2024 Off-season trade rumours and speculation thread

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I think the player value matters. If you are retaining $3 million on a $6 million player who only produces like a $3 million player, it's a lot less value than retaining in the same situation where the player still provides $6 million in production.

In the latter case, it is certainly a better bargain for the team acquiring the player, and therefore they should be paying more for that retention.

No, I don’t think so. The value of the retention remains the same. The value of the player is separate. $3M is $3M, it has a set value. Two players can have different value, but that’s where the difference is, not in the retention value.

Player A might be twice as valuable as Player B, but that just means you’re paying the same for retention and then twice as much for the player.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I think the player value matters. If you are retaining $3 million on a $6 million player who only produces like a $3 million player, it's a lot less value than retaining in the same situation where the player still provides $6 million in production.

In the latter case, it is certainly a better bargain for the team acquiring the player, and therefore they should be paying more for that retention.

No, the value of the retention is the same either way. It's the value of the player that the team would pay extra for.

I note, running the calculator at the link, that PuckPedia figures 50% retention on Markstrom's contract would be worth the 29th pick overall (ignoring the value of the player). According to Sound of Hockey's table of draft-pick trade values, the 29th pick is worth a little less than half as much as the 10th.

I think #10 for Markstrom with maximum retention could be in play.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

No, the value of the retention is the same either way. It's the value of the player that the team would pay extra for.

I note, running the calculator at the link, that PuckPedia figures 50% retention on Markstrom's contract would be worth the 29th pick overall (ignoring the value of the player). According to Sound of Hockey's table of draft-pick trade values, the 29th pick is worth a little less than half as much as the 10th.

I think #10 for Markstrom with maximum retention could be in play.

According to that calculator, retaining 25% on Huberdeau's contract is worth the 2nd overall pick. That can't be right.

[dammage79]

The Flames landing 10th overall alone for Markstrom is a win for both sides. Doesn't need to be fancy. Just pull the trigger.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

It seems to assume each player has negative value.

Chicago needs to move a mid round 2nd to get rid of Bedard. I’d say Calgary should take on that bad boy.

Um, no. It's saying that if somebody (Chicago or a 3rd party) retained 50% of Bedard's contract, that money would be worth a mid-round 2nd. It says nothing at all about the value of the player, or whether the GM would be fired into the sun for even thinking about trading him.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

According to that calculator, retaining 25% on Huberdeau's contract is worth the 2nd overall pick. That can't be right.

You’re reading it backwards. The Flames would have to pay a 2nd overall pick to dump 75% of Huberdeau’s contract.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

According to that calculator, retaining 25% on Huberdeau's contract is worth the 2nd overall pick. That can't be right.

Yeah, you're doing it wrong. So did I when I first looked at it. The instructions are not very clear.

That's if you retained 75% (which can only happen in a three-way deal anyway).

If you retain 50%, it's worth the 3rd overall pick. Pretty understandable, considering that's over $36 million in actual cash.

At 25%, that's the 11th overall pick to retain $18 million.

[traptor]

Retention value isn't some static standard value.

It's whatever two parties agree on and this is extremly contextual.
So yeah player value and team desire to acquire/get rid of a player is part of that context. Teams would be much more willing to eat 50% of Mcdavids cap longterm over Nurses.

Roslovic retained 2 million was worth a 4th. What's the player value and what's the pick value?

Monahan trade was a 6 million dump worth a 1st.

Those trades are valuing cap space very differently.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by traptor

Retention value isn't some static standard value.

No, it's established by the market – and this is the one thing in hockey where you are trading two exactly measurable commodities: a certain amount of cash for a certain pick in the draft. Player values are always subjective to some degree, and highly dependent on the needs of the teams involved. But a dollar is a dollar and a pick is a pick, and they are both freely convertible into other kinds of assets.

The calculator is based on the market values established over numerous trades involving retention.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by traptor

Retention value isn't some static standard value.

It's whatever two parties agree on and this is extremly contextual.
So yeah player value and team desire to acquire/get rid of a player is part of that context. Teams would be much more willing to eat 50% of Mcdavids cap longterm over Nurses.

Roslovic retained 2 million was worth a 4th. What's the player value and what's the pick value?

Monahan trade was a 6 million dump worth a 1st.

Those trades are valuing cap space very differently.

They may not be.

Roslovic had positive value, Monny had negative value.

So, since Roslovic had some positive value, it’s hard to know how much of that positive value factored into the actual retention value.

[traptor]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

No, it's established by the market – and this is the one thing in hockey where you are trading two exactly measurable commodities: a certain amount of cash for a certain pick in the draft. Player values are always subjective to some degree, and highly dependent on the needs of the teams involved. But a dollar is a dollar and a pick is a pick, and they are both freely convertible into other kinds of assets.

The calculator is based on the market values established over numerous trades involving retention.

There's no central bank controlling the value.

Sure you can look at historical cases but I just gave two recent cases that value retention very differently.

At the end of the day it's a negotiation between two parties and there's no defined value it's just whatever someone's willing to give. One team always has less leverage or more desire to get a deal done.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by traptor

There's no central bank controlling the value.

No, there isn't. But the market is a measurable thing.

Sure you can look at historical cases but I just gave two recent cases that value retention very differently.

No, you didn't. One of them was a player with positive value of his own. The other was a player who was thought to be washed up and unable to play. When the player values are different, of course the trades are going to look different.

At the end of the day it's a negotiation between two parties and there's no defined value it's just whatever someone's willing to give. One team always has less leverage or more desire to get a deal done.

That's true of every transaction in every market. Doesn't prevent anyone from coming up with a predicted market value.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by traptor

Retention value isn't some static standard value.

It's whatever two parties agree on and this is extremly contextual.
So yeah player value and team desire to acquire/get rid of a player is part of that context. Teams would be much more willing to eat 50% of Mcdavids cap longterm over Nurses.

Roslovic retained 2 million was worth a 4th. What's the player value and what's the pick value?

Monahan trade was a 6 million dump worth a 1st.

Those trades are valuing cap space very differently.

Roslovic would have had like 15% of his contract left max. So it was not 2 million in actual cap that was retained it was 15% (roughly) of that number that was retained. So 300K is apparently worth a 4th. If someone trades a 4 million dollar contract at the deadline the team that acquired the player does not have a 4 million dollar cap hit for that year.

[traptor]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

They may not be.

Roslovic had positive value, Monny had negative value.

So, since Roslovic had some positive value, it’s hard to know how much of that positive value factored into the actual retention value.

Deal A:
6 million = 1st

Deal B:
2million + R = 4th

So let's just say rosloiv has positive value without retention of 5th rounder.

2million = 4th - 5th

So in this case 6million = x3 4th - x3 5ths.


So..
1st = x3 4ths - x3 5ths

So..
1st + x3 5ths = x3 4ths.

Which is obviously not true. The value is way off. So these teams were valuing cap space very differently.

Flames payed alot for the cap space. New York didn't pay very much.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Fitz doesn't appear to believe that retention is worth much, or converts to what others believe it does pick-wise. Such a stubborn trade partner.

[dammage79]

Said it before and it still holds true. Historical trade values mean nothing if a team has blinders on for a single player.

See: Tanner Jeanot and Travis Hamonic.

[traptor]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

No, there isn't. But the market is a measurable thing.



No, you didn't. One of them was a player with positive value of his own. The other was a player who was thought to be washed up and unable to play. When the player values are different, of course the trades are going to look different.



That's true of every transaction in every market. Doesn't prevent anyone from coming up with a predicted market value.

Yeah im not saying you can't predict market value. Obviously you can. But it's a prediction not an intrinsic value.

What im saying is the player being traded (and other variables) will skew what the actual value of the retention is in each Deal.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by traptor

Deal A:
6 million = 1st

Deal B:
2million + R = 4th

Hold your horses right there. Roslovic was traded in March, when most of his salary had already been paid out. As Aarongavey points out, the retention was not $2 million, it was more like $3-400,000.

That throws the rest of your calculation right off the track.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by traptor

Deal A:
6 million = 1st

Deal B:
2million + R = 4th

So let's just say rosloiv has positive value without retention of 5th rounder.

2million = 4th - 5th

So in this case 6million = x3 4th - x3 5ths.


So..
1st = x3 4ths - x3 5ths

So..
1st + x3 5ths = x3 4ths.

Which is obviously not true. The value is way off. So these teams were valuing cap space very differently.

Flames payed alot for the cap space. New York didn't pay very much.

Deal A is 6 million dollars against the cap

Deal B is about 300,000 dollars against the cap, not 2 million. I don’t think that a 5th round pick was involved in the deal (but I could be wrong). Assuming there was no 5th round pick the math is more like

1st = 20 4th round picks

I have no idea if someone would trade 20 4th round picks for a single 1st (nor do I think it would ever be possible to accumulate that many picks) but according to this site https://dobberprospects.com/2020/05/...abilities/amp/ there is about a 10% chance a 4th round pick plays 99 NHL games and a 37% chance a 1st plays that many games. So the value may be close.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by dammage79

The Flames landing 10th overall alone for Markstrom is a win for both sides. Doesn't need to be fancy. Just pull the trigger.

That would be a huge boost to our rebuild