Rumor: Penguins VERY VERY interested in Hamhuis (Warning Post #273)

[iceburg]

Why would the difference in the return be 'significant'?

And above, what does "limitations of comps" mean?

Any deal is driven in the end by Real Options. No situation is the same. Comparables ("comps") offer a snap shot of what a player is worth at a given time and in a given situation. The situation will never be revisited. So, while comps can be useful, they are limited to a specific set of circumstances and a specific time. This is not just hockey trades this is for any deal - buying a house, for example. A house down the street may be a perfect comparable to one you want for $1M. But if the owner doesn't want to sell it to you for $1M, it isn't a real option to you.

Think of all the variables that have to add up to get maximum return for Hamhuis:
-a team in the playoff hunt
-desperate to add a top four D
-they think Hamhuis can be that guy
-they have cap space
-they are willing to give up assets that would be deemed acceptable to some posters on these boards
-they don't have other options to go to (this one is underestimated or ignored all the time)
-Hamhuis has to waive i.e. agree to get traded to that team

The list of teams gets very very small with just these parameters and I'm sure there are more.

Basically, even if a comp shows a player like Hamhuis previously went for a 1st rounder, this only happens if, when the other team considers all the parameters and their other options, they say yes. And, since the variables carry some uncertainty and risk, whether a GM decides to say yes might be based on the phase of the moon or what he had for dinner last night.
-

 

[coldsteel79]

Any deal is driven in the end by Real Options. No situation is the same. Comparables ("comps") offer a snap shot of what a player is worth at a given time and in a given situation. The situation will never be revisited. So, while comps can be useful, they are limited to a specific set of circumstances and a specific time. This is not just hockey trades this is for any deal - buying a house, for example. A house down the street may be a perfect comparable to one you want for $1M. But if the owner doesn't want to sell it to you for $1M, it isn't a real option to you.

Think of all the variables that have to add up to get maximum return for Hamhuis:
-a team in the playoff hunt
-desperate to add a top four D
-they think Hamhuis can be that guy
-they have cap space
-they are willing to give up assets that would be deemed acceptable to some posters on these boards
-they don't have other options to go to (this one is underestimated or ignored all the time)
-Hamhuis has to waive i.e. agree to get traded to that team

The list of teams gets very very small with just these parameters and I'm sure there are more.

Basically, even if a comp shows a player like Hamhuis previously went for a 1st rounder, this only happens if, when the other team considers all the parameters and their other options, they say yes. And, since the variables carry some uncertainty and risk, whether a GM decides to say yes might be based on the phase of the moon or what he had for dinner last night.
-

Great post, and it's not "excuse" making, it's reality

 

[MarkMM]

Any deal is driven in the end by Real Options. No situation is the same. Comparables ("comps") offer a snap shot of what a player is worth at a given time and in a given situation. The situation will never be revisited. So, while comps can be useful, they are limited to a specific set of circumstances and a specific time. This is not just hockey trades this is for any deal - buying a house, for example. A house down the street may be a perfect comparable to one you want for $1M. But if the owner doesn't want to sell it to you for $1M, it isn't a real option to you.

Think of all the variables that have to add up to get maximum return for Hamhuis:
-a team in the playoff hunt
-desperate to add a top four D
-they think Hamhuis can be that guy
-they have cap space
-they are willing to give up assets that would be deemed acceptable to some posters on these boards
-they don't have other options to go to (this one is underestimated or ignored all the time)
-Hamhuis has to waive i.e. agree to get traded to that team

The list of teams gets very very small with just these parameters and I'm sure there are more.

Basically, even if a comp shows a player like Hamhuis previously went for a 1st rounder, this only happens if, when the other team considers all the parameters and their other options, they say yes. And, since the variables carry some uncertainty and risk, whether a GM decides to say yes might be based on the phase of the moon or what he had for dinner last night.
-

One more variable is the negotiating skills of the decision-makers of the respective teams.

We're hooped.

 

[MarkMM]

lol, wut?

- Don't pay premium for goaltending, unless you're getting elite level goaltending. (Miller)

- Don't value grinders and bruisers, even if it means you draft small, skilled players. (Virtanen vs Nylander/Ehlers, for example, the premiums paid for Dorsett, Prust)

Read the articles if you still don't understand.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

The most realistic trade I could see happening is Pittsburgh trading their 2nd and Anaheim's 2nd (or a 2nd+Brian Dumoulin) for Hamhuis. It's not terrible, but I'd still hope to get a late 1st from someone.

Their 1st this year goes to Toronto assuming they make the playoffs, otherwise I doubt they trade a lottery pick for an upcoming UFA like Hamhuis. Bennett holds very little value these days. And I really can't see them moving Pouliot or Sprong for an upcoming UFA.

I would still consider taking a flyer on Bennett. There are better odds he figures out his game elsewhere than one of those two 2nds becoming an impact player.

 

[LeftCoast]

Any deal is driven in the end by Real Options. No situation is the same. Comparables ("comps") offer a snap shot of what a player is worth at a given time and in a given situation. The situation will never be revisited. So, while comps can be useful, they are limited to a specific set of circumstances and a specific time. This is not just hockey trades this is for any deal - buying a house, for example. A house down the street may be a perfect comparable to one you want for $1M. But if the owner doesn't want to sell it to you for $1M, it isn't a real option to you.

Think of all the variables that have to add up to get maximum return for Hamhuis:
-a team in the playoff hunt
-desperate to add a top four D
-they think Hamhuis can be that guy
-they have cap space
-they are willing to give up assets that would be deemed acceptable to some posters on these boards
-they don't have other options to go to (this one is underestimated or ignored all the time)
-Hamhuis has to waive i.e. agree to get traded to that team

The list of teams gets very very small with just these parameters and I'm sure there are more.

Basically, even if a comp shows a player like Hamhuis previously went for a 1st rounder, this only happens if, when the other team considers all the parameters and their other options, they say yes. And, since the variables carry some uncertainty and risk, whether a GM decides to say yes might be based on the phase of the moon or what he had for dinner last night.
-

Exactly - from an economic perspective, these variable go into creating the market. It's slightly different every year. The parity in the league is the biggest factor. There are more teams in the playoff hunt, right up until the TDL. However with so little separation, the difference between a buyer and a seller is very small.

 

[ahmon]

- Don't pay premium for goaltending, unless you're getting elite level goaltending. (Miller)

- Don't value grinders and bruisers, even if it means you draft small, skilled players. (Virtanen vs Nylander/Ehlers, for example, the premiums paid for Dorsett, Prust)

Read the articles if you still don't understand.

Detroit has picked more players from the USHL/NAHL recently, Benning picked our 1st rounder Brock Boeser right from the USHL.

Looks like there is a similarity there.

I don't get this myth where Benning favors only grinder/bruiser.

Baertschi, Vey? McCann isn't really a bruiser. Zhukenov? russian? Detroit likes to pick euros?

I don't see how Benning is doing the opposite of Detroit.

 

[racerjoe]

Detroit has picked more players from the USHL/NAHL recently, Benning picked our 1st rounder Brock Boeser right from the USHL.

Looks like there is a similarity there.

I don't get this myth where Benning favors only grinder/bruiser.

Baertschi, Vey? McCann isn't really a bruiser. Zhukenov? russian? Detroit likes to pick euros?

I don't see how Benning is doing the opposite of Detroit.

It's placing a value on your Dorsetts, Prusts, Sbisa, Bartkowski's because they fit a role of grinder of physical, when you want to look for possession.

The Virtanen over Nylander/Ehlers is a great comparison. Jake is a very toolsy guy, vs Nylander who controls the puck and possession.

On another note, I don't understand, how you can say there isn't precedent on trades. Value for a current standard of player will always be around the same. It's going to be similar, or close, or should be.

There are a few to like at, two last year. We know what dmen cost around this time of year, hell look at Ballard...

 

[Wisp]

I don't think it's that clear either. Detroit hasn't made it past the 2nd round of the playoffs since 09-10 and hasn't made it out of the 1st round the last 2 years.

yes. they might not do any better this year and any momentum they might have gained might be completely be lost when Datsyuk and Zetturburg are done. Clock is ticking on Datsyuk in particular.

 

[Nick Lang]

yes. they might not do any better this year and any momentum they might have gained might be completely be lost when Datsyuk and Zetturburg are done. Clock is ticking on Datsyuk in particular.

They've made the playoffs 24 years in a row.

 

[banme*]

It's placing a value on your Dorsetts, Prusts, Sbisa, Bartkowski's because they fit a role of grinder of physical, when you want to look for possession.

The Virtanen over Nylander/Ehlers is a great comparison. Jake is a very toolsy guy, vs Nylander who controls the puck and possession.

1st para has nothing to do with our drafting and doesn't reflect our drafting the past two years.

2nd para, Jake has the best possession stats on the team. Whether you want to argue the validity of those stats is another matter.

 

[Rex Banner]

They've made the playoffs 24 years in a row.

The past isn't the future. Thankfully in our case.

 

[VanJack]

- Don't pay premium for goaltending, unless you're getting elite level goaltending. (Miller)

- Don't value grinders and bruisers, even if it means you draft small, skilled players. (Virtanen vs Nylander/Ehlers, for example, the premiums paid for Dorsett, Prust)

Read the articles if you still don't understand.

lol...and don't pay a premium for an older goaltender who's no longer giving you 'elite-level goaltending' and wasn't doing it even before Benning acquired him, and is now predictably being outplayed by the backup.

 

[Canadian Canuck]

lol...and don't pay a premium for an older goaltender who's no longer giving you 'elite-level goaltending' and wasn't doing it even before Benning acquired him, and is now predictably being outplayed by the backup.

Didn't hurt to get him. He was free and his contract ends after next season. Only problem was that it a me at the expense of Lack.

 

[Samzilla]

Didn't hurt to get him. He was free and his contract ends after next season. Only problem was that it a me at the expense of Lack.

So you say it didn't hurt to get him and then go on to give a reason why it hurt to get him. He also has a ridiculous cap hit for the services he provides, which hurts our flexibility.

 

[alternate]

Did we really pay a premium for Miller though?

Detroit pays Howard $5.5m with a cap hit of $5.2m. That cap hit is 18th in the league. Cam Ward has a cap hit ofn $6.3m with a salary of $6.8m. He has the 6th highest cap hit in the league, just below Price at $6.5m with a salary of $7m.

So essentially the 6th highest cap hit and the 18th highest are separated by about $1m. Now $1m in cap space is $1m in cap space, but really I find it hard to say you are paying a premium when you are within that range. You just aren't gaining some large competitive advantage by having a $5.2m cap hit for .910 goaltending compared to $6m. I guess if you want to get really specific you could say we are paying a $.8m premium to go from Howard to Miller, but that's hardly a figure to get worked up about, and certainly doesn't scream "opposite direction."

Of course to the "a bit more cap space and we'd be exponentially better" crowd, every little dollar counts. It's a train of thought that has its benefits, but it's also the train of thought that let's an Ehrhoff walk for nothing because he won't fit your inflexible formula. There's something to be said for maintaining as much cap space as possible, but there's also something to be said for signing your top targets rather than whatever your allotted cap figure gets you. And when it comes to goalies, if you are in that $5.2 - $6.3m cap hit range--just shy of half the league's starters--you're basically just paying the going rate for an established starter. And when you remove accounting tricks and go by actual salaries, we are paying even less of a premium for Miller, whose pay cheque is firmly in the middle of the league's starters.

Miller's pay in the New Year has been worth the money. Hopefully having 2 goalies healthy and rested means we get the best out of both. Only concern is we win too much and it results in us not selling Hamhuis at the deadline.

 

[Hansen]

Where's the rumour about Washington wanting Hamhuis before the deadline coming from?

 

[Canucker]

Did we really pay a premium for Miller though?

Detroit pays Howard $5.5m with a cap hit of $5.2m. That cap hit is 18th in the league. Cam Ward has a cap hit ofn $6.3m with a salary of $6.8m. He has the 6th highest cap hit in the league, just below Price at $6.5m with a salary of $7m.

So essentially the 6th highest cap hit and the 18th highest are separated by about $1m. Now $1m in cap space is $1m in cap space, but really I find it hard to say you are paying a premium when you are within that range. You just aren't gaining some large competitive advantage by having a $5.2m cap hit for .910 goaltending compared to $6m. I guess if you want to get really specific you could say we are paying a $.8m premium to go from Howard to Miller, but that's hardly a figure to get worked up about, and certainly doesn't scream "opposite direction."

Of course to the "a bit more cap space and we'd be exponentially better" crowd, every little dollar counts. It's a train of thought that has its benefits, but it's also the train of thought that let's an Ehrhoff walk for nothing because he won't fit your inflexible formula. There's something to be said for maintaining as much cap space as possible, but there's also something to be said for signing your top targets rather than whatever your allotted cap figure gets you. And when it comes to goalies, if you are in that $5.2 - $6.3m cap hit range--just shy of half the league's starters--you're basically just paying the going rate for an established starter. And when you remove accounting tricks and go by actual salaries, we are paying even less of a premium for Miller, whose pay cheque is firmly in the middle of the league's starters.

Miller's pay in the New Year has been worth the money. Hopefully having 2 goalies healthy and rested means we get the best out of both. Only concern is we win too much and it results in us not selling Hamhuis at the deadline.

He wanted to play on the West coast, which limited his available options, and he was coming off a very mediocre season followed by a disastrous post season in St.Louis, yet we paid above market value to sign him.

 

[kanucks25]

Where's the rumour about Washington wanting Hamhuis before the deadline coming from?

I don't think there's a direct rumor but people are connecting the dots:

- Washington (and every other contender) wants to bolster their D for the playoff push
- Hamhuis is the best or 2nd best D-man on the UFA market
- Hamhuis being a UFA means he might be on the block
- Hamhuis's coach in Nashville is now the coach in Washington

 

[alternate]

He wanted to play on the West coast, which limited his available options, and he was coming off a very mediocre season followed by a disastrous post season in St.Louis, yet we paid above market value to sign him.

Miller had a .923 save percentage playing behind the worst team in the league. How is that a very mediocre season? And we didn't pay above market value, we paid market value. It's actually ok to pay market value if it gets you the player you covet. If we wanted below market value we would have been looking at say Hiller. Would you rather have .913 goaltending for $6m or spend $4.5m for an .882 goalie?

 

[Canadian Canuck]

So you say it didn't hurt to get him and then go on to give a reason why it hurt to get him. He also has a ridiculous cap hit for the services he provides, which hurts our flexibility.

Yeah that kinda backfired What I meant to say was Benning wasn't confident in a young Lack/Markstrom duo because Markstrom wasn't proven enough, therefore he signed Miller on a shorter term(3 year deal) although too high of a cap hit. Lack hasn't really proven much in Carolina and he's too old to fit with our core, that's why it made more sense to go with younger and higher potential guy in Markstrom. We also have Demko coming up who's going to be a top 10 NHL goalie IMO. We will be fine.

 

[Canucker]

Miller had a .923 save percentage playing behind the worst team in the league. How is that a very mediocre season? And we didn't pay above market value, we paid market value. It's actually ok to pay market value if it gets you the player you covet. If we wanted below market value we would have been looking at say Hiller. Would you rather have .913 goaltending for $6m or spend $4.5m for an .882 goalie?

And he finished up with a .903 sv% with a defensively stalwart team and was even worse in the playoffs. We shouldn't have paid ANYTHING for him, we had a capable starter...but if you are going to sign him, at least negotiate.

 

[banme*]

And he finished up with a .903 sv% with a defensively stalwart team and was even worse in the playoffs. We shouldn't have paid ANYTHING for him, we had a capable starter...but if you are going to sign him, at least negotiate.

Source that there was no negotiation process at all?

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

Miller had a .923 save percentage playing behind the worst team in the league. How is that a very mediocre season? And we didn't pay above market value, we paid market value. It's actually ok to pay market value if it gets you the player you covet. If we wanted below market value we would have been looking at say Hiller. Would you rather have .913 goaltending for $6m or spend $4.5m for an .882 goalie?

Hiller was better than Miller last season, would be a capable backup this season and most importantly, is not under contract next season. So, that is as easy of a choice as it gets.

 

[Canucker]

Source that there was no negotiation process at all?

Miller signed a 3 year $18M contract with the Canucks. Thats all the evidence i need.