The old fashioned way: By player/situation evaluation on a case by case basis. For instance, I firmly believe that anyone dealing with Vegas right now should force them harder over the barrel they put themselves over. No one should be giving them full value in any trade because of their dire situation.

But I do not agree losing the concept of trade comps would eliminate the use for AGMs. Frankly, the way they get used around here does no service to discussions because of the things you mentioned. Hockey trades are almost never forms to be filled out according to precedent regulations., so discussions would be more fun if they weren't, either. With trade comps such a big part of discussions, both here and with media types, we get the same trade ideas over and over and over. When people just set those crutches aside, we get the interesting, creative stuff to think about.

I'd like to answer a question with another question - if you don't think trade comparables aren't viable way to evaluate players on, in what way would you do it?

This is something GSVA and other similar "combo" metrics may hope to address and provide real inherent value.

If Player A is worth 5 wins, then a sum package of roster pieces, prospects, and draft picks (or even salary going back) reasonably worth 5 wins should be enough to balance the scales.

The only sticking point is what you'd determine reasonable, and I think that this is where you can add creativity for team needs. Rebuilding clubs are going to prioritize futures. Tweeners will prefer roster pieces and pick volumes. Contenders only have want for pieces that push them over the edge.

Essentially you move closer to the same trade system that the NHL games use by considering precedence and GSVA. Probably as perfect a system as amateurs can achieve.

Hmm. By GSVA, do you mean Dom's model?

Yeah. His came to mind because he's also made the correlation between GSVA and draft pick value. Not sure how the EvolveWild boys have equated draft picks to GAR or WAR yet.

Well, Dom's model has some major issues and he does very little to fix them. Not a huge fan.

The old fashioned way: By player/situation evaluation on a case by case basis.

It's the best model out there without question.

I get that there's anti-Athletic sentiments here (which are baffling, I'm more than happy to pay for it) but credit is due where it's due.

You kinda furthered my point here. Grazie.