Negative value trades

[BJG]

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/in-praise-of-the-nhls-negative-value-guy/

I found this really interesting.
I'll try it on the main trade board.

Who would you consider a negative value guy on this team (based on this article, not simply a guy you don't like)? For me it's Emelin.

And what "problem" player/contract would you take to dump yours?

Click to read more...

 

[OpenIceHit]

PAP.

DD is not negative but close to zero.

I'm sure you can get a 2nd or a 3rd round pick for Emelin.

 

[LaP]

Emelin is definitely not negative value. You'll always find someone wanting a big physical d man. He has about the same value as Gorges.

PAP i would say is negative value.

 

[JLP]

Once you move past the obviously low-end players, the article suggests that the "negative value" litmus test is waivers.

So which regular Habs would clear waivers? Not Emelin he's a tad overpaid but can play big minutes, has a decent pass and shot and is 6th in the league in hits. No way Eller clears.

Weaver? Malhotra? Cheap contracts so I doubt they'd clear they're good depth.

PAP or DD might clear they are too limited in what they do and don't fit the blueprint for today's bigger more physical NHL teams.

 

[Devourers]

Nobody mentioned in this thread so far has negative value imo.

If Emelin would waive, I could see him still landing a 2nd from a team thinking he'll bounce back. PAP doesn't have negative value either imo, a team like NJ might consider him on the cheap. DD again, doesn't have negative value.

When I think of negative value, I think of guys like Clarkson, or Gomez when we had him. Not a 50pt diminutive player that while bashed endlessly on our boards has some value still among people in the league.

 

[LaP]

Negative value for me is a guy clearing waiver.

If a guy is waived and claimed his value is not negative. Emelin would definitely be claimed if waived. Lot of team are looking for d man to help make the playoffs and lot of them can find a 4 millions space under the cap.

PAP honestly i'm not so sure. If it was the last year of his contract somebody would probably claim him but right now hum i'm not sure.

 

[Devourers]

I don't think it's fair to say every player who clears waivers is a negative value, not what with how tough it is to manage the cap in this era. There are plenty of guys who would be picked up but the teams that are willing to do it are up against the cap. That doesn't necessarily mean they have negative value, it just means no team can afford to take them on without dumping some salary first.

I guess I can understand why people think that cause if you need to dump salary in order to take a guy that might be construed as negative value. I just don't necessarily think that's the case given how much cap space a lot of teams have available, at least the ones who would be looking to add pieces.

 

[danyhabsfan]

Moen and Bourque....


Wait! Good Job Bergevin!

 

[fufonzo]

I feel there should be more negative value players around the NHL than there appears to be.

Basically, to me, the large majority of UFAs that underperform should be negative value guys, yet it's rare you'll see guys given away for nothing.

Basically, if you sign a UFA for $5m, that usually means nobody was willing to pay more than $5m for them.

If he underperforms in any way, why would a team be able to expect to get anything in return for that player?

Basically any player who, if they went on the free market today, would land less money than they're currently paid should be a negative value player.

 

[Natey]

Once you move past the obviously low-end players, the article suggests that the "negative value" litmus test is waivers.

So which regular Habs would clear waivers? Not Emelin he's a tad overpaid but can play big minutes, has a decent pass and shot and is 6th in the league in hits. No way Eller clears.

Weaver? Malhotra? Cheap contracts so I doubt they'd clear they're good depth.

PAP or DD might clear they are too limited in what they do and don't fit the blueprint for today's bigger more physical NHL teams.

Desharnais wouldn't clear waivers. These are the silly comments that make me make equally stupid comments the other way.

 

[Ezpz]

I think Bourque and Gomez are the only guys we've had with "negative trade value". Kaberle would have been tradeable if we were willing to retain salary.

 

[Ezpz]

Desharnais wouldn't clear waivers. These are the silly comments that make me make equally stupid comments the other way.

Desharnais would definitely clear waivers.

 

[diskkkk]

I feel there should be more negative value players around the NHL than there appears to be.

Basically, to me, the large majority of UFAs that underperform should be negative value guys, yet it's rare you'll see guys given away for nothing.

Basically, if you sign a UFA for $5m, that usually means nobody was willing to pay more than $5m for them.

If he underperforms in any way, why would a team be able to expect to get anything in return for that player?

Basically any player who, if they went on the free market today, would land less money than they're currently paid should be a negative value player.

1. Not all UFAs sign the biggest offer.
2. Multiple team might present the same offer to an UFA, who then decides which team suits him/his family more.
3. Teams needs during the offseason are different than needs during the season (due to injury / unforeseen team weaknesses / bad trades / under or over performing players, etc)

Hence, under performing UFAs does not always equal negative value. Things change in the course of a season and a change of scenery can often provide some breathing room to an under performing player).

 

[JLP]

Desharnais wouldn't clear waivers. These are the silly comments that make me make equally stupid comments the other way.

Compared to your prediction that Desharnais would make Canada's Olympic Team, the thought that he could clear waivers is sage.

I think McGuire and Lavoie have both said they saw zero market interest in DD, and didn't seven rounds of drafting go by without any team selecting him? Maybe you'd be surprised.

 

[danyhabsfan]

Allen

 

[GREMLIN]

Desharnais would definitely clear waivers.

I doubt it, close but I think he'd get claimed, he could improve the top 6 of some bottom feeders

 

[Blind Gardien]

I think only PAP... basically because he has the extra year on his deal. I can't see any scenario where any other team takes him even for free, because of that extra year. Anyway, he's a player in a niche we kind of need help in ("scoring winger"), so to me, until the off-season anyway, he's also useful in our lineup.

Allen is more like "zero value"... obviously nobody took him on waivers, but as injuries pile up and the pro-rating left on his contract diminishes, I could see a totally injury-ravaged team taking him on waivers at some point, depending on who else was available to them "for free". Or at least, it's not completely impossible to me that such a circumstance could arise. Not at all likely, but not 100% impossible. I didn't think he looked _that_ bad for us.

Emelin and Desharnais are positive value to us. Desharnais is closer to "zero value", because it would take a team in a special situation to consider adding him, so he might clear waivers at one point, and might not at another. But to me, with our team lacking scoring, he's a useful player... I don't hold Therrien's poor choices against him.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

PAP.

DD is not negative but close to zero.

I'm sure you can get a 2nd or a 3rd round pick for Emelin.

PAP is in the last year of his deal. You could actually trade him for a mid round pick if he were healthy. I think he has at least a little value for a team looking for depth.

DD would clear waivers.

I'm not sure about Emelin. He's pricey and his play has been sporadic at best. You might find a taker but it's possible he'd clear waivers as well. People like the hits from him but he hasn't been doing that - either by virtue of being told so by the coaching staff or by decline. Either way it's hurt his value.

I think only PAP... basically because he has the extra year on his deal. I can't see any scenario where any other team takes him even for free, because of that extra year. Anyway, he's a player in a niche we kind of need help in ("scoring winger"), so to me, until the off-season anyway, he's also useful in our lineup.

PAP has another year after this one? Okay, my mistake.

Allen is more like "zero value"... obviously nobody took him on waivers, but as injuries pile up and the pro-rating left on his contract diminishes, I could see a totally injury-ravaged team taking him on waivers at some point, depending on who else was available to them "for free". Or at least, it's not completely impossible to me that such a circumstance could arise. Not at all likely, but not 100% impossible. I didn't think he looked _that_ bad for us.

Emelin and Desharnais are positive value to us. Desharnais is closer to "zero value", because it would take a team in a special situation to consider adding him, so he might clear waivers at one point, and might not at another. But to me, with our team lacking scoring, he's a useful player... I don't hold Therrien's poor choices against him.

I see DD as negative value, esp because of how he's used. But you're right, MT is a big part of that. Still, he's a fringe NHLer. I wouldn't want him if I were the GM on another team.

 

[Agnostic]

I think Bourque and Gomez are the only guys we've had with "negative trade value". Kaberle would have been tradeable if we were willing to retain salary.

nope.

Desharnais would definitely clear waivers.

nope.

 

[Ezpz]

I doubt it, close but I think he'd get claimed, he could improve the top 6 of some bottom feeders

And this is where HFBoards lacks a brain with their constantly being surprised when 2+ mil contract guys clear waivers. Nobody, and I mean nobody is going to take on 10 million in salary for a player who's barely a top 6 player. Doesn't matter if it "improves" their team in the short run. There are zero teams that would even consider claiming DD. Waiver claims aren't about "is this player NHL caliber".

 

[Brainiac]

Desharnais would definitely clear waivers.

Yeah, I now think he could clear. Not 100% sure but it's possibility.

This year is special. Many teams are up against the cap and next year is not looking too good either. Every penny counts.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Yeah, I now think he could clear. Not 100% sure but it's possibility.

This year is special. Many teams are up against the cap and next year is not looking too good either. Every penny counts.

I think he would. Who'd want this guy?

And if we believe Pierre Lebrun, there is absolutely NO market at all for this guy.

 

[Monctonscout]

PAP.

DD is not negative but close to zero.

I'm sure you can get a 2nd or a 3rd round pick for Emelin.

Desharnais can probably get you at least a 2nd or 3rd rounder also.

PAP, I don't think you could move him without taking back salary or adding incentive.

 

[Monctonscout]

Yeah, I now think he could clear. Not 100% sure but it's possibility.

This year is special. Many teams are up against the cap and next year is not looking too good either. Every penny counts.

If you were to waive Desharnais, he would only bring a 1.4 mil cap hit, just by demoting a 800-900k player you could add him with just 500-600 k of cap space. Given how teams are starving for centers and d-men this time of year he'd be picked up quick. His contract is very good for his numbers.

 

[Ezpz]

If you were to waive Desharnais, he would only bring a 1.4 mil cap hit, just by demoting a 800-900k player you could add him with just 500-600 k of cap space. Given how teams are starving for centers and d-men this time of year he'd be picked up quick. His contract is very good for his numbers.

He brings a 3.5 mil cap hit. Wat. Do you not know how waivers work?