively the qualities a guy like beagle has are not real and should not be evaluated when looking at hockey players. i totally disagree with that. as between nic dowd and beagle, all things being equal the decision is not remotely close as to who you sign for the same money because one is objectively more valuable than the other even factoring in age. the only issue is how much more you will pay, which varies according to your risk profile and hockey experience and judgment.
