What is the fair market value of captain Andrew Ladd?

[Puckatron 3000]

We had an asset. It is gone. We got nothing in exchange.

I think about it more like Gin. We did get something in exchange - our first playoff experience. It's like picking up a rental, which is a purposeful expenditure of assets in exchange for a better team over some short period. That's a totally valid use of assets.

Pretty much every player has some trade value. The GM decides to use the player, or trade the player. Using the player extracts his value on the ice. Trading the player extracts his value in some other manner. Either way, you're extracting the value from that player somehow.

Sure, the ideal scenario is that you use the player, then trade the player when you're done with him. But that doesn't always work out if the hole left by trading the player is more detrimental than the benefits of the trade, as would have been the case with Fro.

Choosing to use a player often reduces their trade value in some way (e.g. by being one year older, by being closer to FA, etc). That's a purposeful exchange for what you get back on the ice. In some cases, it is the right decision to use a player until they have no trade value left. I think this is the case with Frolik.

The "asset" that we "lost" was Frolik as a free agent. That asset had 0 value left. We used it all. For good purpose.

 

[YWGinYYZ]

We got 2 years out of Frolik for what we paid, a 3rd and a 5th. That included making the playoffs. Fair value. Then we lost him for nothing. The one thing doesn't wipe out the other. If you buy a $3 lottery ticket that wins a million$ do you pocket $3 and then throw away $999,997? We had an asset. It is gone. We got nothing in exchange. No judgement. No good, bad or indifferent. Facts. Make of it whatever you like.

The equation is the same for Ladd and Buff but the values are much higher. I hope we get more than nothing. I hope we don't sign them to contracts we soon regret. Anything in between is varying degrees of good.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Frolik walked, but they got full value for his contract while he was here. Had they traded him at the deadline, there's every possibility that the Jets would not have made the PO's.

My value judgement: it was the right call. Your opinion obviously differs, though you do admit they got full value for the 3rd and 5th. Given that he left, I think he was a reasonable "rental" as well.

It does sound like you expected to get something else for him - as a Free Agent, he choose to sign with someone else. The Jets decided that, at his asking price, he did not fit within the budget they've assembled. This budget most likely includes signing other FA's or soon to be FA's, and calculating what it's going to take to sign our upcoming RFA's as well.

Edit: well said Puckatron - mirrors my thinking almost exactly. Kinda spooky, actually.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I think about it more like Gin. We did get something in exchange - our first playoff experience. It's like picking up a rental, which is a purposeful expenditure of assets in exchange for a better team over some short period. That's a totally valid use of assets.

Pretty much every player has some trade value. The GM decides to use the player, or trade the player. Using the player extracts his value on the ice. Trading the player extracts his value in some other manner. Either way, you're extracting the value from that player somehow.

Sure, the ideal scenario is that you use the player, then trade the player when you're done with him. But that doesn't always work out if the hole left by trading the player is more detrimental than the benefits of the trade, as would have been the case with Fro.

Choosing to use a player often reduces their trade value in some way (e.g. by being one year older, by being closer to FA, etc). That's a purposeful exchange for what you get back on the ice. In some cases, it is the right decision to use a player until they have no trade value left. I think this is the case with Frolik.

The "asset" that we "lost" was Frolik as a free agent. That asset had 0 value left. We used it all. For good purpose.

Yeah, I get the rental comparison. He was a 2 year rental instead of a 2 month rental. Like I said, fair value for what we paid. That is not my point. I think that is a fair way of looking at the trade that brought him here. Did we get value, was it a good trade? Yes. Not arguing that. We could have signed him last summer. Chevy made a choice not to. It wasn't a matter of being unable to. It was a choice. I'm not even debating whether that was a good choice or not. We could have traded him last summer. We could have traded him at the TD. Again, choice. Again, I'm not debating that, at least not right now. I'm just stating the fact that we had an asset and got nothing for him in the end. I suppose it is legitimate to state it in the full context though that we did get 2 good years out of him. No player is with any team forever. Some stay longer, some stay shorter.

 

[YWGinYYZ]

We could have signed him last summer.

Really?

Chevy made a choice not to.

He told you this, I take it?

It wasn't a matter of being unable to. It was a choice.

You do realize that Frolik also has a choice in the matter, yes? I do agree with the choice bit though: if you go read my previous message, there are obviously cap related things they're unwilling to budge on, otherwise a Frolik deal would have been inked.

I'm not even debating whether that was a good choice or not. We could have traded him last summer.

This, I'd have been OK with. At least we'd have an asset to...

We could have traded him at the TD.

...help us get into the playoffs, as Frolik did. There's NO way in heck that Frolik was going to get traded at the TD, with the team in the thick of the hunt. Heck, we went after other FA's - what would it have gained us by dumping Frolik at that point? After the failed negotiations last summer, there was no way a TD trade was going to happen.

Again, choice. Again, I'm not debating that, at least not right now. I'm just stating the fact that we had an asset and got nothing for him in the end. I suppose it is legitimate to state it in the full context though that we did get 2 good years out of him. No player is with any team forever. Some stay longer, some stay shorter.

We DID get something: he contributed to the Jets making the playoffs, and we got 2 years (as you mention) of Frolik playing high level hockey for the Jets, for a 3rd and a 5th (which rarely pan out anyway).

I wish Frolik were here, but c'est la vie. I'll take the arguable contribution to a PO appearance instead.

 

[Board Bard]

Heard Lawless on the radio the other day, he said Frolik might have even come down to $3.9 million last summer but Chevy wouldn't bite. Seems to me Chevy's choice was more of a guess, and he guessed wrong.

 

[ps241]

There was an analyst on H & L this week that was arguing just that point in regards to Ladd and presumably Buff. He was giving Wpg a reasonable chance of going all the way in 2-3 years (if everything went right, etc etc of course). But there is that feeling out there not only from the Wpg observers but from a few sources.

Not convinced myself. As has been said by a couple folks, probably better to let them walk for next to nothing than to sign them to a bad long-term albatross.

Just hope Chevy recognizes if one or both are not on board and are only out for what they can get now. That in my mind was Frolic, and he should have been sent packing when his value was up there before that 1-year contract was signed last summer. Hard to say what that value might have been but considering what this group has been able to do with any draft pick they are given, I'd far rather they did that than given him everything he wanted.

It is tough but IF one or both guys are retained and they can keep the other pieces in place 3 years from now the older core will be Little 30 (still in his prime), Wheeler 32 just past his prime but probably still really good, Ladd 32 (see Wheeler), and maybe Buff 33. I assume Toby would probably be replaced.

That older core will decline but how much? I can see at least 3 of those players being with the Jets and playing big roles in a cup run.

Then you have Copp 24, Lowry 25, Armia 25, Schiefele 25, Burmi 26, Myers 28, Trouba 24, Morrissey 23, Petan 23, Helly 24, .......possibly Comrie 23, Kostalek 23.

These guys will all be in the middle or beginning of their primes.

Then you have Ehlers 22 probably playing a very key role by that point.

Lastly you will have the wave of Lemieux 22, Connor 21, Roslovic, 21, and Harkins 21 who will all be in a spot age wise to possibly play roles like the Trouba, Lowry, Scheifele group did this past two seasons. Most cup winning teams seem to have those 21 year olds that step up and surprise in key support roles.


I am not saying the a Jets WILL win a cup in three seasons but I am saying they COULD realistically have a team good enough to get it done.

 

[supersonic jet]

Do you really, honestly believe there is any chance of Chevy trading Ladd and/or Buff at the TD?

If he can't get them on a reasonable price, length, yes I do.
This is a yr we will be having more prospects make the team, Ehlers, Petan, Armia, Copp, Morrissey.
We will have growing pains at the beginning of the season, possibly a slow start, but they will need to go through it.
We might not make the playoffs this yr, and we might. The teams that will definatly make the playoffs will be close to the cap so a trade at the deadline will be able to include most teams.
Buff to Washington could be an option the lost Green
Ladd to Pittsburg for one of their prospects defensive ones and pick.
If Morrissey gets to play and shows he is ready we can trade Stuart can I get an amen.
The teams that get Buff and Ladd won't be able to keep them next yr so they will be on the market.
After hearing all the offers they will see we were reasonable, and sign with us in the end. Plus all the prospects and picks we got.
This chicken Little notion that Lawless spews is getting old. Let's let the chips fall where they will.
I am excited to see the new shiney toys play and improve through the year. Good times ahead.

 

[DEANYOUNGBLOOD17]

The media pumps the tires on a lot of players 1 yr out from UFA . They could het X for 7 years on the open market. B4 Frolic and Stafford was signed media was stating they wanted a 5 plus per season on a long term. Net result Stafford got as high as he did because he agreed to a 2 yr deal and Frolik got 4 .25 x 5 yrs from Calgary. The media over estimated the market. I believe the media is overestimating the UFA market for Buff and Ladd now.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Really?

Yes, really.

He told you this, I take it?

Really?

You do realize that Frolik also has a choice in the matter, yes? I do agree with the choice bit though: if you go read my previous message, there are obviously cap related things they're unwilling to budge on, otherwise a Frolik deal would have been inked.

Not cap exactly no. Apparently Chevy did not consider Frolik a $4mil player.

This, I'd have been OK with. At least we'd have an asset to...

I would have preferred that Chevy do the same as what I hope he does with Ladd and Buff. Sign or trade during the off-season.

...help us get into the playoffs, as Frolik did. There's NO way in heck that Frolik was going to get traded at the TD, with the team in the thick of the hunt. Heck, we went after other FA's - what would it have gained us by dumping Frolik at that point? After the failed negotiations last summer, there was no way a TD trade was going to happen.

I know that wasn't going to happen nor would I have wanted it to. I listed the choices Chevy made. That was available.

We DID get something: he contributed to the Jets making the playoffs, and we got 2 years (as you mention) of Frolik playing high level hockey for the Jets, for a 3rd and a 5th (which rarely pan out anyway).

True.

I wish Frolik were here, but c'est la vie. I'll take the arguable contribution to a PO appearance instead.

Agree, but I don't like it. The fact that we got Frolik cheaply to begin with doesn't make losing him a good thing. The fact that we got Burmi back doesn't either. They were not related. He was willing to pay Stafford but not Frolik. Frolik is the better player.

The strategy appears to be to start cashing in our prospects. I can't argue with that. I would rather do it with Frolik than with Stafford. If Frolik had been signed last summer for 4 years 1 would be gone so the commitment would have been only 1 more year. That was apparently not the issue. It was paying Frolik $4mil. He would have been cheap at that price.

We have gone way OT here as this is the Ladd thread. It all relates. I certainly hope Chevy handles Ladd (and Buff) better than he handled Frolik. If it was a productive learning experience for him it is probably worth the loss.

 

[YWGinYYZ]

Mort: we didn't lose him for nothing. We got a PO appearance, which Frolik arguably contributed to. I spoke NOTHING of Burmi - they're two seperate decisions. Stafford agreed to a short term contract - it's obvious that Frolik was looking for something longer term, based on what he signed in CGY. Chevy obviously didn't want to pay that price, and given the cap situation we may be in in a year or two, I think I can see the reasoning behind this .

Your answers regarding how you determined that Chevy "choose" to lose Frolik don't add much to my understanding of your position on this, TBH. I know I was glib too, but there was a real question buried in there. How did you determine that Chevy "choose" to lose Frolik to FA last year? Your responses suggest that there's a solid and concrete answer to this - I think the real answer is probably more nuanced than you're espousing.

Yes, we're getting OT if we don't relate this back to the OP. I disagree with your position on Frolik and why he was "lost", but the initial discussion hinged upon the thought that Buff and Ladd are different assets than Frolik. I think B & L are core to the Jets, while Frolik was not. I believe the Buff and Ladd situations will play out differently.

 

[YetAnotherGM]

Derek Stephan signs $6.5million for 6 years. Ladd will probably end up in this range as well, hope it will be a shorter term than 6 years though.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Mort: we didn't lose him for nothing. We got a PO appearance, which Frolik arguably contributed to. I spoke NOTHING of Burmi - they're two seperate decisions. Stafford agreed to a short term contract - it's obvious that Frolik was looking for something longer term, based on what he signed in CGY. Chevy obviously didn't want to pay that price, and given the cap situation we may be in in a year or two, I think I can see the reasoning behind this .

Your answers regarding how you determined that Chevy "choose" to lose Frolik don't add much to my understanding of your position on this, TBH. I know I was glib too, but there was a real question buried in there. How did you determine that Chevy "choose" to lose Frolik to FA last year? Your responses suggest that there's a solid and concrete answer to this - I think the real answer is probably more nuanced than you're espousing.

Yes, we're getting OT if we don't relate this back to the OP. I disagree with your position on Frolik and why he was "lost", but the initial discussion hinged upon the thought that Buff and Ladd are different assets than Frolik. I think B & L are core to the Jets, while Frolik was not. I believe the Buff and Ladd situations will play out differently.

OK, we got a PO appearance and then we lost him for nothing. Or we got a PO appearance which is now gone and so is Frolik. I get your point. Really. I get it completely. We got what we paid for. We used it up and now it is gone. In common usage that is losing an asset for nothing or else that never happens. Take your pick. When Stastny left Colorado they had paid him for x years and he had played for them for x years. They didn't lose him for nothing. They got the x years they had paid for. They got a PO appearance too.

We got what we had paid Frolik for but we still owned his rights up to June 30. We got nothing for his rights. They expired and he moved on to Calgary. We got nothing in that movement of his rights.

We have been told that Frolik was willing to take 4x4 last summer. 1 year of that would have been gone so it would only have been 1 year longer than what Stafford signed for. I can see the reasoning. I think it is plain that the plan is to build the team from our prospects going forward. Chevy has left 1 top 9 vacancy available this year. Another will come available in 2 years (Stafford). Next year there will be a long list of expiries. Some may be extended. Some may become vacancies. The year after Stafford, Enstrom, Little and Stuart expire. There will be a continuous stream of expiring contracts. We don't know how Chevy will deal with them.

I'm a little puzzled by your questioning my listing the choices Chevy had available. He could have traded Frolik at the TD. He chose not to. Good choice. But still a choice. He could have traded him last summer. He chose not to. That is less clearly a good choice. I'm not sure Frolik would have returned a lot then. Still a conscious choice though. It might have been good to demonstrate how he would deal with players he could not come to terms with, or not. I can't judge that. At every point in generally managing the team Chevy is making choices.

Yes, it relates to Buff and Ladd. The process is the same. The values are higher. How will you feel this time next year if Ladd and Buff are not extended and leave for UFA? Will you be content to say that it is OK because we got a PO appearance out of it? Or do their higher values make what was acceptable with Frolik unacceptable with them?

I can see regarding Frolik the same way we do rentals. I will still feel that Chevy made a mistake last summer not extending him for a team friendly 4x4 (even 4x4.x if the reported 4 year term is accurate). The higher values of Buff and Ladd make that rental attitude unacceptable. I'm not sure exactly where or how you draw the line but they are over it.

I'm fine with bringing in the young players in a steady stream. That is what they are for. If that is to be the plan from here on vacancies have to be left open. You can't always move the right players when a rookie makes his way in. If we can't retain the best ones though we will never quite get to be contenders. We will become the Montreal Expos of the NHL. A high level development team.

 

[YWGinYYZ]

You're like a dog on a bone, Mort - I love it. I'll respond more fully later. You bring up some good points, and I do get your reasoning: I simply don't share the consternation regarding Frolik.

Buff and Ladd are a different animal though - I DO expect something to be done with them - they're core pieces, not a complementary piece like Frolik. More when I get home from work.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

You're like a dog on a bone, Mort - I love it. I'll respond more fully later. You bring up some good points, and I do get your reasoning: I simply don't share the consternation regarding Frolik.

Buff and Ladd are a different animal though - I DO expect something to be done with them - they're core pieces, not a complementary piece like Frolik. More when I get home from work.

I don't want to overemphasize that. Everybody makes mistakes and I think Chevy made one there. It is not the end of the world. It is not even close. It is not a 'fire Chevy' offense although I might have thought so a year ago. With Kane and Frolik out and Stafford and Burmi in I think our top 8 has taken a step back from what started last season. The 9th was Buff and now will be a rookie. That could be an improvement depending on what the rookie does. If our 4th line is improved it could balance out pretty closely. Meanwhile our D is better. This season will come down to goaltending again.

The Ladd and Buff situation is interesting. It is complicated. It could really affect the assessment above. Just having to deal with both at once makes it difficult. Both having factors beyond the obvious scoring stats makes it more complicated. Taking just a very simplified summary I say sign Ladd for whatever the number should be in today's context for the shortest term possible. Pay a little more AAV if necessary to shorten the term. Trade Buff for whatever is the best we can get. Use the money elsewhere. The whole debate could take pages to summarize. That's just the short version. As soon as I type that I want to change my mind and keep Buff but I know it doesn't really make sense from going through it so many times.

 

[YWGinYYZ]

I don't want to overemphasize that. Everybody makes mistakes and I think Chevy made one there. It is not the end of the world. It is not even close. It is not a 'fire Chevy' offense although I might have thought so a year ago. With Kane and Frolik out and Stafford and Burmi in I think our top 8 has taken a step back from what started last season. The 9th was Buff and now will be a rookie. That could be an improvement depending on what the rookie does. If our 4th line is improved it could balance out pretty closely. Meanwhile our D is better. This season will come down to goaltending again.

Is it a mistake, though? Chevy has obviously looked at the forecast for UFA and RFA signings that the Jets will have to take care of, sees where the cap is going (stagnant, due to the CDN dollar, and for other reasons), and seems to be in the same boat as other GM's regarding signing older players.

Honestly? I'm not sure I want Frolik here for 5 years, but the AAV wasn't bad. In the end: whether the offer was made last year or this year, Frolik excercised his right to sign where he wanted, and on the terms he preferred. I'd be happy to jump onto your side of the fence on the inability to get his signature on a deal, if it wasn't for the press conference where Chevy actually showed a tiny bit of emotion when he started to say "in fact, in some ways this deal was ...". Better. You wanted to say better, Chevy. But he didn't.

In any event: a 3rd and a 5th, a PO appearance, and I'm now OK with it. Having Burmi signed softens the blow of Frolik walking, but it was unlikely they were going to get ANYTHING for him after the TD. There's no reason for anyone to deal with the Jets after the TD, when they can simply wait it out, and talk to Frolik (other than perhaps getting a jump on the other teams in negotiations - what's that worth? A 6th or 7th, maybe?)

You have your thoughts on Frolik, I have mine: I obviously can't convince you, and you will not be able to convince me, though I do appreciate your thought process on the matter. Now, onto the "let's hope something better happens with these guys" portion of the convo (we should take talk of Frolik to the Frolik thread, methinks):

The Ladd and Buff situation is interesting. It is complicated. It could really affect the assessment above. Just having to deal with both at once makes it difficult. Both having factors beyond the obvious scoring stats makes it more complicated. Taking just a very simplified summary I say sign Ladd for whatever the number should be in today's context for the shortest term possible. Pay a little more AAV if necessary to shorten the term. Trade Buff for whatever is the best we can get. Use the money elsewhere. The whole debate could take pages to summarize. That's just the short version. As soon as I type that I want to change my mind and keep Buff but I know it doesn't really make sense from going through it so many times.

I agree with you: if we have to keep one, and trade the other, I'd keep Ladd. Two reasons: I think he's likely to play at a higher level for a longer period of time (just a hunch - not basing this off of anything, other than Ladd's iron-man like run of good health), and has obviously been a very good presense on the leadership side. Skates well, has a great shot, deft at tipping pucks, good on the PP and the PK, fights, and is a leader. I also think his contract will come in at a lower AAV than Buff.

With Buff, I'd hate to lose him, but I do think that we could pick up a couple of very nice pieces that fit with the age group of the NEW core that's forming (Scheif, Trouba, etc). I'll miss the big guy, but sometimes you just have to make a change.