Value of: Players in a sign and trade situation

[AndreRoy]

There’s a misconception I see all the time on this forum that desperately needs clearing up: the idea that an impending UFA’s value can be inflated to absurd proportions based on the fact that he can sign an extension with his new team, and that this somehow gives him the same value as if he already had that term on his contract.

People need to understand that there’s a tremendous difference in negotiating power between a team shopping a player with term who they don’t need to move and one talking about a sign and trade for an impending UFA who controls his own destiny. In the former case the player is not available unless the team gets an offer they like, and with no requirement to move him they can demand full value and simply keep him if they don’t get it. In the latter case it is the player and not the team who decides if and where he is traded with more than the remaining term on his deal; the team has far less bargaining power in this scenario because a) unless they are willing and able to resign the player themselves they have to trade him or lose him with no return, b) the prospective trade partners (where an extension is concerned) are limited to those the player is willing to approve, and c) if he isn’t traded and reaches free agency he can be acquired by one of those teams for nothing at that point.

So when you’re talking about a sign and trade situation you can’t just think of what the player’s value would be with N years of term left on his deal and say that’s what he’s worth if he signs such an extension with his new team - it simply doesn’t work that way. The player’s value is still based fundamentally on the term he has remaining, as that’s all his current team has any control over.

Now that said the current team is not entirely without leverage. By refusing to sign an extension a player takes the risk that an injury or a poor season could wind up costing him a good deal of money, and while there are cases where a player is simply adamant about going to a particular team and won’t sign an extension with anyone else (Shattenkirk with the Rangers, for instance) there are generally at least a few teams that a player would be willing to immediately sign with if traded to. If two or more of those teams are interested in the player then a bidding war can occur which raises the player’s value, since the prospective buyers recognize that there is a very real possibility that the player won’t make it to free agency if he’s traded to another team with which he’s willing to sign. The same principle of demand raising the value occurs with pure rentals that have multiple teams interested in them, of course, but in the event of a potential sign and trade teams are generally willing to pay more because they know they will be getting the player for a significantly longer term.

HOWEVER, that still doesn’t mean the player’s value with an extension is the same as it would be if he already had that term on his contract and didn’t need to be traded. The player is still an impending UFA with all that entails. So you have to start with the player’s value as a pure rental and then try to figure out to what degree it might be raised from there, based on the number of teams that have a mutual interest with the player in an extension and how high they might be willing to go to ensure they acquire him versus taking their chances that he makes it to free agency.

Click to read more...

 

[AndreRoy]

I’ll add that the likelihood of such a bidding war occurring is also based on the market and what alternatives might be available to the interested teams. If you’ve got a player the likes of which rarely become available (either because the player is elite or because he plays a position that is in high demand) then there’s a better chance (assuming there are multiple teams that have a mutual interest with the player in an extension) of a bidding war raising the price well above the pure rental value. On the other hand if you’re talking about, say, a good but non-elite winger in a year when a lot of good but non-elite wingers will be hitting the market, then there’s little incentive for teams to go much above the rental price even with an extension, as a team that misses out on the sign and trade will likely be able to acquire an acceptable alternative at no additional asset cost in the summer.

 

[SML2]

It's a long read, and it's all correct. While I appreciate it, because I have been playing whack a mole with fools who think that somehow the player would be ok with this, it's going to fall on deaf ears. People don't get it. What it really amounts to is if your wife got you to agree to cash in your retirement and sell your house and use the proceeds to buy a place closer to her new boyfriend's job. It could happen, but why would you allow this? If you (The team) no longer want me (The player) then this relationship is over. Don't expect me to be signing friendly deals on your behalf. That ship has sailed.

 

[lifelonghockeyfan]

99% of the the sign and trades never happen as posted on various sports websites. Yea there might be the occasional one, at the end of the season and a player is approaching UFA status, but almost always if the player has gone that far, he wants to be a UFA.
The worse sign and trades posted are when a player has a year left on this contract such as Pachioretti or Karlsson. Then you need trade agreement and a negotiated contract with a outside team and his EssEmmEll kinda indicated, if there is no agreement, the player has to go back to his original team that doesn't want him. It is quite possible that a player doesn't even want to negotiate with this second team, "Trade me if you want, but there isn't going to any foolish sign and trade."

 

[justafan22]

Turris was a sign and trade.

 

[rent free]

Turris was a sign and trade.

And the negotiations took about 45 minutes.

 

[PKWeber]

I agree with you OP, a signed Pacioretty will increase his value and bring the habs more in a trade.

 

[SML2]

The closest thing I could imagine to a sign and trade would be an offer sheet. The player has already agreed to the deal, but not with you. The receiving team and the sending team work out a deal that isn't the one the compensation scales say it has to be. I think Philly may have done this with Chris Gratton back in the day. The trade then took the place of the offer sheet.

 

[Meeqs]

There is never a situation in hockey where a sign and trade makes sense for both the team and the player. Sometimes it can make sense for 1 of the 2 but in the current environment it will never happen.

 

[AndreRoy]

I agree with you OP, a signed Pacioretty will increase his value and bring the habs more in a trade.

The funny thing is I was specifically thinking of Pacioretty when I said the following:

I’ll add that the likelihood of such a bidding war occurring is also based on the market and what alternatives might be available to the interested teams...On the other hand if you’re talking about, say, a good but non-elite winger in a year when a lot of good but non-elite wingers will be hitting the market, then there’s little incentive for teams to go much above the rental price even with an extension, as a team that misses out on the sign and trade will likely be able to acquire an acceptable alternative at no additional asset cost in the summer.

So if you’re talking about a sign and trade while he is still an impending UFA then no, we clearly do not agree.

If you mean the Habs should resign Patches with the appearance of wanting to keep him, only to try to move him shortly thereafter, that’s a very risky proposition. First of all it’s one thing to genuinely intend to keep a player and to move him within 1-2 years of him signing the contract due to an unexpected circumstance or because a good trade opportunity presented itself - that’s just part of the business and players understand that. But to blatantly lie to somebody who’s been with your franchise for a long time by telling him you want to keep him long term, only to immediately turn around and try to trade him, that’s not going to paint your organization in a very good light and other free agents will think twice about signing with your team in the future.

On top of that you’d better be willing to keep that player for the duration of the contract you signed him to because there’s no guarantee in that scenario that a trade will occur. And given what I mentioned in the previous paragraph if you tell a player you want him around long term, then immediately try to trade him, only to fail to do so, there’s a very good chance that if word gets out you’re going to be stuck with a disgruntled player on a long term deal - not a good thing. Finally, even if a GM were dumb enough to attempt such a thing his potential trade partners would easily recognize the situation for what it is and understand that the team still has to trade the player, so signed or not you’re not going to see his value increase by trying something like this.

So about the only realistic way of raising Patches’ value is by resigning him and keeping him for at least a full season in the hopes of him rebounding. Both to avoid the bad PR for your organization and to maximize Pacioretty’s trade value it has to look like your team is perfectly willing to keep him, which in turn means that it has to look like you’re trying to win now - if you resign Patches but every other move you make points to going into a tank/rebuild then your intentions will be transparent and your leverage will be gone. And finally if he doesn’t rebound then you’ve not only lost the opportunity to trade him as a rental and at least get something for him, but now you’ve saddled yourself with a declining player on a longterm deal.

In short there’s a reason why you don’t see teams trying these tricks. It’s one thing to hang onto a signed player after a bad season in the hopes that he rebounds and you can get more for him at that time, but resigning an impending UFA to a longterm contract for that purpose just doesn’t make sense.

 

[mouser]

Turris was a sign and trade.

For clarity: Turris was a trade and sign.

 

[Big Daddy Cane]

Good thread. What I find interesting about the Turris trade in retrospect is that while the extension perhaps added to his value, it didn’t raise it to a significant extent. You would think a center like Turris with the added term would have been good enough of an asset to return a near equivalent asset in a 1-for-1 hockey trade. Yet, he still got dealt in a 3-for-1 with the centerpiece not being a leaguewide elite prospect or equivalent young player.

 

[AndreRoy]

Good thread. What I find interesting about the Turris trade in retrospect is that while the extension perhaps added to his value, it didn’t raise it to a significant extent. You would think a center like Turris with the added term would have been good enough of an asset to return a near equivalent asset in a 1-for-1 hockey trade. Yet, he still got dealt in a 3-for-1 with the centerpiece not being a leaguewide elite prospect or equivalent young player.

Exactly! A good metaphor is to think of a card game with contracts. For anyone unfamiliar with those the way they generally work is there is a round of bidding in which players evaluate the strength of their hand (among other things) in an effort to determine how many points they think they can take; the high bidder usually wins some advantage such as the right to name the trump suit, but if he fails to make his contract he is set back the amount of his bid.

In evaluating your hand to determine how much to bid there are often plus factors that aren’t sufficient to actually increase the value of your hand, but when you’re considering stretching that value a bit in an effort to outbid an opponent those plus factors can encourage your decision to do so. It’s the same way when talking about an extension with an impending UFA who’s about to be traded: the possibility of the extension doesn’t really increase the player’s value so much as it might encourage teams to go a bit above that value because they know they’re getting those extra years out of the deal.

 

[DarkHorse2]

There is never a situation in hockey where a sign and trade makes sense for both the team and the player. Sometimes it can make sense for 1 of the 2 but in the current environment it will never happen.

If Tavares doesn't want to sign with the Islanders, but allows a sign-and-trade, it makes sense for both sides.

• Tavares gets his eighth year on the contract
• The Islanders get something back instead of nothing.

 

[boredmale]

If Tavares doesn't want to sign with the Islanders, but allows a sign-and-trade, it makes sense for both sides.

• Tavares gets his eighth year on the contract
• The Islanders get something back instead of nothing.

Only 2 UFAs this summer I can see getting this scenario would be Tavares and Carlson, no other UFAs are worth 8 years

 

[lifelonghockeyfan]

The closest thing I could imagine to a sign and trade would be an offer sheet. The player has already agreed to the deal, but not with you. The receiving team and the sending team work out a deal that isn't the one the compensation scales say it has to be. I think Philly may have done this with Chris Gratton back in the day. The trade then took the place of the offer sheet.

Apparently when he was signed there was no alternative deal in place. Hence the "time to match " is seven days, mostly for the the two parties to make a alternative trade instead of the required draft picks.

 

[lifelonghockeyfan]

If Tavares doesn't want to sign with the Islanders, but allows a sign-and-trade, it makes sense for both sides.

• Tavares gets his eighth year on the contract
• The Islanders get something back instead of nothing]

It might, but of course by this time it is weeks till Tavares till UFA instead of a year which so many folks are trying to do with a Eric Karlsson and Paciorietty.(which is impractical)
It is possible that the Isles if they don't think Tavares is signing with him....lets say by June 20, will allow JT to negotiate with ALL teams and an eight year deal. If a deal is then done, then the "trade" can happen. I say that because a first rounder from Carolina would be worth more to the Isles than let's say the Leafs.

 

[TheBradyBunch]

Turris was a sign and trade.

Nope. Turris was a trade and sign. In fact, his agent didn't even negotiate with Nashville before (which would still not be a sign-and-trade - it would be a trade with a pre-agreed extension, which is somewhat more common than a true sign-and trade).

I could be totally wrong but the last sign-and-trade I can remember was Hossa from the Sens to Atlanta, and he signed his contract thinking that he was going to spend the entire time with the Sens. He had no clue a deal was coming and he actually thought that signing a contract would end any possibility of him being dealt for the foreseeable future. This was a main factor as to why Chara refused to sign with Ottawa unless we gave him a No-Trade clause.