[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by RedHawk12

Ok, I think you're really mixing up your arguments.

You said rentals don't generate significant returns.

No, I was addressing the idea that rentals are traded for top prospects.

Someone said Giroux for 1st and Tippett is significant.

You said Tippett is not a prospect of importance because he's 23, so not significant.

I said Tippett was not a top prospect because he was 23, had already been in the league for years and done basically nothing.

I said Tippett is worth quite a bit because he's young and can pop, therefore he has significant value.

You said Lazar was young and could pop, but he has no value.

I never said that. I said he wasn't a top prospect at that age, and if he wasn't, then neither was Tippett in similar circumstances.

I said Lazar got Ottawa a 2nd, which is significant value.

Yes, and everyone and his dog agreed that was an overpayment, so it would be foolish to expect that. It certainly didn't make Lazar a top prospect, did it?

Now you're saying we overpaid for Lazar, so I think you agree that players like that can have significant value, even at the expense of other teams misjudging players.

Economists call that ‘greater fool theory’. If you value your own assets based on what an idiot might pay for them, then you yourself are probably the idiot.

Either way, I don't disagree with you that high end prospects don't usually get traded for rentals, so we'll leave it at that.

That's fair.

I do think based on returns for other rentals, we should have got more for Hanifin, by the fact that Hanifin is way better than other rentals.

Rentals don't return a lot every time, but most years players worse than Hanifin return more than what we got.

As Jiri points out, his value was damaged because the teams that wanted him most didn't have 1st-round picks for years to come. Vegas didn't have to make a great offer to beat the two Florida teams.