Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
I believe the exercise is far more valuable if one does attempt to make their scale linear. Might be better to make it such that the best asset in the league is 1000 though so you have room for nuance in the compressed bottom.
What it will never be is additive. For my "sanity checks", I tried to make it so that a 6 and a 4 would equal a 10, but ten 1s will never equal a 10. Basically, limit it so that no more than two assets will be traded for one asset and you can make something reasonable.
|
It's not about other players in the league though, that's the point.
It's assigning an arbitrary number on a relative scale to a single roster.
It's not a linear value, two lazars don't equal a bennett, but it *is* a referential value relative to other players in the lineup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
Exactly. It isn't a linear scale, and value is very dependent on who the trading partner is.
For example, compare Brodie and Bennett...
Brodie would have very little value to a team that was early in a rebuild, but would have tremendous value for a team that was close to contending but needed another top 4 puck mover, like Toronto for instance.
Whereas Nashville or Anaheim would have much more interest in Bennett than Brodie.
You can go on and on. Because it is buyer-dependent, and isn't linear.
|
This is about what Flames Fans on this board view as their trade value, not about what players you'd get in return.
It's a measure of assigning value without presenting a trade value, similar to the prospect ranking bingo does yearly. People might differ on whether the criteria is likelihood to make an NHL roster or perceived likelihood of reaching maximum of their potential or even likelihood of being a superstar.
I think Tkachuk has more trade value than Monahan, but not as much as Gaudreau, who has the most. So he gets a 9.