The purpose of this thread is to evaluate the value of potential players that could be moved at the trade deadline. I will provide assessments on my reasoning behind my evaluations and present the logic that is hopefully vivid, precise, and simple.

Players That Can Be Traded
Max Pacioretty (MTL) / Michael Grabner (NYR) / Ryan McDonagh (NYR) / Erik Karlsson (OTT) / Mike Green (DET) / Evander Kane (BUF) / Tomas Vanek (VAN)

Let's start with the easiest one: Mike Green.
Detroit is in a position to sell off players for draft selections, preferably high ones. Green would be helpful to the PowerPlay and playing in a top-four role with his new club. He can fetch either a late first (top-20 protected, let's say) or two second round picks, that Detroit can then parlay with other assets to move up in the draft.

The next ones are in my mind the most interesting: Erik Karlsson and Ryan McDonagh
There is no market for superstars. There isn't. These guys aren't worth let's say Brayden Point, Mikhail Sergachev, and a 1st round pick. These players don't have a market price and it will result in General Managers doing either of the following: paying market value of a lesser player or not paying at all.

All General Managers have access to the same information. They know the situation in Ottawa and New York. Ottawa has an incentive to trade Karlsson because they have the possibility of letting him walk for nothing and New York has an incentive to move McDonagh because they need an roster overhaul. GMs are going to either offer for Karlsson the price they would pay for your above-average rental or they won't offer anything at all due to the fact of them not being able to resign them. McDonagh on the other hand still has another year left on his contract and can make an impact past this season.

Karlsson is worth at most, a first round pick and one or two of the organizations top prospects (depending on organizational depth) or two players that are still young but still have room to develop. A player such as Ryan Hartman or Mike Matheson would be two players I would want in return for EK. McDonagh is worth a little more than what Karlsson is getting.

The next group of players are directly correlated. I will break it up into two sections. Value Above Replacement and Above Average Value.

The Value Above Replacement are these players: Michael Grabner and Tomas Vanek
These players are worth a late first and a couple of mid round picks, respectfully. They are on one year deals and can be the final puzzle piece for some teams. What makes them valuable (or what makes their counterparts less valuable) is that they produce relatively the same amount as someone like Evander Kane, yet they don't have the name recognition and will cost less and will drive down the market value of those "elite" snipers. Why would a GM pay more for a player who will only have slightly more production when there is a better use of allocating funds? They won't - if they do, then the market has failed.

Above Average Value are these players: Max Pacioretty and Evander Kane
These players aren't worth Sam Steel, Max Jones, and a first. Why? Because GMs can just trade Max Jones for Michael Grabner and allocate Sam Steel and that first to other resources to make their team better. These players are worth a first round pick and an above average prospect. Indeed they are proven players, but its all about context. People don't buy houses that are nearly the same for $250,000 and $280,000 respectfully. They will just buy the $250,000 and invest the other $30,000 into something else. It is the same thing for hockey. GMs won't pay primo prospects and high draft selections when they can get a nearly identical product for just middle-tier prospects and later draft selections.

As a disclaimer, I would like to ask that anyone who wants to engage in discourse over my evaluations to keep the center focus on these players. You can reference other players, but make sure that the may contention is based on the aforementioned players.

edit: main contention

I don't know what world you're living in, but Erik Karlsson is worth far more than a first round pick and a top prospect.

If you had to pick between Max Pacioretty and Erik Karlsson, your current situation ignored, you would pick Erik Karlsson 99 times out of 100. Erik Karlsson is simply a far better player. And he should be treated as such.

So then even if you treat him as a rental, he would become an elite rental, above that of Pacioretty or Kane. Therefore, he would fetch a FAR more valuable piece. That doesn't include whatever potential does exist in resigning him, which, while should be minimized if treated as a rental, should not be ignored, because even in a worst case scenario, it will be possible to flip Karlsson's FA rights for an asset.

Karlsson is easily worth at first rounder, a young player already in the NHL with top six/top four potential, a top two prospect not in the NHL (relative to the organization), and one or two more reasonably valuable assets (such as a conditional first round pick and a mid-tier prospect). While most GMs may not treat it as such, that's what the valuation should be.

Example trade:
Karlsson to Tampa for 2018 1st, 2019 conditional first, Vladislav Namestnitkov, Alexey Lipanov, Taylor Raddysh, Slater Koekkoek

@tadhockey

Erik Karlsson doesn't have a far more valuable price because Ottawa has zero leverage, isn't a lock to sign with whomever trades for him, and he is going to demand top dollar.

I direct you to what I talked about with relative value. Why would Tampa pay that steep price for Karlsson, when they can trade half of that for Mike Green and still make a strong playoff push? Adding Karlsson doesn't mean you can plan the parade the day after you get him.

You won't recoup anything of major value by flipping his negotiation rights. You at most might get a third round pick or two, but nothing more.

The market value is market value. There is no "should be" in value. Value is value is value is value.

Teams are going to be risk adverse. In other words, the risk accosted with not being able to guarantee a cup and signing Karlsson in the offseason will result in GMs either not paying what you demanded or they will settle for lesser players like Mike Green.

At least you didn't say Point, Sergachev, Raddysh and like 3 1sts for Karlsson

What happens if they make a trade for Mike Green and get knocked out in the second round?

There are no guarantees in hockey. That's for sure. It's part of what makes the sport great. But having Karlsson would create a defense of incredible quality, and gives Tampa the best possible chance to win a Stanley Cup, not just for one, but for two whole years. There's a ton of value in that added chance, because the value of going deeper into the playoffs isn't linear; it's exponential. You might pay twice as much for Karlsson, but how much value is there in making it to the Stanley Cup Final instead of getting knocked out in the second round? The answer is much, much more.

If I put a house on the market that an independent expert says should sell for $400,000, and it ends up selling for $350,000, then was the expert wrong? Market value is market value, but just because your expectation isn't met doesn't necessarily mean your expectation was the wrong stance to take.

Ottawa has plenty of leverage. They have the asset, with no requirement to trade him. They could hold on to him as long as they'd like, and potentially resign him.

Lastly, Erik Karlsson at $11million is still worth a ton, even if it isn't quite as much as him at $6.5million. If you look at a trade, as a contender, and strictly worry about contract demands (which aren't even going to result in a salary cap difference for more than a season), then you fail to realize that winning the Stanley Cup is why you play the game. That's why if you had to pick one team to be, you'd rather be the Los Angeles Kings over the past decade than the St. Louis Blues or the Washington Capitals.

@phillyjabroni sorry, but did you just say that McDonagh has more trade value than Karlsson?

Is this fair?


T Vanek
5th rounder


T Motte
2nd rounder

In all most all cases, what is team is going to receive has to SLIGHTLY go above what the next team is going to offer. I can't imagine any team going to offer nearly much for Karlsson. You've include Namestnitkov in that package who is having a break out season at is 1st line LWer. And maybe a team has to look at how a player is playing, and right now, Karlsson isn't playing that well. If Tampa is thinking long term, and it seems to be a strength of their organization, you've traded a whole lotta cheap ELC players who will be needed in the future for cap purposes. Folks tend to confuse playing value with trading value, and in a cap era, a trade that strips of team of lots of futures is usually a bad deal.

I still don't believe McDonagh will be traded on the deadline. if so, they will trade him at the draft. he has been playing injured all year and should be sitting out a few games. So I doubt he'd be an immediate help to any team.

@rangersandislesfan : yes, all things considered. Think about it; why would a team trade assets for a player they can just sign afterwards? McDonagh still has another 82 games, but Karlsson doesn't. Information is key here: Ottawa has an incentive to move him, New York doesn't. That means the value of EK drops and teams have to pay a premium to move McDonagh, raising his value.

I'm not saying McDoagh is better. I'm saying he has higher trade value.

If they trade for Mike Green and get knocked out, they lose a draft asset(s). If they trade for EK and get knocked out, they lose a lot more.

Ottawa doesn't have any leverage. They have a strong fear of just losing him for nothing, and would be more inclined to sell him below their asking price if they value whatever return more than the value of having a chance to resign him.

Not sure what website you're looking at. McDonagh and Karlsson have the same amount of term.



Ah yes, Karlsson definitely isn't playing that well. He's just posting incredible Corsi Rel% numbers, a solid number of assists, and consistently trying to carry his team. Not that his shooting percentage is nearly three points beneath his average.

Again, who would you rather be, the St. Louis Blues, or the LA Kings? You and I both know you'd pick the Kings at this moment in history, because winning the Stanley Cup is significantly more valuable than being consistently good and never getting over the hump.

I'll rephrase then. They both have the same term, but the contract value and structure is what makes them more valuable than the other.

McDonagh isn't going to command 11M. Karlsson is. I'm sticking with my assessment; the value of Karlsson goes up slightly because he does in fact have another 82 to his name, but I would still think that McDonagh has more trade value.

Then what you're really saying is Karlsson is going to be overpaid relative to McDonagh. It is impossible to deny that Karlsson as a player is greater than McDonagh; really the two aren't even in the same tier. So then what you're saying is that it's simply not worth it to pay Karlsson his asking price, and you're convinced McDonagh will simply sign for the appropriate amount. That seems like a pretty ludicrous assumption to make, especially since we've seen star players take less before.

Stamkos took 11.64% of the salary cap, Crosby took 13.53% of the salary cap. We are not sure how much McDavid has taken, but let's assume the salary cap is 80M. McDavid will have taken 15.63% of the salary cap.

Kevin Shattenkirk is not a star player, no chance. Let's just say that Erik Karlsson is worth more than PK Subban. PK signed for 13.04% of the cap. This means, assuming 80M, Karlsson will get 10.4M per year, around 0.6M off from the numbers that you and I said.

I'm saying that the value of McDonagh is greater than Karlsson. The difference in cap hit between the two can be allocated to another section of your team to make them stronger overall and more poised for a playoff run. It isn't ludicrous to say that this will happen; it is ludicrous to say that he would just take a pay decrease when you haven't cited any major examples of pay decrease relative to Karlsson's playing value.

Pay cuts also happen for specific reasons, such as taking let's say 1M less per and in turn getting a NMC.

edit: we are

I think we're just going to disagree on this one. In my opinion, the quality of minutes Karlsson gives you relative to the quality of McDonagh's minutes is well worth the cost difference in players, especially so for teams that are doing a good job drafting and finding players for cheap.

Out of curioisty, @boltscharge17 , would you take the deal I outlined above?

Pacioretty: Montreal hasn't identified themselves as a rebuilding team (whether they should is a separate issue). Pacioretty still holds value for them. You aren't just paying to add him to your team, you are paying to take him away from their team.
If his value is the same as Kane this year, you don't trade him. You consider it in the offseason when teams are juggling their rosters and/or jockeying in the draft.
If you don't find the right deal then, you wait until next trade deadline and get the same price you wouldn't settle for the year previous. Perhaps even more, as players have a tendency to perform better in a contract year.
Bergevin also needs a clear win in any deal. Everyone knows it. There's no such thing as fair value in a Pacioretty trade. There's an overpayment or there's no trade. Suggesting he will only return a lower package, ignores a no trade scenario. Right now it's all or nothing for Pacioretty.

Prospects: top prospect, is a relative term. It varies by organization. Someone like Steel or Thomas, are top products at their position within their organizations, but are in reality only above average. Top prospects are either high picks (top dozen or so picks in a given draft year), or have shown a sufficient translation of next level ability or NHL readiness. Neither of these players qualify currently.

As for cheaper options, you get what you pay for. Grabner is not going to set up many goals and Green isn't going to reliably keep the puck out of your end. More complete players, that also provide a higher level of performance, demand a premium price for a reason.
Down by one goal, game 7, goalie pulled, 30 seconds on the clock, puck in your own end. Who do you want driving that last play? Green, or Karlsson?
It's better to be prepared to win the cup, than to find yourself in the finals and not have the horsepower to close it out.

So just because he'll cost more money means they shouldn't trade for him. He probably wants more money cause he's a better player.

Here are some ideas I can see on deadline day:


Brock Nelson
2018 3rd NYI


Michael Stone
2018 6th CGY


2018 2nd FLA
Madison Bowey


MIke Green


Ryan Mcdonagh


Robby Fabbri
Jordan Kyrou
Ivan Barbeshev
2018 2nd STL


Justin Brauin


Taylor Raddysh
2018 1st TB

Sorry, but Raddysh and a 1st for Braun? Overpayment by Tampa.

True

i could see this happen

Max Pacioretty
4th
Scherbak, Nikita


Ryan McDonagh
2nd
Grabner, Michael

Niklas Hjalmarsson
3rd round pick


Nikita Scherback
Michael McCarron

Not sure if this is fair, don't know too much about Scherback or McCarron.

Unless Karlsson agrees to an extension prior to the trade (as I imagine would have to happen before a team gave up what Ottawa wanted)